tag:theconversation.com,2011:/ca/topics/william-hague-9191/articlesWilliam Hague – The Conversation2015-04-17T05:24:06Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/392762015-04-17T05:24:06Z2015-04-17T05:24:06ZState of the Nation: Britain’s role in the world just keeps shrinking<p><em>Welcome to our State of the Nation series, which looks at the coalition government’s progress over the past five years, across a range of vital policy areas. Maxine David looks at Britain’s diminishing role in world affairs.</em></p>
<p>The coalition’s five years in power have included a few real foreign policy triumphs, most recently with the <a href="https://theconversation.com/iran-celebrates-historic-nuclear-deal-all-eyes-now-on-supreme-leader-39528">Iran nuclear deal framework</a> and the British <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/oct/08/british-troops-sent-fight-ebola-sierra-leone">contribution to efforts against Ebola</a> but also in the early days with David Cameron’s triumphant <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-14926308">2011 visit to Tripoli</a>. </p>
<p>Seen in the round though, there is little to inspire confidence – unless a reduced role for Britain in the world is our preferred direction of travel. The UK’s retreat from leadership in world affairs has only hastened these last five years, and there’s no sign the country will change course any time soon.</p>
<h2>Island mentality</h2>
<p>The coalition’s austerity politics have undoubtedly affected its foreign and defence policies, as the 2010 <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/news/defence-budget-cut-by-eight-per-cent">Defence Spending Review</a> demonstrated. But the diminishing role of Britain abroad is also a consequence of other pressures, especially past failures such as Iraq and Afghanistan, which have greatly reduced the British <a href="https://theconversation.com/britain-must-figure-out-its-place-in-the-world-before-intervening-25963">appetite</a> for military adventures abroad. </p>
<p>The shadow of recent military campaigns has also made itself felt at home in a rising <a href="https://theconversation.com/nasty-piece-of-work-the-suns-nationalism-is-doing-england-great-harm-28426">nationalist</a> rhetoric and rejections of <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/cameron-my-war-on-multiculturalism-2205074.html">multiculturalism</a>. </p>
<p>The coalition has responded to these pressures by focusing on domestic politics, and re-orienting Britain’s foreign policy towards trade and cultural relations.</p>
<p>It was to be expected that the focus on cutting the deficit would impact on the full range of policy areas and certainly spending on foreign and defence policies becomes harder when vital services at home are being cut. </p>
<p>That is particularly so in the UK, where the tabloids are powerful influencers of public opinion and largely opposed to government spending abroad, which they generally decry for <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2343683/Britains-foreign-aid-madness-Cuts-home-STILL-hand-G8-country.html">coming at the expense of British citizens</a>. Accordingly, development assistance, foreign aid, and military interventions have all been under harsh scrutiny in the last five years, with the government all too often reacting to rather than leading the charge. </p>
<p>This was not the case in the early days of the coalition, where developments in both foreign and defence policies reflected a definite vision of what Britain’s role in the world would be. </p>
<p>In an early interview as foreign secretary, <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/william-hague/7856769/Hague-tears-up-the-book-on-foreign-policy.html">William Hague</a> signalled that Britain would turn its foreign policy attentions to developing trade, educational and cultural ties by capitalising on past relations with states such as India while forging new links to previously neglected countries like Brazil. The idea was to finally get Britain out from under the yoke of US foreign policy, and to reduce its dependence on European markets by forging stronger bonds beyond the continent.</p>
<p>But five years later, the US and Europe still account for the lion’s share of Britain’s <a href="http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/itis/international-trade-in-services/2011/sty-international-trade-in-services.html">trade</a>, and while there is some speculation that the “<a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/09/02/syria-america-uk-relationship-over_n_3856298.html">special relationship</a>” is no more, it hinges more on the dynamics of the Obama-Cameron relationship than any actual policy pivot away from Washington. </p>
<p>Some attention-grabbing new ventures on the African continent have been launched, most famously at the William Hague-Angelina Jolie summit on <a href="https://theconversation.com/not-all-messages-about-rape-were-welcome-at-hague-and-jolies-sexual-violence-summit-27945">sexual violence in conflict</a>. But real strategic objectives there are unclear, and the comprehensive and sustained concentration of efforts and attention required to be able to claim the UK is a major player in even small pockets of Africa have not been in evidence. </p>
<h2>On the way out</h2>
<p>As foreign policy became trade policy, swingeing cuts hit the defence budget and the numbers of British military personnel and Ministry of Defence civilian personnel through the 2010 Strategic Defence and Security Review. It has been calculated that, as a result, <a href="http://fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL33105.pdf">conventional military combat capability</a> has decreased by 20-30% and that defence spending will shortly fall below the NATO benchmark of 2% GDP. </p>
<p>A new spending review is expected after May 7, but no-one knows what the results will be. What is clear is that Britain’s capacity to project force abroad has already been drastically reduced. This is already colouring Downing Street’s relationship with the White House. </p>
<p>The UK has traditionally been the principal amplifier of America’s voice in Europe, and has reliably kept up its share of defence spending, usually exceeding the 2% benchmark. But given the extent of Britain’s fiscal retrenchment, the US is <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31695082">justifiably concerned</a> that in the longer term it will have to look elsewhere. And as if to prove it right, Britain has done little to assert leadership in Europe, or in any of the multilateral organisations to which it belongs. </p>
<p>The crisis in Ukraine was a big opportunity to tackle the increasingly aggressive behaviour of Russia, which Foreign Secretary <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/foreign-secretary-intelligence-and-security-speech">Philip Hammond</a> said had “the potential to pose the single greatest threat to our security”. But even as Europe, not the US, took the diplomatic lead on the crisis, it was <a href="http://www.dw.de/summer-of-unrest-sharpens-french-german-diplomacy/a-17881095">French and German diplomacy</a> that led the charge. </p>
<p>The government was left to fend off <a href="http://www.theyworkforyou.com/lords/?id=2015-03-24a.1322.7&s=speaker%3A13140#g1368.0">criticism from its own</a> that it has become “<a href="http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/1154ad18-ae0e-11e4-919e-00144feab7de.html#axzz3Wcoufg37">a foreign policy irrelevance</a>”.</p>
<p>Over Ukraine, therefore, Britain missed a valuable opportunity to work more closely with its European neighbours and to provide the EU with the strength and clarity that many, Britain among them, accuse it of lacking. </p>
<p>This belies the coalition’s commitment to reforming the EU from within, and it also suggests that there was never a well-thought out strategy for coping with the negative effects of the SDSR. </p>
<p>The government could have responded to the need for deep cuts to the defence budget by refocusing foreign and defence policy firmly on co-operation with other EU and NATO member states; instead, it has remained strangely committed to taking a stand with diminished resources.</p>
<h2>From triumph to humiliation</h2>
<p>This rather despondent and feeble atmosphere is a far cry from the exuberant interventionism of 2011, when Cameron and the Nicolas Sarkozy jostled for credit over who was the first to support actions to oust Libya’s Colonel Qaddafi. </p>
<p>In a <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/prime-ministers-statement-on-libya--2">February 2011 statement</a> to the House of Commons, Cameron spoke of Britain taking the lead in supporting those seeking democratic change in the Middle East, and boasted of London’s close working relationship with its allies and the UN. The UK described in that speech understood it had a vital role to play in global affairs, and a moral duty to do so. It was a speech that stood in stark contrast to that of Hague in June 2010. It was a speech also that would come back to haunt Cameron.</p>
<p>In 2011 itself, the NATO action enforcing UN Security Council Resolution 1973 was hailed as a major success. In September of the same year, Cameron and Sarkozy were feted as <a href="http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/sarkozy-and-cameron-in-libya-heroes-for-a-day-a-786527.html">heroes</a> when they visited Tripoli.</p>
<p>But the picture had changed dramatically by 2013, with <a href="https://theconversation.com/libya-is-a-disaster-but-its-too-easy-to-just-blame-the-west-29857">Libya in disarray</a> and the region unstable. The intractable conflict in Syria deteriorated spectacularly, and there seemed to be the clearest evidence possible that the regime of Bashar al-Assad had used chemical weapons against his own people. </p>
<p>David Cameron stood with the US in a determination to take action against Assad. In August 2013, however, the government’s motion to assist the US and intervene in Syria suffered a <a href="https://theconversation.com/commons-rejects-cameron-plea-for-syria-strikes-rewrites-special-relationship-17674">humiliating defeat</a> as 285 MPs voted against it, expressing Britain’s reluctance to engage in further military interventions. </p>
<p>The vote a year later to <a href="https://theconversation.com/iraq-air-strikes-vote-reveals-a-contradiction-at-heart-of-uk-law-32253">join in the US-led air strikes on Iraq and Syria</a>, intended in Obama’s words to “degrade and destroy” Islamic State, signed Britain back up for a major foreign intervention – but confined to the air and with a relatively small British involvement among a <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2014/09/25/what-the-60-members-of-the-anti-islamic-state-coalition-are-doing/">partner force of 60 states</a>.</p>
<h2>Bent out of shape</h2>
<p>The coalition’s foreign policy has been badly distorted by pressures at home. The rise of UKIP has forced the Conservatives in particular to think local rather than global, forcing them into promising a referendum on UK membership of the EU. This may be enough to rescue some votes from UKIP, but it makes for a terrible international image.</p>
<p>Combined with Cameron’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/camerons-attempt-to-block-juncker-is-a-masterclass-in-how-to-lose-friends-in-europe-28483">futile opposition to the appointment of Luxembourg’s Jean-Claude Juncker</a> as European Commission president, this has left Britain <a href="http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/cameron-and-juncker-fight-over-role-in-european-commission-a-975528.html">more isolated in Europe than ever</a>. </p>
<p>British anti-immigration rhetoric has taken on an ever more xenophobic tone, but the coalition has apparently failed to understand how this connects to foreign policy. Some of the worst effects of this bigoted talk could be alleviated through a robust and responsible foreign policy strategy – but we just do not have one.</p>
<p>And it doesn’t seem like one is on the horizon either. In the party leaders’ <a href="https://theconversation.com/election-debate-cameron-coasts-farage-falls-flat-and-sturgeon-steals-the-show-39727">pre-election debate on April 2 2015</a>, not a single direct question about foreign or defence policy was asked, and the closest the debate came to these issues was immigration and Britain’s membership of the EU. </p>
<p>Few voters would be able to tell you what any of the parties intends to deliver in terms of future foreign or defence policies. Given what these policy areas say about what Britain is and what it stands for in the world, this is worrying – and more than a little dangerous.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/39276/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Maxine David does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The coalition has presided over a muddled and reactionary foreign policy, and has done little to strengthen Britain’s independent voice in the world.Maxine David, Lecturer in European politics, University of SurreyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/358772015-01-09T06:13:27Z2015-01-09T06:13:27ZCampaigners for more English powers are missing a trick<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/68234/original/image-20150105-13823-1sijjmz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The problem with those seeking more English powers is that they're not working together</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/s/english+powers/search.html?page=3&thumb_size=mosaic&inline=167472527">Samuel Borges Photography</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>The repercussions of the Scottish independence referendum were always likely to be profound, whoever won. As Scotland waits to see if Westminster can meet its <a href="http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/constitution/smith-commission">deadline</a> for producing draft legislation for extending more powers north of the border by January 25, English political leaders have become more aware than ever of the growing gap in devolved powers between England and the other home nations. George Osborne’s <a href="http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/5426fc12-6346-11e4-8a63-00144feabdc0.html">return to</a> stressing the need for further austerity after the May general election has provided further impetus for English devolution: <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/the-northerner/2014/jul/15/northern-poor-areas-hit-hardest-by-council-cuts">to some</a>, it is a way to counter fresh cuts.</p>
<h2>What’s on the table</h2>
<p>Four kinds of English devolution are being discussed. The first is what has become known “English Votes for English Laws,” to which end the leader of the House of Commons, William Hague, <a href="http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/12/what-are-options-english-votes-english-laws-plans">put forward</a> four options on December 16. These included barring Scottish MPs from any role in English and Welsh legislation along with several more cautious proposals. A few days later Tory grandee Lord Salisbury went further, <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/11322309/The-battle-to-keep-our-Union-together-has-only-just-begun.html">proposing that</a> the Commons become an English parliament and the Lords become the UK house for a remnant of reserved subjects like defence and foreign affairs. </p>
<p>The next set of issues relate to providing further regional investment, particularly in the north to allow it to compete with the south and Scotland. In recent months, Chancellor George Osborne <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/chancellor-we-need-a-northern-powerhouse">has been</a> talking up his desire to pool the north English cities of Manchester, Liverpool, Leeds and Sheffield into one large “northern powerhouse”. In the Autumn Statement, <a href="http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/ccc65d4a-797e-11e4-9e81-00144feabdc0.html">he announced</a> investments into science facilities in Newcastle, Manchester and other cities, along with a range of cultural, road and rail improvements. </p>
<p>The third issue concerns devolving powers to some regional bodies. Like its Labour predecessor, the coalition has become enamoured with directly elected mayors. This has been most recently evident in the <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/devolution-to-the-greater-manchester-combined-authority-and-transition-to-a-directly-elected-mayor">decision to</a> award a directly elected mayor to a combination of the ten local authorities in Greater Manchester, with powers over transport, housing and planning. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/68235/original/image-20150105-13820-1qet811.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/68235/original/image-20150105-13820-1qet811.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/68235/original/image-20150105-13820-1qet811.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=418&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/68235/original/image-20150105-13820-1qet811.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=418&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/68235/original/image-20150105-13820-1qet811.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=418&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/68235/original/image-20150105-13820-1qet811.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=525&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/68235/original/image-20150105-13820-1qet811.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=525&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/68235/original/image-20150105-13820-1qet811.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=525&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Greater Manchester: new powers.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/s/english+powers/search.html?page=3&thumb_size=mosaic&inline=167472527">The Laird of Oldham</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The Greater Manchester Combined Authority is also to be awarded new powers relating to business growth, local skills and health and social care. This comes on the back of <a href="http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/city-leaders-demand-meeting-david-7835057">not-always-successful attempts</a> from the coalition to award powers, particularly over local economic development, to the eight “core cities” outside London.</p>
<p>Finally, in early December, local councils made a high-profile bid for more powers when 119 English council leaders combined <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/nov/29/regions-letter-end-austerity-more-powers-devolution">to write a</a> strongly worded letter to The Observer newspaper. They pointed to devolution to Scotland and argued for greater powers over local budgets and powers to be granted to them, indicating that their voters expected no less. </p>
<h2>The bigger picture</h2>
<p>We’ve heard parts of these debates before, of course. The coalition set up the <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/mckay-commission">McKay Commission</a> shortly after coming to office to look into the issue of English Votes for English Laws. Its <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-21921977">recommendations included</a> that a majority of English MPs should “normally” have to approve laws that distinctly affect England, but they were not implemented. </p>
<p>Meanwhile Manchester, along with eight other cities, <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2012/may/04/cameron-elected-mayors-plan-rejected">actually declined</a> the opportunity to have a directly elected mayor in a low-turnout referendum in May 2012. Since 2010 mainly northern Labour-led councils <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/the-northerner/2014/jul/15/northern-poor-areas-hit-hardest-by-council-cuts">have complained bitterly</a> that they have been unfairly squeezed by austerity while southern Conservative-led councils have had nowhere near the same level of cuts imposed on them. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/68238/original/image-20150105-13830-1aok7ce.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/68238/original/image-20150105-13830-1aok7ce.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/68238/original/image-20150105-13830-1aok7ce.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=373&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/68238/original/image-20150105-13830-1aok7ce.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=373&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/68238/original/image-20150105-13830-1aok7ce.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=373&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/68238/original/image-20150105-13830-1aok7ce.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=469&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/68238/original/image-20150105-13830-1aok7ce.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=469&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/68238/original/image-20150105-13830-1aok7ce.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=469&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Liverpool council is among those complaining that the north is getting the worst of the austerity.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/bevgoodwin/8787523863/in/photolist-6fNEPP-9tsr4S-4nWVR9-4nWVK5-pthZQ9-pKJTQH-oNX65F-efDJis-pfaH1Y-eowmG8-74iMKJ-brN9z-65jB5E-65jB8q-5ZVixz-bMheGK-brN8x-9abyGN-714kB7-7tqr23-6KMLyi-4nSS6k-8mCtbb-oLx4ML-8WkQk-onbd9c-4nWVWY-khJFs8-4WppCD-vjyhC-6XuroE-44stY-f9Yn92-jzPKgu-cKPfjh-d9jmu3-7ZHHhP-cvikd-bXcebu-njxoJD-nAKcHT-9mzDpP-brNaA-diFKcf-97KDDg-oKh8XH-9rxWcT-bRwSpc-pHDVYJ-oNU3Sw">Beverley Goodwin</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>This is a long(ish) game, it must be said. While the Manchester devolution agreement has been signed, most of these issues will now be kicked into the long grass until after the general election – and no parliament can bind its successor. Investment in north England will require sustained attention over a long period of time, not just one short announcement. Neither does it appear to necessarily come with the political powers to decide priorities. </p>
<p>What is different this time in England is that there does appear to be some clear momentum behind these arguments, unlike in the <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3984387.stm">failed north-east referendum</a> in 2004, for example. The 119 council leaders’ Observer letter was a fully bipartisan effort. Political elites from various parties recognise that some form of English balancing of the asymmetric devolution settlement is necessary.</p>
<h2>The small print</h2>
<p>I would add three major disclaimers. Most of these potential reforms are piecemeal and depend almost entirely on the whim of the government of the day. Westminster retains power and is notoriously reluctant to give it up. If English political leaders wish more powers and investment, not only are they going to have to co-operate, they are also going to have to bring the public onboard to show these powers have support. The difficulties in this should not be underestimated. </p>
<p>Second, I often hear the refrain asserted that England is different and couldn’t have some form of parliament or devolved institution. But if Germany and the US have federal systems and operate successfully, there is no obvious reason why some form of institutional balancing could not work here. </p>
<p>The argument to the contrary either needs to be convincingly set out, or this option needs to start to be considered. Granted, public support is small. But if not considered seriously, any reforms will remain piecemeal, liable to further change and subject to the whims of whichever party is in government.</p>
<p>Finally, the debate in England partly misunderstands what has been offered to Scots by the <a href="https://www.smith-commission.scot">Smith Commission</a>. The headline reforms are certainly all about partial control of income taxes and finance. However, in a little-commented-upon part of the report, it also proposes that the Scottish parliament give up some powers to local government through a process of “double devolution”. </p>
<p>What this shows to those engaged in the English debate is that devolution is not an either/or process where the various options are mutually exclusive. Instead, a form of English votes for English laws (EVEL) or English institution could co-exist with either regional or local devolution of powers in a comprehensive constitutional settlement. </p>
<p>Until this is well recognised, the debate is likely to remain a piecemeal and zero-sum game where the actors seek advantage but no real meaningful power is given up by the centre. What is sure is that the debate will continue in 2015. From being a minority sport, territorial reforms are likely to become an important, and highly political, issue in the general election and beyond.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/35877/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Alistair is a Trustee and Executive Member of the Political Studies Association of the UK. He gave evidence to the Scottish parliament review into the 2012 local government elections and submitted a response to the "Scotland's Electoral Future" consultation.</span></em></p>The repercussions of the Scottish independence referendum were always likely to be profound, whoever won. As Scotland waits to see if Westminster can meet its deadline for producing draft legislation for…Alistair Clark, Senior Lecturer in Politics, Newcastle UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/345522014-11-21T15:20:26Z2014-11-21T15:20:26ZEnglish votes for English laws is much less sensible than it first appears<p>Ever since David Cameron <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/19/david-cameron-devolution-revolution-uk-scotland-vote">wrong-footed his opponents</a> on the morning after the independence referendum by meshing it to the question of extending more powers to Scotland, the question of English votes for English laws has never been far away. </p>
<p>William Hague is leading a cabinet committee that is due to produce proposals about how to proceed with the so-called West Lothian question (it is being boycotted by Labour, who see the issue as a trap designed to make it harder for them to govern). David Cameron has now <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/nov/20/english-mps-veto-english-laws-david-cameron">given us</a> a sense of where these deliberations are heading, saying that re-electing a Conservative government would ensure that English MPs were given a veto over legislative matters affected only them. </p>
<p>“There is a way of comprehensively answering this question in a way that maintains the integrity of our parliament and of our system,” he insisted during committee questions in the Commons. </p>
<p>But this is not a question for which we need to seek an answer. It makes more sense to think of it as a paradox of the sort that is quite common in political systems. There is no need to try to eradicate them. They are not a cause for alarm or concern. </p>
<h2>More paradoxes than grains of sand</h2>
<p>A paradox is a surprising combination of ideas such as a clash, or apparent clash, of principles. For instance it is paradoxical that nurses wake up their patients to give them sleeping pills. It is paradoxical to say, <a href="http://www.enotes.com/shakespeare-quotes/good-night-good-night-parting-such-sweet-sorrow">as Shakespeare did</a>, that parting can be such sweet sorrow. It is paradoxical to note, as <a href="http://people.umass.edu/klement/imp/imp.html">Bertrand Russell suggested</a>, that the set of all numbers is no larger than the set of all odd numbers or the set of all even numbers since all three are infinite. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/65200/original/image-20141121-1040-fh5628.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/65200/original/image-20141121-1040-fh5628.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/65200/original/image-20141121-1040-fh5628.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=374&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/65200/original/image-20141121-1040-fh5628.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=374&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/65200/original/image-20141121-1040-fh5628.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=374&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/65200/original/image-20141121-1040-fh5628.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=469&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/65200/original/image-20141121-1040-fh5628.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=469&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/65200/original/image-20141121-1040-fh5628.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=469&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Paradoxes as far as the eye can see.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-117037576/stock-photo-rippled-sand.html?src=OECJhnnsskFpXsOQjTJDpw-1-22">Natalie Davidovich</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The steps required to eradicate paradoxes in our political system are often impractical or would cause more problems than they solve – even sometimes creating new paradoxes. </p>
<p>We do not allow everyone to vote. In order to vote, you must be an adult citizen. The presumption would seem to be that younger people lack intelligence, knowledge, experience or some such feature that is relevant to voting wisely and responsibly. Yet paradoxically, the votes of all adults count equally. Through ageing and injury, people can come to lose the faculties of memory, reasoning and so forth. </p>
<p>Nonetheless, they do not automatically lose their right to vote when they have lost the capacity to exercise that right meaningfully. On this logic, you could equally argue that some people should have more votes than others. The philosopher John Stuart Mill <a href="http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=3e5L58BRAp8C&pg=PT193&lpg=PT193&dq=mill+some+people+should+get+more+votes&source=bl&ots=hiYnMM-Rmb&sig=P01d5vYq1ju0VYjW7k4OhUFIjdk&hl=en&sa=X&ei=0idvVIuXDI7taMOegFA&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q&f=false">thought so</a>.</p>
<p>There is another strand here. <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-23074572">On the grounds that</a> young people have the prospect of a long-term stake and interest in the country, the voting age was reduced to 16 years for the referendum. Yet we did not choose to remove the right to vote from those who did not have a long-term future in Scotland, such as the terminally ill, the very old or those who were about to emigrate. As with many paradoxes of course, these are ones that we are wise to ignore. </p>
<h2>Endless grounds for disqualification</h2>
<p>MPs who have urban constituencies that do not hold fox hunts voted on the bills which <a href="https://uk.news.yahoo.com/on-this-day--fox-hunting-banned-in-england-and-wales-182326439.html#CfQwG6S">made fox-hunting illegal</a>. MPs who do not have wind turbines, oil fields, nuclear power stations or coal mines in their constituencies vote on all matters pertaining to fuel policy. MPs who are deaf vote can vote on matters relating to noise abatement. MPs who are confirmed bachelors and childless vote on such matters as divorce legislation and childcare payments. </p>
<p>Creating a devolved legislative body at Holyrood in the absence of an equivalent body for England increased and compounded the paradoxes around Scottish special treatment in our political system. It certainly wasn’t the beginning of them, however. Ever since the inception of the union in 1707, the separate nature of Scots law, Scottish education and the role of the Church of Scotland created paradoxes. </p>
<h2>Murderers more welcome over the border</h2>
<p>Suppose a man is tried for murder in Carlisle in the north of England. If eight out of the 12 members of the jury are convinced he is guilty while four decide he was innocent, he cannot be found guilty of the crime. At least ten out of the jury of 12 members must agree for a guilty verdict to hold.</p>
<p>Now suppose the very same crime with the same people, evidence and so forth were committed just over the Scottish border. This might mean it were tried 85 miles away at the nearest high court in Glasgow, where there are 15 members on a jury and, even in a murder trial, a straight majority verdict can secure a verdict of guilty. This means that if there are again eight jurors that are convinced of the man’s guilt, he will be convicted. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/65201/original/image-20141121-1052-149s12k.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/65201/original/image-20141121-1052-149s12k.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/65201/original/image-20141121-1052-149s12k.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/65201/original/image-20141121-1052-149s12k.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/65201/original/image-20141121-1052-149s12k.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/65201/original/image-20141121-1052-149s12k.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/65201/original/image-20141121-1052-149s12k.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/65201/original/image-20141121-1052-149s12k.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Don’t let a Scottish jury get hold of you.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-175655786/stock-photo-wooden-mallet-and-scottish-flag-clipping-path-included.html?src=x-JvFdJ9QZPuoqqhVMuWrw-1-0">corund</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>We have chosen to live with paradoxes of this sort. Most people are not at all discomforted by them, and rightly so. Yet this is arguably a much more alarming paradox than the fact that Scottish MPs get to vote on matters that only apply to English constituencies. </p>
<p>The reality is this: parliament has an interest in what happens throughout the UK and MPs can comment and vote on it in their capacity as MPs. All MPs are equal as MPs. Like equal votes for all citizens is a principle of our particular political system, whether or not it is unfair or rationally defensible as an abstract principle. </p>
<p>We should be wary of calls to eradicate the West Lothian paradox unless we are ready to accept that we might thereby create other paradoxes and alter our particular democracy in unintended, unwanted ways. Scottish MPs voting on English matters is just one of a great many constitutional matters that look hard to defend on strict rational principles, but the key is always to look at the broader principle that lies behind them. It is time for David Cameron to stop seeking political advantage and embrace the paradoxical system over which he presides.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/34552/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Hugh McLachlan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Ever since David Cameron wrong-footed his opponents on the morning after the independence referendum by meshing it to the question of extending more powers to Scotland, the question of English votes for…Hugh McLachlan, Professor of Applied Philosophy, Glasgow Caledonian UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/323482014-10-02T05:35:54Z2014-10-02T05:35:54ZThe five-point plan used to justify fighting wars is being deployed in media again<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/60564/original/vgdbspqy-1412199097.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">'The danger is clear': Theresa May</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://images.pressassociation.com/meta/2.21060737.html">Joe Giddens/PA Wire</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>A few hours before the UK’s first air strikes on Islamic State targets in Iraq, the home secretary, Theresa May, <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/isis-could-become-worlds-first-truly-terrorist-state-and-bomb-uk-with-nuclear-and-chemical-weapons-theresa-may-warns-9765049.html">warned the Tory party conference</a> that IS could become the "world’s first truly terrorist state".</p>
<p>May said that IS could realise the “often-prophesied” threat of attacking western enemies with chemical and nuclear weapons. Interesting because, as this conflict has approached, the government has been using the same techniques and devices of propaganda and persuasion that were brought out to justify the Iraq war of 2003, the removal of Colonel Gaddafi in 2011 and the proposed attacks on the Assad regime in Syria in 2013.</p>
<p>If you look back at recent conflicts, and those in the Middle East in particular, the same arguments are made. There is essentially a five-point plan that can be used to justify foreign intervention of most kinds.</p>
<h2>Step 1. Highlight atrocities</h2>
<p>If you are to claim the moral high ground, the first thing to do is show that your adversary is despotic and deranged. For British governments and the media, that has long meant using atrocity propaganda.</p>
<p>At the beginning of the Gulf War in 1991, we were falsely told that Iraqi soldiers had <a href="http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0906/p25s02-cogn.html">emptied babies out of incubators</a> in Kuwaiti hospitals and left them to die. In Kosovo in 1999, Tony Blair spoke of hearing <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/343739.stm">“first-hand of women raped, of children watching their fathers dragged away to be shot”</a>. In 2003, Blair spoke of the thousands of children dying every year in Iraq and Saddam’s torture chambers. Now, IS is highlighting its own barbarity in online videos and the case for action on this count hardly has to be made.</p>
<h2>Step 2. Communicate moral obligation</h2>
<p>Having established these terrible circumstances, it is necessary to demonstrate the moral certainty of the mission. In 2011, Muammar Gaddafi, like Saddam before him, was <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1364365/Libya-protests-We-let-Gaddafi-murder-people-says-Cameron.html">murdering “his own people”</a>. The consistent line from the US, the UK and France back then was humanitarian. At a stroke we have the basic elements of war propaganda: the enemy is evil and to do nothing in the face of such evil would amount to dereliction of moral duty.</p>
<p>David Cameron and Barack Obama took a predictably similar view. In a <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/03/28/remarks-president-address-nation-libya">nationally televised address</a>, Obama said, “to brush aside America’s responsibility as a leader and — more profoundly — our responsibilities to our fellow human beings under such circumstances would have been a betrayal of who we are … some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries. The United States of America is different”.</p>
<p>Here is a repetition of themes and ideas which have been the feature of war propaganda from time immemorial: this is the enemy, they do terrible things. We must stop them. If we do not, then we are no better than them and evil will prosper.</p>
<h2>Step 3. Deny enemy’s humanity</h2>
<p>Aldous Huxley wrote that: “the propagandist’s purpose is to make one set of people forget that certain other sets of people are human”. On September 25, Cameron told the UN General Assembly that the jihadi’s of IS were “<a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2768704/We-deal-psychopathic-murderers-says-Cameron-RAF-prepares-bombing-raids-using-Storm-Shadow-bunker-busters-Brimstone-missiles-Paveway-IV-bombs.html">psychopathic, murderous, brutal</a>”. He said: “we are facing an evil against which the whole world must unite. And, as ever in the cause of freedom, democracy and justice, Britain will play its part." Here we get the explicit sense of civilisation versus savagery, of human versus animal. Good against evil. Simple binary oppositions, again narrative patterns we can all understand.</p>
<h2>Step 4. Say intervention is for the people</h2>
<p>On the eve of war in 2003, Tony Blair spoke to the nation outlining the need for action. For the people of Iraq, the removal of Saddam would be "a blessing”. When bombing began in Libya in 2011, NATO stated that the purpose of Operation Unified Protector was to protect civilians and civilian-populated areas under threat of attack from Gaddafi.</p>
<p>There was no military activity in Syria last year but the language was familiar. On the August 27, the UK government sought backing from the UN Security Council: "for all necessary measures to protect civilians". The US secretary of state, John Kerry, stated that the images of human suffering <a href="http://www.uspolicy.be/newsletters/foreign-policy-newsletter-august-30-2013">could not be ignored</a>. He said: “All peoples, in all nations who believe in the cause of our common humanity must stand up to ensure there is accountability for the use of chemical weapons.”</p>
<p>Cameron has been quite clear that military intervention was for the good of Iraq and at the country’s own asking: “We are acting [in Iraq] at the request of a sovereign state … I have said this in the house before: it is a legal base if you are averting a humanitarian catastrophe then you can act. Let me be clear.”</p>
<h2>Step 5. Raise threat to national security</h2>
<p>This brings us to May’s comments at the beginning of this article. If a government can also illustrate that this far-away, evil regime constitutes a threat to national security, the danger becomes localised. This tactic was utilised with various degrees of success in the run-up to the Iraq War in 2003. In January of that year, for example, the press carried reports that the police had foiled a terrorist ring’s attempt to launch a chemical attack in Britain using the deadly poison Ricin. <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2635807.stm">Blair stated</a> that the find showed: “This danger is present and real and with us now – and its potential is huge.”</p>
<p>In 2013, the danger was from rogue states and banned weapons. Arguing for intervention in Syria, the then foreign secretary, William Hague, said: “We cannot permit our own security to be undermined by the creeping normalisation of the use of weapons that the world has spent decades trying to control and eradicate.”</p>
<p>Now, according to Hague, ISIS has the UK in its sights – he told the Daily Telegraph on the September 28 that without military action, ISIS “would come to hit us very quickly –indeed there have already been plots." </p>
<p>For Cameron, ISIS constitutes a ”<a href="http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/25/david-cameron-urges-unity-isis-evil-uk-prepares-strike-iraq">clear and present danger</a>“ to the UK which must be defeated promptly because: "If we do not act to stem the onslaught of this exceptionally dangerous terrorist movement, it will only grow stronger until it can target us on the streets of Britain.”</p>
<p>The point of this article has not been to understate the threat of ISIS or to diminish the horror of its actions. But history has a way of repeating itself – as do the statesman and women who feature in it, and take their countries into wars that hindsight often suggests they shouldn’t have. </p>
<p>However much technology and times may change, the techniques of propaganda and persuasion remain largely the same.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/32348/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>John Jewell does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>A few hours before the UK’s first air strikes on Islamic State targets in Iraq, the home secretary, Theresa May, warned the Tory party conference that IS could become the "world’s first truly terrorist…John Jewell, Director of Undergraduate Studies, School of Journalism, Media and Cultural Studies, Cardiff UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/292462014-07-15T19:31:08Z2014-07-15T19:31:08ZVoter-friendly reshuffle from the PR prime minister is more spin than substance<p>David Cameron apparently doesn’t like <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jul/14/reshuffle-at-a-glance-whos-in-whos-out-live">reshuffles</a>; “chillaxing” Dave prefers, so we are told, to leave people to get on with the job. So why such an apparently drastic overhaul of (the Conservative part of) his government, and why now?</p>
<p>There are usually three factors at play in any reshuffle: public relations, internal party politics – and last, and usually least, getting the right people into the right jobs.</p>
<p>On all three counts this appears to be a strange reshuffle. </p>
<p>Few of the moves are obviously about getting “the right person for the job”, and indeed some seem positively odd (although one or two moves are clearly about getting the wrong person out of a job). There doesn’t seem to be very much internal politicking involved, except a <a href="http://www.euronews.com/2014/07/15/uk-cameron-names-eurosceptic-hammond-foreign-minister-in-pre-election-reshuffle/">small but significant shift in a more Eurosceptic direction</a> and maybe some personal score settling. So the main thrust of the changes seems to be purely for PR reasons – mostly the around the so-called “women” issue.</p>
<h2>Election campaign begins here</h2>
<p>In terms of policies, less than a year away from a general election you would think the prime minister would want to focus on what has been achieved since 2010. Arguably the three flagship policies since the Coalition was formed have been austerity and health and education reform. It is passing strange then that the architects of two of these three: Michael Gove in education and Andrew Lansley in health, <a href="https://theconversation.com/goves-revolution-leaves-behind-a-fast-food-education-system-29190">have now been demoted or sacked</a> entirely. (Whilst Iain Duncan Smith strangely remains at the helm of a rapidly sinking Universal Credit).</p>
<p>True, Andrew Lansley, or “<a href="http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/andrew-lansley-denies-health-cuts-189553">La La Lansley</a>” as he was unfondly known in the health service, had already been demoted and his health reforms are probably not something the Government wants to dwell on too much. </p>
<p>But Michael Gove, although widely loathed by teachers and education experts, was generally thought to be doing rather well in pushing through Tory policies on free schools and the like. So it’s not at all clear why he’s been removed at this fairly crucial stage in the education reform process.</p>
<p>The spin is that Gove is being “freed up” to play more of a campaigning role in the run-up to the election and this is not a “demotion” at all. But that doesn’t explain why he’s been made chief whip, a job for which he is not obviously well suited. I don’t think “people skills” is the first thing most would associate with Mr Gove. </p>
<p>Moreover the chief whip’s role is traditionally very much a backroom one – not the “Minister for the Today programme”. Perhaps it could be argued that very little will happen in the House of Commons between now and May 2015 – the so-called “<a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-27372969">zombie parliament</a>” has a notoriously light legislative agenda. So perhaps the chief whip won’t have much to do?</p>
<p>Gove is not noted for his positive electioneering skills, although he is a tough debater so perhaps his role will be as an attack dog against Labour ? </p>
<p>Whatever his role, and whatever he and Number 10 may say, I can’t see how him being moved from headmaster at education to head prefect in the Commons will be seen as a sideways move. Whether or not she had anything to do with his defenestration from education, <a href="https://theconversation.com/theresa-mays-leadership-bid-wont-be-tarnished-by-gove-row-27894">Theresa May will surely be pleased</a>?</p>
<h2>Tories’ problem with women</h2>
<p>Gove has been moved to make way for a woman – Nicky Morgan – which is clearly part of the PM’s attempt to address the Conservatives “<a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/where-are-all-the-women-cameron-prime-minister-taunted-over-tories-allmale-front-bench-at-pmqs-9109346.html">women problem</a>”. From being the party of female voters for decades, the Tories <a href="http://www.economist.com/news/britain/21601035-women-used-be-more-conservative-men-now-they-lean-towards-labour-ladies-red">now regularly trail Labour</a> (although some analysts think this trend is exaggerated and there isn’t much of a real gap at all).</p>
<p>The whole reshuffle has been heavily spun as a major shift towards including more women in positions of power in the government. But the reality is rather less dramatic than the hype; the number of women in government has increased, but only by a couple of extra overall. True, some women have been raised to Cabinet rank, but that begs the question of why Cameron waited until now? He’s had four years to promote more women.</p>
<p>And some aspects of the “feminisation” of the Government could well backfire. It has <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-07-15/cameron-hires-woman-on-less-pay-than-male-predecessor.html">already been revealed</a>, for example, that Tina Stowell, the new Tory leader in the House of Lords, is being paid substantially less (£78,891) than her male predecessor (£101,038) and is not, unlike him, a full member of the Cabinet. Not exactly a good “equal opportunities” advert.</p>
<p>I suppose we shouldn’t be surprised a PR PM goes for a PR reshuffle – how much effect it will have, if any, remains to be seen. If any voters are swayed at all it is more likely to be teachers – of both genders – rather than women I suspect.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/29246/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Colin Talbot does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>David Cameron apparently doesn’t like reshuffles; “chillaxing” Dave prefers, so we are told, to leave people to get on with the job. So why such an apparently drastic overhaul of (the Conservative part…Colin Talbot, Professor of Government, University of ManchesterLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/281772014-06-19T05:07:00Z2014-06-19T05:07:00ZScotland Decides ’14: are Scots too sensitive?<p>Mix the Scots and sport and you’re bound to end up with trouble. Just ask William Hague, who <a href="http://www.scotlandnow.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/glasgow-2014-foreign-secretary-william-3714115">gaffed this week</a> that Team GB would break a leg at next month’s Commonwealth Games in Glasgow – forgetting that unlike the Olympics, the four nations compete separately. </p>
<p>Then supermarket group Morrisons waded into similar territory by <a href="http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/morrisons-bans-england-world-cup-3714587">piping out</a> English World Cup anthems in Scottish stores. While the Scots once again ponder whether to support anyone but England, the latest <a href="http://www.natcen.ac.uk/our-research/research/british-social-attitudes/">British Social Attitudes survey</a> confirmed that large numbers of Scots still think they get a bad financial deal from the union. We asked our panel whether the Scots’ sense of victimhood is spurring the referendum debate. </p>
<hr>
<p><strong>Karly Kehoe, senior lecturer in history, Glasgow Caledonian University</strong></p>
<p>The Scots aren’t taking themselves too seriously – if anything, they aren’t taking themselves seriously enough. I come from North America and as we all know, confidence has never really been a problem for us. It is a problem for many Scots, particularly for younger Scots. </p>
<p>It has certainly improved since I first arrived here in 1998, but class is a big problem. People are judged on what their accent sounds like, what school they went to, and what part of the country they come from. This does not promote engagement and it actually prevents long-term socio-economic improvement.</p>
<p>This can be linked back to the union and participation in the empire. Unlike England, Scotland had never had colonies of its own, but to make up for this it was a full participant in the union after 1707. There are a minority of Scots who believe that they have been the victims of the English, but history tells us that this wasn’t actually the case.</p>
<p>The Scots were always attempting to improve their position. By the mid-nineteenth century a number of Scots started to call for equal recognition as a partner in union. This recognition was never delivered and in many respects, we can see this issue coming back now - hence the process of referendum.</p>
<p>Scotland is also a classic example of a small nation next to a bigger one. Canada experiences the same thing being next to the US. The smaller, less powerful nation will always feel disenfranchised, and often the bigger or more powerful neighbour doesn’t even notice.</p>
<p>That’s not to say that the Scots are too sensitive about how they are treated though. William Hague is an example of how Westminster politicians keep getting it wrong. If there was more recognition of the four nations, there might be more contentment with the relationship. The problem is that the partnership of the four nations hasn’t always been given due respect.</p>
<p><strong>John McKendrick, Senior Lecturer, Glasgow Caledonian University</strong></p>
<p>It is true that when it comes to sport, we do get ourselves wound up if the likes of Andy Murray or Stephen Gallacher are described as British, particularly when they are competing against the likes of Tim Henman or Justin Rose, who always seem to be described as English. It always seems that we are British when we are winning, but Scottish when we are losing. Does that mean that we are overly sensitive, highly strung and generally guilty of taking ourselves too seriously? I think not. Irony is a big part of our sense of humour. Poking fun at each other and ourselves is an art form at which we excel. </p>
<p>So we might be irked by the crassness of the “little Englander” mindset that is all-too-often characteristic of pundits and broadcasters. But, we can excuse this as misplaced enthusiasm or downright ignorance. It is far less acceptable when leading politicians make the same mistakes. So when William Hague calls for Team GB to deliver a “spectacular performance” at this year’s Commonwealth Games, we are within our rights to question whether this is more than a laughable gaffe. At the very least, it suggests that our neighbour does not always really appreciate who we are. </p>
<p>But I wouldn’t want sporting gaffes or allegiances to feature too strongly in the referendum debate. Too much is at stake. The ignorance of the broadcasters and the ineptitude of some politicians might seem to give credence to the core arguments of the yes campaign – that we are misunderstood and are being short-changed. Not getting our fair share of oil wealth might seem to chime with not getting our fair share of national credit for sporting success, but let’s not make this a major part of the campaign. </p>
<p><strong>Neil Blain, Professor of Media, University of Stirling</strong></p>
<p>I see a number of contradictions here. If you take the Scottish Social Attitudes survey, it shows that the whole idea of British identity is falling away in Scotland. It mainly survives among older people because of the legacy of post-war Britain and for other reasons. Yet if you look at younger people, there’s no overwhelming support for independence among them.</p>
<p>We can be sensitive about things like William Hague’s gaffe, even though it was pretty minor really. Yet we can be remarkably accepting of a number of the implications of union. For example this week, <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-27872037">polls showed</a> that a lot of Scots believe we should house Britain’s nuclear weapons whether or not there’s a yes vote in September. The union could mean the nuclear annihilation of the west of Scotland, but as a nation we seem to be quite relaxed about it.</p>
<p>In the referendum debate, people are worried about what will happen in the autumn or in the next year or two, or about the currency. But if you look further ahead, Boris Johnson wants a north-south crossrail to add to the east-west one. Then there’s high-speed rail. These projects will suck more investment into London from the rest of the country. Sometimes we might be sensitive about things, but why are we not worried about becoming a region of the UK that’s cut off from economic investment because of projects like these?</p>
<p>Examples of the Scots being slighted are just things we like to talk about. Some people like to go online and complain about Hague or Morrisons, but we have been hearing these kinds of things all our lives.</p>
<p>It’s just the same as how the London-based media don’t know the difference between British and English news. London and the South-East don’t face towards Scotland. If we are really in emotional turmoil, why aren’t the BBC and Channel 4 in their London broadcasts being constantly bombarded by objections from Scots?</p>
<p>In September, for the first time since 1707, if people are unhappy, they can do something about it. For outsiders who have heard us complaining down the years, if we vote no there will be a response when we complain in future: why didn’t you do something about it? There’s a sense that if you did do it, we would probably take you seriously as a country.</p>
<p><em>You’ll find previous panel discussions <a href="https://theconversation.com/topics/scotland-decides-14">here</a>.</em> </p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/28177/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Mix the Scots and sport and you’re bound to end up with trouble. Just ask William Hague, who gaffed this week that Team GB would break a leg at next month’s Commonwealth Games in Glasgow – forgetting that…John H McKendrick, Senior Lecturer, Glasgow Caledonian UniversityKarly Kehoe, Senior Lecturer in History, Glasgow Caledonian UniversityNeil Blain, Professor of Communications, Media and Culture, University of StirlingLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/279452014-06-13T12:17:45Z2014-06-13T12:17:45ZNot all messages about rape were welcome at Hague and Jolie’s sexual violence summit<p>An important shift has taken place in our awareness of sexual violence. The <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/topical-events/sexual-violence-in-conflict">Global Summit to End Sexual Violence in Conflict</a>, co-chaired by foreign secretary William Hague and Angelina Jolie, the UN’s special envoy for refugees, is the biggest, highest-profile global meeting ever convened on this topic. </p>
<p>But the event has been marred by the silencing of Congolese sexual violence survivors, who found themselves locked out of a public forum. The security for the event was handled by G4S – on behalf of the Foreign Office.</p>
<p>This was not your average conference. It was certainly more glamorous than any sexual violence event I have ever attended. With more than 100 countries represented at ExCel London and a fringe event advertised as open to the public, the summit had a number of noble aims: to shatter the culture of impunity for sexual violence in conflict, to take practical steps by training soldiers and peacekeepers, to increase support for survivors of sexual violence, and to produce a “seismic shift in attitudes”. </p>
<p>As the press release stated: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>We want people, governments, faith leaders and civil society across the world to condemn the horrors of warzone sexual violence, to see the cycles of conflict it creates and to grasp the role they have to play in ending this crime once and for all. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>Even those of us who have been working in the area of violence and abuse of women and girls for a long time are horrified by the stories of sexual violence that women in conflict situations experience and their subsequent treatment.</p>
<h2>Congo locked out</h2>
<p>It is the situation in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), dubbed the “rape capital of the world” that has received the most attention in recent years. In 2011, research in the American Journal of Public Health estimated that in the 12 months prior to the survey, approximately <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3093289/">1,150 women aged 15-49 were raped every day</a>. And it is not just the sheer amount of rape that is shocking – it is women’s stories of their treatment afterwards. </p>
<p>At a recent Rape Crisis conference I attended, you could have heard a pin drop as a woman from Common Cause UK who fled the DRC told her story. And that was an audience made up almost exclusively of Rape Crisis volunteers, staff, and trustees, all of whom listen to women and girls’ experiences of abuse on a daily basis. It is the voices of women survivors turned activists that have informed the views of women’s groups in the UK, and which have led to public acts of solidarity seen at events such as <a href="http://www.millionwomenrise.com/">Million Women Rise</a>. Congolese activists and women’s groups have done much to raise awareness about the situation of sexual violence in the DRC.</p>
<p>In the context of this, it was surprising to hear claims that multinational security company G4S, which was providing the summit’s security, had refused entry to a group of Congolese activists and Rape Crisis women attempting to attend the fringe event. </p>
<p>G4S is increasingly involved in the provision of services for rape survivors in the UK, where it runs several <a href="http://www.g4s.uk.com/en-GB/Media%20Centre/Case%20Studies/Facilities%20management/SARC/">Sexual Assault Referral Centres</a>.</p>
<h2>Postcards from a warzone</h2>
<p>So why were charity workers refused entry to the Global Summit? We asked G4S, but have not had a response. </p>
<p>The women were carrying with them a stack of postcards, which bore a message that was not welcome at the summit: that sexual violence in the DRC is supported by the war in the DRC, which in turn is about an economic situation in which the UK is deeply entangled. </p>
<p>The message read: “No end to rape without the end to war”, and petitioned Hague to “listen to the voices of Congolese women and of civil society who repeatedly say that the main cause of sexual violence in DR Congo is the economic war for illegal exploitation of its wealth”. It highlighted that the UK does business with Ugandan, Rwandan and Congolese heads of states – all former armed rebels – and that multinational companies directly or indirectly sponsor armed groups. </p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/51057/original/dtr7nwvt-1402656145.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/51057/original/dtr7nwvt-1402656145.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/51057/original/dtr7nwvt-1402656145.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=421&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/51057/original/dtr7nwvt-1402656145.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=421&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/51057/original/dtr7nwvt-1402656145.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=421&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/51057/original/dtr7nwvt-1402656145.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=529&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/51057/original/dtr7nwvt-1402656145.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=529&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/51057/original/dtr7nwvt-1402656145.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=529&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The offending postcard.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Nicole Westmarland</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The DRC conflict principally centres around a struggle for control of the country’s rich mineral resources, which include 80% of the world’s colton ore – in huge demand in the manufacture of microchips. The UK both sells and manufactures items that are made with DRC resources. It also donates huge amounts of overseas aid to Rwanda and Uganda, who in turn support violent militia groups known for the widespread rape of women and girls. </p>
<p>Activists from the Bradford Congo Campaign, who were part of the group turned away from the supposedly open fringe event. One activist told me: “The fringe event was open to the public and should have been a space for people to share ideas, but it was a closed space when it came to discussion about the economic basis of the war.”</p>
<p>William Hague and Angelina Jolie have played an important role in bringing the issue of sexual violence to the fore on the global stage. But any banning of Congolese activists and Rape Crisis women to a part of the event that was open to the public because of the political message they carried is unacceptable. It reminds us of the dirty nature of politics, of the power of Western governments, and of the power of rich white men in controlling the world’s resources and women’s bodies. </p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/27945/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Nicole Westmarland has previously volunteered as Chair of Rape Crisis (England and Wales) and has conducted research as a consultant for them. </span></em></p>An important shift has taken place in our awareness of sexual violence. The Global Summit to End Sexual Violence in Conflict, co-chaired by foreign secretary William Hague and Angelina Jolie, the UN’s…Nicole Westmarland, Professor of Criminology, Durham UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/237942014-02-28T10:06:50Z2014-02-28T10:06:50ZUkraine highlights a crisis in British foreign policy created by its retreat from an EU role<p>Events in Ukraine mark not only the start of a momentous shift in the region, but serve to chart the disturbing erosion of Britain’s global clout. If only the UK government would take its lead from the approach taken by its embassy in the heart of Kiev.</p>
<p>Foreign Secretary William Hague began his term in office by issuing instructions to his entire diplomatic core to resist by all legal means any attempts to increase the “actorness” of the EU in foreign and security policy. This led to a year of obscure diplomatic blockages, where common positions by the EU in various international forums could not be adopted, because the UK in a minority of one was contesting the legal basis for EU representatives to speak on behalf of the EU and its member states. At one point no less than 100 common positions were held up. That particular episode was brought to a close by the <a href="http://register.consilium.europa.eu/doc/srv?l=EN&t=PDF&gc=true&sc=false&f=ST+15901+2011+INIT">adoption of an agreement stating the obvious</a> by the council of foreign ministers in October 2011.</p>
<p>While this must go down as one of the most boring and non-substantive wastes of diplomatic time in the history of Europe, it was not without serious reputational consequences for the UK.</p>
<p>The UK, with its privileged seat as one of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, has been now for decades sitting on its reputation as one of the “big three” of EU foreign policy, alongside France and Germany – although the latter still lacks status at the UN Security Council.</p>
<p>This reputation has been wasting away, and the episode I’ve mentioned is just one reason why. Further evidence of it surfaced during recent weeks in Ukraine in two ways.</p>
<h2>Out of the picture</h2>
<p>Institutionally, the Ukraine crisis was tackled with the aid of mediation by three EU foreign ministers, from France, Germany and Poland, <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/20/ukraine-eu-foreign-ministers-agree-sanctions-officials">co-signing the agreement</a> that preceded the end of the Yanukovych regime. This was a new “big three” in action on behalf of the EU. Why was the UK not there, since in the past it would automatically have been invited in these informal self-selection process to be part of the leading action? Answer: some combination of Poland’s successful diplomatic activism by foreign minister Radoslav Sikorsky, and the UK having vacated its seat through persistenly wanting to minimise the “actorness” of the EU.</p>
<p>On a substantive point, what does Ukraine want? In the most profound sense Ukraine wants Europe. As one citizen on the <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2014/02/27/what-does-ukraines-euromaidan-teach-us-about-protest/">Euromaidan</a> put it last week, “we do not want to go to Europe, we want Europe here”. Ukraine as a society does not “want” the UK, or France, or Germany individually. And of course these countries are seen to be part of Europe. But where should the action come from? It is absolutely clear that Ukraine is not strategically interested in any specifically UK action, unless it forms part of EU action. There is no sense in any distinctly UK bilateral policy of political significance there.</p>
<p>Curiously, while the top-level speeches and attitudes of the Conservative Party ministers of the Coalition government have been vacating the UK’s effective seat on the international stage, the competent staff work of the Foreign Office has been doing some excellent things, including in Ukraine. An example is a low-cost project to map out how an enhanced EU communications strategy in Ukraine could be designed. This has turned out to be an <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/190112/Scoping_Study_Final_Report_Web_En.pdf">excellent piece of professionalism</a>, in which the UK embassy in Kyiv has been doing an impeccable job of acting itself with and on behalf of the EU.</p>
<p>But back now to the big picture for the UK in the world. The UK needs now to decide pretty fast on its strategic orientation for its European and foreign policy. The Ukraine episode is a warning. The UK’s perceived position on the world stage is on the slide. Let’s relate this more broadly to the UK’s standing in the world at large, for example its permanent seat in the UN Security Council, the jewel in the crown of the Foreign office. This may be tactically secure through the veto powers of permanent members. But the process whereby the rest of the world considers the UK’s position to be an increasing anomaly is ongoing. As US president Barack Obama has said with clarity, the UK as a vigorous part of a strong EU is what the US wants; the UK as a seceding or semi-detached, minimalist member state is not of interest.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/23794/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michael Emerson was previously EU ambassador to Moscow. CEPS is a politically and financially independent research institute.</span></em></p>Events in Ukraine mark not only the start of a momentous shift in the region, but serve to chart the disturbing erosion of Britain’s global clout. If only the UK government would take its lead from the…Michael Emerson, Associate Senior Research Fellow, Centre for European Policy StudiesLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.