Cross-Culture

Independence or Union? Some cross-cultural reflections on the Scottish referendum debate

The dust may have settled internationally for now on the Scottish Referendum, even though some new debates have been created in the process. However, it remains striking how little specific attention was given at the time to the cross-cultural nature of the debate. As a Scot living in southern England, with a great interest in cross-culture, I followed the debate with keen interest. This led me to give a presentation on the topic at Riversdown House, Hampshire, in December 2013. I made a point then that those opposing independence were trying to persuade Celtic people with Anglo-Saxon arguments.

When interacting with people in other countries, Scots can be quick to point out that they are Scottish - and thus not English. They have a way of demonstrating a strong and explicit way of repeatedly reinforcing their national identity to others as well as to each other. For example, the world hardly needs telling that the tennis player Andy Murray is a Scot, despite him hardly ever playing for a Scottish team. Scots are an imaginative, passionate and romantic people, which the 'No' campaign (meaning ‘No’ to independence) seemed to have great difficulty to respond to. On the other side, the ‘No’ campaign epitomised an aspect of the psyche of Scots people that fits their Enlightenment tradition of hard-headed rationality and their quiet pleasure in being thought canny (shrewd) in financial transactions. The 'Yes' campaign (meaning ‘Yes’ to independence) failed to recognise that aspect sufficiently. In consequence, Scottish voters were obliged to choose between two rather polarised versions of their unique way of looking at the world. The websites of the two opposing campaigns gave ample evidence of this difference.

Little, if anything, was said in the speeches and debates leading up to the referendum that many Scots were most eager to be separated from the Welsh or the people of Northern Ireland. The nation that many Scots wanted to be separated from was England, and most especially that far-away, governing part of it called Westminster. Within England itself, London has continued to develop a cultural quality of its own. This is not necessarily of a kind that looks attractive to those living elsewhere in the United Kingdom, other than in its relative prosperity. For example, it has a very large ethnic population, but deeper friendships still seem to be substantially ghettoised within people’s ethnicity.

Personalities in a cross-cultural context can also be fascinating. In this case, the star personality was surely that of Alex Salmond the Scottish First Minister. The Lewis Model (described for instance in When Cultures Collide by Richard Lewis) analyses the world’s cultural types into three categories (and their combination), called linear actives, reactives and multiactives, Alex Salmond has shown himself to be a multiactive.

Multiactives are primarily relational: people are more important to them than facts, deals and processes. They can be talkative and impulsive, being ready to think aloud and do many things at once. They are not good at following pre-arranged plans. Their conversation can be animated and roundabout. They can be very creative, with the ability to think well spontaneously and out of the box, thus deliberately leaving the straighter path taken by a typical linear active (that is so characteristic of the southern English). The overall picture matters more than the details to a multiactive. The details can be worked out later. They admire and do their best to practise good oratory, show vision and do what stirs the heart. Alex Salmond’s waving of an outsized saltire (Scottish flag) at the moment of Andy Murray’s Mens’ Singles triumph at Wimbledon in July 2013 gave a memorable visual illustration of his unsquashable and multiactive bravura.

George Osborne, the Chancellor of the Exchequer (the British Finance Minister), is a much more linear active politician. Linear actives like to do things sequentially and in an orderly manner. They are task-oriented and can be highly organised. Speech is for information exchange and direct communication. They tend to regard the truth as something absolute. They are ready to speak the truth even if that may involve distress and confrontation. They dislike discussion that appears to them to be going round in circles or, worse still, is disorganised or chaotic. For a linear active it is important to be realistic about facts and what is actually possible.

Within a speech given in Scotland in February 2014, George Osborne made it very clear that the Scottish people would not be allowed to keep the Great Britain Pound (GBP) if they became independent. His well intentioned message did not work out as planned, though, because many Scots took his sober warning as an expression of disbelief in their ability and potential to succeed as an independent nation. The gap in the opinion polls proceeded to close in the months after George Osborne’s speech. If there is one thing that most Scots are agreed on it is the quality of their people. This sassenach (a Scottish word for someone English or a Lowland Scot) had, in the eyes of many, seemingly dared to challenge that deeply cherished belief.

The ‘No’ campaign’s faltering share of support was changed substantially for the better by ex-Prime Minister Gordon Brown. He was one of the few prominent politicians who could present both linear active and multiactive oratory with the kind of passion that rivalled that of the ‘Yes’ campaign. Although the quest for Scottish independence was lost in the result of the vote, the cause of gaining more self-rule for Scotland was not. Multiactives can flourish in situations that they may regard as less than ideal, rather better than linear actives may imagine.

In contrast to Gordon Brown, the party leaders David Cameron, Ed Miliband and Nick Clegg did not finish nearly so well cross-culturally. Although maybe personally the nicest man of the three, Ed Miliband seemed the most uncomfortable in Scotland. While inwardly passionate to see the Union continue, all three did little to shift the campaign in their favour, while they did manage to appear panicked in the final stages. All this speaks much about the dangers of going into cross-cultural settings insufficiently prepared. Being a nice person displaying heartfelt reasoning, important as that is, is not nearly enough.

If there is going to be a United Kingdom in the longer term, the more linear active English need to develop more of the skills and approaches of the more multiactive Scots. This includes putting people, communities and relational thinking at the heart of public policy.

It is very difficult to see a warm rapport towards the English developing short-term in Scottish minds that were not already persuaded that way. However, some genuine efforts by the English to understand, value and embrace Celtic culture more would be one good place to start.

The people of northern England could be enlisted to mediate and establish stronger connections between all the people of England and Scotland, not just those living in the Borders (who did not want a division anyway).

A greater appreciation by the Scottish people of their very impressive reach and influence far beyond the bounds of geographical Scotland might help them to become a little less absorbed than previously with what happens ‘north of the border’.

Dr. Nigel Paterson

The Scottish Referendum – a View from the North of England

The months-long debate and analysis of the referendum concerning possible Scottish secession seemingly centres on class disparities between underprivileged, nationalistic Scots and a complacent, over-privileged, Westminster-directed elite often referred to as the “Establishment”. It is an easily discernible classification not necessarily closely-bound to the dictums of the Labour and Conservative parties.

It is no secret that the United Kingdom, since the social stress of the unfolding of the Industrial Revolution, has been a polarized society, unable up to now to rid itself of class questions that have been dealt with successfully in the 4 Scandinavian countries and to a lesser extent in Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the United States. The divisions in British society are, however, not merely dual, but clearly multiple. It is worth noting, therefore, that the Scottish referendum was seen in a different light, perhaps felt in a more visceral manner, in separate regions of Britain and particularly the North. We are talking about the heavily-populated northern heartlands of Lancashire, Yorkshire and the North-East. During the campaign, the question was often, “Who are the Scots?”  Perhaps even more pertinent to this dispute is the question, “Who are the English?”

For decades the British film  industry, enriched by the talents of such actors as Alec Guinness, Peter  O’Toole, John Gielgud, Ralph Richardson, Alastair Sim, George Cole and  Charles Laughton, have put him on the screen for the world to see. The  BBC, in such admirable programmes as “Upstairs Downstairs”, “Yes,  Minister” and “Downton Abbey”, has reinforced the image. 

[These diagrams show how English and Scotish managers address their staff in very different ways.]

The Englishman dresses in tweeds or a three-piece pin-striped suit and  a Burberry mackintosh on rainy days. He wears a bowler hat, carries a  tightly furled, black umbrella with a cane handle, has a pink newspaper  tucked under his left armpit. He goes to church on Sunday mornings and  eats roast beef with Yorkshire pudding for Sunday lunch. He is a man of  principle, insists on fair play for underdogs, does things in a proper manner  and shows more affection for horses, cats and dogs than for children,  foxes and grouse. He probably went to Eton and Oxford (Cambridge?) and  frequents Ascot, Wimbledon, Twickenham, Lord’s and Wentworth. He  believes in the Monarchy, the Empire and the Conservative Party. When  not in his Club (no ladies allowed) he sits in the local (pub) with gardeners  and game wardens, with whom he sips warm beer called ‘real ale’. Often he  has tea with the vicar, with whom he discusses the Church of England,  farming, poaching, the village fête and his years with the Guards.

Englishmen are fond of cricket, croquet, rugby, sheepdog trials, detective  stories and queuing. When queues are slow, one does not complain, as  English people must never make a scene, not even if they have a doublebarrelled  name. The same applies to poor service in restaurants, railway  stations and that place where you get your passport. 

The antidote to such frustrating situations is the stiff upper lip. When  queuing or sitting in a train one does not enter into conversation with others  – that is the reason for carrying a newspaper everywhere. When a train  was derailed in a tunnel in the London Underground a few years ago, an  elderly City gentleman walked half a mile down the line to the next station,  where he proclaimed: ‘It’s horrible down there in the dark. People are  talking to each other!’ 

This powerful stereotype of the British character has been etched on  other nations’ minds by several generations of British films. Huge populations  abroad, including the Japanese, Indians, South-East Asians and  Africans, still subscribe to it and send their children to Britain to be  educated along the same lines.

[These diagrams show how English and Scottish managers lead in diverse ways.]

The majority of British people bear little resemblence to the stereotype.  Not only is the image one of an upper class personage of a former era, but  it does not take into account regional differences, which in the UK are  extremely marked. If you draw a latitudinal line through the city of Oxford,  it is questionable if you will find anyone north of it who behaves in the  manner of the stereotype. In the first place, nearly 10 million Britons are  Celts (Scots, Welsh, Irish, Cornish and Manx). These people are essentially  romantic, poetic and emotional. They, like millions of midland and northern  English people in the ‘wilds’ beyond Oxford, are extremely critical of  the archetypal Englishman existing in foreign minds. There is a type of  English person who roughly corresponds to the projected image, but he is  southern, upper class and almost extinct! Even in the south, we are talking  about a tiny, although often highly visible (and audible) fraction of society.  Foreigners, often laughing at the eccentric English stereotype, are unaware  that 50-odd million Britons laugh at him too. Northern, midland and  Celtic Britons feel much more affinity with some Europeans (Norwegians,  BRITAIN 179  Danes, Swedes, Finns, Dutch, Belgians, Germans, Swiss) than they do with  the braying figure in tweeds. Britons are supposed to be poor at learning  languages – this is a myth. Scots, Welsh, Irish and most people north of  Watford learn foreign languages well and often with a good accent.

What are real English people like? The ‘world image’ bears some  resemblance to the reality, but not much. The class system is still in evidence  in Britain – an unfortunate anachronism which North America and  most of Europe have dispensed with – but in fact most British people could  be called middle class. They do not have a strong political party to represent  them, although both Conservatives and Labour eagerly pretend to do  so. The absence of a moderate centrist party contributes, sadly, to the continuing  polarisation of British society.

Polarised or not, how do British people behave? Whatever the status, a  pattern can be observed. Yes, we are a nation of queuers and probably the  only time British people complain vociferously is when someone jumps the  queue. But the stiff upper lip can move – British people today hold nothing  sacred. While royalty is respected, the Royal Family is often ridiculed,  both in the press and on TV. If the British can laugh at themselves, so can  the monarchs – what could be more democratic than that?

Humour is a saving factor in British life – some say it is a product of a  fickle climate – and many English people feel that as long as there is  humour, there can never be utter despair. It is no accident that the BBC –  the most humorous television service in the world – is highly popular in  most countries fortunate enough to be able to receive it.

It is true that British people love detective stories. Agatha Christie is the  world’s most translated novelist and the British easily lead the world in  library book loans. Sherlock Holmes is one of the most famous and popular  Englishmen of all time. The fact is, the British have a strong conspiratorial  streak – they love plotting. The most beloved characters in the extensive  British theatrical literature are villains. Guy Fawkes, who was hanged  after failing to blow up Parliament, became an instant hero and the nation  still celebrates his anniversary every 5 November. The biggest heroes of  British naval history were Francis Drake and John Hawkins – both pirates.  Apparently polished and sophisticated in diplomacy, the British are masters  of intelligence gathering and political blackmail.

If we come back to the North – a fairly clearly defined region or even concept in British life (by contrast, there is no clear South) – there is little doubt that the proposed ‘Yes’ campaign found greater sympathy in the North than in England as a whole.  As we have discussed above, inhabitants of the North identify much more easily with Scots aspirations and characteristics, than do peole who live south of Oxford.  Apart from the century-old struggle for better living conditions, higher wages and more regional say, people in Lancashire and Yorkshire feel they share the following traits with their cousins north of the border.  They are straighforwardness, hard-headedness, taciturnity, modesty, under-statement, inventiveness, thrift, cosiness, friendliness, frankness, simplicity, openness, fidelity, reserve and sense of fair play.  Moreover, they consider themselves less diplomatic, less snobbish, less casual, less flippant, use less coded speech and are certainly less patrician than southerners.

This self-image of a reasonable, yet clearly focussed, sporty English Northener seems mirrored to a large extent in a kind of cultural Northern Dimension with our close European neighbours in colder climes – Norwegians, Swedes, Danes, Finns, Icelanders.  Scots, both mainland and insular (Orkneys, Shetland, Hebrides), clearly fit into this rather close-knit, democratic dimension.  The sea-route from Newcastle to Bergen is short, and well-travelled for centuries.  The Vikings bequeathed more influence than they perhaps are aware of in Northern Britain.

It remains to be seen to what extent the impetus and excitement of the Scottish Referendum will stir up aspirations and demands in diverse English regions, not to mention Wales and Northern Ireland.

Richard D. Lewis

Russia and the EU

The European Union is currently an uneasy one.  Evolving from the European Coal & Steel Community (ECSC) in 1951, signing the EEC Treaty of Rome in 1957, the original 6 members – Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg and The Netherlands have increased the EU membership to 28, the latest to accede being Bulgaria and Romania in 2007 and Croatia in 2013.

So far, nobody has left the Union, but some members have hinted that they might do so.  The United Kingdom has reiterated at regular intervals its dissatisfaction with the present structure and three members – the UK, Sweden and Denmark – have declined to enter the Euro zone, which in the last five years has had wobbles, troubles and tribulations. 

The EU can, however, count its achievements, which continue to be prized by most members.  These include, above all, prolonged continental peace, but also removal of dictators, strengthening of democratic institutions, social benefits, human rights, independent judiciaries, a single currency, free movement of labour, relaxed border controls, bail-outs for fragile economies, lower tariffs in a market of 500 million and a general enhancement of “soft power” in world affairs.

Nevertheless, current unease and, in some cases, outright dissatisfaction with the existing European structures have manifested themselves in the rise of rightist political parties that were formerly somewhat marginal, but now threaten to be pivotal in future elections.  These include UKIP in the UK, Forza Italia in Italy, Golden Dawn in Greece, the Party for Freedom in The Netherlands (led by Geert Wilders), the Jobbiks in Hungary, Marie Le Pen’s Front National in France, even the relatively moderate True Finns party in Finland.  These parties are likely to considerably increase the number of their seats in the European Parliament and gain pivotal roles in their national politics.  Most discontent, apart from criticism of over-bureaucratic edicts emanating from Brussels and waste of money, swollen expense sheets etc. arises from migration policies which, say the critics, threaten employment prospects of nationals in various member states and abuse of social benefits by a flood of new arrivals.

While migration and refugee matters top the list of pressing problems, of greater import and interest is the issue of future membership of the EU and its likely direction and criteria for admission.  Ukraine and Turkey – both bigger in area than any EU member – are obvious candidates, as are smaller fry such as Albania, Macedonia, Kosovo, Moldova, Israel and Morocco.  Apart from strictly political considerations, what are the EU’s ambitions?  Is it to remain a “Christian club” or are Muslim countries welcome to membership?  Must territories actually be in Europe or do we go by a looser definition?  Only a small part of Turkey is in Europe; Israel and Morocco have no such foothold.  How stringent are humanitarian considerations or legal constraints? Are dictatorships acceptable?  Does the EU want to be bigger?  At times it seems unwieldy as it is.  Given that the terms “Europe”, “Asia” and “Eurasia” are all arbitrary geographical concepts, could the EU (under another name) be expanded with the prime aim of constructing the world’s biggest market/trading bloc so as to compete better with rival giants China, India, the United States and (ultimately) South America.  How competitive does the EU want to be in rivalling Chinese penetration into another huge emerging bloc – Africa? Where does Russia stand in all this?

This writer has in previous articles raised consciousness of the importance and influence of the great land mass of the Russian Federation, not only as a prime mover in the BRICs alliance but as a key player in a greater Eurasian context.  Germany and France currently contend for leadership of the EU (Germany the stronger of the two).  The latter, with its 80 million population and number 4 ranking in world trade, is incontestably the heart and engine of Europe and the European Union.  Germany’s 82 million outnumber France’s 60 million, UK’s 59 million and Italy’s 57 million, but Russia counts with 146 million inhabitants, most of whom can be classified as Europeans.  How European are the Russians?  A comprehensive study I made of the Russian character during 2008-10 revealed the following traits in comparison with major European ones: 

Generosity	Spain, Italy
Family closeness	Italy, Spain
Respect for the elderly	Italy, Spain, Germany
Compassion	Italy, France, Portugal
Soul friendship	Germany, Finland, Britain
Courteous manners	Italy, Spain, Portugal
Love of theatre, ballet	Britain, France
Love of music, opera	Germany, Italy
Talent for literature	France, Spain, Britain
Technical ability	Germany, Nordic countries
Imagination, vision	France, Spain, Italy
Sense of humour	Britain, Denmark, Finland
Eloquence	France, Italy
Linguistic ability	Nordic countries, The Netherlands

Where Russian traits in the left-hand column correspond strongly with those of certain European countries, the latter are placed alongside in the right-hand column.  Therefore we see that Russian generosity, a well-known trait, is matched faithfully in Italy and Spain but not particularly in Germany.  Russia shares outstanding technical ability with Germans and Nordics; countries in Southern Europe – Spain, Italy, Portugal, do not shine technologically.  But these countries do match Russia and France in vision and imagination.  Russian family closeness is similar in Italy, Spain and Germany, but not in Britain and Scandinavia.  Russians openly show compassion, as do Italians and Portuguese, but Britons and Finns do not.  You can find soul friendship in Russia, Finland, Germany and Britain but not so much in Latin countries.  Russian courtesy is matched in Italy, Spain and Portugal, but not in Germany or Finland, where people are much more matter-of-fact.  Russian love of ballet and theatre is shared by Britain and France, their love of opera by Italy and Germany.  The best writers in Europe are Russian, British, French and Spanish.  Russian sense of humour is matched in Britain, Denmark and Finland.  Russian linguistic ability compares with that in the Nordic Countries and The Netherlands. 

Different European countries show quite diverse characteristics, for instance Italian talkativeness and Finnish tight-lipped behaviour.  What is remarkable about Russians is that they seem to possess all the European characteristics, while many other Europeans seem to exhibit only some of them.  The loquacious, emotional Italian is almost the opposite of the modest, humorous Englishman, but Russians seem to adapt well to either.  It is a question of breadth of vision – itself a Russian trait.  This is a basic Russian quality – one that they have possessed for hundreds of years.  This breadth of vision is enhanced by one or two Asian traits – stoicism, self-sacrifice, adaptability, face protection. 

If one had to sum up Russian psychology and abilities in one word, “versatility” would come to mind.  Being a natural land bridge between East and West, they have a certain facility in dealing with neighbours from both sides.  With land borders with 14 different countries, remoteness from other nationalities is never an option.  Whether Russians like it or not, leadership beckons at all turns.

The creation of the Eurasian Union (EAU) is a current Russian-inspired venture and interferes with Ukrainian aspirations to join the EU.  As such it is contradictory in nature to any Russian inclination to cooperate with the EU.  But how about the long term?  How huge will the Chinese commercial clout be in 2050 and beyond?  Neither can American dominance be discounted.  Coordination between the EU and the EAU – Kazakhstan, Kyrgystan, Armenia, Tajikistan , Belarus, and possibly Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan, Ukraine, Turkey and Mongolia would engender impressive growth in population, land area and assets, hindering unstoppable Chinese or Indian roll-outs across Eurasia.  It is long term thinking, but might be a better option for Russia than just facing east.  It would be a northerly side-step, focussing less on the bustling economies of south and south-east Asia, but given the Russian Federation’s reach and interest in Arctic latitudes, it might be an alluring choice.  Russia and the EU might need each other more than they presently believe.

By Richard D. Lewis

A version of this article has appeared in The Helsinki Times

Russia’s role in the BRICS union

The BRICS union – comprising Brazil, Russia, India and China (with South Africa tagging along) – was partly the brainchild of Jim O’Neill, the recently retired chief economist at Goldman Sachs.  It is a powerful union, commanding half the world’s population and nearly 50% of world GDP.  These figures, as seen by the West, are daunting enough, but, with further analysis, their significance increases sharply in connection with their relation to the expansion of global growth.

The year 2013 may well represent a tipping point for the global economy.  For the first time since the Industrial Revolution galvanized Britain to dominate world trade in the 19th century, emerging economies will produce the majority of the world’s goods and services.  The inhabitants of the rich, advanced countries are about to become less important, in terms of both production and consumerism, than the masses of people living in the planet's poor and middle class income countries.  

This is no surprise, either to economists or governments.  Emerging nations have enjoyed greater growth for at least the last 25 years.  The centre of gravity of world economic growth has been moving steadily eastwards during the second half of the 20th century.  According to the McKinsey Global Institute, it was balanced for centuries between Europe and Eastern China, located somewhere near present-day Pakistan.  As Europe and North America industrialized, it moved northwest to a point between Iceland and Greenland about 1950, then quickly east with the rise of Japan and then China, finding itself in northern Siberia in 2010 and forecasted to be near Novosibirsk by 2025!

The former titans of the world economy – Britain, USA, Germany, France, Italy – are all rapidly dropping out of the top 10 producers and consumers as far as expansion is concerned.  By 2020, only the US stands a chance of qualifying.  By that year, the whole of the EU may well contribute only 5-6% of global economic expansion.  China and India will represent half of it.

China is, of course, a clear leader of growth, already starring for nearly 20 years with figures of 10% and more, but the other BRICS countries were not far behind and even non-BRICS states like Mexico and Indonesia made the top 10 around 1995.  The fastest-growing countries in 2013 included South Sudan (31%), Libya (20.2%), Mongolia (14%), Paraguay (11%), Panama (9%) and Mozambique (8.4%).  These figures are in some cases affected by political developments, but such “minnows” may well be inclined to follow BRICS leadership in the future in dealing with the West.

There is a clear link between rapid economic growth and huge populations.  Population growth in the West has been stagnating or, at best, increasing slightly.  It is a different story elsewhere, where large populations exist in countries such as Nigeria, Ethiopia, Turkey, Egypt, Vietnam, Pakistan, Bangladesh  (like aforementioned Mexico and Indonesia) and continue to show healthy growth.  The BRICS themselves cover half the globe.  If their union proves effective, their leadership might be useful for other aspiring areas, including Africa and South America.  Who will lead the BRICS?

One could answer quickly that China will.  The recent meeting between Obama and Xi Jinping gave rise to rumours of a planned joint hegemony – a world of bi-polar character – where a more amicable relationship between the US and China would increase their chances of leading, certainly influencing, initiatives of world significance in political, commercial and eventually cultural spheres.  This remains to be seen.  Of some certainty, however, is China’s leading role in industrialization and trade, not to mention her current financial strength.  Will she “call the tune” for the other three major BRIC powers?  This is by no means certain.

There is no doubt about the immense power (and especially the potential) of the BRIC bloc.  How will they “roll this out”?  What are they currently asking for?  They seek a meaningful dialogue with the West about the running of the IMF, the World Bank, the WTC and similar institutions.  Though international, these bodies are seen by the BRICS as Western creations and structures, designed to perpetuate the West’s influence and ability to “run the planet.”  There is little doubt that such an argument exists.  BRICS requires a greater voice in the running of such institutions.  Whose voice will it be?  The language used may be English, but what will be the tone?  Voluble, emotional Indian, fluid, charismatic Brazilian, reserved (often ambiguous) Chinese, or resolute, determined Russian? 

The question of “voice” – let us say effective communication – is only one issue.  Just as the four major BRICS nations communicate differently, their values are equally divergent.  Hindu philosophy and Roman Catholic doctrine have little in common with Chinese Buddhism and Confucianism or with Russia’s mix of Orthodoxy and secular beliefs.  Yet the BRICS' aims and aspirations will have to be expressed, pursued and strengthened in the next few years.  These nations cannot wait long – there is so much at stake – they will want to move forward, and convincingly.  Who will lead the pack?  

In communication terms, some questions arise.  China’s reserve, ambivalence and bouts of ambiguity, Brazil’s habitual euphoria and charisma (but lack of follow up), India’s Victorian rhetoric and rambling volubility are likely to prove less effective with Americans and Northern Europeans than Russians’ resolute, determined negotiating style.  These Anglo-American-Germanic fortresses will not be ceded easily.

Historians may remind us that in her very long history, China has never formed a long-lasting close relationship with any other power.  Her historical inclination is not to do so, and this complicates her attitudes towards inclusion or accommodation with Western countries (which in the course of history did her few favours)!  This complexity hinders her ability to lead the BRIC countries, with whom she is also likely to have internal cultural differences.

India?  With her technical brilliance, command of English and daring, risk-taking attributes, India would seem well-qualified to act as intermediary vis-à-vis the powerful Anglo-Saxon ingredients in the Western line-up, were it not for her inherent and persistent weaknesses in infrastructure, hygiene, gender issues, regional patchiness and stop-and-start leadership.

Brazil – a nation “whose time has come” (if there ever was one) – has had a transformation in national growth, drive and aspirations; she is asset-rich in the extreme, but traditionally sputters in advancement, habitually seeking the next “El Dorado” instead of pursuing process.  Geographically, too, she is out on a limb where essential BRICS close cooperation is concerned.

Which leaves us with RUSSIA – ubiquitous in land, active in 3 oceans (Atlantic, Pacific and Arctic), asset-rich beyond dreams, familiar with European, Asian and North American mentalities, aware of her past glories of Empire and civilisation, militarily adequate and confident, humanistic in her breadth of vision and in international affairs.

When it comes to involvement, Russia is in a unique situation.  If the US decided to pursue an isolationist course with regard to the rest of the world, it would be easier for her than for most other nations.  Defended by two giant oceans on her eastern and western coasts, she only needs to make some amicable arrangements with friendly neighbour Canada and have a little more patience with lively Mexico.  Only two land borders. 

With Russia, no such luxury exists.  With 14 common international terrestrial frontiers, not to mention her extensive maritime and oceanic presence, it will never be possible, let alone advisable, for Russia to isolate herself or even detach herself, from outside influence or observation; by the same token, she is inevitably involved with bilateral relations, interaction, initiatives and understanding with 14 other cultures.  History (and particularly geography) offered her no such escape route.  Good neighbourliness, perchance leadership, are opportunities that beckon.

These considerations lead us to think of BRICS leadership.  Is Russia a candidate?  In Western eyes she holds strong cards.  Her massive mineral assets, including oil and gas, are enduring.  The expansion and distribution of these (boons for humanity) inevitably signify substantial influence, soft power, steady solvency.

Her artistic record (ballet, opera, literature, theatre, the arts) unarguably qualify her to stand and speak with dignity among advanced, creative nations.  Her cultural structure – Eurasian, but largely basically European in theological, philosophical, artistic, historical and humanistic terms, places her closer to western thinking, outflanking even Brazil in geographic proximity and depth of sophistication.

Additionally, the quality of some of Russia's leading economists – those who paid off Russia's debts and stabilized the rouble in the years 2000 – 2011 – stand her in good stead to negotiate competently and adroitly with Western movers-and-shakers in the IMF, World Bank, WTC etc.

Finally, Russia's overpowering geography – the only extensive, unquestioned land bridge between East and West – gives her unique advantages in mediating geographical, financial, economic and ultimately political issues that might arise, not only with the West, but inside the BRICS structure too.

The BRICS concept is an immensely powerful one.  We are still in early stages.  If this union, with its impressive membership, can tighten their own team and succeed in exerting leverage on how world finances are organized, the nature of globalisation would change drastically.  Put together China as the No. 1 economy, India and China as the world's biggest consumers, Brazil with its unending supply of commodities and Russian assets of land, minerals and energy resources, and the bloc's influence would be immeasurable.  The economic clout is indisputable, but how durable is their union from a cultural point of view? 

The multi-faceted Russian Federation, with her Eurasian breadth of vision, could be a key player.

By Richard D. Lewis

This article first appeared in The St. Petersburg Times

Normal is crazy enough: four things you need to know about doing business with the Dutch

On April 30 or ‘Queen’s day’, Queen Beatrix abdicated in favour of her son Willem-Alexander. And although the entire nation went slightly crazy – painting itself and everything within sight in the brightest orange available, the Dutch motto when doing business is: “Act normal – that’s crazy enough”.

Even if it is not said out loud, it is always top of mind for the Dutch. Appreciate its importance and doing business with the Dutch will be much easier. Here are a few other things you should know about doing business in The Netherlands:

‘Linear-active’ is the way to go

In 2002 our new King Willem-Alexander married his Argentinian wife, Princess Màxima, who stems from a Catholic family.

At first glance there may seem nothing too extraordinary about this match. However, only 50 years ago in 1964 Princess Irene, sister of our now Princess Beatrix, caused quite a stir when she secretly turned Catholic and later that year married a Catholic: Carlos Hugo de Bourbon Parma (a disputed heir to the Spanish throne).

Part of the Protestant population of The Netherlands was not amused, to say the least, about Princess Irene’s conversion. This was one of the reasons (the political sensitivity of the groom’s position another) why her mother Queen Juliana could not attend the wedding in Rome. Nor could her father and sisters for that matter. The wedding also had to take place outside The Netherlands because of the sensitive nature of this liaison.

Why was this sensitive in The Netherlands at the time? To truly understand a big part of the Dutch mindset it is important to realise that the Kingdom of The Netherlands has its roots in the Reformation, and the liberation from the Spanish King Fillip II who had many people in The Netherlands persecuted, tortured and killed for the sole reason of turning Protestant.

The division between Catholics and Protestants is one of the reasons why The Netherlands and Belgium did not manage to stay united and became two independent nations in 1839.

Even though the division over religion is no longer strongly felt in The Netherlands, it is not that long ago that it would have been unthinkable for our at the time still Crown Prince Willem-Alexander to marry a Catholic lady, which Princess Màxima remains today. Their wedding service may have been a Protestant one, their three daughters may have been baptized in a Protestant Church; Princess Màxima still is of Catholic faith.

The Reformation, initiated by Calvin and Luther, strongly influenced the mindset of the Dutch, including the many Catholic people living mainly in the south of The Netherlands. It is from Calvin’s ideas that the Dutch love for “Act normal that’s crazy enough” stems.

How will this affect your doing business in The Netherlands? Looking at the Lewis model with its three cultural categories, we find The Netherlands in the linear-active category, together with many other countries that show strong Protestant influences.

They will interrupt you. Often.

The Dutch habit to often interrupt their interlocutors is a multi-active trait that takes them up a little in the Lewis model towards the multi-active category.

“Two hundred years free and united by equal rights and duties”

The Dutch feel everyone should have equal rights (and duties!).

As a result Dutch organisations tend to be flat, with leadership based on merit, competence and achievements. For those stemming from more hierarchical cultures it is sometimes difficult to see who is boss in a Dutch company as authority may be disguised. In The Netherlands, equality also leads to managers consulting their subordinates in long debates seeking seemingly mandatory consensus.

These so-called ‘Dutch debates’ understandably frustrate foreigners used to quick decision-making processes with a strong leader in charge. The upside to these long consultation rounds is that once consensus is achieved plans will be implemented fairly quickly and with little resistance throughout the rank and file. Behaving like a strong boss may cause other members of staff to think “Act normal that’s crazy enough”.

“Act normal that’s crazy enough” means a dislike for pretentiousness and grandiose. This dislike for the grandiose may be difficult to get to terms with if you are French (who tend to love grandiose) and you find yourself enduring a ‘working lunch’ with rolls brought into the meeting room together with milk (very Dutch) and orange juice so the meeting will not be interfered with too much.

Three hour luncheons are exceptional in The Netherlands; it is considered a waste of time and money. The latter also accounts for a lack of expensive company cars, which are generally frowned upon because it is not seen as “acting normal”. This attitude explains the Dutch image of frugality or even stinginess.

Another important Dutch value is truth-telling. As Fons Trompenaars, Dutch himself, explains in his books on cross-cultural communication Universalists reason: “What is good and right can be defined and always applies”.

According to Trompenaars this originates from Protestants relating to God through the Bible; The Lord’s written word on earth. For Protestant believers there is no intermediate between God and His people, therefore they need to rely on the Bible to understand what is right and what is wrong. This still influences the generally Universalist Dutch in being a law-abiding people.

Take the law seriously, because the Dutch do

The law is another form of written rules and regulations that need to be taken seriously. The Dutch therefore highly value written contracts, although the system of Dutch law does not require lengthy contracts, like Anglo-American companies tend to draw up. The Dutch love for truth-telling, together with a desire to avoid uncertainty, explains their direct style of communication. They say what they think, what they believe is right or wrong, often unasked for and in clear words, thus coming across as opinionated or rude.

After living in the UK for several years I understand this attitude may cause offence to others who value maintaining face. The understanding of face, a value mainly found in the third category in the Lewis-model; the reactive cultures, is an important value for the British as well. The positive thing about this directness is that with the Dutch you will rarely have to guess where they stand. This is likely to make the process of negotiating business deals easier.

The Dutch are also not easily shocked or offended by your opinions as they separate the opinion from its giver. Keep in mind another Dutch value is that we are all free to say what we think. This freedom is more important than social niceties like being polite as the Dutch’ ancestors truly had to fight for their freedom of religion. Beating around the bush or over-carefully sharing your opinion also may be seen as the opposite from “act normal that’s crazy enough”.

Don’t be loud, fast or ill-informed

Approaching the end of this article I will give you some tips on presenting your company or services to a Dutch audience:

• Arriving and starting on time tells them they can trust you
• They dislike loud and fast presentations
• They need fact-based information
• The speaker needs to be well-informed, well-prepared and competent as your name and charisma are not enough to convince them
• Do not waste their time, as they have “other things to see to”

Bearing these points in mind, especially number 2 will help you avoid clashing with “act normal that’s crazy enough”. Do not take such a clash lightly; “not acting normal” will influence negatively your credibility in their eyes. If you do not manage to gain credibility you may lose the business deal before you have even got it.

With this article I tried to shed some light on a couple of truly important Dutch values. The values of equality and truth-telling you will no doubt encounter quickly when dealing with the Dutch. Of course there is much more to say about the Dutch and not every Dutch man or woman fits this generalized picture.

You may have seen some footage of the celebrations of the investiture (indeed: investiture, not a coronation) of King Willem-Alexander on April 30^th. You will get a glimpse of the Dutch breaching their “act normal that’s crazy enough” rule as they are dressed in orange, wearing silly orange hats and facial decorations as they do on King’s day, formerly Queen’s day, and when the national football team are playing.

The ceremony itself on the other hand was executed in a sober manner and therefore adhered to “act normal that’s crazy enough”. You may also have seen how close the Dutch Royal Family actually are to their people, as they are approachable (read: equal) when appearing in public.

By Marianne Mol

Marianne Mol is the founder of Munro Coaching & Training. She delivers leadership and team development tracks that improve effective co-operation throughout the organisation. Marianne lived and worked in the U.K. for a number of years, where she gained a wealth of cross cultural experience through coaching team leaders from various cultural backgrounds with NCR Ltd. a global American corporation. Marianne is a Licensed Partner with Richard Lewis Communications, a leading organisation in the field of cross cultural awareness, knowledge and skills. Find Marianne Mol on Twitter, LinkedIn and Whiteboardmag.

Brave Cypriots tackle financial crisis head on; but what does the future hold for them?

I have been working in the world of global professional education for the past seven years, developing new markets to enhance the level of professional skills in Asia and Europe. The results have been impressive and it is encouraging to see the growing appetite for these skills as the need for transparency and accountability has become so crucial in today’s global economy. Our student population has been growing worldwide at a healthy pace, but of all the markets I have worked in from Pakistan to Luxembourg, the place which has most impressed me has been Cyprus. The well-educated professional class is now going to play a vital part in helping Cyprus recover from its current economic crisis.

Often holiday destinations don’t turn out to be the easiest places to do business; however this is not the case in Cyprus. This beautiful and extremely hospitable Mediterranean island has seen enormous growth in its financial services sector over the past decade and its ability to support this has been due to investment in professional skills and the creation of a formidable professional workforce. Added to this, Cyprus had an attractive tax regime for foreign investors with 10% corporation tax, which made the island appealing to many international organisations. In particular there has been enormous Russian investment over the past few years and Limassol now boasts a significant Russian community, which sits alongside a stable tourist industry. This has produced an unexpected cultural alliance in the current financial climate: both nations value close knit communities, share the Orthodox religion and are driven financially. The attractions of Cyprus as a financial centre were significant for the Russians. Business was booming until the current global economic crisis started to affect Cyprus, culminating in the move to ask the EU for a bailout in June 2012 and resulting in the financial chaos seen in recent weeks. 

Cyprus is now in financial meltdown, facing its worst economic crisis in recent history, since the events of 1974. As the latest in the series of countries that have applied for a bailout from the EuroGroup, the Cypriot government have made a bold and brave move in trying to address the severe financial situation they find themselves in. A serious banking crisis caused by exposure to Greek government bonds and poorly managed public finances, have reportedly created a black hole of up to €16bn. To help solve the crisis, Brussels is prepared to release a loan of €10bn, but only if Cyprus agrees to raise €5.8bn themselves. This radical approach has put the nerves of many Europeans on edge and the Cypriots are in shock. Unemployment is now at an all-time high of 11%, with over 30% unemployment among the 18-25 age group. How the Cypriots respond will be an enormous cultural test and so far I have been impressed by their ability to tackle the problem professionally, intelligently and with dignity.

The recently elected 66 year-old lawyer, President Nicos Anastasiades, is clearly determined to face these issues head on to ensure confidence is restored, but he has a mighty challenge ahead. He and his government have been embroiled in talks with the EU and to a similar degree with the Russians, trying to find a financial rescue package for the island nation.

The political and economic situation in Cyprus is clearly in the European spotlight as its credibility as a financial centre is under the microscope. Culturally too, the Cypriots are in the media gaze as they deal with the shocking news of how bad the crisis is and what the implications might be for them. Understandably they are very angry. The future direction of the economy hinges on the success of the government’s austerity measures, measures for economic growth, the effective capitalisation of newly-found gas reserves and further developments in Greece and the Eurozone.

By nature Cypriots are conservative and hard-working so austerity measures will come as a real blow to the overwhelming majority of the population, who have played by the rules and may now incur additional taxes. As a nation where family loyalty and protection is paramount, they will see this as a collective challenge.

In spite of these difficulties, the Cypriots are well placed to fight back with their well-educated and professionally trained workforce and they have come back from crises in the past. None more famously than in 1974 when the conflict with the Turkish Cypriots reached a climax and resulted in a divided territory. This split resulted in two communities: the Green Line separating the Greek Cypriot-controlled south from the Turkish Cypriot-controlled north. This dispute led to many Cypriots losing their properties overnight and inevitably the effects of this are still felt.

The direct result of this affected their approach to education. The Greek Cypriots took the view that whatever life throws at you and in particular the loss of material wealth, the one thing you cannot take away is education. This approach has now passed through generations as Cypriot families have worked hard to give their children the best education. More often than not this has meant sending them to excellent universities worldwide and in particular in the UK and US.

In return their children have not let them down. They haven’t taken this privilege for granted, they have worked hard and performed to the highest level in a second language, rising to the challenge and seeking out opportunities. Cypriot students haven’t been satisfied with just passing exams, they have wanted to be the best, often pursing professional qualifications and MBAs after their first degrees. In the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England & Wales (ICAEW) Professional Stage exams in 2012, 4 out of the 5 overall winners were Cypriots from over 1,300 students and nearly 8,000 exams taken from around the world.

The professional reputation of Cyprus is all the more important in this economic climate, where high ethical and professional standards are essential for steering a path to recovery and securing its long term future as a successful financial centre. It is also important to remember these are not challenges faced by Cyprus alone, as similar questions are being asked in the UK and the rest of Europe. Those in prominent roles such as the regulators, law enforcement agencies and other government bodies are being forced to instigate and influence positive change. A cultural shift is taking place in professional behaviour throughout Europe.

In this climate of austerity where job security is fragile, students are doing everything not only to secure their own futures but also that of their country. By maximising their professional potential and performing at the top of their game, they are doing everything possible to ensure that Cyprus will recover from this economic crisis and that it will be in very good hands in the future to come. Collectively the Cypriots will fight back, overcome these challenges and strive to re-build a brighter future. Without doubt they will also remember who was there in their hour of need and this will inevitably shape the cultural alliances of the future.

By Kate Holroyd-Smith

Kate Holroyd-Smith is Senior Business Development Manager at ICAEW where she develops professional education markets in Western Europe.

Blossoming Russia

From the 20-25 January 2013 I visited the city of St. Petersburg, giving lectures in two prominent academic institutions – the University of Humanities and Social Sciences and the European University at St. Petersburg. During and after my stay, I was left with the following impressions:

St. Petersburg is one of Europe’s most beautiful cities, either under its mantle of white, crispy snow in February, or even more so in the soft late evening glow of June – a period known as the “White Nights”, when inhabitants stay out sunbathing on the tidy, sloping banks of the Neva river until almost midnight. 

Both Peter the Great and Catherine the Great laid out their city with detailed care and great taste. They employed Italian and other European architects from the top drawer and created an urban wonderland of matchless allure. This city competes confidently with Paris, Versailles and Rome in its bold geometric layout, its imposing white façades and its attractive clear-cut canals (second only to Venice). The subtle sprinkling of Russian churches, especially the Church of Spilled Blood, remind one that one stands on Russian soil, so easy to forget in this celebration of Italianate splendour. 

The city’s amenities match its beauty. Few galleries or museums offer as much as the Hermitage, few theatres compare with the Mariinsky Ballet. My hotel – the Ambassador – left nothing to be desired in terms of room quality and services. 

If I seem to enthuse over the physical aspects of the visit, I would not like it to relegate to second rank my impressions of my hosts and of other personal encounters during my stay. I had visited the city in the Soviet time and, though I was charmed unequivocally by the town then, I was struck by the transformation of Leningrad of the 1980s into 21^st century St. Petersburg. My chief host, Professor Alexander Zapesotsky, the President of Humanities, is arguably Russia’s leading interculturalist – a devoted disciple of the legendary Likachev. He invited me to speak on “Cross-cultural competence is the basis for success in international business.” The audience consisted of 80 graduates and post-graduate students as well as professors. As my remarks were extended over a 2-day period, it was more of a seminar than a lecture, involving healthy participation by those present. My second workshop, a 4-5 hour session with a similar audience in the European University, evoked another keen participatory response. Oleg Kharkhordin, Rector, and Kirill Bykov, Director for GR, were affable hosts.

In both universities I was impressed by audience quality, in marked contrast to those I had addressed in earlier times in Moscow. Soviet-epoch audiences listened dutifully, but their reactions were restrained, smiles guarded, feedback almost non-existent. The audiences I now addressed in St Petersburg were warm, sympathetic listeners, showing keen interest in other cultures. The age group was about 22-50; they all evinced willingness to ask questions. Their responses indicated that they were knowledgeable, though many of them had not crossed national borders. Their questioning was open and without any evident bias.

Russia, with its vast land expanses, shares frontiers with many nations. Consequently Russians all around the perimeter are familiar with the habits of a considerable number of other peoples and consequently inherit a certain amount of intercultural insight.

Russia is in fact one of the most multi-cultural countries in the world (alongside Canada and the United States) therefore cross-cultural discussions are of great interest and very meaningful for Russians.

The more I interacted with them, the more I realised that they possess the totality of what I would consider essentially European characteristics – generosity, courtesy, compassion, love of learning, sense of humour, eloquence, etc. They also possess a few sterling Asian traits such as adaptability, self-sacrifice and stoicism in adversity. In summary, I sensed strongly their breadth of vision – a quality that must serve them well in the future.

What is their future? What indeed is Russian cultural identity? From what I have seen of Russians over the last couple of years, I am optimistic for them. On top of the wealth of qualities that I have outlined above (and which must imply capacity for leadership in both European and Eurasian contexts), the country is reputed for its rich and comprehensive artistic history (literature, music, ballet, opera, theatre, painting, architecture) as well as its advances in the fields of science and space technology. The nation’s extensive assets in oil, gas and minerals should provide a steady improvement in standards of education and living in general. Russians have already begun to travel abroad in large numbers, thereby broadening their knowledge and worldview from year to year. It would be a mistake to underestimate or discount Russian influence in the coming decade.

by Richard D. Lewis 

Civil War in Spain? Catalunya pulls back from the brink

On 11 September 2012 over a million people took to the streets of Barcelona in a huge demonstration in favour of independence from Spain.

Just two weeks later, building on the impetus for self-government, the Catalan President Artur Mas brought forward regional elections by two years, pledging to hold an early referendum on Catalunya's political status and possible independence.

Shortly after in October, in the Basque Country, two separatist parties dominated the elections to the Basque Parliament by winning two thirds of the seats.

Facing the constitutional crisis of a possible breakaway of two of its Regional Autonomies, Spain waited with apprehension. The sabre-rattling ripostes and political condemnation were not long in coming:

• Ex-Army officer, Colonel Alaman publicly calls for military intervention in Catalunya;
• In a counter demonstration against independence for Barcelona, right arms are seen raised in the classic Fascist salute;
• In late November in the editorial of the official Army Magazine 'Ejercito', General Pontifas Deus denounces President Mas for his 'more than outrageous plans for self-government';
• In Brussels, Spain's Partido Popular Minister of Defence denies any knowledge of any 'Movement' in the Military, or any use of the Military as a mouthpiece for others;
• There are calls for the arrest of President Mas, possibly for treason.

With hindsight perhaps there was an over-reaction to the crisis. But for the Right and many traditionalists in the country, the unity of Spain is sacrosanct. Even today.

This concept of a united Spain has long been a challenge for Catalans, especially those whose language and family roots are Catalan. They have an intense sense of pride in their Catalanism, which combines within it an almost spiritual love of their language and culture and historical identity, within Spain but not necessarily of it. Catalans feel different, and in their history there is much to confirm this.

Having been settled firstly by the Greeks, Catalunya became the most completely romanized region of Iberia and had the least contact - at most 80 years - with the Moors during the seven centuries of Moorish occupation of the majority of the peninsula. From the 12th to the 14th centuries, Catalans, in a sophisticated confederacy with the Aragonese, dominated large parts of the Mediterranean, ruling Sardinia, Corsica and most of present-day Greece, and controlling the gold trade with Sudan.

But one of the most surprising aspects of this empire was the political and administrative structure that supported it. From the early 13th century Catalunya had a three-chamber form of parliament, the Corts, which passed all legislation and the Generalitat, which organised tax raising and expenditure. It was a very good time to be Catalan. When Queen Isabella in the beginning of the 16th century banned the Catalans from trading with the New World of the Americas, domination by Spain or the Central Government was to become their destiny for the next five centuries.

Every country has an event or events in its past which by repetition over the years form an emotive part of their historical identity and the date is familiar to all. For the English, 1066, the Battle of Hastings and the start of the Norman Conquest is the one we remember. For the Catalans it is 11 September 1741, during the War of Spanish Succession. After a year's siege Barcelona was finally captured by the French and Spanish armies who raised a third of the city to the ground. The 11 September is now the National Day of Catalunya and was also the date of Barcelona's latest demonstration for Independence from Spain.

But is it possible that what might most colour Catalunya's view of their relationship with Madrid are events in the 20th century, still within living memory of older citizens? In 1939, the final defeat of the Republican Government by Franco's Nationalist troops took place in Barcelona. It was effectively the end of the Civil War. The campaign against the Catalan language culture and people unleashed on Franco's victory was devastating. Any public use of the language was banned and any books in Catalan including priceless and irreplaceable private collections were destroyed. Street and town names were given Spanish names. Catalan went underground.

This discrimination damaged the language but what caused far more linguistic damage longterm were the 'tidal waves' of Spanish-speaking immigrants, mainly from Andalucia and mostly semi-literate: a quarter of a million in the forties, half a million in the fifties, and almost a million in the sixties. Absorption into the local population as had happened with previous immigrants was almost impossible as the new immigrants often lived in their own 'barrios' speaking Spanish which was also the language used in education. Spanish increasingly became the language of preference for domestic use, even in Catalan homes. Figures for 1975 show that Catalan was spoken in only 39% of homes in Barcelona.

So do these figures have any relevance in 2012? To some extent certainly. Girona's mayor, Carles Puigdemont identifies the original source of the desire for separatism: "We have our own language, our own culture, it's in our DNA." he might have been heartened to see flags of Andalucia among the Catalan pro-separatist flags fluttering from the balconies. Other pro-separatist politicians, seeing the huge increase in the movement of workers following the EU open border policy, must be asking themselves how this is affecting voting patterns. Without the DNA will those recent citizens be ready to take the risk of supporting Independence?

Carme Chacon, a Catalan, a dynamic politician and former Defence Minister in Zapatero's Socialist Government, sees it from a broader perspective. She favours the concept of smaller states within a Federal Europe, "different but united."  She sees herself as one of the many Catalans who have roots in other regions of Spain. Her father came to the north from Andalucia and her grandfather was an anarchist from Aragon. She declares "I am a Catalan, a Spaniard and a European. And I do not want anyone to oblige me to choose."

If her views are shared by many in Catalunya, could it be that Catalanism or cultural identity is not what has provoked this present independista crisis?  It is certainly underpinning it, but as Bill Clinton said, in another place and at another time, "It's the Economy, stupid."

It is difficult to believe, on the face of it, that this could be the case with Catalunya. Its reputation as the powerhouse of Spain for its industrial and commercial success, are supported by the statistics. It provides 20% of Spain's GDP, 25% of Spain's tax revenue, 35% of Spain's exports including 45% of high-tech exports, and 25% of Spain's tax revenue (2009 figures). In spite of this, Catalunya is €42 billion in debt. And the root cause of this situation lies in Catalunya's political State of Autonomy and its fiscal relationship with Madrid.

For Spain, though composed politically of regions with autonomy, has a centralised tax collection system. It was formulated in 1978 in the difficult days of Spain's fledgling democracy which followed 40 years of repressive dictatorship under General Franco, after the Civil War in the late 1930s.  Only the Basque Country and Navarre were allowed to raise their own taxes, a traditional right with its roots in the fueros of medieval times.

Put rather simplistically, Madrid levies the taxes and returns to each autonomy a percentage in services and investment. The difference between these two sums is the fiscal deficit. In the case of Catalunya, Madrid raises 95% of the taxes, and Catalunya raises 5% to cover its Social Services, including Healthcare and Education.  Figures from the Generalitat show that between 1986 and 2009 the fiscal deficit ran on average at 8% of GDP per annum and in that last year Catalunya contributed €16.4 billion (8.4% of GDP) more in taxes than it received from Madrid in state services and investment. Alternatively one could say that amongst the autonomies, Catalunya was the third highest contributor of taxes to central government, but was eleventh highest in what it received back from Madrid.

To put into perspective the damage this causes to the Catalan economy, the Cercle Catala de Negocis has cited a telling analogy: Japan's Tsunami Disaster caused an estimated loss of 3.6% - 5.7% of its GDP.

The strain that the increase in the fiscal deficit has placed on relations between Madrid and Catalunya was exacerbated by the sense of anger and betrayal felt by the Catalans over the fate of their new Statute of Autonomy of 2006. After four years of negotiations, this had been approved by the Catalan Parliament in September 2005, by the Spanish Congress in March 2006 and ratified in Catalunya by a majority vote in a referendum. It gave Catalunya extensions of rights in the Judicial system, Catalan language status, immigration controls, taxes and access to loans, and the right for Catalunya to be referred to as a nation.

The frustration felt then when an appeal to the Spanish Constitutional Court was filed by the conservative Partido Popular party was as nothing compared to the severe shock delivered by the Court's ruling in 2010 when the appeal was upheld. Fourteen articles of the Statute had been abolished and twenty-six were to be seriously amended: these changes struck at the very structure of civil, political and judicial administration in Catalunya. And as for the Autonomy's right to Nation status? It was deemed unconstitutional.  For Catalans, this was insult added to injury.

Of course many in Central Government and in the rest of Spain have a different perspective on the Catalan position. Barcelona is seen as an avant-garde, vibrant city rich in Art and Culture with a thriving port. As an autonomy, it is able to take advantage, as a gateway to Europe, of its geographical location on Spain's north-east Mediterranean coast, sharing a border with France. It is famous for its tourism, but respected and somewhat envied for its highly successful commercial and industrial sectors especially textiles, biotechnology - and wine production.  Whereas other Spanish autonomies with much lower GDPs, perhaps traditionally more rural and sometimes disastrously less well developed, have not only seen their budgets shredded, social programmes slashed, mounting redundancies in local government and private sectors, and rocketing unemployment especially among the young, all causing real poverty. Many therefore are tempted to see Catalans as 'spoilt children' trying to hold onto their 'goodies', exploiting their role as perennial victims of the wicked Central Government. Madrid seems to see its present fiscal policy towards Catalunya, however contentious, as trying to maintain the 1978 concept of regional autonomies, offering them 'cafe para todos'. This tends to be seen then (amongst other less altruistic motives) as an opportunity for radical wealth redistribution in favour of poorer regions of Spain, especially in the light of the euro crisis and diminishing EU funding.

But the Catalans are also suffering.  With their lack of fiscal control, faltering GDP and high tax rates, including the highest income tax rate of 56%, they share increasingly with other autonomies and European countries many of the problems referred to above.

So was the constitutional crisis all media hype?

The regional elections on 25 November took place with no military coup, but also without the President Artur Mas winning the outright majority he needed for his party, the CiU, to call for a referendum. Even worse, voters' support for the CiU dropped 8%, and their representation in the 135-seat parliament dropped from 62 seats to 50. They are still the largest party, but only in coalition can they function.

An anti-climax perhaps? Not necessarily if one examines the voting pattern. Naturally enough the Partido Popular leader Mariano Rajoy with schadenfreude was predictably scathing in his judgement of the Catalan President - perhaps he wished to divert attention from two very unpalatable facts.  Firstly that just under two thirds (87) of parliamentary seats are now held between four parties who either support at least a referendum on independence or those who openly campaigned on a more radical independista policy, such as Oriol Junqueras. He is leader of the party Esquerra Republicana Catalunya (ERC) which doubled their seats at the elections to become the second largest party. The high turnout of voters, 68%, more than two thirds of eligible voters, confirms the strength of the wish for constitutional change, which many political commentators feel Madrid should not ignore.

However, instead of compromise, Madrid appears to favour the policy of attack being the best form of defence.  The Minister for Education, José Ignacio Wert, is advocating much of Michael Gove's proposals for English education: league tables, privatisation, etc. But what has caused enormous offence to Catalunya is his attack on bilingual education policy, downgrading the status and use of Catalan to a specialist subject, and conversely defining Spanish as the main language of education.

Opposition is widespread and strong: 71% against in a December poll, but the most scathing appraisal is the article by internationally renowned Fernando Vallespin (Professor of Political Science and Administration and Director of Political Theory at Madrid's Universidad Autonoma) in El Pais on 7 December 2012. He says:

"Faced with the state of the current situation in Catalunya, what could be more rash than to aggravate them on the question they are most sensitive about, the defence of their language...What it shows is that (Madrid) has not bothered to find out absolutely anything about what is happening there, nor has it understood the basic message coming from the ballot box."

[Spanish original: "Ante la situación que estamos viviendo en Cataluña, ¿cabe algo más imprudente que tocarles en el punto más sensible, la defensa de su lengua?...Significa no haberse enterado de nada de cuanto está ocurriendo allí, ni haber entendido el mensaje fundamental emanado de las urnas."]

He also urges that party politics should be put aside…this circumstance demands a renewal of the constitutional agreement, seeking those outside politics who are capable of generating the maximum possible consensus. He concludes with these words:

"The Government is far too arrogant and doctrinaire and it lacks the will and ability to encourage efforts to be made towards a grand State plan. It has chosen the opposite option and we shall all pay the price."

[Spanish original: "Al Gobierno le sobra soberbia y doctrinarismo y le faltan la voluntad y la capacidad para adicionar fuerzas en torno a un gran proyecto de Estado. Ha elegido la opción contraria y lo pagaremos todos."]

He is the expert, but will they listen to him.

So will Catalunya pull back from the brink? Perhaps if Malta and Estonia can pull off being small independent countries in the EU, this ancient Catalan region will be encouraged to take that leap to escape their present near-impossible relationship with Madrid and Spain.

But Brussels has just confirmed that Scotland's exit from the United Kingdom would mean also giving up its EU membership. To renegotiate entry could be long and costly. Catalans have a reputation for being financially canny and having great common sense - an honourable compromise may yet be reached. For the whole is often worth more than the sum of its parts. Good Luck, Spain.

by Sheila Profit

Going for Gold – reasons for the UK to celebrate!

Expect the worst, hope for the best – while I would not go as far as calling this a national motto in the UK, nevertheless it accurately reflects a trait which seems to run deep in the national psyche. This almost cheery pessimism may help to explain many of the mysteries observed by overseas visitors. Why do British people not object to paying up to twice the European average for train tickets when they often end up sitting on the (not terribly clean) floor? Why is it that when the same road is dug up five times in a month by different utility companies, we respond with a shrug? Why do we not seem outraged or even particularly surprised when our airports grind to a halt after two inches of snow when other European cities seem to operate without trouble under two feet (or should that be 0.6m)?

And yet, ironically, in this country where strangers rarely speak to each other, it is when things go wrong that we begin to communicate. How many conversations have sprung up between strangers about the absence of summer or the lateness of a train or bus (I expect it is “leaves on the line” we say with wry humour, referring to a standard excuse used by train operators to explain delays, rivaled only in its ridiculousness by “the wrong kind of snow”)?

It is not that we don’t have high standards or hopes – it is more that we are resigned to the fact that they will rarely be met, and in the unlikely event that they are, we enjoy being pleasantly surprised.

So the prospect of London hosting the Olympics and Paralympic Games in 2012 was greeted by many Brits with cynical (sometimes verging on gleeful) predictions of shambolic organisation, security risks and traffic chaos. Rumours circulated that the opening ceremony would consist of “a bit of grass, a few sheep and some country dancing”; in stark contrast, it was feared, to the stunningly choreographed spectacle presented to the world by Beijing in 2008.

Even presidential hopeful Mitt Romney felt emboldened to question whether London would be able to run the Olympics smoothly, during his first foreign tour in July. His publically expressed doubts triggered a phenomenon not uncommon among the British – we tend to be modest and self-deprecating until challenged, at which point we may quickly rally around and counter-attack. David Cameron was quick to point out that the 2012 Olympics would be taking place in a busy city and not  “in the middle of nowhere” – widely seen as a reference to the 2002 Winter Games in Salt Lake City, which Romney organised. It could be said that the tide of public opinion towards the Olympics began to turn at that moment.

Of course there were still doubters and causes for concern in the run up to the great event. Mere weeks before the Games began, it emerged that G4S – the official security provider – had failed to recruit enough staff, leaving a shortfall which meant having to draft in 18,000 military personnel at very short notice. Special lanes reserved for members of the ‘Olympic Family’ (dubbed ‘Zil lanes’ after the former Soviet Union habit of reserving lanes for senior officials) were also the fuel for much criticism. However, when it came down to it, Brits were confronted with facilities that were completed on time and on budget. Recently, the government has announced that in fact the cost of hosting the Games was £377m under budget.

Not only that, but it transpired that the startlingly original Opening Ceremony ‘Isles of Wonder’, designed by film director Danny Boyle, managed to pull off that most elusive of ambitions – appealing to almost all sections of the diverse population that makes up the UK. With its seamless juxtaposition of high-brow and low-brow, vivid story-telling and inspiring music, it provided a dramatic showcase for many British achievements, including the Industrial Revolution and the much-maligned but secretly treasured NHS. The event, which became the most-viewed Olympic opening ceremony in both the UK and the US, included moments of quirky hilarity, as Mr Bean joined the London Symphony Orchestra in a rendition of Chariots of Fire and an unforgettable cameo appearance by the Queen herself, escorted to the venue by our very own James Bond (aka Daniel Craig), before apparently parachuting out of a helicopter into the stadium.

It is reported that, when asked for permission to use her image in the film, Her Majesty not only said that she would like to play the part herself, but questioned whether the type of helicopter the director planned to use would actually be able to fly under Tower Bridge. Whether you support the Royal Family or not, it is hard to avoid a frisson of pride at being reigned by a monarch, who was not only ‘game’ enough to star in such a film but was also able to offer expert advice on helicopters.

The other notable feature of the Opening Ceremony was the way in which it involved young people, from dancers and choirs to the seven promising young athletes who were given the role of lighting the spectacular Olympic cauldron, created by the coming together of 204 individual copper ‘petals’ (one to represent each of the competing nations).

And then suddenly, it felt as if the whole country was united behind this noble sporting endeavour; those who had decried the waste of public money at a time of economic crisis were scrambling on the internet to find tickets for any event they could get their hands on.

As if this wasn’t enough, we were then treated to outstanding performances by Team GB athletes – among them Jessica Ennis, Bradley Wiggins, Sir Chris Hoy, Laura Trott, Ben Ainslie, Andy Murray and Mo Farah. And the medals kept coming, leading to a final tally of 65 medals, with the UK finishing in third place after the US and China – and of these a staggering 29 were gold.

Winning all these medals felt like a bonus, and it reminded us that we are – and always have been – a nation passionate about sport. As IOC President Jacques Rogge said in his speech at the opening ceremony, “In a sense, the Olympic Games are coming home tonight. This great sports-loving country is widely recognized as the birthplace of modern sport. It was here that the concepts of sportsmanship and fair play were first codified into clear rules and regulations.”

Other British traditions in evidence during the games included support for the underdog, as witnessed by the crowd of 20,000 cheering on Djibo Issaka from land-locked Niger who had only taken up rowing three months earlier; even the announcer cried, “You can do it!” as he crossed the finishing line a full minute and 40 seconds behind the winner.

Our ‘volunteer spirit’ was also strikingly demonstrated by the army of 70,000 Olympic and Paralympic Games Makers – unpaid helpers who made an invaluable contribution to the success of the event. Easily distinguishable in deep purple uniforms, they always seemed to be on hand to guide people, answer questions and even give first aid.

The Paralympics were as high profile and well-attended as the Olympics, another achievement for a country that is sometimes attacked for being overly ‘politically correct’ but that has slowly and patiently introduced policies to combat discrimination in many different areas to the point where we take the expectation of equality for granted in most aspects of life.

So in the end, we not only “muddled through” but really did “carry it off quite well.” Far from being crowded and chaotic, some parts of London were virtually empty, the public transport system worked flawlessly and in spite of that complete strangers could be seen speaking to each other – there was nothing to moan about, they were simply caught up in the sheer exhilaration of our golden summer.

London 2012 showed that the British people, when they put their mind to something, can still deliver. It was our moment in the sunshine, a chance for us to rediscover a pride and patriotism that is not about power, elitism and empire but energy, innovation and diversity.

by Caroline Lewis

Caroline Lewis is a Trainer and Coach in Cross Culture at Richard Lewis Communications. Email [email protected]

Is there such a thing as the French Dream?

When my British friends and family tell me “you’re practically French now,” I have to say, I am still a little surprised. It’s true that I think that having lived in France for most of my adult life after spending my childhood and student years in the UK, I don’t consider myself as either British or French. I’m certainly more European than anything and my culture is a real mixture of Anglo thinking and Mediterranean living.

It’s true that as I go about my daily life in France I have the impression that my “Englishness” goes practically unnoticed. I am able to blend into the physical Mediterranean landscape and on a good day my Anglo lilt is often mistaken for some other accent whose origins are anywhere north of Provence.

I have embraced French life and culture as though it was my life’s vocation and I remember dreaming about life in France since I was a teenager. But as I move towards the half-way mark (i.e. more of my life spent away from the UK than in it), I ask myself whether the French dream has – and does – live up to expectations.

Along with the lifestyle, climate and culture, France has a good economic flag to fly and I can quote any number of projects and achievements that makes me delighted to live in the country. I still marvel with admiration every time I step on the TGV in Aix en Provence to arrive only 3 hours later in the capital.  

And then there’s the people themselves. When I hear the French talking about the French, they often mention how much they complain. “It’s an essential part of our culture,” one of my friends tells me. And it is true that the appointment of a new government, a new football manager or a new boss is often an open invitation to criticism.  I revel in the passionate discussions I hear (and participate in) at dinner tables and admire how the French are fervent debaters in whatever is the subject of the moment.

Yet, does all this discussion exist just for discussion’s sake or is it part and parcel of their natural resistance to change? Keeping what you have is a very strong French value and I have witnessed many battles on this subject fought and lost over the years. But having an opinion and expressing it is as important a part of French culture as is resisting whatever law, rule or idea is put down in front of them. So when you combine these three aspects of the culture, you get what some people perceive as “French arrogance”. I see it more as a way of being heard, included and participating in the change process without feeling that they have been subjected to it. It doesn’t mean that things don’t change, they just take a whole lot more time to do so than many other cultures are used to.

And change is definitely on France’s agenda. The recent electoral swing to the left has generated new hope for many, in spite of many of the unpopular changes and reforms that Hollande and his government are about to put into place.

Irrespective of their political beliefs, most of my entourage is relieved to see the back of Sarkozyism and as one person put it, unlike Sarkozy, Hollande actually went to political school so he knows how to govern. This is one of the first cultural gulfs I had to deal with when arriving in France that bounces back at me time and time again. In other words, if you went to the right school, you’re fit for the job. You can have all the potential in the world, but if you don’t have the qualifications, your skills and experience are worth little unless you are given the opportunity to prove otherwise.

And in the employment context I think this still rings very true today. An American friend of mine went for an interview recently at a recruitment agency. When asked what kind of job she would like to apply for, given her experience in a number of senior positions spanning over a 20 year career in France, she explained that there are any number of positions she could fill. Launching into a justification of the unstable job market today the recruiter explained: “employers are taking fewer and fewer risks and are therefore clinging more and more onto the qualifications of their potential employees as a reliable form of employability. And because of this you don’t really fit into any one particular position.”

Contrary to many of my French counterparts, as I was growing up, I was encouraged to seek out 3 or 4 different careers throughout my lifetime and challenge and variety is still something I cherish today. With my go-out-and-get-it attitude, at 16 I began my retail Saturday job career. But today’s young French have not been brought up in the same way. Work experience from an early age is a rarity, but becoming a necessity. The degree in the pocket is not enough to secure the long term employment that their parents or grandparents were guaranteed.

Many are seeking opportunities overseas as one alternative. In France, instead of falling into jobs that are the perfect match for their qualifications, many youngsters are obliged to work for virtually (and sometimes) nothing to gain the experience and improve their chances of being a better candidate than the other thousands applying for the same job. And that’s if the job hasn’t already been ear-marked for someone who knows someone who knows someone…

This may seem a pretty gloomy outlook, but France is still advocating the merits of its education system as the key to employment success. Last week Le Monde was still encouraging the diploma route by headlining articles such as “a degree is still the best employment guarantee” (Le Monde 05 July 2012) and  “job opportunities are more and more rare without qualifications” (Le Monde 14-16 July 2012). But this clearly isn’t enough for young people seeking jobs in France today.

It is not as simple as saying it’s all about where you went to school or who you know, but this is definitely a factor that is still influencing the French job market today. Over the years I have learned the art of successful networking in France and most of my work today is based on referrals. You may argue that this is the case in many countries, but the “who-you-know” aspect is still very prevalent.

When a friend of mine explained to me recently that she has bid for 5 big tenders this year and won none of them, she later discovered that the work had been allocated before the bid was published. I can’t help asking myself in France today where the emphasis lies between striving for excellent results and building excellent relationships.

Living in the South of France, the latter is so often the most natural option. Some of my most successful business meetings have taken place in sites of natural beauty, or whilst sharing some gastronomic moment with a client. This aspect of French culture lends itself so well to relationship building and it’s no surprise that it has been one of the more popular ways of enticing inward investment over the years. But for how long can it ride on its epicurean lifestyle, sublime climate and exquisite scenery?

I am actively involved in the Mediterranean Anglo-American Business Network where for the past 5 years we have been holding monthly networking events in English. We attract many French native speakers who like the refreshing alternative to doing business. And we are successful because we have taken the best of all of our cultures.  We have combined the qualities of the French culture (relationship building, good food, drink, climate, etc…) and put them into an Anglo business context (sociable, casual, no-fuss straight-talking) to produce what seems to be an attractive way for the French to do business.

The success of our events brings me back to the question of the French dream. I think that it is still worth pursuing, albeit a little bit differently. Living and working in France has brought me so many challenges on a practical level, especially running my own business. But in spite of the difficulties many of us are facing today in France, “enjoying life” still holds very strongly as a French value. It hasn’t hindered but helped my business. It has helped me live my dream on both a personal level and professional level and I have learned so much from both the culture and its people. It’s what brought me here all those years ago, and, if change is on the agenda for France, it’s one thing the French should never change.

by Rebecca Penna

 

Having spent the first twenty years of her life in the UK, Rebecca has gone on to spend the majority of her career in France where she settled in the early 1990s after graduating from Sussex University.

With an Anglo-European upbringing she has accumulated many years of personal and professional intercultural experience, particularly in service related industries and always in multicultural environments. She has also used this experience elsewhere in the retail and tourist industries both in the UK and in France. 

Rebecca spent over ten years working for the British Embassy and UK Trade & Investment (the UK's international trade department), combining diplomacy and international business, two very distinct environments relevant to her work today. She occupied a number of Consular and Commercial positions to later become Vice-Consul (Commercial). 

In 2007 she decided to create her own company and naturally moved into the field of cultural diversity where today she enjoys designing and delivering tailor-made training programmes and events (in French and English) in cross-cultural communication, managing diverse teams and working effectively across cultures.

See www.refervescence.com