Taken from the West Wing episode 'In the Shadow of two gunmen (part 1)'. CJ Cregg, the White House Press Secretary, addresses a press conference after the President and members of his party have been shot.
Saturday, 15 December 2012
Gun crime - what should be done?
This is Aaron Sorkin's comment on major gun crime in the US.
Taken from the West Wing episode 'In the Shadow of two gunmen (part 1)'. CJ Cregg, the White House Press Secretary, addresses a press conference after the President and members of his party have been shot.
Taken from the West Wing episode 'In the Shadow of two gunmen (part 1)'. CJ Cregg, the White House Press Secretary, addresses a press conference after the President and members of his party have been shot.
Saturday, 8 December 2012
We're doomed - America is finished, Europe's a basket case and the Empire is dead
The world is changing and the
canvas of nations being painted in an age of crisis is very different to
the past. This changing canvas cannot be
ignored if we are to consider where Scotland’s future place in the world might be.
Today the BBC news website reports
that Winston Churchill’s 1946 Zurich speech has been featured on The European
Council’s YouTube channel. There are,
believe it or not, those who regard Churchill as one of the fathers of the EU.
Why?
It is because in Zurich, in the
aftermath of the second World War he said, "We must build a kind of United
States of Europe” to “turn our backs upon the horrors of the past" and
"look to the future".
However, he also said six
months before that in Fulton Missouri, "If the population of the
English-speaking Commonwealth be added to that of the United States with all
that such co-operation implies in the air, on the sea, all over the globe and
in science and in industry, and in moral forces, there will be no quivering,
precarious balance of power to offer its temptation to ambition or adventure."
(This was his famous “Iron Curtain” speech.)
For Churchill believed that peace
in the post war world and stability in the face of communism would be
guaranteed by three things - the United States, a united Europe and the British
Empire. He was a great European but he
was also an Imperialist (born in the 19th century) and an Atlanticist (he had
an American mother). He saw Britain as
part of Europe but not of Europe.
Well, that was 1946 and this is
now.
In the future, the USA is not
going to be the world power it once was.
She must look to the Pacific
and China in the east every bit as much as she must look to the Atlantic and
Russia in the west.
The Empire is long since dead
and the Commonwealth is not what it once was.
In fact the Commonwealth may not outlive the present Queen by much. It certainly won’t exist in the same form as
the last 40 or 50 years.
Europe has an uncertain future
as the Euro currency union seems to have failed so spectacularly.
The world we are headed for
will not be a world of fixed blocs, rather it will be a world of more transient
treaties and alliances. And these alliances
may be with peoples we don’t necessarily have naturally close alignments with. These will not always be homogeneous
groupings.
Britain’s links with the east through
our mercantile past and through some of our large companies (many of whom have
strong links in the far east) will be very important. Our trade with European markets will continue
to be a cornerstone of our economy and trade and links
with China will be vital both politically and economically.
While the United States will
cease to be the world’s super power it will remain hugely important for many
many years to come. A close relationship
with her will be a lynch-pin of stability but we must be realistic about the ‘special
relationship’ as America has more diversified interests than Europe.
We also need to contain the
middle-east and support peace where we can.
I say support and maintain because the middle east has been a powder keg
for two millennia and I don’t see that changing anytime soon. However, I sense that if there are to be
dangers that threaten us or troubles that will spill over into wider conflict
they will somehow emanate from this region.
This means I think there is
still an important place for collective security. True, NATO is an alliance founded in the Cold
War but times move on and the landscape changes.
Denmark, a successful
comparable country that Scotland often looks to as a model of what we could be
is interesting in this case. Denmark
sought neutrality for 200 years and to free herself from the armed camps of the
empires of Europe. But she was overrun
by Germany in the 1940s and suffered under occupation. The war means many in Denmark
regretted they were not part of something bigger. Today many in Denmark feel collective security
is very important to them and NATO remains popular. This doesn’t mean they believe the Cold War
is still with us but they value collective security against any enemies –
whether they are known or are yet to be known in an uncertain future.
Today, Danish foreign policy is
founded upon four pillars: the United Nations, NATO, the EU, and Nordic
cooperation. She is a pretty committed
member of NATO – which isn’t true of all members – even though she is a small
nation. Denmark is also a member of the Organisation for Security and
Cooperation in Europe, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development,
the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and the World Trade Organisation.
She is a mercantile nation who
believes in free trade, collective action and collective security.
This means I think there is an
important place for collective security for Scotland in the future. I think this should be as part of what we
currently call NATO but that it will continue to move on to take a post Cold
War form.
I think also in this uncertain
world fragmentation does not help peace or prosperity.
A say in how the globe deals
with the forces that affect us is important.
Top table
I have limited care for a permanent
place on the UN security council, but a place at the top table with the G8
matters. Being part of the UK which has such a place is therefore vital.
Consider this picture. This is the G8 at Camp David earlier this year. It is a small world and being part of the G8 is to have very personal input with the 7 other men and women who take the fundamental decisions that affect the entire world. This is much more than mere tokenism, and while power can often be subverted by greater forces, having a seat at the G8 is meaningful influence.
Free trade is vital to us if we
are to have growth around the world once more and if we are to adapt to and
make the most of the opportunities brought by the changing balance of economic
power across the planet.
Preserving the UK and what is
in effect an established and successful single market and currency union is
also important. The EU is uncertain, and
our relationship with it is also uncertain.
I hope it survives with us as part of it because I think the EU has
probably done more to ensure peace in Europe after the war than any other
body. However, Europe’s precise course is
uncertain.
And since the UK operates as a
single market and a currency union and we are not envisaging changing that bit, it
seems all the better to have some political say in it and some chance of
influencing affairs.
But I believe this is best
served by the UK following a system of government which allows for the
expression of the different interests and identities within it and, at the same
time, has the influence and strength which comes with the common purpose that I
have been describing. This means a distribution of powers among the nations and
regions of the UK, for joint action where we need it, and for significant
democratic choice and opportunity where that best serves our interests. This should be combined with the
responsibility that comes from significant financial powers. Whether you call this subsidiarity, decentralisation or federal government it should,
I hope, go some way towards reducing the alienation many feel in the political
process and re-connecting political power to people and communities.
In the world of the 21st
century with its transient alliances and changing balances of power, being cut
adrift as part of the fragmentation of nations will not serve Scottish foreign interests
or trade well. That way is best served by
British unity, collective international interests and subsidiarity or decentralisation
at home.
Labels:
America,
British Empire,
China,
collective security,
Commonwealth,
Council of Europe,
Denmark,
economy,
EU,
Fulton,
G8,
NATO,
Russia,
Scotland,
trade,
UK,
USA,
Winston Churchill,
Zurich
Monday, 3 December 2012
Britain - more than the sum of its parts
On Friday I went to hear Jim Wallace speak. He spoke of many things including how he believes Scottish devolution should be developed. As part of this I thought he was particularly eloquent in his passage about why Scotland should remain part of the UK. He not only made the case well but he touched the emotions of his audience - a mixed one of proud Scots and people from other parts of the British Isles.
There are many different ways into this argument; cultural, political and economic - but on the night Jim Wallace quoted this passage from the 2006 Steel Commission.
"The United Kingdom has been one of the great success stories of
the world. The Union between England and Scotland joined
together nations who had been warring with each other for
hundreds of years. It took a small island country on the fringe of
Europe to a position where its influence covered a quarter of the
globe. It established a formidable commercial, industrial and
financial position. It spawned new nations in all parts of the
globe. Its language has become the lingua franca of the world. It
developed ideas of liberty, democracy and the rule of law which
were widely emulated. Its people produced much of the
philosophy and many of the ideas which shaped the modern
world. The contribution of Scots in philosophy, in science and
engineering, in medicine, in administration and finance was
disproportionately high. For example, it was a Scot, William
Paterson, who was the principal driving force in the establishment
of the Bank of England (1694), before playing an influential role
in the establishment of the Bank of Scotland (1695). The Union
enabled Scotland to punch above its weight on the world stage,
and allowed Britain to be more than the sum of its parts."
As we debate our future it is important to understand who we are and what we have got here in Britain. This is of course a historical argument but it captures something of what Britain is and of how Scotland works - extremely effectively - within that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)