A Big Beast Too Far

There's something that has never really made sense regarding Tony Blair's para-campaign to be the President of the Council because surely Tony Blair knows that people like Tony Blair do not get appointed to European chairmanships. These chairmanships are technocratic in nature and this new role of the President of the Council demands a technocrat, surely. That, of course, does not preclude heads or former heads of government but it equally does certainly preclude high-profile international figures, and especially high-profile controversial figures.

The media seem to have got themselves into a terrible miscommunication and misunderstanding in their reporting of the role of the President of the Council. The role is to replace the current rotating Council Presidency, which switches every six-months between the member governments, and thereby create a chairman of the Council. Such a chairman would have no particular influence over the Commission other than in his capacity to engage in inter-institutional dialogue, similarly with the Parliament. And yet, if one were to read some of the media reports one would think the role demands an Obama be found from somewhere within the 600 million population of Europe. That is not the case.

I also found Miliband's concept of the Council President as breathtakingly naive. The very last thing European member governments want is someone who stops traffic. The member governments want someone who can chair their meetings, for their meetings is where it is at when we look at Europe (Independence in Europe, anyone?), and they want someone who can effectively communicate agreed positions to Europe's other institutions and to the US, Asia, and International Organisations. In other words, Europe does not want someone in which the message will be lost in the speaker.

Perhaps, even more strange than Miliband's version of the role of the President, is his rather little-Brit style in which he posits his support for Blair as some nationalistic exercise, that, because Blair is British then support should be forthcoming. A sort of Team GB for Europe, even if arms have to be twisted to make it reality, a reality it should be, and any questioning would be unpatriotic.

Moreover, the Tories adopting their typical insularity is as absurd as Labour. We know for a fact that Merkel and Sarkozy look upon the actions of Cameron with some misgiving. The Tories' twisting and shaking in the wind of Lisbon is very strange. Those in the Conservative party who have some difficulties with the idea of Europe impinging upon the laws and social life of their Great Britain have sort of missed the boat. Maastricht was the 'Treaty too far' in Thatcher's words and Lisbon is nothing compared to what was signed up to in Maastricht.

I'm pro-Europe and would like nothing more than an independent Scotland in a democratic confederation of Europe. Tony Blair will not be the President of the Council because the role really requires a chairman and the smart money will be on Juncker, in my opinion. Tony Blair is a Big Beast too far, thankfully.

Undergraduate Scribblings

It was the storm that failed to materialise and, aside from the protesters outside the various BBC buildings, all that will be really remembered from the night is the lack of substance of Griffin. It is, and remains, a widely held belief that no right-thinking person should share a platform with someone such as Griffin, and it is a view held particularly strongly by those on the left, and I have some great sympathy with that view. George Galloway recently spoke, however, of his change of belief, and that he would now share a platform with people such as Griffin in order to argue against their beliefs. And, from the evidence of last night, I would advocate and support that new stance because there was a danger that, rather than an appearance on the BBC increasing support for Griffin, a continued veiled menacing silence would allow others to fill in their own prejudices into that silence, creating a slow drift in the minority toward his and his party's ilk.

By having Griffin, an elected representative, on air to share his views and beliefs has evaporated that menace and reveals in broad daylight a bunch of cobbled-together nonsense, probably the result of undergraduate scribblings in lecture halls, barely understood then, and made to fit his view of the facts now. I had hoped, however, that it wouldn't have turned into a baiting arena which it certainly came close to, and I had hoped the tone of derision would have been less scornful because, as I have said, people such as Griffin thrive on being taken seriously, and take that away from them and they're left clutching onto nothing but those undergraduate scribblings.

A Mirthful Spectacle?

I'm afraid, as usual, I'll be tuning tonight into Question Time. I have great sympathy for the view that we should exclude people such as Griffin from such mainstream shows. The arguments for such a belief are cogent and coherent. Yet, I tend to take the opposite view that, such a party has gained representation, it does have a level of support, and so the best way to marginalise such parties are to engage them with argument because, as will become apparent tonight, I'm sure, their beliefs are based on a flimsy, cobbled together philosophy that have always been baseless and empty and useless and this current machination of such ideas are as hollow as those who held them before Griffin.

The one thing that such a party thrives upon is to be taken seriously, though, because they need it, and so they will take tonight as a victory, as a challenge to the mainstream, and as a sign of another small step toward their dystopia (for it is a dystopia to them also, because they believe in conflict and violence). Therefore, I do hope that their big night becomes a mirthful spectacle. I hope Dimbleby takes his designer glasses into his hand, smiling benignly, and looks around at the other guests, who are also smiling benignly, mockingly almost. You don't defeat such people by taking them seriously, you defeat them by laughing at their cobbled-together ideas, their fast-forward cassette-tape rhetoric.

These guys are the school-bullys of the political world; there aren't many of them, most of us will be fortunate never having to meet them, but they linger around on the edges, looking for weakness and playing the occasional game for their own self-satisfaction. Tonight is just such a game, and we should treat them in the manner befitting.

Hurry Up Please it's Time

I, like most folks, thoroughly enjoyed both Question Time and Have I Got News for You this week, finding that one has become as much the other, as one another. It's difficult to distinguish between the comedy and the serious scheduling, which tells us as much as we need to know about Westminster, almost as much as we have ever need to have known. Similarly, like most people, I found my laughter particularly reserved for that chap Sheen, who claims that all us simple plebs are jealous; after all, what right have we to interfere with Sheen's right to spend our money, yes, yes, what? What right, he asks. Interestingly the articulation of his 'high-class, low-functioning, but highly-bred line of reasoning seemed to sound remarkably like the sounds of the final nails in the coffin of the pretence that is Westminster. His hollow little meanderings were the secret farewell of all honourable gentlewomen/men, all constructions of authority were drowned out by his clear received pronouncings ...

HURRY UP PLEASE IT'S TIME

The fact that Sheen managed to strike a comic note is much to his credit, indeed. And, I think, that I like most people naturally responded to his little simplicities with the equally simple response that, despite the limited successes and frequent failings, I have remained honest and truthful and, as such, would never think of swapping my position for his, no matter what his Balmoral-like little house and unmanaged little bit of land. No, I can look myself in the eye. I wonder of Sheen and his ilk can do the same and, you know, I have full belief that they can still ...

HURRY UP PLEASE IT'S TIME
HURRY UP PLEASE IT'S TIME

And, the feeling I get toward Sheen and his attitude seems to chime with the feeling I get whenever some unionist chappie or other starts asking for deference. The underlying impression I get with Sheen, and linked into his line of unionist thought, is that I am being asked to kneel when I have known all my life that one must stand, and stand on one's own two feet. It's just a feeling, but it's there, and it always will be there.

Brown Belongs to Hardy

Kickin' back with an afternoon of chess and '60s music is not a bad way to spend a short holiday afternoon and I've just found out we are absolutely going to get a by-election in Glasgow so happy times for now and ahead. It got me thinking, though, about the prospects of an early general election and, though I believe morally there should be a general election, I'm well aware of Brown's reasoning for hanging on, hoping with some hope that his numbers can pick up again, somehow. And why not? Brown has lived his entire essence to be Prime Minister for so darn long that no one cannot expect him to simply hand it over, and, you know, whisper it, in some small way, I do pity the guy, it has all went so horribly wrong. For Brown to call, voluntarily, for an early general election is the political equivalent of Henchard, in The Mayor of Casterbridge, walking off into the distance. Brown described himself as Heathcliff, but Brown belongs to Hardy, only Hardy could write a Gordon Brown.

Thus, an early general election will only come about if Brown is deposed after a terrible Euro-election and English locals. Reading between the lines I do think Alan Johnson is being lined up even though it would be a very difficult process to get rid of Brown, but from what I've seen and heard, I think Johnson could be looking at a move. To be honest, if Johnson were to take-over after a disastrous elections then I think some of the anger directed toward Labour would dissipate just a little, giving Johnson some time to get Labour together for the early election he would be bound to call. Johnson is comfortable with people in a way Brown can only envy, he comes across well on the telly and radio, and he seems like a decent enough sort of chap. He could setady the ship, and I think there are more than a few in Labour who know the ship is sinking, and a steadying of that sinking ship would give them just enought time to save their own careers......

But, then again, it's highly likely not a single soul at the top of Labour wants to touch the leadership with a long pole, preferring to let Brown lead them over-the-top in a year's time, allowing a few to scrap over what remains.I can't, though, envision any other possibility for an early general election. It's clear people are crying out for one, and I think the people deserve one after what we have learned of Westminster goings-on. If Labour get a sufficient enough beating in early June, then we might just, just get one. So just as we know what to do to try and get a victory for the people in Glasgow, people across Scotland and England need to know what to do to get a general election. Check? Check-mate?

Where are the Gentlemen?

I wonder when the time finally and longingly comes for Brown to be forced to call a general election whether we will once again be subjected to the taunts and abuses of the Labour MPs; flinging trials and arrows in the face of the idea of a Scotland that is something other than Labour in Scotland's clientelistic self-image. Are we to be asked once more to accept as truth their fantasy figures of blackholes here, there, a Scottish basket-case, or are such predictions nothing more than subtle prodding reminders of the wonderfulness of the British state structures? Such proclamations of MacChatter, parochialism, and an inward-looking Scotland doomed to the periphery of everything except the British Labour party? I can only presume they'll go a bit gentler this time round.



The expenses scandals have shown us something more than the simple exchange of some votes for the cleaning of some moats. It has revealed the whole constructed exercise in delusion that is the House of Commons. Watch it all, as the next speaker gets dragged to the chair, although this time round perhaps with some less of the constructed smiles, nothing more than delusion. Westminster Palace is a Victorian facade masking a crumbling and neglected foundation. The Mother of Parliaments is a delusion, willed into existence. It is at best the teenager of Parliaments, once assured and outward-looking, but has found the world has changed and has refused to change with it, sitting where it had always sat, in rueful malignancy. Brown described it as a 'gentleman's club' and perhaps one could add, 'but where are the gentlemen?'



This is why Labour will go a bit easier with their insults directed at Scotland. No more a basket-case because the foundations on which they once rested with some self-righteous assurance have shown to be deficient. No more accusations of parochialism because the 'gentleman's club honour' has been shown to be at best a second-rate university's debating chamber. No more conjuring of apocalyptical images of the outside world beyond Westminster control because Westminster itself is nothing more than a third-rate institution in comparison. Finally, Labour might find the real world and, just like Westminster, will find the real world no longer matches their archaic and faintly embarassing conduct.

Catching a Waterfall

I remember glancing just quickly at the Sun's front page on the day of the 07 election and thought for a split second they came out in support of the SNP and then I realised what the picture really was. There is no better example of the way in which the media over-estimate, as you say, their perceived ability to influence things. Such blatant bias can go on only for so long, until people just shrug it off. I quite liked one journo's description of the impossibility of Martin's task trying to handle this expenses scandal as something akin to 'catching a waterfall in a bucket'. The same could perhaps be said for independence. Labour and the Tories may have a very big bucket but, nevertheless, sooner or later, they'll find it does them no good. My advice would for them is to instead go and build a sandcastle, and call it Westminster Renewed. Anyway, onwards and upwards, to something at least a little better than Westminster nonsense of politics.

Ten Years Later

Ten remarkable years behind us and I find it all seems so very much still ahead of us. The idea of 'new politics' was a non-starter, but, big deal, that was all just Labour talk, anyhow. 'Scottish solutions to Scottish problems', more Labour talk: just ask about Scottish solutions to the recession, and watch those little pretendy red rosettes spin in the air as those earnest wee Labour types turn their heels and flee. I like the idea of a pretendy parliament: it's good to talk.It got me a-wondering what other countries this model of union these Labour types advocate as '-ish solutions to -ish problems'. Perhaps these red rosettes would like to travel to Portugal and lecture the Portuguese people about their terrible affliction of independence: devolution, that's what the Portuguese need. In fact, let us all start a fund to send these red rosettes all across Europe on a lecture tour to advocate devolution for all. Lets see how far they'd get. I would suggest thoroughly short shrift would be the order of the day for the most part. And then, back they would come thoroughly dejected, and start lecturing people in Scotland again about the terribleness of independence.



Short shrift; red rosettes, Tories, managed democracy, devolution, ten years. And wars, and WMD, and lies and lectures, and now Westminster grubbing expenses (at least there's some nice bookcases on which to rest the WLQ). I bet you're wondering what all this is called, all this nonsense, for nonsense it is. It is anomie, and there's no getting away from it, it was ushered in by Labour, and Labour will see it out, see it out to the very end.

We Can all Agree Over a Drink?

After the intrigues of politics in Dundee some consensus may well be light relief. Yet, consensus doesn't necessarily bring about good politics or good policy but, for now, it sounds quite nice and, for that, I'll settle.Holyrood was ushered in with much fanfare that this would be part of a new politics. New politics seemed to centre around the idea that adversarial politics was the old, bad stuff, and so consensus was the new way forward. Even the shape and arrangement of the debating chamber was meant to indicate a move away from the face-off of the green benches at Westminster. But, it was never to be, simply because it was an attempt to manufacture consensus. Interestingly, the fact that so many of the leading figures of Holyrood of the time cut their teeth at Westminster meant that the infamous Westminster style was carried over into the chamber. Many felt that the failure of new politics was a failure of the process but, should we not have just realised at the time that it is the very lack of consensus that makes politics interesting.

There were a few questions that, I think, went unanswered: firstly, what is the point of politics without a competitive element, without the realisation that people disagree. In fact, disagreement and competition in politics is arguably the only way things can ever get better. Dundee would be a prime example; the other parties sought to unite around their commitment to unionism and tried to manufacture a consensus. A consensus that suited the maintenance of the Labour status quo. So, secondly, when the government, or administration, of the day talk about the importance of consensus, are they really not just talking about the importance that their position should not be opposed, and that such a position should not be open to question?

It's not to say consensus doesn't naturally break out as it seems to have done with the Labour and SNP on this occasion. But, doesn't manufactured consensus not serve only to stifle democracy. Arguably, the Iraq War was built upon consensual politics, with the Tories in support and the media indulging themselves in a so-called 'Baghdad Bounce'.

George Robertson thought devolution would kill the independence movement 'stone dead' as he put it. I just wonder if Labour's plan was to engrave the stone with the word 'consensus'. It's interesting, finally, that Murphy says that his role is to empahasise the importance of consensus in, his words, 'petty' Scottish politics. Perhaps, flying off to China before Salmond could is a demonstration of this consensual approach (he really rose above 'petty politics' with that little escapade, no kidding!).But, then again, it is arguably at Westminster where the greatest consensus has broken out. Tories are Labour, Labour are Tories, and expenses claims are filed alongside one another in perfect harmony. Perhaps manufactured adversariness is more damaging than manufactured consensus ... I wonder ...

Pound Note Nationalism

I've always found the Pound Note Nationalism a fascinating aspect of UK debate. I think it must be because I have real difficulty having an attachment to these little coins, and notes, with the face of the monarch stamped upon them.

The Tories famously tried to save the pound from that crafty lot in Brussels and people shrugged their shoulders. UKIP use the Pound sign as part of their acronym. Neither of the campaigns particularly caught the imagination of anyone other than those who miss those 'pink bits' on the map. George Foulkes waved a Scottish Note during FMQ's to waves of laughter and pointing, as he tried to accuse Salmond of being the de'il behind moves to scrap the Scottish notes by aspiring to join the Euro. So who is it who wants to save the Pound and why?

Nairn wrote that the UK has never really cohered logically, but relied on other types of glue to bind the polity: a superiority complex forged from memories of Empire, and a concomitant, strong elite culture. There is a strange self-referential authority that many from Westminster claim in their debates about the future of the UK polity, falling into the trap that the state is somehow neutral, failing to understand the point of view that this may be the very worst way to organise things. Part of this is due to a self-interest, but it's also to do with the same idea held by those that wave around the Pound, that this is not merely a currency but an important symbol of something of Britishness. And the fear of its loss has as much to do with the end of claims to this self-referential authority, as it has to do with the symbolism, thereby revealing how important such symbols are to the British polity, and how fragile, and ultimately empty, the worth of these symbols.

Obama's Optimism

There is much to be said for optimism and a belief that something is good and worth working toward. An optimist can create the situation for aspiration, while the pessimist can create only create the situation for an absence of aspiration. This is why nearly everyone in the world is looking to Obama because, in the aftermath of the failed and pessimistic world-view of the neo-conservative clique of the previous 8 years in America, there is the prospect for aspiration. An aspiration to something better than the fear, conflict, and base rhetoric. Obama has created the conditions for an aspiration to dialogue, a move to peace, and a recognition of interdependence.

Closer to home in Scotland, Labour continues with its aggressive rhetoric of unionism by championing fear and continues to play on people's uncertainty to justify their war and their failures to manage the UK eocnomy. Scotland can look to Obama for aspiration and also look toward independence as a way to aspire to the modern ideals of democracy, interdependence, and peace. Perhaps, if Scotland can aspire to something better than Labour's basic unionism then Obama could be inviting a Scottish Prime Minister for coffee and muffins at the White House. Now, that's something to aspire to.

An Unpartisan Partisan Point

It was interesting to read that the Scottish parliament have adopted a position on the Gaza conflict and I am glad that Salmond has sent a letter articulating people in Scotland's concerns. I remember when the Parliament debated the Iraq invasion and, though I can't remember the outcome, this aspect of para-diplomacy by the Scottish Government makes for fascinating observation. Foreign policy being reserved and so beyond Scotland's remit, I suppose we could count Labour's establishment of relations with Malawi in this category, and the subsequent SNP position of broadening relations with other countries.
Without wishing to make a partisan point on this issue, I always find it worthy of comment when Labour in Holyrood make worthy, or otherwise, claims about various world positions, over which Scotland has no remit, and over which they, as members of the Labour party, should restrict themselves from becoming part of the limited Scottish political dialogue. That's not to say Labour politicians should not have opinions about world events but the logical position for them would be to defer to Westminster competence in terms of a foreign policy dialectic.

I think this reveals an interesting feature of the debate about Scotland's constitution. Personally, I believe in an independent Scotland because, following the basic tenet of institutionalism, 'institutions matter'. I tend to think this is the underlying rationale to the movement for independence and boils down to a belief that a) Westminster is not the best institution with which to create a good politics in Scotland and, b) in an age with a better understanding of democracy, Scotland should democratise fully. Thus, to get a good politics, good relations with all our neighbours, become a part of Europe, and the rest of the world, then Scotland must institutionalise itself, which is, become independent. This is in contrast to the Labour position in which the political position we find ourselves is in is the political position we find ourselves in and we should work only within that position. Alas, to make a partisan point, this has a lot to do with party politics ie. getting more seats than that lot, next time.

Nevertheless, it's an interesting contrast.