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.
Friday, 28 June 2013
Saturday, 22 June 2013
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?
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?
Thursday, 20 June 2013
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.
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.
Tuesday, 18 June 2013
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?
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?
Monday, 17 June 2013
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.
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)