For well over a year I have been gripped by Edward Snowden's exposure of mass surveillance by the NSA and GCHQ, surveillance of all of us. I have read the books by Luke Harding (The Snowden Files) and Glenn Greenwald (No Place to Hide) and consider myself fairly well-informed about the whole story. Modestly staying in the background of the story has been the film-maker Laura Poitras (although both Greenwald and Harding both praise her role in bringing Snowden's story to public attention).
Poitras' major role in the story is her film Citizenfour, recently released and which I have just watched. In saying that I do not want to minimize her role as the journalist with whom Snowden first established contact and her fearless investigation with Greenwald in many parts of the world as she developed her story. But it is surely as the film-maker of Citizenfour that she will be remembered. The film is brilliant and everyone should see it.
As well as being an account of how the story came to the world's attention it is also a personal account of Snowden's bravery, skill and intelligence; perhaps not everyone will agree with me that he is the greatest hero of our age but his personal qualities cannot be doubted.
In the last week I have seen two other films about heroes: Martin Luther King (Selma) and Stephen Hawking (The Theory of Everything). These are films about heroism where the principals are either dead or their achievements are in the past. In contrast Edward Snowden's heroism will be needed to sustain him for many years to come and, of course, his story is very recent indeed. This is why it is so important to see Citizenfour. It is not just a gripping drama whose immediacy stems from its brilliant camera work; it is immediate because it informs us about the threat today to our democratic freedoms from the authorities who watch our every move speciously claiming to keep us safe.
As I write these comments news has just broken that the film has won the 2015 Oscar for Best Documentary film; welcome news indeed because it will now attract a larger viewing audience. Public awareness about our surveillance states is very important because, unless there is a public mood to restore our privacy, things will only get worse.
We need to have open debates about the degree of intrusion we can tolerate without surrendering our privacy (such as begun here). At present I would say that we are far from the situation that prevailed over Civil Rights in 1960s America where at least the basic principles of Civil Rights were enshrined in law. Our privacy laws are currently very weak and our rights to privacy are constantly being eroded either by stealth or by new laws. So go and see Citizenfour and add your voice to protect our democracies from our governments.
Monday, 23 February 2015
Monday, 12 January 2015
Freedom of speech, respect and Charlie Hebdo
Voltaire is famously quoted as saying "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." The fact that these words were only attributed to him by his biographer Evelyn Beatrice Hall takes nothing away from the sentiment which most people would generally support. And yet we have to acknowledge at least three objections.
To begin with even Western Countries do not grant freedom of speech to everyone on all topics. Many countries, for example, have made it an offence to publicly deny the Holocaust in the Second World War. Once there is even a single example where freedom of speech is proscribed we cannot pretend it is a universal human right.
The second thing is that just because someone has the legal freedom to say something does not mean that they can necessarily say it with impunity. That is such a truism that it hardly needs to be said. We criticize public statements all the time. Many times our objections might be factual corrections but it is perfectly acceptable to object because you simply do not like what is being said. Where things begin to become problematic is when a government or another powerful body has such power that it can punish someone saying something it does not want to published abroad. By "punish" I do not mean legally punish through a successful libel prosecution; I mean an extra-legal punishment such as ostracizing the offender to the detriment of their career, threats to use the draconian UK libel laws which are ruinously expensive to defend against, or maybe being harassed by an organization such as the FBI for being a whistle-blower.
And the third thing is that just because someone has legal freedom to say something does not mean that they actually should say it. For example, if you are the head of an organization speaking on its behalf you should stick to the things that are relevant, and not scatter gratuitous insults:- that's impolite, irrelevant, and distracting.
All of these issues come very much to mind in the aftermath of the attack on the offices and staff of the Charlie Hebdo satirical magazine in Paris. The attackers, enraged by a series of cartoons that poked fun at Islam, murdered 11 journalists. Publicly, almost universal condemnation has followed from both Moslems and non-Moslems (this despite the predicable Fox News claim - refuted by Katie Halper that Moslems were generally silent on the issue). However, while the general tenor of the coverage has insisted that no reining in of Free Speech should occur, it has been interesting that most of the British Press have chosen not to print any of the cartoons that provoked the attacks. This decision was defended in a recent Guardian article and the main defence given was that, in the normal run of events, such cartoons would not normally be published in the Guardian and, despite a natural reaction to show solidarity with their Charlie Hebdo colleagues by publishing cartoons, it was better to fight intolerance with tolerance. I believe this is an honorable stance but I can't imagine that it applied to the gutter press who also didn't reprint any cartoons. One is therefore left wondering whether intimidation played any part in the collective decision.
Finally, it is worth commenting on a point that is obviously very important to many Moslems: should the cartoons have been published by Charlie Hebdo itself? Don't the arguments of good taste (which seemed to apply to the Guardian) apply universally? I think not for the following reason. Charlie Hebdo is a satirical magazine and its whole purpose is to provoke thought despite it provoking controversy; that is what satire is all about. So I would argue that by publishing offensive cartoons they were simply carrying out their remit - and that remit cannot be confined to safe targets only. Down the ages satirists have always risked their freedom, livelihoods and lives. We applaud the forerunners of Charlie Hebdo and we should applaud such heroes today.
To begin with even Western Countries do not grant freedom of speech to everyone on all topics. Many countries, for example, have made it an offence to publicly deny the Holocaust in the Second World War. Once there is even a single example where freedom of speech is proscribed we cannot pretend it is a universal human right.
The second thing is that just because someone has the legal freedom to say something does not mean that they can necessarily say it with impunity. That is such a truism that it hardly needs to be said. We criticize public statements all the time. Many times our objections might be factual corrections but it is perfectly acceptable to object because you simply do not like what is being said. Where things begin to become problematic is when a government or another powerful body has such power that it can punish someone saying something it does not want to published abroad. By "punish" I do not mean legally punish through a successful libel prosecution; I mean an extra-legal punishment such as ostracizing the offender to the detriment of their career, threats to use the draconian UK libel laws which are ruinously expensive to defend against, or maybe being harassed by an organization such as the FBI for being a whistle-blower.
And the third thing is that just because someone has legal freedom to say something does not mean that they actually should say it. For example, if you are the head of an organization speaking on its behalf you should stick to the things that are relevant, and not scatter gratuitous insults:- that's impolite, irrelevant, and distracting.
All of these issues come very much to mind in the aftermath of the attack on the offices and staff of the Charlie Hebdo satirical magazine in Paris. The attackers, enraged by a series of cartoons that poked fun at Islam, murdered 11 journalists. Publicly, almost universal condemnation has followed from both Moslems and non-Moslems (this despite the predicable Fox News claim - refuted by Katie Halper that Moslems were generally silent on the issue). However, while the general tenor of the coverage has insisted that no reining in of Free Speech should occur, it has been interesting that most of the British Press have chosen not to print any of the cartoons that provoked the attacks. This decision was defended in a recent Guardian article and the main defence given was that, in the normal run of events, such cartoons would not normally be published in the Guardian and, despite a natural reaction to show solidarity with their Charlie Hebdo colleagues by publishing cartoons, it was better to fight intolerance with tolerance. I believe this is an honorable stance but I can't imagine that it applied to the gutter press who also didn't reprint any cartoons. One is therefore left wondering whether intimidation played any part in the collective decision.
Finally, it is worth commenting on a point that is obviously very important to many Moslems: should the cartoons have been published by Charlie Hebdo itself? Don't the arguments of good taste (which seemed to apply to the Guardian) apply universally? I think not for the following reason. Charlie Hebdo is a satirical magazine and its whole purpose is to provoke thought despite it provoking controversy; that is what satire is all about. So I would argue that by publishing offensive cartoons they were simply carrying out their remit - and that remit cannot be confined to safe targets only. Down the ages satirists have always risked their freedom, livelihoods and lives. We applaud the forerunners of Charlie Hebdo and we should applaud such heroes today.
Saturday, 27 December 2014
Science: 50 years in retrospect
I have taken an interest in things scientific for over 50 years. My tastes incline more to basic science than applied science and technology so that will colour my reflections in this post. Recently I tried to identify the most important advances in science since around 1960. No doubt you will disagree with these personal opinions - if so, let me know in comments what your own picks are.
For me the rise of computer technology has produced a revolution in our lives and in our thinking. It's hard to really appreciate how powerful today's computer are compared to those of 50 years ago. I like the figures, first calculated by Christopher Evans (in his 1979 book The Mighty Micro) to compare advances in automobile performance with advances in computer performance. Updating these comparisons to 2014: if automobile performance had increased at the same rate as computer performance then
For me the rise of computer technology has produced a revolution in our lives and in our thinking. It's hard to really appreciate how powerful today's computer are compared to those of 50 years ago. I like the figures, first calculated by Christopher Evans (in his 1979 book The Mighty Micro) to compare advances in automobile performance with advances in computer performance. Updating these comparisons to 2014: if automobile performance had increased at the same rate as computer performance then
- a car would have a speed of around 100 billion kilometres per hour - over 100 times the speed of light
- its fuel consumption would be over 10,000 kilometers per litre
- your standard garage could hold 100s of vehicles and
- the manual for opening the front door would be as thick as the Bible (the last is a humorous comparison whose provenance I don't know).
These figures are somewhat rough and ready but they portray the scale of how computers have advanced. However, just as remarkable and as difficult to foresee, is the way that computers now pervade our lives. Thomas Watson, the President of IBM, got it so wrong in 1943 when he estimated that 5 computers would serve the needs of the entire world. Ken Olsen, the founder of Digital Equipment Corporation, said in 1977 "There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home". Computers are now inextricably bound up in our professional and personal lives in ways that not even experts expected.
My next pick is the Science of the Gene by which I mean our understanding of the importance of genes in controlling all biology on the planet. When I left school in 1964 I had not taken a single course on biology (it was possible to take biology but only as an elective and it would not have contained any genetics).
But the stage was certainly set for the Genetic Revolution in 1964. Crick and Watson had discovered in 1953 how DNA could replicate itself: that it, rather than proteins, was the genetic material. Although Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection was very well-accepted it was now able to use the new gene discoveries to explain exactly how it worked. Nevertheless the acceptance of this Neo-Darwinism has taken many years and there are still hold-outs in some educational institutions in the world that reject it as being contrary to their religious beliefs. However modern biological theories all depend on our understanding of how genes control biological functions and modern medical advances simply could not have happened without our increasing knowledge of genetics: determining the genetic constitution of various creatures, designing drugs to target various illnesses, and advances in agriculture are just some of the things we owe to the Science of the Gene.
But culturally also genetics has had great benefits. One of these was to provide a scientific refutation that certain peoples were inferior to others - anyone who now argues this need not be taken seriously since on the genetic level we are a single species. Yet another benefit, and a breath-taking revelation to me, is knowing that every single living thing on the entire planet is part of the same biological family. We are all related: son to father, human to horse to spider to tortoise to tomato to lichen to bacteria. This is a beautiful and wonderful fact, far more miraculous than any religious explanation of creation.
My third pick is historically the most recent: neuroscience and the workings of the brain. For centuries we have been unable to study the brain as intensely as other organs because its physical responses are so much more subtle than in other organs. While the idea that the neuron was the basic unit of brain activity was first proposed over 100 years ago by Santiago Raman y Cajal it was really not until last few decades that neuroscience research escalated bringing it from a subdiscipline of biology into a multi-disciplinary subject spanning chemistry, computer science, engineering, linguistics, mathematics, medicine, genetics, philosophy and psychology.
The huge array of techniques being used in today's neuroscience research coupled with the fact that many of the conclusions being drawn are complex and difficult to summarise makes it impossible for me to get a clear view of just where the subject is sitting on the scale of achievement. However I have no doubt that this work which seeks to elucidate the most complex organ in the human body will have very profound societal effects.
I am not only thinking of the benefits to medical science, or the computational model that is so different from the von Neumann model. More I have in mind the more nebulous effect it has on our psychological understanding of ourselves. Neuroscience is gradually dismantling centuries of woolly metaphors that have taken hold of our popular view of "the mind". For example extra-sensory perception and psychokinesis are now totally discredited. Freud's "id", "superego" etc are now recognised as just made-up concepts. We understand that feelings of wonder, or feelings of being connected to a remote being are caused by electrical patterns forming in our brain. And, perhaps most profound of all, mind-body dualism is a dead theory: all our thoughts, feelings, perceptions, sensations originate in the brain and there is no separate mind.
As I stated at the beginning of this post the scientific theories I have selected as the most influential are surely biased by my own experiences. Let me know if you have your own choices to add and I may do a follow-up post on some others.
The huge array of techniques being used in today's neuroscience research coupled with the fact that many of the conclusions being drawn are complex and difficult to summarise makes it impossible for me to get a clear view of just where the subject is sitting on the scale of achievement. However I have no doubt that this work which seeks to elucidate the most complex organ in the human body will have very profound societal effects.
I am not only thinking of the benefits to medical science, or the computational model that is so different from the von Neumann model. More I have in mind the more nebulous effect it has on our psychological understanding of ourselves. Neuroscience is gradually dismantling centuries of woolly metaphors that have taken hold of our popular view of "the mind". For example extra-sensory perception and psychokinesis are now totally discredited. Freud's "id", "superego" etc are now recognised as just made-up concepts. We understand that feelings of wonder, or feelings of being connected to a remote being are caused by electrical patterns forming in our brain. And, perhaps most profound of all, mind-body dualism is a dead theory: all our thoughts, feelings, perceptions, sensations originate in the brain and there is no separate mind.
As I stated at the beginning of this post the scientific theories I have selected as the most influential are surely biased by my own experiences. Let me know if you have your own choices to add and I may do a follow-up post on some others.
Monday, 10 November 2014
Who's the Jihadi?
Western governments have recently been getting their knickers in a twist at some of their citizens making for Syrian and Iraq to join up with forces on the "wrong" side of the War on Terror. The establishment rhetoric that portrays these young people bemoans that they have been "radicalized", that they have been "seduced" into supporting the "savagery of ISIS", and that they are "aiding and abetting" the enemy.
Now don't misunderstand me. I wish these young idealists would stay at home because I fear they will lose their lives for nothing. Most of them are Moslems (including some who have converted to Islam) and, if they are religiously motivated, then I think they would be better off renouncing their religion. But I really cannot condemn them.
If you are Moslem then you must feel at least a cultural connection to other Moslems, and therefore to most of the countries in the Middle-East - just as we Kiwis feel such a connection to the European countries or to the United States because we share a rich history. What must Moslems feel when they reflect on the oppression of their peoples and countries by the Western powers (particularly the United States if we are talking about recent history)?
As Glenn Greenwald has recently pointed out the United States has bombed or invaded 14 Moslem countries since 1980. It invaded and pulverised Iraq on trumped-up claims that Saddam Hussein was developing atomic weapons. That invasion caused the deaths of nearly one million Iraqis. And it was presented to the American people as retaliation for the 2001 9/11 attacks for which there was no evidence whatsoever (and, grim though that attack was, it killed only 3000 Americans - in other words over 300 Iraqis died for every American life lost).
Drone attacks in Pakistan, Yemen and other countries kill scores of civilians every month - justified by the male victims as being "suspected militants" which is establishment-speak for "military-age males".
If your culture is so routinely attacked by the greatest killing country in history you would be blind and deaf if you did not reflect on that aggression, if it did not produce in you a sense of overwhelming grievance, and if you did not sometimes feel an urge to seek redress.
"Jihad" is an Arabic term that refers to the Muslim duty to battle wrong-doing or to convert infidels to Islam. Nowadays it is often used by Islam-bashers to condemn a whole culture because of the Koran's various primitive injunctions encouraging Muslims to fight for their culture. But who are the Jihadis nowadays? Who are the worst of the belligerent aggressors? Is it individuals or small groups who bomb their enemies in hundreds, or is it the United States which carries out the systematic, merciless extermination of hundreds of thousands of Muslims. For me the answer is clear: The United States, the world's only super-power, the greatest terrorist state that has ever existed, is waging Jihad on the countries of the Middle-East.
Now don't misunderstand me. I wish these young idealists would stay at home because I fear they will lose their lives for nothing. Most of them are Moslems (including some who have converted to Islam) and, if they are religiously motivated, then I think they would be better off renouncing their religion. But I really cannot condemn them.
If you are Moslem then you must feel at least a cultural connection to other Moslems, and therefore to most of the countries in the Middle-East - just as we Kiwis feel such a connection to the European countries or to the United States because we share a rich history. What must Moslems feel when they reflect on the oppression of their peoples and countries by the Western powers (particularly the United States if we are talking about recent history)?
As Glenn Greenwald has recently pointed out the United States has bombed or invaded 14 Moslem countries since 1980. It invaded and pulverised Iraq on trumped-up claims that Saddam Hussein was developing atomic weapons. That invasion caused the deaths of nearly one million Iraqis. And it was presented to the American people as retaliation for the 2001 9/11 attacks for which there was no evidence whatsoever (and, grim though that attack was, it killed only 3000 Americans - in other words over 300 Iraqis died for every American life lost).
Drone attacks in Pakistan, Yemen and other countries kill scores of civilians every month - justified by the male victims as being "suspected militants" which is establishment-speak for "military-age males".
If your culture is so routinely attacked by the greatest killing country in history you would be blind and deaf if you did not reflect on that aggression, if it did not produce in you a sense of overwhelming grievance, and if you did not sometimes feel an urge to seek redress.
"Jihad" is an Arabic term that refers to the Muslim duty to battle wrong-doing or to convert infidels to Islam. Nowadays it is often used by Islam-bashers to condemn a whole culture because of the Koran's various primitive injunctions encouraging Muslims to fight for their culture. But who are the Jihadis nowadays? Who are the worst of the belligerent aggressors? Is it individuals or small groups who bomb their enemies in hundreds, or is it the United States which carries out the systematic, merciless extermination of hundreds of thousands of Muslims. For me the answer is clear: The United States, the world's only super-power, the greatest terrorist state that has ever existed, is waging Jihad on the countries of the Middle-East.
Tuesday, 30 September 2014
The anti-Jihad narrative
The Guardian has just published a story about a 15 year old Bristol girl who has just left her home to go to Syria. To quote from the story: she is feared to be on her way to Syria to join "extremists". Looked at from afar one man's extremist is another man's freedom fighter and I'm sure the girl herself does not see things quite like that. So, while I hope the girl returns home safely, I would more characterise her journey as that of a young person who is sick of the way the UK and the US use the Middle-East as a military playground. Put like that I am sickened by the tone of the article that takes it as given that the girl is suffering from being "radicalised" (a term which is used at least 6 times, along with the claim of "brain-washed").
There has been a lot of concern over young people making their way to Syria to fight on one side or the other. The Guardian reported on Monday that hundreds of girls were leaving the UK to fight in Syria. And the US is actively tracking would-be fighters travelling to the Middle-East. Of course, the concern stems from our perception that we are right and all other sides are wrong.
We should all ask ourselves: if young idealists feel compelled to leave their homes to go to war, what does that say about our pathetic excuses for bombing the crap out of innocent civilians (quite apart from the fact that, as A C Grayling has convincing argued, bombing is impossible to target properly, has little military effect, and is insanely expensive).
There has been a lot of concern over young people making their way to Syria to fight on one side or the other. The Guardian reported on Monday that hundreds of girls were leaving the UK to fight in Syria. And the US is actively tracking would-be fighters travelling to the Middle-East. Of course, the concern stems from our perception that we are right and all other sides are wrong.
We should all ask ourselves: if young idealists feel compelled to leave their homes to go to war, what does that say about our pathetic excuses for bombing the crap out of innocent civilians (quite apart from the fact that, as A C Grayling has convincing argued, bombing is impossible to target properly, has little military effect, and is insanely expensive).
Sunday, 28 September 2014
The curious rush to war
The caution of Western nations to engage once again in military action in the Middle East has vanished. For a short time it seemed that they (and the US in particular) appeared to have learnt some lessons from their disastrous adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan. Last year we saw President Obama draw back from attacking Syria and the UK parliament voting against military action there. In some ways it was like the aftermath of another American disaster - their war in Vietnam whose abject failure curtailed their overt military interventions for a decade. I use the word "overt" deliberately of course because their covert operations to undermine regimes they dislike have never ceased.
But within the last week President Obama has authorised military force against the Islamic State of Iraq (ISIL) and the Levant, and the UK parliament have voted to add British support. What has so suddenly changed?
In one sense probably nothing much has changed. There were hawks in London and Washington who always wanted to re-engage in Iraq for realpolitik reasons to do with oil, support of Israel, fear of losing influence etc. But while the public at large opposed military intervention it was hard to force war-like actions through elected assemblies. The thing that has fundamentally changed is the public mood who now clamour for action against ISIL. In my opinion the public mood has been skillfully manipulated by the media who have exploited to the hilt the public brutality of ISIL. The revulsion to the YouTube beheading videos that ISIS have released surely explains why the man in the street is now so trigger-happy but the media have been grossly negligent in whipping up public sentiment.
At least three things have to be borne in mind which all suggest a more measured reaction. First of all, shocking though it is, a beheading is just another way of killing. Indeed in some countries such as Saudi Arabia (which last month beheaded more than one victim per day) beheading is a normal occurrence. Furthermore, if we recognise that summary executions, no matter the manner of them, are the real sin then we have to recognise many other greater sinners (and I can't avoid adding "such as the USA").
The second thing is that ISIL clearly wanted to provoke an armed response by Western nations (why else would the axe-wielding thugs address the leaders of the US and the UK so directly on the beheading videos?). It seems obvious what their motivation is: to garner support by encouraging so-called "Christian nations" to make war on Middle-eastern soil so that they can be painted as the real villains.
And thirdly, are we really so sure that ISIL are some super-army overrunning territory in Iraq and Syria? I do not believe that their original numbers (a small number of thousands) were so savage and efficient fighters that the Iraqi army and police (numbering over a million personnel trained by the US and armed with modern weaponry) laid down their arms without a fight. It is surely much more likely that many of them, quite likely a majority, had great sympathy with a Sunni insurrection. It is much more likely that we are witnessing further unravelling of the band-aid wrapped around Iraq before the Americans left declaring "Mission accomplished".
We are making a shocking mistake by yet more intervention in Iraq and Syria. Wasn't killing around one million Iraqis, devastating their country's infrastructure, and earning the hatred of so many of them enough? It is astonishing how we just haven't learnt from our mistakes.
But within the last week President Obama has authorised military force against the Islamic State of Iraq (ISIL) and the Levant, and the UK parliament have voted to add British support. What has so suddenly changed?
In one sense probably nothing much has changed. There were hawks in London and Washington who always wanted to re-engage in Iraq for realpolitik reasons to do with oil, support of Israel, fear of losing influence etc. But while the public at large opposed military intervention it was hard to force war-like actions through elected assemblies. The thing that has fundamentally changed is the public mood who now clamour for action against ISIL. In my opinion the public mood has been skillfully manipulated by the media who have exploited to the hilt the public brutality of ISIL. The revulsion to the YouTube beheading videos that ISIS have released surely explains why the man in the street is now so trigger-happy but the media have been grossly negligent in whipping up public sentiment.
At least three things have to be borne in mind which all suggest a more measured reaction. First of all, shocking though it is, a beheading is just another way of killing. Indeed in some countries such as Saudi Arabia (which last month beheaded more than one victim per day) beheading is a normal occurrence. Furthermore, if we recognise that summary executions, no matter the manner of them, are the real sin then we have to recognise many other greater sinners (and I can't avoid adding "such as the USA").
The second thing is that ISIL clearly wanted to provoke an armed response by Western nations (why else would the axe-wielding thugs address the leaders of the US and the UK so directly on the beheading videos?). It seems obvious what their motivation is: to garner support by encouraging so-called "Christian nations" to make war on Middle-eastern soil so that they can be painted as the real villains.
And thirdly, are we really so sure that ISIL are some super-army overrunning territory in Iraq and Syria? I do not believe that their original numbers (a small number of thousands) were so savage and efficient fighters that the Iraqi army and police (numbering over a million personnel trained by the US and armed with modern weaponry) laid down their arms without a fight. It is surely much more likely that many of them, quite likely a majority, had great sympathy with a Sunni insurrection. It is much more likely that we are witnessing further unravelling of the band-aid wrapped around Iraq before the Americans left declaring "Mission accomplished".
We are making a shocking mistake by yet more intervention in Iraq and Syria. Wasn't killing around one million Iraqis, devastating their country's infrastructure, and earning the hatred of so many of them enough? It is astonishing how we just haven't learnt from our mistakes.
Sunday, 7 September 2014
A chance for Scottish emancipation
It's the British political sensation of the year: will the Scots vote for their independence on 18 September? The most recent YouGov poll suggests, for the first time, that the Yes votes are in the majority (with 60% of those under 40 in the Yes camp).
The 1707 Act of Union merged the English and Scottish Parliaments. It was bitterly opposed by most Scots (most of whom did not have the vote) and supported in Scotland mainly by the nobility who had been financially ruined in the ill-fated Darien Scheme and were the main beneficiaries of the £400,000 grant to Scotland. Discontent was so acute in the remainder of the 18th century that there were two armed rebellions against the English (1715 and 1745) the latter leading to savage treatment of the defeated Scots and presaging a period (the Highland Clearances) during which Scots were systematically thrown off their land with no compensation.
In one sense that is ancient history which should have no bearing on how Scotland chooses its political future in the upcoming referendum. Scots should make their choice in the context of the 21st Century. Does political union with England serve its people better or not?
I am not a Scot (although I have lived and worked in Scotland) but I am still outraged by how they have been treated since the Thatcherite '80s. Their remoteness from London (a problem shared with some English regions) has meant that Westminster MPs are not as conscious of Scottish issues as they should be. Scotland is the UK's nuclear missile repository. They were the first UK region to endure the hated poll tax. And for more than 15 years there has been no more than one Scottish Conservative MP - in other words the now ruling party in the UK represents virtually no-one in Scotland.
That last fact has many consequences. For example the rise and implementation of a surveillance state in the UK has arisen without the Scots having any chance to challenge its creation.
To say that Scots are oppressed by the English jackboot is over the top. But it is still the case that policies that are devised by Englishmen are applied to Scots and many of these are deeply unpopular. Imagine that Scotland was an independent country and there was to be a referendum on whether it should surrender its sovereignty to England, allow the English to station their nuclear missiles in their countryside, be spied on by the English GCHQ, and be governed by a party that in no way represents Scottish aspirations. Would it not be unthinkable that Scotland would vote Yes?
So go for it Scotland! Being part of the UK allowed the English to screw you over completely in the 1980s by devastating your industry without softening the effects by using the North Sea oil bonanza: that fine resource was wasted on tax cuts for the rich and expensive foreign wars. Seice control of your destiny and vote Yes to independence!
The 1707 Act of Union merged the English and Scottish Parliaments. It was bitterly opposed by most Scots (most of whom did not have the vote) and supported in Scotland mainly by the nobility who had been financially ruined in the ill-fated Darien Scheme and were the main beneficiaries of the £400,000 grant to Scotland. Discontent was so acute in the remainder of the 18th century that there were two armed rebellions against the English (1715 and 1745) the latter leading to savage treatment of the defeated Scots and presaging a period (the Highland Clearances) during which Scots were systematically thrown off their land with no compensation.
In one sense that is ancient history which should have no bearing on how Scotland chooses its political future in the upcoming referendum. Scots should make their choice in the context of the 21st Century. Does political union with England serve its people better or not?
I am not a Scot (although I have lived and worked in Scotland) but I am still outraged by how they have been treated since the Thatcherite '80s. Their remoteness from London (a problem shared with some English regions) has meant that Westminster MPs are not as conscious of Scottish issues as they should be. Scotland is the UK's nuclear missile repository. They were the first UK region to endure the hated poll tax. And for more than 15 years there has been no more than one Scottish Conservative MP - in other words the now ruling party in the UK represents virtually no-one in Scotland.
That last fact has many consequences. For example the rise and implementation of a surveillance state in the UK has arisen without the Scots having any chance to challenge its creation.
To say that Scots are oppressed by the English jackboot is over the top. But it is still the case that policies that are devised by Englishmen are applied to Scots and many of these are deeply unpopular. Imagine that Scotland was an independent country and there was to be a referendum on whether it should surrender its sovereignty to England, allow the English to station their nuclear missiles in their countryside, be spied on by the English GCHQ, and be governed by a party that in no way represents Scottish aspirations. Would it not be unthinkable that Scotland would vote Yes?
So go for it Scotland! Being part of the UK allowed the English to screw you over completely in the 1980s by devastating your industry without softening the effects by using the North Sea oil bonanza: that fine resource was wasted on tax cuts for the rich and expensive foreign wars. Seice control of your destiny and vote Yes to independence!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)