Just heard that John Edwards is dropping out of the Democratic race. Not a huge surprise, but certainly narrows the focus even more to a Obama-Clinton fight. Will be interesting to see if he endorses - my bet would be that he and his supporters go over to Obama.
Another VP nomination maybe?
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
The Keys to Florida
What a massive, massive win for John McCain in the Florida Primary last night. Although he didn't win by a huge margin (only about 5 points over Romney) it now installs him as the frontrunner for the Republican nomination.
It has been an amazing campaign for McCain. His campaign has been running on fumes for a while now, ever since he was declared dead in the water during the summer, when he was the only candidate to support the surge in Iraq - indeed, he had been suggesting the idea long before Bush proposed it. Some of his main campaign team have been working for free as the money has dried up, yet they have managed to propel him to the forefront of a very crowded pack.
I think that McCain is the most dangerous candidate that the Democratic Party can face in November. Although he has tacked to the right during the primaries, he has a long and respected tradition of bipartisan working and of sticking to his guns, even if his views were unpopular in the Republican Party. (i.e. immigration, campaign finance reform) Although his age would be used against him, his energy is undeniable, particularly when supported by his 90+ mum on the campaign trail. (Indeed, when Chuck Norris made derogatory marks about McCain's age, McCain replied by saying that he would send his mother after him. And seriously, my money would be on her!) He is a former prisoner of war, a highly experienced Senator and foreign policy expert, and would in particular contrast strongly with Barack on a number of issues.
Romney of course is still in the race, although Florida was a blow to his chances. He would present less of a challenge to the Dems, as his record (from liberalish Governor of Massachusetts to the right wing demagogue he is trying to portray himself as now) is very open to attack, if not indeed ridicule. Sadly (as I don't believe it should matter) his religion will count against him too, which would more than cancel out any negativity towards the Democratic candidate being either a woman or an African American.
The other big effect of Florida has been the destruction of the Giuliani campaign. His decision to risk everything on Florida and Super Tuesday was always a dangerous one, but for a while it looked like the lack of a frontrunner might have proved him right. However, McCain's win in South Carolina, Romney's cash and a strange lack of enthusiasm on Giuliani's part combined to push him to a very distant third in Florida. It now looks like he will drop out and endorse McCain, further strengthening his claim to be the favoured candidate.
For the Dems, Florida was largely symbolic as the party has punished the state for bringing its primary forward by banning their delegates. However, it did give a welcome win to the Clinton camp, with her taking 50% of the vote. It is almost definite that Super Tuesday will not finish off the Democratic race, so we can expect this race to keep on running for some time now.
It has been an amazing campaign for McCain. His campaign has been running on fumes for a while now, ever since he was declared dead in the water during the summer, when he was the only candidate to support the surge in Iraq - indeed, he had been suggesting the idea long before Bush proposed it. Some of his main campaign team have been working for free as the money has dried up, yet they have managed to propel him to the forefront of a very crowded pack.
I think that McCain is the most dangerous candidate that the Democratic Party can face in November. Although he has tacked to the right during the primaries, he has a long and respected tradition of bipartisan working and of sticking to his guns, even if his views were unpopular in the Republican Party. (i.e. immigration, campaign finance reform) Although his age would be used against him, his energy is undeniable, particularly when supported by his 90+ mum on the campaign trail. (Indeed, when Chuck Norris made derogatory marks about McCain's age, McCain replied by saying that he would send his mother after him. And seriously, my money would be on her!) He is a former prisoner of war, a highly experienced Senator and foreign policy expert, and would in particular contrast strongly with Barack on a number of issues.
Romney of course is still in the race, although Florida was a blow to his chances. He would present less of a challenge to the Dems, as his record (from liberalish Governor of Massachusetts to the right wing demagogue he is trying to portray himself as now) is very open to attack, if not indeed ridicule. Sadly (as I don't believe it should matter) his religion will count against him too, which would more than cancel out any negativity towards the Democratic candidate being either a woman or an African American.
The other big effect of Florida has been the destruction of the Giuliani campaign. His decision to risk everything on Florida and Super Tuesday was always a dangerous one, but for a while it looked like the lack of a frontrunner might have proved him right. However, McCain's win in South Carolina, Romney's cash and a strange lack of enthusiasm on Giuliani's part combined to push him to a very distant third in Florida. It now looks like he will drop out and endorse McCain, further strengthening his claim to be the favoured candidate.
For the Dems, Florida was largely symbolic as the party has punished the state for bringing its primary forward by banning their delegates. However, it did give a welcome win to the Clinton camp, with her taking 50% of the vote. It is almost definite that Super Tuesday will not finish off the Democratic race, so we can expect this race to keep on running for some time now.
What a massive, massive win for John McCain in the Florida Primary last night. Although he didn't win by a huge margin (only about 5 points over Romney) it now installs him as the frontrunner for the Republican nomination.
It has been an amazing campaign for McCain. His campaign has been running on fumes for a while now, ever since he was declared dead in the water during the summer, when he was the only candidate to support the surge in Iraq - indeed, he had been suggesting the idea long before Bush proposed it. Some of his main campaign team have been working for free as the money has dried up, yet they have managed to propel him to the forefront of a very crowded pack.
I think that McCain is the most dangerous candidate that the Democratic Party can face in November. Although he has tacked to the right during the primaries, he has a long and respected tradition of bipartisan working and of sticking to his guns, even if his views were unpopular in the Republican Party. (i.e. immigration, campaign finance reform) Although his age would be used against him, his energy is undeniable, particularly when supported by his 90+ mum on the campaign trail. (Indeed, when Chuck Norris made derogatory marks about McCain's age, McCain replied by saying that he would send his mother after him. And seriously, my money would be on her!) He is a former prisoner of war, a highly experienced Senator and foreign policy expert, and would in particular contrast strongly with Barack on a number of issues.
Romney of course is still in the race, although Florida was a blow to his chances. He would present less of a challenge to the Dems, as his record (from liberalish Governor of Massachusetts to the right wing demagogue he is trying to portray himself as now) is very open to attack, if not indeed ridicule. Sadly (as I don't believe it should matter) his religion will count against him too, which would more than cancel out any negativity towards the Democratic candidate being either a woman or an African American.
The other big effect of Florida has been the destruction of the Giuliani campaign. His decision to risk everything on Florida and Super Tuesday was always a dangerous one, but for a while it looked like the lack of a frontrunner might have proved him right. However, McCain's win in South Carolina, Romney's cash and a strange lack of enthusiasm on Giuliani's part combined to push him to a very distant third in Florida. It now looks like he will drop out and endorse McCain, further strengthening his claim to be the favoured candidate.
For the Dems, Florida was largely symbolic as the party has punished the state for bringing its primary forward by banning their delegates. However, it did give a welcome win to the Clinton camp, with her taking 50% of the vote. It is almost definite that Super Tuesday will not finish off the Democratic race, so we can expect this race to keep on running for some time now.
It has been an amazing campaign for McCain. His campaign has been running on fumes for a while now, ever since he was declared dead in the water during the summer, when he was the only candidate to support the surge in Iraq - indeed, he had been suggesting the idea long before Bush proposed it. Some of his main campaign team have been working for free as the money has dried up, yet they have managed to propel him to the forefront of a very crowded pack.
I think that McCain is the most dangerous candidate that the Democratic Party can face in November. Although he has tacked to the right during the primaries, he has a long and respected tradition of bipartisan working and of sticking to his guns, even if his views were unpopular in the Republican Party. (i.e. immigration, campaign finance reform) Although his age would be used against him, his energy is undeniable, particularly when supported by his 90+ mum on the campaign trail. (Indeed, when Chuck Norris made derogatory marks about McCain's age, McCain replied by saying that he would send his mother after him. And seriously, my money would be on her!) He is a former prisoner of war, a highly experienced Senator and foreign policy expert, and would in particular contrast strongly with Barack on a number of issues.
Romney of course is still in the race, although Florida was a blow to his chances. He would present less of a challenge to the Dems, as his record (from liberalish Governor of Massachusetts to the right wing demagogue he is trying to portray himself as now) is very open to attack, if not indeed ridicule. Sadly (as I don't believe it should matter) his religion will count against him too, which would more than cancel out any negativity towards the Democratic candidate being either a woman or an African American.
The other big effect of Florida has been the destruction of the Giuliani campaign. His decision to risk everything on Florida and Super Tuesday was always a dangerous one, but for a while it looked like the lack of a frontrunner might have proved him right. However, McCain's win in South Carolina, Romney's cash and a strange lack of enthusiasm on Giuliani's part combined to push him to a very distant third in Florida. It now looks like he will drop out and endorse McCain, further strengthening his claim to be the favoured candidate.
For the Dems, Florida was largely symbolic as the party has punished the state for bringing its primary forward by banning their delegates. However, it did give a welcome win to the Clinton camp, with her taking 50% of the vote. It is almost definite that Super Tuesday will not finish off the Democratic race, so we can expect this race to keep on running for some time now.
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
The UN Security Council
I think Gordon Brown has had a successful trip to India and China, and the resulting trade deals and links will be beneficial to our economy in the turbulent times ahead. One issue I was particularly pleased to see raised was Gordon's support for India taking a permanent seat on the UN Security Council.
The current composition is a reflection of the post-war environment. It has served its purpose, but we now need to strengthen the Council by involving the nations who are now play a key international role.
The UK is taking the lead in this which is encouraging, and I hope that we may see some progress sooner rather than later. Alongside India and China, I think Germany, Brazil, South Africa and Japan should get seats. This would broaden the international outlook of the Council, and improve its standing as a representative of all the world.
The current composition is a reflection of the post-war environment. It has served its purpose, but we now need to strengthen the Council by involving the nations who are now play a key international role.
The UK is taking the lead in this which is encouraging, and I hope that we may see some progress sooner rather than later. Alongside India and China, I think Germany, Brazil, South Africa and Japan should get seats. This would broaden the international outlook of the Council, and improve its standing as a representative of all the world.
Friday, January 18, 2008
The Cold War of the Mind
The tension and mistrust between the UK and Russia is continuing to build. Over recent years, Russia has started to move back into the position that it considers right for itself - regional heavyweight with a view to regaining its superpower status, cemented by bullying tactics against smaller neighbours. Russian behaviour towards Georgia and the Ukraine is threatening to destabilise these nations in their recent political progress, whilst Russian involvement in the Middle East is adding to the mess of the region. None of which is hugely surprising considering the dictatorial tendencies of Time's Man of the Year, Vladimir Putin.
In the midst of all this, it is Britain which is finding itself playing the main role of opposition to the Russian bullying. So much of the current Russian behaviour is an unwelcome return to the cloak and dagger antics of the Cold War era, with their suspected involvement in the murder of Alexander Litvienko and intimidation of British Council staff.
It is understandable why Putin's tactics are supported by many Russians. As happened with Germany following the First World War, people are feeling hurt and embarrassed by the fall of their nation from a strong and feared power to a broken and suffering country. Putin is playing on nationalistic fears and tensions, building a powerful youth movement and ensuring that his grip on power cannot be removed. So it is understandable, but not positive.
The ending of the Cold War was one of the greatest achievement of the end of the 20th Century, but this work will be undone if Russia continues down a totalitarian nationalistic path. I believe that Britain is doing the right thing in standing up to the bullying, and we need to work to keep building up an international consensus in our favour - as demonstrated by the messages in support we have received from the EU and US. However, I hope that David Milliband will be continuing work behind the scenes to rebuild some relationship between our two nations. We do not want Russia to feel too isolated, as this will merely serve as further fuel for Putin. Rather we would like to encourage them to play a positive role on the world stage, with closer links with the EU for mutual development.
However, this desire for interaction has to be balanced with a concern for our national interests and protection of our staff and citizens working in Russia. We have to stand firm and show Russia that there are other ways for it to work that don't have to involve bullying or intimidation.
The world has changed since the Cold War, now Russia must change too.
In the midst of all this, it is Britain which is finding itself playing the main role of opposition to the Russian bullying. So much of the current Russian behaviour is an unwelcome return to the cloak and dagger antics of the Cold War era, with their suspected involvement in the murder of Alexander Litvienko and intimidation of British Council staff.
It is understandable why Putin's tactics are supported by many Russians. As happened with Germany following the First World War, people are feeling hurt and embarrassed by the fall of their nation from a strong and feared power to a broken and suffering country. Putin is playing on nationalistic fears and tensions, building a powerful youth movement and ensuring that his grip on power cannot be removed. So it is understandable, but not positive.
The ending of the Cold War was one of the greatest achievement of the end of the 20th Century, but this work will be undone if Russia continues down a totalitarian nationalistic path. I believe that Britain is doing the right thing in standing up to the bullying, and we need to work to keep building up an international consensus in our favour - as demonstrated by the messages in support we have received from the EU and US. However, I hope that David Milliband will be continuing work behind the scenes to rebuild some relationship between our two nations. We do not want Russia to feel too isolated, as this will merely serve as further fuel for Putin. Rather we would like to encourage them to play a positive role on the world stage, with closer links with the EU for mutual development.
However, this desire for interaction has to be balanced with a concern for our national interests and protection of our staff and citizens working in Russia. We have to stand firm and show Russia that there are other ways for it to work that don't have to involve bullying or intimidation.
The world has changed since the Cold War, now Russia must change too.
Thursday, January 17, 2008
The SNP Approach
If you are ever curious as to how the SNP Government in Scotland prefers to do its business, then the recent SportScotland debate is a good insight.
In case you are not familiar with the story, the SNP pledged in their manifesto to have a 'bonfire of the quangos' with SportScotland one of the key targets. However, when the SNP started investigating the issue, they found that SportScotland is widely respected and considered a key part of the development of Scotland's sport and the successful Commonwealth Games bid. In the face of this expert opinion, the SNP backed down, performed a U-Turn and saved the agency.
Now, this was an ideal opportunity for the SNP. Afterall, the Scottish public is quickly becoming used to the fact that SNP promises are, shall we say, flexible. Therefore the U-Turn was hardly going to be a disaster. Rather they could use it to demostrate that they listened to the right people, and were humble enough to admit that there was a better way forward.
Of course, this is nothing like what happened. Instead of the balanced approach, the SNP went after some of the very experts in a pathetic revenge bid. Following the merger of SportScotland and the Scottish Institute of Sport, both the Chairs have been sacked. Dougie Donnelly (Sports presenter and Chair, sorry former Chair of SportScotland) and Julia Bracewell (a former fencer and his counterpart at the Institute) are both well respected. However they made the cardinal mistake of criticising the Government.
And unfortunately for them, Our Beloved Leader Alex Salmond does not take criticism lightly. Or at all. So in a move that is blatantly obvious to everyone in Scotland, he has thrown his rattle out of the pram and dealt a blow to Scottish sport.
Sadly, I think we will only see more of this. The first year of the SNP Government has been fine for them - short term populist policies, a disorganised opposition and the welcome realisation that actually they wouldn't automatically destroy the country. However, the pressure is going to start improving now as the public start to realise that when the SNP make a promise it's not worth the paper it's printed on. Salmond is the most impressive figure in Scottish politics just now, but he can't cope with anyone disagreeing with his divine mandate - indeed, that smug smirk that we have all missed is making an irritating comeback. But more importantly for the SNP, their talent pool is rather shallow. Stewart Maxwell, the Sports Minister humiliated in this fiasco, is picking up favourite status as to who will be the first Minister to be sacked/resign, Kenny MacAskill is obsessed with picking fights rather than doing his job and the back benches of the SNP posse in the Parliament are quite frankly terrifying.
The opportunity is there for Labour to start working hard and pulling apart the stitches of the SNP group. The discipline that the SNP have exerted thus far has been surprisingly efficient (although checking out their online contributions demonstrates some of the worrying group-think that is becoming prevalent) but the cracks are already there to see. It is our job to open them up.
Salmond has had a good first year, but now the real work starts. Welcome to Government Eck, it's going to be a bumpy ride.
In case you are not familiar with the story, the SNP pledged in their manifesto to have a 'bonfire of the quangos' with SportScotland one of the key targets. However, when the SNP started investigating the issue, they found that SportScotland is widely respected and considered a key part of the development of Scotland's sport and the successful Commonwealth Games bid. In the face of this expert opinion, the SNP backed down, performed a U-Turn and saved the agency.
Now, this was an ideal opportunity for the SNP. Afterall, the Scottish public is quickly becoming used to the fact that SNP promises are, shall we say, flexible. Therefore the U-Turn was hardly going to be a disaster. Rather they could use it to demostrate that they listened to the right people, and were humble enough to admit that there was a better way forward.
Of course, this is nothing like what happened. Instead of the balanced approach, the SNP went after some of the very experts in a pathetic revenge bid. Following the merger of SportScotland and the Scottish Institute of Sport, both the Chairs have been sacked. Dougie Donnelly (Sports presenter and Chair, sorry former Chair of SportScotland) and Julia Bracewell (a former fencer and his counterpart at the Institute) are both well respected. However they made the cardinal mistake of criticising the Government.
And unfortunately for them, Our Beloved Leader Alex Salmond does not take criticism lightly. Or at all. So in a move that is blatantly obvious to everyone in Scotland, he has thrown his rattle out of the pram and dealt a blow to Scottish sport.
Sadly, I think we will only see more of this. The first year of the SNP Government has been fine for them - short term populist policies, a disorganised opposition and the welcome realisation that actually they wouldn't automatically destroy the country. However, the pressure is going to start improving now as the public start to realise that when the SNP make a promise it's not worth the paper it's printed on. Salmond is the most impressive figure in Scottish politics just now, but he can't cope with anyone disagreeing with his divine mandate - indeed, that smug smirk that we have all missed is making an irritating comeback. But more importantly for the SNP, their talent pool is rather shallow. Stewart Maxwell, the Sports Minister humiliated in this fiasco, is picking up favourite status as to who will be the first Minister to be sacked/resign, Kenny MacAskill is obsessed with picking fights rather than doing his job and the back benches of the SNP posse in the Parliament are quite frankly terrifying.
The opportunity is there for Labour to start working hard and pulling apart the stitches of the SNP group. The discipline that the SNP have exerted thus far has been surprisingly efficient (although checking out their online contributions demonstrates some of the worrying group-think that is becoming prevalent) but the cracks are already there to see. It is our job to open them up.
Salmond has had a good first year, but now the real work starts. Welcome to Government Eck, it's going to be a bumpy ride.
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
Louis Theroux - Behind Bars
I had taped Louis Theroux's latest documentary "Behind Bars" at the weekend, and got round to watching it. It was a programme about him going to San Quentin prison in California for two weeks to explore the lives of the inmates and the effect that their imprisonment has on them.
It was horrifying.
The prison is a sprawling city of wasted humanity. Ruled by racially divided gangs, it is rife with drugs and violence and filled with repeat offenders and extremely dangerous people. One man who Louis interviewed is currently serving a sentence of something like 521 years - when he completes this, he has 11 life sentences to serve. Others are repeat offenders, who have been in and out of the 'justice' system their entire lives, and will continue to return until they are dead. The gangs possess huge power, as they provide an illusionary safe haven to inmates of the same skin colour. Some of the inmates are kept in their cells for 23 hours a day, isolated from other prisoners and from most human contact.
It's a depressing journey, and one that is all too common in America's failed justice system. However, it is a danger that looms for us on the horizon. Our imprisonment rates are awful, and the constant posturing for which party can use the toughest language serves only to drive the rate up further. Repeat offending is not just the norm, it is expected and so we create a sub-population who are detached from society and function solely through crime and imprisonment, with damaging ramifications for the wider society that they are excluded from.
Our prisons are becoming dumping grounds. Rehabilitation is fast becoming a legend and as a country we have disposed of the idea that completing a sentence meant that the punishment had been completed and the individual could re-enter society. Now, a criminal record punishes you for longer than the period of imprisonment does - unless you are convicted of a white collar financial crime or an ex-Tory minister, you will struggle to leave prison and earn a living in a legitimate manner.
We imprison people for not paying fines - the tax payer pays a huge amount more to keep them locked up than they ever owed. We take first time offenders and lock them in environments where they are surrounded by experienced criminals - a perfect training and recruiment ground if you like. We are surprised when we hear that our prisons are becoming prime recruting offices for young men into Islamic extremist groups.
It is widely agreed that the key factors which stop reoffending are a home, stable relationship and employment. Even a short term in prison can easily destroy all three and make them virtually impossible to replace. We need to work out what we want our prisons and punishments to be for.
I would suggest looking at crimes in three ways. I am not a lawyer, so these may be very simplistic, but I think they would at least highlight the role that punishments can play.
Firstly, there are the crimes which are serious and for which imprisonment is the punishment. Serious robberies, assaults etc, for which the loss of liberty is considered an appropriate way for society to punish the offenders. These obviously would have various terms according to the crime, which the prisoner would be expected to complete. Time in prison could be used profitably, training the inmate with appropriate and beneficial skills and preparing them for a successful return to society upon conclusion of their sentence. When they were released, they would be supported in finding new work and housing and in readjusting to life outside prison - it is amazing how powerful instituionalisation can be in harming ex-prisoner's chances of staying out of prison. However, alongside this support would come an acknowledgement that they have served their time. Employers who were willing to employ ex-prisoners with appropriate skills could be rewarded, as the costs of a tax break or the like would be much lower than the costs of re-imprisonment.
The second category comprises prisoners whose crimes are reflective of an ongoing danger to society - sexual offenders against adults and/or children, serious violence etc. In these cases, imprisonment is not just a punishment but is also a method of protecting society. These are challenging cases as they raise the question of how long someone should serve. A paedophile who is imprisoned for a couple of years but is going to be a danger to society should not be released whilst this danger exists. Obviously I realise that this raises ethical dilemmas - can we imprison people for crimes they have yet to commit, and if paedophilia is a life long disorder could those imprisoned for it ever be released? Crimes and disorders of this nature require a review of the procedures we have in place for protecting society and doing what we can to ensure that the offenders are supported in not re-offending. It is an area that requires urgent research and debate.
The other category are the people who are imprisoned for 'minor' crimes. This isn't to imply that these crimes are not wrong or don't have consequences, but rather it is a reflection in my opinion that they do not warrant a punishment of imprisonment. Rather the punishments should be ones which actually contribute to the society and/or individuals whom they have hurt by their actions. This isn't to make community service some sort of cop-out or easy way to avoid prison. Rather, these sorts of punishments should be related to the crime and actively produce results which are beneficial to the community. Punishing offenders in this way would allow them to make a positive contribution but also hopefully allow them to retain those factors which I identified earlier as being crucial to avoiding recidivism.
I am not trying to be a wild-eyed bleeding heart liberal here - prisons have a valuable function in our society and we must make sure that they are supported and developed. However, they are too full already, and continuing to get fuller - we need to change this for the good of our society. The US has over two million people incarcerated and demonstrate that this policy fails. We need to be radical and find a new direction.
Incidentally, if you would like to watch Louis' documentary you can find it at http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/ - if you go to the last seven days, it is on page two of Sunday evening.
It was horrifying.
The prison is a sprawling city of wasted humanity. Ruled by racially divided gangs, it is rife with drugs and violence and filled with repeat offenders and extremely dangerous people. One man who Louis interviewed is currently serving a sentence of something like 521 years - when he completes this, he has 11 life sentences to serve. Others are repeat offenders, who have been in and out of the 'justice' system their entire lives, and will continue to return until they are dead. The gangs possess huge power, as they provide an illusionary safe haven to inmates of the same skin colour. Some of the inmates are kept in their cells for 23 hours a day, isolated from other prisoners and from most human contact.
It's a depressing journey, and one that is all too common in America's failed justice system. However, it is a danger that looms for us on the horizon. Our imprisonment rates are awful, and the constant posturing for which party can use the toughest language serves only to drive the rate up further. Repeat offending is not just the norm, it is expected and so we create a sub-population who are detached from society and function solely through crime and imprisonment, with damaging ramifications for the wider society that they are excluded from.
Our prisons are becoming dumping grounds. Rehabilitation is fast becoming a legend and as a country we have disposed of the idea that completing a sentence meant that the punishment had been completed and the individual could re-enter society. Now, a criminal record punishes you for longer than the period of imprisonment does - unless you are convicted of a white collar financial crime or an ex-Tory minister, you will struggle to leave prison and earn a living in a legitimate manner.
We imprison people for not paying fines - the tax payer pays a huge amount more to keep them locked up than they ever owed. We take first time offenders and lock them in environments where they are surrounded by experienced criminals - a perfect training and recruiment ground if you like. We are surprised when we hear that our prisons are becoming prime recruting offices for young men into Islamic extremist groups.
It is widely agreed that the key factors which stop reoffending are a home, stable relationship and employment. Even a short term in prison can easily destroy all three and make them virtually impossible to replace. We need to work out what we want our prisons and punishments to be for.
I would suggest looking at crimes in three ways. I am not a lawyer, so these may be very simplistic, but I think they would at least highlight the role that punishments can play.
Firstly, there are the crimes which are serious and for which imprisonment is the punishment. Serious robberies, assaults etc, for which the loss of liberty is considered an appropriate way for society to punish the offenders. These obviously would have various terms according to the crime, which the prisoner would be expected to complete. Time in prison could be used profitably, training the inmate with appropriate and beneficial skills and preparing them for a successful return to society upon conclusion of their sentence. When they were released, they would be supported in finding new work and housing and in readjusting to life outside prison - it is amazing how powerful instituionalisation can be in harming ex-prisoner's chances of staying out of prison. However, alongside this support would come an acknowledgement that they have served their time. Employers who were willing to employ ex-prisoners with appropriate skills could be rewarded, as the costs of a tax break or the like would be much lower than the costs of re-imprisonment.
The second category comprises prisoners whose crimes are reflective of an ongoing danger to society - sexual offenders against adults and/or children, serious violence etc. In these cases, imprisonment is not just a punishment but is also a method of protecting society. These are challenging cases as they raise the question of how long someone should serve. A paedophile who is imprisoned for a couple of years but is going to be a danger to society should not be released whilst this danger exists. Obviously I realise that this raises ethical dilemmas - can we imprison people for crimes they have yet to commit, and if paedophilia is a life long disorder could those imprisoned for it ever be released? Crimes and disorders of this nature require a review of the procedures we have in place for protecting society and doing what we can to ensure that the offenders are supported in not re-offending. It is an area that requires urgent research and debate.
The other category are the people who are imprisoned for 'minor' crimes. This isn't to imply that these crimes are not wrong or don't have consequences, but rather it is a reflection in my opinion that they do not warrant a punishment of imprisonment. Rather the punishments should be ones which actually contribute to the society and/or individuals whom they have hurt by their actions. This isn't to make community service some sort of cop-out or easy way to avoid prison. Rather, these sorts of punishments should be related to the crime and actively produce results which are beneficial to the community. Punishing offenders in this way would allow them to make a positive contribution but also hopefully allow them to retain those factors which I identified earlier as being crucial to avoiding recidivism.
I am not trying to be a wild-eyed bleeding heart liberal here - prisons have a valuable function in our society and we must make sure that they are supported and developed. However, they are too full already, and continuing to get fuller - we need to change this for the good of our society. The US has over two million people incarcerated and demonstrate that this policy fails. We need to be radical and find a new direction.
Incidentally, if you would like to watch Louis' documentary you can find it at http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/ - if you go to the last seven days, it is on page two of Sunday evening.
Monday, January 14, 2008
Bobbies on the beat cut crime - well duh!
http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/latestnews/Bobbies-on-the-beat-DO.3667986.jp
I know, it seems a very self obvious title for this, but the fact is that the Scotman's report today appears to be a surprise to some.
Law and order is a topic that is causing the public distress - admittedly it is often non based on anything approaching reality and is then exaggerated by the media, but it is still a concern. The evidence with the increase in patrolling police officers in Glasgow and Edinburgh is very strong that this helps to reduce crime.
There needs to be an increase in the visibility of the police and in their connection to the community. Too often they are seen today as being detatched from the society and communities that they serve, instead being observed as merely enforcers of the state's laws - or even more relevantly, to not be seen to be enforcing anything at all. Increasing police presence in a positive consistent manner would strengthen bonds, as opposed to the regular absence, followed by a deluge in reaction to particular incidents.
Proaction rather than reaction - that is a key strand of progressive thought. With the SNP having mucked up the policing issue in Scotland, this is a key chance for Labour to regain the iniative. The false guarantee of numbers sounds good to the electorate but doesn't help the country. What we need is a commitment to changing the approach of policing, using the police's own professionalism to guide changes so that they are introduced with their support and advice rather than contrary to it. This would allow us to create a strong image in Scotland.
Of course, we'll struggle with it in the rest of the UK if we don't backdate the pay officers! But a combination of backdating and dialogue would demonstrate to the Force that it is vital and help to restore its place as a key aspect of society.
I know, it seems a very self obvious title for this, but the fact is that the Scotman's report today appears to be a surprise to some.
Law and order is a topic that is causing the public distress - admittedly it is often non based on anything approaching reality and is then exaggerated by the media, but it is still a concern. The evidence with the increase in patrolling police officers in Glasgow and Edinburgh is very strong that this helps to reduce crime.
There needs to be an increase in the visibility of the police and in their connection to the community. Too often they are seen today as being detatched from the society and communities that they serve, instead being observed as merely enforcers of the state's laws - or even more relevantly, to not be seen to be enforcing anything at all. Increasing police presence in a positive consistent manner would strengthen bonds, as opposed to the regular absence, followed by a deluge in reaction to particular incidents.
Proaction rather than reaction - that is a key strand of progressive thought. With the SNP having mucked up the policing issue in Scotland, this is a key chance for Labour to regain the iniative. The false guarantee of numbers sounds good to the electorate but doesn't help the country. What we need is a commitment to changing the approach of policing, using the police's own professionalism to guide changes so that they are introduced with their support and advice rather than contrary to it. This would allow us to create a strong image in Scotland.
Of course, we'll struggle with it in the rest of the UK if we don't backdate the pay officers! But a combination of backdating and dialogue would demonstrate to the Force that it is vital and help to restore its place as a key aspect of society.
Friday, January 11, 2008
Nuclear Power
I am pleased that the Government is supporting a new generation of nuclear reactors for the UK. I realise that this is an opinion that is not universally held, to say the least, but I believe that in light of the challenges that we are going to face in regards to energy in the coming years, alongside our commitments to reducing our reliance on fossil fuels, nuclear is the option which presents us with the best chance of success, certainly when combined with other forms of energy production.
Nuclear power is an issue that raises very strong gut reactions in people, both positively and negatively. The implications of Chernobyl had a lasting impact on public opinion, and combined with the low price of oil and gas conspired to push nuclear power out of the scene. Even as recently as 2004, Tony Blair's review found that although they wouldn't rule out nuclear power for ever, it certainly wasn't being considered at that point, which caused some environmental groups to happily proclaim the death of nuclear.
Of course, while they were proclaiming its death, nuclear power was continuing to be used as an environmentally friendly power source elsewhere in the world, and indeed was continuing to contribute 20% of the power in the UK. Huge advances have been made in the safety of modern reactors so that an incident such as Chernobyl is learnt from and avoided. At the time of Chernobyl, the reactors had to be constantly monitored or they would overheat and cause problems - the modern reactors have to be constantly interacted with or they switch themselves off - a change in how the industry approaches the issue of safety.
Of course, the issue of waste is one of the most emotive, due to the length of time that it lasts for. However, the production of energy from coal produces huge amounts of heavy metals to be disposed of, along with the release of CO2 and SO2 into the atmosphere. In Switzerland, a country where over 40% of the national energy is produced from nuclear plants, 40 times as much toxic waste is produced by the fossil fuel sources as by the nuclear industry, all of which must be disposed of and which has seriously damaging effects on the environment.
Criticism is made of the huge cost of nuclear power, but in fact the cost is deceptive. It is true that the industry has large capital costs which dwarf those of other power production sources. However, the running costs of a plant are much smaller than other sources. Even factoring in the mining of uranium, the CO2 production from nuclear power is virtually non-existent, and we would see a large improvement in our emissions were we to increase the percentage of our power that we supplied in this manner.
The fashionable renewable sources (wind, solar, tide) all represent useful complementary forms of energy production, and combined with nuclear will allow us to move away from a dependency on fossil fuels, which in turn will reduce our vulnerability to pressure from foreign countries such as Russia over gas prices. However, the renewables are not going to be able to provide all of the energy that we require. Solar power is limited to the daylight (and living in Scotland we will run out very quickly if we only relied upon it!) and we have all witnessed the furore that the creation of wind farms can create. I think that the Government is to be commended for pursuing a multifaceted energy policy which involves different means of production.
Of course, this foresight doesn't extend to the SNP administration here in Scotland, who have refused to have any new plants built north of the border. This has serious economical implications for the communities in Scotland who are based around, and rely upon for jobs, the existing power plants. It also reflects the SNP's naive and potentially dangerous reliance upon oil in the North Sea. All of their financial justifications for independence are based upon a finite and heavily polluting resource. This worries me about the future of energy production in Scotland, should they somehow get their wish to destroy the UK. Admittedly Salmond produces enough hot air to power all of Scotland's cities, but I would be worried if that become the basis of our future energy security.
What do other people think about the nuclear decision? Are you pleased with it? If not, what are your objections and how would you suggest Britain can meet its energy needs in future?
Nuclear power is an issue that raises very strong gut reactions in people, both positively and negatively. The implications of Chernobyl had a lasting impact on public opinion, and combined with the low price of oil and gas conspired to push nuclear power out of the scene. Even as recently as 2004, Tony Blair's review found that although they wouldn't rule out nuclear power for ever, it certainly wasn't being considered at that point, which caused some environmental groups to happily proclaim the death of nuclear.
Of course, while they were proclaiming its death, nuclear power was continuing to be used as an environmentally friendly power source elsewhere in the world, and indeed was continuing to contribute 20% of the power in the UK. Huge advances have been made in the safety of modern reactors so that an incident such as Chernobyl is learnt from and avoided. At the time of Chernobyl, the reactors had to be constantly monitored or they would overheat and cause problems - the modern reactors have to be constantly interacted with or they switch themselves off - a change in how the industry approaches the issue of safety.
Of course, the issue of waste is one of the most emotive, due to the length of time that it lasts for. However, the production of energy from coal produces huge amounts of heavy metals to be disposed of, along with the release of CO2 and SO2 into the atmosphere. In Switzerland, a country where over 40% of the national energy is produced from nuclear plants, 40 times as much toxic waste is produced by the fossil fuel sources as by the nuclear industry, all of which must be disposed of and which has seriously damaging effects on the environment.
Criticism is made of the huge cost of nuclear power, but in fact the cost is deceptive. It is true that the industry has large capital costs which dwarf those of other power production sources. However, the running costs of a plant are much smaller than other sources. Even factoring in the mining of uranium, the CO2 production from nuclear power is virtually non-existent, and we would see a large improvement in our emissions were we to increase the percentage of our power that we supplied in this manner.
The fashionable renewable sources (wind, solar, tide) all represent useful complementary forms of energy production, and combined with nuclear will allow us to move away from a dependency on fossil fuels, which in turn will reduce our vulnerability to pressure from foreign countries such as Russia over gas prices. However, the renewables are not going to be able to provide all of the energy that we require. Solar power is limited to the daylight (and living in Scotland we will run out very quickly if we only relied upon it!) and we have all witnessed the furore that the creation of wind farms can create. I think that the Government is to be commended for pursuing a multifaceted energy policy which involves different means of production.
Of course, this foresight doesn't extend to the SNP administration here in Scotland, who have refused to have any new plants built north of the border. This has serious economical implications for the communities in Scotland who are based around, and rely upon for jobs, the existing power plants. It also reflects the SNP's naive and potentially dangerous reliance upon oil in the North Sea. All of their financial justifications for independence are based upon a finite and heavily polluting resource. This worries me about the future of energy production in Scotland, should they somehow get their wish to destroy the UK. Admittedly Salmond produces enough hot air to power all of Scotland's cities, but I would be worried if that become the basis of our future energy security.
What do other people think about the nuclear decision? Are you pleased with it? If not, what are your objections and how would you suggest Britain can meet its energy needs in future?
Tuesday, January 08, 2008
Age
I was reading an interesting post on the Newsnight site about the role of age in politics. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/2008/01/a_question_of_age_1.html) It points out that the consideration of John McCain as a viable candidate for the US Presidency is something that would not be replicated in the UK, with the current obsession with 'yoof.'
It got me thinking. It is daft that older members of society feel excluded from contributing to our politics. Ming Campbell shouldn't have been forced out of his position due to his age - our politicians and leaders should be elected on the basis of their competency and ideas rather than how long they have been around.
However, whilst older members of society should be encouraged to contribute, so should younger members. The article discusses the fact that the party leaders are all young, and comments underneath bemoan the fact that young people are getting into positions of authority when they have no life experience.
Firstly, I'm 26 and I can tell you that 40+ is not young! Heck, to someone in their teens I'm an old fogey! Secondly, to have a representative democracy, we require elected members of all strands of our community - young, old, white, black, male and female. In my work, I talk to young people who are not involved in politics, and am frequently told that they are not interested because it is something for old people. Looking at the make-up of our elected representatives, there are very few younger people able to represent that age group and able to bring their concerns to the attention of the elected bodies.
All our citizens should be free and encouraged to participate. We should not presume that older age guarantees experience, whilst being young precludes it. Everyone has skills and experiences to contribute, and should be encouraged in this. Likewise, it shouldn't be presumed that older people lack an energy and commitment to do the job they are elected for.
To create a vibrant democracy, we require the participation of all its members. Young, old and middle-aged, we all have something to offer.
It got me thinking. It is daft that older members of society feel excluded from contributing to our politics. Ming Campbell shouldn't have been forced out of his position due to his age - our politicians and leaders should be elected on the basis of their competency and ideas rather than how long they have been around.
However, whilst older members of society should be encouraged to contribute, so should younger members. The article discusses the fact that the party leaders are all young, and comments underneath bemoan the fact that young people are getting into positions of authority when they have no life experience.
Firstly, I'm 26 and I can tell you that 40+ is not young! Heck, to someone in their teens I'm an old fogey! Secondly, to have a representative democracy, we require elected members of all strands of our community - young, old, white, black, male and female. In my work, I talk to young people who are not involved in politics, and am frequently told that they are not interested because it is something for old people. Looking at the make-up of our elected representatives, there are very few younger people able to represent that age group and able to bring their concerns to the attention of the elected bodies.
All our citizens should be free and encouraged to participate. We should not presume that older age guarantees experience, whilst being young precludes it. Everyone has skills and experiences to contribute, and should be encouraged in this. Likewise, it shouldn't be presumed that older people lack an energy and commitment to do the job they are elected for.
To create a vibrant democracy, we require the participation of all its members. Young, old and middle-aged, we all have something to offer.
Monday, January 07, 2008
The Obama Effect
The race is on!
I freely admit that I am a geek - let's face it, I'm getting highly excited about an election that I have absolutely no vote in. But I do believe that the election of a US President is an event that impacts upon the entire world.
The key story to come out of Iowa from a Dem p.o.v. was of course the success of Barack Obama in winning the caucus. A great result for him and just reward for the improvement that he has demonstrated in his campaigning over the past few weeks. Crucially, his margin of victory was significantly clear over his rivals, and even more crucially, Hillary Clinton came a very disappointing third, trailing John Edwards by a very narrow margin.
It is certainly a great result for Obama, but I don't think he should be measuring the White House curtains quite yet. Although Iowa gives him momentum (and it is looking like he may well build on this with victory in New Hampshire) there is still a very powerful machine behind Hillary Clinton. I think that it would only take one victory for her, particularly in one of the bigger states, could quickly restore the aura of inevitability that she has worked to hard to build up. I don't think that Edwards has enough to his campaign to seriously challenge for the nod - I personally supported him in 04 and believe he would have won the election had the Dems not stupidly nominated Kerry, however he is not as impressive now as he was then. In addition, the Dems are desperate to avoid any links to that disaster of a campaign - the GOP tore Kerry apart on several issues, and would be delighted if they could just roll out the same old tactics again. Well, actually they will do that regardless of who the candidate is, but it won't necessarily be as effective.
On the GOP side, Mike Huckabee's victory in Iowa is a big blow to Mitt Romney's chances. He did win the Wyoming Republican Primary, but this is a pretty insignificant event (Fred Thompson and Duncan Hunter won the remaining delegates which shows you how in touch with national opinion the state is!). For Romney, New Hampshire is crucial now - I think he must win it or run the risk of seeing his campaign die. Giuliani has played a dangerous game of ignoring the early states, so he will came out all guns blazing as the big states come into play, which will further reduce Romney's chances. And of course, polling indicates that McCain has a very real chance of winning NH.
Personally, if I had to support a Republican (with very gritted teeth, naturally!) it would be McCain. I think he is an impressive conviction politician, with a long history of cross party working. Considering how dead in the water his campaign was, his recovery is very impressive - the question now is whether it will be sustainable. So NH is a must win for him too.
So, my predictions for NH - Obama and McCain.
And then the real fun begins.... =)
I freely admit that I am a geek - let's face it, I'm getting highly excited about an election that I have absolutely no vote in. But I do believe that the election of a US President is an event that impacts upon the entire world.
The key story to come out of Iowa from a Dem p.o.v. was of course the success of Barack Obama in winning the caucus. A great result for him and just reward for the improvement that he has demonstrated in his campaigning over the past few weeks. Crucially, his margin of victory was significantly clear over his rivals, and even more crucially, Hillary Clinton came a very disappointing third, trailing John Edwards by a very narrow margin.
It is certainly a great result for Obama, but I don't think he should be measuring the White House curtains quite yet. Although Iowa gives him momentum (and it is looking like he may well build on this with victory in New Hampshire) there is still a very powerful machine behind Hillary Clinton. I think that it would only take one victory for her, particularly in one of the bigger states, could quickly restore the aura of inevitability that she has worked to hard to build up. I don't think that Edwards has enough to his campaign to seriously challenge for the nod - I personally supported him in 04 and believe he would have won the election had the Dems not stupidly nominated Kerry, however he is not as impressive now as he was then. In addition, the Dems are desperate to avoid any links to that disaster of a campaign - the GOP tore Kerry apart on several issues, and would be delighted if they could just roll out the same old tactics again. Well, actually they will do that regardless of who the candidate is, but it won't necessarily be as effective.
On the GOP side, Mike Huckabee's victory in Iowa is a big blow to Mitt Romney's chances. He did win the Wyoming Republican Primary, but this is a pretty insignificant event (Fred Thompson and Duncan Hunter won the remaining delegates which shows you how in touch with national opinion the state is!). For Romney, New Hampshire is crucial now - I think he must win it or run the risk of seeing his campaign die. Giuliani has played a dangerous game of ignoring the early states, so he will came out all guns blazing as the big states come into play, which will further reduce Romney's chances. And of course, polling indicates that McCain has a very real chance of winning NH.
Personally, if I had to support a Republican (with very gritted teeth, naturally!) it would be McCain. I think he is an impressive conviction politician, with a long history of cross party working. Considering how dead in the water his campaign was, his recovery is very impressive - the question now is whether it will be sustainable. So NH is a must win for him too.
So, my predictions for NH - Obama and McCain.
And then the real fun begins.... =)
Happy New Year!
Not sure that anyone actually reads this blog, but if you do - Happy New Year!
I do my main blogging over at the Labour MpURL facility, but will start trying to put more regular thoughts up here. Of course, these ill informed ramblings will probably just be drifting off unheeded into the ether, but at least it floats them out of my head! =)
If you do ever happen to stumble over this page, then feel free to leave me your thoughts, nice nasty or just plain surreal, to convince me that I am not alone.
Blogging - the modern equivalent of talking to yourself and the voices in your head!
I do my main blogging over at the Labour MpURL facility, but will start trying to put more regular thoughts up here. Of course, these ill informed ramblings will probably just be drifting off unheeded into the ether, but at least it floats them out of my head! =)
If you do ever happen to stumble over this page, then feel free to leave me your thoughts, nice nasty or just plain surreal, to convince me that I am not alone.
Blogging - the modern equivalent of talking to yourself and the voices in your head!
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
Clegg wins it...
So the contest which has been gripping the nation in a fever of excitement has finally been concluded...
Oh wait, Strictly Come Dancing doesn't finish until Saturday! (Come on Alesha!) In the meantime, Nick Clegg has narrowly won the rather less motivating race to become new leader of the Lib Dems.
Here's hoping he has enough time to pack before one of his colleagues does him in....
Oh wait, Strictly Come Dancing doesn't finish until Saturday! (Come on Alesha!) In the meantime, Nick Clegg has narrowly won the rather less motivating race to become new leader of the Lib Dems.
Here's hoping he has enough time to pack before one of his colleagues does him in....
The Empire Strikes Back...
The Empire I am referring to, of course, is the evil one run by Darth Murdoch which has used the dark side of the Force to corrupt our legal system, media and fringe left wing parties to persecute an innocent man.
Certainly, that is how poor Tommy Sheridan, erstwhile MSP and leader of the SSP/Solidarity/Tommy Sheridan Party is stating his case. He has just been accused of perjury following the epic battle he had with the News of the World over the rather racy allegations it made about his personal life, and has been the victim of some police harrassment.
Poor wean!
It has been a strange old case, responsible for destroying the SSP and Tommy losing his place as one of the most charismatic members of the Scottish Parliament. (Although lets not exaggerate this point too much, he didn't have a huge amount of competition!) The whole case has served to demostrate the size of his ego and the pygmy status of those who took up the reins of the SSP once he moved on. I am not a fan of Tommy, but he was acknowledged as one of the most impressive debaters and speakers in the Parliament - Colin Fox and the other SSP MSPs were dull and uninvolving - after the initial excitement of their breakthrough in 2003, the public quickly got fed up of their attention seeking antics and their lack of focus in participating in the work of Parliament to best represent their constituents.
And now we face the renewed situation whereby the press will be temporarily deluged (well, maybe not that much - they'll be lucky if they can summon up the energy to talk to what remains of the SSP) with two groups of the further left slagging each other off as scabs and Murdoch groupies, nailing tightly the coffin of the political aspirations of their respective parties - who ultimately are identical anyway, and therefore only serve to split their vote and kill their own causes.
It is a sad day for the Rainbow Parliament of Scotland, sadly confined to the history books for the foreseeable future. And behind it all lurks the smug figure of Alex Salmond, chuckling in that annoyingly arrogant way of his about the good fortune that has come his way. The SNP won the election in a large part due to their success in taking supporters disillusioned with the SSP/Solidarity rift into their fold, and Wee Eck will know that this is the ideal time to solidify his hold on this group.
Certainly, that is how poor Tommy Sheridan, erstwhile MSP and leader of the SSP/Solidarity/Tommy Sheridan Party is stating his case. He has just been accused of perjury following the epic battle he had with the News of the World over the rather racy allegations it made about his personal life, and has been the victim of some police harrassment.
Poor wean!
It has been a strange old case, responsible for destroying the SSP and Tommy losing his place as one of the most charismatic members of the Scottish Parliament. (Although lets not exaggerate this point too much, he didn't have a huge amount of competition!) The whole case has served to demostrate the size of his ego and the pygmy status of those who took up the reins of the SSP once he moved on. I am not a fan of Tommy, but he was acknowledged as one of the most impressive debaters and speakers in the Parliament - Colin Fox and the other SSP MSPs were dull and uninvolving - after the initial excitement of their breakthrough in 2003, the public quickly got fed up of their attention seeking antics and their lack of focus in participating in the work of Parliament to best represent their constituents.
And now we face the renewed situation whereby the press will be temporarily deluged (well, maybe not that much - they'll be lucky if they can summon up the energy to talk to what remains of the SSP) with two groups of the further left slagging each other off as scabs and Murdoch groupies, nailing tightly the coffin of the political aspirations of their respective parties - who ultimately are identical anyway, and therefore only serve to split their vote and kill their own causes.
It is a sad day for the Rainbow Parliament of Scotland, sadly confined to the history books for the foreseeable future. And behind it all lurks the smug figure of Alex Salmond, chuckling in that annoyingly arrogant way of his about the good fortune that has come his way. The SNP won the election in a large part due to their success in taking supporters disillusioned with the SSP/Solidarity rift into their fold, and Wee Eck will know that this is the ideal time to solidify his hold on this group.
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Launch of vital US political broadcast...
It is that time of year where the most important political broadcast from the States is released. I am of course referring to Barney Cam, in which George W Bush's Scottie Barney stars in an uplifting morality tale. This year the focus is on the importance of the National Parks - one of the few areas that many of us would agree on with Bush! Check it out at www.whitehouse.gov - it's well worth the time invested!
To make it even more of a Box Office smash, it has a cameo from our very own Tony Blair. In a show stealing piece, he discusses his own Scottishness, and praises the success of the Bush Scotties as ambassadors for Scotland. Much more poignant than anything Jeremy Paxman would ever have teased out.
To make it even more of a Box Office smash, it has a cameo from our very own Tony Blair. In a show stealing piece, he discusses his own Scottishness, and praises the success of the Bush Scotties as ambassadors for Scotland. Much more poignant than anything Jeremy Paxman would ever have teased out.
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
No such thing as bad publicity...
He just couldn't cope with it, could he?
I'm talking about the Beloved Leader of course, His Holiness Alex Salmond. He couldn't cope with the fact that Wendy was getting all the press coverage (even if it was negative!) so sat and thought of something to get the spotlight back on himself. Hmm, what would be successful in this aim - new policy? (As if!) A bold political masterstroke? Streaking at the next football match televised to the Scottish nation?
Thankfully, the last horrific option was rejected at the last minute, and instead he went for a nice cosy lunch with that well known philanthropist, Donald Trump. Happily they sat in a cosy little hotel (I've always wondered who pays for things in that kind of situation - might be kinda awkward when the bill arrives!) and chatted about the world.
Now, Alex Salmond did nothing illegal in his meeting with Trump - he is the Constituency MSP and it is an important matter. However, he is also the First Minister of Scotland and scant hours after his chat the matter was called into Holyrood by his Government.
Of course, he had nothing to do with it and in fact was able to claim with a relatively straight face that "I know nutting." Wee Eck is a canny enough politician to know that it didn't matter in the situation, as the perception the public would be rightly able to take from this is that Salmond is on the side of the wealthy like Trump, and his talk of social democracy and devolution of power to the local level is as empty as the National Conversation that he is having with himself.
We are at the situation now where the convener of the committee who cast the deciding vote is facing strong pressure to be replaced, where the decision of the committee has been effectively ignored (I know, the Govt may uphold the decision, particularly if pressure is applied to them, however I am not going to hold my breath) and the continuing centralisation of all power in Salmond's ample bosum continues at breakneck speed.
But then, is this hugely surprising from a party launched into power by the financial weight of Brian Soutar?
I'm talking about the Beloved Leader of course, His Holiness Alex Salmond. He couldn't cope with the fact that Wendy was getting all the press coverage (even if it was negative!) so sat and thought of something to get the spotlight back on himself. Hmm, what would be successful in this aim - new policy? (As if!) A bold political masterstroke? Streaking at the next football match televised to the Scottish nation?
Thankfully, the last horrific option was rejected at the last minute, and instead he went for a nice cosy lunch with that well known philanthropist, Donald Trump. Happily they sat in a cosy little hotel (I've always wondered who pays for things in that kind of situation - might be kinda awkward when the bill arrives!) and chatted about the world.
Now, Alex Salmond did nothing illegal in his meeting with Trump - he is the Constituency MSP and it is an important matter. However, he is also the First Minister of Scotland and scant hours after his chat the matter was called into Holyrood by his Government.
Of course, he had nothing to do with it and in fact was able to claim with a relatively straight face that "I know nutting." Wee Eck is a canny enough politician to know that it didn't matter in the situation, as the perception the public would be rightly able to take from this is that Salmond is on the side of the wealthy like Trump, and his talk of social democracy and devolution of power to the local level is as empty as the National Conversation that he is having with himself.
We are at the situation now where the convener of the committee who cast the deciding vote is facing strong pressure to be replaced, where the decision of the committee has been effectively ignored (I know, the Govt may uphold the decision, particularly if pressure is applied to them, however I am not going to hold my breath) and the continuing centralisation of all power in Salmond's ample bosum continues at breakneck speed.
But then, is this hugely surprising from a party launched into power by the financial weight of Brian Soutar?
Friday, November 09, 2007
The (brief!) geopolitical case for the Union
In a time when the Union is under frequent attack from expected, and in the case of Cameron and his Tories, unexpected sources, I think it is important that we examine all of the aspects that make the Union an important and beneficial set-up to the nations involved. Obviously the economic issues have been receiving the most coverage so far, however I would like to jot down a few ideas about what I feel are the geopolitical responsibilities of the Union, and why we would be abrogating our responsibility if we were to break it apart.
As the United Kingdom, we possess a role on the world stage which far outweighs our geographic size. This is rooted in several causes - the historical legacy of our Empire which spanned the globe; the power of economy which outperforms many 'bigger' nations; the global power of the English language and others. Possibly even more crucially, we are seen in many quarters as the birthplace and spiritual home of modern democracy - the US and France may have taken particular paths, but it Westminster that is called the Mother of Parliaments. Our tradition of liberal democracy (as so impressively laid out in Gordon Brown's recent speech, which I will return to at another date) is one that has acted as the underpinning of much liberal thought across the world, and continues to provide an ideal for nations to aspire to - including our own!
It is true that our global reputation has been damaged by the war in Iraq, and respect for our causes dimished by our association with the most unpopular US President there has probably ever been. However, Iraq is only part of the story, and our history and future is bigger than that intervention. To argue, as Alex Salmond frequently does, that Iraq is a justification for splitting from the Union is ridiculous - that is the path to anarchy, whereby anytime a section of the population does not agree to something the Government does, they split away and follow their own path. In reality, Iraq must be the impetus for us as a nation to refind our role on the world stage, and work to restore the faith of the world in us.
For as the UK, we have a unique and important role to play. This goes beyond our traditional role as the link between Europe and the US, although this is a crucial role. Our role also involves the historical link of the Commonwealth, whereby our future is intrinsically linked to that of nations who we are tied to, and with whom we are striving for the Common Good. Our interventions in Sierra Leone and Kosovo, along with generally the intervention in Afghanistan, are ones that are supported in world opinion, as is the pressure that we are putting to bear on Zimbabwe and Myanmar. Our traditional approach, of using diplomatic pressure to seek to influence nations, backed up by a willingness to intervene with military force if required, is one that strikes a happy balance between the gung-ho US and the laissez-faire approach of say the French.
We also have an important role to play, by example, support and pressure, in the spread of liberal democracy. I know that many of my colleagues in the Party will shudder at that thought, as it has become widely associated with the neocon movement behind the war in Iraq, however, I don't think that there is anything illiberal in the spreading of democracy. If we can restore our place as a respected international player, then we can provide an inspiration to nations struggling to find their way to peaceful democracy and a model for them to aim for.
All of this will not happen as independent nations I'm afraid. I think that were the UK to be disbanded, only England would really retain any lingering influence, and that would be minimal and short-lived, especially if it was up against an independent Salmond-led Scotland which was focussed on doing everything it could to prove its difference. From a Scottish point of view, our proud history of standing against oppression around the world would sadly be lost if Salmond had his way and we followed the Irish path of neutrality. It is not enough in this interconnected world that we live in for a nation to sit back and claim no responsibility for what is happening around it - it is simply the abdication of responsibility. Salmond claims to be so keen on what is happening on the global stage, yet without the opportunity provided by the UK's Permanent Seat on the Security Council his role and influence would be virtually nil.
And I believe that this is the point - we have a responsibility to continue to play a role on the world stage, as a democratic nation holding out the example that different countries and peoples can live together in peace and co-operation. The UK, despite the problems and things we would like to change, is a living example of solidarity in a common cause, something that is all too rare in the world. We are hated by Al-Qaeda and its ilk precisely because we represent the world they don't want to see - free, liberal and pluralist, respecting the rights of all and willing to take a stand against injustice and oppression. We have made many mistakes in our history as a United Kingdom, but we have also been a shining light and a vessel for changing the world for the better. At a time when the world is confronted by threats, it is important that we continue to bear this responsibility and to struggle for those who cannot struggle for themselves.
As the United Kingdom, we possess a role on the world stage which far outweighs our geographic size. This is rooted in several causes - the historical legacy of our Empire which spanned the globe; the power of economy which outperforms many 'bigger' nations; the global power of the English language and others. Possibly even more crucially, we are seen in many quarters as the birthplace and spiritual home of modern democracy - the US and France may have taken particular paths, but it Westminster that is called the Mother of Parliaments. Our tradition of liberal democracy (as so impressively laid out in Gordon Brown's recent speech, which I will return to at another date) is one that has acted as the underpinning of much liberal thought across the world, and continues to provide an ideal for nations to aspire to - including our own!
It is true that our global reputation has been damaged by the war in Iraq, and respect for our causes dimished by our association with the most unpopular US President there has probably ever been. However, Iraq is only part of the story, and our history and future is bigger than that intervention. To argue, as Alex Salmond frequently does, that Iraq is a justification for splitting from the Union is ridiculous - that is the path to anarchy, whereby anytime a section of the population does not agree to something the Government does, they split away and follow their own path. In reality, Iraq must be the impetus for us as a nation to refind our role on the world stage, and work to restore the faith of the world in us.
For as the UK, we have a unique and important role to play. This goes beyond our traditional role as the link between Europe and the US, although this is a crucial role. Our role also involves the historical link of the Commonwealth, whereby our future is intrinsically linked to that of nations who we are tied to, and with whom we are striving for the Common Good. Our interventions in Sierra Leone and Kosovo, along with generally the intervention in Afghanistan, are ones that are supported in world opinion, as is the pressure that we are putting to bear on Zimbabwe and Myanmar. Our traditional approach, of using diplomatic pressure to seek to influence nations, backed up by a willingness to intervene with military force if required, is one that strikes a happy balance between the gung-ho US and the laissez-faire approach of say the French.
We also have an important role to play, by example, support and pressure, in the spread of liberal democracy. I know that many of my colleagues in the Party will shudder at that thought, as it has become widely associated with the neocon movement behind the war in Iraq, however, I don't think that there is anything illiberal in the spreading of democracy. If we can restore our place as a respected international player, then we can provide an inspiration to nations struggling to find their way to peaceful democracy and a model for them to aim for.
All of this will not happen as independent nations I'm afraid. I think that were the UK to be disbanded, only England would really retain any lingering influence, and that would be minimal and short-lived, especially if it was up against an independent Salmond-led Scotland which was focussed on doing everything it could to prove its difference. From a Scottish point of view, our proud history of standing against oppression around the world would sadly be lost if Salmond had his way and we followed the Irish path of neutrality. It is not enough in this interconnected world that we live in for a nation to sit back and claim no responsibility for what is happening around it - it is simply the abdication of responsibility. Salmond claims to be so keen on what is happening on the global stage, yet without the opportunity provided by the UK's Permanent Seat on the Security Council his role and influence would be virtually nil.
And I believe that this is the point - we have a responsibility to continue to play a role on the world stage, as a democratic nation holding out the example that different countries and peoples can live together in peace and co-operation. The UK, despite the problems and things we would like to change, is a living example of solidarity in a common cause, something that is all too rare in the world. We are hated by Al-Qaeda and its ilk precisely because we represent the world they don't want to see - free, liberal and pluralist, respecting the rights of all and willing to take a stand against injustice and oppression. We have made many mistakes in our history as a United Kingdom, but we have also been a shining light and a vessel for changing the world for the better. At a time when the world is confronted by threats, it is important that we continue to bear this responsibility and to struggle for those who cannot struggle for themselves.
Monday, November 05, 2007
Amazing Grace
I finally got round to watching Amazing Grace at the weekend, and I must admit I was incredibly moved by it.
Now, I'll hold my hands up and confess to being an idealist when it comes to politics. But what I saw in that film is what, to me, politics is all about. The vision to change the world, the dedication to overcome challenges and the commitment to doing what is right, even if it carries personal cost.
I get depressed when I hear the negativity that is felt towards politicians. At an event I was running last week, the audience (composed of very educated and motivated people) waxed lyrical about how all politicians are in it for themselves, concerned only with protecting their pensions rather than in making a difference to the world. When I disputed this assessment, I was greeted with looks of incredulity - how on earth could I be so naive as to think that there were any politicians in it for the greater good.
But I do believe that this is the motivating factor for involvement in politics, and I certainly know it is for me. For me, politics is a vocation. Now, I know that the religious terminology will grate for some readers, but I very much believe that there is a calling to politics. It is not just a job or a career with good pay and benefits, but rather is a chance to change the world to be a better place. Politicians are elected with different views of how they would like the world to be, and Parliament is where they are able to argue their views and put forward a direction for the country.
This type of vocational politics is one that can inspire the public and the next generation of activists. As a job, politics is not the ideal way to make money. It is intensive and demanding, and although the pay for MPs is very high, there are business jobs which are far better paying - just ask all those MPs who have moved on to be board members of big companies!
Politics is crucial to our lives - it impacts on everything that we do. I say this to groups when I am doing my outreach events, and at first many of them look at me as if I have two heads! However, when we discuss the impact that it has and the changes it can make, they change their views and get fired up at the possibilities that it presents.
William Wilberforce was a man who changed the world, even though the odds were stacked outrageously against him. He strived through years of failure, ridicule and personal attacks, and sacrificed his own personal ambition to the greater good of those who had no voice for themselves. This, to me, should be the mantra of all our elected representatives and indeed for our Party as a whole. Politics, and politicians, do matter - we need to make sure that the public is aware of this through the actions and motivations of those elected to represent them.
Thursday, November 01, 2007
The West Lothian Question
If we leave aside for one moment the incredibly petty hypocrisy of Cameron and the Tories in calling for English votes (Funny they weren't so keen on this when it was the UUP propping up a Conservative Government) they are trying to score political capital on a growing problem, and one which we as a Party ignore at our peril.
Devolution has created an environment in which growing sections of the English population feel that they are being treated like second class citizens, subsidising the rest of the UK. Now, these feelings are emotional ones which are not directly based on reality - in particular there seems to be a strange presumption in most English based media sources that everything in Scotland and Wales is paid for by 'English' taxes. I can confirm without a doubt that I and other Scots pay the same taxes!
However, there is a point to some of the resentment where it is felt that Scottish and Welsh MPs have a say over issues that they cannot actually effect in their own part of the UK. (Again, this raises hackles in Scotland and Wales - afterall we suffered from the Thatcher years without ever providing support for her.) This resentment, if unmet, stokes feelings which could inevitably lead to the break-up of the UK.
Of course this is something that suits the SNP, but increasingly it is also suiting the wishes of the Tories, who appear ever more keen to forget their Unionist beliefs. Cameron knows that the Tories would do better in Westminster without those troublesome Welsh and Scottish MPs causing trouble, and so is starting to appear willing to sacrifice the UK for power.
This is where the Labour Party needs to step into the argument and start proposing ways forward which listen to the legitimate concerns of England without throwing out the entire political structure. Devolution has been a success for Scotland and Wales - maybe it is time to examine devolution for England. Westminster must remain a Parliament for the entire UK, in which its Members can vote on every issue - anything else makes a mockery of the institution and brings about a inevitable slide to dissolution. However, the issue of devolving the areas which are devolved for Scotland and Wales should be examined in great detail.
A while ago on here there was a debate with one of my posts about possible ways forward, and we discussed options for keeping the UK Parliament as a way to respond to the issues such as defence and international relations which the four nations must deal with together, but with devolved bodies for each of the consituent nations which could examine specific issues in their national context. I think that this method would still run the risk of fuelling some of the fires of independence, but it would also provide a feeling of genuine interaction for the citizens of the UK.
The UK Parliament could continue to elect Members from each of the Constituent Nations, although reform of the voting system would be crucial to ensuring that the body was felt to be representative. Taxation could be dealt with as it is now, with money being distributed to the four nations to spend on their devolved areas as they saw fit. The UK Parliament would continue to represent the UK on an international stage, with the four national parliaments being able to find in their contributions through their national and UK representatives. With the UK Parliament dealing with issues which directly affected the four nations collectively, there would be no question of whether a Scot could be Prime Minister or Health Secretary.
The increased status of the national parliaments would also help to develop a stonger motivation for people entering politics to consider standing for them. Currently there is still a tendency in Scotland to view Westminster as where the power is - this has a strong effect on the quality of candidates choosing to stand as MSPs. However, a strong devolved Scottish Parliament and a specific UK Parliament would allow candidates to stand for the body which involves what they are most interested in - i.e. UK for foreign policy, Scotland for education and health.
The four nations, under this system, would remain strong contributing parts of the UK, although each would have the flexibility to respond to issues in ways that suited them. This would lead to differences in provision and different ideas being tried out - an additional aspect of the UK Parliament would therefore be to provide a means of ensuring that best practice was shared between the national parliaments. As citizens would still belong to the UK, there would be no impact on their international status, and they would continue to share the benefits that being a citizen of the UK provides.
I think that the environment of the UK is changing, and the desire for constitutional progress is going to continue. My ideas sketched out above are just initial thoughts and I am sure that there will be plenty that people will find wrong or disagreeable with them. However, I think that this is a vital time for the Party to debate the issue and provide leadership to the UK. I think that Cameron's intentions will lead is to the break-up of the UK, which would be a disaster for all of the consituent nations, and it is crucial that we can demonstrate that there are alternatives which can be both successful and fair.
I would love to hear what readers feel are the best ways forward.
Devolution has created an environment in which growing sections of the English population feel that they are being treated like second class citizens, subsidising the rest of the UK. Now, these feelings are emotional ones which are not directly based on reality - in particular there seems to be a strange presumption in most English based media sources that everything in Scotland and Wales is paid for by 'English' taxes. I can confirm without a doubt that I and other Scots pay the same taxes!
However, there is a point to some of the resentment where it is felt that Scottish and Welsh MPs have a say over issues that they cannot actually effect in their own part of the UK. (Again, this raises hackles in Scotland and Wales - afterall we suffered from the Thatcher years without ever providing support for her.) This resentment, if unmet, stokes feelings which could inevitably lead to the break-up of the UK.
Of course this is something that suits the SNP, but increasingly it is also suiting the wishes of the Tories, who appear ever more keen to forget their Unionist beliefs. Cameron knows that the Tories would do better in Westminster without those troublesome Welsh and Scottish MPs causing trouble, and so is starting to appear willing to sacrifice the UK for power.
This is where the Labour Party needs to step into the argument and start proposing ways forward which listen to the legitimate concerns of England without throwing out the entire political structure. Devolution has been a success for Scotland and Wales - maybe it is time to examine devolution for England. Westminster must remain a Parliament for the entire UK, in which its Members can vote on every issue - anything else makes a mockery of the institution and brings about a inevitable slide to dissolution. However, the issue of devolving the areas which are devolved for Scotland and Wales should be examined in great detail.
A while ago on here there was a debate with one of my posts about possible ways forward, and we discussed options for keeping the UK Parliament as a way to respond to the issues such as defence and international relations which the four nations must deal with together, but with devolved bodies for each of the consituent nations which could examine specific issues in their national context. I think that this method would still run the risk of fuelling some of the fires of independence, but it would also provide a feeling of genuine interaction for the citizens of the UK.
The UK Parliament could continue to elect Members from each of the Constituent Nations, although reform of the voting system would be crucial to ensuring that the body was felt to be representative. Taxation could be dealt with as it is now, with money being distributed to the four nations to spend on their devolved areas as they saw fit. The UK Parliament would continue to represent the UK on an international stage, with the four national parliaments being able to find in their contributions through their national and UK representatives. With the UK Parliament dealing with issues which directly affected the four nations collectively, there would be no question of whether a Scot could be Prime Minister or Health Secretary.
The increased status of the national parliaments would also help to develop a stonger motivation for people entering politics to consider standing for them. Currently there is still a tendency in Scotland to view Westminster as where the power is - this has a strong effect on the quality of candidates choosing to stand as MSPs. However, a strong devolved Scottish Parliament and a specific UK Parliament would allow candidates to stand for the body which involves what they are most interested in - i.e. UK for foreign policy, Scotland for education and health.
The four nations, under this system, would remain strong contributing parts of the UK, although each would have the flexibility to respond to issues in ways that suited them. This would lead to differences in provision and different ideas being tried out - an additional aspect of the UK Parliament would therefore be to provide a means of ensuring that best practice was shared between the national parliaments. As citizens would still belong to the UK, there would be no impact on their international status, and they would continue to share the benefits that being a citizen of the UK provides.
I think that the environment of the UK is changing, and the desire for constitutional progress is going to continue. My ideas sketched out above are just initial thoughts and I am sure that there will be plenty that people will find wrong or disagreeable with them. However, I think that this is a vital time for the Party to debate the issue and provide leadership to the UK. I think that Cameron's intentions will lead is to the break-up of the UK, which would be a disaster for all of the consituent nations, and it is crucial that we can demonstrate that there are alternatives which can be both successful and fair.
I would love to hear what readers feel are the best ways forward.
The devolution of race equality legislation
Was asked to produce a response to a debate that was held at the SNP Conference on racial equality (it was a fringe event organised by my work amongst others) and so I thought I would stick up my piece to let you see what you think of it.
Would transferring race equality powers from Westminster to the Scottish Parliament truly aid in the fight against racism and if so, what would we do differently?
Jamie Cooke
(writing in a personal capacity)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is no doubting that Scotland can be a different place to the rest of the UK. We proudly still possess our own legal and education systems, and of course a strongly performing football team! The election of a minority SNP Government whose stated desire is to lead Scotland to independence is a historic first for the country, even if public opinion appears to be against their aim, and the Government is promoting claims for greater Scottish freedom in regards to various powers.
In the context of this, it would be logical for the Scottish Government to push for the devolution of race equality powers to the Scottish Parliament. However, I believe that, whilst there is some merit to the idea, there are also dangers contained within which may prove negative in the wider fight for racial equality.
There is a fairly common perception in Scotland that we are more welcoming than our neighbours to the South. Racism is largely seen to be an English phenomenon, and we do not see it as a Scottish issue. The Attitudes to Discrimination research of 2003 found that 68% of respondents feel that Scotland should do all it can to eliminate discrimination in all its forms. Yet 53% felt that there is “a lot of discrimination” against ethnic minority groups, rising to 63% amongst younger respondents. These indicate that Scotland still has work to do.
Part of this work is due to the fact that the ethnic minority community in Scotland is very small, and largely contained in the West of Scotland. It is possible to live in significant parts of Scotland and not come into contact (or certainly very limited contact) with members of other ethnic communities. Racism in Scotland is in some ways a hidden issue, dwarfed by the historic problem of sectarianism. However it is a growing issue, fuelled in part by response to the dispersal of asylum seekers and the arrival of immigrants from Eastern Europe. (In total, police dealt with 1,022 racist incidents in Lothian and the Borders in the 12 months up to 1 April [2007] - double the amount recorded three years ago, a new report shows. The Scotsman 28/06/2007)
In light of this, would a devolved set-up make sense? Surely it would allow the issue to be explored from a Scottish point of view, with Scottish specific responses? For example, Scotland has attempted to pursue different approaches to immigration than the UK Government under both the current administration and their predecessors, even though it is a reserved issue. Furthermore, there is a feeling that Westminster is heavily influenced by the power of ‘Middle England’ whose interests are not often tied to the cause of racial equality.
However, I think that the devolution of the issue would not be constructive. The issues involved in racial equality are those of human rights, which are universal and not country specific. The implication that human rights vary from country to country by its very nature removes the universality of the rights, and can negate their importance. When we are at the stage of striving to implement the UN Declaration of 1951 across the globe, and to tighten up the EU’s frameworks for human rights, trying to set up Scotland specific guidelines or legislation would be counterproductive.
Furthermore, creating a Scotland specific body runs the very real risk of replicating work and creating needless tensions. Rather than creating new publicly funded bodies which compete with each other for headlines and funding, the best route forward is for the Scottish Government to continue to implement UK wide racial equality legislation within Scotland. With the newly established Equality and Human Rights Commission having a specific Scottish section, it is vital that best practice in Scotland is held up through this so that it can influence the rest of the UK.
If Scotland is finding innovative responses to the problems posed by striving for racial equality, then the cause of racial equality will be best served by these response being shared as widely as possible across Great Britain. Devolution of the issue would merely distract from the work that is being undertaken.
Would transferring race equality powers from Westminster to the Scottish Parliament truly aid in the fight against racism and if so, what would we do differently?
Jamie Cooke
(writing in a personal capacity)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is no doubting that Scotland can be a different place to the rest of the UK. We proudly still possess our own legal and education systems, and of course a strongly performing football team! The election of a minority SNP Government whose stated desire is to lead Scotland to independence is a historic first for the country, even if public opinion appears to be against their aim, and the Government is promoting claims for greater Scottish freedom in regards to various powers.
In the context of this, it would be logical for the Scottish Government to push for the devolution of race equality powers to the Scottish Parliament. However, I believe that, whilst there is some merit to the idea, there are also dangers contained within which may prove negative in the wider fight for racial equality.
There is a fairly common perception in Scotland that we are more welcoming than our neighbours to the South. Racism is largely seen to be an English phenomenon, and we do not see it as a Scottish issue. The Attitudes to Discrimination research of 2003 found that 68% of respondents feel that Scotland should do all it can to eliminate discrimination in all its forms. Yet 53% felt that there is “a lot of discrimination” against ethnic minority groups, rising to 63% amongst younger respondents. These indicate that Scotland still has work to do.
Part of this work is due to the fact that the ethnic minority community in Scotland is very small, and largely contained in the West of Scotland. It is possible to live in significant parts of Scotland and not come into contact (or certainly very limited contact) with members of other ethnic communities. Racism in Scotland is in some ways a hidden issue, dwarfed by the historic problem of sectarianism. However it is a growing issue, fuelled in part by response to the dispersal of asylum seekers and the arrival of immigrants from Eastern Europe. (In total, police dealt with 1,022 racist incidents in Lothian and the Borders in the 12 months up to 1 April [2007] - double the amount recorded three years ago, a new report shows. The Scotsman 28/06/2007)
In light of this, would a devolved set-up make sense? Surely it would allow the issue to be explored from a Scottish point of view, with Scottish specific responses? For example, Scotland has attempted to pursue different approaches to immigration than the UK Government under both the current administration and their predecessors, even though it is a reserved issue. Furthermore, there is a feeling that Westminster is heavily influenced by the power of ‘Middle England’ whose interests are not often tied to the cause of racial equality.
However, I think that the devolution of the issue would not be constructive. The issues involved in racial equality are those of human rights, which are universal and not country specific. The implication that human rights vary from country to country by its very nature removes the universality of the rights, and can negate their importance. When we are at the stage of striving to implement the UN Declaration of 1951 across the globe, and to tighten up the EU’s frameworks for human rights, trying to set up Scotland specific guidelines or legislation would be counterproductive.
Furthermore, creating a Scotland specific body runs the very real risk of replicating work and creating needless tensions. Rather than creating new publicly funded bodies which compete with each other for headlines and funding, the best route forward is for the Scottish Government to continue to implement UK wide racial equality legislation within Scotland. With the newly established Equality and Human Rights Commission having a specific Scottish section, it is vital that best practice in Scotland is held up through this so that it can influence the rest of the UK.
If Scotland is finding innovative responses to the problems posed by striving for racial equality, then the cause of racial equality will be best served by these response being shared as widely as possible across Great Britain. Devolution of the issue would merely distract from the work that is being undertaken.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)