Work as if you live in the early days of a

Better Nation

Arming bears would make more sense now

Dec 21

Posted by James in Crime, International | 10 Comments

8293886881_9e189768e2_oThe gun debate in America rages on, with the NRA’s spokesman giving a speech today, just one week after the massacre at Sandy Hook, a tone-deaf speech even by their standards. While he was speaking, a gunman in Pennsylvania shot three others and then (we believe) himself. So what can be done to deliver gun control?

Some people think a reinterpretation of the commas in the Second Amendment can save America. To remind you:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Current rulings make the first part about a militia and its purpose merely “prefatory”, i.e. irrelevant context, with the part starting “the right” being “operative”. Others think the commas are a well-armed red herring, and considering the framers’ intentions might be more productive.

Neither is unlikely to help any time soon. Neither the current Supreme Court, nor any Supreme Court imaginable in the next decade, is likely to accept any kind of more radical ban on guns with the Second Amendment still unchallenged.

It’s time for America’s progressives to make a real push on a different front: abolishing the Second Amendment altogether. As Walter Shapiro says, it’d take just 15 words: “The second article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.”

It’d be absurd to suggest that’d be easy, or even realistic any time soon. Even to get a 28th Amendment proposed takes either two thirds of the Senate and the House or two thirds of state legislatures. That’s hard. Then 38 states need to ratify it. That’s even harder.

The polling trend has been heading in the wrong direction, although there’s been a bit of a shift after the most recent outrage. But (as Shapiro again observes) opinions have changed radically on issues like equal marriage, and the fact that it might take 15 or 20 years doesn’t mean the job shouldn’t be begun. It means ignoring Alex Massie’s unusually siren argument that it’s hard to do so it shouldn’t be done in case someone takes away rights you care about. It would get round the concerns about democracy in the otherwise sensible Lexington blogpost.

Those equal marriage wins took some serious strategic thinking to deliver in four states this November, too: can the same techniques be applied here? After all, frustrating and unequal as the reservation of marriage for heterosexual couples is, it’s not in the same league as being shot in your classroom.

(pic from Code Pink)

Johann’s Lament

Dec 17

Posted by Dom in Education, Equality, Ideology, Parties | 7 Comments

 

gray

I thought the BBC News website was playing up again when ‘Johann Lamont raises questions over free tuition policy’ popped up. Surely she hadn’t decided to go further down the road taken at the infamous ‘something for nothing’ speech?
At the centre of Lamont’s critique of current education policy is something fairly irrefutable. Despite there being no tuition fees for Scots students there is still a frightening disparity in the number of rich and poor children attending university. This is simply not good enough, and with one eye on academia I must say that universities are shooting themselves in the foot by not tapping the underdeveloped potential of some children from poorer backgrounds.  I’ve seen it both as a student and latterly as a course tutor.

But Johann’s critique, instead of asking what is desirable in society and asking what the best way to get there would be, simply looks at all the bits of the train set and makes a decision on how best to put the track together. It illustrates well the managerialism which has crept into politics and the lack of real vision which has accompanied it. The ‘long term solutions’ envisaged by Lamont only reinforce the status quo which has caused so many problems. There is an implicit acceptance in the existence of rich and poor, and with it the idea that social inequality is to be tolerated so long as those at the bottom have the means to raise themselves to the sunny plains of the middle class.

This background-based approach to the provision of services also reinforces the very notion of patronage which I thought Johann’s party were supposed to dislike. By linking children to their parents we reduce them to assets. Should a mother receive less maternity pay because she has a rich husband who can keep her whilst she is off work? Removing universalism as a philosophical grounding to how we organise our society can only lead to social friction. It reduces our personal freedoms and traps us in systems of patronage which can only be broken via collective understanding of and consensus on universal rights.

If you charge for university based on the assumption that it will result in higher earnings, you reduce a degree to nothing more than a means of individual self-betterment in the narrowest and most soulless sense. If you charge because you feel that those from wealthier backgrounds should pay, why not just levy a higher rate of income tax as a general principle?

Universalism is vital to a society because it is a concrete sign of the fact that all of us, wherever we may be from, have the same basic rights and opportunities. Furthermore, to try and remove universalism from higher education is an attack on the right of all people to develop what makes us people, our minds. If Johann wants to see an end to the something for nothing culture, why not reduce subsidy for railways used predominantly by middle class commuters, or airports used by people from privileged backgrounds as they jet off on holiday?

There is an argument to be had about the appropriate subjects for a university to be teaching, and whether or not some disciplines would be better taught in a non-university environment, but universities are built on the notion of universalism – of teaching all subjects and all students equally.

A university can take no blame for what happens before students reach its gates. It can try to discern more carefully between students with an expensive education and students with a keen mind, something many are not currently very good at, but the inequalities which are inherent in society from a child’s formative years cannot be laid at the door of the university. It is a responsible government which will work to eradicate poverty which will change the kind of student entering Scotland’s numerous and generally good universities.

The narrative presented by Johann Lamont in her education vision is one of hardworking individuals working their way out of poverty. This is in some sense admirable, but it is also inherently antagonistic toward those who currently enjoy publicly funded education. It is a strange corruption of class politics which assumes both the continued existence of poverty and buys into an old fashioned concept of social climbing, rather than an aspirational vision of what an egalitarian society can look like.

This is not to say that the SNP are any better in their educational/social/economic policy (and these things are inseparable). Neither do I buy into the SNP spiel about having a social democratic vision for Scotland. Social democrats don’t freeze local tax and refuse to use the income-tax powers given to them, nor do they spend increasingly large amounts on private transport and refuse to embrace truly social urban policies. The worrying thing is that, in a country where we have two parties who call themselves social democrats, neither seem to really understand what the term means. We need to have Johann’s honest conversation, but the outcome should be a recognition of the need for greater collective resources, not the abandonment of the principle that all of us are of equal worth.

Ferguson tries to give Salmond the hairdryer treatment

Dec 16

Posted by Jeff in Holyrood | 18 Comments

There are many potentially alarming lines in the world of politics – ‘we need to have a serious conversation about immigration’, ‘owning a gun is just a logical extension of free speech’ and anything equating unlimited political donations with having ‘a voice’.

The Manchester United manager Alex Ferguson has veered into this worrying terrain with his objections to the rule that those living outside of Scotland can only donate up to £500 towards either side of the independence campaign.

I can sympathise with a Scot living away from home and wanting to take part in the referendum but a rich individual complaining of being “silenced” due to donation limits rings alarm bells.

Donating £501 to a referendum campaign (as Alex has impudently done to make a point) is a far cry from the Super PACS in the USA where individuals can swing elections if they spend enough money, but both situations are wrong thanks to the same principle which is simply that in an ideal democracy, every citizen should have an equal say.

There is no doubting that there is a link between money spent and electoral success, if money moves polls then it can certainly move election results but is it fair that Alex Salmond can deposit £1m cheques from Scottish lottery winners and deceased Scottish poets but Better Together can’t cash a £501 cheque from English-based Scots? That’s debatable, but it is at least just as fair as the current law prohibiting donations from overseas benefactors, even from Scots such as Sean Connery.

Some may claim that the SNP is just trying to level the playing field with this rule in advance of the referendum campaign really getting going. My view is that there is nothing necessarily wrong with that.

I’ve often thought it dubious fair play that UK parties could bus in swathes of activists from across the country for single by-elections, at least in theory, so to make a Scottish referendum as distinctly Scottish as possible does have its merits. If that means that anomalies arise whereby Scots living outside of Scotland lose some influence in proceedings, be it through not having a vote or limited donations, then that to me is a price worth paying to ensure that it is the right people making the right decisions.

Some will disagree, and this is one of those prickly referendum issues where an objective solution cannot easily be disentangled from a partisan viewpoint. I want a Yes result in 2014 and, surprise surprise, I agree with the SNP’s argument here that too much money from outside of Scotland would tarnish the referendum process. Those seeking a No vote would no doubt disagree.

It is unfortunate but seemingly unavoidable that interested Scots seemingly take a party view on these issues, issues that shouldn’t intrinsically fall along pro- or anti- independence lines, and yet here we are. Much like devolving broadcasting or fiscal autonomy, it seems impossible to have a discussion on the merits of any single issue without it really being about constitutional positioning.

Alex Ferguson is entitled to a view and a voice on Scotland’s constitutional future, of course he is, but he shouldn’t expect to buy more of an influence than he is entitled to as just one of the world’s 6million Scots who just happens to have money to burn and, well, given he has top billing in the Scotland on Sunday today, I would suggest that he is getting his voice heard just fine.

Holyrood Motions of the Week

Dec 14

Posted by Jeff in Holyrood | Comments off

Motion S4M-05117: Christine Grahame, Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale, Scottish National Party, Date Lodged: 05/12/2012
Time for a New Motions Process
That the Parliament notes that, of around 5,000 motions lodged during the current parliamentary session, the word “congratulates” appears 2,369 times, “award” 658 times and “lottery” 325 times; considers that, with the maturing of the Parliament, it is time to review the procedure and practice of lodging motions; believes that it may be appropriate for there to be two categories of motion, those that seek a members’ business debate and other motions; considers that, in relation to those motions that seek a debate, the criteria for selection should no longer include the need for explicit local or regional relevance; further considers that congratulatory messages should no longer be part of the motions process and that a separate process should be introduced for displaying these, such as a message board on the Parliament’s website or contained in an interactive display in a public area, which could include a short video or images of the individuals, groups or issues mentioned in the message, and recommends that the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee gives this proposal consideration.
Supported by: Bill Walker, Graeme Pearson, John Mason, Colin Beattie, Hugh Henry, Kenneth Gibson, Anne McTaggart, Mary Fee, Jenny Marra, Ken Macintosh, Gordon MacDonald, Hanzala Malik, Jean Urquhart, Margaret McDougall, Alex Fergusson, Mike MacKenzie, Chic Brodie, Roderick Campbell, Murdo Fraser, Willie Coffey, Tavish Scott, Colin Keir

 
 
 
 
 
 
As for Worst Motion of the Week, this stinker from Gil Paterson is a lamentable classic:
 
Motion S4M-05157: Gil Paterson, Clydebank and Milngavie, Scottish National Party, Date Lodged: 10/12/2012
Labour Condemned by Hospital Campaigner
That the Parliament notes the reported comments of Jim Moohan, chairman of the Hospitalwatch group, criticising attempts to reintroduce a casualty unit in West Dunbartonshire; understands that Mr Moohan was heavily involved in the campaign to keep the Vale of Leven Hospital open when faced with what it considers closure by 1,000 cuts by the previous Labour/Liberal Democrat administration, and believes that the future of the Vale of Leven Hospital is secure in the hands of the SNP administration and that this will benefit all the people in the area.
Supported by: Brian Adam, Christina McKelvie, Kevin Stewart, Bill Kidd, Adam Ingram, Willie Coffey, Joan McAlpine, Mike MacKenzie, Annabelle Ewing, Richard Lyle, Gordon MacDonald, Kenneth Gibson, Stuart McMillan, Colin Beattie, Bob Doris, Chic Brodie, Jamie Hepburn, Mark McDonald, Maureen Watt, Colin Keir

Edinburgh – the Copacabana of the North

Dec 13

Posted by Jeff in Local government | 2 Comments

I had the pleasure of walking along Edinburgh’s Seafield Road for 45 minutes the other night as I returned from my ‘local’ Post Office collection depot. I gambled that I could flag down a taxi and not have to walk too long but, given I passed only one other person the whole way (and zero cabs) this was clearly naive.

Still, the freezing wander was oddly enjoyable with the calm Forth waters occasionally visible to my right. Sadly though most of this coastal stretch is stale and lifeless, crying out to be renovated given how naturally appealing this part of Edinburgh is.
 
There can’t be many cities in the world that would allow a sweeping waterfront to be taken up by a clutch of car garages, a cat & dog home, a water salination plant and a landfill site (soon to be expanded). Infact, if you type ‘seafield road edinburgh coast’ into Google Images, the first two pictures you get are of McDonalds.
 
And yet, the coastal geography of the area between Leith and Portobello is comparable with famous sweeping coastlines around the world:


 
Copacabana:
 

 
Bondi:

Malmo:

 
 
This may be tantamount to asking for a new wave of dull, drafty flats sprinkled with sparklingly new but tiresomely dull Pizza Express’ and Starbucks’. Big deal right? Well, if Edinburgh Council could (literally) lift its gaze beyond the horizon, perhaps a new vision for a new Edinburgh village could be realised. Design-led passive housing, open spaces for families and, heck, on particularly choppy days, why not throw a few wetsuitted city surfers catching some waves into that vision too?
 
 As an adopted Leither, the rate of change in my local area is really quite depressing:
 
– It’s apparently going to take until 2037 to build a simple promenade from Cramond through to Portobello
 
– Tram works have blighted Leith Walk and disturbed the rest of the route down to Ocean Terminal, only for us to learn that the trams will only be travelling to St Andrews Square
 
– Leith Theatre has sat closed since 1998, weighed down by a lack of council imagination despite the best efforts of the Leith Theatre Trust.
 
– The local MP Mark Lazarowicz has proposed a Leith Museum be created at the frankly glorious Custom House on The Shore for certainly as long as I have lived but (despite a Labour Council, Labour Scottish Government and Labour UK Government being in place for most of these years) precious little has ever been achieved.
 
 
Amongst the best ways to transform this side of the city however is to build on the success of The Shore, the jewel in Edinburgh North’s rather tattered crown, and improve the waterfront either east or west. Platinum Point, the tolerable Ocean Terminal and the delightful old Granton Harbour already do westwards justice but to the east, well, let’s just say that you don’t have to be beside the seaside to buy a car.

Incentivising these numerous showrooms to move elsewhere, even just crossing the road to the largely unused southern side of the street, could reap dividends. Freeing up that land and using it sensibly would help to rebalance Edinburgh’s population and ease congestion thanks to proximity to the ring road and nearby reach to existing arterial bus routes (chiefly the 22 and the 26). If anyone has ever been to wonderful Malmo then they’ll know what can be achieved with enough creativity and energy in a space like Seafield Road’s.

It’s often easy to forget that Edinburgh is a coastal city and no wonder when a prime stretch with huge potential doesn’t even have a bus route up and down it. Leith was (not really) twinned with Rio de Janeiro in 2009 but let’s go the whole hog and bring our own version of Copacabana to town.