All the best for 2014!
To kick the new year off, I'd like to share some thoughts and opinions for the year ahead.
Scottish independence referendum:
Don't be surprised if more posts are made here with regards to this issue. This September, Scotland will vote on whether to be an independent country, or remain a constituent country of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I personally hope that Scotland will remain within the UK- for both practical and emotional reasons.
In terms of practicality, I have heard many disregard the feasibility of Scottish independence: a strange stance to take, given that countries that are far smaller, and lacking Scotland's stability, have been established over the years- albeit with varying degrees of success. I believe that Scotland could be a wealthy and stable independent country were it to echo the development other countries with relatively great natural resources and small populations, not to mention strong democratic traditions, such as Norway and Sweden. However, the examples of Ireland and Iceland expose the vulnerability of smaller countries, which have experienced dramatic peaks and troughs in terms of living standards and prospects over the years. However, from the point of view of an English Briton, the greatest potential impact for me would me the difficulty surrounding the "divorce settlement" between Scotland and the rest of the UK. Dividing debt, national finances, national institutions, etc., would not be a straight forward process, and I fear that both sides could become bitter and unpleasant during this division process. It is foreseeable that both sides would claim that their side is losing out- potentially undermining relations between Scotland and the rest of the UK for years to come.
Meanwhile, for less practical and more symbolic reasons, I would be very sorry to see the union end. Together the British have fought in wars, made many of the greatest discoveries in the modern world, and produced a powerful and largely effective economy. In the past, British military power, politics and economics dominated the world- whatever one's views on the legacies of the British Empire are, what is undeniable is that its scale and longevity were remarkable. Meanwhile, in recent years, despite being a small country, the UK ranks as one of the world's top 10 economic powers, top 5 military powers, and gains considerable diplomatic leverage as one of the 5 permanent members on the United Nations Security Council. The UK has even been described as a sporting superpower, having come 3rd in the medal table during the 2012 Olympic Games. All these achievements have been made by the United Kingdom, while our success as individual constituent countries is more questionable and less obvious. I for one would miss the relative success and prestige that all Britons have been able to share in over the years- in spite of the dramatic shifts in global power and wealth over the past century. Moreover, though clearly biased, I consider the Union flag to be the most impressive flag in the world, whilst the flags of the UK's individual constituent countries seem much plainer and forgettable in comparison. It is a flag recognised worldwide, well-established over centuries, while its inclusion in other country's national flags, such as Australia's, demonstrates the importance the Union flag plays in not only uniting much of the British Isles, but also uniting the UK with other parts of the world.
I am a great believer in people having control over their own fate, and feel that referendums are a very fair way of trying to accomplish this goal, so I do not oppose the referendum. The great electoral success of the Scottish National Party was evidence enough that this was an important question to be asked and decision to be considered. Nevertheless, I hope that the Scottish vote to also remain British.
English as the truly national language:
As can be seen in the British media, and heard in discussions among its citizens (not to mention on this blog as well), the impact of immigration on the UK is a major issue and debate. For me, one of the most controversial issues concerns language, and how important an ingredient it is to creating a united and successful country. The British are notorious for not learning other languages due to how widely spoken and understood the English language is- a benefit for British tourists and businesspeople, but also a deterrent to most British grasping other languages, consequently isolating the British in this respect when other nationalities will learn each other's languages. However, the irony is that, despite English being the most widely-spoken language in the world, in the UK there are people who are unable to speak the language fluently- if at all. This creates a division between those who have arrived in the UK without being able to speak English effectively, and those who already live here. The process of integrating with the people of a new country and different culture must surely be difficult enough, without this being exacerbated by an inability to communicate with everyone; from officials who are there to assist those settling into this country, to the members of the public whom migrants will want to befriend and work with. In turn, the public are likely to be unsettled by the inability, and sometime just the perceived inability, of fellow UK citizens to communicate with them.
Moreover, this has meant that people have settled here and have been unable to live the quality of life they aim for due to their isolation and inability to communicate when need be. When the different levels of government have made efforts to overcome this, one method they have resorted to is providing translators and/or alternative versions of documentation in other languages. However, I feel that this approach only prolongs isolation and division. What would be best (if not already in place, which it isn't as far as I know...) is if all migrants to the UK had the option upon arrival of taking a course to learn English fluently, overcoming the aforementioned problems. This would also mean that there would no longer be the avoidance of the issue, as well as the extra expense, of trying to accommodate many different languages (through translators and text translations) in favour of universally sponsoring one mainstream, national language. For those who require this service, it could be funded as regular tuition fees are, i.e. the state covers the initial cost in the form of a loan, which is paid back in instalments at a later date.
What to do with benefits for the rich...:
One of the principles of the welfare state is that everyone is entitled to certain benefits, such as state pensions. Whilst this is a very equitable concept, in practice it means that the very richest in the country can and are accessing some of the benefits that they don't need. Many of the wealthiest who do not need these benefits (that they are nevertheless entitled to) would doubtless be happy to sacrifice them if they had the opportunity to reassign the funds entitled to them to another government department, for example education or international development. Thus funds would not be allocated unnecessarily, particularly when the government is looking to reduce its funding deficit, whilst the wealthy (who are generally net contributors rather than net recipients of state funds- the top 1% of earners are said to contribute around 25% of the country's tax revenue) are given a greater stake in the state by given a degree of choice, which would also provide an indicator of the public's priorities, in terms of how state finances should be spent.
Hopefully there is some food for thought to be getting on with for the new year!
