THE 1980s saw the emergence of “glocalisation” thinking (thinking globally and acting locally), theorised by Robertson and Beck. The glocal approach is positive as a defence of the right to be different, against homogenising states. Spain introduced this principle in the “Code of Good Local Government” of the Spanish Federation of Municipalities and Provinces (2015), to achieve the greatest transparency and effectiveness.
But, in view of the situation of the coronavirus, the Spanish Government has acted against this approach, taking advantage of it to re-centralise and consolidate the black hole that is the Spanish Deep State headed by the monarchy.
READ MORE: Coronavirus: A sweeping view of a world in lockdown
The Spanish Government maintains that the virus does not understand borders and so the government does not authorise the confinement of Madrid, the main contamination focus of Spain, as the governments of China and Italy did with Wuhan and Lombardy and 14 provinces of northern Italy. The government of Catalonia, on its own, did confine the population of Igualada and the Odena Valley. And it proved it is very effective.
Then the government of Catalonia proposed to the government of Spain the total confinement of Catalonia, the second focus in Spain. Pedro Sanchez has refused, arguing that it is a nationalist proposal, although the government of Catalonia supported this proposal with scientific evidence.
READ MORE: Mike Small: It's hard to fathom how terrible Trump's decisions have been
And here the lack of legal respect to the autonomous state in Spain is clear. Germany has done things in a very different way: previously to the taking of measures, the German federal government met with the 16 presidents of the Länder, agreeing on some decisions and leaving to each Land certain aspects, because while one Land accumulates half of the affected ones, others almost do not have any, thus, the city state of Berlin, Bavaria and Saaland made, in a staggered way, restrictions with respect to schools, transport ... and all this according to their own needs.
But here in Spain, Spanish nationalism unifies and homogenises everything, regardless of competencies and needs, and with an out-of-place presence of the army in the streets and at press conferences.
Amadeo Palliser Cifuentes
Catalonia
COMPLAINERS in the Alex Salmond court case are reportedly “devastated” after his acquittal. May I make a few points here?
1. The complainers continue to push their position behind and with the luxury of anonymity. Mr Salmond, accused and then acquitted of all charges, does not have that same right or luxury. An inequality in our legal system. If they are intent, now that Mr Salmond has been legally proven to be innocent, to push their cause further and the media are encouraging of this, they should now step forward and waive that right. Stand behind their protestations. They have had the opportunity to have their voices heard and a jury found their accusations to be untrue. They should not be allowed any further platform.
2. The same weighting should be afforded to a “not guilty” verdict as we would a verdict of “guilty”. If we accept someone to be guilty by jury, the press and public must also accept that a jury verdict of “not guilty” means such and the accused has a right of an expectation for the accusations not to be continually repeated.
3. The accusers must accept that legally there is nothing further for Mr Salmond to answer to and he has a right to move forward and leave this behind. There should be no option for them being enabled by the press to continue to besmirch Mr Salmond from the safety of anonymity and the press should not afford them a platform. It does not matter our own personal thoughts on the matter – the law states Mr Salmond is innocent.
4. Our laws and protections need to change. Accusers can say anything, all of which the press can freely report, ruin the accused’s reputation all behind the safety of anonymity whilst the accused, even if proven innocent, has no protection.
The complainers had their voice heard and acted upon but Mr Salmond is innocent. We all, including the complainers and press, must abide by that and allow Mr Salmond to move on.
Ian Johnstone
Connel
RECENT events have brought into sharp focus the futility and grandstanding of the Trident programme. Forget terrorism, suicide vests and any other plan to intimidate/invade other countries – just introduce a potentially lethal virus to a large population, light the touch paper, retire and watch everything from economy to social interaction grind to a halt.
Also exposed was the pretendy miracle of the “service” industry that was lauded as the great answer to employing the population. Zero hours, tax-avoiding conglomerates and offshore tax havens. Scotland can take a different road and get off our knees. I personally hope Mr Salmond comes back to the fore and starts a well-needed fire in our movement.
Mrs V Nelson
Leven, Fife
Scotland is in lockdown. Shops are closing and newspaper sales are falling fast. It’s no exaggeration to say that the future of The National is at stake. Please consider supporting us through this with a digital subscription from just £2 for 2 months by following this link: www.thenational.scot/subscribe. Thanks – and stay safe.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here