The name says it all.... but hardly. I mean, what does the name "Edinburgh" really say about the city, other than the fact that it's European? Well, Edinburgh is the capitol of Scotland, seat of the Scottish Parliament, home to Edinburgh Castle, the University of Edinburgh, a monument for Sir Walter Scott, Waverly Station (which, although decent on the inside, has a horrid draft in the cold months... well, the warm months, too, I suppose), and the Dunedin Guest House, which is the B&B that I stayed in.
Whilst in Edinburgh, I got to eat at a lovely Japanese restaurant that served halfway decent food (that I was not partial to, unfortunately, but the ambience was nice) and wonderful lemonade. I also ate at the Chocolate Soup sandwich shop, which was great, although I don't recommend the white chocolate hot chocolate; it just doesn't taste the way hot chocolate should, and that's coming from a fan of white chocolate.
The Palace of Holyroodhouse, on the east end, or bottom, of the Royal Mile (a long road that goes through Edinburgh connecting the Palace of Holyroodhouse on one end to the Castle of Edinburgh on the other) was amazing... very Queenly and full of historic British (it's funny... it took me 8 tries to get the word "British" spelled right just now)(crap... now I forgot what historic British thingy it was full of) beauty and stateliness. I also toured the gardens and saw the Holyrood Abbey, which was lovely even in its states of erosion. The Palace of Holyroodhouse sits in a great location, looking up the Royal Mile at its front, and to the side, Arthur's Seat can be seen framed against a breathtaking Scottish sky.
At the other end of the Royal Mile, there is Edinburgh Castle: a wondrous castle of intense beauty and age sitting atop a long-extinct volcano, right in the centre of the city. Unbelievable, isn't it? Any trip to Edinburgh cannot be completed without a visit to the castle, and that's all I'm going to say.
Enough has been said about Waverly Station and I don't feel like writing anything about the Scott Monument, so...
The Dunedin Guest House just outside the City Centre of Edinburgh is a great little Bed and Breakfast with wonderful owners, a certain Mr and Mrs David Wright. He is a retired teacher from a university somewhere north of Edinburgh, and a graduate of the University of Edinburgh. As for her, I was never told, so I couldn't say. The room (that I stayed in) was very nice and had a great view of Arthur's Seat and the south of the city. Breakfast, which was complimentary, was very well done (not in terms of how cooked it was, but how well prepared and served) and tasted delicious.
I have one last thing to say before bed:
I'm terribly interested in politics (especially British ones), so visiting the Scottish Parliament was really terrific for me. It sits in a contemporary modern building, which has apparently been controversial in Edinburgh; to tell the truth, I was expecting a great stone building of neo-classical design built several centuries ago or something. You can imagine my surprise upon seeing the building that's there. I got to go inside and see a live debate (or more of a Q&A session) between the ruling Scottish National Party Secretary Minister and his opponents, as well as supporters. I personally hate the Scottish National Party, but that's just me. I stayed for twenty minutes, and I found it very interesting, but at the end of that period, my rather non-politically inclined mother stated that she just couldn't stay awake, so it was time to leave.
I actually have one more thing to say, and that's about the University of Edinburgh, but it'll have to wait till tomorrow.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
The Scottish Independence Party (SIP) doesn't have any representation in the Scottish Parliament and it is definitely not the ruling party here in Scotland. I suggest that you check the facts on Scottish politics before making uninformed comment after all you did write '...I'm terribly interested in politics (especially British ones)...
Clearly whatever I've got to say is substandard to what you're writing (I had a look at your blog), and I realise my mistake. The Scottish National Party which is ruling a minority administration in the Scottish Parliament is quite similar to the SIP (SNP, SIP... everyone makes a mistake. They both want independence, after all). Forgive my writing of that late at night after a long day on a noisy train next to a family of screaming three-year-olds. I thank you for allowing me to correct my error, but next time, rather than bagging on my for screwing up, just tell me what I did and give my a chance to fix it.
Sebastian,
After reading your comment I'm inclined to think that you've perhaps been the victim of a different political culture. Possibly in California the 'rules' of the political culture presume that an individual be given the opportunity of fixing an error. Here in Scotland the political culture can be very blunt and direct as well as having a 'no prisoners' style. By the way you describe Waverley Station as having 'a horrid draft' which was probably diplomatic, over here the phrase 'wind tunnel' would probably be used.
But of course you're right...
And I should have realised that, having grown up with my Scottish grandfather, who is quite blunt, on any topic. My mom makes fun of him for being like that.
Well that cleared up nicely. I was following this guy's extremely politically-inclined YouTube videos, and some of the comments people made on it turned into arguments between each of the comment posters that literally went on for 3 months. Tiring to follow, but it was really interesting. The kid who was posting the videos was giving questions to the '09 presidential candidates on the issue of gay marriage (he wanted to know if they would move out of the dark ages and allow it), and the people who commented on it were really, really in two totally opposite mindsets. It's amazing to me that people who are so different can be ruled by a single, extraordinarily powerful man. I'm guessing it's kind of the same issue in the UK. The very different cultures all being ruled from Westminster. And, of course, that's why the Irish fought so hard for their freedom.
And I'm not saying that what I had posted was nearly as controversial or whatever as gay marriage or a retard president, but....
okay now I've lost myself.
And by the way, all the evidence in your comments leads me to the conclusion that you live in the UK, and in doing so, experience the wonders of the NHS. Could you tell me really whether it's as good as Michael Moore makes it out to be? I would love for it be, but people have told me that it does have flaws that he was careful to leave out. You don't have to tell me this, if you don't want to, but it occurred to me that I probably wouldn't have another chance to ask someone who knows first-hand for a while.
Sebastian,
The NHS definitely has flaws. Some of them are trivial, others have their origins with the way in which some of the services to the NHS were privatised years ago(the presence of superbugs) but probably the most controversial matter is what is called a 'postcode lottery'. This is the situation whereby a medication or medical treatment is/are available in some health boards but not in others. There have been cases where people have had to go abroad to receive treatment either because of the 'postcode lottery' or the treatment/medication is just not available in the UK. One issue that is particularly controversial is that of free health care for the elderly here in Scotland. That is because it is a devolved matter and is therefore within the remit of the Scottish Parliament which doesn't go down well in other parts of the UK - especially in England e.g. Kelso and Coldstream are on either side of the River Tweed and are less than 10 miles apart, Kelso is further south than Coldstream but because of the border Kelso is in Scotland whereas Coldstream is in England.
I can see the problem there. Another reason for England to want its own parliament, I suppose?
Well, even with those problems, would you say that the NHS is better overall than the US system of privatised health care?
I wouldn't say better because its not a case of comparing like with like. However I would say that I prefer a health care system that does not discriminate on the basis of personal wealth. At some time in our life we all need medical care - no one should be denied access to medical care because they are on a low income. Most illnesses do not distinguish between wealthy or poor.
As far as an English Parliament is concerned I am all for it. I can think of no reason why Scottish MP's at Westminster should be able to vote on purely English matters while no Westminster MP's can vote on matters which are devolved to Scotland (Section 28(7) of the Scotland Act 1998 not withstanding).
Thank you very much for your input. This is helping me a lot.
With regards to the English Parliament, there was an article discussing that subject in the Economist a few months ago, and it really didn't give an opinion either way, but it said that if there was one, Westminster would be left with little to do. It also said that it could speed up a break-up of the union, which it (the Economist) is against. What do you think about that? That newspaper made it sound like England and Scotland would have more as one nation than they would separated.
Sebastian,
Firstly, I've been a member and activist in the SNP for nearly 33 years. I think that the 'Economist' and several other international magazines, when it concerns the constitutional situation in the UK, try to avoid taking a specific stance and remain generally neutral. The press in the UK, however, are not so objective. The press in Scotland have for years, with an occasional relapse, been very hostile to the subject of Scottish independence - even when a rational case is presented to them (a glaring example of political tunnel vision). Recently I have noticed from various blogs that the press in England has been really stirring things up. A lot of the 'posts' are clearly anti - Scottish but there are also signs that people who have been taken in by irresponsible press articles are beginning to see through the deliberate misinformation. The most appalling example of the nastiness of the Scottish press was the front page of the 'Scottish Sun' on 3 May this year. The UK Parliament would have very little to do if there both Scottish and English Parliaments and given the historic, cultural and political differences between the component parts of the UK a federal structure would only exacerbate these differences.
How do you think Scotland would benefit from being completely independent? At the moment, no one is denying the fact that Scotland is every bit as individual as England, or Ireland, for example, and they're not saying that Scotland is England's junior partner or anything (some would argue otherwise, what with Scottish MPs currently able to vote on England-only issues in Parliament). Scotland also has its own national sports teams, and, although Scotland is not recognised in the European Parliament as a nation, it is represented as a European constituency, independent of England, with its own MEPs representing it. Now that it's got a Scottish Parliament, what more does Scotland need? Is total independence really necessary for you to achieve what you want (which, now that I think about it, you haven't told me specifically, so I can't really know)?
And if Alexander Salmond called for a referendum on Scottish Independence by 2010, first, would you support it, and, second, would the Scottish population support it?
I'm not trying to bring down your ideals and beliefs... I'm just trying to see where you're coming from. Until now, all I've had to get an idea of what is good or otherwise was from articles in the Economist and the Independent, which isn't necessarily bad, but they don't quite cover all sides of a story.
Sebastian,
With regard to your last comment I hope this will give you an idea of 'where I'm coming from' -
There are numerous ways in which independence would benefit Scotland, or perhaps Ishould say the people of Scotland. As an independent nation Scotland would have the ability to make decisions for Scotland's needs e.g. interest rates could be determined for Scotland's economic interests whereas currently the Bank of England sets interests rates that are more suitable for the economic climate in South-East England. There is a perception in some quarters that Scotland is financially dependent on England and that any mistakes can be blamed on Westminster. Independence would unequivocally put an end to that as it would be clear that Scotland would be responsible for its own mistakes and therefore that no-one else could be blamed. Access to all tax revenues, at present the Scottish Parliament can only vary income tax by three pence in the pound, would also enable the prioritisation of public expenditure on the needs of the people of Scotland and not on trying to make pretentions about being a world power by possessing and deploying a WMD, the so-called deterrent weapon - submarine launched Trident nuclear missiles. There are some independent countries throughout the world which were once part of incorporating or personal unions. There are no such countries that would prefer to give up their independence to resume such a former union.
In the Scotland Act 1998 section 28 concerns Acts of the Scottish Parliament, sub-section (7) states -
'This section does not affect the power of the Parliament of the United Kingdom to make laws for Scotland.'
Section 29 concerns legislative competence and sub-section (1) states -
'An Act of the Scottish Parliament is not law so far as any of the following paragraphs apply -
(b) it relates to reserved matters,'
Given that reserved matters are detailed what 28(7) clearly means is that the UK Parliament retains the power to make laws for Scotland - even on devolved matters. As a British Conservative MP said many years ago -
"Power devolved is power retained."
In the European Parliament the allocation of seats to each member state is based on a principle called 'digressive proportionality', so that while the size of the population is taken into account, smaller states elect more MEP's than would be strictly justified by their population alone. The distribution of these seats, however, is basically upto the individual member state. A breakdown of the population and MEP numbers for representation in the European clearly shows that Scotland is penalised for being part of a larger member state e.g. Denmark has a population of about 5.4 million and 14 MEP's, Republic of Ireland has a population of about 4.2 million and 13 MEP's, Scotland has a population of about 5.1 million but only 7 MEP's and at the next European elections that could be reduced to 6. At present there is more power in the European and Council of Ministers than there is in the European Parliament.
If there were to be an independence referendum at any time I would support independence. Currently it is probable that the population of Scotland would not support independence, so a referendum on independence would most likely be lost - but that's democracy and people do change their minds. Scottish constitutional law is very clear - sovereignty rests with the people. In a legal finding in 1954 it was stated by Lord Cooper that -
"The principle of the unlimited sovereignty of Parliament is a distinctively English principle which has no counterpart in Scottish constitutional law..." -
MacCormick v Lord Advocate 1954 (1953 SC 396)).
Since the Treaty of Union in 1707 came into force up until the establishment of the Scottish Parliament in 1999 the legal effect on Scottish constitutional law was that it had merely been unavailable. English constitutionalist Professor Vernon Bogdanor writes -
'In the last resort, all arguments against the referendum are also arguments against democracy, while acceptance of the referendum is but the logical consequence of accepting the democratic form of government.'
Here are a few sources in case you decide to do some research -
'Scotland: The Shaping of a Nation' by Gordon Donaldson, ISBN 0 7153 6904 0
'Scottish Historical Documents' by Professor Gordon Donaldson, ISBN 1-897784-4-41-4
'Independent and Free: Scottish Politics and the Origins of the Scottish National Party 1918-1945' by Richard J. Finlay, ISBN 0 85976 399 4
'SCOTTISH INDEPENDENCE: A Practical Guide' by Jo Eric Murkens with Peter Jones and Michael Keating, ISBN 0-7486-1699-3
'SNP: The History of the Scottish National Party' by Peter Lynch, ISBN 1 86057 004-6
'FREEDOM OF INFORMATION (SCOTLAND) WEB LOG','FOI request reveals truth about Scotland's oil' (http://foisa.blogspot.com/2005_09_01_archive.html)
Scottish National Party, www.snp.org
Michael,
Thank you very much. I greatly appreciate everything you've told me, and the time you've put into it. All you've said has been very enlightening.
-Sebastian
Post a Comment