A truth worth being told over and over again: Bessarabia is Romania! [Un adevăr care merită spus iarăşi şi iarăşi: Basarabia e România!]

We’re surely living mad times, when some are trying to detach Catalunya from Spain, others to ensure the independence of Scotland, some want to divide Belgium, and others wish to break away from the rest of Italy etc…

Romanians (and especially the young) would like to see their two states – Romania and (the Republic of) Moldova – reunited, irrespective of Russia’s fierce opposition and the EU’s benevolent (to Moscow, not to Bucharest!) indifference.

Reunification looks as unlikely as the collapse of Austria-Hungary or Tsarist Russia looked 100 years ago, in 2012. Nevertheless, the outcome of the First World War of 1914-1918  taught us that it’s better never to say never… 

[For all the posts on this blog go to/Pentru toate postările de pe acest blog mergi la: Contents/Cuprins]

Din raidurile mele prin inima Scoţiei (26) [From my forays into Scotland's heartland]

Nu mi s-au părut prea grăbiţi scoţienii. Ba chiar, în Scottish Highlands pot fi domoli, ca peste tot în zonele mai înalte.

Deşi există şi la Edinburgh, Glasgow, Inverness (ori Aberdeen, unde n-am ajuns), precum în City of London, destui corporatişti pentru care timpul înseamnă (doar) bani…

Poate, tocmai pentru că destui scoţieni nu se omoară cu graba şi lasă pe poimâine ceea ce s-ar fi cuvenit să facă alaltăieri, au născocit acest proverb:

“Ceeea ce poate fi făcut oricând nu va fi făcut niciodată” – aşa facem fiecare dintre noi când ne uităm la ceas*** şi ne pare că avem timp.

Şi tot aşa aş zice că stau lucrurile şi cu independenţa Scoţiei, o posibilă, dar improbabilă nouă bătaie de cap pentru UE. 

*** NOTĂ: Turnul cu ceas din imagine face parte din clădirea hotelului de cinci stele The Balmoral (fost North British Hotel) din Edinburgh.

[Pentru toate episoadele din această serie şi toate postările de pe acest blog mergi la/For all the episodes of this series, and all the posts on this blog go to: Contents/Cuprins]

Alcoolul ăsta, prietenul cel mai bun al britanicului? (19) [This alcohol, a Brit's best friend?]

Născocită în Mesopotamia, distilarea băuturilor a pătruns în actuala Marea Britanie pe la sfârşitul primului mileniu creştin. Este doar o supoziţie, nimeni nu poate şti exact.

Se cunoaşte doar că acest meşteşug a venit dinspre Irlanda – de unde a venit şi creştinismul, cumva a doua oară şi cu o vigoare mai mare decât când Britania era provincie romană.

Cum obiceiurile rele au mai mare vitalitate de propagare decât virtuţiile, prepararea acestor băuturi tari s-a extins în întreaga Scoţie, apoi (poate chiar concomintent!) în Anglia.

Nici când, nici cum s-a născut băutura spirtuasă atât de cunoscută – whisky (în engleza scoţiană), respectiv whiskey în engleza irlandeză şi americană – nu se ştie exact.

Totuşi, probabil că trecuseră sute de ani de când începuse să fie fermentată, distilată şi băută până la prima atestare documentară (Irlanda, 1405).

S-ar putea scrie tratate întregi despre cauzele pentru care s-a inventat whisky-ul şi motivele care au dus la râspândirea sa. Remarc câteva – două mai evidente, altul mai bizar.

În primul rând, lipsa vinului. Clima insulelor britanice nu prea favoriza creşterea viţei de vie, iar nici comerţul de masă cu o astfel de delicatesă timp îndelungat.

Secole întregi, vinul nu se afla decât în biserici şi pe mesele nobililor lorzi, dar nicidecum nu era atât de accesibil precum în societatea de consum de azi.

Un alt motiv al răspândirii meşteşugului a fost desfiinţarea monahismului în Anglia, în timpul Reformei lui Henric al VIII-lea.

Daţi afară din mănăstiri, călugării au răspândit în lume tehnologia de preparare a acestei licori obţinute din fementarea cerealelor, asupra căreia avuseseră monopolul.

Să ne mirăm că Reforma şi Protestantismul au prins atât de repede pe meleaguri britanice, dacă monahii aveau astfel de preocupări neduhovniceşti?!

În fine, cred că cel mai important motiv de răspândire a whisky-ului a fost inventarea alambicului (1826).

De atunci, industria scoţiană a whisky-ului a continuat să crească, lăudându-se cu miliarde de £ (GDP) aduse la bugetul UK, ba chiar şi cu angajaţi mai productivi decât cei ai băncilor.

Greu de zis dacă de la whisky se trag cele 4% din cazurile de cancer cauzat de alcool în UK, dar alcoolul pare încă o afacere de succes în Scoţia, deşi contestată de unii.

Profitabilă, dar pe cale să devină o victimă a independenţei Scoţiei, căci avertismenul de la Londra este limpede – prin FCO nu s-ar mai promova pe gratis băutura!

Oare or mai rămâne la fel de productivi lucrătorii scoţieni care scot produse (sticle de 750-1,000 ml) cu o valoare medie de £ 20-160?

[Pentru toate episoadele din această serie şi toate postările de pe acest blog mergi la/For all the episodes of this series, and all the posts on this blog go to: Contents/Cuprins]

The Scottish National Party may no longer be a mere curiosity [Partidul Naţional Scoţian s-ar putea să nu mai fie doar o curiozitate]

Scottish whisky, Scottish kilts, Scottish wool, Scottish golf courses, Scottish salmon and the magnificent Scottish Highlands, the delicious Scottish shortbread biscuits, and the awful Scottish bagpipes…

These were the commonest ‘iconic brands’ of Scotland, known all over the world, until May 5th 2011 – the day when the Scottish National Party (SNP) thrashed its rivals (Labour, Lib Dem, Tory) in the 2011 Scottish elections.

From this date onwards, maybe the SNP will have established itself as another ‘trademark’ of Scotland – a political force to be reckoned with, and no longer a mere curiosity.

I bet that the current ruling coalition in Britain, nor the Labour Party, were underestimating the SNP (actually, maybe they feared it!), yet to people from all over the world this Scottish Party may have not be anything serious at all.

There are smiliar pro-independence parties in other parts of the EU (Catalonia or Flanders for instance) but it seems that there is more to this SNP than just ‘rethoric’ – its minority government actually held on to power in times of economic crisis.

With 23 new seats in Holyrood (and a total of 69 in a devolved parliament made up of 129 legislators), the SNP is due to rule Scotland for another five years. The party is free to pursue further reforms that could make his country look even more ‘distinctive’ than the rest of the UK.

Moreover, the First Minister (Alex Salmond) will be able to call a referedum on Scotland’s independence, after he had to gave up a previous ambition.

There’s little doubt that the tide of dissatisfaction with Cameron & Clegg helped the SNP in Scotland, however, there must be more than that simplistic explanation.

In spite of his ‘fishy’ name, it seems that Salmond’s his politics is not as ‘fishy’ as those of other parties. Many Scottish voters – among whom my friend from the Highlands – think highly of him.

Whether this is but an illusion, it’s only for the Lord to know. I can only be a bit envious of the Scots who still hope that a man (+ party behind him) could change things for the better, while most of Europe is freezing under a thick layer of bitter disillusionment with politics.

[For all the posts on this blog go to/Pentru toate postările de pe acest blog mergi la: Contents/Cuprins]

The European Citizens’ Initiative: could it improve anything? [Iniţiativa Cetăţenească Europeană: ar putea îmbunătăţi ceva?]

As the European Monetary Union (EMU) is in dire straits, the battle for the European Citizen Initiative (ECI) is doomed to be kept out of the media spotlights.

Few Europeans, out of so many burdened with earning a living in a more and more hostile economic climate, know that this ECI is about giving them a chance to forward law proposals directly to the European Commission.
.

Even fewer of those few who are aware of this innovation made possible by the Treaty of Lisbon care about whether this invention will ever be brought to life, and if it will ever prove to be an effective tool of participatory democracy.

Most of the people I know (including readers of this blog) are more likely to be part of the ever growing ‘skeptical camp’… Thus, they would probably exclaim something like the following, bewildered with my naivety:

“What participatory democracy?! There’s no such thing in the EU! Can’t you see that it’s all some sort of couch-potato democracy? How can you be so stupid not to see that all decisions that matter are taken behind closed doors?”

“What faith can you still have in the EU or in democracy in general, when you see the MEPs asking for an increased budget, when the eurocrats recently had their pay rise confirmed by the European Court of Justice?”
.

On the spot, while under the heavy bombardment of such questions, I admit that one can hardly find much to say against such a diatribe, sprung from the embittered hearts of so many people. Politics has gravely disappointed many people in the EU.

If dialogue with such decidedly ‘anti-EU’ people would still be possible, I’d first say to them that I don’t put faith in any human construction. How could anyone have faith in earthly institutions, and not in the Maker of all things visible and invisible?

Maybe this is precisely what explains their disillusionment… People all over the EU put all their faith in this ‘paradise on Earth’ that allows us to abort millions of children, to live carelessly, and enjoy benefits that Americans couldn’t dream of.

But the piggy bank of the Welfare State is now broken. Having fun till in the late 20s, retiring in the early 60s, having holidays abroad every year, choosing not to work if staying on the dole is more convenient may slowly become a thing of the past.

A golden age of hedonism may be over. It wasn’t (exclusively) the EU’s merit while it lasted, nor it is EU’s fault because it’s no longer possible. A day of reckoning has come, and we should thank God for this chance of coming to our senses.

On the other hand, I would also admit that both in the old EU (EU15), where people had decades of benefits from being part of the Union, and in the newer EU (EU12), there are objective reasons for citizens to feel confused, irritated, and disheartened.

They are witnessing a widening gap between the EU elite and themselves, the ordinary people. Much of what’s on Brussels’ agenda may not be on the citizen’s agenda and vice versa.

Yet this is what the ECI could do – bridge the gap. Wouldn’t it be an interesting to see people (not so many: one million) being able suggest what should become law in the Union? It may not work wonders, but it could prove useful.

Keeping all politicians under a (healthy, not paranoid!) presumption of guilt, some of those who know about the ECI have noticed immense pressures from governments, and quite possibly industrial lobbysts, to make it as ‘useless’ as possible.

Initially, gathering signatures was supposed to take no more than 12 months, from a 1/3 of EU’s Member States (9 countries). Now, the draft bill refers to more time available, 18 or even 24 months, and to fewer countries – 1/5 of 27.

That makes 5.4 countries, but I hope they will reasonably solve the dilemma, without having Belgium split or Scotland secede from the UK to make up for the 0.4 :-)
.

Another barrier against an effective ECI is the request of several governments want that each signer should provide the number of their ID card or passport number. This is a requirement that would radically decrease participation.

For fear of not having their data collected many people would probably give up the idea of supporting a proposal. According to an ECAS survey, up to 66% of those required to put their ID number on a ECI could refuse to sign.

The battle against deterrent restrictive conditions for the validity of a ECI is carried out these days in the European Parliament, and those favouring a ‘citizen friendly ECI’ are asking their support for this petition.

It’s pointless to complain about the democratic deficit in the EU, while not trying to address it. Hardly could the ECI turn almost 400 million Europeans of voting age into politically-conscious citizens like the Swiss, but why not try to have a say?
.

A petition which could one day turn into a ECI is the one that asks for a complete ban of GMOs in Europe. That would be a great victory against a huge army of transatlantic lobbyists, wouldn’t it?

.

[For all the posts on this blog go to/Pentru toate postările de pe acest blog mergi la: Contents/Cuprins]

How differently England and Scotland voted [Cât de diferit au votat Anglia şi Scoţia]

It is not for me to explain here what a ‘hung parliament’ is, as long as so many specialists have been doing this since the historical UK Elections of 2010 of last Thursday.

.

I only like to draw attention to how severely split the vote was, and to how the Tories appear to be ‘forbidden’ in Scotland.

.

The fact that the Scots (as well as people of Northern Ireland and Wales) have so different preferences than the English should be worrisome.

.

Few other countries offer similar examples, and I would note the Ukrainian presidential elections (January 2010) and the Iraqi parlamentary elections (March 2010).

.

These are both rather disfunctional democracies, and as a ‘fan of Britain’, I’d certainly not want to see the British democracy take that rather secessionist path.

Therefore, I dare asking here: is such a split vote the sign that the union between England and Scotland is about to crack? Do the 2010 Elections boost the chances of an independent Scotland?

[For all the posts on this blog go to/Pentru toate postările de pe acest blog mergi la: Contents/Cuprins]

An independent Scotland: a stupid dream or a chance for better? [O Scoţie independentă: un vis stupid sau o şansă de mai bine?]

On Scotland’s Day, the Scottish National Party (SNP) probably thought of making a ‘pleasant surprise’ to the people of this country. The Scottish Executive anounced that, by next November 30, a referendum for independence will be held.

The two politicians in charge of the devolved Scottish Government – both with rather ‘fishy’ names: Alex Salmond (First Minister), and Nicola Sturgeon (Deputy First Minister) – seemed delighted to give the news to the country.

These two leaders – whose biographies show they are decent ‘provincial politicians’, with a ‘big plus’ for Salmond, who seems to be a staunch anti-abortionist (part of the ever shrinking group of pro-life political leaders in Britain) – appear so satisfied with their decision…

…as if all problems of the people living in Scotland could be miraculosuly solved in an independent country!

…as if the ‘chains’ which keep Scotland ‘enslaved’ by the Westminster Parliament and Government is the first and foremost concern of the Scots!

…as if the last obstacle staying in front of this dream coming true was merely the cost of the referendum – £ 9 million!

Unworthy of trust as polls can be, there’s a recent one claiming that only 20% of the Scots want to live in an independent country, while 32% want it to remain part of the UK.

Interestingly, 46% want increased powers for the Scottish Executive, therefore, given a well-ochestrated campaign, the Scots could (hypotetically) say YES to independence.

Although I met at least two people (with an age difference of some 55 years between them !) who would agree with independence, for most other Scots whom I talked to such a decision wouldn’t make sense.

In my view, only if a Tory Government would push the UK out of the EU or I-don’t-know-what kind of economic catastrophe struck England (but Scotland couldn’t be immune to that, could it?), would the Scots vote for independence.

One of the pro-independence lobby's arguments states that if Scotland received its geographical share of Norh Sea oil revenues, it would have a budget surplus of £ 800 million, unlike the budget deficit it has to deal with these days.

More money at one’s disposal often brings only bigger problems, and no genuine solutions. Does Scotland have better politicians than those whom the entire Britain sent to the Westminster Parliament?

[For all the posts on this blog go to/Pentru toate postările de pe acest blog mergi la: Contents/Cuprins]

The end of Scottish dream of independence? [Sfârşitul visului scoţian la independenţă?]

As someone who felt very good in Scotland, without necessarily becoming a fan of the Scottish separatists, I wanted to start a whole new serie dedicated to this theme. As a ‘neutral’ foreigner, I honestly couldn’t take sides, although I am – theoretically – against separatist movements.

Could an independent Scotland be a viable state?... Would it be accepted as the 28th member of the EU?... What an interesting PhD research would make to compare Kosovo’s independence with that of Scotland, wouldn’t it?... Would all Scottish regiments be withdrawn from UK military operations abroad?... How would the English and the Scots share the revenue from the oil in the North Sea?... What would happen to the Scots in the Westminster Government or to the English people living as far northwards as the Scottish Highlands?...

I would have had dozens of questions like these, if the UK Government hadn’t bought and important percentage of shares from the Royal Bank of Scotland and Bank of Scotland/Halifax. Many people say (click here, here or here) this is the demise of the Scottish (foolish?!) dream of independence, that we are now witnesssing a dead cause which is awaiting burial.

If only some of my Scottish friends (of whom I know only one who regularly checks this blog :-) could post their opinions here! A full series of posts regarding a (possible, yet not very likely even before the current crisis) independent Scotland seems to have died… But did this political ambition also suddenly die, once these two banks were taken over? Or was it stillborn from the start?

Is the Scottish motto – seen in the image above at the entrance of Edinburgh Castle, and which could be translated as ‘No-one provokes me with impunity’ – but a memory from times of yore? I am personally afraid so… but let’s see if any Scot would post a comment here, trying to prove that Scotland will fight back :-)

[For all the posts on this blog go to/Pentru toate postările de pe acest blog mergi la: Contents/Cuprins]