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.

Results of Aberdeen Donside by-election unsurprising, yet historic

The results of the by-election in the Aberden Donside ward following the unfortunate death of the MSP Brian Adam are not unexpected, with an SNP member being replaced by another fellow member of the SNP. This in itself is not surprising, with Aberdeen Donside (previously Aberdeen North) being an SNP stronghold since the Scottish Parliament elections in 2003, when the SNP made a gain from Labour. However, this in itself is not so historic. It is that for the first time, the election in this ward was contested by a member of the Scottish Greens, with the result of polling over 400 votes.

Although this is not nearly enough to ensure election victory, it is a laudable number, and shows how the face of modern Scottish politics is changing. Aberdeen, as part of North East Scotland, has different political interests in certain respects to the rest of Scotland, particularly with regard to the issue of North Sea trade and it's modern development under the auspices of the oil industry. As is widely known, it has been oil that has been the secret of Aberdeen's regeneration and success in recent years, so for Greens to gain even a little ground is a positive change and a sign of the times, with perhaps more and more Scots realising that there is more to political life than a never-ending stream of oil revenues - something need to be done about this in the future to ensure that Aberdeen and the wider region can adapt to life without oil when the time comes.

This is not the point of this article however, yet rather stating the case that perhaps Aberdeen also needs more of a say in it's local political development and policies, as recently expressed by the Scottish Islands. Again this is highly relevant given the upcoming independence referendum, and the changing political composition of the times is a sign that Scotland (and in particular individual regions) needs to change with it. The growth of a Green presence in Aberdeen and the wider region is evidence of widening democracy and a wider variety of political views - something which, in general, is to be encouraged, and is something to build upon. There are Green candidates working in several areas around Aberdeen - particularly in Stonehaven and in the East Garioch ward. Scotland already has Green MSP's for it's two major cities, Edinburgh and Glasgow - should, or rather shouldn't, Aberdeen be next?

Obama proposal to reduce nuclear arsenal admirable yet limited

The proposal to Russia by Barack Obama during yesterday's address in Berlin to reduce their respective nuclear arsenal's by a third is a laudable suggestion, and one that both countries would be wise to pursue given the continuing relevance of nuclear issues. However, the proposal has been negated straight away by Russia's reticence in agreeing to do so. The reasons for this are many, and are not simply down to a continuing Cold War mentality whereby the two countries are trying to outdo each other by continuing to build up their nuclear arsenals.

Firstly, it is important to remember that the world is no longer explicitly bipolar, and that there are now many more spheres of influence to consider when it comes to states being interested in or possessing nuclear weapons, not least North Korea, China and Iran, to name an obvious few. This may suggest that Russia is wishing to maintain it's nuclear stockpile not as a defence strategy against the USA, as war between the USA and Russia is now largely unthinkable, but as a defence against the many other threats that currently exist in the international system, and not necessarily in a nuclear capacity. In particular, Russia is geographically close to both Syria and Iran, whilst being effectively sandwiched in between the USA and China - two states that still remain either highly militarily capable or are explicitly investing in their defensive capability.

Secondly, although there are other pressing problems that need dealing with at the international level, it is an unfortunate fact that nuclear weapons could be seen to act as a deterrent against the insecurities currently inherent in the international system. This makes the proposal by Obama all the more promising, however, as if both Russia and the USA, two highly important and strategic international actors, were to reduce their nuclear stockpile, this may encourage other key international actors to do the same, thus reducing the level of tension existing at the international level. The proposal will remain for the foreseeable future a non-starter, as Russia is particularly unlikely to want to relinquish it's defensive capabilities, as Russia is not nearly as capable of defending it's territory to the extent of other major actors. It is instead limited by it's relative suspicion of other countries, although this argument could also be levelled at the USA to a certain degree, although less so under the current White House administration.

For now, it is enough to admire Obama's considerable courage at so explicitly expressing a desire to reduce it's nuclear arsenal given the current high level of tension surrounding the international community. A nuclear-free future is a highly desirable vision, and both current and future presidents should not forget it.

US-UK 'special relationship' reasserted at G8 summit?

The concept of the US-UK special relationship has presented itself again during the first two days of the G8 summit, apparently suggesting a reignition of the close relationship traditionally enjoyed between previous US Presidents and UK Prime Ministers. This is something that has certainly not been a prominent feature since the election of David Cameron to the UK Government in 2010, and raises the question of whether the special relationship has been resurrected, or whether it is instead headed in an entirely new direction. The trade talks that are to begin between David Cameron and Barrack Obama are certainly far from the traditional agenda that has been the preoccupation of US-UK leaders, particularly the foreign policy agenda favoured by George Bush and Tony Blair at the start of the new Millenium.

It should however come as no surprise that Cameron and Obama wish to get things moving in a bid to restart their faltering economies. 'Austerity' and 'economy' are the buzzwords of the day, with Cameron's government in particular concerned with reducing the deficit and getting things moving again. Although the trade talks between the US and UK may appear to make sense on the surface, this only further serves to consolidate Britain's image as wary of the EU and keen to remain on friendly terms with the USA, therefore it is important that EU inputs are also given adequate consideration. This is by no means a bad thing, but the important thing is to ensure that the trade to be undertaken between the countries includes things that both parties need, and that it is not simply 'trade for the sake of trade'. If similar agreements can be made with other countries in the EU, then the self-imposed alienation that this could bring to Britain is somewhat fruitless and will do nothing to improve British-EU relations.

On the other hand, it is a relief to note that economic and trade agreements were not the only issues on the agenda at the G8 summit, with the issue of Syria destined to play an important part in proceedings. Another puzzler was Russia's adamance that the USA should not supply rebels with weapons in their fight against Assad, yet has previously wished to be allowed to supply arms to Syria at it's own insistence. Although both parties wish to see an end to the conflict in Syria, the way forward is itself mired in difficulty with two of the permanent members of the UN Security council seemingly at an impasse as to how to proceed. With all sides keen to proceed with the peace conference next month, this is something that can be put aside for the time being, but the conflict in Syria shows no signs of petering out - something else for Obama and Cameron to negotiate on?

Push for greater decision-making in Scottish Isles a positive sign of the times

The move for greater autonomy in decision-making powers in the Scottish Isles is a positive development, and highly relevant given Scotland’s wider bid for independent status.  As has been stated before, the decision of centralising Scottish government in the Scottish capital as opposed to London is a logical choice given that the country has both a different political and cultural composition than the rest of the UK, and as such should be able to make a majority of the decisions that affect it on its own territory, given the differing needs and wishes of the Scottish populace.

In-keeping with this, the Scottish Islands have different economic and social needs to other parts of Scotland, and as such, it is logical that they should want a greater say in affairs of relevance to them, rather than having too much central planning that is decided at a distance and could well be, in truth, entirely irrelevant to their livelihoods. As a for instance, at least two of the Scottish Isles constituencies are of a generally liberal persuasion, where-as a large swathe of the rest of Scotland is comprised of SNP regional members. Therefore, the push for increased autonomy in decision-making should come as no surprise.

It is not only ideological factors that should come into play when deciding what level of autonomy to offer, however. The way of life in the Scottish Isles (and islands in general) is in many ways very different from that on the mainland, and it is important to give economic, social and cultural policies greater consideration when deciding what to implement. This can perhaps be done best by inviting local people to play a greater part in decision making, and allowing them a greater say in local affairs.

The Scottish Islands are perhaps the best place for such a bid to take place, as islands tend to be examples of smaller, close-knit communities who desire to preserve their way of life and live peaceably, without too much outside interference. The Scottish Isles are therefore perfectly placed in this regard - undoubtedly a key part of Scotland, yet with important considerations to make that are different to the rest of Scotland. It is undoubtedly important that the islands play an integral part in the political life of Scotland, valued as they are a bastion of Scottish tradition and culture, but a majority of visitors and residents look to island life as offering something different, and it is important that Scotland’s political composition reflects this individuality.

Climate change clearest example of need for international cooperation

A recently published report highlighting the extent to which climate change will impact the UK is perhaps the clearest example yet that climate change is not merely an issue that will affect other countries, but what happens in those countries will also have important implications for the UK. This demonstrates that climate change is perhaps one of the most important issues in international relations today, and one that requires different states to work together to help each other overcome the problems that will be expected. It is also, however, a call for increased self-sufficiency. The life of choice that millions in the UK and overseas have come to take for granted should be considered a luxury not a necessity.

For instance, many of the food products we now routinely eat, such as pasta and different types of curry, all originate in different countries. As climate change effects the growth of wheat crops, for instance, this will affect the price of pasta, which will also affect the price we pay in the UK, in addition to the higher cost we already pay in the form of imports. This means that either demand for such goods will decrease as a result of higher costs, or that personal eating habits will have to change as people return to eating goods that we produce at home, cheaply and efficiently. The same applies to fruit and vegetables - the goods we now take for granted all year round are in truth seasonal, and to combat the effects of climate change this message should be promoted to prevent unnecessary air travel just so that we can eat what we like, when we like.

Food is not the only issue, however - as the European and global climate changes, and British weather becomes even worse (certainly a possibility), this is likely to effect Britain's tourism revenues and economic activity level. Rather than musing over how it will effect the UK, however, it is important to consider just how these effects can be combatted. To start with, governmental investment in aid and plans to combat the effects of climate change should be considered - perhaps by EU member states or global leaders putting money into a central pot and planning policies together. This will result in a more coordinated response to climate change, and would further consolidate the view that no one country can deal with this problem alone.

As to how the money should be spent, this is an issue for the countries to agree between themselves. While this will be no easy task, it is essential that countries work together, especially those countries that are to a larger degree responsible for the causes of climate change. It is evident to anyone who takes an interest in these matters that industrialised, commodity-obssessed and wealthier countries are more to blame for climate change than others. It is not about apportioning how much each country is responsible for causing climate change, but simply to reach agreement that to work together is more likely to bring about a solution than not. This piece could be much longer than it already is, but if nations can agree to agree to work together in a bid to make progress, then the future is not entirely bleak. It is simply essential that the UK accepts that it has its own part to play and to work together with other countries.

Turkey unrest could threaten EU-Turkey relations

The emergence of anti-democracy protests on Europe's south-eastern periphery is a worrying trend, and suggests that once again all is not well in this historically conflicted region. Geographically, Turkey is close to many Middle Eastern countries which have seen uprisings and conflict in the last two years, therefore it is not surprising that any sign of a Government leader appearing to overstay his (or her) welcome is likely to cause concern for citizens in Turkey.

Another issue is that Turkey has long been known as a cradle of civilisation between East and West, with the Western half of the country traditionally looking more towards Europe, whilst the Eastern half is closer to Asia, both geographically and culturally. This presents a problem similar to that of Ukraine, whereby the country is geographically and politically divided between two different political structures, though to date this has not represented a significant problem for Turkey as there is no external power trying to imperalise or dictate to Turkey.

Turkey's problem is, rather, internal, and these latest protests will only have the effect of stalling potential membership for Turkey on it's path towards EU membership. Any sign of unrest and a backslide away from the democratic ideals of the European project will have a detrimental effect on EU-Turkey relations, something which many Turkish are unlikely to welcome. This is not the only issue, however, as if Turkey were to join the EU, this would result in one of the countries involved in one of the most tragic conflicts of the Arab Spring, i.e. Syria, being right on Europe's doorstep, and could well lead to the wave of immigration and associated problems that Jordan and Lebanon are now seeing entering the EU via Turkey.

Given that Turkey is not yet a member of the EU, however, this is not yet a preeminent issue for the EU to worry about, but it is certainly one to watch. Rather less encouragingly,  it is uncertain when this issue will be resolved, but it is guaranteedthat it will not be resolved while the incumbent leader fails to listen to the genuine wishes of his citizens, and will only result in further conflict and a deterioration in the state of affairs in Istanbul.

London murder will only encourage unnecessary tension in relationship between East and West

The inhumane killing of a young British soldier in London yesterday is truly a terrible act of cruelty,  of that there is no doubt. Carried out by a radical, extremist Muslim, the unfortunate result of the act is likely to be a backlash against the wider Muslim population, with political ramifications that will further widen the unnecessary rift that exists between Western and Islamic civilisations. This has already been seen in attacks on mosques and other buildings with even a remote relation to such cultures, and this is an extremely negative reaction that does nothing to build bridges between cultures and communities.

As has been seen, the Muslim Council of Britain has clearly condemned yesterday's brutal attack, as clear a message as any that the Muslim community is a peaceful one and simply wishes to be allowed to carry out it's way of life without disturbance. What certain members of society fail to realise is that radical and extremist Muslims are a different group to Muslims in general, and they in no way hold responsibility for this attack, and condemn it most strongly. What they should also realise, is that British society has it's own fair share of white extremists - this does not mean all white ethnic groups can be labelled in the same way, and the same applies to black ethnic communities, with a Muslim connection or otherwise.

The unfortunate result of all this is that the image of Islam and Islamic civilisations is reinforced as being representative of a dangerous and intolerant societal model. Whatever the truth is, a war of all against all serves no-one, and to hold one single social group responsible for a single act is at best, misinformed, and at worst, highly uneducated. What the communities of Britain (of all creeds and colours) need to do now is unite in a show of disapproval towards terrorism and those who would commit such cowardly acts.

Further evidence from Italy that freefall capitalism is not an option

The demands by Italian protesters for job creation over further austerity measures from the left-leaning Prime Minster shows that Governments that run a country with the aim of cutting costs cannot meet the needs of society, and that the only path available to them will lead to further dissatisfaction from a country's residents. This is not true solely in Italy, but in the world at large. In Britain, Government austerity is leading to heightened pressure on organisations and individuals who work for them, resulting in more work for people for less reward. The same can be seen in Greece, as people there cannot even meet their basic living costs. European citizens everywhere are having to raid their savings simply to eke out a living.

By focusing on and investing in job creation, Governments can ensure that it's citizens have a healthy work/life balance, take pride in their responsibilities and services, and perform their duties to the highest level of ability. By forcing people out of work and leaving those left behind to carry out their duties with what limited resources remain, a country and it's businesses will never be run effectively, as the people responsible for providing the services will cease to care about their work, as employers and Governments are too keen to show that they do not have the well-being of their citizens at heart.

The shocking thing is that it has taken so long for people to realise this. Now, everywhere, people are coming out of the woodwork to express their dissatisfaction not just with their Governments, but with the system as a whole. By investing in people and jobs, you are investing in life, and the groundwork is laid for healthy, socially active societies. Global corporations that run as automatic machines offer homogeneity and a standardised product, but they do not provide the creativity and enthusiasm which imaginative and well-funded projects deliver. It is time that Government's accepted the responsibility of providing their people with a right to earn an honest living for just reward, instead of finding new ways to cut costs at the expense of people's livelihoods and sanity. This does not mean people should expect a free ride, but that responsibility means more than just a meaningless existence. 

UN investigation into North Korean rights abuses welcome

The announcement by the United Nations that it is to conduct an investigation into the human rights abuses that take place in North Korea is a welcome and refreshing move. Although the Human Rights situation in North Korea is monitored by a number of other actors, including Human Rights Watch, this is the first time that the UN has become directly involved, adding weight and credibility to this issue and demonstrating the crucial importance of this issue at the present time. Additionally, it also gives a human dimension to the current situation in the country at the political level, as opposed to focusing merely on the strategic and military aspects of the crisis. Although these are necessarily of importance, a more detailed insight into the the human rights situation is essential.

However, as had already been stated in various circles, North Korea is unlikely to provide access to such a mission. Although there is bound to be no shortage of North Korean defectors who would be willing to give accounts of their experiences in North Korea, the lack of access to the country itself is damning and frustrating, although hardly to be unexpected. It does, however, demonstrate that the UN is taking this issue seriously in the current political climate between North Korea and the West, although it has taken the recent increase in political tensions for this to occur. What is especially encouraging however is that the UN has taken a cross section of commission members from a variety of countries, which may offer a variety of perspectives on the situation. One of these is Sonja Biserko, who has wide experience of the Yugoslav unrest of the 1990's, and it will be interesting to see what parallels, if any, can be made here.

The organisation has requested the country to give full and unimpeded access to the country, which is unlikely, but we have been surprised by North Korea's decision making before, and it may just be that some concessions will be made once more in a bid to try and increase it's standing in the international system. Whatever happens, it is almost guaranteed that the enquiry will find damning evidence against North Korea, but the question remains as to what extent this will actually be an open enquiry and new information will be discovered. For this enquiry to have any real significance or impact, North Korea needs to be a little more cooperative, and at this stage it would be unrealistic to expect this to occur. One thing is for sure, the end report will make for interesting reading. The story goes on...

Back door-privatisation will lead to country's ruin

The announcement yesterday that the Government is planning to sell off and privatise even more state functions is a very poor move, and a return to the desperate situation of the 1970's. When will Governments learn that to privatise everything is not in the public interest? It simply leads to the newly created private businesses looking for cost-cutting efficiencies and more ways to make profit. More often than not, it leads to cutting staff and more work for the staff that remain, with the much sought-after effiency gains hardly ever realised. This is highly likely to effect the standard of work offered and means the service standards offered are likely to decline, often in return for higher prices - as we have seen on the railway in Britain today.

However, the real implications are for those left to work in these new privatised roles. Turning a service over to the private sector means that any unnecessary services will be cut, and the pressure will be increased on staff to take on more work from those staff cut back. This will lead to higher stress levels among the employed, and will impact on their happiness levels in their daily life. Privatising anything is only ever done with one aim - to make profit, and this is something that many Government services in place should not be about. Of course, there are services that are unnecessary, inefficiently run and need overhaul. However, privatisation is not the answer - this is just an easy way for the Government to absolve it's responsibility instead of routing out the source of the problem.

What needs to be done is for the Government, perhaps in collaboration with external parties, to conduct an overhaul of it's system, invest in better training for people and look where it is wasting money - one of these is the Department for work and pensions, as has tragicomically been seen in the new TV sitcom The Job Lot. Only then will people feel happier and better able to carry out their roles.

British withdrawal from ECHR suggests ad-hoc committment to human rights

Britain's proposed temporary withdrawal from the European Convention on Human Rights, based on the case of the radical Islamist Abu Qatada, is an aberration that flies in the face of what the ECHR represents. The convention is there in the event that an individual who feels that his or her human rights have been violated has a higher body to go to in order to air their grievance, and removing this on a temporary basis suggests that the UK wishes to have this mechanism in place when it is convenient for appearance's sake, and to remove it when it feels there is a fundamental need to do so.

This undermines the very core of what human rights is about, and suggests that the UK feels it is above the capacity to abuse someone's human rights. This is certainly not the case - as we have seen in many countries, including Burma, Tibet, Belarus, and even the USA, a state can often be the most violent perpetrator of human rights abuses, and certainly does not act as a protector against those who would deny fundamental rights. Yes, there are occasions when the human rights of someone who has abused human rights themselves comes into question, especially where the national security of a state is a concern. However, Abu Qatada is certainly not the only person who presents a danger to the people of Britain, and to remove the mechanism, even temporarily, leaves the people of the UK (of all nationalities) open to abuse and a breach of their rights.

What needs to be done is to ensure that Abu Qatada is given a trial and a sentence, rather than leaving him to languish in imprisonment. What he has done may be a profound international issue, but a basic right should be to give everyone who is considered guilty of such a serious crime a fair trial in an open and democratic court of law. Where this is not possible in one's own country, it should be carried out in a country that follows this rule of law and is a signatory to human rights agreements at the international level. Abandoning such an important, and necessary agreement as the European Convention of Human Rights on a temporary basis is not, and will never be, the answer. Such behaviour should lead to an outcry of rage from UN and EU member states that do believe in justice in a fair and humanistic manner.

Supermarket pull-out in the US and Japan is a green relief

The news that the large retail supermarket Tesco is to pull out of the US after never having made a profit, as well as Japan, is refreshing news for local businesses and organisations. It is also said to be planning to take "a more measured approach to growth in China." The fact that the company has said this is a clear sign that it has recognised that the policy of significant and excessive expansion in as short a time as possible is not profitable, and certainly not good for society. It simply leads to a surfeit of stores all owned by the same firm, resulting in a lack of choice and diversity, and leads to a 'standardised' service that is at the expense of more intimate and personal local stores.

Tesco's departure will leave the way open for newer, local businesses to take their place, ideally run by local people who can have a say in the way their supermarket is run and the items it stocks so as best to meet their needs. Yes, Tesco may make individual concessions to local demand - the products it sells in Japan, for instance, will not be the same as those it sells in China or the US - but what Tesco offers is an identikit formula for each of it's stores that does not offer a unique or interesting shopping experience.

It might be argued that some people want a familiar, uncomplicated shopping experience at the end of a hard day's work, but the benefits of a firm being owned and managed locally is that those who are responsible for it can be more responsive to local needs and business conditions. This negates the need for regional, national or even globally-based managers to get on a plane to come and see how business is going for themselves, or else plan the business strategy for a store of lesser value at a distance, i.e. central planning. It is highly unlikely that every store or service can be given the attention it deserves in line with the needs of the local community at a distance, and this is the same for almost every other store or service one needs today. The loss of Tesco is not something to be lamented, but celebrated as an opportunity for local business ventures to make themselves known.

Boston bombing a tragic disaster

The explosion of two bombs in Boston shortly following a marathon is a tragic incident, and one that suggests the 'war on terror', so diplomatically uttered by Bush in another era, is far from over. Of course, no one knows whether this is yet an act of terror, but it certainly bears the hallmarks of one, targeting as it does a major US city and endangering the lives of individual civilians who were not in the least responsible for any bad treatment as perceived by nationals of certain other groups.

The real question is why has this occurred? The usual sentiment that it is a expression of dissatisfaction and even resentment of Western policies towards countries such as (for example) Iran and Afghanistan simply does not ring true. How can any collective group of individuals following a particular ideology or way of life hope to bargain with those they see as their oppressors by detonating a bomb that results in the needless death of innocent people?

The answer is that those responsible do not wish to bargain. They simply wish to demonstrate their power to destroy and intimidate. In this they have been successful, but what they have not been successful in is opening a platform for dialogue. Any sane person (and yes, this includes terrorists, as they know exactly what they are doing) knows that the structure of the international system is not going to be changed by perpetrating such a hideous and distasteful act. What they must realise is that the US (among other Western countries) does not forcibly wish to impose a Western way of life on them, but is seeking to instil the values of democracy and freedom that create a platform for peace.

Of course, this is not a wholly selfless form of action, with its links to wider economic growth and the potential for business expansion it offers, but it is far more preferable than the methods used yesterday in Boston. It should be noted that I don't think war with certain countries is or has been any kind of legitimate act in the past, nor is it now, but it is the persons responsible for committing wrong deeds that should be held to account for their crimes in a court of law, not innocent civilians or current leaders. May those killed in Boston rest in peace.

China vs Korea - a clear partnership?

One of the big political questions at the moment is, should North Korea actually end up in a full scale war with South Korea, whether China will stand by it's ideological ally, or will it forego this role so as not to ruffle the West's feathers? This is none too likely given the myriad of economic and business connections that it is involved in with numerous Western countries. This is an intriguing question and certainly one that should be carefully considered. It is tempting to say that China would not stand by North Korea, and it has already shown a certain unwillingness, even disdain, for North Korea's self-asserted role as challenger to the US and South Korea. But why is this the case?

For one thing, North Korea and China are only allies in ideological terms. China has much that North Korea might want, such as significant economic success and financial aid, but the reverse is not true - North Korea has nothing to offer China in terms of material wealth and resources, and China knows this well. It is thus exploiting it's ideological link with North Korea to keep a country that is on it's south-eastern border on favourable terms and not have it as yet another target in the country's battle with the whole of the Western world. Although North Korea could not feasibly pose a threat to China's economic and military security, it could cause difficulties for it, and this is something which China would, sensibly, wish to avoid.

The real reason China would not come to North Korea's aid is that it simply has too much business with the West. The whole reason for China's economic success has been it's level of imports and business which tie it to Western countries interests, and to side with North Korea in the event of all-out war would lead to severe sanctions and a limit to it's continued growth, as well as adversely affecting it's relations with other countries. China knows that taking on the world in a war with North Korea would be politically futile, financially inconceivable and utterly pointless. There is no doubt that a China at war with the West would produce a significantly more worrying enemy than North Korea, but the fact remains that even in the event of World War 3 , China cannot hope to stand up to the US. The thought of such a phenomenon is quite terrifying, but the final thought to consider is to what extent China would risk world peace and stability for the sake of a small under-developed country in it's Far East. This is questionable indeed.

Croatian march over language clash could be a warning

The fact that 20000 Croats marched in Zagreb yesterday, in protest against a plan that would see the Cyrillic alphabet used by Serbs on signs in parts of Croatia, did not receive very much coverage in yesterday's press, amid the more pressing concerns of North Korea, the death of eleven children in a NATO strike in Afghanistan and further unrest in Egypt. However, the fact that this occurred is very significant for the Balkans, and suggests that all is still not well in this small but highly relevant corner of Europe.

Although the demands for bilingual signage in areas where a minority of one third or more of the population might not cause too much of an issue in other parts of Europe, for many Croatians it is a reminder of Serb dominance and the supremacist tendencies that led to the all-out Balkan wars of the 1990's. Although 20 years have passed, for this much passion to be ignited suggests that there are fears that there could be a backslide to the infighting and a push by the Serbians for increased autonomy and dominance in areas where Serbs are a significant minority. This would not be good for the country at all, and particularly not for Europe, as it would see conflict creep ever closer to Western Europe. As such, any decision on this matter should be carefully considered and not rushed into, with any possible dialogue that can occur to take place before any final decision is made.

It is perhaps surprising that language issues can be of such potent political relevance, given that Croatian and Serbian were at one point the same language. However, given that each state in the Balkans has now achieved it's own autonomy, autonomy has also been achieved for the languages involved, with Croatian, Serbian, Bosnian and even Montenegrin all having constitutional movements in place that have established, or are attempting to establish themselves as individual languages. Although these languages are all still mutually intelligible, the fact that seemingly simply issues such as this can still cause tension is a warning that this autonomy is of high importance to the citizens themselves, and that all may not be well if tensions increase between the individual communities in question - one to watch? Definitely.

For another view on the politics of language, see:http://lostintranslation19872.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/the-politics-of-language.html

Scotland's stance on language policy is very welcome

Scotland's investigations into the possibilities for implementing language learning in schools that follow the European model of 1 + 2 languages is a very welcome development. Under this model, all primary school pupils would be learning two languages in addition to their mother tongue by the end of their fifth year. This is essential for the development of able and skilled pupils who live in diverse cultural communities as those that present themselves in our modern society, and for those who wish to be truly mobile in terms of their flexibility to take work overseas, or to contribute to developing overseas links in existing positions in the country.

Although learning only one extra language is undoubtedly beneficial, learning two extra languages is highly admirable, and this is the general standard set for jobs within the European Union or United Nations, with a few notable exceptions. If young people are to contribute to the colourful mosaic that is the European continent, and the world, then languages are going to be needed by everyone in every corner of it. Scotland is leading the way by promoting inclusiveness and offering young people the options they need to compete in today's world. The potential issues to overcome now are which languages to teach, and whether they are universally relevant or should be to some extent tailored to local needs.

What is praiseworthy is that targeting children so young embeds the language in their brains and develops cognitive learning abilities that will be particularly useful later on. They will remember the language more easily than older children (i.e. those in secondary school) and will have a much higher chance of being considered bilingual. Targeting older students with language classes generally leaves them cold and with a mixed ability to learn, as the age at which languages becomes firmly engendered in the brain has come and gone. If they have been learning since early childhood, the chances that they will use and continue to develop the language skills learnt are greatly increased. What remains to be seen now is whether this policy is actually implemented, and how the parents of young children will react to it's place on school curriculums.

Global arms treaty a positive achievement, but caution is needed

The achievement of a global arms trade treaty is indeed a memorable and significant achievement in the history of the United Nations, and for the international system more generally. However, the extent to which it will work in practice is something that will only be seen with time, so it is important not to blow the fanfare too loudly just yet. It was always likely to be fairly predictable which countries would vote in favour, which would abstain and which would vote against, so no real surprises came in the form of vetoes from Iran, North Korea and Syria, nor in Russia's decision to abstain. Russia has vested interests in the global arms trade, but it is also keen not to be seen to challenge the West too much, with which it must also be seen to at least remain on good terms.

North Korea certainly comes as no surprise with it's continuing anti-Western, anti-American rhetoric, and certainly Syria is within it's rights to mention the 'small' issue of non-state terrorist groups, since states are clearly not the only actors involved in the arms trade, nor in many other very significant areas of international affairs. With 154 votes in favour of the agreement, this is certainly a majority, and a majority to be praised, but the 23 abstentions and vetoes that remain suggest that there is still a long way to go, as this is not a small number of states who are in favour of lesser regulation of arms.

Perhaps the real point to mention here, however, is that as historic and admirable as the United Nations achievement is, the reality of reaching a consensus amongst 192 member states is highly impractical and it is unlikely to ever reach an overriding consensus on such important yet controversial matters. Does this detract from the achievement? By no means. For today, and perhaps for the next few days, it is enough to celebrate the historic achievement that has been made. Following on from this, a cautious approach should be adopted that allows the situation to be monitored to see how it plays out. This agreement is a significant one, but it is not the end of the story. The global arms trade still has plenty more acts to follow.

Bankruptcy of small US city is disappointing

The news that a small US city has had to file for bankruptcy due to a decreased tax base is extremely disappointing, but unfortunately a sign of the times. As the world becomes increasingly urbanised, smaller towns, cities and rural areas have, or appear to have, increasingly little to offer, especially for the young seeking employment. The incentives to remain are few as employment and higher living standards, in addition to the culture and lifestyle many young people seek can only be found in the big cities. This is even more relevant to the USA, where the big cities are the true definition of city life due to their large scale. But where does this leave the older generations, and the smaller towns and cities left to try and forge an existence for themselves?

The mass migration of people to larger towns and cities has grave implications for the political, economic, social and cultural make-up of smaller towns and rural areas. First of all, as Stockton in the US has shown, it leaves a place with a much lower amount of tax funds with which to fund local life. It also, to a certain extent, deprives a town of the economic potential it might have based on the lifestyle young people want. In terms of employment, it leaves demand for  what little industry remains, such as agriculture and local services, to fall away, supported by the locals that remain just trying to eke out a living. This is a very sad trend, but one that is unlikely to be reversed any time soon.

So what is the solution? Young people in the UK have recently said that the tide is going against those who do want to stay in their smaller and rural towns and villages, as if they want employment of any repute, they must leave and head to somewhere larger in order to 'make it in the big wide world'. However, isn't it at least possible that the bigger cities within a region or urban conurbation that have a higher level of economic success story could cross-subsidise by putting funding into a smaller town or village? Isn't it possible to provide incentives for young people to move there by building cheap, affordable housing that can be either rented or bought? This could increase the population by encouraging people to stay and build families there. There are many solutions, it's simply a matter of whether national, regional and local governments decide to implement them.

State of War just another North Korean party trick

North Korea's declaration that it is now in a 'state of war' with South Korea is nothing more than blustering rhetoric, and another of the many games it plays in an attempt to play up the threat it represents to South Korean and international security. North and South Korea have technically been at war since the 1950's, and despite recent events that suggest the divide between the two countries and the US is taking on a more sinister element, there is nothing to suggest that it is about to enter a full-scale war with either it's neighbour to the South or with the US.

The simple fact remains that North Korea does not have the might to challenge the more powerful states that still exist on the world stage, in particular the US. Yes, North Korea is working together with China, but even China given it's overwhelming level of economic 'progress' and investment in weapons and security infrastructure is not currently in a position to challenge the US, so it's threats to South Korea, a more modern and advanced nature than the North should not cause too much worry either.

North Korea's closet nature and it's secretive way of running it's operations simply disguises the fact that it's Government cannot run a country efficiently, and it is using it's close links with China to give it the appearance of having weight and influence in world affairs. Quite simply, China is the more influential here, and is simply keeping in with North Korea as an ideological ally, but given it's business and trade links with the West, it is clearly aware that it's needs cannot best be met by North Korea - something the North Korean regime stubbornly refuses to recognise or acknowledge, decreasing it's credibility still further. Time for World War 3? I think not.

More capital for banks? Not the wisest move.

It comes as something of a slap in the face when banks, the very institutions that got us into the current economic mess, are told they need more capital to help get get us out of the economic crisis. For one thing, to get more capital, banks are going to need more custom, that is for either their bank accounts, mortgages, loans and other products. As national debt, both consumer and government, continues to rise, where are they going to find even more people willing to take out loans with unfair and ever less favourable interest rates?

It simply doesn't seem logical to me that banks need more capital to get back on an even footing, they simply need to spend the money they have better rather than wasting it on expensive, unproven and frequently unethical projects as seen in the past. Apparently, UK banks 'have been taking steps to strengthen themselves since the financial crisis began'. Of course they have, but if the crisis is only getting worse (and only going to get worse), where do they expect to find the capital needed from investors? Given what's happening in Cyprus at the moment, with the Government forbidding savers to access more than €100 of their money per day, we should be ever more wary of the big banks.

So what is the answer? The answer is stop encouraging business for the sake of it. Encourage business in line with what customers need, and not with what you think they want. Offer them a personal, tailored service at the local level in line with local needs, not in line with what the big shareholders and directors think applies universally to the whole country. Only then will you see business returning, and perhaps even a return to the days when people were loyal to their service providers. Do I see this happening? No. At least not for another 20 or 30 years, under another government, and in a completely different reality.