The Rights-thieves are active. Fear them not their scare stories.

Rights belong to everyone, permanently and inalienably, from birth, whether someone else likes it or not.  These are not given to us according to our beliefs, colour, gender, affiliation, ethnicity; nor can those who gain ascendency over others claim the entitlement to remove them. This is expressly forbidden under the UN Declaration of Human Rights. Despite this, sometimes, some of those who do not like others to have rights attempt to take them away. When they do, those affected suffer.

Describing human rights in these theoretical terms does not adequately explain the suffering of those deprived. This may take many forms but may include: torture; enslavement; mutilation; abuse; injustice; even death. There may be theoretical rights but actual experience can be so different, as with those walking across Europe seeking safety from bombs, including our own. We should be shocked to hear about these things occurring, though they can seem remote when far away or involving alien cultures and may only spur a few to react. When attempts take place to deprive us  here of our rights, they can seem so much more real. When a democratically elected government deliberately, consciously seeks to abandon well-established, hard won conventions or entitlements, in a country which prides itself on the maturity of its governance and civilisation, then we can feel the shock. Depriving those without means of justice; taking away trade union rights; making people homeless - these are all against our rights but are happening in this country today and constitute attacks too.

And for what purpose? To save money?  To maintain power? To reduce the State? If the State has any role it starts with the defence of its people, not, surely, just from physical attack but also from loss of rights, like freedom of religion or freedom of expression. Every citizen should be wary of attacks, insidious or overt, on their own and on other people's rights because loss for one means loss for all. By the same token, the defence of the rights of one person may be the exemplar or test case as a precursor for wider, class action in defence of many. So individual effort in the face of seemingly unstoppable attack may not be impossible or wasted.

Ignoring human rights abuse is to renege on one's own rights and duties to others. Today, as human beings spread across the world in search of sanctuary from war, persecution and the destruction of their homes, to watch country after country head towards nationalism, isolation and hard-heartedness, is to watch the potential demise of the unanimity which enabled the UN Declaration to come into being; and the end of the collective, collaborative Europe which has given peace and allowed rights to be upheld since WW2. We should all be afraid of governments behaving like this and resist the erosion of what is ours, whether they like it or not.

Can there be good nationalism?

Perceptions of the nationalism as presented by SNP and UKIP seem to differ. Why should this be, when quite clearly both are nationalist parties and nationalism is widely condemned in principle as a dangerous, isolating ideology?

In part, perception depends on who is looking. Those of the Left will clearly see UKIP and its like critically, both because we come from the opposite end of the political spectrum and because they stand for all that we reject. Yet we see in the SNP something far less objectionable, despite it seeking, at least superficially, the same separatist agenda. Secondly, the message from Scotland's nationalists differs from that of UKIP, the EDL etc. It aims for democratic inclusion, consultation and cooperation rather than prescription. Even after separation it wants to engage in EU and UK, politically and economically as well as commercially. Thirdly - and here is the clincher - the SNP is voicing a desire for self-determination, or absence of remote control, which resonates with many voters on both sides of the border.

Adversarial behaviour to the referendum in Scotland brings out sympathy on the part of many. Had Cameron shown leadership in the fight for the union rather than delegating to someone he otherwise belittled; had a positive vision been depicted of the Union instead of mere criticism of Scotland's economics (its always all about money with the Tories); had the more popular Devo-Max option been allowed on the ballot paper, the chance of staying united would now be far greater. But he acted as Whitehall usually does, dictatorially, patronisingly, remotely and perhaps more in England's interests, it is Cameron who will have to live with the label of the PM who oversaw the break-up of a nation, whilst handing a part of it to its nationalists. Only time will tell if the latter were right or not but right now, it is quite easy to see why their form of nationalism looks attractive.
Tom Serpell