Why Nationalists Should Be Liberals

**This is not terribly well written. It's an idea I had in an airport, while tired and delayed, and haven't really explored it yet. Feedback of any sort is more than welcome**

The only excuse for nationalism (of any sort) is the need for self-determination. It’s a bold claim, maybe, but it’s one that I think stands up to scrutiny. Other excuses for nationalism are less admirable and consist of traits ranging from xenophobia to selfishness.

Arguments offered in favour of nationalism are often little more than cries to the tune “we deserve to be better off than they do”, at which point it becomes prudent to ask “who are they and why do you deserve better?” If the “they” the nationalist speaks of are people of a different skin colour or gender or some other obvious visual cue, mainstream politicians and media (and the majority of the public, while not all) have the good sense to call those opinions what they are – racist, bigoted and dangerous. Perhaps these are the most dangerous nationalists, and I wouldn’t wish to have them in my Party – these people have the BNP. But, there are others.

It might not be obvious, but when a nationalist says the group they claim to represent deserves better their thinking might just be territorial. They might not care what skin colour you have, or some other visual cue, but rather wish to discriminate based on geography. You are not from my area therefore I do not want to support you (regardless of whether people-not-from-their-area actually support locals). I have sympathy for anyone who makes this argument on grounds of language – I don’t think I’d be taken too kindly to if I moved to France, refused to try to learn to speak French and then complained at my misfortune when trying to find a job and so on (although this argument only holds if I chose to move, not everyone moves by choice). This argument is often as arbitrary as the BNP-style arguments. Just because it takes more information than what a person looks like to decide if you like them, doesn’t make the decision any less bigoted if it is still a decision to discriminate for entirely arbitrary reasons. These are also people I do not wish to have in my Party, they have UKIP for this sort of BNP-lite option.

You might wonder what kind of nationalists I wish to gesture to with this post, then. The kinds of nationalists I mean are those who seek self-determination. It is at the very heart of liberal thinking that we each as individuals have as much of a right as any other to determine for ourselves what lives we should lead. However, this does not mean we believe in some sort of anarchy. There are benefits to be had from living in a community – a pool of resources and skills which makes living life easier. This pool can be enlarged so we have more than a community, but a community of communities, at various levels. To say you no longer want to be a part of a community in search of greater self-determination is to give up all the benefits and pitfalls of one system for all the benefits and pitfalls of another system. Instead, take the third option. Allow all those powers which should be devolved to be devolved to the appropriate level whether it is to a national, regional, local or community level. Each policy area will be best implemented at a certain level, by which I mean will provide individuals the greatest amount of self-determination. And if self-determination really is your wish, and not nationalism of the second sort I outlined, then it seems this is your only option.

ROYAL WEDDING OMGZ0RZ!!!1!1!1oner!!!

That this story is front page of the BBC News website, and undoubtedly will be making the front pages of many news papers, really gets at me. Why is the fact that some rich guy is getting married to some rich girls so news worthy?

A list of more newsworthy articles on the site which have been bumped in favour of massaging the egos of the super rich, benefit claimants (just to appeal to the Doily Mail readers out there):
Payout for ex-Guantanamo Inmates
Eurozone Facing 'Survival Crisis'
Young Carers Deserve More Help
UK Inflation Rates Rise to 3.2%
Stem Cells Used in Stroke Trial

These stories are all of infinitely more importance to the public, given that these are things which might actually affect them. Which brings me to my real gripe with the whole scenario.

The wedding might affect the public. The only way it will actually do that is if the Government are left footing the bill for what is sure to be a jolly good show of pageantry and wealth. Wealth which, of course, is not their own.

Budgets in all government departments are being either cut or increased at rates less than inflation. In real terms, everything is being cut. It's not good times. There are people who will be getting married next year, paid for with their own hard earned wages. There will be people who wanted to get married next year who might have to put things on hold because they can no longer afford to, maybe they lost their job as a direct or indirect result of cuts. The royal family have no worries. If they run out of money they just need to ask the government for more. They claim more in benefits than any asylum-seeking-drug-addict-terrorist-paedophile. If the government are going to start capping housing benefit theirs should be the first.

We're all in it together? I bloody hope we are.

What Prison Is (Or What It Should Be).

I've got an interest in political philosophy. As a result, or perhaps my interest is the result, I also have an interest in what exactly we mean when we talk of liberty and freedom.

They are both somewhat emotive words, inspiring great civil movements and clouding judgement in (probably) equal measure. Talk of liberty and freedom ultimately results in talk of rights - basic human rights, civil rights, entitlements, positive rights, negative rights, the list goes on. In a society which chooses to dress up like a democracy, the right to vote is seen as one of the most important.

Which brings me to what made me want to write this in the first place.

The guy who wrote the first article is Richard Grayson. As I read the article he almost had me convinced prisoners should be given the right to vote, but upon reading the article again I don't think I can really accept his argument. Let me tell you what I read his argument to be:

1 - Either, prison is primarily about punishment or it is about rehabilitation.

2 - Prison is primarily about rehabilitation.

(2* - The Lib Dems agree with 2.)

3 - Giving prisoners the vote will help rehabilitate them.

4 - So, we should give prisoners the vote.

(4* - So, the Lib Dems should take up this issue and give prisoners the vote.)

I have two problems with this. Firstly, will giving someone a vote in the general election, people who generally don't use it outside of prison, really help educate and rehabilitate them? My answer is no. It might be a useful tool, but it isn't a necessary one. Young people can learn the importance of their future vote and of politics without actually having it. The disenfranchisement of many prisoners starts long before they enter the prison system.

Secondly, and perhaps more fundamentally, the claim that prison is either primarily punishment or primarily rehabilitation is a polarisation that needn't be made. It is a polarisation that is divisive and as such is dangerous. Prison is neither a carrot or a stick. Prisons are (or should be) a frame in which people are presented the option of chasing the carrot, either for the carrot's sake or for fear of the stick.

Prison is a controlled environment in which we can restrict liberty as a punishment by removal of rights. The most obvious being the right most commonly thought of as liberty - freedom of movement, but not limited to this. I would argue in favour of removal of all rights except the most basic - right to life. All rights which can be removed can also be returned, except that right to life. Once we remove it we cannot resurrect that person.

The reasons I chose this somewhat extreme position are simple.

The restoration of rights is vital to how I see prison as a working example of punishment as rehabilitation. I suggest good behaviour rewarded incrementally with restoration of rights and granting of opportunities for personal development. Prison is not a place I recommend equal opportunity other than the equal opportunity for opportunity, it is imperative that reward system is a meritocracy. Each prisoner will value each right and opportunity to a different degree; the most effective rehabilitation must be tailored to each person and packaged as a reward scheme. A meritocracy is best assured by starting everyone in the same position and granting rewards, like the restoration of rights, as it is merited and as they are valued by the prisoner. One man's heaven is another man's hell is the cliché which springs to mind, but it is true. What is a carrot for one man is rich tea biscuits to another. We need to make sure carrots are available to everyone.

Prisons are becoming colleges of crime, and the way to ensure they are less so is to limit the amount of freedoms the lecturers in crime have to conduct their classes. Ensuring only those who have shown a willingness to change, or who recognise their previous actions are mistakes, have these freedoms would ultimately tackle the current high test scores at HM Colleges (by which I mean re-offending).

We shouldn't approach the subject of prisons, or any problem, as a black and white issue. To approach a problem in such a way is to almost definitely get it wrong. Giving fair consideration to both sides of the argument and finding a solution which utilises the best of both is part of why I am a Liberal Democrat. I don't like being told that being a Lib Dem means being radical for radical's sake.

Science and Journalism.

This sort of story irks me. IRKS me.

It's no wonder many people can believe in evolution and the divine when evolution and the science behind it is so inaccurately reported. I don't believe the writer of the article is this silly, Victoria Gill is a science journalist. She probably know's her stuff. I'd be willing to bet that the breadth and depth of her knowledge surpasses most people.

Headlines like "Plant sends SOS signal to insects" are nothing short of an attribution of mentality to the plant, implying the plant has chosen to send a signal. One, or a few, of the plants mutated an advantage and the advantage meant those plants with it could succeed in a way others without the advantage could not. It did not decide it needed back-up from insect-marines to eliminate the evil caterpillar threat.

Further into the story, there is a quote from Silke Allmann, "Why the larvae would produce such an apparently [disadvantageous chemical] in their saliva remains to be determined". This hinting at the principle of evolution while simplifying it for the public, would you guess, irks me.

The reason the larvae produce such a chemical is because it is not such a disadvantage. The larvae do not choose to produce the chemical any more than we choose to salivate at the thought of our favourite foods. They produced it once, it became an advantage at the time and it has since to become a species threatening liability. What the advantage is might become known, or it's effects are now neutral, in some sort of natural equilibrium - but it is not such a disadvantage that the species are under threat. Even so, if they were under threat because of it, they would not simply choose to not produce it any more.

Journalism has a responsibility to report the facts in an accurate manner. With science and statistics it so often fails to do this.

Dissertation: A beginning.

So, kind of like a log of my dissertation efforts, or maybe a "diary"? As well as this I'll hopefully still blog a wee bit - I have some interesting ideas on constitutional reform I'll (maybe) get round to posting later.

As for now, I just want to get down the basic ideas for my dissertation which will be something along the lines of "Can contract theory explain why ethics seem objective while they are in actual fact subjective?".

My idea came from reading Mackie and thinking about Rawls' Original Position. The one big criticism, and apparently something Rawls himself accepted and admitted he had intended, was that the Original Position argument was very much biased from the get-go. The thought experiment was set up in such a way as to favour outcomes Rawls himself would openly support (subjective outcomes). The thought experiment was to give Rawls a way to justify his bias with the original position, which would equate his subjective ideals with those of some objective, unbiased individual behind the "veil of ignorance". Setting up the veil at all requires subjective principles, so the veil and the position and any conclusions reached behind it, are all objective so long as they comply with the subjective rules set up.

This objection to Rawls is something that can be seen (although probably not intended) in Mackie's Error Theory. Mackie suggests that while an objectivist can accept that morality is subjective between states/cultures/sub-cultures, they would argue there is a base moral rule which would suggest that morality is that set of rules ("morals") which comply with whichever set of moral rules is the norm for that state/culture/sub-culture. The objectivists' most basic moral rule is performs (roughly) the same function as the Original Position thought experiment. At least I think it does; this is no doubt an objection I'll need to pre-empt when writing the dissertation.

This is the thought process that brought me to a place where I thought "there might be a dissertation in this...". So I'm left wondering where I am actually going to take the argument. The one choice that is clearest at the moment is "can we use the objection against Rawls to defend Mackie and in the process explain why we might see morality as objective while having to admit morality is subjective in nature?"

Bedtime.

Sepp Blatter and the Prisoners of Bloemfontein

Like Sepp Blatter, I don't like the idea of goal-line technology in football.

More accurately, I don't like the idea of limiting technology to the goal-line. What is the argument against technology used by Blatterites? "We very much appreciate the human side of the game, the debate, the controversy, that's why the board has taken this decision", was the answer given by Patrick Nelson of the IFA, Northern Ireland's football association. Have you ever heard anyone argue in favour of something because the enjoy getting it wrong sometimes?! They verge on the religious with their dogmatic stance. You can imagine when they were deciding whether to implement goal-line technology Blatter's argument against; "we cannot allow this witchcraft to seep into our pure game, and corrupt the minds of our children. Please, think of the children!".

An argument can be made that constantly checking replays would ruin the flow of the game. Anyone who makes that argument is making a statement which has something verging on absolute truth. Anyone making that statement is also refuting an argument which no one is even making. No football fan enjoys a slow, laborious pageant of inaction and non-events and this is why no football fan will seriously suggest allowing every single decision to be challenged - no one has an interest in challenging throw-ins at the half-way line.

That is why, about 3 or 4 years ago, I suggested we use the same system as they do in tennis. By this I don't mean we necessarily opt to use the HawkEye system used for replays, but their rule structure. Allow the referees decision to be challenged. Three challenges might be too much or too few, so obviously trials would be required to find an amount of challenges which allows the game to flow but also minimizes the number of mistakes the referee and his assistants can make without it having serious impact on the game.

Can anyone challenge the referee? Well, no, that would be stupid. A challenge would be a responsibility and would probably be the role of the captain or even the manager. If you challenge and you're right, you retain your full quota of challenges, if you get it wrong then you are docked one from your quota of challenges.

Imagine we give the right to challenge to the team captain (for talking's sake), and a terrible decision is made. Now imagine the captain has used his full quota of challenges - oh no! No challenge can be made, the erroneous judgement stands but this time we stop complaining about the referees (referees get it wrong sometimes, they're only people!). This time, we ask ourselves "why were there no challenges left?" and all of a sudden there is an extra side to the game and it's players. All of a sudden the captain comes under scrutiny for his mishandling of the challenges and what Patrick Nelson of the IFA calls "the human side of the game, the debate, the controversy" is as big a part of the game as ever.

Imagine a game where the debate and controversy would centre around those it is supposed to centre - the players - and not those guys in the middle who are supposed to be as invisible as possible.

My kingdom for a budget.

So the budget, eh?

I've been watching the budget live on ITV and now some follow up on BBC. Interesting reactions all round. ITV were doing insta-math as Osborne was giving his speech, and as each proposal came out they put it into their system and we saw how much worse off each person would be; single-mum, low income family, middle income family and the pensioner. Interestingly the pensioner worked out as being £5 per year worse off, the difference between single-mum and the families is just as interesting.

Obviously VAT is a terrible tax, there is no debate on whether it is terrible, but let's remember what has been done to limit the damage of this tax; specifically the increase in income tax allowance.

The single-mum was £20 per year worse off. The low income family (earning roughly £15000p/a) was approximately £220 worse off and the middle income family (earning between £40-50,000p/a) would be approximately £480 worse off. I can only imagine how much worse off high income families/individuals will be. Because of the £1000 increase in the income tax allowance, the impact on those worst off (the pensioner and single-mum) has been, in all honesty, next to nothing. £20 a year works out at about 38p per week. Is the single mum really going to miss a mars bar per week?

I don't think it's as terrible a budget as some (read "Harriet Harman") might want you to believe.

A case for the green economy.

My exams are getting right in the way of writing something worthwhile...

Do it second and do it better. I heard that line on Dragon's Den once. It was some east-London geezer who seemed a bit like a less-fortunate Alan Sugar with a website who said his dad had told him that whatever he does, he should do it second and do it better. It sort of makes sense, I suppose. You might think that being first is more commercially viable - look at Sky after all. But Sky as we know it now was second, and their first attempt (technically their second attempt) failed massively with astronomical losses. Going green has already been done, so why isn't there anyone doing it second and doing it better?

There's a real case to be made for so-called green investment. I'm not a really motivated by environmental arguments, although I should be. I'm motivated less by pollution and more by how it just makes sense to heavily invest in green technology. Look at the set of things we know about the future; we will run out of fossil fuel, we will not stop using cars and electronics and from these two we can deduce that we will need something to replace fossil fuels. Business opportunities like this never come along.

Markets are propelled up and down by pure speculation, why isn't such a guaranteed opportunity being embraced by the country as a whole? When we started to need oil, and when it was found in abundance in the middle east, do you think the locals hesitated before throwing up their rigs? We have an abundance of tidal, wave and wind power. I hear your objections, "what about the environmental impact, foo'!" (I don't include "they look horrible" as an objection. Would you rather wind turbines or open-cast mines and nuclear power plants?)

Two things seem to broadly inspire innovation. War, because we all want to survive, and material rewards, like money. Since no rational person wants a war (nor would it promote green tech), and the other broadly applicable one is money, it seems like the potential rewards are enough to get someone innovating wind turbines that don't kill bats.

Barring some alien gift of free, clean, unlimited energy technology the only thing we can be sure of is that we will need green technology. Spotting a need in the market is something that is very commercially rewarding. Its development and manufacture are something we should be very much embracing.

Progressive Electioneering

I should point out I'm a paid up member of the Liberal Democrats now. I would have liked us to do a deal with Gordon, but then I'd like us to do a deal with any party that isn't as regressive as the Conservatives with their entitlement mentality. I done some math earlier and because Sinn Fein never show up to parliament, the winning post is only 323 - the exact number of combined Labour, Liberal and DUP MPs. I hope Clegg takes Labour up on their gesture toward coalition and maybe we can get some real proportional representation through.

I like PR. It's fair. Everyone should have their say, even if it is disgusting (hiya, BNP). Labour and Conservative would probably see their vote share shrink to the benefit of the Liberals, Greens, Socialists, Nationalists and the lesser of evils UKIP. Coalition governments aren't a bad thing, they are the norm in most progressive societies. My claim isn't that their good because other people do it, it's more that they are good because other people do it and it works. Germany, New Zealand, Japan, Sweden. They all make it work.

A wee thought. If we accept parliament is too big and we reduce it to 500 seats (251 for a majority) and bring in PR, we would have seen the following results:

Conservative: 180

Labour: 145

Liberal: 115

Other: 60

And that's when people think a Liberal vote is a wasted vote. I can only imagine the heights we'd reach if people thought their Liberal vote actually counted. Maybe we could eat into Conservative and Labour votes... I can't imagine the other two coming out of a PR election with vote shares quite so high.

Dae it

Immigrate, integrate, repeat.

Watching the debates last night made me think about my immigration opinion. The rise of parties like UKIP and, more worryingly, the BNP makes it even more important. Writing my opinions down on this will be hard, seen as my views are more coherent than foundational. They don't really rest on one premise, rather my argument rests on history and the lessons we can learn from history. Deciding where to start on this topic isn't easy.

Aristotle saw the birth and growth of the city-states like Athens and Sparta in a fairly natural way. He thought that tribes would come together and form villages, those villages would come together and form trading relationships and as they grew would form towns. Subsequently those towns would grow and those in closest proximity to each other would eventually form the Polis (city-state).

It makes me think about Scottish history. Clans that fought, then came together under different celtic, pictish and other kings. They fight and then they have a common enemy and come together and eventually they form a country which eventually becomes the Scotland we know today.

With all this in mind, I can't help but think borders are completely arbitrary. When UKIP and BNP members and supporters talk about the flood of immigrants taking their jobs, why do they think it is any worse for someone from India to take a job in your area than it is for a local migrant, someone from Glasgow say, to take a job in London? I imagine that not too long ago people in Glasgow might have complained about people coming from Kilmarnock and "taking their jobs".

I expect the answer to that point will be that the local migrant is just that, local. They are from the same country. I would like to ask then, what is so special about being from this country? Does it make you a better person? They can't honestly claim that locals are more consistently morally righteous. The only advantage I can honestly see a local person having over an immigrant is that they speak the language and have immediate experience with the culture.

For practical reasons, easier running of society and for efficiency in the workplace it seems obvious they should speak the language. I can't help but feel ignorant when I go abroad and can't speak the local language, and that's only a holiday. If I were moving abroad I'd definitely make an effort to learn the language.

Who would I stop coming into the country then? Well, I'd be much more liberal than we already are. I would require two criteria be met - they speak English, and have no criminal convictions. We don't want to look after criminals we don't have to, we don't ship our criminals abroad so we should have the right to expect other countries don't try this with us. The language thing for reasons explained above. The culture thing I don't see as incredibly important, they'll come to be familiar with it eventually.

Another Liberal Democrat!

We all agree with Nick. Awesome.

Marry me, Mr Government?

The Tories and their marriage policies, eh?

At the moment I'm not really concerned with their exact plans for marriage tax breaks. My concern is why a government, any government, interferes with religious rituals and sacraments. I believe in a separation of church and state, but let's actually explore what that means.

A separation of church and state means that the church, or some other religious institution, should not have undue influence (that is, disproportionate influence) in deciding policy. It also means that particular churches or religious institution(s) should not be the basis for creating law (choosing one particular institution is at best arbitrary and at worst the result of dogma). What it does not mean is that the law and lawmakers will cease to respect those with religious beliefs or religious institutions.

With this in mind, I start thinking about same sex marriage and then marriage in general. Most liberals would demand that same sex marriage be permitted and that the state offers this in the same way it does to heterosexual couples. I could not disagree more. It's not that I don't think the state should offer equal treatment, it's that I don't think the state should offer anything other than civil partnerships. It would be silly to suggest the state could offer baptisms, bar mitzvahs, communion or some other religious rite or sacrament so why should they offer this particular sacrament?

We can avoid the whole argument over same-sex marriage if we leave that particular decision up to individual churches, mosques and synagogues. By doing this we can let each individual community decide who get's "married" while allowing anyone not recognised by that community the recognition of the law. It means the non-religious among us don't have to engage in a religious ceremony. It also means those who do not believe in marriage but who are in a happy, committed relationship can have access to the same legal benefits currently provided by marriage (not necessarily tax breaks, but even the mundane things like speaking for a partner over the phone when dealing with utility bills etc). The marriages permitted by individual institutions would still be recognised by the government, who those institutions permit to be married is up to the separate communities.

We might anticipate the following argument against this position; if we are trying to promote equality, then are we not shooting ourself in the foot by allowing some communities to treat their members unequally? This seems like a fair objection, but consider the reply. These communities are allowed to treat their members unequally, because the members are not obliged or forced in any way to be a member of that particular community. The gay couple who want to be wed and who are members of the congregation at a particular church (which does not permit same-sex marriage) are not forced to be members of that particular church. By remaining a member of that church they consent to the unequal treatment. If they do not consent to this treatment they can join another church which would permit their marriage.

The law has no place interfering with the beliefs of individuals, where it does have a place is making sure the beliefs of one group of individuals do not interfere with the beliefs of another group.

A concrete paradox.

I don't know if this paradox has been covered elsewhere, I do little (if any?) research on the ideas I have. I prefer to dive right in and see what I can come up with on my own.

I was talking through a conversation in my head, between me and a friend. I was thinking about getting old and making plans for the future and how our attitudes influence these things. I was told growing up that my attitudes would change. I can only guess this is because as we get older we have new experiences, we have more time for introspection and can come to form new beliefs. It seems like a pretty good description of how our attitudes are formed and behave. So I'm left thinking, should we think that no attitude is concrete?

It doesn't seem to be outlandish to suggest that no belief is concrete. If we do think that no attitude is, or should be, concrete it seems we have one very obvious question: is the attitude that no attitude is concrete actually a concrete attitude. If it should happen to be a concrete attitude, then we find that the attitude (that no attitude is concrete) is actually incorrect. If it is not a concrete attitude, then we find that we have no concrete attitudes and so the suggestion that all out attitudes are not concrete seems concrete and plausible.

Answers on a postcard?

Reform and Representation

I'm watching Thursday's Question Time from Glasgow. Among other stuff, they're talking about lobbying and how there are seemingly agencies who, for a fee, will set up meetings with politicians and their "clients". I imagine clients would be those captains of business who need and introduction to someone with power and stuff like that.

Anyway, this all got me thinking. We live in a democracy (let's not be cynical about whether or not it's actually an elective dictatorship or anything). More specifically, we live in a representative democracy, which means those who take part in the decision making do so by means of representing those who vote, the electorate. Their job is to translate the vote of the people in their constituency into a vote in Parliament (which is why I'm not big on party politics).

The politicians are choosing a life of representation which means they cannot pursue a career or maybe have to give up a career in the private sector. Since they cannot get a wage elsewhere it seems reasonable they should be compensated and given an appropriate salary, resembling what they would be earning for roles of similar responsibility and ability in the private sector.

Now think of the non-rigid way we would think of "the MP for Cathcart" versus the rigid "Tom Harris", things paid to the MP for Cathcart should be treated differently to the way we treat those things paid to Tom Harris. Tom Harris is to be compensated for giving up the prospect of a career in the private sector, the MP for Cathcart has made no such sacrifices and here we can start to really see the distinction (I'm using Tom Harris/Cathcart as an arbitrary example, nothing should be taken as directed at Tom Harris specifically). I would make the argument that they should be treated differently based on the fact that the MP for Cathcart is contingently Tom Harris, it is not necessary that they are the same thing.

The office of MP for Cathcart is an office constituted of at least two things; the people who vote for their representative and the actual representative. Tom Harris is constituted of only himself. It seems clear to me then, that is money paid to Tom Harris goes directly to the constituents of Tom Harris then the money and gifts paid to the office of the MP for Cathcart should go directly and equally to the constituents of the office of the MP for Cathcart, namely Tom Harris and the people who elected him.

How this would be implemented, I've not really considered. But it's a nice thought when we're thinking about constitutional reform.

The age of (criminal) consent.

Unavoidably, this case has brought a lot of tension out into the public sphere.

I was just about to go to bed after finishing all my essays, and thought I'd check the news before I went to sleep. I decided to check out the "Have Your Say" bit on the BBC News website over the Children's Commissioner's comments about raising the legal age of responsibility. It's obviously quite an emotive issue, but reading some of the comments people have left on the Have Your Say blog has left me considering a few things.

First:

It looks like a lot of the people posting are guilty of using synonymy in an argument (and using it badly) and as a result equivocation. There's quite a few people who are using the words "know" and "understand" as if they are actually synonymous. Never mind that you can't use synonymy in an argument (here's why I think so). Let's consider for a moment what "know" and "understand" actually mean.

It doesn't take a lot to know something. When I was 5 I knew 1 + 1 gave the result 2. Before I ever even thought of going to school I knew if I let go of something, say a crayon, it would hit the floor. If you are told that "X is right" and "Y is wrong" often enough you will come to know these things (epistemology questions aside, lets just say its a justified true belief).

I don't know when I actually started to think about numbers as an abstraction, or when I learned why the crayon hit the ground, but I know it wasn't until I had this extra information that I really understood why I will have two tokens of that type of thing when I take one of one thing and another of the same type of thing. It wasn't until I learned about gravity that I really understood why the crayon wouldn't just hit the ground, but the ground would hit my crayon.

A 10 year old might know what they are doing is wrong, but they're also told that not washing their hands after they go to the toilet is wrong, that lying is wrong and that it's bad to drink dad's beer. I think it's a really big shout to say that most, never mind all, 10 year olds actually understand why what they know to be wrong is wrong.

Second:

It's cool to be right-wing these days. I'm probably more right-leaning on things like justice than most of my friends. I think punishment should be punishment, and there's no excuse for the leniency in modern prisons. I'm not saying we go back to turning a crank for 12 hours a day or anything, but lights out is lights out. It's good enough for the army boys it's more than good enough for prisoners.

Back on topic, though. Some of the right-leaning posts (most of the posts) seem to forget what the justice system actually is. It is not a system for revenge. In all honesty, what the victim feels about it is absolutely irrelevant. It is a system for punishment, deterrence and rehabilitation. We're doing okish in one of those three.

If we based the justice system on revenge we'd be no better than organised crime syndicates. Victims of crime have two roles after the crime, to report it and to give honest testimony so the nature of the crime can be objectively judged by peers and (obviously) a judge. Victims have rights so far as they shouldn't be subjected to further trauma - hence giving evidence via video link etc. The only time the emotions of the victim or their family actually matter as regards justice is to ensure they are made to suffer no more than they already have.

A victim's feelings can vary wildly from victim to victim and depend on the crime and offender. You might judge a person unreasonably harshly because of some unsultry, unadmitted racist, sexist or other bigoted disposition. You might decide "he looks like a right manky, jakey bastard, give him 2 years", maybe all he done was steal the £3.50 bus fare you were counting out on the street and knocked you over unintentionally when running away. This is all because he has been homeless since his house burned down and he has no insurance and lost everything and was an otherwise upstanding citizen. There are worse examples.

Our continental cousins (who suffer few of the problems we do with our youth) have ages of between 12 and 14 for criminal responsibility. Could we not take a lesson from them? A point worth noting though, in Scotland it is being moved to twelve from eight.

Third:

Let's be analytical here and look at what those against this change in the law are committed to saying.

If, universally, a child as young as 10 is old enough to reliably and consistently make moral judgements, then due to the often complex nature of these judgements they are also capable of making relatively simpler judgements. They are old enough, then, to assess things like a war and so those opposed to a change in the law are committed to also supporting the use of child soldiers.

If, universally, a child as young as 10 is old enough to reliably and consistently make moral judgements then those opposed to a change in the law are committed to a lowering of the age of consent. Perhaps Argentinian or Mexican consent laws are more to your taste.

If, universally, a child as young as 10 is old enough to reliably and consistently make moral judgements then they are old enough to leave school, get a job and emigrate. But aren't we all in such an apologetic mood recently regarding child migrants.

Lastly:

There was one post I liked, by a user called "sparradic"

"I think the age of criminal responsibility is too variable per individual child to pen down to a specific age.

Some children are aware of their actions at 10 and others, quite simply, are not. When I was a child I would have said 14 was a more realistic age because the world, for children, was a more innocent place back then.

There are also other factors, some children are not aware they are doing wrong because of the environment they have been brought up in whereas others know they are doing wrong and continue to do so anyway".

Maybe we should think about sparradic's last line, a challenge for the naysayers of criminal responsibility law reform:

"It is difficult but surely there is some means of validating the age of criminal responsibility on an individual case by case basis."

The Religious Problem

Not wrote in a while. Put that down to a certain Immanuel Kant and his dire attempt at explaining moral motivation. Writing ethics essays has had me involved in thinking about what Michael Smith calls "The Moral Problem".

There seems to be two distinct features morality, that moral judgements are both motivating and objective. We often do things because they are the right thing to do, it's why most of us don't commit murder. We seem as well to think that things like murder or rape are universally wrong, that they are objectively wrong (However, that these things are subjectively wrong yet universal is only improbable, rather than impossible). A third inconsistency rises from David Hume's proposition that beliefs cannot motivate on their own and that we require an accompanying desire. This is all superfluous though, I'm concerned with a different inconsistent relationship.

My problem is with the relationship between free will and what some people would call destiny. Destiny, when not being used in whimsical Hollywood productions is most commonly found in religion. I don't pick a particular religion, they're all equally guilty of taking a fancy for God's plan. Although some atheists might think that if we could trace the path of every subatomic particle we might be able to predict exactly the choices you, I or they might make at any given time, this is not what I am concerned with - although my argument might be of use to those opposed to the calculating atheist.

It seems a common feature of religion (at least the Abrahamic faiths) that we ascribe free will to humans - it's why we got kicked out of the Garden after all. It seems just as common that those same religions explain bad things by saying it's all part of God's plan. Actually, saying bad things are God's plan seems like a pretty good defence in the face of the problem of evil and, rather topically, the problem of natural disasters. Some might say that natural disasters are the result of the best possible way the world we know and love could be constructed, I find this argument weak - isn't God supposed to be all knowing and infinitely capable of using his knowledge. He made the physical laws, so if he couldn't create a perfectly disasterless world because of those laws he could just change them.

Let us consider then the problem of God's plan. If God has a plan which he believes in enough to end the lives of those caught in natural disasters, and God is rational, God will have made the world in such a way that his plan comes to fruition. If you accept the contingencies of the butterfly effect (chaos theory, not the movie) then every little decision matters and will have to be planned for in such a way as to promote the outcomes desired as part of the afore mentioned plan.

If we have free will on the other hand, then God's plan is redundant. If God's plan involves person P dying in natural disaster N at time T, then having free will contradicts God's plan. P might use their free will to go to the place of N at a time earlier than T, or delays it and subsequently cancels after realising they would have died in N.

We can try to reconcile this, maybe God plans for our choices. God knows what choices we will make. Like an awesome psychiatrist, God is supposed to know us better than we know ourselves. But a religious person who maintains we have either free will or that God has a plan cannot reasonably submit to this position. If God plans for our choices in advance, if that is the only possible outcome, then we have to admit we have no free will. If God can see our choices in advance when creating the world and creates it in such a manner to coincide with both his plan and what we see as choice then it is not really choice at all and merely an illusion.

What is the religious person to do - give up free will or give up God's plan? Giving up free will would most likely be easier for religion. Giving up on God's plan leaves the religious person seeking a new answer to difficult questions like natural disasters. To atheists, and myself, it seemed like a cheap get out of jail free card the whole time anyway, but now I can put my finger on why.

What's the point?

Again? Seriously?

Often when people discuss terrorism, especially western governments, they'll say its a waste of time; terrorism doesn't work. Is that a lie though?

I'm usually fairly sympathetic to the things that make terrorists do what they do. These people (normally) aren't psychopaths, they do have some strange moral code, but they don't do what they do and think it's wrong. Terrorists often believe they are doing something right, but I don't think you can make any sort of serious argument that killing someone or some group of people is actually a right thing to do.

It might not be right to kill people, but that doesn't mean it won't work.

Every time terrorists have achieved something or influenced change it has been with political or public help. The Irish Republican Army were only successful in that there was a public will for an independent Ireland. The provisional Irish Republican Army were only successful in encouraging change in that there was public dissatisfaction with the British presence in the six counties, not universal, but some public dissatisfaction which in turn creates a political will.

Nelson Mandela, who was a terrorist by any modern definition, was successful because of the public dissatisfaction which existed and the political will he created.

The latest dissident republican attacks probably won't work. I don't think there is a public appetite in Northern Ireland for more bloodshed - from either side of the divide. There is certainly no political will to support these attacks. At best they'll achieve nothing (and hopefully no one else will be killed) and at worst they'll ruin all the progress that has been made.

What is the point?

Shagger got fucked up.

Allan McGregor got in a fight, eh?

McGregor as we all know is a huge character over at Ibrox, the fans love him and he's often a target of abuse from rival fans - probably because he's actually a decent 'keeper. I used to not care about McGregor either way until his Scotland shambles. I don't really have much time for him now. Here though, I must come out in his defence. Maybe I actually think more of him after hearing this story, until we get more detail anyway.

There's not much to go on for detail other than the story in the record. However, unless he actually started whatever "incident" he was in this time he should be lauded for being out on that fateful Saturday night. There's much more we don't know here than we actually do know about the situation surrounding the incident; he was alone, he got X-rays to check for fractured eye sockets and cheekbones and Walter Smith is angry are about the limits of our knowledge on this one.

But wait, we also know he was at a party for a Celtic player. The Record's Rangers source has said: "Walter Smith was not happy. He is incredulous that any Rangers player, let alone one with Allan McGregor's reputation, would present themselves at a party for a Celtic player, with all the potential for chaos that involves."

I will take for granted that McGregor was attacked without provocation. Wouldn't the Rangers manager be better taking an approach along the lines of "It saddens me that my player can't go to a party without being attacked, either because he attended a party for a player from our local rivals or because he attended a party for an ROI under-21 international"

In the event the incident was nothing to do with the party, we should at least take the opportunity to show to that section of narrow minded Old Firm fans they are out of touch. It's always been the case that Old Firm players have had some sort of off the park friendships, but here we have one of Ibrox's favourite sons attending a party for the other half.

I want to ask Watty, why does it matter that he presented himself at a party for a Celtic player and not just for a friend?