The Politics of Titles and Deference

Imagine you are applying for a job. You pen out your resume/CV and write up a beautiful cover letter that will surely get you the interview.  It's in the bag. Before you send it off though, you need to address the letter to someone, preferably the person who may be in charge of hiring and firing. Lucky for you though, you've found out the name of the human resources manager for the company you are applying to. His name is John Smith (stereotypical, I know). Now you are left with a conundrum. How do you address this man?

Do you write:

A) Dear John

B) Dear Smith

C) Dear John Smith

D) Dear Mr Smith

Each of the above ways of addressing this HR manager conveys a very different attitude.

 (A)  gives off a feeling of chumminess. As if this guy is your friend. You may do this if you actually know the guy in person and go out drinking with him on a regular basis. If you don't know him though, it just sounds weird and disrespectful. Using this is a good way to get your resume/CV thrown in the trash can.

(B) is problematic. When you refer to someone solely by their surname in English, it can be seen as a sign of disrespect. Usually its okay in informal situations, where its easier just to refer to someone(usually famous or infamous) by their last name, however when we apply it to more formal situations, such as job applications, business letters, news, or debates, then it is almost universally seen as disrespectful. It's almost passive-aggressive in tone and gives off the impression that you have a massive axe to grind. Use this form on your cover letter and you might as well just trash your resume/CV right there and now.

(C) is better, but its not really that formal. You're not showing respect, but at the same time you are not showing any disrespect. It's pretty neutral.

(D) involves the use of a title (Mr.) It's formal, polite and deferential towards the person you are writing to. You are showing them respect, basic etiquette for person to person interactions in business, politics and professional life. 

Why do I bring up politics here? Usually when politicians are debating each other, they have a tendency to use deferential titles when referring to their opponents. In the UK(and other commonwealth countries if I recall correctly) for example, its common to use the term "The right honourable" when MPs or MSPs debate with each other. It's a polite way of showing respect to the station that the MP/MSP occupies, even if you are about bulldoze every policy they stand for in your speech. Outside of the bubbles that are Westminister and Holyrood, its more common to just use the term Mr./Mrs./Ms. to show respect. If you want to speak more informally(or if you don't like the person), you may just say their full name, or if you know your opponent well you may just even say the first name.

Using the last name to refer to an opponent is usually taboo. You just don't do it in politics unless you really have it out for your opponent. Again, in general discourse there is usually nothing wrong with it, but when it comes to debates, political rallies and political interviews. It comes across as passive-aggressive. It's not often you hear politicians refer to other politicians by the last name, and when it does happen, its almost always because they have a strong dislike for that person. Margaret Thatcher is one of those people who was routinely subject to that by her opponents. George W Bush and Barack Obama are some American politicians who are/were often subject to the same passive aggressive disrespect by their political opponents.

Back in 2010, during the UK general elections that year, the leaders of the main parties had televised debates for the first time ever. As they were debating they had to think of a way to refer to each other. The opposition party leaders hated the incumbent prime minister, Gordon Brown. Everyone knew that. They didn't want to be deferential to him so they opted not to refer to him as Mr. Brown. They also didn't want to appear too friendly, so opted not to use Gordon. They also opted not to use "Brown" because it comes across as rude and alienating, so they decided to just refer to him by his full name, Gordon Brown. It does the job without seeming too deferential or rude. They came out of the debate looking quite good.

Much the same can't quite be said of Mr. Alistair Darling in the video below.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gc-dDEYwRG0

He refers to the man he sees as his political opponent by his surname throughout the interview. A big No-no move that makes him come off as a hack, rather than a former chancellor of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. In politics, you can get away with not showing respect by just using the full name rather than a title, but when you verge into disrespect, it does raise eyebrows about your conduct. It's pretty cringeworthy and you'd be unlikely to see a more able politician, such as the Prime Minister delve into such pettiness. Mr Cameron did manage to avoid that 4 years ago, despite his clear hatred for his foe, Gordon Brown. As the head of Westministers Better Together cohort, Mr. Darling should know better. However his actions indicate those of one who has risen too far above his ability.

The BBC Tabloid, Courtesy of the Taxpayer

A short post here today, again related to the Scottish independence debate.

The BBC has, for a pretty long time, claimed itself to be impartial. It would continually justify its obscene television licence fees to taxpayers by claiming that its unique position, free from the media moguls such as Rupert Murdoch, Conrad Black, Richard Desmond, et al, meant that it could provide an impartial viewpoint that no other news outlet in the UK could match.

It was never particularly believable, a state run news organisation cannot be truly independent. However a great many people believed this to be the case anyway. The Scottish independence debate has shown a rather...interesting light on the BBC though. Rather than explain it, I'll let you make a conclusion here.

This is the statement from the Scottish Investment company, Standard Life:

http://www.standardlife.com/utility/customer_statement.html

It points out that they are registering companies outside of Scotland so that in the event of independence, they can transfer sections of their business there, to better serve the customers in that region(presumably England). This is not particularly newsworthy, given this is how they operate. Doing business in Ireland? open up an office there. Doing business in Hong Kong? Open up an office there. Presumably, in the event of Scotland and England separating, they'd have to do it anyway given that each country has its own subsidiary!

Now, lets look at the BBC's interpretation:
Scottish independence: Standard Life may quit Scotland
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-26364418

See the difference?


In other news, The Scottish independence website, Wings over Scotland, catches a very interesting double standard at the BBC. The above article is headline news, but a far more important article, that is actually relevant to the independence discussion is conspicuously absent.
http://wingsoverscotland.com/double-standards/

The credit rating agency, Standard and Poor, produced a report, which raises some concerns about the Financial industry in Scotland(and thinks most of it should leave), but paints a picture that is overall quite positive, where even in the absolute worst case Scenario, the Scottish Economy would have a similar level of stability to that of New Zealand.
http://worldofstuart.excellentcontent.com/repository/StandardAndPoorsKeyConsiderations.pdf

Obviously this is really important news, not just for people, but for businesses throughout Scotland. So then... where exactly is this hiding on BBC news?
Not here:  http://www.bbc.com/news/scotland/
Or here:   http://www.bbc.com/news/business/

Quite interesting, isn't it?

Debunking Some Common Myths About the Consequences of Scottish Independence

Last week there were 2 main events in the tale of Scotland's quest for independence.

• George Osborne, with the backing of the British Establishment said that there would be no currency union.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26169332

• José Manuel Barroso, President of the European Commission made the claim that Scotland would not be accepted into the EU upon independence.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-26215963

I'll tackle both events in order. Currency first, EU second. If you don't feel like reading each short essay, check under each one for the TL:DR version.

A - The Currency Union Debate

Now, while I do think it makes sense for businesses to operate in a currency zone within the British Isles, and there are benefits in the form of enforcing sustainable economic practices between the two states in such a scenario, I do think at the end of the day it is the right of the UK government to rule out a currency union if they wish to. I don't think its "bullying" as the nationalists complain. I really can't think of an example where the central bank was divided up between countries upon the succession of one from the other.

However, I should add that I take issue with 2 of the economic reasons that the UK and the media are using to defend this position.

1. It doesn't want to bail out a foreign country or its banks.
2. There was been no successful monetary union ever. The LMU failed horribly and the Eurozone is going the same way.

A1 - Bailing out

The first reason sounds entirely feasible.  I mean, who wants to bail out a foreign country in order to keep your own country safe from the economic shocks that comes with a neighbour you are tied to via currency from going belly up. Look at Germany and Greece as a great example of that. Surely the UK would never want to have to do such a thing, right?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11807769

Oh snap. The UK bailed out Ireland to the tune of 7 billion pounds when it was in trouble. Why? Because that's what neighbours with interlinked economies do to each other. Help. As Osborne said in that very speech in the houses of parliament in November:

"We are doing this because it is overwhelmingly in Britain's national interest that we have a stable Irish economy and banking system.The current Irish situation has become unsustainable. Their sovereign debt markets had effectively closed and had little prospect of reopening."

Now, last time I checked, Ireland and the UK had very different currencies. The currency issue is a red herring when we talk of bailing out a foreign country. You don't do it because they are using the same currency as you and may bring down the union. You do it because the worlds economy is interdependent and if one major trading partner goes down, you go down with it. Union or not, you will suffer if you don't act to protect your own interests by issuing a bailout.

The BBC and "unnamed" government ministers also like to point out that the RBS bank is 12 times the size of the Scottish economy and if that collapsed in an independent Scotland then England would have to bail out the RBS under a currency union. This is false because regardless of whether Scotland uses the pound or not, RBS conducts most of its business in London and is heavily invested in the markets there. If RBS fell, England would have to bail them out regardless of whether Scotland and England are in a currency union or not because RBS is so integral to the day to day functioning of the City of London. This wouldn't be a problem if Westminister did the sensible thing post 2008 and cut RBS up into its component parts, but expecting Westminister to do anything sensible when it comes to the financial industry is like expecting the Japanese government to apologise for its part in WW2, it ain't gonna happen.

An interesting case study to look at when it comes to nations bailing out foreign banks would be the bailout of the UK financial juggernaut Barclays by the US Federal Reserve in 2008.
http://www.newstatesman.com/2010/12/financial-british-money-fed

The Fed bailed out Barclays to the tune of 863 billion dollars. Why? Self interest. Economies and and banks from around the world are so interconnected that should one of the big ones go down, the effects will be felt in London, or Wall St, or whereever. You simply cannot base an argument against a currency union on the basis that you will have to bail out the junior partner when times are tough. That happens already!

On another note, can you just imagine how far up **** creek the UK economy would have been if the US Fed didn't jump in to save Barclays and left us to do the heavy work? Another 500 billion pounds in debt would have been absolutely catastrophic for our economy. We British like to forget those little facts when it is convenient for us to do so. We have a very selective memory. So,  USA! USA!

TL:DR: Neighbours and friends bail each other out when the going gets tough.

A2 - Has there ever been a successful monetary union?

Lets move on to the second reason now. When there is talk of a currency union, its almost inevitable that someone will bring up the Eurozone or the Latin Monetary Union as examples of bad currency unions, and then follow that up with the assertion that there have been no successful long term currency unions in history. As with many things in the news though. You always hear the bad, never the good.

Its true the Eurozone is failing. Countries set rules and refused to adhere to them from the get go. Countries borrowed too much and then hid the figures in their books. Naturally, that is a recipe for failure.
Its also true the Latin Monetary Union was a catastrophic failure. The nations set their currency at parity with each other, so they could freely use them as if they were all one and the same. Then Italy and Greece decided to debase their coins hoping that they could get away with it....and the rest is history.

We never hear about the success stories though. Which I guess is about what you would expect from a media that thrives on fear and panic. To find a success story, we should travel back to the mid 20th Century. Belgium and Luxembourg established an Economic union before WW2 and pegged their currencies to each other. 1 franc from one country was equal to 1 1/4 francs from the other. After WW2 though, this developed into a true monetary union. 1 Belgian Franc was equal to 1 Luxembourgian Franc and nationals from each country could freely use their own coins and notes in the other country. The union was stable and because of how economically interlinked they were, they both had a vested interest in maintaining the union. There were no cases of economic freeriding as we have seen with Greece in both the LMU and Eurozone. It was stable and should have served as a model for future currency unions - a small union between 2 culturally and economically similar nations that maintained enough space for political differences. People might say...ohhh but that was an exception to the rule, however that doesnt seem to be the case.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/eamonnfingleton/2014/02/18/as-scotland-mulls-independence-a-stupid-london-plays-it-dirty/

As we see from the Forbes article

"In fact some of the world’s richest nations are members of currency unions. Examples include Hong Kong/Macau and Singapore/Brunei.

Then there is the granddaddy of them all, Switzerland/Liechtenstein. Established in 1920 and still going strong, it is an arrangement that neither nation has had any reason to regret. Certainly Switzerland ranks well up among the world’s richest nations, with a per-capita income more than 50 percent higher than America’s. Meanwhile Liechtenstein’s per-capita income at $142,000 at last count was the world’s highest."

I am in no way saying that the England and Scotland are similar to those examples, however they do show that, contrary to the Treasury's claims,  a currency union of some sort is most defiantly not an  unworkable proposal, which goes along exactly with what the Governor of the Bank of England said weeks ago. Logically, it follows that if it is not unworkable, then it is workable. Logic does not lie, unlike politicians (That should be my signature phrase!).

TL:DR: Currency Union between many countries of very different cultures = bad. Currency union between 2 countries of very similar cultures = good.

B - The European Union Debate

source: Wikipedia

Now moving onto the second event, Mr Barroso's rather interesting intervention on Scottish (and Catalonian) membership of the EU.  Mr Barroso essentially claims that Scotland will exit the EU and have to reapply as a new member, but will never be accepted because Spain will block it, like it blocks Kosovo... Now, lets ignore the absurdity of comparing Scotland to Kosovo for a minute and look the main issue here. Will Scotland be part of the EU?

 On one hand, the Russians are jumping with joy at Mr Barroso's flat footed intervention in the Scottish affair because they can wave this idiocy in front of the Ukrainians and say "look guys, the Europeans don't really came about self determination and liberalism." The Russians look at the independence movements and see a region leaving a bigger country and then try to spin that into the region wanting to leave the EU because its not the land of honey and spice. It certainly doesn't help things when Barroso comes out and says that the region will have to leave the EU. It gives the Russians all the ammunition they need to destroy the hopes of the Ukrainians.
http://voiceofrussia.com/news/2014_02_14/Scotland-and-Catalonia-what-could-they-teach-Ukraine-6463/

Someone please give Mr Barroso idiot of the year award for helping foster that stupid view.

On the other hand this whole line of debate is one gigantic red herring anyway. One could make an appeal based on common sense that it simply does not make any sort of business sense to eject Scotland. The nationalists have been using this argument extensively. They say that without Scotland, Europe will lose most of its oil and much of its fishing grounds. Europeans will also lose free access to Scottish Universities and have to go through complex visa processes to continue their studies. Fair points, but I'm sure that arguments can be made against those points (though I wont try to). Basically I think those premises are fairly weak to base your argument for EU admission on.  One need not make such an argument though. I'll tell you why.

According to Mr Barroso, on independence, Scotland (or Catalonia for that matter) would not be a member of the EU, ignoring the fact that these lands have been EU territory since the 70s (or 80s for Catalonia). That part is incredibly important. EU territory. The Catalonians have already done their homework on this issue and the Scottish nationalists would be fools if they ignored the advice given by the French expert advising the Catalonians on this issue. It's a gem that solves all their problems and renders every single argument used by Better Together on the issue of the EU completely null and void.

http://www.catalannewsagency.com/politics/item/french-study-backs-eu-membership-of-independent-catalonia-and-scotland

"In addition, Gouning highlights the legal argument resulting from article 50 of the EU Treaty, which deals with the withdrawal of a Member State from the Union. The Treaties clearly say that the withdrawal is not automatic and has to be negotiated, specifically regarding the relationship of the State with the EU. Therefore, automatically excluding Catalonia or Scotland, without a negotiation, would be quite problematic regarding Article 50."

You see, according to Article 50 of the EU treaty, a territory or nation cannot unilaterally secede or be expelled from the EU. To leave the EU, one must conduct extensive negotiations will all members of the EU and formally begin withdrawal procedures. There is a precedent for this kind of negotiated withdrawal, Greenland from the EU's predecessor, the EC in the 80s. Essentially, the implication of this is that Scotland has no choice but to start life within the EU, but must either renegotiate its terms and conditions in order to reflect its new status(which may be more taxing on the nation than its current terms and conditions as part of the UK), or it must begin negotiations with the rest of the EU for an eventual, formal withdrawal.

This should also be of interest to the Anti-EU wing of the Tory party and UKIP. The implication of Article 50 of the EU treaty also affects them as it means they cannot unilaterally withdraw from the EU if they win a referendum on that issue. They will have to undergo a lengthy and costly withdrawal process involving ALL members of the EU. With the way the UK behaves and treats mainland Europe, I can only imagine the fireworks that might go down at those meetings.

Did anyone really expect the EU to give up its territories as easily as the media suggests? It ain't bloody likely as long as the treaty is adhered to, as all members are legally obliged to do so.

TL:DR: It's damn near impossible to leave or escape the cold grasp of the EU. Its written into the treaty for things to be that way. Scotland is safe.

By the way, if it wasn't already clear, the point of these posts I am making are not to argue in favour of anything. When it comes to the Scottish Referendum D-Day on September the 18th, I want people to vote knowing as much as possible about what they are actually voting for or against. Your vote is not my business, do what you like.  Living outside of Scotland I will not be able to vote anyway. The point of these posts are to debunk assertions that are made by politicians and the media in order to muddy the waters and confuse people. Information is as precious as gold during referendums and if there is one thing politicians hate above all else, it is people making informed choices. They will make baseless assertions in order to get you to do what they want. Assertions are just that, assertions. Never believe anything unless someone gives you a source for their claims.

The currency of fear-mongering (about currency)

Another week, another misinterpretation of the Bank of England Governor. This time, from the boss of Orion Group(not to be confused with the Korean Orion Corporation), Mr Alan Savage speaks out in a letter to the Huffington post, siding firmly with the Better together campaign. Naturally, the very same talking point is raised yet again, that of currency.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/alan-savage/scottish-independence_b_4758284.html

"But for me the biggest uncertainty of all in Mr Salmond's separation experiment is on the vitally important issue of currency. I have no confidence at all that an independent Scotland would be able to retain the pound. Running my specialist engineering recruitment business - or any company - from Scotland without stable currency arrangements is a non-starter.
Don't take my word for it on the issue of the pound, listen to the Governor of the Bank of England who has told the SNP that an independent Scotland would have to establish a central taxation body, the very thing that Salmond doesn't want. This unknown over what currency an independent Scotland would have is creating untold uncertainty and harming business confidence when we should be concentrating on recovering from recession."

This, unfortunately, is what happens when folks take Alistair Darling's version of the Governors speech at face value and don't question that much of what Mr Darling said was completely unsubstantiated. Of course,  its not the first time Mr Savage has said more or less the same thing.

http://www.ross-shirejournal.co.uk/News/Highland-boss-quit-threat-over-nightmare-Yes-vote-scenario-20092013.htm

Now..returning to the topic at hand...

 I sincerely doubt anyone will take your word for it, Mr Savage. The Governor made no mention of a requirement for a central taxation body for the currency union. Read the speech. Its freely available on the BBC.  The Governor did use the Euro as a warning of what goes wrong with a shared currency without fiscal checks, however contrary to Mr Savage's interpretation, there was no mention of the centralization of taxes. Actually, the only time he mentioned tax revenues was when he mentioned that tax revenues fall when output falls, and the benefit of a union like the UK is that resources can then be transferred to the underperforming province as life support. It helps, but is not a requirement. By the way, Its called a Transfer Union. Mr Savage may want to remember that the next time he writes online. You'll notice if you exchange 'central taxation body' to 'Transfer Union', his blog post doesn't quite have the fear-mongering kick. Some bias is removed and it sounds a tad less like an opinionated rant. Don't worry, Mr Savage,  consider that advice free of charge.

Now, to get away from that tangent, the governor mentioned a selection of options that are available for a prospective currency union. A Transfer Union was merely one of a selection of choices available.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-25946460

Lord of the Pounds: The Twisting of His Words.

For anyone reading this blog, if you know me then you know I despise liars, especially when the liars try to manipulate people out of fear of the unknown. I'll endure until I reach a point where I have to speak up. There is only so much bullshit a person can listen to or read before it pisses him or her off, after all. Better Together, the campaign to keep Scotland in the UK, crossed that line last week.

Last week, after a meeting with the First Minister of Scotland (Alex Salmond), the governor of the Bank of England( Mark Carney, who should be very familiar to my Canadian friends out there) released a statement. This apolitical statement would go on to have ripples in the political sphere, but not for the reasons the Governor may have assumed it would.

So a little bit of background is in order here. For those not up to speed on the British political scene, you may have some difficulty following this, but bear with me! 

This September, there will be a referendum in Scotland to decide if people living there wish to become an independent country. Vote yes and the country splits from the rest of the UK in 2016. Vote no and the country stays part of the UK. Simples. As with any political referendum though, it gets increasingly partisan as time goes on, with both sides calling each other out over everything from rhetoric to economic matters. There are numerous issues that need to be talked about should Scotland decide upon an independent path from the rest of the UK. One of those issues is currency.

The Scottish government wishes to enter into a currency union with the United Kingdom in event of separation in order to continue using the Pound Sterling currency. The Yes campaign mostly follows the line of the Scottish government word for word, so they support this idea too. The opponents of independence, lead by the group that campaigns for the continuation of the status-quo, Better Together, dispute this. They claim that it wouldn't be possible for Scotland to enter into a currency union with the UK, therefore if Scottish people and businesses wish to continue using the same currency as their counterparts in the rest of the United Kingdom, then they must vote against Scottish independence.

This is where Mr Mark Carney, the governor of the Bank of England comes in.

As with all endeavors such as this. The best way of finding solutions to problems that may arise is to talk about them. With the goal of finding a solution to the potential currency problem, Mr Carney met Mr Salmond in Edinburgh. We will likely never know what was actually discussed at the meeting, but we can get a fair idea from the statement released by Mr Carney afterwards.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-25946460

The statement is far too long to post here, so check the link above for it. I'll try and sum it up though.

 The Scottish and UK governments need to come to an agreement over the terms and conditions of a currency agreement and the Bank of England will implement whatever monetary policy that is decided upon. Sharing is a good idea because it helps lower economic shocks and lessens uncertainty in the financial markets, however Scotland must be aware that it must be able to accept some losses to its fiscal sovereignty should such a union come about, and a banking union must be considered to make sure that a situation like what happened in Ireland in 2008 can't happen in Scotland.

All in all, a fair, detailed analysis that neither points out both the possibility that a currency union is possible, but also the consequences of such a union. In other words, the most logical scenario.

Both sides of the debate immediately came out with all guns blazing claiming this as a complete vindication of their stance on the issue when in reality it was a vindication of neither side..

The comments by Alistair Darling, the leader of the Better Together campaign, are quite interesting though. 

"This is a detailed speech but make no mistake, the governor's judgement on currency unions is devastating for Alex Salmond's currency plans.

"Why? Because the whole point of independence is to break the fiscal and political union that makes monetary union possible."

Mr Darling added: "The governor has spelled out in stark terms the problems of a currency union - above all it needs people living in the rest of the UK to agree to something they have never been asked about." (source BBC)

Why do I say interesting?  I don't want to insult the esteemed Mr Darling's intelligence here, however he makes the claim that to have a monetary union, you must have a fiscal and political union. The EU would like to have a word, Mr Darling. The EU was able to form a monetary union without either. You'd think that for someone with Mr Darling's education, he'd be able proof his own argument against the biggest elephant in the room, but I digress.

Now, If we read Mr Carney's statement again, it's very clear that a banking and fiscal union is needed along with a monetary(currency) union to give it the stability that the Euro never had. Neither of which require a political union to function. As Mr Carney said, what is required is an agreement for the Scottish government to cede some of its fiscal sovereignty, which is pretty much the same as what is currently going on with the fiscal integration in Europe. Wake me up when we see a country called Framentaly appear in the middle of Europe.

Finally, if Mr Darling had actually listened to what Mr Carney said, and understood how governments worked(shocking! given he was chancellor in the last Labour administration) then he might not find himself uttering such falsities. An agreement between countries does not involve the people at all. The people, for better or worse, have no say in what governments decide, other than at the ballot box, where tribal loyalties run highest. If there is an agreement post independence(should it happen), the people won't be asked, therefore the last point is a moot point.

In an interesting turn of events that day, the man who actually seemed to have best understood what Mr Carney said was none other than Mr David Cameron:

"A spokesman for Prime Minister David Cameron said that it was of no "great surprise" that on technical issues the governor of the Bank of England would want to set out his views.

He explained: "The issue around currency is an important part of the debate that is currently going on in Scotland. It hardly seems a great surprise at all, on the technical issues, that the governor of the Bank of England might want to set out his views. 

"I'm sure the people of Scotland will want to be as well-informed as possible." (source BBC)

Again, nothing political at all. Kudos to Mr Cameron there.



The Better Together currency saga does get quite murky fairly quickly after this.  The day after the meeting, the Better Together campaign released this particular press release:

source: Better Together.

http://www.politicshome.com/uk/article/92177/better_together_leaving_the_uk_means_waving_goodbye_to_the_security_of_the_uk_pound.html

I don't think it needs to be pointed out that within this statement lies a false dichotomy, but I'll do so anyway. 

"Yesterday was a turning point in the referendum campaign. The governor of the Bank of England's message was perfectly clear. You can have independence or you can have the pound. You cannot have both."

If we reread over what Mr Carney said, there is no basis for this blatantly false statement. The governor clearly states that if Scotland does want to keep the pound in the event of independence, then it would have to cede some fiscal autonomy to the Bank of England / rest of the UK. A fiscal union is currently uncharted territory(however the EU is moving towards that), but its not an unworkable solution if all sides are willing to suck up their pride and work together. Better together makes it sound as if there is a stark black and white choice when its clearly not the case, akin to George W Bush's now infamous 'You're with us or against us' speech. Nothing this complex is black and white, no matter how groups try to paint it. By setting up a false dichotomy like this, Better Together are in effect, arguing against a strawman. They are misconstruing their opponents, thinking that the people are too stupid to understand Mr Carney's speech.

It does get better though. As mentioned in the press release, Better together has begun distributing a pamphlet to continue arguing against their strawman. This folks, is that pamphlet:

Source:  http://wingsoverscotland.com/

After searching around the internet, I came across this on a nationalist website. Not the best source for unbiased news, but the pamphlet itself does seem to check out, so the source should be irrelevant in this (it's only mentioned because its good academic form to reference where you find your materials and quotations (journalists, please take note!)).

I don't know about you, but when I saw this leaflet for the first time, this is what I thought of:

Source:   ThinkProgress 

The pamphlet starts on a false claim that the Governor of the Bank of England criticized the First Ministers claim that its possible to keep the pound. As has been thoroughly discussed above, that is an entirely possible scenario provided the Scottish government is willing to cede some of its fiscal independence in exchange for political independence. Not the scenario that they wanted over at the Yes campaign, but not a total loss for them. Again, the Governor was completely unbiased in his analysis. Both sides battleships were hit, so to speak. One thing he did not do though was criticize. The only person doing any criticizing in the aftermath of that meeting was Alistair Darling, the head of Better Together. The logic gets a bit circular at this point. Mr Darling criticizes his opponents in the aftermath, then his team use those criticisms as proof that the Nationalists are wrong. Why do those criticisms have weight? Because the Governor meant to say them. But how do we know that the governor meant them? Because Alistair Darling said so. A confusing mindfuck.

Trying to understand the logic behind the pamphlet results in this. Don't try this at home.
Source: www.atypicallyrelevant.com

Now that that is out of the way, we are left with what is essentially a strawman argument. The very same strawman that has been floating around since 2007, or possibly even 1999. The rest of the pamphlet after the second paragraph is dedicated to beating on and urinating upon the said strawman. Eww. It's a classic argument against an empty chair in the form of scaremongering about a non existent threat to your way of life.Its a red herring meant to distract people from the real arguments (again because whoever made this leaflet and OK'ed it for production thinks the entire population of Scotland is too stupid to understand what was actually said by Mr Carney) that should come from a positive point of view. If Better Together wants to convince people that independence is a bad thing, then they have to do it by pointing to the benefits of the union. Trying to fearmonger by misconstruing the words of the Governor of the Bank of England and misattributing your own leaders opinion as that of the Governors in order to support your own agenda is quite frankly deeply offensive and shows a sickening level disdain for the intelligence of the people. It shows us that such an individual is nothing more than a liar.

Final, closing remarks:

I would agree that any agreement to keep the pound would need to encompass a fiscal union of some sort and that was the case that was made by the Governor. A political union is a whole different animal though and not one that the Governor brought up. That was an interjection by Alistair Darling based on his interpretation of the statement, and that interjection was treated as if those words were the golden words of the governor himself. That's one of the main things I take issue with. It is not cool to make a circular argument and then pass it off as the argument of someone with authority. Its childish and unbecoming of the leader of one of the sides in this debate.

With regards to the idea of a political union being needed, It is a subject that could be debated, and it would probably be a worthwhile use of resources if Better Together actually researched that and then argued that case, rather than making an assertion about it and passing it off with a misattributed appeal to authority (and then...arguing with the chair). There is no basis to argue that point within the scope of the governors statement, and such an argument therefore would need to find reference somewhere else.

B

The Golden Eagle and the Reductio ad Hitlerum

Most nations on this planet have national animals. America has the bald eagle, Australia has the Kangaroo, Emu and Koala, Wales has the red kite, China has the panda, while South Korea has the tiger. Nothing uncontroversial about these animals at all. They are national animals because they have traditionally lived in those countries. That's the point of a national animal.

Now over the past few years, Scottish nationalists have slowly been building support to have the Golden Eagle instated as the national animal(or more specifically, the national bird) of Scotland. Nothing uncontroversial, right? It lives there, therefore its not beyond reason that it could become a symbol of the nation, right? That's how this kind of thing works after all.

One of the most iconic birds of the Scottish Wilderness

Well according to the Tories, that kind of thinking makes you an evil imperialist Hitler loving Nazi. Who'da thunk it?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-25917819

The Tories are really clutching at the straws with this one. I understand full well that they are determined to pull out all the stops to discredit the SNP and anything that they want(and nationalists have wanted this for a very long time), but....come on guys. Come on! Really? 

 "The golden eagle is the symbol of an empire that once invaded large parts of Scotland, and more recently of another empire that tried to.

In the lifetime of many people in this country it was the last thing their relatives saw as they were marched to their deaths.

It has been a symbol of imperial power of which Scotland is emphatically not, never has been, and hopefully never will be."

Is that honestly the best you can do Mr Carlaw? A classic example of the Reductio ad Hitlerum at its finest.

With credits to apenotmonkey.com

Reductio ad Hitlerum is a logical fallacy that is used to discredit someone, something(or just an idea), by making a tenuous connection to Hitler or the Nazis. Its mostly the weapon of choice for internet flame-warriors, so when I see (apparently) well educated people using this fallacy in the political sphere, I view them as nothing more than contemptible schoolboys playing adult (which basically sums up the entire political class right now)

Oh, and Mr Carlaw seems to be under the misguided impression that the British Empire(Which Scotland was a part of) was not an imperial power... which kind of fits into the old Tory narrative that the British Empire was a force for good in the world. Whitewashing history is a fools game and is completely unacceptable in my view. Never change, Tories. Never change.

Reflections on a trip to Kansai

I recently arrived back in Korea from a trip to Kansai in Japan. It wasn't my first trip to Japan, but it was certainly better than my previous trip to the Tokyo area last summer. I would like to do a quick review of each place we visited on the trip.

1) Kyoto: Simply marvelous. I'm not a fan of Japanese cities, I often find them to be messy and confusing, but Kyoto was different in almost every way. Kyoto felt like a true gem. The city itself was quite beautiful, combining the old and new. It was very easy to get around by bus, subway, tram and rail. We were only there for 3 days, but we loved this place. The food, the sights, the abundant green tea. It was amazing.

Welcome to Kyoto!

Review of Sights in Kyoto:

A) Nishiki Market: This is a famous Market in Kyoto, found to the west of the Gion district. It's a traditional style market with lots of traditional shops, some of which have apparently been there for centuries. Its a fun little stroll, and you will likely buy something from the many vendors there.

The famous market!

various foodstuffs at the market

Chopstick holders, I think!

B) Kiyomizudera : Kiyomizudera is an ancient temple that was first established in eastern Kyoto in the 8th Century. This temple is huge and absolutely magnificent. One of my favourite sites in Kyoto. As you leave the temple there is a long street filled with gift shops and green tea shops, selling a huge collection of wares. I highly recommend buying the rice cakes and bottled green tea. They are delicious!

Various pictures from the temple. It was amazing!

C)Kinkakuji : The famous and much talked about Golden temple of Kyoto. This is probably one of the most hyped up locations in Kyoto. Almost everyone recommends a visit to here. I on the other hand advise against it. It looks nice, sure, but I felt it was particularly poor value for money on account of how small the grounds actually are. I don't believe you can go inside either, when I was there they seemed to be going to great efforts to keep all the tourists visiting on a set path, very far away from the golden pavilion. It was busy, noisy and far too crowded to be enjoyable. My advice? Find a hill, zoom in on it with your camera and take a picture :)

The Golden Temple of Kinkakuji.

There is actually a sister site in Kyoto, The Silver temple Ginkakuji, which is nowhere near as famous. I have never been there, but I have heard that its actually a much better site to visit because you don't have to deal with the insane crowds.


D) Ryoanji: The famous Zen Buddhist rock garden. Supposedly the finest example in all of Japan, and I have to say it was quite impressive for a rock garden.However, this was another site that I felt suffered because it had become too popular. The purpose of the rock garden was that it was supposed to be a place of peace and tranquility. A place where you could stop and contemplate things while looking upon the simple design of the garden. We most certainly were unable to do that. If you go, you can expect kids running around and shouting, tourists talking loudly to each other and well...just people in general making a mockery of the very ideals behind the temple itself. The grounds of the temple were quite big and spacious though. It was a nice stroll, unlike at Kinkakuji.

The Rock garden of Ryoanji

E) Arashiyama Bamboo Forest: After you arrive in Arashiyama you have to do a bit of walking to find this place. Its close to Tenruji temple  I recommend visiting here if you have enough time. Its quite beautiful and the shade the Bamboo provides is also really handy during the summer as Kyoto is HOT.

This forest was really breathtaking!

F) Iwatayama Monkey Park : Now this place is just damn fun. Who doesn't like monkeys? The Monkey park is in Arashiyama, across the Togetsukyo bridge. After you buy your tickets you take a hike up the mountain and when you reach the top you will find the monkey park. There are dozens of Macaque monkeys running around quite freely, eating, playing, fighting, or just grooming each other. You can take pictures of them, or with them. If you go inside the cabin at the top of the mountain you can also feed the monkeys some small pieces of apple or nuts through the cabin windows.

outside the cabin

Feeeeeeed meeeee!

Honourable Mention: Oi River: After you visit the Monkey park, I recommend that you take a stroll down the riverside. Its quiet and romantic, so its quite nice if you are on vacation with a special someone.


2) Uji: Uji is very famous for its green tea. It is said that Uji produces the highest quality green tea in all of Japan and I have to say, it does not disappoint in that regard. Uji green tea is an absolute pleasure to drink.  It's also a very beautiful place, the beauty of it is just striking. We spent an afternoon here looking around this area and visited the following places

Review of Sights in Uji:

A) Byodoin Temple: This temple was founded around 900 years ago and the fact that it is etched on the bag of every single 10yen coin signifies its importance in Japanese history. I was quite looking forward to seeing this magnificent temple, but alas, it was not to be. The temple building is undergoing some maintenance work and won't be open until mid 2014 at the earliest. On the upside, the entry fee was massively reduced and you can still wander around the grounds of the temple and visit the museum that houses some important artifacts from the temple. A bit of a disappointment, but not much that could be done. For the same reason, we were unable to visit the Ujigami shrine.

Well THAT sucked.

B) Koshoji Temple: This temple was a short walk east along the northern bank of the Uji river. It was a rather beautiful temple off the beaten path. It was free to visit too. It's not particularly big, but set against the mountainside it does have a certain kind of beauty to it. I would definitely recommend visiting if you have the time

C) Cormorant fishing: If you want to watch a traditional way of fishing, this is the place to go. In this style of fishing, the fisherman train the birds to catch the fish for them, instead of using a fishing rod or net to do the work. from 6.30pm onwards you can watch this event from a boat or a bridge on the Uji river. Its quite interesting to say the least.

3) Nara: Nara reminds me of Kamakura, near Yokohama. It has a quintessentially laid back and peaceful feel to it. Like Kamakura, it is steeped in history and filled with various beautiful shrines and parks. I think this place is definitely a must see for any visitor to the Kansai area. The city is also filled with deer. DEER! Sadly, we were only here for half a day. You could easily spend a full day here, there is so much to see.



Review of Sights in Nara:

A) Kofukuji Temple: This temple has its origins in the 7th and 8th centuries and is a UNESCO world heritage site. It's a grand old temple located right in Central Nara. Unfortunately, one of the buildings at the temple is currently undergoing a renovation and won't be open for another year. On the flip side, there were quite a few deer roaming around harassing anyone with food, it was quite a funny sight to watch.

Quite a pretty little temple

This is what happens when you tease a deer with food! This was just too funny for us to NOT take a picture of.

B)Todaiji Temple: This is a huge temple located in central Nara park. It dominates the park in every way, and like the above Kofukuji temple, it is also a UNESCO site. The main hall itself is a 1709 reconstruction of a reconstruction of the original temple and up until 15 years ago it was the largest wooden building in the world. It is pretty magnificent to look upon. It's even more amazing when you realise that the current reconstruction is actually a smaller version of the original building. Inside the temple you will find one of the largest and oldest bronze Buddhas in the world, constructed by the Emperor Shomu in the 8th century. This thing apparently almost bankrupted ancient Japan!

This Buddha statue was huge, though maybe a little smaller than the Kamakura Buddha

Honourable Mention: East side of Nara Park: If you go east from Todaiji temple you will find a multitude of shrines and temples along the hillside. All of these are worth a visit as they offer both beautiful architecture and an amazing view of Nara city.


4) Kobe: Kobe, the famous port city of Japan. We didn't actually spend very long here, so I can't really say much about it. It seemed like a very cosmopolitan place though, a bit like Yokohama. While here, we went up the Kobe ropeway to the herb gardens to see the night view of Kobe city. Word of warning though, be damn careful up there. While there I was stung or bitten by some kind of flying insect. I suspect it was the Japanese Hornet, but I can't be sure. Whatever it was, it hurt like hell for a few hours

Kobe at night.

5) Osaka: What can I say... Osaka looks like Tokyo, it feels like Tokyo, only its a dozen times more humid :P. I'm not a fan of these kind of cities, so I can't really give an unbiased opinion of it. If you like Tokyo, you will like Osaka. If, like me,  you hate Tokyo, then you probably won't like it much.

Review of Sights in Osaka:

A) Osaka Castle: Sure, this castle might be a concrete reconstruction of a previous castle that was destroyed, but its still worth seeing. The view from the top is pretty sweet and the museum inside is filled with historical artifacts from Osaka's past. The grounds of the castle are quite nice too. Its a pity that Osaka is so hot though, otherwise it would certainly have been a nice picnic location.

Osaka's famous replica castle

B) Dotunbori : Quite possibly the most famous place in Osaka. Its always filled with tourists and is generally a must see for any visitor to Osaka. Its lined with shops from one end to the other, catering to just about every part of society.Its also famous for its food, namely Takoyaki and Okonomiyaki. If you like food and cakes, go here.

6) Himeji: Himeji...Himeji...Himeji.... This was one place above all else that I wanted to visit in Kansai. There is really only one thing people go to Himeji to see and that is its castle. That was precisely why I wanted to make the journey to this place.

Review of Sights in Himeji: 

A) Himeji Castle: If there is one place in Japan that so thoroughly disappointed me then it was Himeji. The town itself is quite nice and has a small market similar to that of Nishiki in Kyoto. However despite all the advertisement this place gets the moment you enter Kansai airport and see posters of it lining the walls on the way to the airport railroad, what they forget to tell you is that it is also currently undergoing maintenance, and has been for a while now. It won't be ready for the public to see until mid 2014 at the earliest.

Now you can imagine out disappointment when we arrived at Himeji only to see a huge scaffold looming over the city where the castle should have been. You can still visit the castle grounds (at a cost!) and you can pay money to go up and have the 'privilege' of seeing the construction work in progress, but honestly that is just a waste of money. Himeji was a total let down in every possible way.

Advertisement vs Reality

All in all, It was a great trip. I would definitely visit Kyoto again in a heartbeat. There were just so many things that we didn't have time to look at. Likewise for Nara. I'd probably give Himeji a wide bearth though!

B