The weeks since my previous post here have been my most relaxed and productive for some time. Blogging and maintaining the discussion threads were leaving me with too little time for family and work. The emailed abuse and threats (now much reduced) were affecting my overall wellbeing.
If my retirement creates any kind of gap, others will fill it. Thanks for reading. All the very best.
17 October 2009
29 August 2009
David Kerr, Friday 21 August:
“I don’t believe that Al Megrahi should have been released. He was convicted of murdering 270 people so I believe justice would have been best served if he had remained in the care of the Scottish Prison Service.”David Kerr, Tuesday 25 August:
“The Justice Secretary took the right decision, and above all he took it for the right reasons.”
27 August 2009
Kenny MacAskill:
“Our beliefs dictate that justice be served, but mercy be shown. Compassion and mercy are about upholding the beliefs that we seek to live by, remaining true to our values as a people.”Angus Robertson:
“It is plain to most right thinking people that Kenny MacAskill made the right decision...”YouGov Scottish poll:
“From what you know do you think releasing Abdelbasset al-Megrahi was the right or wrong decision to make?” The right decision 43%, The wrong decision 51%, Don’t know 6%.ICM Scottish poll:
“From what you yourself have seen and heard do you think the Scottish government was right or wrong to release Mr Al-Megrahi?” Right 32%, Wrong 60%, Refused/Don’t know 7%.
25 August 2009
Kenny MacAskill said in his 20 August statement that he decided to release the Lockerbie bomber on the basis of “the law of Scotland and on the values that I believe we seek to uphold.”
In yesterday’s statement MacAskill was even clearer, saying that “it was not only the law and guidance in Scotland that were important but the values of Scotland.” He further acknowledged that the compassionate release was based on “my interpretation of the values of Scotland.”
James Bowman, writing yesterday on the New Criterion blog, hit the nail squarely on the head:
MacAskill’s claim to have acted “according to the laws and values of the Government and people of Scotland” conflates the views of the SNP Executive and the country — another nationalist trait.
“Our beliefs,” he says of all Scots, “dictate that justice be served, but mercy be shown.” And so on: “the values of the people of Scotland”, “the faith and beliefs by which we seek to live”, “our values as a people”, indeed even “our people”. Nationalism again. We’re different. We’re better.
MacAskill’s statement ticked several other overtly nationalist boxes: notably his reference to the “restoration” of a Scottish Parliament (redolent of the use of “reconvened” in 1999) and the negative connotation of the word “restricted” in a reference to the Scottish Government’s remit.
I have no reason to doubt that MacAskill thinks he did the right thing. He genuinely seems to believe that our values [sic] place a higher priority on showing compassion to Megrahi and his family than to the many bereaved families whose legal closure has now evaporated. But whether or not MacAskill is sufficiently self-aware to realise it, his nationalism underpinned his decision.
In yesterday’s statement MacAskill was even clearer, saying that “it was not only the law and guidance in Scotland that were important but the values of Scotland.” He further acknowledged that the compassionate release was based on “my interpretation of the values of Scotland.”
James Bowman, writing yesterday on the New Criterion blog, hit the nail squarely on the head:
“Compassion is a virtue, but it is a private, a face-to-face virtue which almost invariably ceases to be one when it takes on a public dimension. An act of compassion by a government, in the full glare of publicity, is not a virtue but a bid to be given credit for moral superiority.”Kenny MacAskill is a nationalist. He thinks that humanity is “a defining characteristic of Scotland and the Scottish people”, the implication being that other nations embody less humanity. That’s moral nationalism, the notion that the people of one’s own nation are morally superior to others.
MacAskill’s claim to have acted “according to the laws and values of the Government and people of Scotland” conflates the views of the SNP Executive and the country — another nationalist trait.
“Our beliefs,” he says of all Scots, “dictate that justice be served, but mercy be shown.” And so on: “the values of the people of Scotland”, “the faith and beliefs by which we seek to live”, “our values as a people”, indeed even “our people”. Nationalism again. We’re different. We’re better.
MacAskill’s statement ticked several other overtly nationalist boxes: notably his reference to the “restoration” of a Scottish Parliament (redolent of the use of “reconvened” in 1999) and the negative connotation of the word “restricted” in a reference to the Scottish Government’s remit.
I have no reason to doubt that MacAskill thinks he did the right thing. He genuinely seems to believe that our values [sic] place a higher priority on showing compassion to Megrahi and his family than to the many bereaved families whose legal closure has now evaporated. But whether or not MacAskill is sufficiently self-aware to realise it, his nationalism underpinned his decision.
16 August 2009
Possibly my least topical post ever, but that’s beside the point. Compare and contrast:
Guardian: “Braveheart gave full rein to a toxic Anglophobia”
American Spectator: “an anti-English diatribe from its opening”
Independent: “has been linked to a rise in anti-English prejudice”
Economist: “xenophobic and historically preposterous”
Guardian: “seemingly intended as a piece of anti-English propaganda”
Sunday Times: “The political effects are truly pernicious. It’s a xenophobic film.”
Alex Salmond: “That film had a profound effect. Things politically were already on the move, but it certainly accelerated change. There aren’t many films which are truly important, but this is one.”
Hat-tip: Tom Gallagher.
Guardian: “Braveheart gave full rein to a toxic Anglophobia”
American Spectator: “an anti-English diatribe from its opening”
Independent: “has been linked to a rise in anti-English prejudice”
Economist: “xenophobic and historically preposterous”
Guardian: “seemingly intended as a piece of anti-English propaganda”
Sunday Times: “The political effects are truly pernicious. It’s a xenophobic film.”
Alex Salmond: “That film had a profound effect. Things politically were already on the move, but it certainly accelerated change. There aren’t many films which are truly important, but this is one.”
Hat-tip: Tom Gallagher.
12 August 2009
Chinese writer and social critic Yu Jie once wrote: “Promoting nationalism requires an 'enemy' to be identified.” Prof Ainslie Embree has similarly observed: “Perhaps every nationalism needs an enemy.” For Scottish nationalism, England has traditionally filled that particular purpose.
The 1320 Declaration of Arbroath defined Scottish independence as the absence of “English rule”. Olive Checkland wrote of 19th Century Scotland that “inevitably Scottish nationalism assumed an anti-English aspect,” explaining one important aspect of nationalism as “an assertion of difference from a dominant people”. George Orwell observed in 1945 that Celtic nationalisms “are alike in their anti-English orientation”. And more recently, Dietmar Böhnke wrote of Scots nationalism being strengthened by “the image of the Scottish nation fighting as one man against bad odds and opposing an external enemy, which are the English ‘colonisers’, the ‘Auld Enemy’”.
It is from the perception of the English as “a dominant people” that anti-Englishness arises. There is no anti-Welsh or anti-Ulster element within Scots nationalism. Only the English, for reasons of population, culture and/or attitude, are thought of as colonisers or an ‘enemy’.
But is anti-Englishness now largely a historical artefact? Has modern nationalism outgrown the “England expects...” rhetoric of the 1970s, which in attributing viciously anti-Scottish and exploitative motives to the English ‘other’ betrayed its own underlying prejudices and motives?
Yes and no. It is the case that, in Alex Salmond’s words, the SNP took a “conscious decision” to “project” independence in an “inclusive way”. A notable milestone in that regard was his plea in a 1998 conference speech for party members no longer to “blame the English”. Another significant moment was Winnie Ewing’s attempt, at the 2003 Bannockburn rally, to effect a paradigm shift. Actually, she told the party faithful, “the enemies of Scotland are not the English”. In the new, civic SNP the unionist parties were to be the “traitors” and the target for nationalistic enmity.
Yet even amongst senior nationalists, the attempts to purge the public anti-Englishness which has sullied the SNP’s reputation haven’t always been effective. Former SNP leader Gordon Wilson claimed in 2003 that Britain is a “state run by England for the benefit of England,” and SNP veteran Ian Hamilton declared only last year that “Scotland has suffered under English government”.
So anti-Englishness is very much alive and kicking. Prof Miller’s and Dr Hussain’s 2006 study found that some 46 percent of nationalists have a “negative” view of English people. Nationalism, they confirmed, makes people “more Anglophobic” — at “street level” if not among the SNP leadership.
It’s a serious issue. Anti-English violence is thankfully rare, but for every loose-lipped councillor who accidentally tells a newspaper reporter that he thinks the English are “bloody arrogant”, there must be numerous others who would never dream of damaging the party by speaking their minds.
Sometimes the civic mantra is so firmly rooted that one has to read carefully between the lines to discern the underlying attitude. Take, for example, Alex Salmond’s reaction to the earth-shattering news that haggis may first have been eaten in England and only later popularised by Scots.
Such divisive comments also risk intensifying anti-English sentiment. Not that he’ll lose any sleep over that; in 2006 Alex Salmond actually expressed approval of cross-border resentment.
Hat-tip: O’Neill.
The 1320 Declaration of Arbroath defined Scottish independence as the absence of “English rule”. Olive Checkland wrote of 19th Century Scotland that “inevitably Scottish nationalism assumed an anti-English aspect,” explaining one important aspect of nationalism as “an assertion of difference from a dominant people”. George Orwell observed in 1945 that Celtic nationalisms “are alike in their anti-English orientation”. And more recently, Dietmar Böhnke wrote of Scots nationalism being strengthened by “the image of the Scottish nation fighting as one man against bad odds and opposing an external enemy, which are the English ‘colonisers’, the ‘Auld Enemy’”.
It is from the perception of the English as “a dominant people” that anti-Englishness arises. There is no anti-Welsh or anti-Ulster element within Scots nationalism. Only the English, for reasons of population, culture and/or attitude, are thought of as colonisers or an ‘enemy’.
But is anti-Englishness now largely a historical artefact? Has modern nationalism outgrown the “England expects...” rhetoric of the 1970s, which in attributing viciously anti-Scottish and exploitative motives to the English ‘other’ betrayed its own underlying prejudices and motives?
Yes and no. It is the case that, in Alex Salmond’s words, the SNP took a “conscious decision” to “project” independence in an “inclusive way”. A notable milestone in that regard was his plea in a 1998 conference speech for party members no longer to “blame the English”. Another significant moment was Winnie Ewing’s attempt, at the 2003 Bannockburn rally, to effect a paradigm shift. Actually, she told the party faithful, “the enemies of Scotland are not the English”. In the new, civic SNP the unionist parties were to be the “traitors” and the target for nationalistic enmity.
Yet even amongst senior nationalists, the attempts to purge the public anti-Englishness which has sullied the SNP’s reputation haven’t always been effective. Former SNP leader Gordon Wilson claimed in 2003 that Britain is a “state run by England for the benefit of England,” and SNP veteran Ian Hamilton declared only last year that “Scotland has suffered under English government”.
So anti-Englishness is very much alive and kicking. Prof Miller’s and Dr Hussain’s 2006 study found that some 46 percent of nationalists have a “negative” view of English people. Nationalism, they confirmed, makes people “more Anglophobic” — at “street level” if not among the SNP leadership.
It’s a serious issue. Anti-English violence is thankfully rare, but for every loose-lipped councillor who accidentally tells a newspaper reporter that he thinks the English are “bloody arrogant”, there must be numerous others who would never dream of damaging the party by speaking their minds.
Sometimes the civic mantra is so firmly rooted that one has to read carefully between the lines to discern the underlying attitude. Take, for example, Alex Salmond’s reaction to the earth-shattering news that haggis may first have been eaten in England and only later popularised by Scots.
“I don’t mind the English claiming haggis as their own, as long as they leave us our country. But haggis is our institution and we will defend it to the last. This haggis grab is akin to a land grab and it’s a sign of its culinary success now as a swanky dish.” [my bold]Why would Salmond associate a rather trivial piece of culinary history with a “land grab” and an unwarranted political threat by “the English” on “our country”? Would he have reacted so peculiarly had haggis happened to have originated in Wales or Ireland? The answer is obvious.
Such divisive comments also risk intensifying anti-English sentiment. Not that he’ll lose any sleep over that; in 2006 Alex Salmond actually expressed approval of cross-border resentment.
“In England, people quite rightly resent Scottish Labour MPs bossing them about on English domestic legislation.” [my bold]Imagine the outcry if that had been the other way around: an approval of Scottish resentment of English “bossing”. But Salmond is smart; he would never damage the party by speaking his mind!
Hat-tip: O’Neill.
08 August 2009
Yet another demonstrably false statement from the SNP’s John Swinney, per PublicFinance.co.uk:
“There is now a consensus that Scotland will benefit from fiscal autonomy.”His use of the word will rather than would is intended to convey a false sense of inevitability. And there is no such consensus — among economists, oil experts, the unionist parties or the electorate. But for Swinney, as for Salmond and Sturgeon, factual accuracy seems to be an optional extra.
07 August 2009
On 19th May, it was announced that Michael Martin would resign on 21st June as Speaker and as MP for Glasgow North East. Then on 24th June the SNP Executive announced that a so-called National Conversation event would be held on 1st September in the Glasgow North East constituency.
The Scotsman, Guardian and PA are reporting that a complaint has been lodged with Sir John Elvidge about the SNP “abusing taxpayers' money to campaign in the by-election”.
This is Dog Bites Man territory. It has been clear for some time that the SNP is more interested in campaigning than governing. Indeed, they're currently advertising for another three spindoctors!
The party’s own website makes plain that the entire National Conversation on Independence is an SNP campaign. Visit SNP.org, click “Campaigns” at the top and “Independence Debate” at the left, between “Say No to Trident” and “Stop subsidising Labour”. You will arrive at this page:
The Scotsman, Guardian and PA are reporting that a complaint has been lodged with Sir John Elvidge about the SNP “abusing taxpayers' money to campaign in the by-election”.
This is Dog Bites Man territory. It has been clear for some time that the SNP is more interested in campaigning than governing. Indeed, they're currently advertising for another three spindoctors!
The party’s own website makes plain that the entire National Conversation on Independence is an SNP campaign. Visit SNP.org, click “Campaigns” at the top and “Independence Debate” at the left, between “Say No to Trident” and “Stop subsidising Labour”. You will arrive at this page:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
