Rights and Wrongs

Scottish independence "good" for England

Scottish independence would be good for England, Alex Salmond told a packed audience in St George's Hall in Liverpool.

The First Minister said in the Liverpool John Moores University Roscoe Lecture that an independent Scotland would strengthen bonds between nations of the British isles and mean a fairer deal for English regions.

To listen to the audio version of the speech click here: http://www.ljmu.ac.uk/roscoe/97603.htm

This magnificent chamber is an ideal place to speak about what Scottish independence will mean not just for Scotland, but for everyone on these islands.

The connections between our nations are literally embedded within the fabric of this great hall, whose floor includes an Irish shamrock, a Scottish thistle, an English Rose and the Prince of Wales' feathers.

Although they are much less visible than the depiction of St George on the window above me.

And most movingly of all, this building now contains the memorial for the Liverpool Scottish regiment.

The memorial is a lasting tribute to the 1300 members of the regiment who were largely Scots who had come to live and work in Liverpool - who died during the two world wars.

And it is a reminder that Liverpool exemplifies perhaps even better than any other city in England - the closeness of the social ties which connect the nations of these islands.

Indeed, up until the 1970s this city had a Westminster constituency called 'Liverpool Scotland' one which for several decades at the start of the last century was represented by an Irish nationalist MP, T.P. O Connor, who was elected unopposed in four elections even after Ireland had gained its independence. 

The last time I was here was for an appearance on Question Time last April, when I was struck by the warmth of the reception I received especially when I pleaded with people here not to let the three main Westminster parties destroy England's health service.

In case anyone is worried, though, I should stress that my party has no intention of trying to follow T.P. O'Connor's example before or after independence!

Although if you could guarantee that we would be unopposed too, it would be tempting!

So it is a pleasure to be back here. It is also a pleasure to give a lecture in honour of William Roscoe, who provides an early example of the ties between Scotland and Liverpool.

Roscoe is perhaps best remembered now as an anti-slavery campaigner, but he was also - among many other things- a noted poet, and his poems show the commitment to internationalism, liberty and egalitarianism that was such a major part of his life.

It is unsurprising, given the extent to which they shared the same beliefs, that Roscoe and Robert Burns were mutual admirers.

Burns referred to my friend Roscoe in one of his letters, and a hand-written transcript of Roscoe's poem,

The Day Star of Liberty was among Burns' effects when he died.

The closing lines of that poem demonstrate the values that both Burns and Roscoe shared.

Equal rights, equal laws, to the nations around,

Peace and friendship its precepts impart,

And wherever the footsteps of Man shall be found,

He shall bind the decree on his heart.

Or as Burns himself believed,

The hearts aye the part aye

That makes us right or wrong.

A major theme of my message today will be about equality and friendship in particular, I will highlight the new relationship of equality between Scotland and the other nations of these islands which will flourish after independence, and how that will strengthen the strong ties of friendship that already exist between us.

Unsustainability of current constitutional arrangements

First, I want to explain why the current settlement behind devolution is unsustainable.

 It is unsustainable because it is unfair both to Scotland, and to England.

Independence for Scotland, therefore, would not just benefit Scotland. It would also be good for the rest of the UK and those benefits might be felt most clearly in the regions of England.

There is one fact which perhaps highlights the key reason why the current devolution settlement is unsustainable.

The Scottish Parliament is currently responsible for approximately 60% of public spending in Scotland, but only 8% of revenues. It is dependent on a block grant from Westminster for the rest of its funding.

Even under the deeply flawed proposals contained in the current Scotland Bill, we would lack control over most meaningful fiscal powers.

This has damaging consequences both for Scotland and for the rest of the UK.

For Scotland, it severely limits our ability to come up with distinctively Scottish policies which meet distinctively Scottish needs.

And for the rest of the UK, whenever Scotland chooses a distinctive policy approach for example free prescriptions, or the abolition of tuition fees it fosters a feeling that Scotland is enjoying perks which are subsidised by UK taxpayers.

Recent research from the Institute for Public Policy Research suggests that 46% of people in England believe that Scotland gets more than its fair share of UK public spending that proportion has almost doubled in the last decade.

Such a sentiment is unfounded as the CEPR report in yesterday's Sunday Times reminded us, Scotland more than pays its way in the union but it is undoubtedly present.

And it is compounded by the current structure of the UK Parliament, whereby Scottish MPs are allowed to vote on matters which only affect England, and so are of no direct relevance to the constituents who elected them.

Unsurprisingly, therefore, the Institute for Public Policy Research recently found massive support in England - approximately 80% - for the view that Scottish MPs should be banned from voting on matters which affect only England.

Independence for Scotland would end the sense of grievance on both sides - which can sometimes afflict the relationship between Scotland and the rest of the UK, especially in disputes about money.

Neither Scotland nor England could consider themselves short-changed financially, and English policies would not be determined by the representatives of Scottish constituencies.

That, surely, is a better basis for a strong and equal friendship than the status quo.

Benefits of independence for Scotland

I want to deal briefly with arguments about Scotland's ability to prosper as an independent country. It is common, still, to hear doubts about this subject. Sometimes they are even expressed here on Merseyside.

 I note that Frank Field wrote in the Liverpool Echo last month that I wanted to delay Scottish independence, a statement which gives some idea of how informed he is! because I know that leaving (the union) would have a brutal effect on the Scottish economy. 

Joe Riley, one of the Echo's regular columnists, and giving this lecture some useful publicity, stated that "While the English economy could survive unilaterally, the Scottish economy could not."

These warnings join a number which have been expressed in recent weeks.

Many are straightforward scare stories.

For example,  sources close to the Chancellor of the Exchequer warned that an independent Scotland would not be allowed to use the pound.

Of course the interesting thing about these suggestions is not just that they are economically illiterate since sterling is a fully tradeable currency, the UK Government has absolutely no power to stop an independent Scotland from using it.

But more importantly, why would any sensible person wish to stop England and Scotland sharing a currency.  Indeed, a Yougov poll yesterday showed popular support for that in both Scotland and England.

The Daily Mail in Scotland reported William Hague as threatening that if Scotland became independent, British embassies would no longer promote Scotch whisky.

As the Scottish Government already knows to its cost, receptions to promote Scotch whisky or any other goods at British embassies are already charged by the Foreign Office!

But I rather suspect that the whisky industry would in any case get by without the promotional efforts of the British foreign service!

And the Daily Mirror tried to argue that if Scotland voted for independence, the Edinburgh Zoo pandas might somehow be seized by the UK Government.

As a result of that threat, I decided to grant Tian Tian and Yang  Guang political asylum, while reflecting of course that the UK Government did not contribute a single RMB to the cost of the pandas' arrival in our capital city.

Of course, such worries or scare stories are nonsensical. 

Scotland after independence would still be able to use the pound, export whisky and feed our pandas safely.

Scotland is already, even without oil and gas revenues, the third most prosperous part of the United Kingdom, after London and the South-East.

We have a culture and history which is renowned worldwide; an expertise in manufacturing and engineering which has been built up over generations; a world class university research base; and energy resources, both in hydrocarbons and renewable energy which are unrivalled in Europe.

An independent Scotland would actually have the 6th highest GDP per capita of all of the countries in the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. The UK currently ranks 16th, and would maintain its position if Scotland became independent.

But perhaps most importantly of all, an independent Scotland would prosper because it would be able to determine its own economic priorities for the future.

At the heart of the case for independence is a straightforward idea.

That the people best placed to act in Scotland's best interests are those who choose to live and work in Scotland.

At the moment, however, many of the key decisions which affect Scotland are taken at Westminster, by a Government which has fewer than a quarter of Scotland's MPs, and whose dominant party has only one MP in Scotland.

For those slow on the arithmetic, that's fewer Tory MPs in Scotland than pandas although one more than on Liverpool Council!

Scotland is therefore suffering from an austerity package which is economically counter-productive and which virtually nobody in Scotland voted for.

We will shortly be subject to the welfare reform bill designed by Westminster.

And although we are doing everything we can to support growth with the powers we have, we have very limited levers with which to pursue a path of sustainable economic growth.

Independence would give us the levers we need to grow our economy sustainably, and to make use of our resources and assets to enhance the wellbeing of all of our people.

Benefits of independence for rest of UK

But independence will not just benefit Scotland. In my view, it will also benefit the other parts of these islands.

One of the core problems which affects Scotland and the regions of England is the incredibly lopsided nature of the current UK economy.

The dominance of London and the South East skews UK government priorities to an extent which is deeply damaging.

This is something we have seen in recent months on issues as wide-ranging as David Cameron's EU veto and the weakness of attempts to reform the banking sector.

But it is a much longer-standing problem than that. Both Liverpool and Scotland suffered deeply in the postwar years from the abandonment of much of Britain's manufacturing base.

Indeed, we learned recently from the release of confidential Cabinet papers that Geoffrey Howe, at that time the Chancellor of the Exchequer, argued in 1982 that fostering economic growth on Merseyside was like making water flow uphill, and that it would be…regrettable if some of the brighter ideas for renewing economic activity were to be sown only on relatively stony ground on the banks of the Mersey. 

 He went so far as to say that the option of managed decline …is one which we should not forget altogether.

Why should anyone in Liverpool believe that George Osborne, MP for Tatton, now cares more than did Geoffrey Howe, MP for East Surrey?

It is strongly arguable, in my view, that the relative neglect of the English regions and the devolved nations at this time was partly caused by the centralisation of UK policy-making.

It is a centralisation which is matched by much UK media.

For example none of the national UK press give a perspective rooted in the north of England, even the formerly titled Manchester Guardian.

And while devolution has provided a partial remedy to that centralisation in Scotland, it has not yet done so here in England.

It is not surprising, therefore, that there seems to be a major loss of faith among people in England about the current constitutional arrangements for the UK.

The Institute for Public Policy Research published findings three weeks ago which highlight the depth of this problem. In the north of England, only 10% of people think that the UK Government looks after the interests of all parts of England more or less equally.

89% of people think that the UK Government pays particular attention to looking after London. Indeed, even in London, 63% of people believe that the capital gets special treatment!

That sense of disillusionment, or disenfranchisement even, seems to be reflected in the current standing of all political parties at Westminister.

According to last month's Sunday Times Yougov poll, all three of the major party leaders have negative poll ratings across the UK. David Cameron's rating is minus 3%, Nick Clegg's is minus 48% and Ed Miliband's is minus 51%.

The coalition leaders, in particular, are more unpopular the further away from the south you get. David Cameron's approval rating in the north of England is minus 9%, while Nick Clegg's is minus 56%.

In Scotland, incidentally, their popularity ratings stand at minus 22% for David Cameron, minus 59% for Nick Clegg and minus 70% for Ed Miliband.

The unpopularity of Westminster leaders in Scotland is largely based on their hamfisted interventions in the debate on Scotland's future.

Their unpopularity in England is based on their inability, in these tough times, to present a positive vision for the future of England.  But it may also reflect something else.

Gladstone, one of Liverpool's greatest figures, made a speech in this city in 1886 when he said that "All the world over, I wiill back the masses against the classes."

While in this speaking tour, all England over, I will back the masses against the Westminster classes.

One reason, in my view, for the current unpopularity of the UK parties is that on issues from health reform to economic recovery, the Westminster classes seem to be out of touch with the masses.  And they seem more out of touch the further from Westminster you travel.

Scottish independence would require a re-thinking of the structures of the rest of the UK.

 It would be for England, Wales and Northern Ireland to decide how this came about - the Institute for Public Policy Research does not, for example, find much support for regional parliaments in England - but the end result would surely reflect the needs of the regions better than current arrangements. 

I am of course aware that Liverpool is already taking steps which should provide it with a stronger voice within the UK.

 I very much hope your council's decision two weeks ago to have a directly elected mayor, together with the deal for some additional powers agreed with the UK Government, will start the process of  re-empowering Merseyside.

Given Westminster's track record, and the clear evidence that local government can make an outstanding success of local initiatives when given the opportunity most prominently demonstrated in Liverpool, perhaps, with your Capital of Culture celebrations in 2008 - the case for giving more powers back to England's cities and regions seems to me to be unarguable.

It is of course for you, rather than me, to decide how far that process should go.

But I very much suspect that the decisions of the last few weeks will only truly succeed if they mark the beginning of the process of re-empowering England's regions and cities, rather than anything like the end.

And so if independence for Scotland helped to precipitate a further reimagining of the structures of the rest of the UK, that would almost certainly be to your benefit.

An independent Scotland could also act as an example.

As argued in my Hugo Young lecture in London three weeks ago, Scotland could demonstrate the value of progressive politics at a time when the nature of the coalition's austerity programme is having deeply regressive consequences.

In my London lecture I concentrated on the social policies being adopted in Scotland, including our support for the health service.

Subsequent independent research has emphasised that point: a study published by the University of Nottingham two weeks ago claimed that the management of health service reform  in Scotland "should serve as a role model for the public sector."

It is worth noting that the North West Strategic Health Authority is larger than Scotland's National Health Service, in terms of the population it serves, but has no scope for opting out of the health service vandalism currently being enacted at Westminster.

Indeed, the North West Strategic Health Authority is about to be abolished. So that opens up the question, instead of abolition, why shouldn't the North West determine its own priorities for a people's health service?

Andrew Lansley was actually in Scotland on Friday, to give a speech in Edinburgh to the Royal College of Surgeons.

 I am not sure if he took the trouble to learn about the management of the health service in Scotland.

But overall, I suspect that he should concentrate on selling his misguided and cack-handed proposals to the people and regions who will actually have to live with them.

 In Scotland, privatisation of the NHS will not even be considered.

But the argument that Scotland could be an example is also, I think, true of economic policy, as well as social policy.

For example, Scotland is paying far more attention to the economics of security than the UK Government is.

We have a guarantee of no compulsory redundancies in the public sector, a commitment to a living wage, and we have made a shared commitment to provide certain services - such as free prescriptions - which are not prioritised in some other parts of the UK.

All of this boosts individuals spending power, and makes it easier for them to plan their own household budgets with a bit more confidence. 

As we have seen, sustaining confidence is crucial in times of economic uncertainty.

The Scottish Government also has a genuine vision for the reindustrialisation of our economy.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer in his March 2011 budget statement promised that he would create a Britain born aloft by the march of the makers. However subsequent events have proved this rhetoric to be hopelessly optimistic. It seems as though the economy is being brought low by the born-high takers, rather than born aloft by the makers.

In Scotland, however, we are committed to restoring our manufacturing base.

During the 2011 Scottish election campaign, we encountered a massively enthusiastic response from people in Scotland to our vision of reindustrialising the Scottish economy. In particular, the massive opportunities that we have in renewable energy will enable us to put our old engineering and manufacturing expertise to use in producing the turbines and that will power the green energy revolution of this century.

An independent Scotland could be an example of an alternative way of running the economy - one based on sustainable principles, and the provision of goods and services that people need and want, rather than living off the illusory profits of periodic asset booms.

That alternative vision would affect policy-making in England by its example.

And it would also, of course, provide supply chain opportunities for trading partners especially, perhaps, among our very nearest neighbours.

Finally, the presence of a strong, secure independent nation in the north would change the centre of gravity of these islands.

The presence of other centres of power around these islands would help to lessen the economic dominance of the south-east, which would ultimately benefit all of the nations of these islands.

All of these opportunities for Scotland seem to me to be opportunities for England. An opportunity to reconsider a centralised model of governance which adversely affects much of the country.

An opportunity for free trade with a prosperous northern neighbour within the European Union.

And an opportunity to embrace a modern, mature friendship with Scotland, a Scotland that can be a beacon of progressive, social and economic change.

That point about friendship is the one that I would like to end on tonight.

I understand that Scottish independence is of interest, and potentially concern, to people throughout these islands particularly perhaps in cities such as Liverpool which have enjoyed particularly close links with Scotland.

Scottish independence would actually change very little about day to day life for the other countries within the UK.

Although the Scottish Government wants to establish its independence from the rest of the UK, the wider social union - the ties of family and friendship which link people across these islands - would continue.  In particular, Scotland would continue to act as a friend and partner to its neighbouring countries.

Last week, I had the pleasure of being able to congratulate Her Majesty the Queen on her diamond jubilee.

 We would still fire a salute at Edinburgh Castle to mark occasions like that, because we would still share a monarchy with the rest of the UK  just as we did for a century before the Parliamentary Union of 1707, and just as 16 other Commonwealth countries do now.

Liverpool would still have trade and transport links with Scotland.

The many bonds between our people would continue - people would still move from Scotland to Liverpool, or from Liverpool to Scotland, and friends would continue to visit each other.

We would still watch many of the same television programmes. Scottish people would still invest in the Grand National, and travel to Aintree to see it.

And perhaps most importantly, since this may be your biggest worry, we would still be happy to supply this city with football managers!

Although it's not all good news for you - we may continue to do the same for Manchester.

Football, incidentally,  is one example of an area where I am sure that rivalries between our two nations would persist.

 Bill Shankly, one of the greatest of the many Scots to have lived and worked here, and I hope I haven't alienated half of the audience by saying that once spoke with relish of a wartime football international he played in, saying "We absolutely annihilated England.

It was a massacre.

We beat them 5-4"!

I am sure that sport would still bring out that competitive streak.

 Friendly rivalry among nations is nothing new - indeed it enhances a healthy competitive spirit, but independence for Scotland would free that spirit from any petty grievances.

There has sometimes been a tendency for people in Scotland to support "anyone but England." Indeed, my Labour predecessor as First Minister adopted this approach for one World Cup. I am sure that Trinidad and Tobago greatly valued his support.

I have always counted myself as a staunch anglophile, and have always wanted all nations of these islands to prosper.

Devolution has already, in my view, played helped to significantly reduce those views; I believe that independence would make them a thing of the past.

The more responsibility people in Scotland have for their own affairs, the more responsibly we will act towards others. As we gain the power to build our own future, we will be less inclined to place blame on others for our present and our past.

If Scotland became independent, Scotland would no longer believe in blaming Westminster if it faced difficulties.

And people in England would no longer suspect that they were subsidising Scottish policies. Without constitutional disputes or financial debates to act as a source of squabbles, Scotland and England could move to a stronger, more equal footing. 

And our new relationship would be the one which, in my view, has always made the most sense. As independent and equal partners, co-operating with each other on our many areas of shared interest, but free to pursue our own policies when we see fit.

The current United Kingdom, where one nation will always prevail simply by virtue of its size, seems increasingly like an anachronism in the modern age.

Independence - with the right to participate as an equal on the international stage - appears more and more like Scotland's normal and natural state of being.

It is the means by which we can we can grow our economy more strongly and sustainably; by which our people can best fulfil their potential and realise their aspirations; and by which Scotland can take its rightful places as a responsible member of the international community as many other new states have done in the last 20 years.

Independence will ensure a relationship of equality, respect and co-operation between Scotland and other nations. We will be a firm friend and equal partner to all of the nations of these islands.

And the bonds between the nations of these islands - so evident in this city and in this building - will be stronger still as a result

President Chávez to undergo surgery in Havana

Granma

CARACAS.—President Hugo Chávez of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, announced February 21 that he is about to undergo surgery in Havana, "without any rush and in due time," as he stated in a telephone contact with the "Contragolpe" program broadcast by Venezolana de Televisión.

Chávez underwent a medical check in the Cuban capital on February 18, during which a lesion of close to two centimeters in diameter was detected in the same area from which a tumor was removed in June of last year.

He explained that he would be treated by the same medical team who performed the earlier operation. "Here (in Venezuela), things would have to be activated and implemented.

 Over there (Cuba), there is more security for this kind of operation.

I will have the same doctors, the same equipment and that is going to be better for everyone."

The President stated that he is to continue working with members of the United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV), as well as his ministerial team and the Bolivarian National Armed Forces (FANB).

Chávez confirmed that no metastasis had been found in any organ of his body, as has been rumored, and that he feels physically and spiritually prepared for this new operation

Venezuela's Chavez to undergo surgery 
 
President says doctors found a lesion in the same place where they removed a cancerous tumour last year.

Last Modified: 21 Feb 2012 20:59 
 
 
Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez, centre, was treated for cancer last year [Reuters]

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has said that he will have to undergo another operation after doctors in Cuba found a lesion in his pelvis where surgeons removed a large cancerous tumour last year.

"There is no metastasis.

Just this small lesion in the same place where they removed the tumor," Chavez said on Tuesday during a televised tour of a factory in his home state of Barinas.

"Because of the growing rumors, I'm obliged to put forward the information now ... it's a small lesion, about two centimetres across, very clearly visible.

This will need to be taken out, it needs more surgery."

The 57-year-old socialist leader said he had travelled to Havana for the tests on Saturday.

Rumours of the unannounced trip had prompted a flood of speculation among the opposition and supporters that he was at death's door.

Growing uncertainty

The announcement throws new uncertainty over the country's politics because the socialist leader is seeking re-election this year, hoping to extend his more than 13 years in power.

Chavez did not say when he would undergo the surgery, other than "in the coming days".

Chavez said the new surgery should be less complicated than what he underwent in Cuba in June, when doctors removed a tumour from his pelvic region.

From July to September, he received four rounds of chemotherapy, both in Cuba and in Venezuela, and he has since said that tests show he is cancer-free.

 
With Venezuela's election planned for October, 2012 will be a year of great uncertainty for the country

On Tuesday, he denied rumours that the cancer had spread to his liver. He has never specified the cancer's exact nature or location.

In recent weeks, Chavez has recovered the hair that he shaved while undergoing chemotherapy and he has appeared vigorous, returning to his full schedule of activities, including marathon television appearances.

He has assured Venezuelans that he is in fine shape in the run-up to the October 7 election, when he will seek a new six-year term. But his health is the wildcard.

Although Chavez has insisted he was completely recovered, medical experts said it is too soon to make such a call.

The opposition is newly united behind one candidate - youthful state governor Henrique Capriles - and see the vote as their best chance to end Chavez's 13 years in power.

Recent opinion polls have given Chavez an edge over Capriles, thanks partly to a huge programme of new state spending on social projects.

But about a third of Venezuelans remain undecided, and competition for their votes will be intense.
 
 
Source: Al Jazeera and agencies

Australian PM calls leadership vote 
 
Julia Gillard calls on ex-leader Kevin Rudd, her likely challenger, to accept its outcome as final.
Last Modified: 22 Feb 2012 23:43 
 
Julia Gillard, the Australian prime minister, centre, replaced Rudd in a party-room vote two years ago [Reuters]
 
Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard has announced a ballot for the Labor leadership and called on ex-leader Kevin Rudd, widely expected to challenge, to accept its outcome as final.

"I have decided that at 10:00 am Monday morning a ballot for the Labor leadership will be conducted," Gillard told reporters on Thursday, adding that she would renominate for the job and expected the full support of her Labor colleagues.

Were she to, against expectations, lose the ballot, Gillard said she would retire to the backbench and renounce any future claims to the leadership and called on Rudd to do the same.

"Australians are rightly sick of this and they want it brought to an end," Gillard said.

Earlier, Rudd said he is encouraged by support from government colleagues to challenge Gillard for party leadership.

Rudd told reporters at his hotel in Washington on Thursday that Gillard could not lead the party to an election victory next year.

But Rudd will not say whether he will challenge Gillard in a leadership ballot of Labor lawmakers until he returns to Australia on Friday.

He said: "I've had many conversations with caucus colleagues and with ministerial colleagues. I'm very pleased and encouraged by the amount of positive support that encourages me to contest the leadership of the Australian Labor Party.

"The simple truth is that I cannot continue to serve as foreign minister if I don't have Prime Minister Gillard's support," Rudd told a news conference late on Tuesday in Washington, where he had earlier attended a meeting of G20 foreign ministers.

Gillard, on her part, said she was disappointed by Rudd's resignation.

"I am disappointed that the concerns Mr Rudd has publicly expressed this evening were never personally raised with me, nor did he contact me to discuss his resignation prior to his decision," Gillard said.

Speculation has been rife in Australia that Rudd is planning to reclaim the prime ministerial post almost two years since he was replaced by Gillard in June 2010 after losing the support of Labor Party leaders.

Gillard has refused to comment on those reports, saying she had already answered many questions about the leadership, while Rudd has dismissed the rumours as a "soap opera".

"I can promise you this: There is no way - no way - that I will ever be party to a stealth attack on a sitting prime minister elected by the people," Rudd said in his resignation speech, in a scarcely concealed dig at his successor.

"We all know that what happened then was wrong and it must never happen again."

Al Jazeera's Andrew Thomas, reporting from Sydney, said there was "intense speculation" in Australia following Rudd's resignation.

'Still sore'

"He is still very sore about the way he was deposed," said our correspondent, referring to the way in which Gillard replaced him.

"Gillard's poll numbers have declined; meanwhile Rudd's poll numbers have remained quite high," he said, adding that many thought he stood a better chance at the leadership now.

Our correspondent said Rudd would travel back to Australia and was expected to make an announcement on Sunday, before parliament convenes on Monday.

Rudd became prime minister in 2007 after a landslide electoral win which ended more than a decade of conservative rule.

His sudden replacement by Gillard took most Australians by surprise, and there is still some sympathy among voters for the way he has been treated.

Gillard leads a fragile minority government after failing to secure Labor a majority at a 2010 election. She has struggled with unpopular policies and poor opinion poll ratings that suggest the party would be voted out of power were an election held tomorrow.

Gillard's deputy on Wednesday launched a scathing attack on Rudd's past record as prime minister and party leader, accusing him of "dysfunctional decision making" and a "deeply demeaning attitude" towards his colleagues.

"For too long, Kevin Rudd has been putting his own self-interest ahead of the interests of the broader Labor movement and the country as a whole, and that needs to stop," Swan said.
 

The original directors who set up the new ‘Company of Scotland' were Scottish and English in equal numbers, with the risk investment capital being shared half from the English and Dutch, and the other half from the Scots.

However under pressure from the East India Company , afraid of loosing their trade monopoly, the English Parliament withdrew its support for the scheme at the last minute, forcing the English and Dutch to withdraw and leaving the Scots as sole investors.

There were very few Scots that had the minimum £5 stake who did not buy into this ‘chance of a lifetime' the money raised was approximately £500,000 - about half of the national capital available.

Thousands more volunteered to travel on board the five ships that had been chartered to carry the pioneers to their new home where Scots could settle, including famine driven Highlanders and soldiers discharged following the Glencoe Massacre.

The ships sailed from Leith harbour on 12 July 1698 with 1,200 people onboard. Paterson was among them and his wife, who sadly for him died on the voyage.

The journey itself had turned in to a trip of nightmarish proportions and there were many deaths and illness among the travellers.

They finally arrived at the hellhole now known as Darien , on 30 October 1698 . Many of the adventurous people were quarrelling as power struggles arose among the elected councillors. Once they had landed and established a campsite they renamed the land Caledonia , and called the capital New Edinburgh.

The first task was to dig graves for the dead pioneers.

The situation grew even more frantic because of a lack of food and attacks from hostile Spaniards.

The indigenous people of Darien took pity on the Scots, bringing them gifts of fruit and fish.

Seven months after arriving, 400 Scots were dead.

The rest were emaciated and yellow with fever.

They decided to abandon the scheme.

English ships had been told by William III to offer no aid to the people of Darien , was this all part of a greater plot?

In those days before the telephone or radio communication, six more ships set sail from Leith in November 1699 loaded with further 1,300 hopeful pioneers,

They obviously were unaware of the horrors awaiting them, or the fate of their fellow Scots who were in the spearhead of the scheme.

News had not reached Scotland and a third fleet of five ships left Leith shortly after.

Out of sixteen ships that had originally sailed for the mosquito infected islands only one returned.

Only a handful survived the return journey.

Scotland had paid the ultimate penalty for their chance at a new life.

More than 2,000 Scots died in total on this ill-fated scheme..

A knock on effect was the total loss of the £500,000 in investment, and the Scottish economy was almost bankrupted.

It has been argued that the Darien Scheme crippled the country's economy to such an extent that it triggered the dissolution of the Scottish Parliament and led to the 1707 Union with England .

A mere coincidence, or had the English withdrawal from the scheme been deliberately engineered to ensure its failure?

 You can decide for yourself.

So what happened next?

Uniting the kingdoms of Scotland and England had been proposed for a hundred years before it actually happened in 1707. 

From the day when James VI of Scotland and I of England had been crowned it was expected that the parliaments would eventually unite.

Suspicion and mistrust between the two countries had prevented the union throughout the 17th century. 

The Scots feared that they would simply become another region of England , being swallowed up as had happened to Wales some four hundred years earlier.

 For England the fear that the Scots may take sides with France and rekindle the 'Auld Alliance' was decisive. 

England relied heavily on Scottish soldiers and to have them turn and join ranks with the French would have been disastrous.

When the Darien Scheme collapsed and with Scotland in financial chaos, William III played his hand and bribed the Scottish MPs, Lords and Ladies with cash incentives.

 If they would vote to unite the parliaments, then the king would give them some of their lost money back.

Many of the Scottish gentry jumped at this chance to recoup their losses.

In the words of Robert Burns, they (the Scottish MP's)

were "bought and sold for English gold".

1.
Fareweel to a' our Scottish fame,
Fareweel our ancient glory!
Fareweel ev'n to the Scottish name.
Sae famed in martial story!
Now Sark rins over Salway sands,
An' Tweed rins to the ocean,
to mark where England 's province stands --
Such a parcel of rogues in a nation!
2.
What force or guile could not subdue
Thro' many warlike ages
Is wrought now by a coward few
For hireling traitor's wages.
The English steel we could disdain,
Secure in valour's station;
But English gold has been our bane --
Such a parcel of rogues in a nation!
3.
O, would, or I had seen the day
That Treason thus could sell us,
My auld grey head had lien in clay
Wi' Bruce and loyal Wallace!
But pith and power, till my last hour
I'll mak this declaration: -
'We're bought and sold for English gold'--
Such a parcel of rogues in a nation!

Neither side was completely happy with the Union that many historians view as "judicious bribery."

The Scottish people, in particular, had to balance the loss of their ancient independence against the need to open themselves up to a wider world and greater opportunities than their own country could provide.

The English gained needed security, for no longer could European powers use Scotland as a base for an attack on its southern neighbour.

Scotland kept its legal system and the Presbyterian Kirk, but gave up its Parliament in exchange for 45 seats in the House of Commons and 16 seats in the House of Lords.

The act proclaimed that there would be "one United Kingdom by the name of Great Britain " with one Protestant ruler, one legislature and one system of free trade.

When Anne died in 1714, George I, a Lutheran, became King of Great Britain and Ireland under the Act of Settlement.

So it is now make your mind up time.

Has the union been good to Scotland or has the larger partner of the union benefited most from the uneven partnership.

Only you can decide.

Over the next few months, and up until the election in May 2007 Crann Tara intend to set out the Pros and cons for Unity or Independence .

We are a non-political organisation and only wish to convey the facts to people who can then make up their own mind.

London mayoral election hustings - live

Rolling coverage as Boris Johnson, Ken Livingstone and Brian Paddick

debate the issues and spell out their plans ahead of May's elections

This page will update automatically every minute: On | Off

Boris Johnson, Brian Paddick, Ken Livingstone

5.02pm: To summarise, I'll take each candidate in turn.

Brian Paddick

Paddick played to his strength as a former Met officer and focused on tackling crime and making people feel safer, but it seemed to play well with an audience of older people.

He promised to protect the Freedom Pass for older people.

His one new announcement was that he would put in place a deputy mayor for older people if elected.

He also said he believed you could increase police numbers and cut the council tax precept (the mayor's share of the council tax levy).

In the 2008 mayoral election, Paddick won fewer first preference votes than previous candidates (Susan Kramer in 2000 and Simon Hughes in 2004) in a system fought under the supplementary vote.

But the experience was an opportunity to learn the ropes of political campaigning for what were essentially new pastures for him, in contrast to Ken, a political veteran and Boris, then a Conservative MP.

Today he exuded more confidence. Paddick's team are happy with how things went today, and in my view they have reason to be.

Boris Johnson

Johnson described the hustings as a "good outcome". People are no wiser about how Ken is going to deliver that fare cut, he said (4.02pm).

He announced that he would hold down the age criteria for eligibility to the Freedom Pass to 60 (see 1.50pm), despite the fact that the age for concessionary travel was linked by the last Labour government to the rising state pension age for women.

It used to be 60, it's now 61, but is eventually going to up to 66 by 2020.

Johnson's team suggest this could benefit more than 400,000 Londoners. 

London boroughs pay for the pass, so this pledge means Boris will have to make up the difference.

As the incumbent, Boris outlined his achievements in office. (see 1.50pm and 1.53pm).

However, he was forced on the defensive on the cost attached to his bike hire scheme, and on rising figures for some crimes, such as burglary.

Ken Livingstone

Ken promised to be a full-time mayor and challenged Boris to make the same pledge as he attacked his weekly Daily Telegraph column (see 2.02pm), published on Mondays.

He promised to cut people's fuel bills by £150 a year, tapping into the £400m pot for home energy efficiency.

By insulating more homes (older people will be a priority) bills will come down.

He also announced a London energy purchasing co-operative that would buy gas and electricity wholesale, thereby reducing prices, rather than being beholden to major energy suppliers.

Ken admitted he had made mistakes in the past, and no doubt would be likely to do so again in the future (see 2.52pm).

I think this one is definitely a nod to critics who say his lack of hubris when required is one of his weaknesses. (He told my colleague Decca Aitkenhead in October: "You should make less mistakes as you get older, and I became a councillor back in 1971, so if by this stage in politics I'm making lots of big mistakes, then I shouldn't be here."

 It's definitely a shift.

Syrian forces open fire

with live ammunition

on demonstrators in Damascus

as unrest spreads in the capital

• Reuters in Amman
• guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 21 February 2012 07.45 GMT
 
Demonstrators protest against President Assad in Damascus last week.

International diplomacy has shown little sign of finding a solution.

Syrian forces opened fire with live ammunition on demonstrators in Damascus in the early hours of Tuesday, wounding at least four people, according to activists, as unrest continued to spread in the capital.

Demonstrations and clashes with security forces have rocked Damascus in the past week, undermining President Bashar al-Assad's claims that the 11-month uprising has been the work of saboteurs and limited mainly to the provinces.

International diplomacy has shown little sign of finding a solution, as western powers and the Arab League prepared a meeting of Friends of Syria on Friday to pressure Assad to step down, while Russia and China backed his reform plans, derided by Syria's opposition.

"There were hundreds of demonstrators at the main square of Hajar al-Aswad, and suddenly buses of security police and shabbiha [pro-Assad militia] turned up and started firing into the crowd," activist Abu Abdallah said on Tuesday.

He said the four wounded were taken to be treated in people's homes.

Footage posted on YouTube, purportedly taken before the shooting, showed a crowd marching in the neighbourhood of Hajar al-Aswad carrying placards in support of the besieged city of Homs and singing "Eyes are shedding tears for the martyrs among Syria's youth".

Elsewhere, an activists' group in Kfar Tkharim near the Turkish border said rebels had killed five soldiers and captured two during an ambush of a government column.

Opposition activists said five people had been killed in government shelling of Homs's Baba Amr district on Monday, adding to a reported death toll of several hundred since the military operation began there on 3 February.

And activists in the western city of Hama said troops, police and militias had set up dozens of roadblocks, cutting neighbourhoods off from each other.

The Geneva-based International Committee of the Red Cross, the only international organisation deploying aid workers in Syria, said it was in talks with the authorities and opposition fighters for a ceasefire to bring life-saving aid to civilians.

Diplomatic sources said it was seeking a two-hour ceasefire in besieged areas including Homs. Residents there say they are running out of food, water and medicine after weeks of bombardment by Assad's forces.

Western and Arab countries who are seeking Assad's removal are preparing an explicit gesture of support for his opponents.

The US secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, said the Friends of Syria group, meeting in Tunisia, would "demonstrate that Assad's regime is increasingly isolated and that the brave Syrian people need our support and solidarity".

But Assad, who has received support from Russia, China and Iran, is forging ahead with plans to hold a referendum on Sunday on a new constitution, which the opposition dismisses as a stunt to cling to power.

"We'll send a clear message to Russia, China and others who are still unsure about how to handle the increasing violence but are up until now unfortunately making the wrong choices," Clinton said in Mexico at a meeting of the G20 countries.

Germany said the European Union would probably impose more sanctions against Syria in the coming week. Western sanctions have so far had little impact without support from Russia and China for measures at the UN security council.

Assad met a senior Russian politician in Damascus on Monday, who reiterated Moscow's support for his self-styled reform programme and spoke out against any foreign intervention. China has accused western countries of stirring up civil war.

Nevertheless, the Arab League, which has suspended Syria and called for Assad to step down, said there were signs Russia and China could temper their support for him.

"There are indications coming from China and to some extent from Russia that there may be a change in position," the Arab League secretary-general, Nabil Elaraby, told a news conference in Cairo.

Russia and China vetoed a draft UN security council resolution this month that would have backed an Arab plan calling for Assad to step down. The two countries also voted against a non-binding resolution in the general assembly last week that backed the Arab plan.

Russia's ambassador to the UN said Moscow would soon offer proposals on humanitarian relief for Syria in the security council, but gave few details.

"It seems to me that it would be possible now to take concrete steps aimed at resolving humanitarian issues, relying on the fact that very recently, a few days ago, Damascus allowed the International Red Cross to deliver humanitarian aid to certain regions that ended up in the conflict zone," Vitaly Churkin told state-run Rossiya-24 television in an interview.

"It can be expected that in the coming days, Russia will put forward certain proposals on that account in the security council."

Assad's government says it is battling a foreign-backed insurgency by terrorists, and that it is committed to meeting real demand for democracy with the referendum on a new constitution, leading to multi-party elections within 90 days.

The west and Syrian opposition figures have dismissed the plan as a joke, saying it is impossible to have a valid election amid the continuing repression

China sits out Syria regime change tango

By Peter Lee

According to the authoritarian playbook preferred by China, Syria's President Bashar al-Assad is doing the right things: driving a wedge between the "loyal opposition" to his rule and hardcore rebels and revolutionaries through the use of targeted amnesties and concessions; forcefully isolating and suppressing violent political dissenters; incrementally escalating the use of military force to regain control of militia-held strongholds like Homs; and offering a way out with a new constitution.

Perhaps he has done the right things, but not in the right way; or perhaps not enough. As the harsh crackdown approaching its first-year anniversary, the Assad regime has profoundly alienated

a significant portion of its population. Reconciliation and stability are going to take more than a new constitution, delivered with a pat on the head and an apology from the government.

A necessary and dangerous process of accommodation and power sharing will be needed.

China perhaps has grasped this point even more clearly than Russia, or the Assad regime itself. As Syria and Western/Arab policy on Syria lurch from crisis to crisis, China may watch for opportunities to advance its strategy.

This weekend, Chinese Vice Foreign Minister Zhai Jun will visit Damascus to try to create some space for a "third path" political strategy, one that eschews both regime change and perpetuation of the status quo for a process of evolutionary reform keyed on the new constitution.

The draft Syrian constitution is a multi-faceted document. It accommodates a multi-party system, addressing a key grievance of many moderate Syrians, but still offers the Ba'ath Party various advantages.

It outlaws "religion-based parties", in order to wrong-foot Assad's mortal enemy, the Muslim Brotherhood, but stipulates that the president must be a Muslim, in order to appease conservative Muslims.

Assad has announced a referendum on the new constitution will be held on February 26.

It will be very interesting to see how the constitutional referendum plays out, and what level of support the government can still command after a heavy-handed one-year crackdown.

But it is unlikely that Assad's enemies inside the country, in the West, the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) and Turkey will allow the Syrian government to use the referendum to buttress its legitimacy and demonstrate a capacity to guide the nation out of its political impasse.

As is inevitably the case, any effort by the Syrian regime to gain political-reform traction has been met with determined "it's too late/atrocity of the day" propaganda pushback designed to pre-empt any impetus toward reconciliation.

Even as the referendum was announced, US State Department spokesperson Victoria Nuland (the wife of neo-conservative Robert Kagan and previously a national security advisor to vice president Dick Cheney) stated that Assad's departure was the only viable option; a Washington Institute for Near East Policy pundit dismissed the referendum as "window dressing"; CNN reported "the vast majority of accounts from within the country say that Assad's forces are slaughtering civilians en masse"; and Western media uncritically passed on the opposition's idiotic accusation that the Syrian air force had bombed the government's own diesel pipeline (which somebody, presumably of the aggressively violent opposition that the West refuses to acknowledge exists, apparently blew up). [1]

Assad's announcement of the pushed-up date for the referendum (it was originally expected to happen in March) was probably a response to the latest escalation in regime-change activity, the "Friends of Syria" conference to be convened in Tunisia on February 24.

Assad's foreign antagonists, deprived by a Russian/Chinese veto of the opportunity to further delegitimize the Assad regime through the UN Security Council, will use the Tunisian conference to formalize a case for humanitarian intervention in Syria - a moral imperative that justifies, even demands disregard for conflicting demands of treaties and international institutions when necessary - under the "responsibility to protect" or R2P doctrine similar to the one used for Libya.

In a parting gift to the anti-Assad forces, UN Human Rights Commissioner Navi Pillay raised the specter of an International Criminal Court indictment against Assad, of the sort that complicated the situation in Sudan, closed the door on a negotiated exit for Muammar Gaddafi in Libya, and would make any sort of negotiation with Assad virtually impossible.

The Fact-Finding Mission, the Commission of Inquiry on Syria, and I myself have all concluded that crimes against humanity are likely to have been committed in Syria. I have encouraged the Security Council to refer the situation to the International Criminal Court.

All Member States must ensure that these crimes do not go unpunished. [2]

Pillay also issued a demand for humanitarian access that could form the cornerstone of West/GCC justifications for Syrian intervention:

International and independent monitoring bodies, including my Office and the independent Commission of Inquiry must also be allowed into Syria.

And humanitarian actors must be guaranteed immediate, unhindered access. [Emphasis in original]
There will be no "no-fly zone" for Syria; Assad has assiduously and, one would imagine, intentionally, avoided the use of air transport and air support in his security operations, thereby denying a pretext for the West and GCC to come in with a "no-fly zone", which in Libya quickly morphed into a "no drive zone" and then into an "attack any government target of tactical or strategic value zone".

To get around this obstacle, if the French have their way, humanitarian intervention would involve creating a "humanitarian corridor" to deliver food and medical supplies to Homs, thereby driving a stake through the heart of the Syrian regime's claim to legitimacy and national sovereignty and energizing the opposition ... at least that portion of the opposition whose strategy relies on foreign intervention to collapse the Assad regime.

In the Western media, only the Syrian National Council, or SNC, exists as the voice of Syrian opposition.

The real situation is considerably more complicated and opposition to Assad is by no means typified by the SNC.

In fact, it is a remarkable testament to the bankruptcy of the West/GCC's Syria policy that the horse they have chosen to back is, to a large extent, a corrupt congeries of exiles with virtually no presence inside Syria and dominated by the Sunni Islamist militants of the Muslim Brotherhood, a group that has languished in exile for almost three decades.

At the end of January 2012, Foreign Policy's Justin Vela wrote:
A wide range of activists and diplomats are voicing concerns with the SNC, criticizing its lack of cohesion and effectiveness. While the majority of them have not given up on the council, they paint a picture of an organization out of touch with the protesters on the ground and dominated by the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood.

"No one from the SNC has influence inside Syria. Most members of the SNC are jumping on a train that started from the street," says Ammar Qurabi, a Syrian human rights activist ...

The most divisive issue surrounding the SNC, however, clearly remains the prominent role played by the Muslim Brotherhood. "The Muslim Brotherhood is the only party in town," says the Ankara-based Western diplomat.

The Brothers have been exiled from Syria for 30 years after losing a bitter armed conflict with the regime in the 1980s, and some activists distrust its outlook on democracy and the future composition of a post-Assad government ... [3]
It appears that the Brotherhood's insistence on overthrowing the Assad government is informed by its awareness that, whatever feelings Assad has about accommodating the aspirations of democratically-inspired dissidents, they do not extend to the Brotherhood.

The Brotherhood's best hope for a major, indeed dominant political role inside Syria requires regime collapse and the exploitation of the Brotherhood's superior discipline and organization in the ensuing chaos to establish itself as the voice of conservative, orthodox Sunni Islam (the dominant confession in Syria) as their associates did so successfully (and to the chagrin of many secularly-inclined liberals) in Egypt.

Despite its lack of a Syrian presence and its apparently sectarian character, the SNC has been recognized as "the legitimate interlocutor of the Syrian people" by 16 governments, including the United States, several European Union countries, and several Arab states. [4]

Reading between the lines, however, most countries are anxiously trying to reconcile their desire to see Assad fall with a queasy awareness that the SNC is perhaps a sectarian, Islamist train wreck ready to happen.

The only authority to give the SNC full recognition is the similarly named (and equally shaky), the Libyan National Council.

 The rest of the 16 nations have offered vigorous lip service to the SNC in an effort to buttress its prestige, but have as yet declined to recognize it as the legitimate voice of the Syrian people.

It seems the main function of the SNC is to vocally implore - and thereby justify - foreign intervention in Syria.

Though unheard in the West, there are other opposition groups that don't share the Muslim Brotherhood's maximalist rejection of negotiation with the Assad regime.

The main in-country dissident organization, the National Coordination Committee (NCC), accepts a platform of negotiations with Assad.

In fact, the head of the SNC, Burhan Ghalioun, attempted to achieve a unified opposition with a significant presence both inside and outside Syria by allying with the NCC.

Justin Vela describes the outcome of Ghalioun's attempt to abandon the no-negotiation/foreign-intervention franchise in favor of a broad-based movement:
One particularly damaging stumble occurred when SNC Chairman Burhan Ghalioun signed a draft agreement with the National Coordination Committee, a Syrian opposition group largely based inside the country, in an attempt to unite the two groups.

The agreement rejected foreign military intervention and called for dialogue with the regime, conditions that infuriated many Syrian activists. In the face of widespread opposition, Ghalioun backed away from the agreement.

China weighs options

China has, for the most part, let Russia take a leadership role in making the anti-regime-change case for Syria. However, on February 4, China's Global Times posted an op-ed, "Third Path" for Syria, which laid out a vision for a resolution of the Syrian crisis that called for compromise - and an active role for China:

History shows regime changes in restive regions mean endless turmoil and uncertainty.

Therefore the Syrian opposition does not need to be that ambitious. Threats against al-Assad will persist as they always have. Compromises on critical issues in exchange for a "soft landing" of his country seem to be a good deal for him. [5]

Interestingly, the article - which may not represent a formal policy of the Chinese government but undoubtedly represents at the very least the informed view of a faction within it - hinted at a decoupling from Russia's approach, seemingly characterizing Russia, but not China, as a die-hard supporter of Assad.
[A]l-Assad is backed by the Russians.

If a war between Western and Russian "agents" occurs in Syria, as is speculated to happen by some in the European media, it would be an arduous and prolonged battle ... China is obviously seeking to assume an active role. The busiest mediators on the world stage are not necessarily stronger than China.

Russia can be an ally in advocating a "third path". [6]

The Global Times op-ed can be regarded as a warning to Russia, which, through its vigorous and vocal defense of the Assad regime, has become identified as its uncritical and committed ally.

More importantly, it presented China not only as an impartial mediator, a role that Russia had sacrificed; it stated that China's willingness, in contrast with its usual abhorrence of "interference in the affairs of sovereign states", to "assume an active role", and even have Russia follow its lead.

Statements of Wen Jiabao also fed into this narrative:
"On the issue of Syria, what is most urgent and pressing now is to prevent war and chaos so that the Syrian people will be free from even greater suffering," Wen told a press conference after a China-EU summit in Beijing on Tuesday.

"To achieve this goal, China supports all efforts in consistence with the UN charter and principles, and we are ready to strengthen communication with all parties in Syria and the international community and continue to play a constructive role," Wen said, adding that China would "absolutely not protect any party, including the Syrian government", Chinese media reported.

Contrary to the wishful thinking of Western observers, Wen is not signaling that he is ready to throw Assad under the bus.

 Rather, China is trying to save Assad - or, more accurately, promote a peaceful, incremental resolution to the Syrian crisis that leaves the current power structure reformed but to a significant degree intact - by positioning itself as an honest broker in the dispute.

Differences in the Russian and Chinese approaches can be seen in the choice of interlocutors among the non-SNC opposition.

Russia, with deeper ties to the current regime, appears to be placing its hopes for political resolution of the crisis on the "patriotic opposition", a collection of 11 small parties closely associated with the Ba'ath Party and allowed to function even under the restrictive Section 8 of the current Syrian constitution.

In an article written in January 2012, a Russian journalist described a certain amount of political ferment he observed during a recent trip to Syria:

At present there are three main trends in the Syrian patriotic opposition - democratic, liberal and left, which is mainly a communist one.

The Syrian Social Nationalist Party is the most influential party among the democratic forces ... the party's program is more conservative in comparison with the Ba'ath's program. Nevertheless there are no differences of principle between the two parties ...

The liberal trend of the opposition is represented by the recently registered secular democratic social movement led by Nabil Feysal ...

He is an outright opponent of the Islamic fundamentalism, [a] supporter of the liberal democracy. His goal is to turn Syria into "Middle Eastern Denmark".

The National Committee for the Unity of Syrian Communists is the most influential component of the left (communist) trend of the opposition within the country ... headed by Qadri Jamil, a prominent Syrian economist and the professor at the Damascus University.

He is the only representative of the opposition who entered the committee on the design of the new constitution ... [7]
It is not difficult to characterize these political parties (including one that defines itself as "more conservative than the Ba'ath" and having "no differences of principle" with the ruling party) as part of the regime's strategy to hopelessly muddy the opposition waters and retain the upper hand in a multi-party environment.

Nevertheless, Qadri Jamil, the Syrian communist, is the focus of friendly interest from Russia. He led a delegation to Moscow in October 2011.

The Russian media carefully noted his rejection of foreign intervention, and obligingly publicized his opposition bona fides:
"Any interference in Syria's domestic life will be interpreted as occupation," the head of the delegation representing the Syrian opposition, Qadri Jamil, told journalists in Moscow.

"We are ready to do everything to stop violence and sit down for talks," Jamil said, adding that dialogue is the only possible way to settle the crisis.

Mr Jamil stressed the importance of a new constitution for Syria, as well as reforms required to meet the needs of Syrians.

The opposition also demands the release of all political prisoners, including those detained during the recent riots. [8]
Although Qadri Jamil is apparently the Syrian regime and Russia's great hope for a peaceful transition to a multi-party future, he apparently enjoys no standing in the Syrian dissident and activist community.

China, on the other hand, appears to be turning to the considerably more credible (but equally opposed to foreign military intervention) National Coordination Committee as its preferred interlocutor with the forces of change transforming Syria.

In February, as the SNC-promoted and West/GCC backed UN resolution furor was nearing its height, China made the interesting decision to receive Haitham Manna, "vice chief coordinator and spokesperson abroad" of the NCC in Beijing, and gave him a meeting with Vice Foreign Minister Zhai Jun, and publicized the meeting with an official news release. [9]

Furthermore, on February 10, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs posted spokesperson Liu Weimin's response to two questions concerning Haitham Manna's visit on its website, all indications that the NCC is, at least for China, in play.

Liu's responses also promoted China's position that it could interact with all Syrian opposition forces, including the SNC:

China has been in touch with major Syrian opposition groups over a stretch of time.

During Chinese Special Envoy on the Middle East Issue Ambassador Wu Sike's visit to Syria last October, he met with leaders from the National Coordination Body for Democratic Change and other Syrian opposition groups.

China has also made contact and maintained interactions with the National Council of Syria. [10]

Reading between the lines, one can make the following deductions about China's calculations on Syria:

First, there is no clear consensus within the global community, in the Arab world, or even among the opposition for collapsing the Assad regime. It looks like the US and Turkey are increasingly keen on Assad accepting a Yemen solution (obligingly floated by Tunisia) - for Assad to drift off into exile so the West can declare victory and turn its attention to other, easier matters while the locals slug it out for pre-eminence under the watchful eye of the Syrian army.

However, Assad, still enjoying a significant measure of support from Russia, China and Iran, doesn't seem willing to go anywhere.

There is a window of opportunity for China to promote its desired outcome: reform of the Assad regime and its survival as a reasonably stable ally for China in the Middle East.

Second, the West, if not the GCC, is having second thoughts about its stated enthusiasm for acting as the SNC's paymaster, arms supplier, and political and diplomatic ally.

The unpleasant experience in Egypt implies that catapulting the intransigent Muslim Brotherhood into a position of political advantage is not necessarily the formula for creating a stable, pro-Western, Israel-friendly democracy in Syria.

More worryingly, al-Qaeda's enthusiastic attempt to piggyback on the spiraling unrest in Syria - and the car bombings in Aleppo which, if not the work of al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri's minions, could probably be traced back to al-Qaeda's Gulf-funded Sunni Islamist fans in western Iraq - are a warning that backing the feckless SNC in an agenda of regime collapse is not going to be the carefree, Iran-bashing romp so many interventionists are advertising.

Third, if the US and Turkey are sufficiently squeamish about the possibility of negative outcomes in Syria, they may not facilitate the flood of arms, money and advisors the Gulf states would probably be ready to unleash in order to implode the regime.

Fourth, there is a possibility that, as the crisis drags on, more activists and dissidents will decide they will not want to be part of the Muslim Brotherhood and its creature, the SNC.

The SNC might split, leaving the Brotherhood in a marginalized rump organization while the secularists, liberals and moderates, ie those more likely to be willing to negotiate a political resolution with Assad, migrate to the NCC (the possibility hinted at by Burhan Ghalioun's abortive alliance between the SNC and the NCC).

The one observation that can be made about strategies relying on four contingencies is that they rarely work out.

For the West, the political benefits of posturing against Assad may well outweigh any qualms about the adverse consequences of further empowering the SNC and militarizing the conflict.

Nevertheless, even if China's offers to mediate come to naught, the costs to China are minimal. If Assad's regime collapses, so be it; China has its foot in the door of the "new Syria" through the NCC.

In any case, events inside Syria might soon escape the ability of anybody to control them - not Assad, not China or Russia, not the SNC, and not the GCC, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization or the West.

A poster ("who recently left Syria and has been working with opposition activists") declared on the Syria Comment website of University of Oklahoma professor Josh Landis:

The Real Opposition in Syria is Not the Syrian National Council or Free Syrian Army

The real opposition is maturing and growing in influence inside and on the ground away from the influence of Qatar, Turkey, Saudi, France or the US.

It is a matter of time before the regime gives way.

 Soon the SNC will be simply remembered as something like one of the many Iraqi opportunistic opposition groups that mushroomed just before the war on Iraq ... New more realistic, mature, civic and political powers are taking shape on the ground and will be emerging as powerful players soon.

 Even if the regime survives this round, there will be new rounds between an exhausted regime and new re-envigorated opposition groups.

 Forget the SNC and the FSA [Free Syrian Army] if you want to talk about the future. [11]
In other words, maybe the real opposition in Syria is someone we've never heard of. And maybe that's a good thing.

Notes
1. Syria constitution vote called 'window dressing', CNN, Feb 16, 2012.
2. Briefing to the General Assembly Navi Pillay, High Commissioner for Human Rights [Syria], UN Human Rights, Feb 13, 2012.
3. Rebels Without a Clue, Foreign Policy, Jan 31, 2012.
4. International recognition of the Syrian National Council, Wikipedia.
5. ‘Third path' for Syria to end deadlock, Global Times, Feb 11, 2012.
6. Ibid.
7. What Is Really Going On In Syria: Insider Update, Global Research, Feb 1, 2012.
8. Syria's Qadri Jamil in Moscow to promote opposition demands, Voice of Russia, Oct 11, 2011.
9. Vice Foreign Minister Zhai Jun Meets with the Syrian Opposition Delegation, Consulte-General of China in Auckland, Feb 9, 2012.
10. Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Liu Weimin's Regular Press Conference on February 9, 2012, Foreign Ministry of PRC.
11. "The Real Opposition in Syria is Not the Syrian National Council or Free Syrian Army," by Idaf, Syria Comment, Feb 12, 2012.

Peter Lee writes on East and South Asian affairs and their intersection with US foreign policy.

The Myth of American Exceptionalism

Written by John Berthelsen

Monday, 30 January 2012

Excepted from punishment for war crimes? With American power in the world shifting into a decidedly lower gear economically, it might also be time for the United States to reconsider the rules of the road it attempts to impose on others. The time should be ending when the US could simply ignore world opinion, supposedly built on what US politicians call “American exceptionalism” and go its own way when it came to international behavior. Supposedly the term can be traced to the writer Alexis de Tocqueville, who referred to the country as exceptional because of its unique ideology based on liberty, individualism, laissez-faire capitalism and egalitarianism. That supposedly anoints the United States with a special destiny to lead the world towards liberty and democracy. The phrase has been used in particular by presidential candidate Newt Gingrich in excoriating President Barack Obama, supposedly because Obama doesn’t believe in it, or doesn’t believe in it fervently enough. But there may be another definition of American exceptionalism that is far darker than anything de Tocqueville or Gingrich for that matter ever thought of, and that is an apparent belief in the right of exception from punishment when its citizens and soldiers break the laws of other countries and of human nature itself.  It is a message that does not seem to have reached the ears of much of the United States, and particularly a military tribunal in the marathon trial of US Marine Staff Sgt. Frank Wuterich, who was busted last week to Private E1, more than six years after he ordered the men under his command to “shoot first and think later” after his unit was hit by a roadside bombing in the western Iraqi city of Haditha.  The Marines killed 24 unarmed men, women and children before the day was out. Subsequent evidence, much of it discovered by reporters for Time Magazine and the New York Times, thoroughly discredited the initial claim that 15 of the civilians had been killed by the IUD that hit the convoy and that eight “insurgents” were killed when the Marines returned fire against the attackers. Officers well above Wuterich’s rank were found to have participated in a cover-up of the incident. In fact, an investigation by the US military alleged it had found evidence that the Marines had deliberately shot civilians including unarmed elderly men, women and children. Ultimately, eight Marines were charged in 2006. Seven of the eight were exonerated by the military or charges were dropped, leaving only Wuterich, who pleaded guilty to dereliction of duty and received a suspended sentence of a mere 90 days in jail after expressing remorse for the Iraqi deaths. Three officers have been officially reprimanded for failing to properly initially report and investigate the killings. In 2011, the New York Times reported it had found secret transcripts of military interviews from the investigation into the killings in which Marines described killing civilians on a regular basis. One sergeant testified that he would order his men to shoot children in vehicles that failed to stop at military checkpoints. Nor are Wuterich and his squad alone. Men, women and children were routinely murdered by US servicemen in both Iraq and Afghanistan, supposedly in the heat of battle but far too often in cold blood. The most recent ugly incident occurred in Afghanistan when a YouTube video was made public showing US servicemen urinating on dead Afghan insurgents. Texas Gov. Rick Perry, then a candidate for the presidency of the United States and fervent believer in American exceptionalism, said the Marines who did it were just kids and didn’t need to be punished. These incidents in Iraq stem from a war that should never have been started, sold on a series of lies on the part of the administration of President George W. Bush and his hawkish henchmen, Vice President Dick Cheney (“I had other priorities,” he said, when asked why he hadn’t served during the Vietnam War), Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld (“stuff happens,” he said when Iraq turned into chaos) and a flock of other neocons who sullied the country’s honor and caused the deaths of perhaps 100,000 Iraqis and more than 4,000 American servicemen. An estimated 2.25 million Iraqis were displaced in the country and another 2.1 to 2.25 million were driven out of the country to Syria and Jordan. Is this American exceptionalism? The same week Sgt. Wuterich was being slapped on the wrist by the military tribunal for his orders, the Chinese government came under international criticism and particularly harsh condemnation in the United States for their actions in suppressing Tibetan protesters, most recently on Jan. 24, when the London-based advocacy group Free Tibet said Chinese forces had killed at least one person and wounded at least 34 in a monastery town west of Chengdu. That crackdown generated 782 news stories, most of them critical, according to an account by Google. This is not to defend the Chinese for their brutal crackdown on both Tibetan and Uighur minorities. But why do Americans, and especially right-wing politicians, think American servicemen should be allowed to get away with atrocities? The infamous Lt William Calley, who was held responsible for triggering the massacre in the Vietnamese village of My Lai in March of 1968, was convicted of murdering at least 22 civilians himself. In all, as many as 500 women, children, infants and the elderly were killed in what may have been the worst massacre perpetrated by American soldiers anywhere. Calley’s life sentence triggered a massive outcry on the part of the American people, who besieged the White House with telegrams running 100 to 1 against the decision. Eventually President Richard Nixon reduced Calley’s sentence to house arrest, in which he served three and a half years. Nixon eventually granted him a limited Presidential pardon. Status-of-forces agreements, between host countries and foreign nations stationing troops on their territory, have been lightning rods for criticism particularly in South Korea and Japan. These agreements all too often allow for US military personnel to be tried within the US military or legal system instead of the judicial system of the host country. As with Sgt. Wuterich, the American legal system appears to view offenses against the people of the country in which they serve with a good deal less outrage than the host countries do. The sum and substance of these episodes is to generate a view on the part of much of the world that Americans believe that their own brand of exceptionalism allows them to kill people of the lesser races – particularly Muslims lately – with impunity. Well, you have to break a few eggs to make an omelet.  Leaders of the free world can’t always stop to observe the niceties. But the Chinese damned well better had

Painful oil halt UK’s own fault’