It is not a puerile query and has to be addressed. After more than sixty years of political independence, how self-confident are we as a nation? Reply: For sure, insufficiently.
Self-confidence does not mean that we should display ourselves as a nation of prophets - all out to teach others what they must do. Sometimes that temptation did prevail When it happened, we were hardly impressive. In fact it was another signal that showed we were - perhaps still are - not close to accessing the required self-confidence. A frog that puffs itself up, explodes.
By contrast, there were - still are - other occasions when we seem prepared to act like little children, all eager to listen to what others - the adults - have to tell us. This attitude was displayed mostly in our dealings with the EU. Personally I find it more irritating than behaviour that responds to the first temptation - having seen it deployed from close-up, with nauseating effect.
A self-confidence that rests on a sense of realism as well as on a pride regarding who we are... is still in formation. We're making progress, not least among the younger generations. We'll get there eventually.
***
ENERGY FOR EUROPE
Some years ago, huge pressures were brought to bear on German chancellors Schroeder and Merkel to opt out of the pipleine project launched to carry gas from Russia to Germany. The US government was insistent in these efforts while arguing that Russia wold end up blackmailing Germany. (The Americans wanted Europe to become reliant on them for the provision of energy.)
The Russian invasion of the Ukraine justified, or so it seemed, these claims.
With much huffing and puffing, Germany and others have been giving up on the gas that was to be imported from Russia. They're again relying greatly on the US. But given how the US is being led these days, what's the probability that the "blackmail" which the Russians would have organized is not now going to be carried out by the Americans?
***
NATIONAL HERITAGE SITES
Should sites that possess national historical value be kept apart, as if in a transparent bowl? Nothing they hold should be disturbed from how it has survived the centuries and it must be presented in a way that just allows people to have a look, appreciate the value of the site and leave.
I'm not convinced that this is the only appropriate framework for the maintenance of sites that form part of the national heritage. I disagree with those who automatically are against all proposals meant to adapt such venues to service modern-day needs, even on a commercial basis. There is no inherent value in keeping such sites "frozen" or "taxidermised" - preserved to remain hundred per cent like they were in the past.
Of course, if areas having historical and natural significance are going to be made available for contemporary usages, a strict attention will need to be given to ensuring that negative impacts do not ensue. The question then becomes: what should be done to effectively guarantee that such an assurance will stay in force?