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.