Last week, on a visit to Canada, Prince Charles commented in a conversation with a member of the public that the actions of President Vladimir Putin and his country, Russia, in Ukraine were comparable to those of Adolf Hitler and Germany in Central Europe, in the lead up to the Second World War. Although these comments were made in a private conversation, there was nevertheless a strong media presence of which the Prince was aware. The comparison that the Prince made had been expressed numerous times in the media already, but he has been amongst the most high profile figures to publicly voice this opinion.
Clearly, comparisons can indeed be drawn between the recent actions of Russia, and past actions of Nazi Germany: a country, run by a leader notorious for stoking aggression and encouraging nationalism, annexes territory that is recognised as part of another country- regardless of whether this can in any way be justified due to the shared nationality of the occupiers and, those in the occupied territory. Moreover, many have expressed agreement with Prince Charles' comparison, including the leaders of Britain's three main political parties.
However, despite being a defender of the royal family and monarchy as an institution, I cannot support the Prince's remarks. Not because I thing his observation is incorrect, but because I think it is inappropriate for him to say this as a head of state-in-waiting. As I have said in previous posts, one of the roles of the British monarch is to act as an ambassador for the UK, and play a crucial role in fostering warm relations with countries around the world. In my opinion, this includes Russia. Foreign affairs is a very fickle business, particularly regarding Russia, with which Britain has had a very on/off relationship for centuries. Anglo-Russian relations are arguably at their worst since the Cold War; but Russia remains an important country in global affairs, and it will always be more beneficial for Russia to be an ally, rather than an enemy, of the UK. When the time comes to try and improve Anglo-Russian relations again, a typical symbol of these efforts tends to be a state visit. One day, whether in the near future or in the longer term, our prospective King Charles III could be asked to undertake such a visit, but these efforts could be undermined from the onset by memories of Charles' comments- particularly if Putin is still Russia's head of state at the time.
Charles is often criticised for expressing his personal opinions on a variety of issues in the UK. Whether one agrees with his opinions or not, he nevertheless does tend to encourage national discussion, debate, and potential action in response to such issues- which can only be a good thing. Sometimes these will be high profile issues already in the spotlight, while others tend to be ignored unless they are highlighted by figures such as Prince Charles. But criticism of other countries and their heads of state undermines the ambassadorial role of the British monarchy, regardless of whether these views are correct, popular or otherwise.
His mother, the current monarch Queen Elizabeth II, was highly praised a few years ago for her sensitivity and dignity shown during her state visit to the Republic of Ireland- a visit which alluded to many controversial occasions in Anglo-Irish relations over the years.
Whilst controversy is something the Queen has successfully demonstrated an ability to help overcome, this is something that Prince Charles has instead encouraged.
Sunday, 25 May 2014
Saturday, 29 March 2014
TV Debates and the European Union
Last week, we witnessed the first of two televised debates on the European Union, featuring two of the UK's most prominent politicians- two of the leaders of Britain's four main political parties, each representing a party that has a very clear stance on Europe: one of whom is Nick Clegg, Deputy Prime Minister and leader of the Liberal Democrat party, which has long been considered the third party in British politics; while the other is Nigel Farage, leader of the UK Independence Party, a relatively new political party which has nevertheless defeated the established political parties in elections ranging from European to local (though not, crucially, in national, general elections). The UK's foremost party leaders, the Conservative Prime Minister, David Cameron, and Labour Leader of the Opposition, Ed Miliband, have abstained from involvement- though whether this is due being too busy to get involved or concerned with jeopardising their support by engaging in a contentious debate is unclear.
I personally sympathised with points raised by both figures: I agreed with Farage on the principle of British sovereignty, while I agreed with Clegg's economic arguments for remaining within the European Union. I ultimately am in favour of continued membership, and primarily reflect what seems to be the stance of the Prime Minister: the UK remaining part of the European Union, primarily for economic reasons, but also to encourage cooperation with other European countries; whilst wanting to avoid the European Union becoming more of a unified, country-like unit as opposed to an international organisation, and reject the imposition of laws on to countries which disagree with them. Ideally, in terms of legislation, unanimity would seem to be the best approach in order to avoid resentment but, ultimately, member states should be considered capable of making their own laws that are applicable to each country's culture and circumstances. Meanwhile, common sense needs to be entrenched in respect of migration of people within the European Union, with one of the greatest concerning the mass migration from poorer member states to wealthier ones, having negative economic and/or social consequences for all countries concerned. Despite this focus on the negative effects of membership, I consider the EU to be an institution which has bolstered and encouraged democracy across Europe. Its most visible benefits seem to be economic in my opinion, with a common market making Britain a more attractive country to invest in as a gateway into a market of hundreds of millions of relatively-wealthy consumers; it also means that goods can also be accessed more easily, aiding Britain's productivity and boosting manufacturing- a key element in efforts to rebalance the economy away from reliance on the services sector. Despite arguments that European red tape is prohibitive for businesses, it would arguably be more so if businesses had to comply with completely separate laws and regulations if it wanted to deal with Britain, and if it became more difficult to move goods and people to and from Britain via a majority of other European countries. We have already heard in the press of the challenge tourists currently face if they want to include Britain in a trip around Europe due to the visa system, and the consequent loss of tourists to the UK. Due to the aforementioned arguments, I support British membership of the European Union, primarily for economic reasons, though with substantial reforms of the organisation, primarily for the sake of national sovereignty.
One final point I'd like to make concerns the format of the televised debate itself. On the one hand, it is undoubtedly a straightforward format in which to see the different attitudes of parties and individuals on various issues. It's also one of the more effective ways of engaging the public with politics. However, by its very nature, it encourages politicians to resort to catchy soundbites and one-liners rather than potentially less-engaging arguments containing substance and facts- a more populist approach. Moreover, whereas the written word is often a result of lengthy consideration and research, televised debates are more about style and responding to questions on the spot. It can consequently say more about a politicians' effectiveness in improvising than the validity of their argument. If someone becomes flustered and stammers in a debate, it is seen as a sign of defeat and losing an argument, when it might actually just be the individual is less adept at providing speedy, spur-of-the-moment answers.
I personally sympathised with points raised by both figures: I agreed with Farage on the principle of British sovereignty, while I agreed with Clegg's economic arguments for remaining within the European Union. I ultimately am in favour of continued membership, and primarily reflect what seems to be the stance of the Prime Minister: the UK remaining part of the European Union, primarily for economic reasons, but also to encourage cooperation with other European countries; whilst wanting to avoid the European Union becoming more of a unified, country-like unit as opposed to an international organisation, and reject the imposition of laws on to countries which disagree with them. Ideally, in terms of legislation, unanimity would seem to be the best approach in order to avoid resentment but, ultimately, member states should be considered capable of making their own laws that are applicable to each country's culture and circumstances. Meanwhile, common sense needs to be entrenched in respect of migration of people within the European Union, with one of the greatest concerning the mass migration from poorer member states to wealthier ones, having negative economic and/or social consequences for all countries concerned. Despite this focus on the negative effects of membership, I consider the EU to be an institution which has bolstered and encouraged democracy across Europe. Its most visible benefits seem to be economic in my opinion, with a common market making Britain a more attractive country to invest in as a gateway into a market of hundreds of millions of relatively-wealthy consumers; it also means that goods can also be accessed more easily, aiding Britain's productivity and boosting manufacturing- a key element in efforts to rebalance the economy away from reliance on the services sector. Despite arguments that European red tape is prohibitive for businesses, it would arguably be more so if businesses had to comply with completely separate laws and regulations if it wanted to deal with Britain, and if it became more difficult to move goods and people to and from Britain via a majority of other European countries. We have already heard in the press of the challenge tourists currently face if they want to include Britain in a trip around Europe due to the visa system, and the consequent loss of tourists to the UK. Due to the aforementioned arguments, I support British membership of the European Union, primarily for economic reasons, though with substantial reforms of the organisation, primarily for the sake of national sovereignty.
One final point I'd like to make concerns the format of the televised debate itself. On the one hand, it is undoubtedly a straightforward format in which to see the different attitudes of parties and individuals on various issues. It's also one of the more effective ways of engaging the public with politics. However, by its very nature, it encourages politicians to resort to catchy soundbites and one-liners rather than potentially less-engaging arguments containing substance and facts- a more populist approach. Moreover, whereas the written word is often a result of lengthy consideration and research, televised debates are more about style and responding to questions on the spot. It can consequently say more about a politicians' effectiveness in improvising than the validity of their argument. If someone becomes flustered and stammers in a debate, it is seen as a sign of defeat and losing an argument, when it might actually just be the individual is less adept at providing speedy, spur-of-the-moment answers.
Sunday, 9 March 2014
Control of Crimea
In the past week, the Crimea region has been the centre of concern in Europe- and perhaps the world- as tensions between ethnic Ukrainians and Russians within Ukraine have come to blows since the Ukrainian president, Viktor Yukanovych, fled following violent clashes in the Ukrainian capital, Kiev. Crimea is now the focus as the region, which has an ethnic Russian majority, seems inclined to unite with Russia rather than remain part of a Ukraine which now has government with a pro-EU stance, and some argue is backed by Ukrainian nationalists.
Whilst the issue of who will form a legitimate, long-term government in Ukraine will hopefully resolve itself peacefully soon (elections are due in May), the most pressing debate concerns whether Crimea will remain with Ukraine or unite with Russia. Crimean politicians have declared a desire to unite with Russia, and intend to hold a referendum on the issue in a week's time. Despite being officially a part of Ukraine for approximately 60 years, and within Ukraine since it gained independence in the 1990s, Russia has maintained a naval base there since Ukraine's independence, and prior to independence Ukraine was part of the Russian-dominated Soviet Union. While Crimean politicians, and many Crimean citizens, have demonstrated in favour of unification with Russia and asked for Russian support; the new provisional government in Ukraine, and ethnic Ukrainians and other minorities in Crimea, have criticised the moves as dangerous and illegal.
Having never been to Ukraine, and having a limited understanding of the issues debated, my opinion may be of little value. However, from what I understand, I find myself surprisingly disagreeing with the stance of the governments of Britain, the US and elsewhere in the Western world; and supporting those campaigning for independence. I don't necessarily think that Crimea should be independent, but I think that if enough people desire independence, then they should have the opportunity to decide. Moreover, as the Crimean politicians were elected by Crimean citizens, and that they are considering a democratic referendum- if they reach the ultimate conclusion that they want to join Russia instead of Ukraine, then they should be able to pursue that course, provided it has the agreement of the Russian government as well. Having said this, I am also mindful of concerns with the minorities in the region, such as ethnic Ukrainians and Tatars, who are wary of integration with Russia, but I tend to take the view that, in a democracy, the views of the majority should trump those of a minority- though not that minorities should be allowed to be punished or discriminated against as a consequence. I disagree with any aggression on the part of Russian forces, and the thuggery reported of pro-Russians towards pro-Ukrainians, but on the overriding principle of Crimea deciding what fate is best for the majority of its citizens, I think the best stance to take is to respect what the majority there want.
Rushing through a referendum in less than a fortnight is not ideal but, in the current situation, a referendum with a result that is respected, is in my opinion surely the lesser evil of opposing what are essentially democratic processes.
Whilst the issue of who will form a legitimate, long-term government in Ukraine will hopefully resolve itself peacefully soon (elections are due in May), the most pressing debate concerns whether Crimea will remain with Ukraine or unite with Russia. Crimean politicians have declared a desire to unite with Russia, and intend to hold a referendum on the issue in a week's time. Despite being officially a part of Ukraine for approximately 60 years, and within Ukraine since it gained independence in the 1990s, Russia has maintained a naval base there since Ukraine's independence, and prior to independence Ukraine was part of the Russian-dominated Soviet Union. While Crimean politicians, and many Crimean citizens, have demonstrated in favour of unification with Russia and asked for Russian support; the new provisional government in Ukraine, and ethnic Ukrainians and other minorities in Crimea, have criticised the moves as dangerous and illegal.
Having never been to Ukraine, and having a limited understanding of the issues debated, my opinion may be of little value. However, from what I understand, I find myself surprisingly disagreeing with the stance of the governments of Britain, the US and elsewhere in the Western world; and supporting those campaigning for independence. I don't necessarily think that Crimea should be independent, but I think that if enough people desire independence, then they should have the opportunity to decide. Moreover, as the Crimean politicians were elected by Crimean citizens, and that they are considering a democratic referendum- if they reach the ultimate conclusion that they want to join Russia instead of Ukraine, then they should be able to pursue that course, provided it has the agreement of the Russian government as well. Having said this, I am also mindful of concerns with the minorities in the region, such as ethnic Ukrainians and Tatars, who are wary of integration with Russia, but I tend to take the view that, in a democracy, the views of the majority should trump those of a minority- though not that minorities should be allowed to be punished or discriminated against as a consequence. I disagree with any aggression on the part of Russian forces, and the thuggery reported of pro-Russians towards pro-Ukrainians, but on the overriding principle of Crimea deciding what fate is best for the majority of its citizens, I think the best stance to take is to respect what the majority there want.
Rushing through a referendum in less than a fortnight is not ideal but, in the current situation, a referendum with a result that is respected, is in my opinion surely the lesser evil of opposing what are essentially democratic processes.
Sunday, 2 March 2014
In anticipation of the next election...
With just over a year to go before the next general election in the UK, it is in the back of the minds of many of the British public- including me. When I consider the key election issues, I am concerned with the perception of the Government's approach, and the impact this could have on next year's vote.
To me, the most important is almost always going to be the economy: after all, it affects everyone's well-being, whilst also having an impact on government spending: if the economy is weak, and the government has barely enough money to spend, then it is limited in the scope of what it can afford to change in a significant way. On the whole, I'm very pleased with the Government's economic record to date: we have growth rates that are impressive compared with elsewhere in the developed world, despite ongoing economic challenges, whilst there is evidence of success and progress across most economic sectors. In addition, the Government's goal to shrink the size of the public sector without exacerbating unemployment seems to have been successful, with the number of new private sector jobs far outweighing the number of public sector jobs cut. A combination of confidence and assertiveness in light of our economic achievements, yet an avoidance of complacency in terms of Government debt (when this would have been a relatively easy stance to take when there has been a lot of good news on the economy), strike me as a very positive approach- and one I fear would be jeopardised by a potential Labour government in 2015, which could return to inflating the public sector once again without a pragmatic approach to funding it, creating another economic mess.
I support the government's ambitions regarding Europe: staying within the European Union, while hoping to steer our membership towards one that involves cooperation on political issues and close trading ties, as well as keeping interference in national affairs to a minimum and avoiding getting sucked into the difficulties being faced by the Eurozone. Having said this, I don't think that a Labour government would deviate too much from this- but implies it would be more reluctant to assert the UK's interests to the same extent as the Conservatives.
In terms of energy, the Government seems to be taking a sensible, balanced approach- introducing green technology, with its inherent positive impact on the environment, as well as pursuing the pragmatism of nuclear power and an openness to new potential sources, such as fracking. Meanwhile, the Government seems to have had an effective foreign policy: maintaining the "special relationship" with the United States; constructively seeking partners in Europe (most noticeably Germany's Angela Merkel) to achieve common goals in the EU; supporting humanitarian efforts globally, while taking a fair approach to crises around the world (such as Libya and Syria); and making more of an effort with our Commonwealth allies, with some seeming as strong as ever (Australia and Canada), while it seems that other relationships need more work (such as with India).
However, there have been some areas where quite radical ideas have been pursued, including the Education Secretary's reforms to education, the proposed HS2 high speed train line, and the Universal Credit benefits system, and is too early say what impact they will have (assuming they are not stopped or reversed by the government elected in 2015). Meanwhile, the government has received a bad press on the NHS (with numerous scandals in health, such as the level of care offered in hospitals, though my personal- albeit brief- uses of the NHS have almost always been positive) while there seems to have been little progress in terms of immigration.
Though areas of the public sector, such as education and healthcare, generally seem stronger under a Labour government, I fear Labour's potentially negative impact on the economy and even less control of immigration. But with government slip-ups in a number of areas, and the controversy surrounding the government's pro-austerity measures, Labour stubbornly clings to the lead in opinion polls (albeit a weak one) and, with disillusioned voters (particularly those usually supporting the Conservatives) likely to back UKIP as an alternative, I fear these ingredients seem to make a Labour victory likely in 2015 unless there are some significant changes- in spite of clear government success with the economy.
To me, the most important is almost always going to be the economy: after all, it affects everyone's well-being, whilst also having an impact on government spending: if the economy is weak, and the government has barely enough money to spend, then it is limited in the scope of what it can afford to change in a significant way. On the whole, I'm very pleased with the Government's economic record to date: we have growth rates that are impressive compared with elsewhere in the developed world, despite ongoing economic challenges, whilst there is evidence of success and progress across most economic sectors. In addition, the Government's goal to shrink the size of the public sector without exacerbating unemployment seems to have been successful, with the number of new private sector jobs far outweighing the number of public sector jobs cut. A combination of confidence and assertiveness in light of our economic achievements, yet an avoidance of complacency in terms of Government debt (when this would have been a relatively easy stance to take when there has been a lot of good news on the economy), strike me as a very positive approach- and one I fear would be jeopardised by a potential Labour government in 2015, which could return to inflating the public sector once again without a pragmatic approach to funding it, creating another economic mess.
I support the government's ambitions regarding Europe: staying within the European Union, while hoping to steer our membership towards one that involves cooperation on political issues and close trading ties, as well as keeping interference in national affairs to a minimum and avoiding getting sucked into the difficulties being faced by the Eurozone. Having said this, I don't think that a Labour government would deviate too much from this- but implies it would be more reluctant to assert the UK's interests to the same extent as the Conservatives.
In terms of energy, the Government seems to be taking a sensible, balanced approach- introducing green technology, with its inherent positive impact on the environment, as well as pursuing the pragmatism of nuclear power and an openness to new potential sources, such as fracking. Meanwhile, the Government seems to have had an effective foreign policy: maintaining the "special relationship" with the United States; constructively seeking partners in Europe (most noticeably Germany's Angela Merkel) to achieve common goals in the EU; supporting humanitarian efforts globally, while taking a fair approach to crises around the world (such as Libya and Syria); and making more of an effort with our Commonwealth allies, with some seeming as strong as ever (Australia and Canada), while it seems that other relationships need more work (such as with India).
However, there have been some areas where quite radical ideas have been pursued, including the Education Secretary's reforms to education, the proposed HS2 high speed train line, and the Universal Credit benefits system, and is too early say what impact they will have (assuming they are not stopped or reversed by the government elected in 2015). Meanwhile, the government has received a bad press on the NHS (with numerous scandals in health, such as the level of care offered in hospitals, though my personal- albeit brief- uses of the NHS have almost always been positive) while there seems to have been little progress in terms of immigration.
Though areas of the public sector, such as education and healthcare, generally seem stronger under a Labour government, I fear Labour's potentially negative impact on the economy and even less control of immigration. But with government slip-ups in a number of areas, and the controversy surrounding the government's pro-austerity measures, Labour stubbornly clings to the lead in opinion polls (albeit a weak one) and, with disillusioned voters (particularly those usually supporting the Conservatives) likely to back UKIP as an alternative, I fear these ingredients seem to make a Labour victory likely in 2015 unless there are some significant changes- in spite of clear government success with the economy.
Wednesday, 1 January 2014
Thoughts for the New Year (Scottish independence; the English language in the UK; alternative spending of the wealthy's benefits)
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!
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!
Sunday, 13 October 2013
Housing & Homelessness
Housing and homelessness are two significant issues in the UK, but
particularly in London. In London, the average property price is currently just
over £1,000,000, and consequently out of reach of average Londoners- let alone
Brits in general. House prices are high due to the relative lack of supply
compared with huge demand, caused by both a boom in the population size as well as the
desire for wealthy foreigners to secure a good investment. Meanwhile, as London
properties are snapped up by overseas investors, there are thousands of
homeless on London's streets. The two problems have interconnected causes and
solutions.
With regards to London's homelessness, a few years ago I was convinced that it was a relatively simple issue: when it comes to allocating council homes, the homeless should be prioritised over anyone migrating to the UK, following the logic that once everyone who needs the most urgent help here receives it before support is offered to those from elsewhere. However, I am now mindful of the complication to the homeless debate that freedom of movement within the EU brings. When membership only included Western European states, the similar levels of living standards meant that there were no expected floods of migration from one set of states to another. However, once Eastern European countries were admitted, the disparity in wealth between these member states and existing members was stark. Thus, rather than the light, inconspicuous flow of Western Europeans previously experienced, the differences between East and West meant that there was an inevitable flow of Eastern Europeans from East to West, where the greater wealth-creating opportunities were available. This not only stretched resources in Western Europe (a problem appreciated all the more when the economy is vulnerable), and reduced the number of available jobs at a time when unemployment remains a problem in many Western European countries, but also threatened developing Eastern European states with a "brain drain", as their gifted talented seek the opportunities in the West, denying their home states of their talents.
To hinder this imbalance and (returning to my original point) reduce the numbers of Eastern Europeans without the prospect of jobs and potentially living on the streets arriving in the UK, as in elsewhere in Western Europe, it would help if an agreement across the EU (and maybe the Schengen Area in its entirety as well) stated that Europeans are not permitted to migrate freely to another state unless they have a minimum amount of money in their bank account as proof that they can only make a positive contribution, and in no way hinder, the new state they are arriving in. Measures such as this would help alleviate growing Euroscepticism in the UK and elsewhere in Western Europe- not to mention allow UK lawmakers to do more to reduce the blight of homeless, without having the logistical nightmare of being compelled to house potentially millions of citizens from elsewhere in the EU.
Saturday, 12 October 2013
HS2, and how it could put Britain on track to bridge the North-South divide
For years, the British Government has been debating whether to construct a High Speed (HS) train service, linking London in the South; Birmingham in the Midlands; and Manchester and Leeds in the North of England. It is a controversial issue, with critics highlighting the cost of tens of billions of pounds, as well as the fact that many miles of countryside will be spoilt by railway lines crossing through them. However, I personally feel that the benefits would ultimately outweigh the costs over the long term, whilst the "Not In My Back Yard" attitude to so many potential infrastructure investments in Britain such as this is very impractical. We have an ever-expanding population, yet a reluctance to construct new railways and reservoirs to alleviate pressure on the overstretched, existing infrastructure.
With a multitude of drawbacks to being a motorist (from the variety of expenses involved, to the traffic jams and lack of parking spaces), it makes sense to support the railways- a practical way to transport masses of people, avoiding most of the numerous costs and inconveniences of driving, not to mention better for the environment. Meanwhile, the greatest attractions for me are the prospects for economic progress for the regions outside of the South-East of England. A high-speed service from the North and Midlands to the South will give access to the greater potential earnings on offer in London and the Home Counties via an expanded commuter belt, and consequently enhance demand in those areas for housing and boost local economies generally; on the other hand, it would make towns and cities elsewhere in England more attractive for investment, as they would be linked more effectively with the country's other economic centres. This could be a major step towards bridging the gap in wealth and opportunities between the North and South of England and, if successful, could also be used as a model for encouraging greater economic activity elsewhere in the UK, e.g. if HS2 were then be additionally linked to the North-East and South-West of England, Scotland and Wales. My main concern for this project is that ticket prices for the train could be too high to be accessible for ordinary Brits; in which case, the costs and sacrifices would have been in vain and great potential would be wasted.
With a multitude of drawbacks to being a motorist (from the variety of expenses involved, to the traffic jams and lack of parking spaces), it makes sense to support the railways- a practical way to transport masses of people, avoiding most of the numerous costs and inconveniences of driving, not to mention better for the environment. Meanwhile, the greatest attractions for me are the prospects for economic progress for the regions outside of the South-East of England. A high-speed service from the North and Midlands to the South will give access to the greater potential earnings on offer in London and the Home Counties via an expanded commuter belt, and consequently enhance demand in those areas for housing and boost local economies generally; on the other hand, it would make towns and cities elsewhere in England more attractive for investment, as they would be linked more effectively with the country's other economic centres. This could be a major step towards bridging the gap in wealth and opportunities between the North and South of England and, if successful, could also be used as a model for encouraging greater economic activity elsewhere in the UK, e.g. if HS2 were then be additionally linked to the North-East and South-West of England, Scotland and Wales. My main concern for this project is that ticket prices for the train could be too high to be accessible for ordinary Brits; in which case, the costs and sacrifices would have been in vain and great potential would be wasted.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)