‘If there are 1-2 people unemployed in a city, we may look to their individual psychology for answers, but if it is 5-10% of the population, then it is a social not an individual problem.’
‘If there are 1-2 people unemployed in a city, we may look to their individual psychology for answers, but if it is 5-10% of the population, then it is a social not an individual problem.’
Did you read the letter triggering article 50? I saw Patrick Harvie questioning its erudition on Twitter, and thought I’d have a look. What a freaking embarrassment. It is here on the BBC if you want to take a look:
To me it reads like a man who is breaking up with his girlfriend but who wants to retain conjugal entitlement. If it had included the phrase ‘deep and special partnership’ one more time I might have vomited.
This is the type of scenario the Theresa May seems to want to play out:
UK: ‘Look yeah, I want to break up with you, you’re my closest friend, we have a deep and special partnership. I want us to agree to keep that deep and special partnership.’
EU: ‘What do you mean, I though you wanted to break up?’
UK: ‘I do, but I want us to keep the deep and special bits’
EU: ‘Well, what do you mean?’
UK: ‘Well… if we could just do friends with benefits that would be great’
The final part of May’s letter, where Theresa outlines The task before us, is where the level of urine extraction really comes home to roost (the irony is so huge it demands a mixed metaphor).
In this section the EU are told that ‘there are signs that protectionist instincts are on the rise in many parts of the world, Europe has a responsibility to stand up for free trade in the interest of all our citizens’.
I mean come on!
Treat them with some level of respect for crying out loud.
So the UK pulls a bullshit move, giving in to protectionist calls to stop those immigrants and foreigners taking our good old imaginary British jobs, and opts to leave the biggest free trade block in the world, but still has the arrogance to say you had better give us a free trade deal.
It is madness. We currently have a free trade deal with Europe, our Government is choosing to leave it and to tell the EU they have a responsibility to give us another one.
I’m not a career diplomat, maybe this is how things are done. But it seems to me that sending the EU a letter which tries to hypnotise the negotiators with repetition of the phrase deep and special might not be enough to get another free trade deal (like the one we already have!).
Never mind friends with benefits, the UK is on the road to being blocked on Facebook, Twitter and deleted from the WhatsApp group.
This is my view on, what now seems to be, an inevitable referendum on Scottish independence. I don’t claim it to be any more relevant that anyone else’s, specifically:
Ideally I’d prefer to live in a democratic UK, which is in a democratic EU.
Unfortunately I live in a UK where we have a majority Government pursuing a horrible agenda elected by 25% of the electorate, on 36% of the vote. I consider this to be profoundly anti-democratic.
The vote for Brexit was split 50-50 (well 48.1% – 51.9%). To claim that this is a mandate for anything is, at best, questionable, to claim it as a mandate for what is being perused is heart breaking. I consider this to be profoundly anti-democratic too.
In Brexit, I would personally prefer if the UK government would seek a less anti-democratic approach, which took into account the split nature of views, and the profoundly different voting patterns of other Countries and areas of the UK (Northern Ireland, London, Scotland…)
In the absence of this I reluctantly support a referendum on Scottish independence as an alternative democratic mechanism and process.
This is how Wings Over Scotland put it:
Scotland voted to stay in the UK in 2014, and it also voted to stay in the EU in 2016. It cannot have both of those things. They are, unavoidably, mutually exclusive.
That conflict has to be resolved, and the only remotely credible way to do it is to have another referendum in which those two options are presented clearly and honestly and the electorate choose which one they prefer.
Last the weekend (25/02/17), the mayor of London came to Scotland to address the Scottish Labour Party conference. His speech proved somewhat controversial as he drew comparison between nationalist politics, racism and bigotry.
‘There is no difference between those who try to divide us on the basis of whether we’re English and Scottish, and those who try to divide us on the basis of our background, race or religion.’
Sadiq Khan, Twitter
In the interests of full disclosure, I supported Scottish Independence, I am a member of the Scottish Green Party, which backs independence, and I did not like the implication that Scottish nationalism is underpinned by racism.
Following Khan’s post the Guardian published an article supporting Khan’s statement. I, like many others, found this particular intervention upsetting and frustrating. The article was written by an academic (PhD candidate), Claire Heuchan, at an institution where I happened to have studied. This makes the criticism seem very close to home, but the main sadness I felt was that the piece, like Khan’s speech, makes sweeping generalisations about the independence movement which cannot be supported.
Experience has taught me to expect politicians, such as Khan, to come to Scotland and make self-serving comments which reflect poorly on them but which might score political points with whatever constituency they are aiming their remarks at. From academics I would hope to see well-reasoned and supported analysis or opinion which, even if I do not agree with the conclusions, I can understand the basis from which the case is being made.
The Guardian article provided none of this. It simply ran through a number of clichés and built nationalist straw-people.
To begin at the beginning, the first paragraph of Heuchan’s article suggests that both racism and (Scottish) nationalism are reliant on clear distinctions between those who belong and those who do not, ‘those who belong and those who are rejected’. From my perspective, this is just not true. The civic nationalist movement in Scotland is open to all regardless of ethnicity, nationality or any other divider such as religion. This is evidenced by the existence of various groups such as English people for Scottish independence and Scots Asians for Independence.
The author may think these types of groups are somehow co-opted or misinformed, but if so then this argument needs to be made. It is not good enough to simply state that Scottish nationalism is reliant on drawing clear distinctions (just like racism), but not to explain what the clear distinctions of Scottish nationalism are, and how they play out to generate division. Only with this can we judge whether the argument is credible.
The author should have explained how she understands the nationalist movement in Scotland to be creating or enforcing race based difference. Like Khan’s comments, implying racism and the independence movement in Scotland can be equated, the assertion is made and simply left to hang there.
The author then targets the notion of Scottish exceptionalism, arguing the supposedly nationalist idea of a uniquely progressive Scotland is a flawed fairy-tale. Here, again, I struggle to understand what the author means. My interpretation of Scotland as an independent country is simply based on the idea that Scotland could self-determine like any other country of a similar population, such as Finland, Ireland or Denmark. I do not need to believe Scotland is Narnia, just similar to other European countries.
There is no meaningful or convincing evidence or reason provided at any stage for the views given by Heuchan. Each paragraph exhibits some fundamental flaw in reasoning.
Indeed, the author applies an impressive number of rhetorical fallacies for such a short piece. To add to the use of cliché and straw-men, there is the fallacy of composition, implying that the beliefs of some in a group applies to all. There is the fallacy of anecdotal evidence, the author picks one tweet from a prominent figure and asserts it implies a general condition. There is (ironically) the fallacy of division, suggesting that a group belief applies to all members of a group. The piece jumps to conclusions, drawing deductions without fairly addressing (any?!) evidence. There is the undistributed middle fallacy, implying that because two things share some properties it makes them the same (civic and ethnic nationalism).
It would be possible to go through the piece, point by point, tracing the inherent contradictions and flawed reasoning. That would be to treat the arguments with more respect than they deserve. The opinion is absurd and has, by now, been calmly debunked by several published responses.
The response on social media was less calm. The internet gives a platform for the most extreme and despicable views. In a follow up article the Guardian claimed that Claire experienced ‘safety fears’ and ‘abuse’. Let me be clear, I wholeheartedly condemn any abuse, racist or otherwise and threats to safety that occurred. Although evidence of threats and racist abuse were not provided.
The independence movement in Scotland has people who believe in racism and believe racist things. This is true of any country or large political movement.
I cannot know what it has been like for Claire Heuchan or Sadiq Khan, to have experienced racism. People are justifiably upset and traumatised, hurt, mentally and often physically, by racism and the people who believe racist things.
It also hurts to be called a racist if you are not, and, if you believe, with every fibre of your being, that racism should not stand. This is why many people were upset by Khan’s speech and Claire’s article. The article tells people who abhor racism that the movement they are part of inherently draws racist style distinctions.
This is understood by Scottish Young Labour, who condemned as disastrous Khan’s statement ‘linking far-right racism and hundreds and thousands of progressive Scottish voters’.
There was no sense in the follow up article that Claire or her associates (the Guardian or PhD supervisor) see any legitimate grievance among the huge response to the work. Instead Claire chose to highlight that it is her view that it is ‘very significant that the people most clearly against Khan’s comments, the majority were white. There seemed to be a contradiction between them claiming on the one hand to be in favour of progressive politics, but being unwilling to listen to what Sadiq Khan, an Asian man, said.’
I do not know what can be made of this, other than it is a statement designed to maintain the narrative that Scottish nationalism is broadly racist.
There is no contradiction between claiming to be progressive and being unwilling to listen to what Khan said. Khan came to Scotland and linked Scottish nationalism and racism. He did this for politically expedient and willfully hypocritical reasons. People were rightly upset by that. It is not because he’s an Asian man, or a Londoner, or English that most people are unwilling to listen. It is because he cynically insulted them. It is not healthy to take advice from, or listen to, people treating you so poorly.
Many people were upset with Claire’s article in the Guardian for the same reasons. Not because of her ethnicity or because she is a woman, but because she wrote a really poor article that insulted them. Not only did it insult them by implying they are involved in a racist style movement, it insulted their intelligence. The article was so weak, poorly argued and filled with fallacy and that hurt people. That such damming accusations could be made so carelessly, without even bothering to qualify or evidence the statements was dismaying and hurtful.
When it turned out that Heuchan had been a Better Together campaigner and identified as a British nationalist, the apparent hypocrisy added to the mix of distress and upset surrounding the Huechan/Khan statements.
The day following the publication of Heuchan’s piece Cat Boyd wrote a thoughtful nuanced article about the very real issues of racism in Scotland. Indeed, there are many such discussion on the nature of racism, bigotry and xenophobia in Scotland, and the independence movement in particular.
What should be made of it all?
Everyone must try and do better. It is not good enough. It is not worthy of an academic or politician to publish unsupportable, offensive general statements about highly complex issues. It is not good enough that the response to this may have included a racist and abusive element.
The Scottish independence movement has a responsibility to keep confronting the bigoted racist components in Scotland, and beyond. Elements which also exist on the Unionist side of the debate.
Khan and Heuchan have every right to continue to believe whatever they want, and to publish their beliefs in the public domain. When they do so they have a responsibility to do it carefully, in a well-reasoned manner.
If Khan and Heuchan believe the independence movement to be inherently racist they owe it to everyone to expose exactly and precisely the nature of this. It is not good enough to hide in the abstract of offensive, hurtful, damaging and ultimately meaningless generalisation.
In the end Khan and Heuchan will do no such thing.
Their arguments are not borne of a concern about right-wing, populist racism capturing politics in Scotland. Their aim was solely to denigrate the independence movement. They did this in order to protect their own British nationalism. The tools they used for this were cynicism, racism and hypocrisy. That a London mayor and a feminist academic would choose to do this is very upsetting.
I’m calling it for Hillary.
Despite Secretary Clinton officially calling to concede the Presidential Election several hours ago, the former First Lady has been neck and neck with Trump in the popular vote through much of the evening.
As it stands (at 3:15 GMT, 09 Nov 2016) Hillary is currently ahead by ~171,000 votes, so I’m calling it for Hillary.
It does not need to be like this though. In both the UK and the U.S.A the mainstream, left leaning, parties are crippling themselves by trying to occupy a position in a neo-liberal centre which does not exist anywhere, except in the minds of the people running the parties.
In the UK, the Parliamentary Labour Party appear utterly determined not to endorse an actual left wing leader, who has a massive groundswell of popular support. Rather than try to harness the momentum of 500,000 members the PLP would rather tear the party apart.
Just as in the UK, the supposedly progressive party cannot actually bring itself to back a left of centre candidate. Now we have President Trump, but it looks like Hillary still won the election*.
*disclaimer, maybe when all the votes are in Hillary might just lose, but its so close its essentially a draw, a draw in which the Donald wins everything.
Immigrants have, predictably, been getting a hard time at the Conservative party conference. Plans are afoot to ensure that we can dispense with the dastardly lot who take advantage of good old British generosity by manning (and womanning) the health service.
Amber Rudd followed this up by taking aim at overseas students. Amber wants to restrict the number of students coming to study in the UK. The basis on which the restriction will be applied seems to be the ‘quality’ of the institution the student would attend and the ‘quality’ of the course they would do.
This announcement should speed the decision making of any non-UK academics still undecided as to whether Britain is a place to build a career. We are about to go for a hard Brexit, it is doubtful whether British academic institutions will be eligible for European funding and now we do not want those pesky fee paying foreign students, who’s partners and spouses have the audacity to work and pay tax during their time here.
This is bound to be popular in the week the Nobel prizes were announced. So many British academics were winners, none of whom actually work in UK institutions (see previous post).
I think we should use the quality of the degree studied as a limiting factor in deciding whether people are suitable to occupy other positions in society, like, for instance, I don’t know… Home Secretary.
Amber Rudd has degree in History, the level of the award does not appear to be in the public domain, perhaps she did not achieve honours. Theresa May has a degree in Geography, second class. Our Brexiteers of Boris, Fox and Davis possess a more impressive array of higher qualifications, respectively they have degrees in ancient literature and classical philosophy, medicine and a joint honours in Molecular Science/Computer Science. Davis went on to get further degrees from London Business School and Harvard.
Incidentally, it appears Home Sec. Amber went straight from her general degree in history to working for J. P. Morgan. This is not a typical trajectory for a history graduate. I guess being the direct decedent of Charles II probably means you have connections #meritocracy. Indeed, this is exactly what I expect meritocracy means for Conservatives, i.e. we, and other advantaged people like us obviously have merit, so we must make sure we continue to be advantaged. This is certainly one possible way to explain passages of Rudd’s speech, which, on the one hand is pitched as tough on immigration, but includes a chilling subtext about the value of some people over others.
Take the statement that the’ student immigration system … treats every student and university as equal [and this] only punishes those we should want to help’? It is difficult to understand who will be helped if overseas students are only allowed access to elite universities in the UK. If you want working class Joe (or Jane) to go to Oxbridge then excluding overseas students from Hogwarts seems a more intuitive way to open the door. It would be interesting to know what criteria defines Rudd’s interpretation of inferior students and institutions.
Rhetoric like this is not supposed to have meaning it is simply intended to sound like the right message. This one sounds like foreign students take places poor British students could have and by jingo we’ll put a stop to this. Another message implied by Rudd’s statement is the idea that there are two groups of people. There are those people who go to the right universities and do the right quality courses, then there are those who go to some abomination of an institution, which probably only got called a university last century, and heaven only knows what nonsense their soft minded heads are filled with while there.
May’s allusion, in her speech, to the helping hand one Brownlee brother gave to the other, at the end of their recent triathlon, is a good example of the Conservative view of merit and equality. Here we have two athletes, already at the top of a sport and who are related to one another. A still vertical Alistair helped an exhausted Johnny over the finish line as he faltered close to the end of a world triathlon series event. The Brownlee brothers train together to maintain their position at the top of the sport, nothing wrong with that, competitive advantage and all. As a metaphor for the type of social ‘helping hand’ the Conservatives want this seems entirely appropriate. After all, descendants of royal mistresses might need ‘help’ to make sure they go from non-vocational degrees into extremely advantages occupations.
People with degrees in history and geography are running the country. Following this period, where we have done our best to tell everyone born out with earshot of the Bow Bells they are not welcome, I wonder if degrees in these subjects will be deemed of sufficient quality for those who might still want to study here.
Thomas Paine was a dude, Amber Rudd and Theresa May should read up on him.
… win the Nobel prize for physics.
Congratulations to David Thouless, University of Washington, Duncan Haldane, Princeton University and Michael Kosterlitz, Brown University.
All three of them, you will notice, are working with institutions in the USA.
I wonder what they would make of the TEF?
I might write to them and ask them.