My Thoughts. Exactly.

Pretty much every conversation with someone new, and quite a few existing friends, in the last few weeks has involved, at some point, a single subject. As sure as night follows day, I have been asked a variation on the following question:

Do you think Scotland will become independent?

It is a subject which has taxed many a grey cell in my cranium for the last couple of years, whilst being alternatively relieved/pissed off that the powers that be have deemed the opinions of expats irrelevant to this momentous decision.

Throughout much of the campaign I have felt like King Agrippa, faced with the arguments of Saint Paul and responding:

Almost you persuade me to become a Christian, but not quite.

Neither the "Yes" nor the "Better Together" campaigns have presented a definitive argument as to why to agree with them.

The "Yes" campaign has far too many vague claims that everything will be fine, for my liking. They claim that an independent Scotland will keep the same head of state, and the same currency as the United Kingdom, which begs the question, why bother? They claim that the European Union will welcome an independent Scotland with open arms, which inherently means that EU law will trump Scots Law, and decisions made in Edinburgh can be overturned in Brussels or Strasbourg, which again begs the question, why bother?

On the other hand, "Better Together" seem to appeal to sepia tinged visions of the British Empire's faded glory, with yet more vague promises of greater powers for the existing Scottish Parliament.

I don't want to get into the failings of both campaigns, though many a "Yes" supporters' hard and loose approach to historical facts has pissed me off several times (I have seen several claims that the Union was a result of an English invasion...British history 101 was clearly failed), I want to clearly state how, and why, I would vote on Thursday, if I could.

I would vote 'yes'.

Not for any blinkered nationalistic reasons, not to give the Tories a kicking, not out of some anti-English bias (which would be ridiculous anyway as, in common with all my brothers, I am half English and half Scottish), and most certainly not because I believe Scotland to be some oppressed nation in need of liberation - a sentiment shared, interestingly enough by one Alex Salmond, when he wrote:

Scotland is not oppressed and we have no need to be liberated. Independence matters because we do not have the powers to reach our potential.

It is clear to me, admittedly from a distance given that I have lived outside the UK since 1999, that the Union, and the parties supporting it, as it currently stands is not fit for purpose. That, however, is not reason enough to throw the baby out with the bath water. In an ideal world I would want to see a fully devolved United Kingdom, with parliaments for all the nations that make up the Union - Scots, English, Welsh, Irish, and Cornish. Those parliaments would have the power to legislate fully within their nation, tax rates, spending plans, the works, with a pan-British senate to oversee matters of common concern, defense and foreign relations for example. A fully federal union would move decision making powers closer to the people that government is supposed to serve.

It is in the absence of this option, one which having spoken to many of my friends at home would likely win far greater support than the binary choice of independence vs status quo, that I would be casting a yes vote. Reluctantly, and with a heavy heart, but with the hope that the finest progressive achievements of the Union, the NHS for example, might continue, and be built upon to create a fairer society for all the people of Scotland.

Investing not Buying

Even though I don't currently live in Britain, I am very glad that by an accident of birth I was born British. I like being British, I like my British passport and have no ambition to ever give it up or take citizenship of another country. Eventually, I want to go home, once I am done with my wandering around the world and all that stuff. I am sure that sounds a little strange considering Mrs V and I have just bought a house but in my family buying a house is no barrier to picking up and moving on - my elder brother did so to move to Australia and my parents did it in order to move to France.

Before I wander too far though from the topic of this post, let me come back on theme, yes I am proud to be British, though not in some boorish sense that Britain is the best thing since sliced bread, but more an understated appreciation to have been born there. Two of the things that make most proud to have come from Britain are the National Health Service and the British Broadcasting Corporation. I am not really in a position to benefit from the awesomeness that is the NHS, but I listen to the BBC World Service practically every day, and yesterday they really pissed me off.

On my drive home from work I was listening to a show called "London Calling", which reviews the Olympics currently happening in London. What's that you say? You were on the Mars Rover and were not aware that the greatest sporting event in the world is taking place in London at the moment? Well, tsk, tsk is all I have to say about that. Anyway, on the show they were asking the question if Britain had "bought" all these gold medals because of all the money spent by the government on sporting facilities and training since the abject failure of the British team in Atlanta?

I found myself yelling at the radio, admit it, you do too! What kind of ridiculous notion is it that a country should invest over a 16 year period in sports facilities and training, and then when that investment bears fruit somehow the gold medals have been "bought"? I wish the British government would take a similar strategy of investment in things like the NHS, science education, inner city schools, the list goes on, but I digress.

These gold, silver and bronze medals are the culmination of years of investment, both financial and in terms of time, and to claim they have somehow been bought is disgraceful and does a great disservice to the Olympians who won them. After all, it is not as though an oil rich magnate from Russia or the Middle East has lavished riches on a mediocre athletics program, bought in the best athletes from around the world and had them don a Team GB shirt.

I for one think every medalist deserves immense praise for their achievement, and every time I see another Brit on the podium I smile broadly.

Westminster Must Learn from Holyrood

It is clear that the "first past the post" electoral system used in the UK is unrepresentative in an age of party politics. No-one in their right mind can claim that it is a fair result when the Liberal Democrats win a 23% share of the vote and get about 50 parliamentary seats, whereas the Labour Party get a mere 6% more of the popular vote but 200 more seats than the Lib Dems.

Some would claim then that the answer to this gross disparity between popular vote and seats in Parliament is to introduce Proportional Representation, something I have posted about before. I am simply not convinced that simple PR is the way to go, for example, what threshold do set you set for parties to gain seats in Parliament? In the Czech Republic, if I remember rightly, a party needs 5% of the popular vote to get seats, if such a system were implemented in a British context then we would have only three parties in the House of Commons, representing 89% of the electorate based on the results of Thursday's election, and the nationalists of Wales and Scotland, as well as the Northern Irish would simply have no voice in Parliament.

Perhaps I greatest concern when it comes to PR is who chooses the MPs? Do we go to a system of party lists, where the same old faces keep cropping up no matter how unpopular a politician is? Such an approach surely centralises political influence within the national party and takes power away from local parties. Simple PR also changes the nature of the British MP, no longer is he the chosen representative of his constituency, but rather he is the lackey of the central party, taking democracy away from the local level and alienating the people yet further from the system.

What then is needed, in my thoroughly un-humble opinion, is a hybrid system where the House of Commons consists of MPs elected by constituency based, simple majority voting, and 100 MPs elected on the basis of a proportion of the electoral vote, without including those seats where a given party won. So, for example, in a given constituency the winner of the simple vote becomes the MP for that area, the number of votes for each of the other parties contesting that election are tallied with the number of other non-winning votes for each party around the country, and the extra 100 seats are divided according to the percentage of the non-winning share. This is of course similar to the Additional Member System as used in the Scottish Parliament, but without the option for each voter to choose a person and a party separately. Obviously the 100 MPs taking their seats as a result of this system would have to be chosen from a party list, which isn't ideal in my world, but I can't for the life of me think of a democratic alternative to party lists.

As I said to begin with, it is clear that the British electoral system is no longer representative of the British people and as such must be changed. What is not clear, is the fairest, most democratic way to ensure that the voice of every voter is heard, and that the electorate are engaged in the political process.

The Need for Continued Reform

It was 1517 when Martin Luther caused a rumpus that would lead to the end of the Holy Roman Empire, that saw the end of the Inquisition in northern Europe, that gave birth in many ways to the modern nation state, with the consciousness that shared language and traditions bring to a people, especially a people who can express their religious beliefs in their own language rather than in a long dead tongue. The Reformation can been seen as both a religious struggle but also a political one, one where the forces of progress prevailed over the forces of reactionary conservatism. One of the mottos, or slogans if you like, of the Reformation was that the church should always be reforming itself, or to use the Latin, ecclesia semper reformanda. Now, don't worry, this post isn't about religion, it is about politics and the failure of the right, across the globe, to continue the process of reformation, prefering instead to lament a mythical golden age and misunderstand that conservatism is not about keeping things as they have always been, but rather about holding on to what works in a society and reforming what does not.

In a way, the political world should take to heart the idea of ecclesia semper reformanda, simply because human beings are flawed and society needs to be in a constant process of improvement and development in order to create a world where, to Anglicise the French, equality, liberty and fraternity flourish. The problem for many on the reactionary right is that they are adverse to paying the costs of equality, liberty and fraternity, whether financial or otherwise, and of course they often seek to deny equality, liberty and fraternity to those whose opinions they disagree with. It is a continual shame to modern society that hypocrisy is the modus operandi of many in the political sphere. Too many ignore Voltaire, allegedly, when he said that "I may not agree with what you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it".

One thing I would reform in every nation state across the globe is to bring an end to political careerism and a return to the idea that representing your peers in parliament is an act of service rather than an act of enrichment. At present, Members of Parliament in the United Kingdom earn a basic salary of £64,766 (approx. $93,000) per annum, rising to £197,689 (approx $300,000) for the Prime Minister, while the average salary of the Britons they represent is £22,202 (approx $33,000). In the US context, a Senator earns $174,000 per annum, and the President earns $193,400, and the people they represent earn a median of $27590 a year. It certainly makes you wonder who these politicians are representing when their incomes to so astronomically beyond the imagination of the average person. Of course, there used to be politicians who refused to take more than the average workers salary, but sadly they are in a minority these days, and thus we end up with a political class living in ivory towers, far removed from the concerns of the people they represent.

This brings me to my second reform for the political world, an end to having a "lifetime of service" by limiting the number of terms a person can serve in a given political office, one way of achieving this could be done by enforcing political retirement at 65, which would also have the added benefit of the political system becoming less dominated by old men, which is never a bad thing really.

Hmmm, this post has kind of wandered off track, so I will stop and smell the roses for a while.....

I Guess I Just Ain't Good Enough

Reading around this week, I came across a thing called the 9/12 Project, the brainchild of Fox News' Glenn Beck. Not being the kind of person to see something by a person whose politics I find abhorrent in the extreme and not want to interact at some level, I decided to look a little deeper at the 9 Principles and 12 Values that give the organisation its name. According to the project web site, if you agree with 7 of the principles then you have something in common with Beck and his ilk. Let's address these one by one.

• America is Good

Being something of a nit picker, my first thought is "good for who?", is America good for the Palestinians living in camps being radicalised by an American backed Israel? Is America good for the poor of its own nation who can't afford health insurance, while health insurance companies lobby openly to have its own customer base dwindled to only those with enough money to pay ridiculous premiums? Is America good for the manufacturing jobs that have been shipped overseas in order to maximise shareholder dividends? Countries are of course value neutral, there is no such thing as a bad country or a good country - unless of course racism is your thing and anyone brown and wearing a turban is bad by default. America is just a country, no more special and no more chosen than any other country. I guess then I fail to have something in common with Glenn Beck, because America is just America and not a moral proposition.

• I believe in God and He is the center of my life

Admittedly this is, already, starting to feel like an AA meeting, but we'll continue. Again I have to ask a question of this statement, whose God is Beck talking about? Is he talking about the Christian God, or the Mormon God? And let's face it, only the theologically illiterate would consider Mormonism's deity to be anything like the traditional monotheistic faiths, the differences have been shown quite clearly elsewhere. Until someone can tell me which God, unless of course this is a nebulous concept like in Freemasonary, then I guess I can't approve of this statement - not looking good is it?

• I must always try to be a more honest person than I was yesterday

Sure, not a problem, striving to be a better person is something I agree with whole-heartedly.

• The family is sacred. My spouse and I are the ultimate authority, not government

Not sure quiet how this one works, given that God is the center of life for people who can sign up to this project. How can human beings be the ultimate authority when God is the center of life? That simply doesn't work.

• If you break the law you pay the penalty. Justice is blind and no one is above it.

Absolutely agree, without justice society falls apart. But who enforces that justice? If it is the populace then mob rule becomes the norm, I guess when it comes to law and order, the government is the ultimate authority rather than myself and Mrs Velky Al?

• I have a right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, but there is no guarantee of equal results.

Yes of course, with the caveat that the right to life brings with it the responsibility to live well, to liberty the responsibility to champion freedom for others, to happiness the responsibility of gratitude for all that you have.

• I work hard for what I have and I will share it with who I want to. Government cannot force me to be charitable.
  

Yes in theory, but I have no problems paying tax to help create a society where everyone has the same opportunity to better their lives. Taxation is not charity, it is social responsibility.

• It is not un-American for me to disagree with authority or to share my personal opinion.
  

I agree entirely, but the converse must also be true. It is un-American to force your opinion on other people, and to use your authority to ensure conformity with your opinion.

• The government works for me. I do not answer to them, they answer to me.
  

Yes OK that sounds very nice, but if they work for me and I begrudge them pay, then the public is a very crappy employer.

The 12 values are listed as follows:

Honesty
Reverence
Hope
Thrift
Humility
Charity
Sincerity
Moderation
Hard Work
Courage
Personal Responsibility
Gratitude

I agree with every single one of them, because they are human values, sought in every culture around the world. There is nothing uniquely American, European, Christian, Muslim, atheist, socialist or conservative about such values, they are simply human values.

So I guess I am not eligible to join Beck's project, not that I am surprised.

It Takes Two To More than Tango

I am not a fan of tabloid newspapers, having read The Guardian and The Independent for much of the last decade. Whenever I would head back to the UK for my little visits I looked forward to getting the Saturday edition of the Guardian, and the Observer on Sunday, to then spend a week reading through them in preparation for the following Saturday and Sunday. Neither am I am fan of tabloid level news programmes on the television, the kind of thing which digs and delves into the private lives of the famous because it is apparently in the "public interest".

The cause of my ire this morning was watching Good Morning America, during which they started talking about Tiger Woods' press conference tomorrow and its implications for his career. If the rumours are true and Tiger has been in "sex therapy" then I am very, very confused. Is sex now something which is not a normal part of life? Is it something that you need therapy for when you see an opportunity for a little bit extra and you go for it? Is being unfaithful to your wife something that you need to see a counsellor about? Is there a self-help group called Adulterers Anonymous?

The media here seem to love banging on, pun not necessarily intended, about the affect Tiger's indiscretions have no doubt on his wife, and how could a married man be so bad, blah, blah, blah. This got me thinking about the women that Tiger is alleged to have bedded, and how the media is a scrum of hypocritical parasites. Did these women not know that Tiger Woods had a Mrs Tiger Woods and little cubs at home? Why is the media not going after these women and asking why they knowingly slept with a married man? Why are these women not being reviled as home wreckers?

Oh, I get it, these women are not rich, famous and influential, so I guess you can't expect anything better from them. So adultery is bad for the monied peoples of this world, the "role models" if you will, but not for the regular people who jump into the sack with the wealthy? A bit of balance is required, a little less moralising about Tiger Woods doing what many men would given the chance, and a little more about the women who had an affair with him whilst knowing he had a wife and kids at home.

There are two sides to every story, here it is simply a man who wanted some fun on the side and women who lacked the integrity to say no. A sad reflection on the state of society indeed.

Chrimble Songs

Christmas is one of the those times of the year when one's thoughts naturally head backwards. Back over the year just gone, and it has been a rather a good one to be honest. Back to the friends left behind as Mrs Velkyal and I moved to the US but also back to this time last year. Christmas 2008 will always be special because it was the first time that the entire clan had managed to get together for Christmas Day in something ridiculous like 20 years. This Christmas will be my first with Mrs Velkyal's family, and I will actually get to meet the last of the uncle's that I am yet to meet.

Christmas though always brings to mind the classic Christmas songs that I have always loved, and so here are a couple of them for you...





(Yes, I know that it is awfully cliched and cheesy - just my cup of tea!)

Care about Health?

I will be bluntly honest, health care in the US sometimes seems like the ultimate oxymoron - few people seem to actually care about the health of the nation, preferring to find as many ways to empty people's wallets as is humanly possible - and here I am not talking about tax increases but rather the voracious appetite of the market.

When it comes to health insurance I am as dyed in red wool as it is humanly possible to be, I believe that health care should be provided by the State and that it must be paid for from tax contributions. I have no problem whatsoever with a percentage of my salary being taken out at source to fund a health care system, unlike many it seems. I also prefer paying my insurance premium to the State rather than a corporation who primary concern is not my health but the health of their shareholders wealth.

What would I do to solve the problem of un-insured people in the US? Expand Medicaid, make the tax contribution 6% of each and every employed person's salary and open access to Medicaid to everybody living and working in the US. With an expanded Medicaid program, I would make it illegal for hospitals and other health care providers to refuse to accept this insurance. Sure, people can still have their private insurance, it is their perogative, but they can't opt out of paying their tax contributions.

Let me give you an example:

Mrs Velkyal had a thyroidectomy last year, which required 4 days in hospital. Having worked in the Czech Republic and paid her taxes the sum cost extra was the cost of board and lodging in the hospital - a grand total of 240CZK, at the time something like $15. The care was good, the staff were excellent. Sure the hospital is a bit old, but if you are worried about having a tv and a pretty building then I guess you just aren't sick enough.

This year, Mrs Velkyal broke her foot. She has health insurance with the school she works for. Total cost for a trip to ER, with x-ray, crutches and some strappy boot thing - $200. Seeing a podiatrist, $40 a time - 3 of those so far, and this is all on top of the ridiculous premium she pays.

Having seen health care provision from both sides of the Pond now, I can honestly say that America could learn an awful lot about health care provision from the Europeans - of course taking on board the idea that someone does something better than you is the difficult part. But tables don't lie and of the 36 countries with better health care than the USA, 17 of them are in the EU, 10 of which are in the top 20.

Songs from Central Europe

Leaving a city you have lived in for 10 years is more difficult than it appears at times. Despite the fact that I knew it was time to leave Prague and start anew somewhere else, Mrs Velkyal and I made that decision almost 2 years ago now, so much of my adult life was spent in the Czech Republic that I almost think of it as home - certainly a place filled with lots of memories.

Unlike a lot of expats I came across in the city, I always made a conscious decision to learn the language, have Czech friends and live like a native - although I never wore socks with my sandals, had a mullet or went out without showering.

As a homage to my ten years in Prague, here are some of my favourite songs by Czech and Slovak bands and singers - the videos aren't necessarily official or original, but the songs are grand.

Spare An Acre?

Mrs Velkyal and I have a dream. That dream involves a plot of land somewhere, preferably of about 5 acres, where we could rear a few animals, grow fruit and vegetables and generally be as self-sufficient as possible. I am sure that there are many people my age who grew up watching re-runs of Felicity Kendall's bottom in The Good Life who have a similar dream. I am sure that they would also have sat and watched River Cottage and yearned to be able to leave the city and throw away all the junk that passes for civilisation these days.

I have been watching Beyond River Cottage lately, the one where Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall gets a 40 acre farm and sets up his catering business in some reclaimed cow sheds, and even more so would I love to ditch the world and wander off to Dorset, or France, or whether the equivalent American place would be, and settle into a interminably quieter life. The shift from Prague to Charlottesville has been dramatic in that sense, going from a 1 million inhabitant capital city, to a college town with about 50,000 people. Still far more than I grew up around in the Outer Hebrides, but certainly a welcome change from the bustle of the city.

Therefore I have made it my aim to see if I can find a landowner in these here parts with a couple of acres to spare and the willingness to rent them to me in order to plant veggies, perhaps an orchard, a clutch of chickens and maybe a sheep or pig or two.

To paraphrase Monty Python's Life of Brian:

"Spare an acre for a jaded urbanite?"