Alexander Elliott Anderson Salmond, almost defied the odds

After a lengthy campaign, arduous canvassing, a full day of voting and an anxious night of ballot counting, the referendum on Scottish independence has come to its conclusion.

Scotland has rejected independence and has chosen to remain part of the United Kingdom. The referendum’s outcome was close with a majority of only 400’000 votes in favour of the status quo. A considerable 45% of the electorate cast their vote in favour of an independent Scotland.

Alex Salmond, leader of the Scottish National Party, leader of the Yes Campaign and First Minister  of Scotland announced later in the day that he would not stand for re-election as party leader and that he would resign his post as First Minister. This has come as no surprise despite his assurances to the contrary earlier during the campaign.

A selfless leader, one of the last true Statesmen in the world and a fine gentleman, he took full responsibility for his party’s and the Yes-Campaign’s defeat and decided that a new helmsman   would best serve the cause for a fairer and more equal Scotland.

Alex Salomond’s personal defeat is possibly Scotland’s greatest victory since joining the Union more than three hundred years ago. No man before him has single-handedly achieved so much in such short a period of time. He has changed for ever the political landscape of Scotland and the entire United Kingdom. Politics on British soil, after Alex Salmond, will never be the same again. 

Scotland’s referendum and the uncomfortably close result have unmasked the nationwide discomfort with the concentration of power in Westminster. Promises by Mr Cameron, of further devolution of power to Scotland, in the case of a No-vote, have ignited a wildfire which will spread fast and far. Mr Cameron will have to find some creative answers to challenging questions of power sharing if he wants to maintain peace and order in the “family” and satisfy Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland as well as parts of England.

Alex Salmond’s heir or heiress will push for expeditious progress for further devolution compliant with the principles of subsidiarity. There are many successful examples of a federal nature, Swiss federalism being just one of them taking cognisance of its country’s regional multilingual, multicultural and economic differences. 

Great Britain will have to design and engineer its very own constitutional engine and the tenant at No 10 Downing street will be burning the midnight oil for months to come analysing and discussing constitutional models with legal experts.The full extent of Alexander Salmond’s contribution to Scotland and the United Kingdom will only become evident in the years ahead and chances are that we haven't heard the last from him yet.
J.S.

Scotland’s Independence Referendum viewed from a distance

After months of intense campaigning the Scots will cast their vote on 18th September in the most important referendum in the Nation’s long history;  Yes or No for an Independent  Scotland, Yes or No for parting ways with the United Kingdom. 

Stripping the rhetoric, of both the Yes and No Camps, to the bones the question is simple enough; do the Scots want to shape their own future, take responsibility for their Nation’s decisions while building a more equal and fairer society - or - do they prefer to continue  living under English tutelage?

Polls indicate that the Yes and No camps are racing neck and neck towards the finishing line with only one percentage point separating them. 

If you belong to the 7% of eligible voters still undecided its time to consider the arguments for and against Scottish independence.

Under the slogan: “Better Together” the No Campaigners claim that Scotland cannot afford Independence and a Yes Vote would result in National Bankruptcy. They will have you belief that an Independent Scotland will be abandoned by the banking world, big business and industry.  Sponsored by their masters in Westminster, they have presented ambiguous, incomplete and at times even false information.  Statements such as: “The North Sea Oil reserves are nearing their end” and “A currency Union with the UK in the event of Independence would be incompatible with sovereignty” are designed to instil fear and insecurity in the electorate. 
The Westminster Scare-Mongers, led by the Prime Minister, visited your towns and villages and painted a dark, gloomy and stormy picture of a Scotland governed by the Scots for the Scots. An emotionally tearful Mr Cameron sounded like a “curdled whiskey peddler” using the stick and carrot approach alternating between praising Scotland for its greatness, begging it to stay in the “family”  and veiled threats of disinvestment and job losses. 

In summary the “Better Together” campaign was a litany of negativity and pessimism. It was lacking creativity and vision, focusing on perceived weaknesses and possible threats. The message; Scotland, without charity from Westminster, has no future. Scotland won’t be able to finance itself without increasing taxes. The list is endless.

The Yes campaigners in contrast presented clear, honest and most importantly verifiable messages. 
Scotland’s future in Scotland’s hands - Alex Salmond and his team explained their vision for a brighter future for all people living in Scotland coherently and convincingly. In debates with their opponents they remained transparent and addressed each topic with patience and solid facts. Their claim that an Independent Scotland would be richer than the rest of the UK is backed up by hard facts and verifiable figures. Scotland’s wealth of opportunities is no myth and will be the driving force for a more equal and fairer Independent Scotland which takes into account the differences of Scottish values to those south of your borders 

By now you will have guessed that I am not a Scot or at least not a Scot by birth. It was my late father in law, a true son of the Kingdom of Fife, who some 35 years ago, introduced me to the idea of an independent Scotland. To my shame I must admit that he did not convince me at the time and I remember saying: “Dad, Scottish independence is not relevant today, I will think about it when it becomes relevant.” I have kept my promise and I have thought long and hard weighing the pros and cons carefully. 
The facts and figures speak a clear language. Scotland’s contribution to the Union, in the past, have been a driver of success for the United Kingdom. Today’s Britain is Great because of the Greatness of Scotland.
By voting Yes you are neither undoing the past, the long common history with Great Britain nor are you abandoning old friends or dishonouring veterans. By voting Yes you acknowledge that Scotland has reached a watershed, a point in time in its long and glorious existence when change will open doors to new opportunities. The time for Scotland to decide its own destiny without having to compromise for the benefit of others. A new era when Scotland’s challenges have priority and decisions at the highest level are made by Scots for Scots. 
What more compelling reasons could there be to vote Yes for Scotland’s future in Scotland’s hands?
I wish all the people of Scotland Godspeed in the referendum. 

J.S.

He who sleeps with dogs, will get fleas

The villain is dead! Muammar Gaddafi was murdered by Libya’s liberators while begging for mercy and pleading for his life. For the whole world to see, major news channels aired his last moments, like a second rate peepshow fit for only the most perverted voyeurs.

“God is great” were the euphoric calls from his henchmen and gone were the virtuous intentions to judge Gaddafi in a properly constituted court of law and gone was all form of dignity in this just cause for the liberation of Libya.

One ought to remember that until recently Muammar Gaddafi was rubbing shoulders with the heavy weights of Western society although he has been known to be a villain long before the Arab Spring. He has been a megalomaniac despot for some time and former US President Ronald Reagan, as early as 1986, referred to him as “the mad dog in the Middle East”.
Western Governments and their Leaders, like any one else, have known that he was directly and personally responsible for the downing of the Pan Am flight over Lockerbie and the death of 270 innocent people in 1988.
Half hearted sanctions lasted for a number of years and yet when it became politically expedient in the fight against terrorism, western politicians felt no shame to befriend this outcast and welcoming him back into the club of civilised world leaders, burying the past and pretending it never happened.
The membership fee he was asked to pay was a meagre 2.7 Billion US dollars, 10 Million US dollars per family who lost a loved one, as compensation for the deaths at Lockerbie.
A real bargain, one would think, and to make the membership more attractive to the Libyan Brother Leader, a few personal friendships were thrown in at no extra cost. Among others; a warm brotherly embrace from Prime Minister Berlusconi, a patronising pat on the shoulder from Prime Minister Blair and a fake smile from French President Sarkozy demonstrate ultimate cynicism.

To ignore or accept this cynicism is practically the same as to support the notion that moral values are available for sale to the highest bidder and no matter what; there is always a way out of hell. It is tantamount to showing contempt for dignity and basic human decency. It demonstrates the absence of true vision and leadership in Europe and raises the question why leaders in the developing world should consider western values as their benchmark. The chances are they heard the English saying: “If you sleep with dogs, you will get fleas.”

A short stay in Switzerland

Switzerland is often seen as a model of a well functioning modern democracy with one of the highest standards of living worldwide. Internationally the Swiss people are respected as law abiding and compassionate citizens with a deep seated sense of justice and fairness. Foreign tourists arrive daily in this alpine republic to marvel at its natural beauty and to savour typical Swiss hospitality.

More recently a different type of tourism has made headlines and has gained notoriety. A number of “non profit” organisations such as ‘Dignitas’ in Zurich have for some time used loopholes in the Swiss penal code to sell euthanasia packages to well to do but desperate and often emotionally impaired customers.
This has led to the mushrooming of an industry dubbed “suicide tourism”.

Death candidates from abroad, mainly neighbouring countries such as Germany, and Great Britain, in which assisted suicides are illegal, frequently knock on the doors of Zurich’s “death factories”.
This was highlighted in the English media by extensive coverage focusing on prominent British suicide cases.
Peter (80) and Penny (70) Duff, a couple from Bath both suffering from cancer took a flight to Switzerland to depart this life.
Another British suicide candidate, Dr. Turner (66), after being diagnosed with a degenerative neurological disease also chose to end her life in Zurich. Her compelling story was later made into a movie under the title: “A short stay in Switzerland”. In both cases the patients were terminally ill and on compassionate grounds one could be tempted to sympathise with their cause and the possible altruistic motive of ‘Dignitas’.
However there are other cases. Two more Brits, Robert and Jennifer Stokes came to Zurich for a short stay in Switzerland.
Robert in his late fifties suffered from epilepsy and his wife Jennifer in her early fifties suffered from diabetes and back problems. Neither of them was terminally ill and yet ‘Dignitas’ accepted their wish to die and was eager to help.

Dignitas alone has since its establishment in the late 1990’s “processed and canned” more than 1000 distressed human beings.
They dispatch their clients to Nirvana in a friendly, congenial atmosphere on the serene shores of Lake Zurich under the watchful eyes of professional “mercy-killer-assistants”. Recent evidence suggests that urns containing the ashes have in the past been dumped in the nearby lake.

A One-way ticket for this last journey including cremation and burial (in the lake) will set you back some 10’000 Swiss Francs. Clients are made to sign a release form giving the right of disposal of their personal belongings (Mobile Phones, Jewellery etc.) to the respective organisation. In a number of documented cases the death candidates have bequeathed large amounts of money to their death clinic. The founder of “Dignitas”, Ludwig Minelli, formerly a little known backyard lawyer is today a wealthy, although controversial, personality in the Zurich business community.

Last weekend the people of the canton Zurich voted in a popular referendum on two proposals. The first; to ban the practice of assisted suicide and the second; to limit assisted suicide to bona fide residents of Zurich. Both proposals were rejected by an overwhelming majority of more than 80%

The debate on this life and death issue is not limited to Switzerland and has been around for at least the past 2000 years. In Switzerland it has its roots in the early days of the previous century. Under the presumption that the freedom to choose between life and death is part of each individual’s fundamental human rights the Swiss lawmakers have legalised assisted suicide in 1918 provided there are no selfish, i.e. financial or other material motives involved. Therefore Swiss law does not consider suicide a crime or assisting suicide as complicity in a crime. It views suicide as possibly rational and condones assisting suicide for altruistic reasons. The law neither grants nor elevates physicians to a special status in an assisted suicide nor does it require the suicide candidate being a terminally ill patient.

Article 115 of the Swiss criminal code reads:
“Inciting and assisting suicide: Any person who for selfish motives incites or assists another to commit or attempt suicide shall, if that other person thereafter commits or attempts to commit suicide, be liable to a custodial sentence not exceeding five years or to a monetary penalty.” (http://www.admin.ch/ch/e/rs/311_0/a115.html)

As in all cases of “unnatural death”, each suicide is required to be investigated by the attorney general. Since, in the absence of a selfish motive, no crime has been committed these are mostly open and shut cases.
With the sole reliance on a base motive (selfish reasons, material gain) rather than on the intent to kill to define a crime, article 115 is clearly at odds with legal standards in other countries. Under existing law the burden to prove “selfish motive” falls on the prosecution which, given the circumstances, is near impossible.

To the Swiss every individual’s right to make his own decision is paramount and they cherish their system of direct democracy in which the people vote on all major political decisions.
During the extensive pre-referendum debate the initiators of the referendum and opponents to assisted suicide ignored this simple fact and offered little else than old fashioned morality and the suggestion that “death tourism” is tainting the good image of Switzerland abroad. Not that I do think there is anything wrong with old fashioned morality - after all the three monotheistic religions Judaism, Christianity and Islam are unanimous in rejecting suicide – but it was clearly not enough to convince the voters of Zurich.

The proponents of assisted suicide on the other hand have recognised the voters near paranoid relationship with freedom and self determination. The focal point in their campaign was: “Freedom of choice”, and with it they struck the very soul of the electorate and won the day.

One question remains; Even if one believes in mankind’s absolute right to decide in all matters, including life and death, how far is too far in the quest to secure that right?

This question may never be answered but it can at least be addressed by thorough reflection and popular debate and by looking beyond the Swiss penal code. An equally important piece of legislation would be article 10 of the Swiss Constitution which charges the Federal state with the responsibility to protect the people’s lives as well as their physical and mental integrity.

Swiss politicians and lawmakers would do well to ponder the words of Hubert Horatio Humphrey, vice President of the United States of America under Lyndon B. Johnson from 1965 to 1969. In his last speech to the US Senate shortly before dying of cancer he said:
"...the moral test of government is how that government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; those who are in the shadows of life; the sick, the needy and the handicapped...”

A truly free country measures itself not exclusively by the freedom of choice of its people but also by the degree of protection and security the most vulnerable in their midst enjoy – and who can be more vulnerable than the one standing on the threshold between life and death?
Freedom of choice is easily manipulated, history is full of examples. Bad habits can easily turn into the norm, especially so in a society with a plethora of choices. As easily as bad habits can become norm, norm can become law; particularly when the only test is democracy and freedom of choice.

Imagine a Switzerland in forty years from now when suicide cocktails are available in wending machines next to cigarettes and chocolate bars. Now that would be true freedom of choice and the lawmakers could fulfil their responsibility by insisting on a warning sign on the package; Barbiturates kill.
Utopia? - I hope so too!
J.S.

Libya and the "Seven Pillars of Wisdom"

Let there be no doubt, Muammar Gaddafi must go, he is an unpredictable scoundrel who for decades has tyrannised Libya and killed innocent people at home and abroad. Any one with only a superficial comprehension of his megalomaniac leadership style will know that he was personally responsible for the downing of the Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie Scotland in December 1988.

The question therefore is not whether the UN Resolution to enforce a No - Fly Zone over Libya, is morally and legally justified or whether supporting democracy in Libya or elsewhere in the region is the right thing to do.
The question closer to the point is whether the UN and especially the NATO member states that have pressed for - and are now in charge of the military action - have a long term strategy in place to ensure lasting peace and democratic rule for all in the Middle East.
There is a thin line between a short term military success and long term political mayhem. The Arab League’s support for military intervention in Libya is meaningless considering the League’s track record. To belief that its members support of the UN resolution is a guarantor for justice and democracy in the region is as foolishly naive as believing in Santa Claus. During its sixty six years existence it has never resolved any important issue mainly because it has hardly ever spoken with one voice and if political expediency made it worthwhile individual members would simply go their own way and ignore the agreements solemnly signed.

Consider further that, of the twenty two member states, the people of two; Tunisia and Egypt, have only weeks ago liberated themselves from their own long time dictators and are struggling to rebuild their civil societies. It will take time for these two nations to find themselves and to be able to playing a meaningful role in the region.
Nine of the twenty two; Yemen, Bahrain, Syria, Sudan, Lebanon, Jordan, Mauritania, Algeria and Morocco are embroiled in more or less severe domestic conflicts of their own and many of their people have the same fate in mind for their leaders as have the Libyans for Gaddafi. Their present day governments would, naturally, support almost anything to buy time in order to avoid their own end game.
Another seven members; Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Oman, and Qatar are considered stooges of the West and are lacking credibility with the Arab people at large.
Three of the remaining four; Somalia, Djibouti and the Comoros are unlikely to make a meaningful contribution in any thing other than lining the pockets of a selected few.
Remains Palestine; a Nation without a land and without a coherent leadership, divided into economically unviable territories, a pawn in the game between Iran, Israel and the West.

The pain of the Palestinian people lasting for more than sixty years, broken promises and a dividing wall, similar to the one in Germany during the cold war, have become a unifying bond between Muslims around the world regardless of ethnic origin, language or political affiliation.
And - the “liberated” people of the Arab world will one day soon want to see their Palestinian brothers having their rights restored, their frontiers secured and their leaders elected by Palestinians. Their demand for accountable governance will put pressure on their new leaders to search for an equitable solution for Palestine. As a consequence the pre-revolution cosy relationship between Middle Eastern and Western Capitals, driven by “mutual generosity”, is unlikely to resume.

Any one with good intentions should bear this in mind, pay attention to the symbiotic relationship between Palestine and the rest of greater “Arabia” and have a workable plan for a lasting solution to the challenges in the conflict between Israel and Palestine before meddling in Arab regional affairs. Without it the fall out of collateral damage from an escalating conflict started with good intentions may come to haunt the “well meaning” Statesmen in the western hemisphere for years in the future.
“Seven pillars of Wisdom” written in the early 20th century by T. E. Lawrence would be a good starting point for a clearer understanding of Middle Eastern dynamics and its painful history. For David Cameron and Nicolas Sarkozy it should become compulsory reading before it is too late.
J.S.

Photographs don't tell lies; or do they?

The lasting images of Hosni Mubarak will be the ones of an old villain who stubbornly refused to listen to the voice of his people, the photos of delirious Egyptians, young and old - joyously chanting and dancing in Tahrir Square, celebrating the fall of a tyrant while his hitherto friends in high places add their voices of jubilation on News Channels around the globe at the departure of yet another unwanted dictator.

Photos of the past, some only a few weeks old, tell a different story.
There are the portraits of a President, in the company of his peers, who forged ahead on the road of peace and reconciliation in the Middle East, against all odds and at times against the will of his neighbors and associates.

There are pictures of a rather shy Air Marshall, who didn’t care about politics, a true Patriot, who was chosen Vice President for his lack of political ambitions, his proximity to the people and his leadership skills. Or Mubarak, the air force commander, a celebrated National Hero, who gave the Egyptian people some of their pride back at a time when there was only shame on the battlefield.
In the true spirit of the Cyber Age the world at large has activated the delete button on a man they called: “our friend and ally”.
At last Ex-President Hosni Mubarak will now have the time to page through his photo albums and reflect when and were he has gone wrong and who, if any, his true friends were.
Perhaps he will remember the old saying: "You can’t choose your family but you can certainly choose your friends”.

J.S.
(photos courtesy various internet sources)

Von Negerküssen, Mohrenköpfen, dem Sarottimohren in der Mausefalle und dem Echo der eigenen Xenophobie.

Herr Sarazin hat geschafft was schon lange niemandem mehr gelungen ist – eine Randerscheinung der großen Politik zum Tagesthema Deutschlands zu erheben und gleichzeitig ein paar zusätzliche Euro für seine Rente zu verdienen. Gekonnt widmet er sich einem Thema welches jeden Deutschen, zumindest im Unterbewusstsein, bewegt. Sein Buch ist über Nacht zum Bestseller geworden. Ob es inhaltlich diesen Ruhm verdient kann ich nicht beurteilen da ich es noch nicht gelesen habe – wenn ich Zeit habe hole ich dies möglicherweise nach.

Meine Gedanken und Fragen zum Thema: „Deutschland schafft sich ab“ beziehen sich mehr auf unsere Gefühlswelt in der Multikulturellen Gesellschaft – übrigens nicht nur in Deutschland – und wie wir mit ihr umgehen.

Wer kennt nicht das Schuldgefühl sich bei einem ausländerfeindlichen Gedanken zu ertappen. Auch wenn er nur ganz flüchtig durchs Bewusstsein huschte, sozusagen ohne eine Spur zu hinterlassen, er war da, er war Realität.
Schnell und wie der Blitz korrigiert man diesen Irrläufer seiner Gefühlswelt; So was denkt man nicht, das gehört sich nicht, denn man geht ja mit der Zeit, ist liberal, modern und multikulti.

Vor noch nicht allzu langer Zeit waren Mohrenköpfe und Negerküsse Lieblings-Naschereien für Groß und Klein. Dass sie heute Schokoküsse, oder Schaumküsse heißen liegt nicht daran dass sich die Rezeptur der Füllungen geändert hat. Verändert hat sich die Rezeptur unserer Wahrnehmung. Mit der Namensänderung glauben wir den Negerkuss salonfähig zu machen und dem Mohrenkopf seine politische Brisanz zu nehmen. Wir demonstrieren damit unser intellektuelles Reaktionsvermögen auf Einflüsse der Umwelt und bilden uns dabei ein, interkulturell kompetent zu sein.
Ähnlich ist es mit dem Sarotti-Mohr der seit 2004 Sarotti-Magier heißt und kein Tablett mehr trägt obwohl er 1918 in Berlin in der Mohrenstrasse geboren wurde und nicht in der Magierstrasse.
Wer mit dem modernen Geschäftsleben vertraut ist kann sich bildlich vorstellen was sich 2004 auf der Vorstandsetage von Stollwerk (Brandbesitzer von Sarotti) abspielte. Unternehmens-Magiers brüteten über Marktanalysen, Konsumentenprofilen, Imagestudien, Vertriebsberichten, Produktpräsentationen sowie Werbe- und Kommunikationsvorlagen. Klatsch - die Mausefalle der liberalen Multikulti Gesellschaft schnappte zu und der Mohr war tot - lang lebe der Magier.
Ohne Abschied und ohne große Worte wurde die Mohren-Leiche zu Grabe getragen. Die Hebammen des Magiers prosteten auf die Neugeburt im Zeichen des modernen Zeitgeistes und waren stolz darauf eine Schokolade ohne latente Vorurteile und mit hohem Völkerverständigungsniveau geschaffen zu haben. Dass dabei ein kleiner Teil Deutsche Geschichte und Kultur verloren ging kümmerte sie nicht.


Hauptsache wir haben Intellekt, mit ihm können wir alles, auch das „Anderssein“ der „Anderen“ relativieren, verstehen, kategorisieren, erklären und akzeptieren und gerade das macht uns dem „Anderssein“ der „Anderen“ überlegen.

Sarotti-Mohr, Mohrenkopf und Negerkuss geopfert auf dem Altar interkultureller Kompetenz - ein bescheidener Preis für den Erfolg von Multikulti Fortschritt?

Kürzlich hat nun auch Frau Bundeskanzlerin Merkel festgestellt dass dieser Erfolg bedeutungslos und auf Symbole begrenzt blieb, an der Substanz hat sich nichts verändert. Ob Neger- oder Schokokuss, ob Mohr oder Magier das plakative Bekenntnis zur Anerkennung fremder Kulturen hat keinen wesentlichen Integrationsbeitrag geleistet.
War womöglich Multikulti eine illusorische Kreation cleverer Marketeers zur künstlichen Marktstimulierung, zum Beispiel für Arbeitskräfte? Ist das Resultat so ähnlich wie wenn man einen Riesling und einen Cabernet zusammen schüttet?

Stellt sich die Frage wie wir in Zukunft bei zunehmender Globalisierung mit dem „Anderssein“ umgehen werden. Obwohl sich vieles messen, einteilen, zerteilen, verteilen und erklären lässt, die Essenz kultureller Existenz ist nicht messbar auch wenn wir uns das noch solange einreden.
Vielleicht ist es an der Zeit kein schlechtes Gewissen mehr zu haben weil es uns besser geht als vielen Anderen und uns zu besinnen auf unsere ureigene Kultur mit ihren Werten wie Kompetenz, Toleranz, Ordnungstreue und Arbeitsamkeit anstatt politischer Korrektheit zu dienen.
Dies würde sicherlich auch den „Anderen“ die Entscheidung pro oder kontra Integration bei uns leichter machen. Interkulturelle Kompetenz besteht nicht zuletzt darin zu akzeptieren dass man das „Anderssein“ nie ganz verstehen wird. Dazu gehört Ehrlichkeit mit sich selbst und das Eingeständnis dass unsere kollektive Gefühlswelt durch Jahrhunderte Geschichte geprägt wurde. Den Vater, als Beispiel, der seine Töchter verschleiert in die Schule schicken und ihre Ehemänner bestimmen will respektieren wir – in seinem eigenen Land und in seinem eigenen Kulturkreis – in unserer Gesellschaft ist er fehl am Platze.
JS