Pupils from my old school were in New York on an educational excursion. At the United Nations Headquarters they bumped into Secretary General, Ban Ki-moon, with resultant conversation, handshakes and pictures.
It brought back memories of my own visit to the UN two years ago.
Maybe it's a generational thing, but, despite its shortcomings, I can't be cynical about the organisation. It is far from perfect, but, to paraphrase Churchill, it is the worst world forum apart from all the others which have been tried. The idea that, however notionally, the countries of the world can come together to exchange views across a debating chamber, rather than a battlefield, seems to me worth pursuing and supporting.
When I visited that chamber, I found myself behind the desks for countries under "S". It was hard seeing the space between Saudi Arabia and Sierra Leone and knowing that Scotland could be there - making its voice heard, playing its part in the world community.
It was, perhaps, a reflection of the differences between those who favour independence and those who support the union.
The case for the union is often presented as Scotland's retention of 'influence' in international bodies- as part of the UK. It is a doubly specious argument. Firstly, as 5 million people in a union of more than 60 million, UK decisions will only reflect our concerns when they tally with those of the greater number. Secondly, the canard that the UK has major influence in world affairs does not bear scrutiny. Even within the UN structure, and within the Security Council - membership of which seems to drive the UK desire for the retention of obsolete nuclear weapons - the UK's view carries only when it is deemed to be in US interests. The UK has minimal 'power' in major world events, and, as a 'region' within that entity, Scotland has none.
However, more important, is the way in which 'power' is viewed by the UK. Along with its allies, it tends to see the UN as an "enforcing" organisation or a rubber stamp for its policies. In support of the US, it has often disregarded the majority UN view if it failed to echo its own strategies.
For most countries, the importance of the UN is not as an alliance of military threat, but as a setting for exchange of views, representation of their people's interests, the chance to make their individual voices heard.
Increasingly it seems that it is in this direction that 'civic nationalism' is taking Scotland - to a place where it can be outward looking and collaborative and play its part in the world community in a positive rather than threatening manner. It is a constructive alternative to the bellicose approach to which the UK establishment still seem committed, a plea for Scots to be listened to rather than ignored, to be visible rather than submerged in a greater entity. Ironically, the previous charge of "parochial nationalism" is now better fitted to the major UK parties -with their focus on EU exit referendum and limits on immigration - both to Scotland's detriment.
Scotland can be a force for good in a forum like the UN, without the need to be coat tailing the military industrial complex and its universal threat. To return to that most unlikely source in Churchill - it is time for Scotland to show its belief that Jaw Jaw is indeed better than War War.
If this seems a far fetched and theoretical argument, it should be remembered that in 1945, and at FDR's insistence, one of the founder members of the UN was India - at the time under British rule and not independent.
Scotland's got talent - time to give it a Voice…..
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article