Thursday, 3 April 2025

The wrong kind of 'unity'

͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏

Forwarded this email? Subscribe here for more

Trying to figure out WTF is going on

The wrong kind of 'unity'

Peter A Bell

Apr 3

READ IN APP

If it were possible for the separate political parties to 'unite', they wouldn't be separate. Duh! They are separate because they are different. They are separate because they are incompatible in too many ways for them to be 'united'. Calling for the separate political parties to come together as one demonstrates a profound lack of understanding of the way politics works in the real world. A failure to comprehend the very nature of politics. This may be forgivable in those who take their lead from politicians such as Ash Regan MSP, but not in the politicians doing the misleading.

Politics is the management of power relationships. All human interactions are negotiated transactions conducted in the currency of power. We tend to call it politics only when it is practiced in the area of public policy. But we are all 'doing politics' all the time, even before we're born. Mother and child are effectively host and parasite respectively. It is only by constant negotiation that the two organisms achieve a form of symbiosis.

The kind of 'unity' being suggested by Ash Regan and others involves a far more complex ongoing negotiation than that betwixt mother and child. Extraordinary political skill on the part of numerous politicians would be required if the amalgamation were to persist. Maintaining this 'unity' in the period of an election campaign when everything conspires to drive apart the contesting parties would demand skill beyond the extraordinary. And a huge measure of good fortune!

Bear in mind that the politicians Ash Regan hopes will maintain this 'unity' during an election campaign have difficulty holding their own parties together at the best of times. In government, coalitions of as few as two parties are notoriously frangible. To expect that these same politicians might maintain cohesion among several parties - having first ended the day-to-day feuding amongst them - seems a triumph of hope over evidence and experience.

The form of 'unity' Ash Regan is talking about is so extremely unlikely that we might as well regard it as an impossibility. Achieving it would be difficult enough when there isn't even a basis on which the parties can talk to each other. Even if we can imagine an agreement being reached, who among us can realistically suppose that agreement would survive longer than minutes in the heat of an election campaign?

What almost certainly is achievable is unity of purpose. It is achievable because it doesn't even require that the parties talk to one another. It is sustainable because it involves a common purpose set apart from all the matters which are the subject of dispute among parties. This purpose must be singular and specific and immutable, the better to exclude all contentious issues.

Better Together worked because the parties involved had a single common purpose that stood apart from all the things that give each of the parties a jealously guarded distinct identity. We may dispute the distinctiveness of those identities. We cannot deny that they are jealously guarded. Unity of purpose allowed the British parties to simultaneously work towards achieving that purpose without compromising their distinct identities.

There is no reason, other than than the self-serving and partisan stupidity of the politicians, that the nominally pro-independence parties can't achieve similar unity of purpose. All that is required is a suitable purpose. 'Independence' falls far short of being as specific as the purpose needs to be. The purpose must be as narrowly defined as possible so it can be isolated from all the issues on which parties compete in an election battle.

In addition, the purpose should be defined by a third party. In theory, the political parties might negotiate an agreed purpose. In practice, it is not going to happen, for the same reasons simply 'unity' is not going to happen. (Or cannot be relied on. Which comes to the same thing.)

This is where the Manifesto for Independence comes in. As a process by which to restore Scotland's independence, the Manifesto for Independence is something any genuine pro-independence party should be able to associate themselves with quite comfortably. It is a radical process, that is true. But it has to be. Nothing else works.

The parties don't have to meet. They don't have to talk to each other. There is no negotiating involved. So, there is no opportunity to fall out or to so burden the purpose with compromises, caveats, and conditions as to make it meaningless. All the parties need do is take the Manifesto for Independence as is and publish it as the first page of their election manifesto. Thus, a vote for any of these parties is a vote for that commitment and we have the binary factor that is required for a plebiscite. A further benefit is that it removes party-politics from the constitutional issue.

Ash Regan is on a fool's errand if she continues to pursue any kind of 'amalgamation' of the nominally pro-independence parties. Politicians only ever want negotiations when they find reason to suppose there is benefit to be gained by the individual and/or advantage for their party. If they were prioritising Scotland's cause they would have found unity of purpose long before now. They have maybe six months to sort themselves out. You can give them some 'encouragement' by signing and sharing the Manifesto for Independence Petition.

(Note that although the petition is hosted on the New Scotland Party website, it is inherently and self-evidently non-party-political. New Scotland Party has no plans to stand candidates in the 2026 Scottish Parliament Election. New Scotland Party will only stand candidates where doing so clearly serves Scotland's cause.)

Take back our government! Take back our parliament! Take back our nation!

Start here -

Sign the MfI Petition

#ScottishUDI #ManifestoForIndependence

Invite your friends and earn rewards

If you enjoy Peter A Bell, share it with your friends and earn rewards when they subscribe.

Invite Friends

Comment

Restack

Tuesday, 1 April 2025

PARIS BOOK IN 2025: BOOK TITLE - IS IT BAD GRAMMAR? – Blog  36

Forwarded this email? Subscribe here for more

PARIS BOOK IN 2025: BOOK TITLE - IS IT BAD GRAMMAR? – Blog  36

Readers have a burning question about my Paris book …

MARTINA NICOLLS

Apr 1

READ IN APP

My Paris book – If Paris Were My Lover – was released last month, in March 2025, with encouraging reviews, and one big question.

First – the reviews. Here is one posted on Amazon:

5 out of 5 stars - A Poetic Love Affair with Paris - Reviewed in the United States on March 19, 2025 – Kelly P

If Paris Were My Lover is not just a book—it’s an experience. Martina Nicolls weaves an intimate, lyrical narrative that explores Paris as both a city and a lover, capturing the essence of its beauty, contradictions, and irresistible pull. This is not your typical travel memoir or romance novel; it’s a deeply personal reflection on love, loss, self-discovery, and the passage of time.

Nicolls’ writing is elegant and evocative, rich with sensory details that transport you straight into the cobblestone streets, cafés, and rain-soaked mornings of Paris. She explores her nomadic life, relationships, and identity, using the city as both a backdrop and a metaphor for love—passionate, fleeting, and often elusive. Each chapter feels like a whispered conversation, filled with philosophical musings and poetic prose that make you stop and reflect.

This book is perfect for dreamers, romantics, and anyone who has ever felt a deep connection to a place. I’m giving it 5 stars because it’s beautifully written, emotionally resonant, and unlike anything I’ve read before. If you’ve ever loved a city—or a person—you’ll find a piece of yourself in these pages.

*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Now, the big burning question that my readers have is: Is the title of the book, If Paris Were My Lover, bad grammar?

Readers point out that Paris is singular (one) and therefore the title should be If Paris Was My Lover. Yet the title uses the plural (many) form – If Paris Were My Lover.

I’ve been asked to shed some light on this grammatically incorrect title.

The grammatically correct title is: If Paris Were My Lover.

It is grammatically correct because the title is in the subjunctive mood, which is used to express hypothetical, unreal, or contrary-to-fact situations. In other words, the title and story are based on a hypothesis – something that is supposed but not necessarily real or true.

As a reminder – there are three grammatical moods in English: indicative, imperative, and subjunctive. The indicative mood states facts. The imperative mood gives an order or instruction. The subjunctive mood expresses wishes, demands, commands, proposals, and hypothetical situations.

The subjunctive mood is a verb form used to refer to a hypothetical scenario to express a wish, emotion, or possibility of something happening that has not yet occurred.

If Paris Were My Lover suggests that Paris is not actually the author’s lover but is being imagined as a lover – indicated by the word ‘if’ which introduces a conditional clause. For example, on the condition that, or supposed that, or in the event that … Paris would be my lover.

If Paris Was My Lover, using the singular verb ‘was’, would imply that this was a real possibility in the past or that the author is uncertain about whether it was true. In my case – as the author – my intention was that it is imagined, not real. It is my wish that Paris would be my lover.

Paris is My Lover, using the singular ‘is’ and not the plural ‘are’ expresses something that is categorically true, and happening in the present time – right now. This was not my intention while writing the novel.

Paris is a singular city – he, she, or it is single. A single lady – so, as Beyoncé wrote and sang in 2008: “I cried my tears, gave ya three good years, you can’t be mad at me, ‘cause if you like it then you shoulda put a ring on it, if you like it then you shoulda put a ring on it … whoa-oh-oh …”

Now that I reflect after the book’s publication, Beyoncé’s song Single Ladies (Put a Ring On It)could be the sub-plot, the sub-text, the theme song of my novel If Paris Were My Lover.

My book presents a hypothetical, poetic imagining of Paris as a lover. Therefore, If Paris Were My Lover is grammatically correct – despite Paris being single. Not only is it grammatically correct; it is stylistically fitting.

Have you missed the other 34 episodes? Find them in the “PARIS as I write” tab of this “The Stories in You and Me” Substack.

MY PARIS WEBSITE AND ALL THINGS PARISIAN

MY PARIS BLOGS

Photographer: Martina Nicolls

PIP DECKS, the fun and engaging how-to guides for business.