The Big Conversation-Justice

The Budget of the Glorious Coalition shall be announced today, and rumour has it that Osborne (henceforth known as the Boy Wonder) has scheduled up to 1 million fewer public service jobs over the next five years. This will not result in 1 million jobs losses (retiring public service workers not being replaced etc) but even taking ‘natural loss’ into account this is still hundreds of thousands more able workers swelling the ranks of the unemployed. Not only is this a further burden on an already stretched welfare state, it is almost inhuman to force hardworking men and women out of work when there is no need to do so: that is correct Boy Wonder, the deficit can be slashed, and society improved without punishing public service workers. The fact the Chancellery does not use alternative means is either evidence of Danny Alexander and the Boy Wonder’s collective stupidity, or their piggish ideological hang-ups. This leads me on quite nicely to the next in my series of posts on where I would allow the axe to fall if I were Chancellor.

Phil Wheatley, the ex-director general of the National Offender Management Service, has come out in support of axing prison sentences that are shorter than 6 months. His comments have the endorsement of the Prison Governors’ Association, the National Association of Probation Officers (Napo), and the Howard League for Penal Reform. Sentences of six months or less cost the Justice Department £350 million a year, and research (by Napo I believe) has shown that 74% of these short-term convicts will reoffend. Now there is a place for such short-term sentences, but in the vast majority of cases they should be replaced by community service and fines. This would cut reoffending to 34%, save £300 million a year (not including the indirect savings of reduced crime rate), and solve the over-crowding in our prisons all in one stroke. Another great saving by the Marquis-now if only someone would listen to me...

Rage Against the Dying of the Light

My internet connection has been down, and so I have not posted for a little longer than I really intended: for this I apologies. This will be a quick post (not related to my series on cuts-hopefully a new post on Friday) about something which came up when I was watching Monarchy with David Starkey. In 1604 King James the VI of Scots and I of England made a speech before the English Parliament outlining his belief on why the nation of his birth and his adopted home (he would visit Scotland only once after 1603) should be joined in political union: a shared language, culture, customs, religion and linked geographical border all meant that the continual independence of his northern kingdom was an anomaly left over from the age of Bruce-at least in the eyes of the ‘wisest fool’.

Obviously James failed to create a British union during his reign, but the same arguments heard in the English Parliament in the 1600s and in the Scottish Parliament in the 1700s are being reiterated by the forces of unionism today. Now I first joined the nationalist cause because I saw it as the only method by which an independent Scottish identity could be salvaged from the hell of tartan tat; for the same reasons as James VI a Westminster government would never more than make a show of protecting the ancient identity of the northern kingdom. However, the light came upon me watching Starkey talking about the politics of the Jacobean regime-the same reason that drove me toward nationalism (namely the slow death of the national identity) is driving many of my fellow Scots toward the cold embrace of British ideologues. Sadly our national character has degraded to the point where only those who spend their lives surrounded by the memories of the dying culture of my people can form enough energy to raise a hand in defence of old Alba, and this is something I think the nationalist movement needs to rectify. Not only will the Renaissance of the Gaels be a brilliant epoch in our history in its own right, it shall inspire the Scottish people to rise up and defend our ancient identity from lethargy. Once this occurs the march to independence will be assured.

I believe we should practice what we preach. As such I intend to work away at learning Gaelic and promoting Scottish culture and customs. I shall report throughout the year on how I am progressing, and encourage all my nationalist companions to attempt to ‘Gaelify’ their own lives in their own way.

The Big Conversation-Last of the Raj

The Cameron/Clegg team have decided that there should be a national conversation on where the cuts (and, we assume, the taxes) will fall. In that spirit I intend to publish a series of posts contributing to that national conversation. Here is instalment one-entitled ‘Last of the Raj’.

With the advent of the Scottish Parliament the Scottish Office was left with very little to do, and now with the new Coalition committed to devolving more powers to the said parliament, the Office is in danger of becoming devoid of all purpose. And yet this particular arm of the government continues to leech £7.2 million (as of June 2009: http://news.scotsman.com/politics/Costs-at-Scotland-Office-39out.5386463.jp) from the taxpayer. I say the Scottish Security should be removed, and all powers reserved for the Scottish Office be devolved to the Scottish Government. A fairly easy saving which harms no-one but Michael Moore and David Mundell.

Of course the Welsh Office and NI Office should follow on the heels of the Scottish Office: give more powers to the regions and cut back on the costs of these last vestiges of colonialism. This would empower the local executive, as well as save millions.

For What Do We Fight?

The SNP has failed. Unionism is not a credible ideological force, and yet nationalism has not achieved the dream of an independent nation. Whereas the national cause is championed by the one party, Unionism has no clear rallying point, no field marshal on whom to rely to direct the grand campaign. Like the Napoleonic armies in the Iberian peninsula, the parties of Union are divided between many generals who are more interested in political point-scoring than any real concerted effort to eradicate the ‘nationalist menace’. Yet the Union flag still flies above Edinburgh Castle: Where is the SNP’s Vitoria?

Unlike Wellington, the party has failed to use the divisions in the enemies ranks to its advantage. The reason behind our woeful lack of success in the field is simple: the nationalist cause is as divided as that of the Union. Some in the national party support the Conservatives in all but one regard: the Scotland question. Others have ideological sympathies with the Liberals, and yet more find affinity within the trade unions or the Greens. The leadership is as divided as the rank and file, and even if this were not the case an SNP leader would never dare set clear ideological policy for the party for fear of watching Scotland’s best hope split asunder. And so the SNP continue to mount charge after futile charge against Unionist cannon, creating an Austerlitz where we could have a Waterloo.

Students of history, I ask you to think back to any and all successful independence movements or revolutionary ideologues (for what is nationalism but a revolution against the British constitutional make-up?) What do they all share? What binds them together? Clear ideological opposition to the ancient regime. The American Revolutionaries had no cultural identity with which to unite dissident, and yet they achieved the unimaginable and drove the most powerful nation on earth from one of her primary colonies. This did not happen through British bad luck alone, but instead it was combined with a clearly defined alternative to Hanoverian rule laid down in the Declaration of Independence. The Covenanting Revolutionaries defeated Anglo-royalist forces by uniting the opinionated Presbyterians behind the National Covenant. The Irish nationalists had their Catholic faith and cultural identity. Even the medieval Scots had their Declaration of Arbroath. The clear pattern is that nationalism only becomes a successful political force once it has a clear ideological alternative to Unionism.

Many of my readers will no doubt object to my proposal: surely this move can only lead to the split in the nationalist vote? Well we have two options, dear reader: carry on as we are, muddling along until the end of time; or we can risk the split in the SNP-and achieve the dream of sending Murphy to his very own Elba!

Israel and the Double Standard

Israel has recently committed a new transgression against the international community by attacking a civilian boat in international waters. The boat was full of protesters intent in braking the siege on Gaza, and so was fair game in the minds of the Israeli Defence Force (IDF). More information can be found at http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/2010/may/31/israel-troops-gaza-ships

At the moment Israel is only allowing its version of events to be heard (journalists having been blocked from achieving full access to the injured protesters), but even if the IDF prove to be entirely within their rights on this matter (that would be a first) the international reaction highlights a double standard in relations. Imagine that it had been Iran, or Hamas, or Saudi Arabia, or Cuba, or Russia, or any other country that you care to think about had performed the same action that the IDF has recently pulled off. What would be the international reaction? Almost certain condemnation followed by swift diplomatic action and perhaps even sanctions. However, when Israel attacks civilians in international waters the Obama administration is ‘working to understand the circumstances surrounding the tragedy’. Similarly weak and non-offensive remarks can be heard in most Western Foreign Offices. Even although 9 people have been killed by an aggressive military not in its own waters the governments of ‘the West’ are paralysed with an indecision which they simply do not show to any other nation on earth-or at least not to the same level. Are victims of Israeli bullets any less dead? Are Israeli wars any less illegal (this is illegal by Israeli as well as international law)? Of course not. European and American governments must end the double standards: once Israel is treated like any other nation a proper peace process can begin.