Gordon the Gopher and Curious George

Having just wasted five minutes of my life looking for photos of Brown and Bush, I find it rather telling that I can't find any the normal way I pillage for legal visuals for this 'ere blog. This shows how in the grand news circle of the USA, Brown meeting with Bush was a non-event. In many ways it is an accurate assessment.

Lets see. We had George spout off about what a funny guy Brown is and not a 'dour scot' at all (pronouncing dour to rhyme with sour instead of poor) and how they'll be fast friends. I have an image of Bush boring Brown silly with tales of 'my great great great great grandfather' was Scottish and 'oh I went there on holiday' (- oh well it was the G-8 summit but you get the picture).

[One of my favourite sports is informing Americans who claim to be Scottish too (yes they actually say this) that no they are not - they have Scottish heritage and you can't be called Scottish unless you've put up with horizontal rain pelting your frozen forehead as you walk home from school in February at age 10. If I'm particularly successful I follow it up with saying that someone who has Indian parents but has been born or brought up in Scotland with the accent and everything is Scottish!]

Back to GB meets GB. Brown on the other hand looked like he was about as pleased to share two meals and a dubious golf cart ride with George as a colonescapy! No friendly remarks made about the blithering dunderheid to his left. Just an agreement not to rock the Iraq boat for now and help get George focused on something actually humane and worthwhile like world poverty and Darfur (likely payment for no boat rocking antics).

Gordon is coming into his own by all appearances in the UK. Everyone seems relieved to have someone less concerned with holidays with the rich and famous and more meat and potatoes politics. It should not be surprising that after ten years of smoke and mirrors Blair governance, warts and all Gordon is a welcome relief. But I think Gordy's slippery salmon to the North may prove to be more of a challenge than he thinks (see here for a brilliant take on the recent flag debacle)

The funny aspect is that Cameron's emulation of Blair appears to be backfiring in a serious way!! Maybe he'll finally go back to admitting he's an aristocratic toff after all?

"Cannae dee it" Attitude

I just read Gwen's comment on my last post:

"think you have hit the nail on the head with your comment on the "Cannae dae it" attitude. I have over the years in a variety of jobs, seen many a person with that attitude. No wonder we get nowhere. We have to, as a nation, get ourselves some confidence that we can work hard and build an efficient economy. How do we instill such an attitude? Maybe its down to teachers in schools and parents to start this off at an early age. If it doesn't happen we just won't get anywhere."

"How do we instill such an attitude?" is the question for Scotland right now. Having lived in the country where people believe they can do anything (even fly to the moon...!!) I think I have some suggestions.

Being brought up in Scotland means never "getting above yourself" and participating in self deprecation. To actually admit that you are good at something is seen as a negative personality trait. If you've got a talent you'd better hide it under a bushel.

This is present also in parenting. To tell your kids that they are brilliant is considered a faux paux. To brag in anyway about your offspring is looked down upon.

Things are changing with parenting these days. Children have gone from the Victorian "be seen and not heard" to the center of every family activity. I personally think its gone a little overboard.

I think that in order to instill confidence in Scotland, confidence needs to be instilled in individuals from the start. We need to be proud of our children, we need to be proud of ourselves. Scottish pride seems to only reveal itself when someone is dead. Anyone who gets too famous or "above themselves" is quickly cut down or derided.

Scotland needs to admit to its hopes and dreams and see them as achievable goals. Scotland needs to believe that it can do anything. Scotland needs to stop cowering in England's shadow.

The one difference in the report I talked about in my last post is that all the small countries that are better than Scotland are independent. They rule their own affairs within Europe. They have not crumbled and failed without a larger country to cling to like a limpet. They have flourished.

I don't believe that Scotland needs to adopt an American attitude. It would be insincere. I do however think that Scotland needs to adopt a Scandinavian one. They work hard and look after each member of their community. They are a practical people who get things done. They have similar population to Scotland and some even are very similar topographically (I once took a flight from Aberdeen to Stavanger and it looked like we'd just flown in a circle and landed back in Aberdeen!).

I think one of Scotland's problems is the fact that the central belt can't seem to remember that it is attached to the rest of Scotland. The Labour run country for the last 50 years has been forever trying to strain forward to Westminster. Hopefully Alex Salmond, representing a North East constituency, will change some of that. Scotland has always looked to England and Westminster for answers instead of seeing our potential within the country.

If Scotland is at the bottom of the league for small countries in western Europe then what is the big risk in going independent? We can only get better.

Of course I am saying this from 3,000 miles away and I can just hear my sister thinking "what is she wittering on about? she doesn't pay taxes here or live here day to day!". True. But I think I have a different perspective because I am looking at my homeland from outside. I have a perspective that puts Scotland into context in the world. Sometimes when you live in a place you can't see the woods for the trees. So I hope that my witterings may give some Scots some pause for thought.

I am not in Scotland right now so I do not know the answer to this (although I've noticed a buzz in the blogosphere about it) but I hope Scotland is nervously excited for the future. I feel the SNP slender win over Labour is a tentative step towards trying something new, maybe trying a little confidence in ourselves.

Scary Alex - does Blair think he'll get "Salmond"ella?

"He never writes, he never phones..."



So said Alex Salmond when asked about Tony Blair.

On Friday, Gordon Brown, the soon to be and sorta kinda really already is the next PM (Prime Minister) of the UK, phoned to congratulate Alex Salmond on becoming the First Minister of Scotland. Great, but a little tardy at 16 days after Alex got the job.

Tony? He's abroad, he's too busy, he's (in my opinion) really pissed off!!

Tony is swanning around Africa indulging his massive ego with a farewell tour of places he likes to think he did real swell in - Libya, Sierra Leone... etc.
["Rule, Britannia! rule the waves:
Britons never will be slaves." - yeah right! ]
I personally think he missed out on the better tour - the US where the ability to speak in complete sentences is regarded as a miracle after so long with a monkey at the helm (sorry I'm likely insulting monkeys here). Everyone here can't get enough of Tony but then the majority of people wanted to go to war in Iraq. Oh and its easier to like someone you didn't vote for and doesn't actually have anything to do with running your country.

If Tony had a pair he'd be touring the UK apologising!!

But back to Alex. Alex Salmond has a tough job ahead of him. He will be the first person to actually test out the theory of devolution: the theory that the Scottish Parliament actually has control over a chunk of their own affairs. He has a minority government and will have to govern Scotland by doing things the way devolution was set up to do them - by cooperation between rival parties for the betterment of the common good of the country.

So far, Alex is doing a great job of trying to achieve this.

But, as Mark Douglas-Home writes in today's Observer, the issue for Alex will be communicating with the PM (Gordon). There has been little need for much coordination of such things before as all the First ministers of Scotland and Wales have until now been members of the Labour Party. They are all in the same club, singing from the same hymn sheet.

Uh oh! Alex is not in the club - he's not even allowed in the car park!! (although I don't think he wants to go anywhere near the sewer infested place...) He's likely to be pushed around by the members, be picked on as the odd one out. He really is the weakling considering he has to operate in a mode of cooperation or his governing days are over.

So what has happened? Tony disnae phone. Gordon has to have his arm twisted (press outcry) and 'sorta' phone but make sure and do it late. If this doesn't sound like bullying ....

Labour hate the SNP with vitriol. I'm sure Tony would rather walk naked through Baghdad before talking civilly with Alex Salmond - he may after all contract a case of "Salmond"ella.

Gordon is painting himself as more English than the English and wants to signal to England how much he cannot abide the man who will be governing the devolved Scottish Parliament - even though as MP for Kirkcauldy in Fife in Scotland that very man (Alex Salmond) will be making decisions that directly affect the people he (Gordon Brown) has been elected to serve.

All this is great. I love it. It shows blatantly how the Labour Party is a bastion of tradition which is out of date with the postmodern world. Tony and Gordon took to spinning till we all got dizzy but they can't hide the reality underneath. The SNP victory has slipped a knot in the carefully constructed fabric and the curtain is unravelling in front of the wizard of Oz.

Modern day Britain, modern day Scotland, modern day England, Wales, Northern Ireland are awash with multicultural aspects that no longer mold to traditional politics. The world is becoming more individualistic, more autonomous. Politics needs to catch up. I am excited at a political environment in Scotland where people have to debate, discuss and resolve issues for the common good. The system at Westminister has demonstrated how easy it is for a government with a big majority to allow an egotistical PM to do what he wishes - take the country to war against the wishes of its people.

The UK is one of the oldest democracies in the world. Before we make claims about exporting it, I think it would be good to address whether our system should be changed to fit with our changing world and country.

If Tony ever gets round to phoning Alex I'd love to hear Tony's excuse for being so late in calling....

Farewell my slippery friend!!

I would like to start off by stating a fact. Tony Blair is the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. He is not the head of state. He is not a president.

I am starting thus, not to enlighten my American readers (I flatter myself but my American readers are way too intelligent not to already be totally aware of this fact!) but rather to ground what I am to write in that fact. The press in the UK and the world are acting as if Blair is a president who is resigning. The level and degree of attention are completely in line with a presidential farewell.

The UK has no president. We have the Queen as our head of state. She is a figure head who firmly stays out of politics. We have a prime minister who is the leader of the ruling party of government. For the past ten years that has been New Labour and their leader has been Tony Blair. I have always thought this system to be a good one in theory. Good because no prime minister could get infected by a God complex and would always be kept in check by their party.

This theory worked to a degree. It worked until Margaret Thatcher. She changed things. She ruled by crushing her opposition. She was elected on the promise to put the "Great" back into Great Britain. So she attended international meetings as if Britain still ruled the waves and the world and bullied other leaders into place with her infamous handbag. Thatcher showed that given the right circumstances and leader, a God complex was indeed a possibility for a British Prime Minister.

This was the political culture that Tony Blair inherited. It is the form that he so quickly took. He quickly forgot that one of the main reasons for the 1997 landslide victory for New Labour (N.B. New Labour not Tony Blair) was that the country wished to be delivered from the ruling hegemony of Thatcherism. The UK was asking for deliverance from a political policy dictated by one prominent ruling figure (John Major was a last gasp demonstrating how corrupt, embittered and pathetic the Tory party had become).

I voted for New Labour in 1997. I celebrated all night with my fellow students. I went to so many flats in Edinburgh where everyone was on a complete high. The clouds had parted and the sun was finally shining.

I remember discussing Tony. He seemed like a family man, a Christian - one of those who see their religious beliefs driving them to do good for the less fortunate in this world. We discussed all the wonderful people who would be forming the new government - John Prescott, Robin Cook, Jack Straw, and the wonderful gusty, leftist, Clare Short. Yes, we saw all the spin doctors following Blair at every step but we put that down to "whatever you have to do to get elected" and after the hell the country had been through, the hell that was my only experience of political life in the UK, we were OK with the concept of "whatever it takes". Everything looked rosy and possible.

2007. The UK is a better place to live for a great many than it was in 1997. The NHS is better funded, education is better funded, the poor are better taken care of and the economy has been strong as an ox for ten years. New Labour have under Blair managed a great deal of success.

So why all the cheering for Blair's departure? Should this post be about how the UK will go to the dogs without Blair and everything is doomed?

Blair over ten years has embodied the much quoted saying "Power corrupts and Absolute Power corrupts Absolutely". He took his inheritance from Thatcher and wore the presidential pretender badge with pride.

He charmed the world. He and Clinton were great buddies. Both can charm the socks off a centipede and they know how to play the game of media spin. But they both had a certain grounding. I do believe they both saw it as their responsibility to improve people's lives - but only on the "down low". Neither wanted to offend anyone with a large bank balance. Instead they courted them. But while the rich weren't looking they quietly improved the situation for the poor around the world (Africa for example) and fought for injustices where they found them (Kosovo).

I believe that Blair with Clinton by his side had a degree of sincerity and maturity which enabled the two of them to use the "special" relationship between the US and UK to better ends. Northern Ireland is now a country at peace because of the brave steps they took. Collecting debt repayments from poor African countries became something to be ashamed of and concern that we may be harming our own environment became something that was accepted.

Until 2001 I believe Tony Blair was doing a good job. Perfect? No. But good. I didn't like the media hype and spin that followed him around like a bad smell but I felt proud of my little country.

I think the point of Blair's undoing, the seed of his unpopularity in the UK, the moment he changed from Blair to BLIAR was when the supreme court gave the US presidential election to George W Bush. Bush and his cronies have poisoned America. So many people are angry with him. So many people are so sad at what the American nation has become. He slipped into the presidency like a snake. His residence at the White House has felt like a bad dream.

When I witnessed Blair befriending Bush I thought it a bit odd. I presumed, along with others, that Blair, being from a center-left party, would have little in common with Bush and that there may likely be some conflict between the two men.

Then September 11th happened and everyone in America "rallied around the President for the sake of the country" (I didn't see the need to rally round him, more ask questions of how this could happen on his watch - but that's another post). Blair said some eloquent things. He sounded like the serious leader speaking with reason and judgement. He wasn't going to shout about 'smoking anyone out of a hole'.

Ah ha, I thought this is why Blair had befriended Bush. He would be the voice of reason guiding this snake away from creating harm in the world. He would appear the lapdog but really be the sheepdog guiding things from behind the scenes.

I forgot, we all forgot in Britain about Tony's religion. It wasn't reason, or the political guidance of the world's superpower that steered Blair to Bush but rather their religious convictions. I believe that one major reason that the US and UK are in Iraq right now if because of the shared belief that these two men have that rescuing this country from Saddam is the just and right thing to do in the eyes of God. Whether it is conscious or not the whole thing smacks of the crusades. Bush also had God put in a word for him to make a huge amount of cash out of the project - Tony on the other hand was just happy being right.

This is the point when Blair went off the boil in the UK. I was in Scotland for the first part of 2003 and I remember watching the BBC news reports that showed that they were considering taking action against Saddam. I remember thinking they've got to be crazy, what does Saddam have to do with Al Qaeda? I remember rubbing my eyes in disbelief as they started trotting out "evidence" of why we should invade Iraq.

I wasn't the only one rubbing my eyes. The whole of the UK was in jaw dropping disbelief. Where was the Blair we elected? Where was the Labour Party, all be it "New" and shiny? I naively believed that the leftist MPs in the Labour party would keep this kind of thing in check. I was wrong.

Blair has created a structure of power within the New Labour Party where he governs in the mold of the politburo of Stalin's Soviet Union. There are circles of power with him at the center controlling everything. My friends and I have always been amazed that every cabinet reshuffle changes the names of the cabinet ministers but everything remains exactly the same.

Blair has taken the God complex from Thatcher to a whole new level. He had the nerve to take a country to war kicking and screaming. He ignored mass protest by the electorate who voted him in. He was no longer representing the people. He was representing himself. The whole Iraq fiasco has felt like a deep betrayal to the UK people. Instead of listening to the country, Blair decided to 'do what was good for us' as if we were an incapable child.

It does not feel good that the Iraq war has been such a disaster. It does not feel good to know that my gut instinct watching the BBC news in 2003 was correct. It does not feel good to know that Blair and Bush were wrong.

This is why Blair is deeply unpopular in the UK. It makes me angry that after what he has dragged us through in Iraq he can give a sugar coated, slick press conference full of emotion to announce the date of his resignation (the date - not his actual resigning like Harold Wilson did). All his pomp and circumstance being drawn out over his long farewell are sickening. There has been no apology over Iraq only carefully drafted spin that hints at it. Blair said in his "farewell" speech

"Removing Saddam and his sons from power, as with removing the Taliban, was over with relative ease. But the blowback since, from Global Terrorism and those elements that support it, has been fierce and unrelenting and costly."

This is no apology and his careful referencing of the Taliban and Saddam together shows his continuing adherence to the Bush doctrine of invading Iraq under the auspices of his "War on Terror". Blair shows that he does not believe him to have been wrong only those pesky terrorists who keep popping up like a hydra.

I am glad Blair is going. It has taken him a long time to go. He claims he is going for the good of the country. He is going because his party is forcing him to. He is going out like a victor in blaze of glory but behind all the fireworks and staged crowds the UK knows this charmer for who he really is. He is a snake in the same mold as George W Bush.

Going going going going going......

Blair is to stand down on June 27th. The longest farewell in UK politics. The presidential pretender announced his decision amidst his faithful supporters in his home constituency.

The UK media have finally been able to take their carefully crafted pieces on Blair down off the shelf and use them (after blowing off the dust). The Guardian has a big section (and I don't know if it is just coincidence but they've a new look website too - the UK is changing already?), the BBC too but I particularly like Nick Robinson's post on his blog and the multitude of comments.

I know its difficult for Americans to comprehend (with W and cronies in power) but Tony Blair is deeply unpopular in the UK. He is not our president so we voted in the New Labour party back into government not "Tony Blair" - he just happens to be the leader of the party. Yes, he has a brain and yes, he knows big words and how to use them but his arrogance, self importance and spin spin spin have left most in the UK glad to see him gone.

Oh and there's IRAQ.

It takes a real brass neck to go to war without the support of your country behind you.

I am going to read and ponder further before ranting fully on the man who says he will leave soon ..................

Scotland & England: its been a wonderful three hundred year marriage but perhaps its time for divorce?!

Today is the 300 year anniversary of the Act of Union in 1707. It is the Act that created Great Britain and her United Kingdom. On Thursday the Scottish people go to the polls to vote for their representatives for the devolved Scottish Parliament at Holyrood. The near synchronicity of these dates is nicely significant. This is an election where the Scottish National Party (the SNP) look like they may steal Labour's thunder and actually form a devolved government in Scotland.

The SNP stand for Scotland's Independence from the UK. Since the seventies they have been a growing force in Scottish politics. During the days of Thatcherite Britain when the poll tax was introduced to Scotland first to test the system, Scotland was a bleak place full of a disheartened and disenfranchised populous. The almost total rejection of the Tory government by the Scottish electorate meant that there was a political schism between England and Scotland. When Labour were finally elected in 1997, Blair held true to his promise to let the people of Scotland decide if they wanted their own parliament, devolved not separated, from Westminster. And we most certainly did. The referendum was an over whelming resounding yes.

We got a parliament and our very own building built with plenty of political corruption, cronyism and cost. The parliament building was a financial fiasco but if you are ever in Edinburgh it is well worth walking to the bottom of the High Street to go on a tour, it is a gorgeous building that deserves the high praise and accolades that were bestowed on the late architect, Enric Miralles.

The parliament has been a hot button issue ever since its arrival. It adds another level of government to a country which already has local, national (Westminster), and European governments. It therefore also provides another level of cost to the Scottish people.

However to a country with our own education system, banking system (the Scottish pound is the same legal tender as the English but its still Scottish), and legal system, it seemed preposterous not to have our own government to identify us as a separate nation. Well, separate but with the kitchen apron strings still firmly attached.

Since its inception the parliament in Scotland has been run by a coalition of the New Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats. And in my opinion it has not been overly successful. The cronyism, and small mindedness of the Scottish Labour party has been transferred into government. The question always seemed to be, would there or could there be any power in a parliament run by the same party as Westminster? Could there be a major disagreement and how would it be resolved?

It is my opinion that Tony and his cronies have run the UK parliament akin to the old power structure of the communist block. He is only prime minister but he acts presidential. It has filled me and my friends with despair that with every cabinet reshuffle the only difference is in name. Policies and decisions remain unchanged. It is also my opinion that the Scottish Labour party is run very much in the same mold.

So whats the alternative. Well the big one would be Independence. The SNP have always stood for the policy of a referendum on Scottish Independence within the European Union. When I was in my teenage years their policy was very much based on the utilisation of the oil in the North Sea in Scottish waters to enable the country to become financially solvent and prosper along the lines of Norway and Sweden. The arguments against this perception or claim were that establishing rights over waters in the North Sea would be difficult and removing such a cash flow to Westminster could do serious damage to England, which as our nearest trading partner, would be a foolish move.

I now find the argument of oil for Independence redundant. With global warming a reality, building a country on oil seems extremely foolish and irresponsible. I do however, see a bigger argument for Scotland going it alone by looking across the water to Ireland. Ireland is now one of the fastest growing economies in Europe. Where immigrants used to leave the Emerald Isle in search of better things the Emerald Isle is now attracting immigrants for the self same reason. If the Irish could do it why not the Scots?

We're not good enough. We couldn't possibly. We need looking after. Scotland is a proud nation with a distinctive culture of its own. A big part of that culture is what is called in literature, the doppelganger: Scottish identity is always double; it is always Jekyll and Hyde. On one hand we pray with all our might that we thrash any English sports team into next week, we bemoan England for neglecting to remember that Britain also includes Scotland and we take great pains to point out that we are not like England. But on the other hand we are quite content to sit back and be led from Westminster, to be a part of Britain. There is the pride, the strength that whimpers at the prospect of actually really running our own affairs.

I don't know if it is because of the connection between the Scottish Labour Party and the national Labour Party, but it always feels to me like a whispering campaign - "you couldn't do it", "you're not capable". Blair would have had a real political fight on his hands at every election without the steady stream of Labour loyalists in Scotland dutifully going to the polls for him come election day. It really is not in New Labour's political interests to have an Independent Scotland.

My gut instinct is that Scotland will never grow up until we take care of our own country. I don't make this statement out of brimming nationalist fervour but rather out of a fed up exasperation at my kin and country being so pathetic. Am I overwhelmed by Alec Salmond? No. Do I especially like the SNP or trust them? No. [as a side note I have always hated the fact that they are called the Scottish National Party - there are too many parallels with the fascist nationalist pasts of other countries - I really don't know why they are not called the Scottish Independence Party] But I don't see why we feel incapable of balancing our own budget, of running our own affairs. Scottish independance from the UK would not be a complete leap in the dark we would still be in the European Union and have a seat at the main table of that same Union instead of peering over another's shoulder.

I don't know what will happen on May 3rd. I have no way of affecting the outcome as I cannot vote (as a British citizen I can vote in the British election as an expat but there is no such thing as a Scottish citizen so I am disenfranchised). I am pretty sure the Scots who read my blog will have already turned in their postal votes by this time - so I am perhaps just meaninglessly wittering here. I know that the issue of Iraq is front an center in a lot of minds. How can a party be trusted that tows the line behind their leader in spite of public outrage? What is the alternative? Two very dear friends of mine commented that their hope for an alternative to a Blair (or Brown) government is an Independent Scotland - and they are English! I hope that one day my country will grow up and see all the great things we are so proud of, all the Scots who achieved so much, are all signs that we should take the risk.

300 years ago today the Act of Union was signed by the Scottish Parliament. It was signed by the Scottish elite who had lost hope in Scotland's prospects after the country was practically bankrupted in the Darien affair. The Union was signed against the wishes of the Scottish people for economic reasons by Scottish Nobles eager to win favour with the King who was so much more an English King than Scottish. The Union was an alliance that enabled the building of an Empire, it was an economic force to be reckoned with. That Empire is now dead and gone. The new economic force to be reckoned with is Europe and I think it is in Scotland's best interests to have a front row seat in building that prosperity because the last 300 years have proven we make one hell of a team mate.

P. S.
For a most brilliant analysis which says everything better than I can and if you're curious about Scottish humour go HERE to watch a video which had me in stitches!!

Scottish Election Warm up

I am going to do a long post on this subject (hell, I can't vote in this election , so at the least I can voice my opinion in the blogosphere). In the meantime here is a small podcast with photos from the Guardian. It is an interesting starting point - and has some beautiful pics of Edinburgh - although it is only focused on the capital. (there is a tendency in Scotland for some only to ever see the central belt - Edinburgh & Glasgow and the area in between - and forget there is a whole rest of the country).

For political ranting and disenfranchised expat raving, watch this space.