Cometh the hour cometh the man

We have been living through interesting times. Brexit, Trump, the COVID pandemic, followed by the worst recession of modern times, the rise of an expansionist China, the decline of the west. It has been one upheaval after another.

But there finally seems to be light at the end of the tunnel.  Biden has entered the White house, and a sense of calm (at least for now) has fallen over the US. The vaccine is being rolled out rapidly (at least in Israel, the US, UK and a few other small countries). We are starting to look forward to summer and some kind of normality returning. 

But underneath it all, we are facing an existential crisis. America has essentially become two nations. Those who accept the democratic legitimacy of the president and those who don't. Some are now saying we should just accept this reality, arguing the two warring tribes need to find a way to co-exist, a bit like the protestants and catholics in Northern Ireland. 

But there are also two warring tribes, right here in Britain. No, I'm not talking about Brexit, but Scexit. It's a war that most Britons are blissfully unaware of, and care about even less. In poll after poll, a majority of Scots say they support independence. On the other side of the border are English nationalists, many of them Brexiteers, who say "the Scots take our money and hate us, let them go". Many have simply shrugged their shoulders and are resigned to independence. 

It's no exaggeration to say that the break up of the Union would also be an existential crisis for the west. 

It would be the European Union's worst nightmare, emboldening secessionist movements across Europe to do the same. The terrified Spaniards would veto any request from Scotland to join the EU for obvious reasons. If Scotland, why not Catalonia, the Basque region, Northern Italy, Waloonia, Flanders? The list goes on and on. It's difficult enough to govern an EU of 27 nations, imagine there were double that number? It would render the EU impotent. 

The irony is, there isn't some great cultural divide between Scotland and England in the way there is between Democrats and Republicans. Social attitude surveys have shown the two are pretty similar. I sometimes hear that Scotland "feels like a different country" but that doesn't wash. Go to Quebec. They have their own parliament, a different language, culture, even different road signs from the rest of Canada. And yet, after two independence referendums, they remain part of Canada. 

Then there are remainers who are revelling in schadenfreude at the prospect of Scexit. "If we voted to leave the EU, why shouldn't they be allowed to leave the UK?". Some remainers want Britain to suffer for the crime of Brexit. They're happy for the UK to fail.  

As someone who voted remain, this argument irks me. There is a big difference between Brexit and Scexit. One was a decision, rightly or wrongly, to leave a political and economic alliance that is not (yet) a political union. The other would be to dissolve a successful political and economic union that has been in existence for over 300 years. Whatever damage Brexit has done, the damage wrought by Scexit would be on a far greater scale.  

But what are irks me even more are the progressives who claim to hate nationalism but revere Nicola Sturgeon as some kind of saint. The SNP are no different to other nationalists across Europe, seeking to Balkanise Britain, playing the politics of grievance, of them vs us, of nation vs nation, English vs Scottish. Their rhetoric reminds me of the Trumpists with their alternative facts. I suspect there are a lot more unionists than the polls are showing, but you have to be pretty brave to raise your voice above the parapet, especially if you're under 30. To be a unionist is to be a social pariah. 

There are no winners from Scexit. Not the EU, not Scotland, nor the remainder of the UK. We will all be poorer, less relevant and less attractive to the world. The only winners will be Russia and China, China in particular, who will only be too happy to bail out an impoverished Scotland and add it to its circle of influence. 

Sadly the only arguments I ever hear against Scexit are the "project fear" arguments I heard before Brexit. And look where that got us. 

It makes no difference whether Scotland will be poorer, or keep the pound, or never be allowed to join the EU. If those are the arguments you're making, you've already the lost the argument. You've let the SNP frame the terms of the debate.  

On 6th May, the Nationalists are expected to achieve a landslide victory in the Hollyrood elections. They will immediately demand a second referendum on Independence. 

But it's not enough for Boris Johnson to simply say "No" to the Nationalists. That would be kicking the can down the road. He needs to counter with a commission that rethinks how we’re governed as a union. Should we devolve more powers? Should we move towards a federal system? I don't know the answer, but we need to talk about it. 

We need to have a conversation about why the union matters, in the same way that Americans are having to rediscover the importance of their constitution. We need to talk about how the union benefits all of us, but not just the economic arguments. That simply reduces the union to a marriage of convenience.  

We need to talk about the union as a force for good in the world whether it's foreign aid, standing up to despotic regimes like China, or climate change. (The 2021 UN Climate Change conference will be taking place in Glasgow).  We need to talk about how the union enables us to punch above our weight. e.g. our vaccination programme as of today has jabbed more people than the whole of the EU. We need to talk about how UK's legal and financial institutions are trusted across the world. And let's not forget our cultural heritage. And yes, english people need to take more interest in what is going on north of the border. 

The person who can and should lead that conversation is Gordon Brown. He is both a proud Scot and a unionist, and one of the few who are genuinely respected across the political divide north of the border. He is also one of the few who can give Nicola Sturgeon a run for her money. In 2014, he played a major role in saving the Union. He knows how to articulate our national story in the way that no-one else can. We need him to save the union again. 

Scottish independence is likely but not inevitable. It was only a couple of years ago that Jeremy Corbyn's premiership seemed to be a dead cert, yet he ended up losing by a landslide. 

It's not too late. 

The extremists of Bet Shemesh and the Islamists have a lot in common

Every time there is a terror attack or attempted terror attack by Islamic extremists in the UK, you can be sure that a self-proclaimed spokesman (usually from the Muslim Council of Britain) will pop up to give the usual statement: "We condemn this violence, but...."

"But... these were extremists, not real Muslims".

"But... these only represent a tiny minority of Muslims".

"But... these attacks are used by Islamaphobes to tar all Muslims with the same brush".

"But... if Muslims weren't provoked, these attacks wouldn't occur".

Now look at Agudat Yisrael's statement on what is going on Bet Shemesh. Notice the parallel?

Sometimes all you should do is issue a condemnation. Period. There is nothing more to say.

Unfortunately, Haredi extremists and Islamists have a lot in common. The extremists may be small minorities, but they are incubated by apologists from the wider community.

The sort of drivel the Guardian excels at

Whenever there's a major terror plot in the news involving Islamists, you can be sure the Guardian will publish an article from some ignoramus telling us that "Islam is a religion of peace" or that "the fanatics aren't real Muslims" etc.. This week we were entertained by Lauren Booth who recently converted to Islam. She tells us:

So let's all just take a deep breath and I'll give you a glimpse into the other world of Islam in the 21st century. Of course, we cannot discount the appalling way women are mistreated by men in many cities and cultures, both with and without an Islamic population. Women who are being abused by male relatives are being abused by men, not God. Much of the practices and laws in "Islamic" countries have deviated from (or are totally unrelated) to the origins of Islam. Instead practices are based on cultural or traditional (and yes, male-orientated) customs that have been injected into these societies. For example, in Saudi Arabia, women are not allowed to drive by law. This rule is an invention of the Saudi monarchy, our government's close ally in the arms and oil trade.

What utter drivel. Presumably, you can explain away just about every terror atrocity and religious injustice throughout history as being related to local culture. How convenient.

I often wonder what the (mainly) godless readership of the Guardian makes of all this? Whilst many readers will regard Islamism as proof of how primitive religion is, there seems to be a much larger group who believe that "celebrating diversity" trumps everything. Personally I prefer the former to the latter. At least they're not hypocrites.

The British don't iike people who are successful

Much has been said about Tom Daley, the olympic swimmer, who was forced to change schools after the constant bullying he received at his local school.

According to Tom Daley, the problem doesn't lie with the bullies, but with the comprehensive school system:

"...According to this dogma, no one must be allowed to succeed unless that success is shared equally by all. Because all must win prizes, none must win prizes. Tall poppies will be culled..."

Unfortunately, our comprehensive school system is just part of a deeper malaise. The British simply don't like people who are successful. Why do you think so many Brits emigrate to Australia, Canada and the States?

Amusing video of Noah and his Ark

As this week is Parshat Noach, I thought you would enjoy watching the following video

Sink schools and the social divide

If you haven't seen it already, I would strongly recommend watching the documentary by John Humphreys: "Unequal Opportunities" which is all about the huge gulf between rich and poor kids when it comes to education. You can watch on BBC iPlayer.

Most of the programme was a rant about "the middle classes" who send their kids to independent schools, spend thousands on private tutors, and bus their kids to the best state schools miles away whilst everyone else has to languish at the local comprehensive. (can you blame them when there is no decent local state school available?)

But the best and most inspiring part of the documentary was the fact that he visited several high performing schools that were:

1. Based in poor areas with poor pupils
   
2. Had a mixed intake of kids from various countries and communities
3. Were in a delapidated premises

And despite all that, the schools performed well because of

1. strong leadership from the head
2. good teachers
3. strict discipline

It just goes to show that whether you're rich or poor, middle class or working class, give kids the right school environment and they can succeed in life. Throwing all the money in the world at schools (as Labour did) makes little difference. Britain seems to suffer from a "can't do" culture, a mindset that finds every excuse under the sun to explain under performing schools. It's very simple: we need to and we can raise the standards of our schools that serve the poorest kids. We also need to recognise that it's perfectly fair and normal for parents to have the power to choose the best schools for their kids. We just need to make sure that the poorest parents also have that choice.

I just hope Michael Gove's free schools experiment succeeds in raising standards, because Labour have tried just about everything else and with the exception of Academies, nothing else has worked so far.

Opposition parties have a habit of picking the wrong leaders

When the Tories went into opposition after their historic defeat in 1997, they picked William Hague as leader. His election was a disaster with the Tories winning only 1 seat in the 2001 general election. Following their ejection by the electorate in 1979, the Labour party elected Michael Foot as leader. He went on the lead the Labour party to one of their worst defeats in the 1983 general election.

Notice a pattern here? Governing parties that are pushed into opposition tend to learn the wrong lessons of their election defeat. They take the electorate for granted and retreat into their own idealogical comfort zone. They get into a mindset that the electorate somehow got it all wrong and will eventually mend their ways and vote for them again. They find it very hard to absorb the fact that maybe their policies were wrong.

And so it is with Ed Miliband. The new Labour leader refuses to recognise that his party tested the theory of tax and spend to destruction and that we now have a massive deficit that is entirely Labour's fault. He is happy to dance to the tune of his union paymasters rather than appeal to the electorate as a whole. Labour never warmed to the new Labour project. It begrudgingly went along with Tony Blair because they were hungry for power after nearly two decades in opposition. The lesson they are now drawing from their election defeat is that the party was too Blairite (have they ever asked themselves why Blair won them three elections?).

Although my political sympathies are broadly centre right (I don't feel a strong affiliation to any political party), I'm sorry that David Milliband wasn't elected. Governing parties need a strong opposition to keep them on their toes, otherwise they get lazy and complacent (as Labour did when the Tories were in opposition). David Milliband understands the need to win over middle class voters and would have given the coalition government a run for its money. Under Ed Milliband, Labour runs the risk of slipping into insignificance just as the Tories did.