“I still think awards are stupid. But they’d be less stupid if they went to the right people.” – Ron Swanson
When I read the news that Russian President Vladimir Putin had been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize, I did a spectacular comedy double-take. I was scrolling through Twitter on my phone, not paying much attention to what I was seeing, but something about that headline struck me as being odd.
No, I hadn’t misread it; Vladimir Putin has indeed been named as a candidate for the award. The same Vladimir Putin who has been furnishing Bashar al-Assad’s regime with weapons to be used against the Syrian people. The same Vladimir Putin who appears to be leading a war against the forces of homosexuality. That Vladimir Putin is the one who apparently deserves an award for his gargantuan contribution to world peace.
Putin is not the first, nor will he be the last, controversial nominee for an award such as this. Barack Obama received the Nobel Peace Prize in 2009, a decision met with much criticism, partly because Obama hadn’t (and still hasn’t) closed Guantanamo Bay, among other objections to his presidency. Considering that previous winners have included Nelson Mandela, Martin Luther King, Albert Schweitzer, Mother Teresa and Yasser Arafat, it’s fair to say that the criteria have changed somewhat. Similarly, the title of Time magazine’s ‘Person of the Year’ (previously ‘Man of the Year’) has been won by George W. Bush, Josef Stalin (twice), Adolf Hitler, and – of course – Vladimir Putin.
One only has to look at the public reaction to the Emmys last week to see that there will always be disagreement on who and what should win awards, and that often being nominated (or sometimes not being nominated) generates more publicity than winning. If Putin were to win the peace prize, it would render the award pretty meaningless, given some of his actions. The fact that he is even being considered, particularly in the current political climate, is enough to get people’s blood boiling, and rightly so. If awards are going to retain or regain any real credibility, it is important that they go to the right people. Vladimir Putin is far from being the right person for this award.
We all know an independent Scotland would need a transitional period, but what’s being proposed is looking like independence in name only, writes COLM CURRIE.
The SNP was elected on a manifesto that included a promise to hold a referendum on independence, but people disagree on the meaning of that word. Some would say a fundamental part of Scottish independence would be to have our own, preferably democratically elected, head of state; others think differently. Some would say it involves Scotland having its own currency; others think differently. Now it’s being suggested that, in the event of a ‘yes’ vote, Scotland should keep the same benefits system as the rest of the UK. Only on a temporary basis, mind you, while the country adjusts to the transition.
A number of matters have not yet been decided, and several of them will not be until such time as they need be, so it’s unrealistic to expect a country to go from part of a four-way union to a fully separate country overnight. And, as my colleague Paul Cruikshank pointed out earlier this week, it would take some rather significant tax increases to make any immediate real improvements to the country. I’m under no illusions; a victory for the Yes Scotland campaign will not see Scotland instantly transformed into a socialist paradise, although that’s not a bad longer-term goal.
While I admire their sticking to their word, I can’t help feeling that what is now on the table is looking increasingly like DevoMax disguised as independence. A disguise that I feel is likely to make it less widely appealing than if it were simply called what it is.
There are some people who won’t vote for anything with the word ‘independence’ anywhere near it, and there are some who’ll vote for anything that involves any kind of further devolution at all, no matter what either campaign does over the next 15 months. With the majority of opinion polls suggesting that a ‘no’ outcome is more likely than a ‘yes’ one, the Yes Scotland campaign (which, it’s important to remember, is not the same thing as Alex Salmond, the SNP or the Scottish Government) needs to attract more voters to secure their desired result.
Rather than targeting the floating voters, they seem to be aiming more for the semi-hardcore unionist vote. (“Independence, but we keep the Queen and the pound and that? That sounds fine, aye.”) This is an interesting strategy, and one that may yet prove successful, but they must walk this particular tightrope carefully, while keeping a firm hold on the political hot potato, and making sure not to mix too many metaphors. If the pendulum swings too far toward that demographic, they risk alienating a lot of voters who were on their side in the first place.
Yes Scotland will know that their next few moves could be crucial, and they’re unlikely to make any rash decisions. It wouldn’t make a very interesting series of ‘Yes Minister’ or ‘The Thick Of It,’ but I’m sure I’ll have no trouble remaining interested in the debates, conflicts and inadvertent agreements between the two campaigns over the next year.
Hating the Tories could push Scotland into independence
In terms of the pro-Unionist vote, calling last week a disaster might be kind, writes COLM CURRIE. The Tories’ lack of popularity in Scotland stretches many decades into the past and the Liberal Democrats’ standing has dropped among most UK voters, but last week saw the government’s reputation took another nose-dive.
The Bedroom Tax came into force on the 1st of April, but was unfortunately not an elaborate practical joke cooked up by David Cameron and Iain Duncan Smith. Cameron can say it’s not a tax all he wants, and technically he may be right, but in real terms that’s exactly what it is: another tax for those who can least afford it. George Osborne did yet more damage to the government’s reputation when he implicated the welfare system in the horrendous murders of six children, echoing sentiments expressed by the Daily Mail.
Thousands of Scots are going to find themselves struggling to make ends meet or even forced to move out of their homes as a result of this latest policy. While many others who will suffer do not, we have an imminent opportunity to break away from the Union and, when Scotland decides its future on the 18th of September 2014, voters will deliberate carefully whether or not they want more of this.
The fundamental problem is that the UK government represents a far more diverse group of people than those in charge of it. Hundreds of thousands of Brits signed a petition last week suggesting that Iain Duncan Smith should prove his claim that he could easily live on £53 a week, as he and his party have forced so many people to do. Duncan Smith later wrote this off as a “stunt,” rather than addressing the real issue, and presumably now thinks that the matter will be swept under the carpet. If Scotland were to vote ‘yes’ in 2014, would Duncan Smith declare that a “stunt” too, and deny Scots that for which they had democratically declared their desire? It certainly wouldn’t surprise me. He’s under no real obligation to put his money where his mouth is, but to call it a stunt, when so many people have called for something to happen, is disrespectful and condescending.
To top it all off, George Osborne was spotted getting into his car while it was parked in a disabled space. Regardless of whether or not it was he who put it there, or how long it was there, it did nothing to raise Osborne’s stock during a week in which he hit thousands, including many disabled people, with a new tax to pay.
While thousands of people in the UK will be furious at the government’s actions this week, only those in Scotland have an impending chance to vote to break away from them. If people decide to vote for independence based predominantly or solely on this reason, would that be the wrong thing to do?
I don’t think so.
While I’d rather people made the right decision for the right reasons, a right decision made for the wrong reasons is still preferable to a wrong decision. Whether independence is the right choice for Scotland is subjective, that’s why there’s a referendum on it, but every policy passed by this government makes me think more and more that Scotland needs to leave the Union, and I know I’m not the only one who thinks like that. If we need more Tory policies to push us over the line, I’m okay with that.
Sometimes politicians manage to show a loveable human side over Twitter, gaining the respect of the masses and providing a dynamic slant to politics unknown in earlier times. Sometimes, as COLM CURRIE notes, they get it wrong.
This may sound like a shocking thing for a journalism student to admit, so please ensure you are sitting down before reading on: I rarely buy a newspaper. Rarely here meaning once or twice a month at most. This is partly financial, and partly because I’ve never been in the habit of doing so (there was usually a paper in the house when I was growing up), but mainly it’s due to convenience. I get most of my news online these days; indeed, the majority comes from Twitter.
News organisations have of course noticed this, as have governments and politicians. Most big companies now maintain their profile over social media, so why should politicians be any different?
My answer: because they’re rubbish at it, by and large. I follow quite a few politicians to keep an eye on what they’re doing, but I find that most are not especially well-versed in the art of Tweeting. Generally, what you’ll see from them is a mixture of snide remarks about opposition parties, condemnation of policies with only superficial differences from their own, and promotion of the brilliant work they themselves are up to. In other words, very similar to the snapshots of parliament we see on TV.
Take, for example, Labour leader Ed Miliband. I was watching Prime Minister’s Questions a couple of weeks ago, during which Miliband went off on a (justifiable) rant against David Cameron and his bedroom tax. Cameron responded with whataboutery and cherry-picked semi-relevant figures which backed up his side of the argument. This went on for some time, then most of the present MPs filed out of the House of Commons, and Miliband fired off a couple of Tweets very similar to what he’d just said. Most of his Tweets over the next couple of weeks were either attacks on the Prime Minister and/or the government (again, I’m not saying they were unjustified attacks), or promotions of events and policies in which he was involved.
I agree that this is what one should expect from a politician, particularly one as prominent as Miliband, but my point is that he doesn’t engage properly. There’s not enough emphasis on the ‘social’ aspect of social media. I imagine that, for many politicians, their replies consist of a lot of abuse, with far less praise than they’d like.
I’m prepared to bet they look at their replies, though, they won’t be able to help themselves. And, even if they just respond to the ones that suit them, surely that would be better than yet another propaganda machine? There’s no point putting your name and face on a Twitter account that just posts the same stuff as the party press office. A personal touch would make our politicians seem more approachable, more human and more relatable. There’s nothing wrong with sharing some more light-hearted moments, either. I’d much rather read about Ed spilling mustard on his shirt and trying to hide it under his tie during a meeting with the Pope, than another fundraiser he attended in Lewisham.
One of British politics’ biggest personalities of recent times, Boris Johnson, has found a better balance. He Tweets plenty of promotion/put-downs as well, and his monthly #AskBoris sessions could stand to be a bit more regular, but at least the Mayor of London is communicating with people. I have no doubt that he skips over some of the questions he’d rather not answer, and suspect it’s more about keeping up appearances than actually helping his citizens. Nevertheless, Boris knows what he’s doing when it comes to promoting himself, even if he appears to be a bumbling buffoon on the outside.
Politicians looking to maximise the benefits of using social media could do worse than copy Boris’ example. It might even be worth hiring, for instance, a young, enthusiastic recent journalism graduate with plenty of ideas, who has observed the shortcomings of some politicians when it comes to modern media.
