h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

"I sneer at the SNP because what they offer is utterly nonsensical and nothing to do with independence. They advocate a political union with 28 countries on the basis that a union of 4 cannot work."

I'm no fan of the SNP but this isn't really a sensible rebuttal. What they advocate is leaving a still largely-centralised Union where Scotland has devolved power (meaning Westminster can take it away any time it feels like it) and entering a loose Confederacy where they would have a great deal more independence both de facto and de jure.

>> If it's "out there" then why has no one delivered it to the Scottish courts to have the conviction quashed?

Well...Megrahi had a choice to deliver it in his appeal or to go home and die with his family. Part of me wished he'd appealed. (And remember - they don't allow just any old appeal). But, hey, his call.

'Course certain people were scared of an appeal. Including Brown. I reckon. He has to support a verdict he knows was unjust - hence his refusal to comment on Megrahi's release.

"Well...Switzerland seems to work. Scandinavia seems to. United Britain...nnn...less so."

If Britain adopted a federal system it actually probably could work, politically. But I doubt that's going to happen, no one really advocates it except some Liberal Democrats.

A great irony is that one of the greatest threats to the Union is snobbish English chauvinism which is most extreme in parties like the English Democrats but is increasingly common in (supposedly) centre-right publications like the Telegraph.

>>I'm no fan of the SNP

Out of interest...can you enlarge on this? They're not my first choice of party - but I support them pragmatically. I can't find anything bad enough about them not to. Not like they invaded Iraq or anything.

>>centre-right publications like the Telegraph.


How perceptions differ. I was bought up to believe nice People Don't Read The Telegraph.

The EU, especially post Lisbon, is no "loose confederation". In a very real sense, the EU will increasingly take the lead role in governance. The aim is very clear to bring about a federal state. Would you say Arkansas (for instance) has de facto and de jure independence?

The point in getting rid of Holyrood is really about getting rid of an entire layer of bureaucracy that is totally unnecessary to governance. Note that it is *not* a Scottish Government but an Executive - basically a glorified committee. The standard of MSP is generally very, very poor.

That of course is not an argument for Westminster, but at least around half of the deadbeats down there will be replaced soon. The trick is not replacing them with more of the same.

"Out of interest...can you enlarge on this? They're not my first choice of party - but I support them pragmatically. I can't find anything bad enough about them not to. Not like they invaded Iraq or anything."

Well, first off, I'm lukewarm on the idea of Scottish independence. I can think of reasons to be for it and reasons against.

Secondly, I tend to find them a bit of a cynical bandwagon-jumping party. A mate of mine works for the PA and he tends to go on a lot about how many stories he's seen where the SNP are, in his view, blatantly going with the public mood over any sort of real ideology. It's coloured my view, I suppose, but I think he's got a point.

>> Brussels to govern us, less politicians, less bureaucracy <<



Nice one, centurion!

RF

"The EU, especially post Lisbon, is no "loose confederation"."

The EU is a loose confederation, it has no army, no police force, no central government, no way of stopping any member state from leaving if it wants to.

We've been told for years about the "encroaching EU superstate". Truth is, no such thing exists and I increasingly doubt any such thing will; at least in the near future.

As I've said before, Europe may well unite politically in the way, for example, the USA has done but it's likely to be in the face of an external threat.

>Nice one, centurion!

Well, yes. Currently, we have the politicians and bureaucracy of Westminster as well as the politicians and the bureaucracy of Brussels. If we take one of those away we have less bureaucracy and less politicians.

It's quite a nice, easy bit of maths.

I've spoken to a few names in the SNP and there are huge ideological schisms within the party, right across the political spectrum. The only thing that holds them together is the notion that any form of independence is better than union with England. Salmond has actually shown himself to be a skilled ringmaster (along with Margo Macdonald, possibly the *other* competent politician in Holyrood).

I'm sanguine on independence, but I've got an instinctive distrust of Salmond. I'm happy to go along with the majority in a referendum, but he's determined to stage manage even that to distort the result.

>I've spoken to a few names in the SNP and there are huge ideological schisms within the party, right across the political spectrum.

That's interesting. What are you referring to exactly?

EU Army - http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article5014832.ece

"John Hutton has become the first defence secretary to back a French plan for a European army, branding those who dismiss it as “pathetic”."

EU Foreign Ministry - http://fpc.org.uk/publications/EUForeignMinistries

"The European Union (EU) is creating a new foreign service, and associated embassy network, to support its ambitions to a global foreign and security policy."

Defence and Foreign Affairs are two of the key elements of government, no?

"The point in getting rid of Holyrood is really about getting rid of an entire layer of bureaucracy that is totally unnecessary to governance. Note that it is *not* a Scottish Government but an Executive - basically a glorified committee. The standard of MSP is generally very, very poor."

It's not "unnecessary to govern" if we're talking about governing at a national democratic level; if Scotland wants to govern itself then it needs a Parliament and an Executive of some kind to do so. Democracies need representatives.

What I suspect you mean is that Holyrood should be dissolved and governance should be handed back to Westminster and the Secretary of State for Scotland. Of course Scotland *can* be governed in this way, just as India could be governed by the Raj. The point is that decentralising the centralised British state and concentrating power at a national level to an elected national parliament was and is a Good Thing. The quality of the elected representatives is irrelevant; were Westminster full of imbeciles (insert joke here) then the argument is not to remove Westminster but to hope that better people stand and better people are elected. And if they're not then that's the fault of the electors and just one thing we have to put up with in this imperfect system we call "Parliamentary democracy".

<>

Well, for a start John Swinney's politics are a world removed from Roseanna Cunningham's. It's been said that the pair can barely exchange a civil word. Republican Rosie was a member of the same left wing faction inside the SNP that saw Alex Salmond expelled from the party in the late 70s. The "Tartan Tories" haven't disappeared - just learnt to keep their mouths shut.

<>

That is an entirely subjective opinion and one not shared by all.

>"John Hutton has become the first defence secretary to back a French plan for a European army, branding those who dismiss it as “pathetic”."

In that article, it makes clear that the "army" he's talking about is the oft-proposed European Rapid Reaction Force which would be:

"Nicolas Sarkozy, the French president, has sought to develop Europe’s military structures with new headquarters and rapid reaction forces, each consisting of 1,500 troops from member countries."

Nothing about it replacing national armies at all.

>Defence and Foreign Affairs are two of the key elements of government, no?

The EU isn't creating a single defence and foreign affairs ministry which would replace national ministries, it's trying to create what would effectively "represent" the EU's collective opinion on foreign affairs and security (which, on a lot of things, the EU is united and would be probably be if the Union existed or not). Essentially, this sort of thing is for where the Union speaks with one voice and means that France, Britain, Germany, Italy etc don't end up sending loads of separate diplomats to a country to all say the same thing. It'd save time and money, you'd love it.

Of course, sometimes the EU doesn't speak with one voice at all and when that happens the sovereign foreign ministries take over.

All of this stuff is completely consistent with my "loose confederation" argument. The USA has a Secretary of State, but Texas doesn't have their own they can send out if they don't like what the US SoS is saying.

Stuff I posted about the SNP a few months ago.

http://wwwthepartysover.blogspot.com/2009/05/bit-like-north-korea-only-less.html

>That is an entirely subjective opinion and one not shared by all.

That's very true. I should have made clear that that was my own opinion.

Nonetheless I stand by what I said with regard to how a locally-democratic form of government must function and why arguing for the dissolution of a parliament based on the quality of the MPs isn't a particularly good argument.

Zagreb:
>>Well, first off, I'm lukewarm on the idea of Scottish independence. I can think of reasons to be for it and reasons against.


Well...that was my view...but I'm leaning increasingly towards. It's possibly significant that I'm a major fan of the poet, Hugh McDiarmid. A founder of the SNP. he was expelled for being a communist. At the same time as he was expelled from the CP for being a nationalist. (Which he wasn't: he was an internationalist). At present the SNP is sufficiently broad to encompass my shade of opinion...as well as shades I am utterly opposed to.

Basically...I want Scotland to be governed more as though it were Scandiwegia. I know I keep banging on about the place - but they do seem to be doing a better job than we do. (Although a Norwegian of my acquaintance assures me that they too have their fascist element). What do I want? Education, Equality, Immigration. Those are the things that make a country rich. 50% taxation? Fine! So long as its spent on 'Opportunity Costs' like schools and hospitals and not resource drains like nukular sumbarines.