Question of Scottish Independence

In 1995, the Canadian province of Quebec and the political party Bloc Québécois put on a referendum to separate from Canada.  This was in the aftermath of the Bloc Québécois’ electoral success in parliamentary elections a couple of years earlier.  It was a mixture of indignation and unrealistic thinking that pushed the party toward independence and when the vote was tallied, they lost by less than one percent.  A month from now, following success in recent parliamentary elections, the Scottish Nationalist Party (SNP) seeks to separate from the United Kingdom.  Once more, a mixture of historical indignation and blinding optimism is powering this move. 

Scotland’s First Minister Alex Salmond leads a raucous but determined effort to revive the efforts of old that played out under the guidance of Robert the Bruce and was fertilized by Scottish blood on the fields in Bannockburn.  However, things are different and the issues are not quite about idealistic notions of independence and the green glens of Scotland but rather the sides are splitting over mundane economic issues such as oil and currency.  Mr. Salmond extolls the vitality of the Scottish economy but fails to paint the picture of the context of the British economy.

Oil from the North Sea is at the heart of Scottish vitality and could make the difference between Scottish success and failure.  British Prime Minister David Cameron says that the success of oil and gas from the North Sea has been bolstered by the weight of the kingdom as a whole.  Meanwhile, opponents to the SNP question the wisdom of putting all your eggs in a basket that will no longer be viable in the not-so-distant future.  Mr. Cameron has taken the fight to Mr. Salmond’s territory with recent cabinet meetings in Scotland (something about which the SNP mocked) and a reinvigorated attack by unionists in the Scottish parliament.  The opponents may be on to something but what is Mr. Salmond’s plan if London plays hardball regarding access to North Sea resources? 

On another front, the question of currency has emerged.  Mr. Salmond has said that the Scots would remain on the pound but British political parties predict that such a move will never happen and the Treasury has warned of such a scenario.  Unionists in the Scottish parliament and British observers have asked what Mr. Salmond’s pound-less plan is.  He has not been able to provide an answer but the movement soldiers on.  Much like experts on the Bible, you have various opinions and depending on what side you are on, you can find an expert that validates your approach.  However, without the pound, where does that leave Scotland?  It seems unlikely that the Scottish economy, absent of the economic support from the rest of the kingdom and the international security of the pound, would be able to maintain its current vibrancy.   

The Scottish independence referendum also calls in many other questions ranging from immigration to the European Union to its relationship with London going forward.  Quebec realized it did not have a viable chance outside the Canadian confederation.  Other movements such as Flanders’ attempt to separate from Belgium or Catalonia’s desire to separate from Spain suffer from the same issue.  Of recent attempts, only the Kurds have a decent chance to exist and prosper outside its current geopolitical status.  For Scotland, it has enjoyed increased autonomy as part of a devolutionary movement over the last decades.  At the moment, it has the best of both worlds.  It would be a shame if a “yes” vote ruined each of them.      

 

 

War on Intellectualism?

As a country, we’ve always had difficulties with those who profess to know more than us.  It began with the British and to be frank, the British have been holding it over us for centuries.  What we did, collectively in the late 18^th and 19^th centuries, we took pride in the opposite.  We were a bit crude, we were loud and we thumbed our noses at the pretensions held by others.  Yet, there was still value on necessary knowledge – skills that could create or build.  It would seem we are hitting new lows and it will be difficult to re-emerge from our self-induced stupor.   

Probably the most obvious, lowest hanging fruit that I can bang away at is television and advertisement.  This time of year is always distressing for me.  It is not that I’m returning to work soon but I’m bombarded with commercials that tell kids that the most important part of returning to school is that they have the right clothes, the right technology and in general, appear the coolest.  On one hand, what else are they going to say but the emphasis is all consuming and teachers know that of which I speak – the first days of school and the first days after Christmas vacation are de facto fashion shows.  “Books?  Don’t sweat it, kid.  You’ll get further by looking better.” 

Of course, television programs consistently set new lows in depravity and stupidity.  It might be strange to hear but in other countries, as we once did, they have programs where people calmly discuss important political and social issues.  It is mature discussions on the events of the day or with the guest for the evening.  Today, the last refuge for such programming is PBS and even there, such discussion-oriented programming is rather thin on the ground.  The programs you would normally expect the most of but get the least from are news shows.  As I’ve mentioned before, I often watch the news wondering where the adults are.  Screaming and emotionalism are a far cry from what once watched even a decade ago.  As for reality programming, I don’t have enough space to address that issue.

 

Speaking of the aforementioned arena of education, we have the prominence of standardize testing.  Today, it is more important that you know an increasingly narrowed field of information – only what will be on the test.  From an early age, our students are taught that a large swath of information is not important because it will not be assessed.  From the earliest grades, we are teaching our students that the curiosity with which they entered school does not serve them well.  Only a passing test grade will land you into a good school and ergo a good career.  Yet, school officials on the national and state levels scratch their heads and profess dismay at increasingly worsening scores on international testing.  They’ve drunk the Kool-Aid and cannot think beyond their boxes.   

Lastly (only for the sake of this article), technology has emphasized that convenience is valued over substance.  Technology today, despite its proponents who champion educational apps and computer programs as its benefits, has done more to shorten our attention span and gnaw away at our intellectual stamina.  Additionally, for all the “enriching” aspects of technology, I don’t see people using it.  I see people pre-occupied with Twitter, Facebook and other social media outlets.  As a teacher, I’ve seen the degradation and it is disheartening and baffling.  Over the last couple of decades, we have treasured our students’ ability to emote and not think and we are paying for that misdirection. 

I hope the state of things is not as bad as I’m portraying.  I’ve come across students from time to time who buck the trend.  What makes it seem so dire is the prevalence of mass media and popular culture.  I find myself wondering if there is some network or programmer who would be willing to buck the trend and appeal to the country’s intellect.  Is there a celebrity who will do more for intellectual pursuits that posing for the “Read” posters found in libraries throughout the country?  It is fine to not put on airs or to lampoon pretentiousness but we must still value the mind and intellect.  If not, the great experiment might not last much longer.