The small island nation on the edge of everything.

It's been an exhausting couple of days with the results of the EU referendum coming in from late Thursday through to early Friday morning. I woke up just before 3am on Friday morning to check the results so far and saw that the Leave camp had a very slight lead at 50.1%. There were still 210 counts to go so I figured there was plenty of time for it to swing back the other way. When I looked again at 6:30 in the morning to check whether a definitive result had been reached, I was genuinely shocked and upset to find that the Leave camp had actually won, leaving the future of this country highly uncertain.

I continue to be shocked and upset following the result, not least due to the continuation of lies and propaganda which is still being spread about the future trajectory of the UK, together with a string of broken promises. Unfortunately what's done is done and we must now put all this energy to good use and make sure not to lose sight of who we are and where we want to go from here. As a friend recently said, it's not the people who voted leave out of a genuine belief that things would change for the better, it's those who voted out of fear and ignorance, which is a significant proportion of the population.

I struggle to accept in the 21st century that as an island nation, we want to turn our backs on Europe and the rest of the world and go it alone, especially in a time where more and more common problems will be faced by us all. The people who take things for granted such as European holidays and cars, travel benefits and other economic measures will soon find that things aren't going to go to their advantage. Someone else told me that I don't remember what life was like before the EU, implying that I wouldn't be able to appreciate why they want to turn back the clock.

The issue for me is that clocks don't turn back, except at the start of summer when we lose an hour (all rather pointlessly). Some of my friends from outside the UK already say they now feel like outsiders here, if they didn't already. If it's any consolation to them, I feel like an outsider too and am disappointed when I see how many people have voted purely from an immigration and/or a white supremacist point of view - the two aren't mutually exclusive.

Perhaps it's time to consider moving to Scotland - a country which is sure to go independent the next time a referendum is held, and will then make a move to join the European Union themselves, which will no doubt be accepted. Better to have part of the whole than none at all right? The key issue here is not that coming out of the EU is wrong per se (although I think it is) but the motivations for doing so, which in a lot of cases haven't come from a profound sense of reason. I genuinely worry about the future path of the UK now, and will be watching with interest (not in a positive sense) what happens next. Life just got a lot less colourful.

Time to vote, Europe.

Full colour, or red, white and blue?

With only 12 days to go until the referendum on the UK's membership of the European Union, I figured it was high time I put across my own view on the subject. I may not have written on this blog for some time (mainly due to time constraints), but this issue is too important not to write about. It's significantly more important than a general election and far more important than many of the other news topics currently doing the rounds.

The UK media reported today that there has been a significant surge in support for the Leave camp in the latest poll, which surveyed 2000 people with 55% of respondents saying they would vote leave. Crucially, 80% of over 55's say they will vote, and it would seem that many (though by no means all) over a certain age are to vote Leave. So does that mean our hope rests with the young?

I say the young not because they are more likely to vote Remain, but because the impact of an exit vote is going to impact the young, especially in the long term, far more than a vote to remain part of the EU will. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but it seems the majority of older voters are obsessed with turning back the clock and going back to 'the way things were'. That's all well and good but do they really think that will happen, especially in the short term? It will take years before any tangible benefits will be felt from leaving (if there are any) and they'll be felt by the people who want them least (and probably didn't vote for them).

It may sound from the above that I'm strongly in favour of the EU and everything it stands for, and that it has no problems on any level, particularly for the older members who formed the foundations of it's existence in the early years. Well I'm not and I don't. It's big, bureaucratic and doesn't offer equal benefits to all, no matter what it's original intentions. Still, I ultimately think we're better off in it, despite all it's problems, and here's why:

1) Being big and bureaucratic doesn't make it any different from the majority of modern day governments who seek to run and impose control over their own countries from the inside out. Britain has long been dominated by overly bureaucratic procedures and political parties whose major focus has been on London at the expense of the outlying regions, towns and cities.

That may be changing now to a degree, but the EU certainly does more to foster integration and help regional towns and cities to become prosperous, attractive and intelligent cultural destinations in their own right, particularly in areas of Europe previously neglected or scarred due to war or other historic occurrences that Britain hasn't had to endure or suffer in recent years. If we can contribute to the wider common good by contributing to the EU, don't we have a moral duty to do that?

2) The EU is a bastion of cultural integration, language development and change, with wider integration promoted at all levels of society to help combat the wider issues we are all facing on a planetary level. Should we try and fight climate change, terrorism and global poverty as a single entity, or as part of a larger more influential grouping of 28 states with one voice?

That's not to say that it's easy to get 28 states to agree on a common course of action (it isn't), but if we go it alone who's going to listen to our voice as a (relatively) small island state north of the European mainland?

3) If we leave our food prices will inevitably go up, along with our existing trading relationships with other states. Again, I'm not saying I'm in favour of all the complex trading agreements we're involved in across the globe, but we're so deeply enmeshed in some of them do we really want to negotiate our way out of them and still expect to get a fair deal on any renegotiations as we go it alone?

4) If we leave the EU, our cultural integration will suffer disproportionately. Britain has historically had a somewhat insular attitude towards people of different cultural or ethnic backgrounds and this will become even more pronounced if we are to leave as it buoys the fervent beliefs of the leave camp who believe every foreign national in the UK is here to take our benefits and rob us blind.

Many of my friends are from other countries and cultures, and my life in particular would be much less interesting if we hadn't previously been as open as we are now within the EU, as I wouldn't have met half of those people as easily or been able to travel to see them in their own countries.

5) Believe it or not, Britain isn't the only country in the world. We may have our own culture, history and traditions, and that's fine. But guess what? Being part of the EU isn't a threat to those values, it enhances them.

By recognising the interests and values of other member states, we enhance their understanding of ours, and by mutual cultural exchanges such as ERASMUS and other wider EU schemes such as Schengen we can promote tourism and travel on a wider level with benefits for all. Closing our borders isn't going to eliminate our problems, it will simply mean we leave the rest of the world to pick up the pieces whilst we look after our selfish selves.

I could write reams and reams on this topic but I won't. Suffice it to say that I want to remain part of the European Union, culturally and socially if nothing else. Sadly, it's all or nothing. We're not going to get the desired result here by abstaining or by being undecided. The only choice to make is to vote yes or no. Should we leave the European Union, or should we remain?

You decide, but think carefully about what kind of country you want to live in before you do. I know which way I'll be voting. This may be the single biggest political decision any of us make for the rest of our lives, so use those 12 days until the 23 June wisely and make the right choice.

An independent Scotland - why the nationalists should say no.

OK, so I thought I'd toss my own coin into the Scottish Independence debate - should it or shouldn't it go it alone? Not being a Scotsman, you might think I'm not best placed to say - you might even say I don't have a right. But sitting on the other half of this artificial (and metaphorical) fence on this merry island I figured my opinions are worth as much salt as anybody else's. You might also notice that I've written nationalists in the title of this piece without a capital 'n'. That's because I'm not referring to nationalism purely as a political ideology, or in terms of those who think that a Scottish 'Scotland' should only encompass Scottish people, Scottish thinking, and in short, all that's Scottish. Scotland is more than that.

So where do I sit on the Independence debate? I think it's quite clear from the above that I'm firmly against - and not for the reasons a lot of people probably think. I don't just want a slice of Scotland's oil revenue (in fact I don't want any - that's all Scotland's as far a I'm concerned). Neither do I want Scotland to have it all - as eventually it's going to run out, and in an independent Scotland, they might well be hard pressed to find an alternative source of income that could turn the country into an economic powerhouse without rivalling England in terms of business interests and locating potential markets. Again, that's beside the point, and presumes that the success of a nation rests solely on it's economic progress and internal growth, something I think couldn't be further from the truth.

Let's get something straight. I'm not against independence, and I'm not against an independent Scotland - I think independence can be a good thing. But history has shown us that independence can lead to more discord and enmity than we need in the modern world if we're to face the problems both in front of and behind us. I'm against an independent Scotland in the sense that Scotland (or at least Alex Salmond) seems to want it. It is a poorly disguised political move (in my opinion) to manipulate the Scottish populace into thinking he wants to do some good for his country. It's not about giving Scotland more cultural autonomy, or giving more power to local communities - chances are that even after independence, Scottish 'democracy' would remain centralised in Edinburgh, in the Scottish Parliament.

Of course, what's wrong with the Scottish Parliament I hear you say? Well, nothing. It's a necessary and functional part of Scotland's political machinery. However, a centralised body of power (that isn't even really central) can only do so much for the many and varied communities of Northern Scotland, the Highlands, or even the west coast. For me, independence is about far more than just making a political statement. It's about recognising the needs of all communities, now and in the future, whilst working in cohesion with other groups and peoples that can best recognise the needs of a contemporary nation that wants to stand on it's own two feet in the modern world, as well as playing a suitable role in the international system.

None of which will come if Scotland becomes independent. Sure it will still play a part, but independence is a move designed to cater for the political masses and turn the country ever more in upon itself, becoming more and more insular. Do I think Scotland should have more power to determine it's own political affairs? Yes, definitely. But I don't think that will be gained by Scotland turning independent on September 18. And it's on this basis that I would advise all those with an interest in Scotland's future to vote no.

Politicians' objections to proposed biomass plant on Lamlash a positive for (Scottish) democracy

The fact that two Members of Scottish Parliament (MSP's) and a Member of the UK Parliament (MP) have raised expressions of objection to a proposed biomass plant to be built on the coast of a small Scottish Island is an encouraging decision, and one that weighs, on this occasion, heavily in democracy's favour. What it demonstrates above all is that, when decisions are to be made at the local, small-scale level, the interest of politicians in issues such as these adds weight to oppositions already expressed by the public in the form of (global) civil society movements. Although small scale in nature, it is the publicity of movements such as these that allows local civil society movements to grow and, possibly, to become movements of global civil society - witness the growth of the climate change movement 350.org, for example.

The point being made here is that if issues are raised in objection to a planned development, and details of these are fully made public, it is not long before more objections can be raised and planning applications or decisions that go against the public interest can be refused or altered to fit the demands of the public whom the elected government serves in the first place. This is a positive sign for local democracies and small-scale political movements to become more active in their local communities, in order to try and achieve positive change in their societies and communities on a daily basis. The fact that an opposition movement based on a planned biomass plant on a tiny Scottish island is garnering interest far beyond the shores of the Isle of Arran is testimony to both the power of the internet and the freedom of expression which local democracy attests to.

The proposed biomass plant off the coast of Arran in Western Scotland has already had over 200 objections raised on the North Ayrshire Council website, yet more are needed to make these objections gain credible weight and to make sure they are aired in both local and (perhaps) national government offices. or in parliament. Movements such these are always likely to start small-scale, but it is when members of the public and local communities start to take notice, perhaps due to similar expressions of objection against previously planned developments in their own local and societal communities, that local democracy really comes into it's own and can prove to be a powerful force far beyond the inefficiencies of larger, more bureaucratic and centralised governments. End of rant.

Britain food aid decision welcome, but only half the answer

The decision by Britain to provide £35 million in food aid to Zimbabwe and Malawi is a welcome decision, and one that demonstrates that Britain still recognises the need for international development aid to be sustained, however small this amount may seem compared to previous major trade deals with other countries in the international system. Although claims are often made that food aid does not benefit those who most require it, it is still essential for Britain's international standing that it is seen to help those in need in countries less fortunate than ourselves.

Perhaps the real crux of the matter is that, in an ever more unpredictable world where the price of basic food staples is constantly rising, the British Government is realising that in the future we are likely to be ever more dependent on both each other and on other countries for support as the problems of global climate change and rising waters impact on the price of domestic goods to such a degree that we in Britain need to drastically reconsider our eating habits, as well as our financial spending habits. It is entirely plausible that there may come a time when Britain does not have enough to feed it's ever growing population, and will need to look elsewhere in order to sustain itself. Although this time is hopefully a long time away, Britain will not continue to prosper by viewing itself through a single lens, dependent only on itself for it's long term survival.

This makes the decision to make funds available for food aid in these countries all the more welcome, and offers positive signs that Britain has not entirely forgotten about it's international responsibilities in a time of continuous austerity. However, food aid will only help so much, and until such a time as Britain realises that providing food aid is not the only, or even the main answer, the problem will never be solved. What these people want is not donations from a third country that enables them to live their lives as we do, but to be able to make their own fortune and determine their own destiny without having to rely on other parties. As before, it is important to acknowledge that we are all mutually responsible and equally interdependent in a complex international system, but the extent of that help does not necessarily mean we have a right to take away the dignity of other peoples in other countries. Until this is realised, food aid will continue to only solve half the problem (and perhaps even less than that).

Review: Kofi Annan - Interventions: A Life in War and Peace

Reading the biography of Kofi Annan is like reading no other - completely different to the myriad of celebrity biographies saturating the market, this deals with hard-hitting facts and real issues that any self-aware world citizen will be able to sink his teeth into. Starting out by giving a bit of background on his time growing up in Africa before moving onto higher education in Europe, America and Africa, Kofi wastes no time in getting to the issues that occupied his time as the UN's seventh Secretary General, including conflict in the Middle East, genocide in Rwanda and Bosnia, 9/11 and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, right up to the issues of the Millennium Development Goals, sovereignty and the Responsibility to Protect.

Perhaps the most fundamental point raised in the book is the extent to which the UN is held to account by both states and individuals around the world, yet it is the willingness of states to commit fundamental resources (or not) that continues to severely hamper the UN in it's wide remit. Although the UN has achieved much, and received much criticism, it is this limitation that most critics of the UN fail to realise - the UN can only function effectively if the states which constitute it's core membership are prepared to commit the necessary personnel and resources to the issues with which the UN deals. The UN itself is a powerful voice, but can only achieve so much, having no recourse to such funds and people as it needs to deal with the issues which many states continually push to one side in their pursuit of economic growth and foreign policy goals often seen from only one angle.

Admittedly, by Annan's own admission, the UN is not perfect - some areas are clearly in need of reform, with the issue of the permanent membership of the Security Council in particular need of revision, dominated as it is by member states that are not necessarily the key players in the international system they once were, whilst many other relevant voices are left marginalised with barely a note of influence on the workings of the UN. Perhaps the most important thing to take from this book, however, is that the UN is needed more than ever - there is, quite simply, no other world institution so committed to the ideals of Human Rights and peacekeeping as the UN, and at it's heart is a fundamental desire to do good, many of which come from Kofi Annan's own persona, yet credit is also due to the many who work at the UN who share this vision to work towards a vision for the greater good.

Towards the end of the book, it is clear that Kofi still has positive relations with many of the worlds leaders, past and present, and continues to have a keen eye and finger in what is happening around the world - recognised more than anything, perhaps, by the request of the current Secretary General, Ban Ki-Moon for Kofi to be a special envoy in dealing with the Syrian crisis. This book is essential reading for anyone with an interest in international affairs, but particularly for those who wish to look at the issues from a different angle to the one national government's tend to approach things from. This book will undoubtedly have it's critics, and will most likely not change the opinions of those not in favour of the UN. It remains, however, an essential book and one that is much needed to inspire a future generation to work towards the positive vision which the UN inspires.

Next review: Francis Fukuyama - The Origins of Political Order (Approx. August 2013)

Results of British spending review reveal some alarming tendencies

The results of George Osborne's spending review should come as no surprise to the majority of Britain's populace, with further austerity being the order of the day, with public sector jobs once again set to disappear, with particularly local government and the NHS set to bear the brunt of this burden. However, the real controversy is in some of the more surprising decisions that have been made in terms of transport, energy and defence policies.

Perhaps the most controversial of these is the decision to offer tax incentives for shale gas drilling - this is a concern not just for Britain, but the world at large. Shale gas drilling is not the way forward to sustain our energy needs, and could be regarded as the easy option by keeping the focus on oil as a viable future energy source. However, given that large corporations and businesses are in the firing line for tax avoidance, the decision to incentivise shale gas drilling by offering tax relief is controversial indeed. If the concept of drilling fragile parts of the earth for oil were not controversial enough, offering tax relief on it given some of the more questionable taxes in place in the UK (i.e. the bedroom and pasty taxes, to name a few) is insulting indeed.

This comes on top of the guarantee for further nuclear power plants - the current UK Government's self-described 'Greenest Government ever' becomes less plausible by the second. Admittedly, we have seen some investment in wind farms and others, but nowhere near the level of investment further nuclear plants would require. Perhaps more positively, the UK defence budget has been maintained, perhaps reflecting the current tensions in the international system, with an increase in funding for intelligence agencies also announced - although given the recent revelations regarding Prism in the US, it is possible that questions could be posed as to how this funding will be best used.

The UK's international development budget has also been protected, although given the current scale of development crises around the world, it could also be asked as to whether this will go any further than in the previous round of decisions made. Finally, more money is to be made available for new embassies overseas - although depending which of Britain's interests are to be represented overseas, this may not be so effective. Time will tell, but the latest decisions on spending in the UK do not make for positive reading.