Just surprised not to see a thread where people can comment on the French elections today, or the British elections last week where the SNP won in Scotland. Any commentary?

As for the SNP, I'm not a Briton or a Scot but I kind of think that the UK should stay together.

And for the French elections, I hope Sarkozy wins... not because I support his ideology necessarily, but because the other candidate, Royal, shot her mouth off about supporting Quebec separatism, which frankly is NONE of her business and was a rather stupid comment. The aspiring presidential candidate of one of Canada's greatest allies should not be meddling in Canadian internal affaires and making enemies over here before she's even elected. I think it shows a bit of either ignorance or arrogance on her part. So tant pis pour elle. It looks like Sarkozy will win anyways.

Yes, thankfully Sarkozy won. Royal did a total self-destruction job when she said that if Sarkozy won there would be riots in the streets. Hopefully he'll get down to the business of running France like it should be run, not as a stopping point for economic migrants but as a gaullist state with strong laws and order and a full free market as opposed to the out-dated socialist concepts Royal wanted to enact.

About the SNP - I for one am extremely happy to see the first steps towards Scottish independence. Scotland is just a drain on England and I for one would be perfectly happy to let them deal with their own problems.. such as the high poverty rate, the highest level of heroin use in Europe and the high homelessness rate. English tax-payers shouldn't have to subsidize Scotland's existence, after all, it's simply a blight on the face of the earth.

OK, now which was the candidate who stirred up controversy for proposing to cut off unemployment benefits to those who turn down more than two job offers.

Ah, and the 35-hour work week.  Must keep that.

I find this darkly amusing as an American in a country that is rolling straight back to the 19th century!

"Please, Mr. Scrooge, may I have another lump of coal?"
"Noooo!  It costs a pence!"

;D

Yes, thankfully Sarkozy won. Royal did a total self-destruction job when she said that if Sarkozy won there would be riots in the streets. Hopefully he'll get down to the business of running France like it should be run, not as a stopping point for economic migrants but as a gaullist state with strong laws and order and a full free market as opposed to the out-dated socialist concepts Royal wanted to enact

As I said previously, I am not a full proponent of Sarkozy's ideology. And let's remember he can't just do whatever he wants as President. Also, I think you should remember that Sarkozy is not a fanatical right-winger, he is of the centre-right, and he is of the same party as Chirac, who obviously could not do everything you hope Sarkozy would. I'd wager your preference is more of a J-M LePen, and most of the French are not in line with his principles.


About the SNP - I for one am extremely happy to see the first steps towards Scottish independence. Scotland is just a drain on England and I for one would be perfectly happy to let them deal with their own problems.. such as the high poverty rate, the highest level of heroin use in Europe and the high homelessness rate. English tax-payers shouldn't have to subsidize Scotland's existence, after all, it's simply a blight on the face of the earth.


I find your 'blight on the face of the earth' comment way off base. Scotland's population is ripe with worthy and concerned citizens, not just homeless junkies. You're being totally unfair.

But as I said before, it is not my decision to make either. I'm not British, and I cannot vote in a U.K. election (unless, as a Commonwealth citizen, I happened to be living in the U.K. in an election time... but I don't see that ever happening). However, having had to deal with separatists here in Québec (which is also a province that is in 'have-not' status thanks to our tax dollars being wasted on separatist schemes and too many overly ambitious social programmes mostly on the dime of unappreciated working Anglo-Quebecers not to mention the federal government... I could go on and on) I can srtongly affirm that even though differences of language, ethnicity, finances, or political leanings might seem like valid reasons to break up a country, they aren't necessarily so and it is worth it to stick together.

As I said previously, I am not a full proponent of Sarkozy's ideology. And let's remember he can't just do whatever he wants as President. Also, I think you should remember that Sarkozy is not a fanatical right-winger, he is of the centre-right, and he is of the same party as Chirac, who obviously could not do everything you hope Sarkozy would. I'd wager your preference is more of a J-M LePen, and most of the French are not in line with his principles.

I find your 'blight on the face of the earth' comment way off base. Scotland's population is ripe with worthy and concerned citizens, not just homeless junkies. You're being totally unfair.

But as I said before, it is not my decision to make either. I'm not British, and I cannot vote in a U.K. election (unless, as a Commonwealth citizen, I happened to be living in the U.K. in an election time... but I don't see that ever happening). However, having had to deal with separatists here in Québec (which is also a province that is in 'have-not' status thanks to our tax dollars being wasted on separatist schemes and too many overly ambitious social programmes mostly on the dime of unappreciated working Anglo-Quebecers not to mention the federal government... I could go on and on) I can srtongly affirm that even though differences of language, ethnicity, finances, or political leanings might seem like valid reasons to break up a country, they aren't necessarily so and it is worth it to stick together.


I do have a vote in the British election and would always vote for devolution.

I simply think that propping up another country (and let's face it Scotland and England are VERY different.) is pointless. The negative aspects far outweigh the benefits.

I'm not actually a fan of LePen, I believe in strict authority and harsh punishments.. not neo-fascism.

About the SNP - I for one am extremely happy to see the first steps towards Scottish independence. Scotland is just a drain on England and I for one would be perfectly happy to let them deal with their own problems.. such as the high poverty rate, the highest level of heroin use in Europe and the high homelessness rate. English tax-payers shouldn't have to subsidize Scotland's existence, after all, it's simply a blight on the face of the earth.


Yes I suppose it would be easier to turn it into the Mexico of Europe. I guess it's time Ireland had some competition as the most depressed economy in western Europe.

On another note, has anybody been keeping up with the election developments in Turkey?

Yes I suppose it would be easier to turn it into the Mexico of Europe. I guess it's time Ireland had some competition as the most depressed economy in western Europe.

On another note, has anybody been keeping up with the election developments in Turkey?


I'm all for the easy option. Nationalism now, Nationalism in the future.

What's happening in Turkey?

I'm all for the easy option. Nationalism now, Nationalism in the future.


Well, that's in line with the Republican ideal of letting the Devil take the hindmost, at least. :) Nationalism is certainly a strong ideal, but a nation has to be ready for it. Far too many countries have suffered for having it thrust upon them too early; East Timor is a good current example. While I can't say that they were any better off under Indonesian rule, becoming a republic hasn't exactly done them any favours, either. I'm sure the English taxpayers would be grateful their hard-earned would no longer be used to help prop up a weak economy, but having a huge surge of desperate Scots flooding over the border seeking non-existant work in Birmingham and Manchester because their own economy has completely collapsed would surely cause problems of its own, perhaps even more than it does currently. Australia was reasonably lucky because it had thousands of people wanting to come here and build it into a nation. Somehow I can't see that happening in Scotland. If both sides go to early, it could hurt them both.


What's happening in Turkey?


The leading candidate for the Presidency is a member of the party whose chief policy is for an eventual return to an Islamic state. While the caliph system hasn't been used there since the establishment of secular republicanism in the 20s, there is the capacity within the constitution for it to be reactivated. One need not go into detail about the possible effect this could have.

Well, that's in line with the Republican ideal of letting the Devil take the hindmost, at least. :) Nationalism is certainly a strong ideal, but a nation has to be ready for it. Far too many countries have suffered for having it thrust upon them too early; East Timor is a good current example. While I can't say that they were any better off under Indonesian rule, becoming a republic hasn't exactly done them any favours, either. I'm sure the English taxpayers would be grateful their hard-earned would no longer be used to help prop up a weak economy, but having a huge surge of desperate Scots flooding over the border seeking non-existant work in Birmingham and Manchester because their own economy has completely collapsed would surely cause problems of its own, perhaps even more than it does currently. Australia was reasonably lucky because it had thousands of people wanting to come here and build it into a nation. Somehow I can't see that happening in Scotland. If both sides go to early, it could hurt them both.

The leading candidate for the Presidency is a member of the party whose chief policy is for an eventual return to an Islamic state. While the caliph system hasn't been used there since the establishment of secular republicanism in the 20s, there is the capacity within the constitution for it to be reactivated. One need not go into detail about the possible effect this could have.


Your first point, about economic migration away from Scotland is a good point and something I hadn't really considered. I'll have to give it further thought before I comment.

I hadn't paid any attention to the Turkish elections, but that is indeed a scary prospect. Turkey has been making huge strides in their socio-economic realm with the idea of joining the EU, such a huge step backwards would be devastating.

Yes I suppose it would be easier to turn it into the Mexico of Europe. I guess it's time Ireland had some competition as the most depressed economy in western Europe.

Ireland is no longer even close to that distinction: EU money and a newly-discovered taste for capitalism has made it one of Europe's "tiger economies", with major growth pretty much every year for the last decade... Dublin, especially, is no longer a relaxed "oh, it'll get done sometime" sort of place.  IMO prosperity has done more to push forward the peace process than anything...


On another note, has anybody been keeping up with the election developments in Turkey?

It is kind of scary... but I have heard several different views about how things might go.  Here's one of the BBC reports.

The problem for Turkey is that secular democracy in an increasingly politicised largely Muslim country is not naturally stable.  Stability (in the form of a secular state) has been maintained by the military - the army was charged by Ataturk with the duty of ensuring that Turkey stays secular, and they have intervened to prevent an Islamist takeover - but it should be noted that even the AKP do not have as their stated goals a reversion to Islamic rule (which would be treason, under Turkish law, IIRC).

I have a natural antipathy to any political party that defines itself on religious lines: as soon as politics starts going that way, what you have is no longer democracy, but a legitimized mob rule.  Politics should be about how best to run a country, which should have nothing to do with religion whatsoever.  I'm thinking as much about Iraq and Northern Ireland as I am Turkey, here.

With respect to the French vote, I never thought I'd be relieved that Sarkozy won.. but Royal was intellectually so far out of her depth, irrespective of what you think of her politics, her presidency would have been a disaster.  But Sarkozy is such an arrogant p***k...

On Scotland: even if the SNP hold a referendum on independence, I really can't see the Scots voting in sufficient numbers - bear in mind that the SNP may now be the largest party, but they only have 47 of 129 seats on a turnout of between 50% and 60% (I haven't managed to find an overall turnout figure, but the regions vary from a 21% turnout to 68%) IOW, they polled 36% of the vote, or less than 20% o the electorate - it's hardly indicative of a will for separation, especially as a large part of the SNP success is a dislike of Labour rather than really wanting the SNP.

And in our elections, as always I voted for a candidate who didn't get elected.  This time it was my mother, which was unusual.  However, in the next-door ward, for the first time in her life, my mother voted for a candidate who was successful (she also worked damned hard to try and get her candidates elected)... but does this mean I have to wait until I'm post-retiring age before I have any chance at representation in this so-called democracy of ours?

Thanks for clearing up some stuff there Philbo. I get a little out of loop stuck out here in the colonies. :)

About the french elections,there's no doubt the voters wanted a change,between Sarkozy and Royal, Jacques Chirac would probably prefer the socialist lady to replace him lol

Sarkozy is a very fond of Blair as well as the american political stye (i still wonder if he's a fan of Bush too :o), so we can expect a big change in France's foreign policy that i'm not sure most french would want,but they did vote for him so maybe they do.

But what they won't get is the end of violence,delinquency and criminality he promised them, because the problematic youth that Sarkozy called "scum" are citizens born and raised in France, just like himself,whose parents and grandparents came to France in search of a better life,worked their a**es off and never making demands... Unlike Sarkozy claimed,it's not by implementing more restrict immigrations laws you end the problem,because it's not about illegals at all,it's about dealing with a generation of people who feel like they belong nowhere and therefore have nothing to loose.

About the french elections,there's no doubt the voters wanted a change,between Sarkozy and Royal, Jacques Chirac would probably prefer the socialist lady to replace him lol

Sarkozy is a very fond of Blair as well as the american political stye (i still wonder if he's a fan of Bush too :o), so we can expect a big change in France's foreign policy that i'm not sure most french would want,but they did vote for him so maybe they do.

But what they won't get is the end of violence,delinquency and criminality he promised them, because the problematic youth that Sarkozy called "scum" are citizens born and raised in France, just like himself,whose parents and grandparents came to France in search of a better life,worked their a**es off and never making demands... Unlike Sarkozy claimed,it's not by implementing more restrict immigrations laws you end the problem,because it's not about illegals at all,it's about dealing with a generation of people who feel like they belong nowhere and therefore have nothing to loose.


No doubt France needs major reforms, but the American model isn't looking so hot nowadays, and even if it was, those with universal healthcare and a 35-hour work week aren't going to be so keen on given these advantages up. 

Suburban poverty and nihilism is going to be a tough nut to crack.  I don't see a "sweeping reform" measure to clean up the mess in the next decade.  It might take a generation or more of conscientious effort.