Democracy, thy name is Tavish

I was going to write a post criticising the Liberal "Democrats" for the position taken at their conference yesterday.

I was going to, and then I read Will's post, which makes the point far more eloquently than I could, so I won't bother.

Except to say this. The SNP's preferred wording for a referendum is not the only option. If the Lib Dems wanted a referendum - as some of their membership apparently wished though seem to have changed their minds - couldn't they have negotiated a question with the SNP? I seem to remember a three-option question was - and remains - on the table.

Then again, wouldn't that mean being democratic? Something it appears that the Lib Dems are pretty incapable of. And that's where Will's terrific post comes in.

Read more...

Put up or shut up

I've been reading "The Audacity of Hope", which, if I'd read before November, might have changed my opinion of Barack Obama prior to the election. But that's a separate post.

Anyway, I had a thought about it. Obama's first chapter is titled "Republicans and Democrats" and, understandably, that is what he discusses. It's a very interesting and paints - in my view - a fairly accurate picture of the partisan nature of US politics (again, something I may return to in another post).

He paints a caricature of gun-toting, bible-bashing flag-waving Republicans and gay-loving, weak-ass, pacifist Democrats who can't see eye to eye on anything.

Now, obviously, he (and I) have simplified the case somewhat, but does that remind anyone (on a smaller scale obviously) of anyone?

I'm talking about Nationalists and Unionists in Scotland. Maybe I'm over dramatising this particular conflict. But I haven't heard any representative of a political party - on either side of the debate - make a positive contribution to support their side for long enough. Its all relentlessly negative.

"Look at the economic mess of Britain," say Nats. "Look at your arc of prosperity now," say Unionists.

Forget about making a positive case. Just make the other side look weak and incompetent and their argument will fall apart. Which is rubbish. It just makes it look like you'd rather attack your opponent than actually propose anything yourself.

I'm pretty sick of the lack of debate on what is supposed to be the defining question of our generation in Scotland. Because at the moment its less like a debate and more like a school playground.

So here's a plea to politicians - on both sides of the debate - make your case. Or shut the hell up.

Read more...

Parties without partisans

Having a great email discussion with Scottish Unionist at the moment (which will, I think, make its way into the public domain shortly) regarding the nationalist-unionist debate. But it got me thinking about something. Political parties in Britain to be precise.

On the debate we are having (whether Scotland should be independent or not) I clearly define myself as a nationalist. I want Scotland to be independent from the UK. I think that the people of Scotland should be sovereign, I believe in the principle of national self-determination and I guess to all intents and purposes I'm a civic or cultural nationalist (its not about ethnicity).

So that's fairly clear, right?

But I also believe in small government (which in the States would make me a Republican) and in small step change - which is a Conservative doctrine I think. Despite considering abortion wholly distasteful I'd consider myself pro-choice (it is not government's place to decide) and I accept John Stuart Mill's "Harm Principle" - a principle tied very closely to Liberalism. And I very much agree with the principle of Bevan's National Health Service, that it should be free at the point of us. And Bevan himself described a free health service as "pure Socialism".

Apart from pointing out how mixed up my political views are, there was a point to that. As a nationalist, or, at least for me, it is easy enough to reconcile those views. But presumably there are other students of politics, activists, even perhaps MPs or MSPs who have similarly hodge-podge political views. What I mean is, they don't fit neatly into the Conservative, Liberal or Socialist boxes that politics in Britain was meant to be about.

I use the past tense there for a reason. Today's Conservatives are pro-and-anti Europe, the Liberals are for and against freedom of expression and Labour are for and against privatisation.

What's my point? Simply this. It doesn't really matter what your politics are. In the contemporary world, political parties will tailor their views to your own. They've taken Kirchheimer's idea of a "catch-all" party and moved it to extremes. Political parties no longer represent political ideologies. "Conservative", "Liberal" and "Socialist" have become obsolete terms because they only tell part of your - and their story. Politics isn't what it once was, a debate between two unshakeable and unbreakable principles. It is about compromise, about saying and doing things that will appeal to everyone, about doing what is good for the country in the eyes of as many as possible.

Hang on a minute though - isn't that what nationalism is about?

Read more...