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.