Month: December 2006

DNA: it doesn’t belong to you, you know…

[Alex]

Say what you will about George W Bush but his approach to civil liberties has been no worse – or, at least, little worse –  than Tony Blair’s.  Typically, the Labour administration in Edinburgh wants to bring Scots law into line with English practice (for reasons of control-freakery only), and start storing DNA samples taken from innocent Scots.

As Gerald Warner, perhaps the most dyspeptic conservative in Scottish journalism (a sellers’ market, to be sure), notes in today’s Scotland on Sunday:

At present, police databases in England hold the DNA profiles of 1.14 million innocent people – a practice forbidden under Scots law. At present, we can congratulate ourselves on living under a legal system more respectful of civil liberty than in England. The Scottish Parliament should be fighting to maintain that situation.

Instead, perversely, Labour proposes to use its control of Holyrood to demolish the defences of Scottish personal liberties and harmonise our laws with those of England, as in pre-devolution times. South of the Border, the DNA of 3.46 million people is stored in police records, the highest number in the world – more than in Putin’s Russia. That is an embryonic police state.

[Hat tip: David Farrer at the splendidly named blog Freedom and Whisky]

The future for Scottish conservatism?

[Alex]

It is always worth reading Matthew Parris, even when one disagrees with his conclusions. So every conservative politician in Scotland and England should read his most recent column. Do the Tories want to be on the winning or losing side of history? All precedent suggests the latter, but there may be hope…

If a people are treated like children, we must not be surprised if their politicians do not always play politics like grown-ups. Until a people start visualising themselves as a country — not just in the realms of the patriotic imagination, but at the practical level of tax, law and administration — there will of course be a romantic unrealism, and a negativism too, in the attitudes they strike.

But rather than bewail its aggression or pick at its obvious inconsistencies, we Conservatives should consider the possibility that separatist politics in Scotland appeals to something real and deep in the electorate: a need that cannot be answered by scorn, or wished away.

If we sense this, we must ask ourselves a second question: can Conservatives, consistently with our own principles, try to answer this need in a way that reconciles it with our own hopes for Britain? I think the answer to both questions is “yes”. A Conservative vision of the Union could be of a deep and permanent alliance of equal nations within a common economy, each with the dignity of self-government, each raising taxes for what they did alone, and sharing taxes for what they did together. The disparities in population between England and Scotland will be fatal to this structure only if we want them to be. Other federations and unions take such problems in their stride.

Scotland: a lost cause or merely unwon?

[Alex]

Humble apologies, gentle reader, for the lack of posts from these parts. The information superhighway, it turns out, is potholed in the Scottish Borders. No matter.

The question is, then, the old one: stands Scotland where she did? Well, no, not quite.

Next May should be a time for celebration. But it remains to be seen whether we lament the end of one old song or welcome the chance to play a new tune. Is the end of Britain – long forecast, never quite delivered – finally upon us?

Cautiously one may say “perhaps.” Opinion polls show that the Scottish National Party – a rare left-wing nationalist party – is poised to become the largest party after next May’s elections to the Scottish parliament. The SNP is pledged to hold a referendum on th eindependence issue within four years if it comes to power in Edinburgh. Those ame polls report that 51% of Scots support going it alone.

May also marks the 300th anniversary of the formal Act of Union between Scotland and Edinburgh (the crowns were united a century before, in 1603, when James VI of Scotland succeeded Elizabeth I of England – the first move in what might fairly be judged the most sucessful reverse takeover in politcal history.) Might this anniversary also mark the final nail in the Unionist coffin?

The SNP has a history of surging once or twice a generation. But there are signs that its tide is running stronger this time. For one thing independence is increasingly popular amongst young Scots. for another the performance of Labour in power in Edinburgh (and London) has been enough to scunner any right-thinking patriot.

And some o them really are right-thinking. The most interesting development recently is the emergence of a strain of conservatism prepared to embrace independence. Historically the idea of independence has won hearts not minds; now it is the Union’s turn to be on the back foot. The Union has history and sentiment on its side, but common sense and a harsh pragmatism make independence seem like the coming idea. Just 20% of Scots see themselves as being primarily “British” – down from 38% in 1979. 78% of Scots now say “Scottish” “best describes” their nationality.

One example of this: the argument has moved on to what sort of Scotland we’d see post-independence. In one corner there are those like the exiled Scots historian Niall Ferguson who see a sad, shrivelled country that has abandoned even the memory of its glory years. Scotland, he quips, is “the Belarus of the west.”

Ferguson – like many Scots in exile views his native heath with great ambivalence (a sentiment not so often shared by exiles from other countries, in my experience). Certainly surveying the solidly-statist, rock-solid consensus that prevails in Scotland one’s forced to fear that there might be 20 years of appalling government before prosperity and progress returned. (The Scottish conservatives – who would fit solidly into the Democratic party in the United States – are considered dangerous radicals when, that is, anyone remembers to consider them at all.)

On the other hand, the maverick Tory historian Michael Fry recently wrote a Prospect Magazine story urging conservatives to accept that independence is likely to happen sometime and therefore they should try and steer the debate in more fruitful drections.

Why is this happening now? Well Fry rightly notes that the end of Empire is a crucial component (he might add that the EU offers a sanctuary for those Scots wary of “going it alone”):

The end of empire is one, because Scots had invested so much in it and got so much out of it and because, once it ended, their confinement inside Britain with a bigger and stronger neighbour suddenly seemed much more stifling. If postmodern doubts have made multicultural England less confident of its national traditions, in Scotland they have reinforced a small-country nationalism which never died away, even at the high noon of union and empire.

Will independence come this year? Perhaps not. But will it come? Yes, I think it will. These will be interesting, tubulent times in Scotland. It’s far from clear what all the consequences of this will be for Scotland and England alike.

Not quite a eulogy

[Clive]

"The Ford epoch did not banish a nightmare. It ended a dream‚Äîthe ideal of equal justice under the law that would extend to a crooked and venal president. And in Iraq and Indonesia and Indochina, it either protracted existing nightmares or gave birth to new ones." Ignoring the old maxim about not speaking ill of the dead, Christopher Hitchens launches an onslaught against the ex-president’s reputation.

Awol

[Clive]

Apologies for the lack of posts on Saturday.  I took my family to London for the day, and by the time we finally got home I was too exhausted to string a sentence together.

A word of warning to theatre-goers: if you happen to have tickets for the much-acclaimed National production of "Coram Boy", go with your expectations set at a modest level. That way, you won’t be disappointed. Although the cast is very good and the Handel extracts are lovely, the story really does drag. I suppose we might have enjoyed ourselves more if we hadn’t been in the cheap seats – the Olivier is way too big for most of the plays I see there – but I doubt it. Frankly, I hate the whole building. All that concrete would look fine in sunny Arizona. In London? Forget it.

Saddam’s fate

[Clive]

Good to see Greg Djererjian finally back in action after technical problems at his site. I don’t agree that it would have been a good idea to put Saddam Hussein on trial in the Hague (I’ve already stated my preference) but Greg makes his case with his usual clarity, and through him I also discovered John Burns’ excellent piece on the legal process as a whole:

Quickly, he [Saddam] fixed his gaze on the handful of foreigners in the court, and I had my own moment of anxiety when it came to my mind that he was intent on remembering the faces of the non-Iraqis that were there to witness his humiliation, perhaps to get word through to his lawyers, and then on to the insurgents, that we were to be punished for our intrusion. It was only later, after I learned what he had been told before being taken from his cell to the court, that I understood that our presence meant something else to him entirely, that with foreigners present, he was not going to be summarily hanged or shot.

Not that the dictator’s end was entirely dignified, of course.

Sic semper tyrannis

[Clive]

From Albert Speer’s prison diaries, October 16, 1946:

At some hour of the night I woke up. I could hear footsteps and indistinguishable words in the lower hall. Then silence, broken by a name being called out: "Ribbentrop!" A cell door is opened, then scraps of phrases, scraping of boots, and reverberating footsteps slowly fading away. Scarcely able to breathe, I sit upright on my cot, hearing my heart beat loudly, at the same time aware that my hands are icy. Soon the footsteps come back, and I hear the next name: "Keitel!" Once more a cell door opens, once more noises and the reverberations of footsteps. Name after name is called. To some of these men I was linked by common work and mutual respect; others were remote from me and scarcely crossed my path. Those I feared, primarily Bormann, then Himmler, are missing; likewise Goebbels and Goering. Some I despised. More footsteps. "Streicher!" A loud, excited exclamation follows. From our floor comes a shout: "Bravo, Streicher!" To judge by the voice, that is Hess. Below, the calling of names goes on. I cannot estimate the time; it may be taking hours. I sit with clasped hands.

[Picture: Franco Pagetti/Polaris]

“Old” books of the year

[Clive]

The blogger series continues with two more choices. First up is the always outspoken Stephen Pollard, newspaper columnist, political biographer and newly installed president of the Brussels-based think tank, the Centre for the New Europe.

Toole1I’ve just re-read John Kennedy Toole‚Äôs "A Confederacy of Dunces". I’m not a great fan of fiction, so the fact that I must have read it at least twenty times probably says as much about me as it does about the book.  It is, by quite a long way, the greatest novel of the twentieth century (a judgement based on the most profound of all criteria ‚Äì near total ignorance of the relevant material).

I won’t reveal the "plot"; if you haven’t read it, drop everything and do so NOW. The gist can be gained from the derivation of the title, which is Swift’s epigraph that: "When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him." Toole is a Dostoevsky for the modern age. His book explains politics, democracy, welfare, family, education, society and life. It is, to use a much-overused word, truly a work of genius.

And here’s the selection of Iain Dale, leading Tory activist, TV pundit and purveyor of inside news from Westminster.

Nixon_1Richard Nixon was one of the finest political writers of the twentieth century. I first read "In the Arena" in the early nineties; it inspired me to explore all of his other books. In this semi-autobiographical work, he talks about what it takes to be a politician who can make a difference in the world. Whatever his failings, his words both inspire and entertain. He has a lightness of style which is untypical of politicians of his generation. Too many people close their ears to him because of Watergate. They are missing out on a literary and political treat.  He has a lot to teach us, if only we are prepared to listen.

In defence of John Edwards

[Clive]

A reader responds to Professor Bainbridge’s criticism:

To say that Edwards took no "pro bono cases" is a half-truth at best. Every case a trial lawyer like Edwards handles is taken on a contingent basis. That means the lawyer takes no money from the client up front. In fact, the lawyer normally funds all the costs of the case from his own pocket. Those costs can run into the millions of dollars, all being funded by the lawyer and with no guarantee he’ll get any of it back.

So the "no pro bono cases" remark, coming from the Washington Times, is intentionally misleading. Every case Edwards handled is "pro bono" in the sense that he asks for nothing from the client up front. Or to put it differently, a lack of funds does not prevent poor people from gaining access to the legal system – the classic definition of "pro bono."

But the irony of the remark from the Washington Times goes beyond that. Right wing publications like the Times frequently object to the contingent fee arrangement because it gives people too much access to the courts, thereby (in the view of the right wing) resulting in spurious litigation. For the Times first to criticize trial lawyers from making litigation too easy and then criticize John Edwards for not taking "pro bono" cases is laughable.

Just to add one point. Perhaps my introduction wasn’t clear enough, but some of the e-mailers seem to think I actually wrote the Bainbridge post. (Similarly, although I ran a libertarian’s book choice the other day, it doesn’t mean I’m a libertarian. I have no idea who I’d vote for in 2008 – if I had a vote, that is. My interest in trench warfare politics is at an all-time low right now.)

Incidentally, I’ve been asked what happened to my co-bloggers. I’m not sure, to be honest. As soon as I have news, I’ll pass it on.

UPDATE: Edwards isn’t quite in the clear, according to this reader:

I’m sorry, but the response to the effect that John Edwards’s contingency cases are, in effect, "pro bono" is simply laughable. A lawyer works pro bono when he has no expectation of receiving his customary fee. A lawyer works on contingency when he expects to receive his customary fee (or higher) at the end of the case. The client in a contingency case still pays the lawyer, the payment just comes from the client’s recovery. Some contingency cases do end up being pro bono, but that’s a function of bad case selection, not an intention to provide for the public good.

I’m a contingency lawyer and I would never have the temerity to suggest that my cases qualify as pro bono work when I report my pro bono activities to the state bar.

None of the above should be taken as a defense of Bainbridge’s knock on Edwards to the effect that Edwards should have taken more pro bono cases during his legal career.  Most lawyers (even very successful ones) don’t take on much pro bono work because their areas of specialization are not relevant to the type of legal representation required by the vast majority of indigent people.  A mergers and acquisitions attorney is going to do a poor job of representing a tenant in a dispute with a landlord and even a highly accomplished civil litigator would not be my first choice as a defense attorney in a criminal trial.