The latest confected Joan McAlpine 'controversy'

As a result of my slight mishap the other night, I'm a bit late on catching up with the latest confected 'controversy' about a Joan McAlpine utterance. As we all know, her views were cynically misrepresented last time to fit the outrage certain people were determined to feel. For instance, here's our old chum "Braveheart" -

"MSPs who think that their opponents are "anti-Scottish" because they want to have a say in the referendum"

Which, of course, bears absolutely no resemblance to what Joan said. Without wanting to put words in her mouth myself, I think I'm on in reasonably safe ground in suggesting that she would have no problem whatever with opposition parties having their say on the referendum in the appropriate democratic forum - the Scottish Parliament. What she was characterising as "anti-Scottish" was their attempt to circumvent the democratic process by bypassing the inconvenient reality of an SNP majority in Holyrood, and instead interfering with the referendum via the quasi-colonial route of Westminster. Not quite the same thing, is it?

However, it's true she did use the words "anti-Scottish", which arguably left her open to such misrepresentation. This time, however, her detractors haven't got a leg to stand on. Ian Smart has written an utterly hysterical piece excoriating her for comparing Scotland's relationship with the UK to "domestic violence". There is no direct quote from Joan in the article, which is hardly surprising, given that she said no such thing. What she did say was this -

"Eventually she recognises the relationship for what it is - an abuse of power."

And of course the abuse of power Joan is referring to is financial, not physical. The comparison is with a relationship in which a man will not "trust" a woman with her own money, because she will "squander" it, and in any case "it belongs to them both" anyway. I can hardly think of a more apt analogy, given that Scotland's natural resources and tax take go direct to London, and in return we are generously "given" a very limited "allowance" to do very limited things with. It's also an analogy that some of the more thoughtful unionists (such as my fellow subway passenger Wendy Alexander) ought to appreciate, because it highlights the very deficiency with the current constitutional settlement that the Calman process was intended (but failed) to address.

If Ian Smart is offended that anyone could dream up a comparison between Scotland and a woman beaten by her husband, he ought to be looking in the mirror, because he's the one that thought of it, not Joan McAlpine.

Thrills and spills on the Glasgow subway

It may be Super Tuesday over in my 'other' country, but I haven't got the energy for anything other than a very short post tonight. A few hours ago I took one step onto the moving walkway at Buchanan Street subway station, went flying and fell flat on my back. I then got up, took one more step, went flying and fell flat on my back. I think the girl behind me thought I was drunk, but in fact it was my hopeless trainers that were to blame. Not exactly being an avid rugby player or boxer, I'm not used to those kind of tumbles, and hitting a hard metallic surface twice in the space of twenty seconds was a bit much.

Bizarrely, two minutes later I found myself sitting directly opposite Wendy Alexander on the train. I'd never want to offend anyone, so if by any chance she heard me groaning, I do hope she realised it was because I was in excruciating physical pain, and not because I'd just remembered the Hungry Caterpillar speech.

What would an authentically 'non-unionist' Liberal Democrat party look like?

The Liberal Democrat blogger Caron Lindsay left a comment on the previous thread, and I thought I'd respond properly in a fresh post -

"Well, of course, if Alex Salmond chose to have the referendum earlier, then there would be more time to work with the SNP.

That's hardly likely before the referendum, when the two parties are on different sides, is it?"

That evades the central issue straight away, because it leaves us no clearer as to why the two parties are on different sides prior to the referendum. I'm not talking about the fact that one is supporting a 'Yes' to independence, and the other is supporting a 'No'. I'm talking about the Liberal Democrats setting their face against the possibility of a second referendum question on their own (supposedly) preferred constitutional model, which is clearly the best tactical hope of achieving the objective of 'Home Rule'. If there was a second question, the Liberal Democrats and the SNP would be on the same side on one question, but opposite sides on the other question. Precisely the middle 'non-unionist' way you might expect Caron to favour.

"And what do you think the Ming Campbell Commission is all about if it's not developing a strategy for home rule - and devolving power from Holyrood to councils and communities? We're not hanging about developing our strategy on home rule."

Frankly I think the purpose is to give the appearance of activity, and to provide some kind of cover for the otherwise inexplicable spectacle of a 'Home Rule party' undermining the cause of Home Rule at every turn. As others have pointed out, a sincere Home Rule party would have had their blueprint worked out long before now.

"I want to see more actual detail on how we get to more powers after a no vote in the referendum, but I'm sure it'll come. I don't want the reactionary forces in Tory and Labour to think this is a good excuse for no further change, so we need to get signed up to something ahead of time."

It's difficult to know whether to laugh or cry at this point. Could I gently suggest that the best way to prevent the reactionary forces having such an excuse is not to sign up lock, stock and barrel to the worldview and strategy of those forces, which goes like this : "first the Scottish people must be forced to make a binary Yes/No choice on independence, then they must be coaxed into voting No by any means necessary, then that vote will be used to legitimise the idea that remaining within the UK means that Scotland's future constitutional arrangements are no longer a matter for the Scottish people, but are instead entirely at the discretion of the UK government". Where precisely do the Lib Dems depart from that worldview? If they do think that Scotland's constitutional future within the UK is a matter for the Scottish people as well as for the UK government, why are they moving heaven and earth to ensure that the people will never have any say on enhanced devolution? What more excuse do you think the reactionary forces need to do nothing after a No vote?

"The mistake the SNP makes is to define us as a unionist party when we aren't and never have been. We are a federalist party, a party that believes in decentralising power, having decisions made at the lowest practical level."

As I've pointed out a number of times, federalists are unionists. It's simply a fact - a federation is a political union. However, let's be generous for a moment and accept that there can be a middle way between unionism and nationalism. The more radical Liberal Democrats have articulated it down the years, by suggesting we should free ourselves from the absolutism of the nation state, and instead look at the level of government where each individual lever of power is most appropriately exercised. Therefore, some powers would be transferred from Westminster to Holyrood, some from Westminster to Brussels, some from both Westminster and Holyrood to local government. Crucially, the new dispensation would be constitutionally entrenched. Westminster rule wouldn't exactly wither away, but it would be no more or less important than any other tier of government, meaning that the one-dimensional notion of "London sovereignty over Scotland" would certainly be at an end.

That's what an authentic 'non-unionist', 'non-nationalist' Home Rule party would look like. But does that bear any actual resemblance to the modern-day Liberal Democrats? Er, no. Their pro-Europeanism lies in tatters as they prop up the most isolationist British Prime Minister since Margaret Thatcher. The Liberal Democrat Secretary of State for Scotland makes a mockery of the commitment to a stronger Scottish Parliament by using the stock excuse of "we need more evidence" to justify powers that his own party supposedly want transferred to Holyrood remaining exactly where they are. A 'non-unionist' would not take the default view that "Westminster knows best, unless overwhelmingly proved otherwise". And above all else, they legitimise the one-dimensional notion of the sovereignty of the British state by supporting the view that any changes to Scotland's constitutional position short of independence are none of the Scottish people's business. In a nutshell, the Lib Dems look suspiciously like bog-standard British nationalists at the moment.

How might we expect a 'non-unionist', 'non-nationalist' Home Rule party to act in the run-up to the referendum? Broadly, by saying "a plague on both your houses" to unionism and nationalism, and using this unique opportunity to fight for their own preferred constitutional model. What we would not expect them to do is declare their absolute loyalty to the forces of unionism in a 'winner-takes-all' fight to the death with the forces of nationalism. But that's exactly what the Liberal Democrats have chosen to do.

I fear we must draw the obvious conclusion.

Willie Rennie and the art of timing

Let's see if I can get this straight -

1) Willie Rennie reminds us that the Liberal Democrats have been passionate Home Rulers for 100 years.

2) The Liberal Democrats are now in power at Westminster for the first time in 65 years, and in all probability for the last time for another few decades, given that electoral reform was defeated last year. Presumably, therefore, this is the golden moment for a passionate Home Rule party to actually do something about their passion.

3) It is universally accepted that an independence referendum is on the way, giving a passionate Home Rule party a unique opportunity to use the London establishment's fear of a Yes vote to secure some long-dreamt-of concessions.

4) Willie Rennie tells us that the Liberal Democrats will in fact wait until the bargaining chip of the referendum is gone, and until they no longer have any influence at Westminster, and only then "work with the SNP" to increase the powers of the Scottish Parliament.

Great plan, guys. Someone who wasn't in the know would almost be forgiven for thinking that this whole "passionate Home Ruler" business was a bit of an affectation.

The worst type of parochial, faux 'internationalism'

It would be overly-generous to talk about the "meat" of Ed Miliband's speech to the Scottish Labour conference the other day, but if such a thing existed it was probably this -

"I believe, and I believe that people across the United Kingdom believe,

That we owe obligations to each other.

That the successful Scottish entrepreneur owes obligations to the child born into poverty in London, and the pensioner in Wales."

Which begs the obvious question - does a successful Scottish or English entrepreneur also owe an equal obligation to a child born into poverty in Lisbon, and to a pensioner in Wallonia? And if not, why not? If Miliband's belief in solidarity is real and not as synthetic as most of us suspect, why isn't he arguing for a single European or world state within which to redistribute wealth to the maximum extent possible?

I've tried asking Labour supporters these questions recently, and the only answers that have been forthcoming have been along the lines of "we are where we are" and "the UK exists", and frankly if that's the best they can come up with, this argument is going absolutely nowhere. The rhetoric of Miliband and Alexander can only really make sense when viewed through a British Nationalist prism. Just like the SNP, they draw a line around a group of people and say that the social democratic contract should apply only between those people - and yet because that line is a different line to the SNP's and is drawn around a different group of people, they somehow expect us to believe that their kind of nationalism is more morally virtuous. Douglas Alexander evidently feels some kind of saintly glow when he addresses an audience in Cardiff and tells them that he doesn't see "foreigners" staring back at him. But why on earth would "Johnny Foreigner" be the first thing that pops into his head when he meets someone from Paris or Dublin? Why wouldn't he just see a fellow citizen of the EU, or even more fundamentally another human being?

I'm sure the likes of Duncan Hothersall and any others who are still wedded to the quaint idea that Labour is an "international movement" must be thrilled by all the recent talk of solidarity, but Alexander gives the game away. A belief in solidarity that is strictly limited to 'Fortress Britain' is the worst type of parochial, faux 'internationalism', reminiscent of those who used to fondly imagine that the Home Nations football competition was the real world championship. And, even more to the point, it's a type of solidarity that doesn't actually work. So when Miliband asks -

"And if we believe in the idea of Scotland as a progressive beacon, why would we turn our back on the redistributive union - the United Kingdom?"

- the obvious reponse is to inquire where the redistribution actually is within that union. We've now had thirty-three years of right-wing and centre-right Westminster governments opposed to the redistribution of wealth. The Labour administration that Miliband was part of had a leader who cheerfully boasted that he didn't give a damn that the gap between rich and poor was continuing to widen. And Miliband's own recent pandering to right-wing opinion in the south of England by accepting the Tory cuts (a stance which renders his bizarre claim that the SNP are "doubling the cuts" pathetic as well as nonsensical) is further proof that the cause of progressivism requires that this union should end as soon as possible, not be defended to the death. By opposing independence, Miliband is not merely legitimising ongoing Tory rule in Scotland, he is legitimising a political culture that holds that a successful Scottish entrepreneur has no real obligations to the poor and vulnerable at all. Not in Livingston, not in London, not in Lisbon, not anywhere.

Independence would in fact lead to a net increase in progressivism in these islands. The rest of the UK would unfortunately still be governed by the Tories or by Tory-Lites in other parties, but we know that's going to be the case anyway. Why should vulnerable Scottish pensioners have to suffer for Miliband's narrow British nationalism?

UK Eurovision choice : a hump-dincker?

Four years ago, when Andy Abraham was picked to represent the UK at Eurovision, I checked through the records and discovered that, at the age of 43, he was by some distance the oldest ever person to sing for the UK (leaving aside backing vocalists).  That seemed fairly incredible given that many other countries have routinely spanned the age spectrum.  Well, Andy can stop feeling self-conscious now, because his record is about to be broken by the small matter of thirty-three years.  I don't think that's a bad thing at all - it's not hard to imagine someone like Tom Jones going down a storm at Eurovision.  But is Engelbert Humperdinck the right choice of older singer?  Ah hae ma doots.  He seems to have been picked mainly because, decades after his heyday, he still has a residual following in approximately six European countries.  Much the same can be said of Lutheranism.

This is the second year in a row that the BBC have dispensed with the previous tradition of giving the viewing public some say over the UK entry.  I've been trying to pin down what it is that bothers me about that.  It certainly isn't that it lessens the chance of a good result - the public repeatedly demonstrated themselves perfectly capable of making idiotic decisions in the national selection, most notably by picking Jemini rather than Emily Reed in 2003, and Scooch rather than Cyndi in 2007.  But I think what the old system did was give 'us' some kind of ownership over 'our' entry.  Obviously as a Scottish nationalist, it's a bit difficult to get enthused by anything with a UK label on it, but at least having watched and voted in the national selection I could nevertheless just about feel 'represented' by the UK entry.  Whatever song is dreamt up for Humperdinck (and given the nature of what he does, it can only have a niche appeal at best) is bound to feel like an alien body.  I'll have no more stake in it than the French or Icelandic entries (which are both crackers, incidentally) and I'm not even sure whether I'll be particularly cheering it on.

If there really must be an internal selection, the approach being taken is entirely the wrong way round.  The first step is to find an absolutely killer song, and then it doesn't matter whether the performer is well-known or not, as long as they can sing it well - the vast majority of Eurovision winners are unknowns.  Admittedly there's no harm in a singer whose name carries a bit of a 'wow' factor...but to look for that and come up with a man whose last Top 40 hit was in 1972?  It's hard to escape the conclusion that they were getting a bit desperate, rather like Jock Brown was when he said to himself "if I play my cards right here, I could bring Jozef Venglos to Celtic".

Lastly, I'll just make my customary point at this time of year - this is now the twenty-fourth year in succession that there has been no Scottish involvement in the UK Eurovision entry.  France and Cyprus have both been represented by Scots more recently than the UK has.

The union dividend in action.

Blow for Cameron's 'jam tomorrow' deception as public demands up-front Devo Max vote

There's a new Ipsos-Mori poll out that doesn't offer much solace for the Prime Minister and others who think that two referendum questions would be simply too much for the poor befuddled Scottish electorate to cope with...

59% want an additional Devo Max question
37% want an independence-only referendum

Arguably by floating the extremely vague idea of more powers further down the line, Cameron has simply increased support for an explicit Devo Max question.  The notion that independence is a matter for the Scottish people to decide, but anything short of that is a matter entirely for a British Prime Minister's whim or for discussions in a smoke-filled room, was never likely to attract much sympathy.

The EU must stop accepting a 'this far and no farther' commitment to democracy as good enough

Although it's caused little more than a ripple, the announcement from the Spanish foreign minister that his country would have "nothing to say" about Scottish independence could scarcely be more significant. Since the late 1980s, the SNP has countered scaremongering about "isolation" with the promise that Scotland would remain firmly inside the European family after independence, and indeed would be a much less half-hearted participant in EU affairs than the UK has been. The latter point has become an even easier sell since David Cameron's petulant and pointless veto of a European treaty at the end of last year. But of course the success of the strategy has always hinged on the public's faith that an independent Scotland could freely choose to remain within the EU, and unionist parties have naturally been keen from the start to find ways of undermining that faith. The SNP's impeccable pro-European credentials would be of little use if enough doubt could be sowed about just how welcome an independent Scotland would actually be in the club. And the favourite piece of unionist scaremongering down the years? That Spain would veto our EU membership, on the grounds that it would encourage "separatism" in two of its own autonomous regions, Catalonia and the Basque Country. A Foreign Office source gently whispered that idea into the ears of a few journalists just last month, and with a typical display of the "Westminster is God" mindset, the London media lapped it up and earnestly reported it as if it was a direct quote from the Spanish government!

But it really doesn't matter what is said from now on - we have an authoritative statement from Spain, which can be used as an all-purpose response whenever this hoary old myth is raised. At a stroke, there can be no more room for doubt in the minds of the Scottish public that we can choose a European future. The mechanics of securing EU membership may still be open to debate, as indeed is the very desirability of full membership as opposed to the EU-lite option of staying within the single market via EFTA and the EEA. But the old unionist fantasy of Scotland being 'punished' by the civilised world for its confounded impudence, and set adrift in the North Atlantic without food, shelter or warmth, is now dead for ever.

So great news for us - but spare a thought for the Catalans and the Basques. Spain's pragmatic promotion of the idea that there are no parallels between its own regions and Scotland is essentially based on a piece of sophistry, ie. that 'separatism' is somehow consistent with the UK's constitutional doctrine, but not with Spain's. OK, the UK may not have a written constitution that explicitly states that the unity of the nation is "indissoluble", but the now universally-accepted principle that Scotland can choose its own destiny is a relatively new one. It came about as UK Prime Ministers from Harold Wilson onwards simply accepted the realities of a modern, democratised world that had moved on from colonialism. Whether Spain realises it or not, it's simply playing catch-up on this, rather than defending a timeless and quintessentially Spanish constitutional principle.

After all, what message does a constitutional provision that the nation is 'indissoluble' send to Catalan or Basque nationalists? Basically, that constitutional nationalism is a literal impossibility, and ultimately that non-constitutional methods are the only way of achieving what ought to be perfectly legitimate democratic objectives. It's the rough equivalent of Article 6 of the old Soviet constitution, which made clear that voters could choose absolutely any party they wanted, as long as that party was the Communist Party. The EU has long since moved on from the days where it would even flirt with the idea of admitting a one-party state (although Franco's Spain did apply to join the Common Market), so why on earth does it tolerate a member state which arrogantly tells people that the future of their own nation isn't a matter for them, and has been settled for all time by the text of the constitution? It presumably boils down to the fact that nobody in Brussels has been forced to confront this issue yet. But a short, sharp shock may be coming for the EU from the direction of Barcelona, and once it happens the rules of the game will surely have to change. In future, it must be a condition of EU membership that states adhere to all democratic principles, not just the easy ones. Nobody would deny that accepting the right of 'sub-national peoples' to decide their own future is a hard thing for large states such as Spain to do - but without that acceptance, democracy is a sham.

I'll leave you with a picture I took in Catalonia about eighteen months ago - if you look closely you'll see the word "Independencia" lovingly scrawled along the side of the pier. You don't see things like that at Ardrossan Harbour!

Admin, aka 'I can't believe he's not suspended from the PLP'

I was just idly looking at Tom Harris' Twitter page (it's one of my main sources of material, after all), and who do you think was listed in the "similar to Tom Harris" section?

David Drew
Denis MacShane
Eric Joyce

I hope I'm not building up David Drew too much by saying that Admin must be chuffed with that little lot.

That said, I'm delighted to spot that I do actually agree with Tom about something (other than the virtues of Doctor Who, that is) - he's absolutely right that fixed five-year parliamentary terms are an abomination. Fixed terms are a good idea in theory, but only if the term in question is four years at most. Australia has parliaments that last a maximum of three years, and I can't say I've noticed the sun falling out of the sky Down Under.

The Scot Goes Pop interview : meet the man who wants to abolish democracy

On Friday night I was feeling a bit fed up, so when the right-wing PB hordes started interrogating me about my views on inheritance tax, I decided not to spoon-feed them, which produced some fascinating results. As I've mused on this blog a number of times, wealthy people who characterise taxation as "theft" or "force" seem to be blissfully unaware of how the "force" of the state actually legitimises their own wealth in the first place. Inheritance law is a classic example of that, because it legitimises wealth that hasn't been earned. So when someone on PB trotted out the standard moan about people not working for their benefits, I asked him if he felt equally angry about millionaire Tory cabinet ministers who in many cases hadn't worked for the bulk of their wealth.

Apparently by simply pointing out that inherited wealth could be used in a variety of other productive ways by the state, just as benefit money could hypothetically be used in other ways, I was directly advocating a 100% rate of inheritance tax. They were so sure on this point that when I asked them for the slightest scrap of evidence that I had proposed a 100% inheritance tax, one of them asked me (in all apparent seriousness) if I was drunk. Earlier, the same delightful chap had informed me of the fearsome consequences of expressing such views -

"Until about half an hour ago it was possible to think that you might just have an adult and coherent case for Scottish Nationalism which you were just bad at putting across. Now it isn't."

And here was another gem on a similar theme -

"James, your posts on this thread read as if they are written by a bitter and envious person. They seem to be just jealous bile. I'm sure you've more to offer this site."

So isn't it interesting how expressing what are perfectly mainstream left-of-centre views about the source of wealth renders you the equivalent of a non-adult, someone who can be safely ignored until he 'grows up'? It set me thinking about the acres of barking mad right-wing opinions on PB that none of these people ever pounce on in the same way, which presumably means that they regard such views as perfectly normal and 'mature'.

Yesterday, I decided to conduct a little experiment. I asked one of the more far-out members of the right-wing PB fraternity a series of questions, and just let his answers speak for themselves. It was notable that there were only two brief suggestions from other posters that there might just possibly be something a touch peculiar about the views I elicited. Among the highlights : democracy should be abolished, there is a 30% chance of the Republic of Ireland seeing sense and rejoining the United Kingdom by 2050, and non-home owners should be barred from sitting on juries. Enjoy...

Me : As a matter of interest, HD2, how do you think women's suffrage is panning out so far?

HD2 : Badly, on balance, but inevitable given what they achieved in WW1.

Home ownership should be a precondition of being able to vote.
Failing that, paying income tax.

No stake, no vote.

Simples.

Me : OK, so universal suffrage is regrettable.

Question 2. Should we bring back corporal punishment for adult criminals?

HD2 : Obviously.

For all criminals, of whatever age (criminal consent being 10: about right, IMO, with consideration for lowering it, in line with everything else that regards such children as consumers and responsive to sexualisation via adverts. I think that's profoundly wrong, but it's where we are today, sadly) and prison should be both educational and unpleasant, with no tariff discounts and consecutive, not concurrent, sentences the norm.

Once you've been (re)educated and/or trained, and cleaned of drugs, THEN you get the sort of typical prison cell we provide today, so that you can have a good chance of a job on release.

I have no problem with prisoners being used as cheap labour on (ideally outdoor, so publicly-visible) mundane works, either.

Next?

Me : Question 3. Given your belief that authority should derive from "genes not jeans", do you believe it was a historic error to move away from the tried-and-tested principle of absolute monarchy?

HD2 : No, but a large Parliament made up of those with a hereditary right to sit there (with periodic new blood and tidying (no, not sure how!)) as the layer under the Monarch and with an elected Parliament which had dominance, stood us well through several hundred years of wars, peace, good and bad times.

We'll never know what advice and recommendations QE2 has made to the 12 PMs she's had serve under her, but I'm sure they all found her advice sound and helpful (at least in retrospect).

My ideal today would be an electorate who produced the policies for the Govt to follow, with Whitehall producing and publishing the basic factual background, Politicians formulating alternative options, based on those facts and The People making the choices through routine referenda.

The Party system would end, politicians might serve for various periods and in various areas of governance, whilst the electorate would not be universal but confined to those with a decent education, a job which meant they paid tax, and probably with some form of multiplier to their choice if they paid higher-rate taxes, employed others or owned their own home. And they'd need to be 21 to vote, 35 to stand for public office and 45 for Westminster.

Total, wild, guess - that'd be around 30-40% of the current adult population, and for them, participation in, say, 75% of all plebiscites held in any one year would be required.

There'd need to be some way of allowing the remaining 60-70% to be represented, too, mind, possibly by having them vote, as now, for a lower chamber, but that would be purely advisory (ie, in the pre-referendum and legislation stages).

A second option might be to make the second chamber elected by universal suffrage, but have advisory and consultative powers only, with the Upper Chamber (elected as I've suggested) being the legislative body and their electorate being, in effect, the back-benchers of today.

The proportions don't matter - what does is devolving power (which is based on knowledge) totally away from Westminster and MPs (even more - Parties) and moving it to people, and not on a 'once-in-five-years' manifesto, but on an ongoing, rolling, issue by issue basis.

Me : Thankyou for that comprehensive answer.

Question 4. Should a man have the legal right to discipline his wife?

HD2 : Sorry that last answer was so long!

This one's much shorter: No.

Me : Thankyou.

Question 5. Should ignorant members of the lower classes be barred from sitting on juries if one of their genetic betters is in the dock?

HD2 : Can I split that in two?

Ignorant people should not sit on juries, period. The definition of ignorant is somewhat problematic, but might be 'those over 30 who own their own home and pay tax'. Since that might be seen to exclude women (not at all my intention) then we'd better add 'and wives/husbands of such people' too.

A wider point - I think there's a case for particularly complex (fraud?) cases to be heard before a jury of those who have some accountancy training, whilst most trials seem to take weeks or even months when a few days is nearer the requirement.

Lawyers get paid more if they explore every avenue and seek to bury the truth under a mountain of 'facts': that's got to be curbed.

Say a panel looks at a case, decides on a range of criteria how important and complex the issues are, and then allocate a maximum of 5, 10, or 20 days for the case. It's then up to the lawyers and Judge to divide that time up between them.

1800 - trials last a few hours, juries decide in minutes.
1900 - murder trials 2-3 days, jury out for an hour or two.
2000 - many trials 5 days +, more 'popular' trials over a month and juries out for 2-4 days considering their verdict.

That's just Legal Aid cash for hot air.

1900-1960 seems about right: currently it's absurd.

Me : Many thanks.

Question 6. Are you optimistic that the people of the Republic of Ireland will freely choose to rejoin the United Kingdom in our lifetimes, and if so, what are the reasons for your optimism?

HD2 : I'd put the chances as 70:30 against (ie by 2050), but 75:25 in favour by 2200.

Why?

Because the EU is going to form the USoE and that's anathema to the entire Anglo-Saxon mind-set.
Eire has much more in common with Washington than Berlin and Paris, and as the memories of 1916 fade and QE2 is recognised as a worthy sovereign (Charles will be too, when the time comes) who Irish people can accept as Head of State (ie they rejoin the Commonwealth).

I can then envisage a federal 'British Isles' as a part of a wider, 'English-Speaking Union' trading block, forming triad with a protectionist USoE, an Islamic World, and an Oriental World.

Not sure where Russia fits into that, mind (I'd suggest USoE, if forced, but suspect it'll be an outsider, just as 'Spanish World', and 'African World' will be others).

Me : Thankyou.

Question 7. Do you believe it would be appropriate to introduce a cultural assimilation programme in UK schools to stamp out regional differences such as accents, dialects, allegiances to sub-national flags and anthems, etc.?

HD2 : Good question.

No. Individuality is what makes us a successful species and makes us successful as individuals, and as collections and groupings of those individuals.

Trying to create 'coffee-coloured people by the score' is what got us into this poly-cultural mess.

A wider point, if I may? Integration of minds and peoples is essential for a unified State: I'm sure we were going in the opposite direction under Bliar/Brown, and I'm unsure where we're going now. Scrapping/pruning/watering-down the EOC, Equality legislation in general, and, somehow, making schools more racially even (I know, the US experience makes this a daft idea) is A Good Thing.

Maybe area-wide selective/specialist schools is the way forward, such that bright pupils of all colours are in one, outstanding sports and artistically-talented pupils in another (etc) rather than having selection based on post-code (as now)?

Edit: I remember visiting the Dome in 2000 and being shocked to see a primary school there along with use where all but one pupils was non-white and being at Uni (early 70's) with a group of people from NI: the degree of segregation between Catholic and Protestant children was total (and agreed by all of them to be wrong and making sectarian violence both possible and much worse).

Me : Thanks again.

Question 8. What, if anything, did fascism get right?

HD2 : It unified and united a disparate, defeated and despairing people, giving them a unity of purpose and a self-belief that stood them ion good stead long after WW2 and all its horrors.

I'm not enough of a detailed student of that period of history to know much more - Mussolini's 'trains running on time' being more propaganda than reality, I believe.

I've a profound disbelief in great orators as national leaders, particularly if their necessary self-belief becomes 'I'm The Chosen One' delusion.

Two things, James:
One, I've greatly enjoyed our exchanges this afternoon and I hope some others have, too.
Two, why the sudden series of questions? Made me think a bit and formulate some ideas, which is always a good thing to do.

And on that happy note, I must now drive 30 miles to do a Mystery Shop at a Specsavers, pretending to want contact lenses (hard, since I don't wear glasses!).

Have a great afternoon- it's really Spring-like here, with the first hawthorn blossoms just out and my (VERY late-planted) daffodils now coming out too.

Bye - and thanks for the fish, James!

To be fair, he pleasantly surprised me with his answer about the disciplining of wives, but the most frightening bit was when he innocently described my suggestion of cultural assimilation in schools as a "good question"!

* * *

I was a bit miffed to discover that I forgot about the Irish Eurovision selection last night, because that probably means I've missed out on the chance to vote in a national final this year for the first time in...well, a long time. After the rip-roaring success of last year, the BBC are once again going for an internal selection, with the latest rumour being that a reformed Atomic Kitten will be getting the nod.