Am speeding on the East Coast Express towards Scotland, and have just finished skimming through the Scotsman. Shock story of the day, Bonnie Prince Charlie painting in the Scottish National Portrait Gallery is not Charles Edward Stuart at all, but his younger brother Henry.

The portrait painted by French master La Tour has hung in the National Portrait Gallery since 1994. It is also the face that Scotland associates with the hero of the 1745 Jacobite rebellion, the romanticised Stuart contender for the throne returned from exile in France. In an embarrassing turn for the National Galleries of Scotland, it seems now that the impression Scotland has had of Charles Edward Stuart has to also be changed.

The argument had been dragging for the past two years, when London art dealer Bendor Grosvenor claimed the painting was of Prince Charlie’s younger brother, Henry. The Scottish National Portrait Gallery defended the painting citing Dr Edward Corp of the University of Toulouse.

It seems now that Mr Corp has changed his mind ..

It was thought that the painting was of Charles Edward Stuart, because the man was wearing armour. Henry, was a Catholic cardinal, and would not have chosen to wear armour in such a painting. However, it was revealed that Henry WAS painted by Le Tour in 1745, when he was leading a naval expedition to support his older brother Charles with the Jacobite rebellion in Scotland.

Oh well. What an embarrassment.

But the image of ‘Bonnie Prince Charlie’ for many Scots doesn’t change. He is still the romanticised figure who returned from France to lead the Jacobite rebellion of 1745, challenging Hanoverian rule of Britain. He was nicknamed ‘The Young Pretender’ after his father James Edward Stuart, who set up a shadow government in Paris with the aid of French King Louis XIV.

The Jacobite Rebellion failed when the army of Prince Charles decided to return to Scotland, having reached Derby in England only 125 miles from London. Charles’ military advisers decided the army should return based on a fictitious report of an English army closing on them. Charles, out voted in the war council, reluctantly led his army back to Scotland.

This came shortly after English Tories pledged their support should Charles reach London, and supporting French forces were assembling at Dunkirk across the Channel. The retreating Jacobite army lacking united leadership, was heavily defeated at Culloden near Inverness by Government forces in a historic battle that resulted in the outlawing of the kilt, bagpipes, and Gaelic language in Scotland. This was a heavy blow for Highland culture.

Bonnie Prince Charlie fled through the Highlands, and across the sea to the Isle of Skye, where he boarded a ship to France, to be never heard of again.

Had Charles Edward Stuart succeeded, Britain would be a very different place.

At precisely 12:07pm, the Guardian wrote in their Political Blog: “A colleague has been looking at Geoff Hoon’s file. He claimed for £44.02 for a slow rice cooker and a “health grill” from Comet in January 2009.”

What a joke. Does anybody actually care?

Is it not odd that the leader of the Scottish Nationalist Party is accused for using a simple image of a girl carrying the Saltire through a wintry landscape for his Christmas card? Critics complain of Salmond politicising Christmas. Gone are the days when Christmas cards for politicians used to be a simple festive requirement. Salmond described the image as ‘enchanting and evocative’. Quite so if you ask me! I find it borders on desperation to accuse Alex Salmond of using this image for his Christmas card. The proceeds of the sale of the painting used for the Christmas card will also go to four different charities.

On that note, I am off for a spot of Christmas shopping myself.

David Cameron scored some points with the media during his recent tour in Afghanistan, which seems to have received positive coverage. Reports speak of Cameron visiting the troops, bustling markets, as well as a wheat distribution centre. However, things are not as rosy as they seem. Cameron said that British troops were unlikely to return home soon, and that he was not willing to pledge himself to an artificial timetable for withdrawal. It seems a candid, honest approach to the war in Afghanistan, and not influenced by the public scepticism towards the war. He also pledged to double the £2,400 bonus that soldiers receive when they return from a 6 month tour of duty! Sounds like a nice package to me! After all, many have argued that there is not enough respect and gratitude for British troops abroad. In one report, a soldier complained that the only time he would ever be on TV would be if he were to ‘return in a coffin’.

The Afghan war has claimed the lives of around 240 British troops. When will we see an end? It seems that the ‘to do list’ is far from complete. Amongst the tasks? Train and build up an Afghan army that can enforce law and order, and prevent a Taliban insurgency. But more importantly, an efficient and reliable Democratic system has to be built. Judging by the recent Presidential elections in Afghanistan, this is proving to be an arduous and tedious task, and nation building was not as easy as we thought it would be.

It seems that our boys will not be home for Christmas. Obama has pledged a surge of 30,000 US troops along with Coalition reinforcements. David Cameron is mostly happy and in support of these recent developments. With the odds stacked in favour of Cameron becoming the next British PM, it is not surprising that this was has been dubbed by some as being, ‘the war without end’.

After three years of International Relations at university, I still find it difficult to pin point where I stand on different issues, and to discover my central beliefs. International Relations was not exactly helpful, because it focused more on the question of how to build better and more peaceful relationships between states. It stayed clear of domestic politics and the question of how to run a country.

I could choose between Realism, Liberalism, Marxism, and Post Modernism. The problem was, it all seemed too black and white. Realism claimed the world was composed of self interested, aggressive, and competitive states. It argued that statesmen must pursue an agenda that would ensure the survival of their state within this competitive environment. In this sense, the morals of a citizen and the morals of a statesman, should be treated separately. Read ‘The Prince’ by Machiavelli, he sums this up pretty well. So do I buy this theory? Sometimes it is difficult to argue otherwise. For example, it would be foolish to disarm in a world where states are armed to the teeth. States continue to arm themselves and develop cutting edge military technology to give them the edge over their opponents. So long as this continues, it is difficult to refute Realism. On the other hand, I would love to be the Liberal. I would love to believe that states have the means to cooperate with one another and pursue diplomacy as opposed to engaging in wars. But lo and behold, in a world of war and conflict, an institution has emerged to put an end to the madness. The EU, is an example where states oddly enough, cooperate with one another and make attempts to share their resources.

Moving on, International Politics is one thing. But Domestic Politics is another. The bread and butter politics of deciding the budget and deciding which department should get an increase in spending. For example, do we spend more on education or on health care? International Relations seems a piece of cake in comparison to the shady world of domestic politics. The question asked in Domestic Politics, how should you run the country? The question asked in International Politics, how do you get everyone to get along with one another?

So the Conservatives want to give society greater responsibility and roll back the state. For the Conservatives, big government = corrupt government. I like their plans to pull Britain out of the recession through more saving, and less borrowing. It makes sense considering the ups and downs of the global market. I also like their moral conservatism, protecting the traditions and institutions of the country, such as family, marriage, and the church. Cameron seems to be on top of this. It seems that I’m only at odds with the Conservatives on one issue, the EU. But to be fair, this is also the one issue that I am uncertain about. From the perspective of an International Relations student, the EU has enabled states to cooperate with one another despite their differences and bloody histories, and this is Liberalism in practice.

I like to compare the union between Scotland and England with the European Union. It put an end to hundreds of years of bloodshed. Surely, this can only be a positive result. But, peace came at a cost. It required the dissolution of the Scottish parliament and centralisation of power in Westminster. It was like choosing the lesser of two evils, the centralisation of power, or continued conflict. Westminster for the Scots, was the Brussels for the United Kingdom. Ironically, it seems that the UK is being forced to make the same choice that the Scots were forced to make. Conflict, or the centralisation of power.

And here I come to my last point, because I have to tear my eyes away from the computer screen. The EU is the new institution that plays the role of peacemaker, being the glue that binds nations together. Surely then, if the union of Scotland and England was formed to end the conflict between the two nations, the presence of the European Union has rendered it unnecessary …

When I was last in Scotland, I was passing through Dundee. I was in the town centre, wandering about, waiting for my parents to finish with their business at the car garage. As I reached the town centre, I noticed a throng of crowds. But something was odd. Everyone was silent.

Then I noticed the funeral cars.

There were men dressed in black suits helping family members into the cars, and there were older members of what looked like the Territorial army standing to attention at the doors of St Mary’s Church, with their bugles in hand.

The mood was sombre, and silence seemed to echo around the street. I felt like I had just intruded on something important. I realised what was going on. This was the funeral of a Scottish soldier killed only recently in Afghanistan.

As the funeral cars glided along the street, the crowds applauded out of respect for the life of the young soldier. ‘What a waste of a life’ mumbled an old woman standing next to me.

When I got home, I read the news online. Sure enough, a Scottish soldier had recently been killed in Afghanistan in a rocket propelled grenade attack. His name was Kevin Elliot, a Dundonian, and he was 24. He was killed with another soldier, Stuart Miller from Inverness. They were both members of the Black Watch.

It’s odd that you hear in the news every now and then that another soldier has been killed in their tour of duty in Afghanistan. The names add up and you become desensitized to it all. But as the crowds applauded outside St Mary’s Church, I couldn’t help but feel sad for the young man and this sorry situation.

Barack Obama pledged to send 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan early next year along with other coalition reinforcements. But the Taliban remained defiant and pledged greater resistance against US and coalition forces in Afghanistan.

According to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, the Taliban replied, “This strategy by the enemy will not benefit them. However many more troops the enemy sends against our Afghan mujahedeen, they are committed to increasing the number of mujahedeen and strengthen their resistance.”

Let’s hope that this does not turn out to be the case, and that the troop surge can be the beginning of the end of the Afghanistan war.

The Calman Commission produced a report earlier in June this year to propose the direction of devolution in Scotland. This is what the report aimed to do: “Scotland has been part of the United Kingdom since the Union of the Parliaments in 1707, and its relationship with England and its other neighbours has changed over that time. Our task has been to consider how that relationship might evolve in the early part of the 21st century.”

This is an ambitious goal for the Commission which was comprised of the opposition unionist parties, Labour, Conservatives, and Liberal Democrats.

The Calman Commission aimed to “recommend any changes to the present constitutional arrangements that would enable the Scottish Parliament to serve the people of Scotland better, improve the financial accountability of the Scottish Parliament, and continue to secure the position of Scotland within the United Kingdom”.

The Commission aimed to do this without the presence or contribution of the Scottish governing party, the SNP. The Calman Commission was also treated with suspicion by many Scots. See the overwhelming response to this article published on the Commission by The Scotsman in June this year: http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/scotland/Grant-Scotland-an-overdraft-and.5327525.jp

Word on the street?

“Great scheme, or should that be scam? So Westmonster would be prepared to let Scotland run up an overdraft by lending us back the monies we have already sent South in taxes and oil revenue? Thereby, instead of using our own income to finance Scottish projects, we become indebted to London. Sounds like some kind of protection racket! INDEPENDENCE ASAP!”

So what were the recommendations of the Calman Commission? It recommended devolving the regulation of air guns, granting the powers to set speed limits, drink and drive limits, and devolving responsibility for nature conservation at sea. But these seem like bones to divert attention away from the harder hitting recommendations. These included greater tax raising powers for the Scottish government, coming at a cost; the reduction of Scotland’s annual budget of £20 billion. It also recommended granting Scotland greater borrowing powers, as well as refusing to support the possibility of Scottish control over her North Sea oil revenues. But this seems like giving Scotland a credit card to borrow money that it should already be receiving from its North Sea oil revenues, and since when has it been in the interest of the Scottish people to put Scotland at greater debt? It seems more an attempt to increase Scotland’s dependency on the union.

Critics point out that the Calman Commission has published recommendations that aim to enshrine Scotland’s position within the United Kingdom, having the same effect as digging a grave for Scottish nationalism.

When being questioned on this point, Sir Kenneth Calman, Chairman of the Commission, responded, “It might well have that effect”.

Sometimes I think that Scots have lost much of their nationalism. Though the SNP has made efforts to reignite Scottish nationalism, it seems to have fallen on deaf ears. Scots seem to be preoccupied with the drama of politics, the percentage polls, public opinion, political smears and sleaze, to remember that they have a nation to be proud of. I am lucky to have left Scotland at the age of sixteen, and to have returned years later to see that I really missed the land that I came from. The mountains, glens, the culture, the music, language, and traditions. This is what is worth preserving. Some argue that Scotland wouldn’t be able to stand on its own two feet if it were independent. Look at it now. It relies on tax money from England, and the London powerhouse, to keep it afloat. But surely, if Scots were to feel that they were part of a community, and if there were a sense of belonging, they would make greater efforts to drag themselves out of poverty, and unemployment figures would fall. Self determination would bring a feeling of ownership to Scotland, a feeling that people were in control of their own political future, and not at the mercy of their political masters in Westminster. There are so many benefits to having greater powers in Scotland, but it seems that the people don’t want it. Why? Well, Scots seem to have grown complacent, and have grown used to the economic benefits of being part of the union. What is needed, is an injection of pride in one’s nation. After all, there is a lot to be proud of. I think Scots should try living in a confined apartment block in Asia, where there are hundreds of thousands of other people living in the same square mile, and where the countryside is littered with construction sites and apartment blocks. Scots need only look out of their windows, or drive an hour or so until they reach pure beauty, serenity, and wilderness. And this is why I am proud of Scotland.

The SNP today (St Andrews Day) published their proposals for a Referendum Bill.

This would give the Scottish people the chance to vote on their constitutional future. The preferred outcome for the SNP? Independence.

It seems though that there is not enough support for independence in the Scottish Parliament. Opinion polls in Scotland suggest that only a third of the population would vote ‘Yes’ for independence.

So what are the odds for Mr Alex Salmond? Well, the Bill has to pass successfully through parliament. That’s the first challenge. Then the Scottish people have to actually vote ‘Yes’ for independence.

Critics of the Bill say that the money should be spent on the real issues, like getting Scotland out of the recession. The cost of having a referendum? £9 million.

This would have the same effect as a boy trying to push a lorry up a hill.

I say, stage a referendum, and give the Scottish people the chance to say what they think. It seems that one third of the population want independence, and the rest? Well, they’re too busy hesitating.

I was never too concerned with the European Union to be honest. But a couple of Youtube videos of Nigel Farage, and the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty later, I was forced into thinking more about it.

Is it good that we are surrendering much of our sovereignty to Europe? Is this putting our British identity under threat? Are the bureaucrats in Europe out of touch with the simple fishermen and farmers whose work is affected by regulations pouring out of Brussels?

Things now are starting to move far more quickly. The Lisbon Treaty is coming into force in December 2009, and it will give the EU a legal personality. We’re even going to see the appointment of a European President and High Representative for Foreign Affairs. What next? The creation of EU Embassies?

So, it gives me something to think about.

The Conservatives have been banging on about the evils of the European Union for a long time now. I wonder though, is giving more power to the EU a bad thing? Are we in danger of losing our British identity as we hand over more and more sovereignty to Brussels?

Now that I think about it, do I even mind if I lose my sense of Britishness? OK, maybe there was a time when we could be proud of Great Britain. It ruled the seas and we were the strongest empire on Earth. But then again, empires rise and fall, and we handed the baton to the Americans. Who’s next, the Chinese?

This is why I don’t understand Euroscepticism. I think that below the surface, there are deeper reasons for its enmity towards the European Union. It kicks and screams about bureaucracy and red tape in Brussels. It moans about EU regulations, the centralisation of power, and the Lisbon Treaty being undemocratic.

The Eurosceptics are simply an Independence movement. David Cameron reminded me of William Wallace the other day when he responded to the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty.

‘We will not let Britain slide into a Federal Europe!’

So, do I join this Independence movement or not? Do I care enough about the British identity? To be honest, I don’t think I do.

After all, I think that we’re simply getting a taste of our own medicine. The English forced the Scots into signing the Treaty of the Union in 1707, and let’s say it wasn’t exactly popular. I see striking parallels. Why is it that Euroscepticism exists mostly in England? The political agenda in Wales and Scotland is very much in favour of the European Union. If countries like Luxembourg can be independent EU countries, then why not Scotland and Wales?

So I ask, what is there to be proud of? The influence of the British Empire has dwindled, and we believe somehow that we have a ‘special’ relationship with America. But I think that we all know the Americans have us on a leash.

History has shown us that identities are forged and destroyed all the time. We used to affiliate ourselves with our tribe, until the emergence of the nation. Now, as technology and communication is improved, we’re becoming more connected and old identities are eroded. It seems to be a natural process.

We seem to be so afraid of the growing influence of China. Surely then, now is the time for European countries to come together and extend their influence on the world stage, and this is what the Lisbon Treaty is about.

I don’t buy Euroscepticism. I don’t like the way it focuses on the negatives of Europe. After all, we have not seen war in Europe for 60 years now, and the idea of war between European nations is inconceivable.

I also think that the European story is one where nations have managed to find commonalities after years and years of war and hatred. A stronger Europe sets an example, and shows that cooperation between states is possible. There are always going to be things that we can complain about when it comes to Europe. And so we should, because it means that things can be changed and improved.

But withdrawing from the EU does not make sense to me, especially when the real reason seems to be national pride and arrogance.