Uses and Abuses

 

  

 

 



 

 

 

 

 

No doubt, thanks to PRISM whistleblower Edward Snowden, who is interviewed in the above video, you have been reading about how Uncle Sam is allegedly wiretapping America's planet for the purpose of exercising dominion over it.

 

The Guardian interview offers a salutary insight into what has become of US democracy today and the nature of digital communications:

 

"Q: Is it possible to put security in place to protect against state surveillance?

 

A: 'You are not even aware of what is possible. The extent of their capabilities is horrifying. We can plant bugs in machines. Once you go on the network, I can identify your machine. You will never be safe whatever protections you put in place.'"

 

This is what I have long understood to be the case: anyone who tells you that it is possible to provide yourself with a secure digital environment, particularly when you are online, is simply not to be taken seriously. Relate this to the fact that there is a powerful rogue state out there that seems to think the rest of the world is essentially America's back yard.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Huffington Post, June 7th 2013

 

 

 



 

It is as well, accordingly, to be mindful of the special relationship between the security services of the US and the UK, which, regardless of any expediently emollient assurances to the contrary which may be forthcoming, can safely be relied upon to be treating Scottish separatism as a 'national security threat', given its perceived implications for nuclear deterrence and the existing balance of power, which Uncle Sam really does not want you to disturb. Pax Americana.

 

 

 

 

 

UPDATE, June 11th

 

 

Don't miss Daniel Ellsberg's article on "the United Stasi of America" in today's Guardian, in which he writes of "an executive coup against the American constitution": 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Guardian, June 11th 2013

 

 

 

  

 

Dr Ellsberg's website is here.

 

And how is mainland Europe viewing these revelations? Today's front page of the influential German business newspaper Handelsblatt has the headline Anger over a Friend above a picture of President Obama, whose campaign slogan Yes We Can has been converted to Yes We Scan.

 

German business leaders are reported to be shocked and say they do not trust Internet organizations such as Google and Facebook, now understood to be closely linked to the US security service. Handelsblatt urges Chancellor Merkel to take the matter up with Mr Obama when she has discussions with him in the near future:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Handelsblatt, June 11th 2013





 

 

  

 

UPDATE, 17:10

 

 

What is going on in Washington? The Washington Post would like to know:

 

"'Now, the programmes that have been discussed over the last couple of days in the press are secret in the sense that they're classified, but they're not secret in the sense that, when it comes to telephone calls, every member of Congress has been briefed on this programme. With respect to all these programmes, the relevant intelligence committees are fully briefed on these programmes.'

 

— President Obama, remarks to the media, June 7, 2013

 

Something unusual happened shortly after President Obama made the statement [...] about the National Security Agency's domestic phone surveillance programme, in the wake of leaks to The Guardian newspaper and The Washington Post:  A fellow Democrat, Sen. Jeff Merkley of Oregon, rushed out and said the president was wrong.

 

'It's not something that's briefed outside the Intelligence Committee,' Merkley told MSNBC. 'I had to get special permission to find out about the programme.'

 

Meanwhile, another Democrat, Rep. Keith Ellison of Minnesota, also appeared to dispute the president's statement. He said he knew 'almost nothing' about the programme and had double checked his e-mails to see if he had received notice of a briefing. Even then, he suggested, he would be at a disadvantage because lawmakers can only hear the briefing without the benefit of staff expertise.

 

'The reality is you can't bring your staff in there, so we are moving around Capitol Hill at lightning speed, nearly every member of Congress is,' he said on ABC's This Week.  'If you can't get staff support, that means you've got to go into that room, you've got to sit there and pore through documents over the course of hours.'

 

Ellison spokesman Jeremy Slevin clarified that Ellison was referring to the PRISM programme — which Obama had said was briefed just to the Intelligence Committees. Ellison is not a member of the House Intelligence Committee. 'Regarding phone records, he has attended classified briefings on the Patriot Act, but the content of those briefings, including whether or not they covered the Executive Branch's interpretation of Section 215, is classified,' Slevin said.

 

What’s going on here?" (The Washington Post, June 11th 2013)

 

What's going on here? "Expediently emollient assurances", inter alia, to quote myself, but less smoothly executed than the meticulously obfuscating waffle from the UK foreign minister in the inferior chamber of the anglo-parliament yesterday, in the course of which nothing of substance concerning UK use of material obtained by means of the US PRISM programme was clarified, as was only to be expected. As the BBC's UK political editor, Nick Robinson, put it, "[...] if you were hoping for clear or detailed answers, you did not get them."

 

 

 

 

UPDATE, June 12th

Mainland Europe is now showing signs of being more than a little uneasy about the joint US/UK Internet espionage activity that is being directed at it, against which it is apparently powerless to defend itself. Trouble is brewing:

"I have serious concerns about recent media reports that United States authorities are accessing and processing, on a large scale, the data of European Union citizens using major US online service providers. [...]

Programmes such as PRISM and the laws on the basis of which such programmes are authorized could have grave adverse consequences for the fundamental rights of EU citizens.

The respect for fundamental rights and the rule of law are the foundations of the EU-US relationship. This common understanding has been, and must remain, the basis of co-operation between us." (Viviane Reding, European Commission Vice-President and Commissioner for Justice, Fundamental Rights and Citizenship, in a letter to US Attorney-General Eric Holder, as reported in The Financial Times, June 11th 2013)

Understanding the Anglo-Saxon PRISM programme - in-depth coverage in Le Monde today:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Le Monde, June 12th 2013

(Click on link to see full-size image.)

 

 

 

 

 

Question for the Bitter Together campaign: How does Scotland benefit from being associated with this breathtaking CIA/MI5 special-relationship outrage?

 

 

 

 

UPDATE, June 18th

 

 

I have a little ditty for you in honour of the rascals who are undermining democracy and much else by allowing the sort of surveillance activity revealed by Snowden, which, one learns from The Guardian, has included UK government monitoring of communications of delegates at high-level international conferences such as the one which has just been taking place in Northern Ireland. Oh, the rascals, as the song puts it, "who've nearly all been decorated":

 

 





 

Ah les salauds! (Aristide Bruant)

 

 

 

 

 

Salaud is, admittedly, a somewhat stronger term than rascal, in point of fact. Think of bar steward, phonetically and laterally.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Watch Out, There's a Friend Listening In

Diplomatic Disaster

Tageszeitung, June 18th 2013

 

 

 

 

The pre-G8 revelation of Perfidious Albion's dubious practice of spying on other delegations' electronic communications at UK-hosted international conferences . . . not for security reasons but for political reasons (to gain negotiating advantage for UK politicians) has made waves in Germany and nearer to home, where terms stronger than rascals or even salauds are being resorted to, needless to say, to describe the not outstandingly honourable servants of the not outstandingly honourable UK state. The implications are extensive. To read the above Tageszeitung article, about the Blighty spying scandal in relation to the G8 conference which ends today, click here.



Another Slap in the Face

On June 2nd Her Very Gracious Anglo-Majesty celebrated the 60th anniversary of the day when she cocked a snook at the Scots by insisting on having herself crowned as QEII of England rather than QEI of Great Britain. She was presumably advised that it served the Scots right for vandalizing her coronation chair and that she was in any case safe enough to do this sort of thing to them, as it had been done before without the sky falling in (yet).

"When in 1901 the son of Queen Victoria succeeded his mother as Edward VII, it did not occur to the government of the day that there might be a problem, and there were not even many protests in Scotland; nevertheless, no king by the name of Edward had ever sat on the throne of Scotland. On the other hand, when the present queen was crowned Elizabeth II, the nationalist movement was quick to denounce this desecration of Scottish history, Elizabeth I never having been queen of Scotland, and when the GPO came up with the unfortunate idea of installing post boxes bearing the inscription EIIR (Elizabeth II Regina), a number of them were blown up in one of the few instances of violence in the history of Scottish nationalism. In spite of all of this, when one of the nationalist leaders of the period, John MacCormick, attempted to have the title 'Elizabeth II' declared illegal by a Scottish court, the case was dismissed." (Jacques Leruez, L'Ecosse, une nation sans Etat, 1983)

In point of fact, while it is true, as Leruez indicates, that there was no organized or spectacular resistance in 1901, news of the constitutionally abhorrent title which Prince Albert Edward chose for himself not only caused widespread dismay and disappointment in Scotland at that time but also engendered a quietly simmering and vaguely ominous dissatisfaction there, as correspondence in the letters columns of Scottish newspapers in the very early days of the post-Victorian era attests:

 

"Glasgow, January 23, 1901

 

Sir, - My knowledge of history may be at fault, but my feeling has always been that when James VI of Scotland was called to the English throne he was crowned James I of Great Britain. If such was the case, why are some of the English papers already talking of Edward VII? It seems to me that Edward I is the proper title, being the first king of that name who has reigned over Great Britain. At this time of national mourning over the death of our beloved Queen I have no desire to rouse any narrow or jealous feeling among Scottish people. Still, if I am right, the sooner the matter is made clear the better. If our English fellow subjects once get the wrong way into their heads we know from the 'England v. Britain' controversy that it will be a very difficult thing to get them out of the bad habit. - I am, etc., JK"

 

Alas for JK, it was not only the English papers which were already referring to the new king as Edward VII. In the very issue of The Glasgow Herald in which his or her letter appeared, and on the same page, one finds a biographical article entitled King Edward VII: the Career of the New Sovereign, the late Queen, despite her professed affection for Scotland, having apparently desired that her son should take this title:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



 

"We are now living in the reign of Edward VII. It was officially announced yesterday that the King will be so styled in the Proclamation announcing the accession to the Throne, and when members of Parliament met to take the oath of allegiance the Speaker in his few and formal remarks spoke of the new Sovereign as 'Her Majesty's successor, King Edward VII'. It is understood that the King, in the short and pathetic speech which he delivered at the meeting of Privy Council at which he announced his accession, said he took this name in deference to the wishes of his mother. One can readily understand the King's desire to leave the name Albert as the exclusive treasure of her who never ceased to cherish the memory of the husband whom she lost forty years ago and by whose side she will soon be laid. It is stated in some quarters that the King will be known officially as Edward VII of England and Edward I of Scotland, precisely as the successor of Queen Elizabeth was known officially as James I of England and James VI of Scotland. [...] doubtless the predominant partner will have his way in the matter of general designation [...]" (The Glasgow Herald, January 24th 1901)

 

Needless to say, customarily insincere anglo-flannel notwithstanding, "the predominant partner" did indeed have his way in the matter of general designation, the London Gazette giving as the title of the new monarch "Edward VII, by the grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, Defender of the Faith, Emperor of India". More letters poured into Scottish newspapers, of course, and some were even published. Nonetheless, casting logic to the winds, as is his wont, the predominant partner stuck to his guns and established a precedent, and we know how said partner adores and indeed venerates a precedent, particularly when it suits his purpose and especially when it disobliges the Scots, or so it would appear.

 

In accordance with advice tendered by the usual narrowly anglocentric flunkies who infest British institutions to the detriment of the UK state, the precedent was more or less automatically followed by Queen Elizabeth half a century later, because in England that is what precedents are for, and it had already been followed by her disgraceful Uncle David (Edward VIII and II), although not for very long, of course.

 

The Daily Telegraph, June 3rd 1953

"A common theme running through the debate on the Scottish constitutional question is the 'doctrine' of popular sovereignty and its juxtaposition with the sovereignty of the Westminster parliament. [...] Most discussions start with the incidental comment by Lord Cooper in the Court of Session in 1953, in the case of MacCormick v. the Lord Advocate, that parliamentary sovereignty was a purely English doctrine and had no place in Scottish constitutional law. This case concerned the appropriateness of the title Queen Elizabeth II for the new monarch, since there had never been a Queen Elizabeth I of Scotland. The case fell as it was found that the monarch's title was part of the royal prerogative, but it also involved the question of the courts' ability to nullify an act of parliament. Also central was the issue of whether the Acts of Union represented a fundamental constitutional law which restrained the activity of parliament. If one accepts that the UK is a union state inheriting elements of all its constituent parts there is no need to assume that the sovereignty of the English parliament was carried over into the new British parliament which was created in 1707. Some would argue that the Scottish parliament was not sovereign: it was subservient to the Lords of the Articles and, although not in the years between 1689 and 1707 when it was quite assertive, there were other rival national institutions, such as the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland. So, although there might be a sound case for the absence of a Scottish doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty, the assertion of popular sovereignty to fill the gap seems less secure. This argument rests on medieval and early modern evidence—notably the Declaration of Arbroath and the work of George Buchanan—that the authority of Scottish monarchs is, in the words of its most distinguished advocate, 'limited by the express or implied terms on which the powers are entrusted to them' by the people. Modern scholars might be a little uneasy about this weight being placed on the Declaration of 1320 and stress the anachronistic nature of interpreting it in the context of modern notions of democracy and nationalism. Nevertheless, this is a significant argument because it has implications for the constitutional status of the Union of 1707 and the conditions under which it can be modified or even dissolved. An acceptance of the popular-sovereignty argument suggests that the future of the Union is not merely in the hands of the Westminster parliament, but that the Scottish people, perhaps through a referendum, have a role to play." (Impaled upon a Thistle: Scotland since 1880, Ewen A Cameron, 2010)

"THE LORD PRESIDENT:

[...] The principle of the unlimited sovereignty of Parliament is a distinctively English principle which has no counterpart in Scottish constitutional law. It derives its origin from Coke and Blackstone, and was widely popularized during the nineteenth century by Bagehot and Dicey, the latter having stated the doctrine in its classic form in his Law of the Constitution. Considering that the Union legislation extinguished the Parliaments of Scotland and England and replaced them by a new Parliament, I have difficulty in seeing why it should have been supposed that the new Parliament of Great Britain must inherit all the peculiar characteristics of the English Parliament but none of the Scottish Parliament, as if all that happened in 1707 was that Scottish representatives were admitted to the Parliament of England. That is not what was done. Further, the Treaty and the associated legislation, by which the Parliament of Great Britain was brought into being as the successor of the separate Parliaments of Scotland and England, contain some clauses which expressly reserve to the Parliament of Great Britain powers of subsequent modification, and other clauses which either contain no such power or emphatically exclude subsequent alteration by declarations that the provision shall be fundamental and unalterable in all time coming, or declarations of a like effect. I have never been able to understand how it is possible to reconcile with elementary canons of construction the adoption by the English constitutional theorists of the same attitude to these markedly different types of provisions.

The Lord Advocate conceded this point by admitting that the Parliament of Great Britain 'could not' repeal or alter such 'fundamental and essential' conditions. He was doubtless influenced in making this concession by the modified views expressed by Dicey in his later work entitled Thoughts on the Scottish Union, from which I take this passage (pp252–253):—'The statesmen of 1707, though giving full sovereign power to the Parliament of Great Britain, clearly believed in the possibility of creating an absolutely sovereign Legislature which should yet be bound by unalterable laws.' After instancing the provisions as to Presbyterian Church government in Scotland with their emphatic prohibition against alteration, the author proceeds:—'It represents the conviction of the Parliament which passed the Act of Union that the Act for the security of the Church of Scotland ought to be morally or constitutionally unchangeable, even by the British Parliament … A sovereign Parliament, in short, though it cannot be logically bound to abstain from changing any given law, may, by the fact that an Act when it was passed had been declared to be unchangeable, receive a warning that it cannot be changed without grave danger to the Constitution of the country.' I have not found in the Union legislation any provision that the Parliament of Great Britain should be 'absolutely sovereign' in the sense that that Parliament should be free to alter the Treaty at will. However that may be, these passages provide a necessary corrective to the extreme formulations adopted by the Lord Ordinary, and not now supported. In the latest editions of the Law of the Constitution the editor uneasily describes Dicey's theories as 'purely lawyer's conceptions', and demonstrates how deeply later events, such as the Statute of Westminster, have encroached upon the earlier dogmas. As is well known, the conflict between academic logic and political reality has been emphasized by the recent South African decision as to the effect of the Statute of Westminster— Harris v. Minister of Interior." (MacCormick v. Lord Advocate [1953 SC 396])

"[...] some reconsideration of the principle [of parliamentary sovereignty] was prompted by litigation in South Africa, and subsequently doubts found expression here in MacCormick v. Lord Advocate [1953 SC 396], particularly in the opinion of Lord President Cooper. In discussing the general proposition it seems necessary to distinguish, though this has not always been done, different types of limitation. There is first the limitation which may exist in a constituent document, there is secondly the limitation which Parliament, once created, may subsequently impose upon itself. The second form of limitation could take various forms, the abdication or denial of legislative power, or the imposition of restrictions as to time, form or content of legislation, or any combination of these last limitations. Different principles may apply in each case.

[...] if it be accepted (as it seems it must be, because of their terms and origin) that the Acts of Union of 1707 were intended to be, and were, constituent Acts, then 1707 forms a fresh starting point. [...] it is not clear that in 1707 [...] the English Parliament was accepted as 'sovereign' in the sense in which the word is now used. [...] It is more probable that, in the modern acceptance of that term, the doctrine, if it exists, is a post-Union development closely linked with the ideas underlying the reforms of 1832. It is certainly possible that as constituent documents the Acts of Union could have imposed limitations, and it is equally clear that some of those responsible for them hoped so to do. This possibility is enhanced by the terminology of the Acts. Too much cannot be built upon such phrases as 'in all time coming' or 'for ever', which were of common occurrence in the Acts of the Parliament of Scotland; nevertheless, the insistence upon the protection of the church, of the courts, and of equality, marks out such provisions, and they have equally been emphasized in decisions which isolate them as of particular importance.

[...] it seems that hypothetically the Acts of Union could have imposed limitations upon the Union Parliament, being antecedent to it, and that those limitations could be valid. It also appears that such was the intention of the framers and that this intention has been recognized, indirectly at least, in some of the decisions [...]" (JDB Mitchell, Constitutional Law, 2nd edition, Edinburgh, 1968)

"The obiter dictum of Lord Cooper in the decision in the case of MacCormick v. Lord Advocate 1953 SC 396 has come to be well known. In the action which gave rise to the decision the pursuer complained that the British queen was using the title Elizabeth II in Scotland although she was the first monarch of that name in that jurisdiction. (Elizabeth I was only queen of England, not Scotland.) The Court of Session in Edinburgh dismissed the action in the final instance on the ground that there was no locus standi [entitlement to have the court decide the merits of the issue]. In his ruling Lord Cooper expressed a distinctly sceptical view of the traditional understanding of the doctrine of unlimited parliamentary sovereignty with regard to matters referred to in the Treaty of Union. [...] Reservations about the full applicability of the doctrine of unlimited parliamentary sovereignty were also expressed by Lord Keith in Gibson v. Lord Advocate [1975] SLT 134." (Rainer Grote, The United Kingdom on the Way to a Federal State, Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law, 1998)

As for the royal-numeral controversy per se, it served as a focal point more effectively at the time than did the lawyers' debate on the subject of popular versus parliamentary sovereignty, whether limited or otherwise (more important though the latter question is), drawing the attention of the international media to Scotland to see what all the fuss was about, as was to happen on a number of occasions in the years to come as the self-government movement evolved and grew in strength and sophistication:

Der Spiegel, May 20th 1953

Translation:

 

"From an historical point of view the Scots are in fact correct, because:

 

(i) there has never been a Scottish Elizabeth I, and

 

(ii) the English monarch of that name and title never ruled in Scotland.

 

With logic on their side Scotland's nationalists, whose sensitivities have been deeply wounded, sadly observe that 'even Ceylon may decide for itself the title under which the Queen reigns there, but we are not allowed that privilege'.

 

'King John' MacCormick of Scotland: 'What option is left to us but dynamite?'

 

Scots, who are known for their thrift, put up public notices in Glasgow and Edinburgh promising

 

a reward of £2,000

 

for

 

information leading to the identification of

 

Elizabeth I of Scotland

 

DEAD OR ALIVE.

 

The police, failing to appreciate the humour, tore the notices off walls and arrested two adolescent bill posters." (Der Spiegel, May 20th 1953)

 

"[John MacCormick] was a founder of the Home Rule movement. He funded my taking of the Stone [of Destiny]. He sued the Queen for calling herself EIIR. For this he lost his job when his legal partners threw him out.

He died believing himself a Failure.

He dreamed of a State Opening of Parliament such as we have been invited to [the official opening of the SNP-dominated Scottish Parliament on July 1st 2011].

Enough to know he dreamed and is dead, but not enough for me.

I write out these words, for they could have been his words and the words of the generations who have gone unheeded before us.

 

 

We Saw A Vision

In the darkness of despair we saw a vision,
We lit the light of hope and it was not extinguished.
In the desert of discouragement we saw a vision.
We planted the tree of valour and it blossomed.
In the winter of bondage we saw a vision.
We melted the snow of lethargy and the river of resurrection flowed from it.
We sent our vision aswim like a swan on the river. The vision became a reality.
Winter became summer. Bondage became freedom and this we left to you as your inheritance.
O generations of freedom remember us, the generations of the vision.

- Liam Mac Uistin (Poem in the Garden of Remembrance, Dublin)

 

 

 

So lived and died John MacDonald MacCormick and a few of his generation giving hope to me and to those who have come since." (Ian Hamilton QC, June 6th 2011)

More on this period here.

A Slap in the Face

 

  

 

 



 

No, Minister

 

 

 

 

It is a not very well kept secret that the power which every individual possesses to deliver an embarrassing snub is potentially devastating. Watch the above video if you are not convinced.

 

Unspeakably rude though the practice is, and indefensibly unkind in personal terms, of course, it simply is a fact that the finely calculated insult and/or snub can be used to surprisingly potent effect. It is a question of time and place and the element of surprise.

 

The hapless victim in this case is his Castilian excellency the Spanish Minister of Education, José Ignacio Wert Ortega, who has antagonized practically the whole of Catalonia by proposing to 'hispanicize' that autonomous community by reducing the status of the Catalan language in the Catalan education system, although education is an area of responsibility which has been devolved to the (currently pro-independence) Catalan Government.

 

Mr Wert is, in fact, unpopular throughout the entire territory of the Castilian state, as his educational reforms involve substantial reductions in public spending and a threat to universal access to higher education, which is the specific point to which the protesters in the video are mainly drawing attention: public education is for everyone!  That is the lesson being rammed home none too respectfully by these student recipients of prestigious university awards at the Auditorio Nacional de Madrid as some flaunt the message on the green tee-shirts they are wearing and, though it evidently goes against the grain, conspicuously decline to honour the honoured guest by shaking hands with him and stride purposefully away instead as the audience applauds and the Minister wipes egg off his face.

 

The brutally powerful effect of this crowd-event insult can be read nowhere so clearly as in the expression on the freshly slapped face of the high-profile victim, "poor Wert", as the king of Spain referred to this unfortunate gentleman on a previous embarrassing occasion. One cannot help feeling sorry for the man . . . but not so sorry as one feels for those who are on the receiving end of the grotesquely comprehensive maladministration of a government which has achieved a youth-unemployment rate in excess of 57% and refuses to countenance a referendum on Catalan independence in open contempt of Catalan public opinion.


A Vision for the Future

 

 

   



 

The above report, although commissioned to mark the 60th anniversary of the Nordic Council in 2012, is no run-of-the-mill commemorative publication. The Nordic Council is looking to the future and is seeking to follow up on the renewed debate about co-operation.

 

There is much to suggest that the Nordic region is experiencing a renaissance. The crisis in the European Union, the strength of the Nordic welfare model and global interest in the Arctic are just some of the factors leading the independent Nordic countries towards further collaboration on a basis of equality and mutual respect in areas of mutual interest. As foreign and defence policy have become key areas of co-operation, the structures established in the 1950s and 1970s are no longer considered to be fit for purpose.

 

The book by Dr Johan Strang presents a vision for the future based on visible, high-profile and result-orientated co-operation in Nordic communities:

"All of the conditions for a third Nordic golden age are now in place. Major global geopolitical shifts are creating conditions in which it is both easy and desirable to work with your nearest neighbours. The world is becoming less Euro-centric. The US is turning its attention inwards or towards other parts of the world, and Asia – particularly China – is emerging as an increasingly important economic and political centre.

In addition, the Nordic region itself is becoming less peripheral. The Arctic is in the global spotlight thanks to the lure of natural resources and new shipping routes opened up by climate change. The Nordic region increasingly serves as a link between Europe and Asia, be it for shipping, air or rail traffic. It has become a key part of European energy policy, especially since Germany decided to do away with nuclear power. Economics increasingly dominates political debate, and the Nordic model is attracting considerable international interest as a way of creating the conditions for a flexible and competitive economy combined with adequate welfare provision.

The Nordic countries consistently top the international rankings for education and training, gender equality, innovation and competitiveness.

Throughout history neighbouring states and other major powers have sought to split the region. Now nobody has anything to gain from stymying the Nordic region. Even NATO and the EU no longer constitute obstacles – in fact, quite the opposite. Within both organizations the role of regional co-operation is increasing, while the distinctions between members and non-members are declining in importance. There is a growing need for complementary forms of multilateral partnerships and organizations that transcend the limits of the EU and NATO. Both the Baltic and the Arctic regions face challenges that need to be solved through working together at regional level.

The peoples of the five Nordic nations share culture, values and a sense of affinity. This unique sense of community should not be taken for granted. Maintaining it requires wide-ranging cultural co-operation … to reinforce the popular sense of community.

Under the current circumstances the Nordic countries are not in need of a one-size-fits-all … federal state. Rather, it is important to develop new ways of working together at international level, which combine flexible solutions for specific policy areas with the lofty ambitions and democratic transparency of a federal state."

Ten Points

 

 

 



 

 

Ten things to tell your friends about an independent Scotland

 

 

 

 

This not a bad presentation, but that sort of thing lacks imagination and power, I venture to suggest. The power that a talking-heads show lacks is the power to connect . . . unless you have a very special talking head, that is.

 

Quite some time ago I drew attention to an inspiring lipdub for independence performed by the people of Vic in Catalonia. I notice that the video of this has now been viewed 2,020,160 times on YouTube. Here it is:

 

 

 

 



 

 

 

 

I trust this makes my point.

 

At the University of Vic, incidentally, they have now moved on to producing a remarkable video involving bodydubbing, which is a highly engaging artistic discipline involving body percussion, I suppose one might say, for the purpose of drawing attention to a message in an optimistic and rather insistent sort of way. But take a look and see for yourself:

 

 

 

 



 

 

 

 

Engaging or what?