The clergy-led popular protests against the ruling Burmese military junta has provoked the reaction we all dreaded, and privately expected: a military crackdown.
"Burmese security forces raided two Buddhist monasteries this morning, beating up and hauling away more than 70 monks after a day of violent confrontation, sources said.
The security forces used firepower for the first time yesterday against street protests that have brewed over the past month into the biggest demonstrations against Burma's military rulers since 1988.
At least one man was killed and others wounded in chaotic clashes in Rangoon.
A monk at the Ngwe Kyar Yan monastery, pointing to bloodstains on the concrete floor, said a number of monks were beaten and at least 70 of its 150 monks taken away in vehicles."
Brown has recommended the UN Security Council deal with the situation, and that sanctions be imposed on Burma. The experience of the UN sanctions on Iraq between the two Gulf wars have shown us that sanctions only empower the offending government by its control of increasingly limited supplies and necessities.
Instead, the first thing Britain and the other UNSC states should do is stop selling arms to Burma. A threat of humanitarian intervention if an increase in humanitarian aid is not properly delivered to the people (as happened in Iraq) would put pressure on the government. In addition, we should ramp up our political and financial support of pro-democracy movements inside Burma.
Sanctions are not the way forward to aiding the Saffron Revolution, as its campaign must now change from aiming for survival instead of victory. Sanctions only hurt the people themselves, while empowering the government. We need some fresh thinking on non-military humanitarian intervention, as the strategic cultures of Britain and the US, judging by Brown's prescriptions, are still focused on oscillations between military intervention and sanctions. What happened to soft power?
Thursday 27 September 2007
Friday 21 September 2007
Marine Energy
The Economist looks at British investment in wave power energy facilities:
British sea power
Sep 20th 2007
"The British have always looked to the sea to protect them from the earth's dangers. The ocean is a handy deterrent to foreign armies, but it is useful for other things too. In the midst of the energy crisis of the 1970s, there was much talk that marine energy would let its possessors break free of OPEC. With the arrival of North Sea oil, marine energy was forgotten. But 35 years later, with North Sea oil in decline, climate change a big issue and wind farms facing lengthy planning delays, sea power is back on the agenda.
On September 17th the government announced that planning permission had been given for Wave Hub, a £28m project off the north Cornish coast that will provide a sea-floor “socket” allowing wave-power generators to get their electricity back to shore. The South West Regional Development Agency (SWRDA), a quango which will part-fund the project, has high hopes. Four firms are planning to connect their machines, forming what officials hope will be the world's biggest wave farm, with 30 machines supplying up to 20 megawatts of power. An existing wave-power project in the Orkney islands is set to expand, and officials are studying a multi-billion-pound private-sector plan to harness the tides near the mouth of the river Severn.
Marine energy, and especially wave power, is still an immature technology. Many designs concentrate on surviving the fury of ocean storms rather than maximising energy production. Nor is it cheap. Firms are coy about giving precise figures but the Carbon Trust, a government-funded green consultancy, reckoned the price a year ago was between 22p and 25p per kilowatt hour—around nine times the price of gas-fired electricity.
Boosters argue that technology and mass production will bring costs down. British officials seem to agree. Having noticed the success of the Danes in developing their wind-turbine industry, both the SWRDA and the Scottish Executive want to do the same for ocean power.
Geography is one advantage: rough seas and big tides make the British isles one of the best places in the world for sea power. The Carbon Trust believes that, in theory, sea power could provide 20% of the country's electricity. There is engineering expertise, notably in Aberdeen, where the offshore oil industry has been installing complex machinery in rough seas for decades. The International Energy Agency thinks that Britain is pursuing more marine-power designs (29) than any other country (America, with 13, is second). Scotland already boasts the European Marine Energy Centre, a research outfit, an advantage the West Country hopes to counteract by spending £15m on a similar organisation attached to the universities of Exeter and Plymouth.
The economics are more complicated. David Weaver, the chief executive of Oceanlinx, one of the firms planning to use the Wave Hub, argues that Britain's liberalised and transparent power markets make life easier for newcomers, although others argue that fluctuating power prices make planning tricky. Subsidies are more generous in countries such as Portugal, which is keen on building a marine-power sector of its own and offers extra cash to less mature technologies.
Not everyone is enthusiastic. When the Wave Hub was announced, Cornish surfers worried that it might make their tubes less gnarly. Others are more concerned about the price. Mr Edge reckons that the Danes spent around £1 billion creating their wind-turbine industry. Setting up a British marine-power sector will cost a similar amount, he says—a big jump from the £28m Wave Hub."
British sea power
Sep 20th 2007
"The British have always looked to the sea to protect them from the earth's dangers. The ocean is a handy deterrent to foreign armies, but it is useful for other things too. In the midst of the energy crisis of the 1970s, there was much talk that marine energy would let its possessors break free of OPEC. With the arrival of North Sea oil, marine energy was forgotten. But 35 years later, with North Sea oil in decline, climate change a big issue and wind farms facing lengthy planning delays, sea power is back on the agenda.
On September 17th the government announced that planning permission had been given for Wave Hub, a £28m project off the north Cornish coast that will provide a sea-floor “socket” allowing wave-power generators to get their electricity back to shore. The South West Regional Development Agency (SWRDA), a quango which will part-fund the project, has high hopes. Four firms are planning to connect their machines, forming what officials hope will be the world's biggest wave farm, with 30 machines supplying up to 20 megawatts of power. An existing wave-power project in the Orkney islands is set to expand, and officials are studying a multi-billion-pound private-sector plan to harness the tides near the mouth of the river Severn.
Marine energy, and especially wave power, is still an immature technology. Many designs concentrate on surviving the fury of ocean storms rather than maximising energy production. Nor is it cheap. Firms are coy about giving precise figures but the Carbon Trust, a government-funded green consultancy, reckoned the price a year ago was between 22p and 25p per kilowatt hour—around nine times the price of gas-fired electricity.
Boosters argue that technology and mass production will bring costs down. British officials seem to agree. Having noticed the success of the Danes in developing their wind-turbine industry, both the SWRDA and the Scottish Executive want to do the same for ocean power.
Geography is one advantage: rough seas and big tides make the British isles one of the best places in the world for sea power. The Carbon Trust believes that, in theory, sea power could provide 20% of the country's electricity. There is engineering expertise, notably in Aberdeen, where the offshore oil industry has been installing complex machinery in rough seas for decades. The International Energy Agency thinks that Britain is pursuing more marine-power designs (29) than any other country (America, with 13, is second). Scotland already boasts the European Marine Energy Centre, a research outfit, an advantage the West Country hopes to counteract by spending £15m on a similar organisation attached to the universities of Exeter and Plymouth.
The economics are more complicated. David Weaver, the chief executive of Oceanlinx, one of the firms planning to use the Wave Hub, argues that Britain's liberalised and transparent power markets make life easier for newcomers, although others argue that fluctuating power prices make planning tricky. Subsidies are more generous in countries such as Portugal, which is keen on building a marine-power sector of its own and offers extra cash to less mature technologies.
Not everyone is enthusiastic. When the Wave Hub was announced, Cornish surfers worried that it might make their tubes less gnarly. Others are more concerned about the price. Mr Edge reckons that the Danes spent around £1 billion creating their wind-turbine industry. Setting up a British marine-power sector will cost a similar amount, he says—a big jump from the £28m Wave Hub."
More Ethical Divestment
Jim Mather, the Enterprise Minister, today announces he is to move his £350,000 of shares into a blind trust to avoid a conflict of interest. This is what he should have done upon assuming his ministerial position, not nearly 5 months later and then only under media pressure. Donald Dewar moved all his shares into a blind trust upon being first elected to government as Scottish Secretary, preventing him from these accusations of a conflict of interest. I find it amazing neither Mr Mather nor Mr Stevenson thought their failure to do so would matter.
Indeed, Mr Mather sums it up best himself:
"The reality is that for those of us who hold portfolios that are as wide-ranging as enterprise, energy and tourism, it is very hard to hold shares in anything that doesn't impinge upon our work."
Still wonder why the Herald isn’t covering this at all…
Indeed, Mr Mather sums it up best himself:
"The reality is that for those of us who hold portfolios that are as wide-ranging as enterprise, energy and tourism, it is very hard to hold shares in anything that doesn't impinge upon our work."
Still wonder why the Herald isn’t covering this at all…
Thursday 20 September 2007
Ethical Divestment
Well, what a day. My tipoff to the Scotsman and the Herald two days ago about Stewart Stevenson's possession of £30,000 of shares in ScottishPower is today's front headline of the Scotsman. Stevenson decided to sell the shares last night, after insisting there was no conflict between his role in shaping energy policy and his financial interests in a major energy company which had just won a £200m contract from his ministry in the Scottish Government.
I wonder why only the Scotsman decided to run with this story, as I informed both the Scotsman and Herald news desks of the conflict of interest at the same time. The Scottish Government is still clearly on its honeymoon with the Herald. I would have thought any reporter would leap on a conflict of interest story, whether it be regarding a councillor, MSP, MEP or MP.
In Stevenson's announcement, he says he is to also sell shares in another energy company called Scottish and Southern Energy (SSE). These shares were not disclosed on his register of interests as of yesterday.
I wonder why only the Scotsman decided to run with this story, as I informed both the Scotsman and Herald news desks of the conflict of interest at the same time. The Scottish Government is still clearly on its honeymoon with the Herald. I would have thought any reporter would leap on a conflict of interest story, whether it be regarding a councillor, MSP, MEP or MP.
In Stevenson's announcement, he says he is to also sell shares in another energy company called Scottish and Southern Energy (SSE). These shares were not disclosed on his register of interests as of yesterday.
Wednesday 19 September 2007
Clarity in Brussels, Confusion in Bute House
EU Commissioner Joe Borg:
"On the issue concerning Scotland's independence, that's not my competence to assess or to evaluate but if, for one moment, we were to assume that Scotland gained independence and therefore is eligible as a new member state for the European Union, I would see that, legally speaking, the continuation of the membership would remain with the rest of the UK - less Scotland. And, therefore, Scotland, as a newly independent state, would have to apply for membership."
Spokesman for Alex Salmond:
"The reality is very clear, and was expressed by the late Robin Cook, when foreign secretary, in his statement that an independent Scotland would remain a member of the EU: 'It's in the nature of the European Union, it welcomes all comers and Scotland would be a member'.
"When we have recently welcomed Romania and Bulgaria into full EU membership, how could it be otherwise for resource-rich Scotland?"
Jim Mather MSP:
"We are an incumbent member state - what about England having to re-apply?"
Out of these three individuals, who is the most qualified to state the EU position on the accession of an independent Scotland?
Scotland will have to reapply to join the EU upon leaving the UK, as the UK as a political entity belongs to the EU and Scotland is no longer part of that political entity. England won't have to reapply because England is still in the UK, which answers Mr Mather's question.
The spokesman for Alex Salmond is a bit more nuanced - he states that it is likely that Scotland would gain EU membership, but, again, obfuscates the fact that there is an application process involved. We will not become a separate member of the EU the day after independence, as one SNP poster promised.
Leaving the UK also means leaving the EU. This exposes Scotland to all the high external tariffs on trade with the EU (by far Scotland's biggest trading partner) that continue to restrict economic growth in Africa. These tariffs will severely damage the Scottish economy at a time when we need economic stability most. This will also be a time when the economic unviability of the SNP's economic plan for Scotland (high public expenditure - no bad thing - but with insufficiently low taxes to cover public spending)becomes clear. In addition, we will lose the EU agricultural and other grants that the Scottish economy needs - Scottish farmers have received £115m in EU grants over the last 5 years.
If we can take the EU's treatment of the 10 new member states and Turkey as custom, Scotland will have to negotiate to enter the EU, which can take months or years, but probably months in Scotland's case. As part of the application process, our democratic credentials and financial health will be assessed. I have no doubt we would pass the democracy test with flying colours, but I am less certain about the financial health test for the reasons above.
Once the EU and Scotland agree that Scotland can join, we may have to face a 10 year wait until we actually join, as the 10 new member states and Turkey are currently facing. That's 10 years of high external tariffs and no financial support from the EU, which will have a deeply negative impact on Scottish growth and financial stability.
The saddening thing is that Salmond and the SNP leadership, deep down, know all this is true. Yet they are promising the Scottish people things they can't deliver, such as joining the EU overnight. I'm going to believe that Jim Mather is deliberately distorting the reality of an independent Scotland and the EU, as it is too astounding to consider that he genuinely believes that England, remaining in Britain, will somehow not remain in the EU if Scotland leaves.
http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1497442007
"On the issue concerning Scotland's independence, that's not my competence to assess or to evaluate but if, for one moment, we were to assume that Scotland gained independence and therefore is eligible as a new member state for the European Union, I would see that, legally speaking, the continuation of the membership would remain with the rest of the UK - less Scotland. And, therefore, Scotland, as a newly independent state, would have to apply for membership."
Spokesman for Alex Salmond:
"The reality is very clear, and was expressed by the late Robin Cook, when foreign secretary, in his statement that an independent Scotland would remain a member of the EU: 'It's in the nature of the European Union, it welcomes all comers and Scotland would be a member'.
"When we have recently welcomed Romania and Bulgaria into full EU membership, how could it be otherwise for resource-rich Scotland?"
Jim Mather MSP:
"We are an incumbent member state - what about England having to re-apply?"
Out of these three individuals, who is the most qualified to state the EU position on the accession of an independent Scotland?
Scotland will have to reapply to join the EU upon leaving the UK, as the UK as a political entity belongs to the EU and Scotland is no longer part of that political entity. England won't have to reapply because England is still in the UK, which answers Mr Mather's question.
The spokesman for Alex Salmond is a bit more nuanced - he states that it is likely that Scotland would gain EU membership, but, again, obfuscates the fact that there is an application process involved. We will not become a separate member of the EU the day after independence, as one SNP poster promised.
Leaving the UK also means leaving the EU. This exposes Scotland to all the high external tariffs on trade with the EU (by far Scotland's biggest trading partner) that continue to restrict economic growth in Africa. These tariffs will severely damage the Scottish economy at a time when we need economic stability most. This will also be a time when the economic unviability of the SNP's economic plan for Scotland (high public expenditure - no bad thing - but with insufficiently low taxes to cover public spending)becomes clear. In addition, we will lose the EU agricultural and other grants that the Scottish economy needs - Scottish farmers have received £115m in EU grants over the last 5 years.
If we can take the EU's treatment of the 10 new member states and Turkey as custom, Scotland will have to negotiate to enter the EU, which can take months or years, but probably months in Scotland's case. As part of the application process, our democratic credentials and financial health will be assessed. I have no doubt we would pass the democracy test with flying colours, but I am less certain about the financial health test for the reasons above.
Once the EU and Scotland agree that Scotland can join, we may have to face a 10 year wait until we actually join, as the 10 new member states and Turkey are currently facing. That's 10 years of high external tariffs and no financial support from the EU, which will have a deeply negative impact on Scottish growth and financial stability.
The saddening thing is that Salmond and the SNP leadership, deep down, know all this is true. Yet they are promising the Scottish people things they can't deliver, such as joining the EU overnight. I'm going to believe that Jim Mather is deliberately distorting the reality of an independent Scotland and the EU, as it is too astounding to consider that he genuinely believes that England, remaining in Britain, will somehow not remain in the EU if Scotland leaves.
http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1497442007
Tuesday 18 September 2007
Tory Report: Quality of Life Better under Labour
The recent "Blueprint for a Green Economy" report unveiled by the Tories (but where are the policies?) agrees that the quality of life in Britain both under Callaghan and Blair was better than under Thatcher and Major.
"Blueprint for a Green Economy,'' a report commissioned by Conservative leader David Cameron, suggests that alongside gross domestic product, the standard scale of a country's success, the U.K. should use a gauge called the Index of Sustainable Economic Welfare.
A graph in the report shows the measure reaching a record in 1976 under Labour Prime Minister James Callaghan, whose three-year tenure was marked by rampant inflation and labor strife. It falls to a 30-year low under Margaret Thatcher, who championed wealth creation as Conservative prime minister in the 1980s, before rising again under Labour's Tony Blair."
Here's the link.
"Blueprint for a Green Economy,'' a report commissioned by Conservative leader David Cameron, suggests that alongside gross domestic product, the standard scale of a country's success, the U.K. should use a gauge called the Index of Sustainable Economic Welfare.
A graph in the report shows the measure reaching a record in 1976 under Labour Prime Minister James Callaghan, whose three-year tenure was marked by rampant inflation and labor strife. It falls to a 30-year low under Margaret Thatcher, who championed wealth creation as Conservative prime minister in the 1980s, before rising again under Labour's Tony Blair."
Here's the link.
Saving Sudan: A Return to Humanitarian Multilateralism
UN Security Council Resolution 1769, passed July 31st, authorises the UN to send 20,000 peacekeeping troops to the Darfur region of Sudan to assist the African Union peacekeepers there. It is great to see the cooperation between Brown and Sarkozy to ensure this deployment, and some action finally being taken on Sudan. Working through the UN gives this mission a legitimacy that a unilateral approach lacks. Let's hope this will stabilise Darfur, and that UN peacekeepers can continue to be deployed further out in Sudan as needed.
Monday 17 September 2007
Conflict of Interest at Heart of SNP Energy Decisionmaking
I just found this on Ridiculous Politics. Stewart Stevenson, the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Minister, owns shares in Iberdola-Scottish Power.
"Iberdola-Scottish Power recently took over Scottish Power, a company that supplies a significant number of Scottish homes and businesses with electricty. The company's corporate vision is to "increase our renewable energy capacity in the UK to 1,000 MW by 2010" and aims to be "a world leader in renewables".
And who is the Minister in the Scottish Executive responsible for promoting renewable energy capacity in Scotland? Step forward, Mr Stevenson."
It is unbelievable that this is the first I've read of this, and that this hasn't been reported in any newspapers. Stevenson will be making decisions as a government minister that directly affect his business interests.
Here is the letter I sent to the news desks at the Herald and Scotsman:
"Stewart Stevenson MSP, the Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and
Climate Change, is responsible for energy issues and supply in the
Scottish Government. His role is within the Finance and Sustainable
Development Ministry, which lists one of its responsibilities as
"Energy". He owns shares in Iberdrola-Scottish Power. You can see
these shares on his Register of Interests here:
http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/msp/membersPages/stewart_stevenson/roi.htm
The Iberdrola-Scottish Power website outlines one of its aims as:
"...having 10% (1,000MW) of generated electricity come from renewable
sources by 2010. This will be achieved primarily through the building
and acquisition of windfarms, but also by investing in biomass and
other emerging technologies such as wave power." (link:
http://www.scottishpower.com/EnergyWholesale.htm)
This means Stewart Stevenson is making decisions as Government
Minister that affect his financial interests."
On top of this, Scottish Power just won the contract for a major new wind farm in Dumfries.
"ScottishPower was today granted final planning consent by the new Scottish Government for Harestanes windfarm, a project of up to 213 MW capacity in Dumfries and Galloway. The £200 million, 71 turbine project will provide enough green energy for approximately 120,000 homes."
We desperately need some scrutiny as to how Scottish Power won this contract. Stevenson should have moved both his shares in Bank of Scotland and Iberdrola-Scottish Power into a blind trust upon assuming his Ministerial job - why hasn't he? The value of his shares will have definitely risen with Scottish Power's acquisition of this contract from his office.
"Iberdola-Scottish Power recently took over Scottish Power, a company that supplies a significant number of Scottish homes and businesses with electricty. The company's corporate vision is to "increase our renewable energy capacity in the UK to 1,000 MW by 2010" and aims to be "a world leader in renewables".
And who is the Minister in the Scottish Executive responsible for promoting renewable energy capacity in Scotland? Step forward, Mr Stevenson."
It is unbelievable that this is the first I've read of this, and that this hasn't been reported in any newspapers. Stevenson will be making decisions as a government minister that directly affect his business interests.
Here is the letter I sent to the news desks at the Herald and Scotsman:
"Stewart Stevenson MSP, the Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and
Climate Change, is responsible for energy issues and supply in the
Scottish Government. His role is within the Finance and Sustainable
Development Ministry, which lists one of its responsibilities as
"Energy". He owns shares in Iberdrola-Scottish Power. You can see
these shares on his Register of Interests here:
http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/msp/membersPages/stewart_stevenson/roi.htm
The Iberdrola-Scottish Power website outlines one of its aims as:
"...having 10% (1,000MW) of generated electricity come from renewable
sources by 2010. This will be achieved primarily through the building
and acquisition of windfarms, but also by investing in biomass and
other emerging technologies such as wave power." (link:
http://www.scottishpower.com/EnergyWholesale.htm)
This means Stewart Stevenson is making decisions as Government
Minister that affect his financial interests."
On top of this, Scottish Power just won the contract for a major new wind farm in Dumfries.
"ScottishPower was today granted final planning consent by the new Scottish Government for Harestanes windfarm, a project of up to 213 MW capacity in Dumfries and Galloway. The £200 million, 71 turbine project will provide enough green energy for approximately 120,000 homes."
We desperately need some scrutiny as to how Scottish Power won this contract. Stevenson should have moved both his shares in Bank of Scotland and Iberdrola-Scottish Power into a blind trust upon assuming his Ministerial job - why hasn't he? The value of his shares will have definitely risen with Scottish Power's acquisition of this contract from his office.
Sunday 16 September 2007
The Drums of War
The Observer analyses the recent incursion of 8 Israeli planes into Syrian territory, and gives weight to Robert Fisk's article on September 1 that Israel are preparing for another war with Hizbullah in Lebanon.
"(Leaks from US officials) also combined a series of neoconservative foreign policy concerns: that North Korea was not being properly monitored in the deal struck for its nuclear disarmament and was off-loading its material to Iran and Syria, both of which in turn were helping to rearm Hizbollah.
Underlying all the accusations was a suggestion that recalled the bogus intelligence claims that led to the war against Iraq: that the three countries might be collaborating to supply an unconventional weapon to Hizbollah."
"(Leaks from US officials) also combined a series of neoconservative foreign policy concerns: that North Korea was not being properly monitored in the deal struck for its nuclear disarmament and was off-loading its material to Iran and Syria, both of which in turn were helping to rearm Hizbollah.
Underlying all the accusations was a suggestion that recalled the bogus intelligence claims that led to the war against Iraq: that the three countries might be collaborating to supply an unconventional weapon to Hizbollah."
Saturday 15 September 2007
Letter Published in Today's Scotsman
http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/letters.cfm?id=1478502007
The letter is the "Population Control" post on this blog. It has been given a title by the Scotsman: "SNP's contradictory stance on Union and EU membership defies all logic"
The letter is the "Population Control" post on this blog. It has been given a title by the Scotsman: "SNP's contradictory stance on Union and EU membership defies all logic"
Mission Accomplished - 4 Years Later...
The Daily Kos leads today with an analysis of Bush's national television address last night. He fumbled the Republican strategy of presenting the Petraeus Report as the nonpartisan, technocratic opinions of the generals ("who know best"), when it is officially the White House's own report to which Petraeus has been invited to contribute.
"The Republicans Are All In
by Devilstower
Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 10:34:06 PM PDT
Last night Bush went on television to explain how driving the world's greatest military to the point of destruction was his definition of success. Faced with reducing the current escalation only because there are no more troops and equipment available, he painted this not only a victory, but one in which he invited others to share. I think it's safe to say that Democrats will not be rushing to celebrate damage to our military that no foreign enemy could have accomplished. Republicans only wish Bush had kept his mouth shut.
Some key Hill Republicans, in fact, were upset that he returned front and center on the issue at a time when the White House had so carefully ceded the selling of the surge to Petraeus and Crocker. "Why would he threaten the momentum we have?" says one frustrated Capitol Hill Republican strategist with ties to the G.O.P. leadership. "You have an unpopular President going onto prime time television, interrupting Americans' TV programs, to remind them of why they don't like him."
Bush did more than remind the American people that this is his war, and that in supporting this war, the Repubicans are placing loyalty to the worst president in history above any demands of decency or common sense. In his speech, Bush raised the stakes of his long-shot gamble.
In the life of all free nations, there come moments that decide the direction of a country and reveal the character of its people.
Do you smell that? That's the odor of every possible bridge being burned. By supporting Bush now, Republicans are supporting the idea that Iraq is more than just a miserable conflict, badly planned and horribly executed. They're buying the idea that America is defined by what happens in Iraq.
In supporting Bush, they are placing every chip on the table, and accepting that they can never draw them back. You can not accept this cause as the cause and change your mind later. The Republicans are absolutely invested in this war. They hold only a 7-2 off suit, but they are all in.
Now all that is wanting is someone to call their hand.
This is another indicator that the next President will be a Democrat, with Iraq probably being the defining theme of the 2008 campaigns. Another indicator is the departure of Ken Mehlman, RNC Chair of the 2004 election, to advise a New York hedge fund on dealing with a Democratic White House and Congress.
The Economist looks at the influence of Iraq in Western politics this week, and asks why the anti-war movement has become so influential in the US yet nearly disappeared in Britain. It argues that "Britain's steady withdrawal from Iraq has also played a role in dampening active dissent. Why march to bring the boys home when Gordon Brown, the prime minister, is already expected to cut the forces in the field?" Its also important to bear in mind that this is the reverse of what is happening in the US: confronted with a failed strategy, Brown isn't ordering a "surge" as a last gamble with British lives for the sake of his reputation.
I marched against the war twice in 2003, and am happy to see the British troops being pulled out. Both Clinton and Obama promise that if they are elected, the US will be out of Iraq entirely by mid-2008. The sooner the better.
"The Republicans Are All In
by Devilstower
Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 10:34:06 PM PDT
Last night Bush went on television to explain how driving the world's greatest military to the point of destruction was his definition of success. Faced with reducing the current escalation only because there are no more troops and equipment available, he painted this not only a victory, but one in which he invited others to share. I think it's safe to say that Democrats will not be rushing to celebrate damage to our military that no foreign enemy could have accomplished. Republicans only wish Bush had kept his mouth shut.
Some key Hill Republicans, in fact, were upset that he returned front and center on the issue at a time when the White House had so carefully ceded the selling of the surge to Petraeus and Crocker. "Why would he threaten the momentum we have?" says one frustrated Capitol Hill Republican strategist with ties to the G.O.P. leadership. "You have an unpopular President going onto prime time television, interrupting Americans' TV programs, to remind them of why they don't like him."
Bush did more than remind the American people that this is his war, and that in supporting this war, the Repubicans are placing loyalty to the worst president in history above any demands of decency or common sense. In his speech, Bush raised the stakes of his long-shot gamble.
In the life of all free nations, there come moments that decide the direction of a country and reveal the character of its people.
Do you smell that? That's the odor of every possible bridge being burned. By supporting Bush now, Republicans are supporting the idea that Iraq is more than just a miserable conflict, badly planned and horribly executed. They're buying the idea that America is defined by what happens in Iraq.
In supporting Bush, they are placing every chip on the table, and accepting that they can never draw them back. You can not accept this cause as the cause and change your mind later. The Republicans are absolutely invested in this war. They hold only a 7-2 off suit, but they are all in.
Now all that is wanting is someone to call their hand.
This is another indicator that the next President will be a Democrat, with Iraq probably being the defining theme of the 2008 campaigns. Another indicator is the departure of Ken Mehlman, RNC Chair of the 2004 election, to advise a New York hedge fund on dealing with a Democratic White House and Congress.
The Economist looks at the influence of Iraq in Western politics this week, and asks why the anti-war movement has become so influential in the US yet nearly disappeared in Britain. It argues that "Britain's steady withdrawal from Iraq has also played a role in dampening active dissent. Why march to bring the boys home when Gordon Brown, the prime minister, is already expected to cut the forces in the field?" Its also important to bear in mind that this is the reverse of what is happening in the US: confronted with a failed strategy, Brown isn't ordering a "surge" as a last gamble with British lives for the sake of his reputation.
I marched against the war twice in 2003, and am happy to see the British troops being pulled out. Both Clinton and Obama promise that if they are elected, the US will be out of Iraq entirely by mid-2008. The sooner the better.
Thursday 13 September 2007
Foreign Investment Update
Scotland scores bigger and smarter in European Inward Investment Results
European Investment Monitor Report Published at La Baule
Today's (28th June 2007) release of the European Investment Monitor (EIM) report for 2006, which records foreign investment flows in Europe, has shown a 22% rise in the total number of projects that came to the UK, of which Scotland gained an increased share, particularly in larger scale projects in the services sector and in R&D projects.
The UK was the most successful country in attracting inward investment in Europe in 2006 winning 684 projects. Scotland won 62 of these, placing it in second place in the UK behind London and the South East of England. Of particular note, based on the available EIM data, is the number of projects of scale that Scotland has secured, winning over 25% of all projects coming into the UK which individually created 250 jobs or more.
Scotland also won more R&D projects than at any time over the previous six years. In 2006 Scotland secured 12 R&D projects out of a UK total of 47, equalling the number won by first placed London and the South East for the first time.
The EIM report findings were announced today at the La Baule World Investment Conference in France at which Scotland has been selected as a guest of honour. The focus of this year's conference is 'Green Technologies and Services' - highlighting the link between environmental awareness and responsibility, and Europe's capacity and potential to attract and develop green technologies, investments, talent and capital.
Martin Togneri, CEO of Scottish Development International, is part of an international panel which will discuss the implications of the findings of the EIM report in recognition of Scotland's success in attracting foreign investment and the thriving Scottish renewable energy sector.
"We are pleased to see that inward investment in Europe is on the upturn since the market's global low point in 2003. I am also delighted that Scotland is winning a very healthy share of this revival.
"Importantly, we are also encouraged not just by the number of projects, but also the quality and sustainability of the investment we are attracting. The strategy SDI is pursuing puts particular emphasis on attracting high value jobs such as those in research, design and development functions. Provisional figures for the success of this strategy for the year ahead are also looking very positive."
European Investment Monitor Report Published at La Baule
Today's (28th June 2007) release of the European Investment Monitor (EIM) report for 2006, which records foreign investment flows in Europe, has shown a 22% rise in the total number of projects that came to the UK, of which Scotland gained an increased share, particularly in larger scale projects in the services sector and in R&D projects.
The UK was the most successful country in attracting inward investment in Europe in 2006 winning 684 projects. Scotland won 62 of these, placing it in second place in the UK behind London and the South East of England. Of particular note, based on the available EIM data, is the number of projects of scale that Scotland has secured, winning over 25% of all projects coming into the UK which individually created 250 jobs or more.
Scotland also won more R&D projects than at any time over the previous six years. In 2006 Scotland secured 12 R&D projects out of a UK total of 47, equalling the number won by first placed London and the South East for the first time.
The EIM report findings were announced today at the La Baule World Investment Conference in France at which Scotland has been selected as a guest of honour. The focus of this year's conference is 'Green Technologies and Services' - highlighting the link between environmental awareness and responsibility, and Europe's capacity and potential to attract and develop green technologies, investments, talent and capital.
Martin Togneri, CEO of Scottish Development International, is part of an international panel which will discuss the implications of the findings of the EIM report in recognition of Scotland's success in attracting foreign investment and the thriving Scottish renewable energy sector.
"We are pleased to see that inward investment in Europe is on the upturn since the market's global low point in 2003. I am also delighted that Scotland is winning a very healthy share of this revival.
"Importantly, we are also encouraged not just by the number of projects, but also the quality and sustainability of the investment we are attracting. The strategy SDI is pursuing puts particular emphasis on attracting high value jobs such as those in research, design and development functions. Provisional figures for the success of this strategy for the year ahead are also looking very positive."
Wednesday 12 September 2007
We are the World
A section from a large post on the Herald board trying to motivate a debate on how to improve social integration in Britain:
"I think the Scottish Government should launch a "good neighbour" campaign encouraging people to welcome newly arrived asylum seekers and immigrants into our local communities. Simply smiling and saying "hello" to a new face on your street can make a difference, you could even invite them in for a cup of tea if you're feeling particularly charitable (I would).
We should also ramp up funding for English classes which could be taught by all our local authorities, in conjunction with local colleges or universities. The Home Office could send letters to the newly arrived, if it has determined their English skills could use some improvement, e.g. not able to get by in employment with even basic broken English.
With that as one campaign, the Scottish and UK Governments can launch campaigns -"We are all Scots" for the Scottish Government -"We are all British for the UK Government". The campaign should encourage tolerance for people of all colours of skin and beliefs, and remind people that our asylum seekers and immigrants can, and do, have a valuable contribution to make to our economy and society - a point that I'm sure we can all agree on."
"I think the Scottish Government should launch a "good neighbour" campaign encouraging people to welcome newly arrived asylum seekers and immigrants into our local communities. Simply smiling and saying "hello" to a new face on your street can make a difference, you could even invite them in for a cup of tea if you're feeling particularly charitable (I would).
We should also ramp up funding for English classes which could be taught by all our local authorities, in conjunction with local colleges or universities. The Home Office could send letters to the newly arrived, if it has determined their English skills could use some improvement, e.g. not able to get by in employment with even basic broken English.
With that as one campaign, the Scottish and UK Governments can launch campaigns -"We are all Scots" for the Scottish Government -"We are all British for the UK Government". The campaign should encourage tolerance for people of all colours of skin and beliefs, and remind people that our asylum seekers and immigrants can, and do, have a valuable contribution to make to our economy and society - a point that I'm sure we can all agree on."
Realism in the Middle East
This essay has caused quite a stir in the US. It was published by Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer, two scholars of the "realist" school of international relations - believing that rationality rather than identity should determine how a country acts in international relations, and that the foreign policy conduct of a country is primarily determined by its power status and position in the international system.
The article argues, accurately, that Israel is not helping the US (or Britain) in foreign policy objectives or in the war on terror, despite receiving $3bn annually of American financial assistance. The citizens of the Middle East can't believe our pronouncements of hope and democracy for the region when juxtaposed with Israeli state-sponsored terrorism in the continued clinical eradication of Palestinians and acquisition of their land through the settler movement and "security wall".
"A final reason to question Israel’s strategic value is that it does not behave like a loyal ally. Israeli officials frequently ignore US requests and renege on promises (including pledges to stop building settlements and to refrain from ‘targeted assassinations’ of Palestinian leaders). Israel has provided sensitive military technology to potential rivals like China, in what the State Department inspector-general called ‘a systematic and growing pattern of unauthorised transfers’. According to the General Accounting Office, Israel also ‘conducts the most aggressive espionage operations against the US of any ally’. In addition to the case of Jonathan Pollard, who gave Israel large quantities of classified material in the early 1980s (which it reportedly passed on to the Soviet Union in return for more exit visas for Soviet Jews), a new controversy erupted in 2004 when it was revealed that a key Pentagon official called Larry Franklin had passed classified information to an Israeli diplomat. Israel is hardly the only country that spies on the US, but its willingness to spy on its principal patron casts further doubt on its strategic value."
The article concludes that we should treat Israel as a normal state in the Middle East, and cease our unconditional support for its activities, to detach ourselves from support for this agenda and improve relations with other states in the Middle East, all valuable prescriptions. However, a New York Times review of the article stated that this is unforseeable in the near future - support for Israel is too deeply rooted in our view of the Middle East to change policy. Nevertheless, this article is to be applauded as a valuable contribution to the Israel-Palestine conflict and wider policy in the Middle East. The authors have published this article to a heavy cost on their careers - despite being world-famous in their field of study, they have been banned from speaking at several universities.
I find it disappointing that all the American presidential candidates, Democrat and Republican, are resolutely pro-Israeli, as this will close off any debate on Israel during their campaigns. This makes the publication of this article all the more refreshing.
The article argues, accurately, that Israel is not helping the US (or Britain) in foreign policy objectives or in the war on terror, despite receiving $3bn annually of American financial assistance. The citizens of the Middle East can't believe our pronouncements of hope and democracy for the region when juxtaposed with Israeli state-sponsored terrorism in the continued clinical eradication of Palestinians and acquisition of their land through the settler movement and "security wall".
"A final reason to question Israel’s strategic value is that it does not behave like a loyal ally. Israeli officials frequently ignore US requests and renege on promises (including pledges to stop building settlements and to refrain from ‘targeted assassinations’ of Palestinian leaders). Israel has provided sensitive military technology to potential rivals like China, in what the State Department inspector-general called ‘a systematic and growing pattern of unauthorised transfers’. According to the General Accounting Office, Israel also ‘conducts the most aggressive espionage operations against the US of any ally’. In addition to the case of Jonathan Pollard, who gave Israel large quantities of classified material in the early 1980s (which it reportedly passed on to the Soviet Union in return for more exit visas for Soviet Jews), a new controversy erupted in 2004 when it was revealed that a key Pentagon official called Larry Franklin had passed classified information to an Israeli diplomat. Israel is hardly the only country that spies on the US, but its willingness to spy on its principal patron casts further doubt on its strategic value."
The article concludes that we should treat Israel as a normal state in the Middle East, and cease our unconditional support for its activities, to detach ourselves from support for this agenda and improve relations with other states in the Middle East, all valuable prescriptions. However, a New York Times review of the article stated that this is unforseeable in the near future - support for Israel is too deeply rooted in our view of the Middle East to change policy. Nevertheless, this article is to be applauded as a valuable contribution to the Israel-Palestine conflict and wider policy in the Middle East. The authors have published this article to a heavy cost on their careers - despite being world-famous in their field of study, they have been banned from speaking at several universities.
I find it disappointing that all the American presidential candidates, Democrat and Republican, are resolutely pro-Israeli, as this will close off any debate on Israel during their campaigns. This makes the publication of this article all the more refreshing.
Monday 10 September 2007
Population Control
Copy of a letter I sent to the Scotsman today:
"Paul Henderson Scott (Opinion, 10 September) argues that Scotland has
9% of the UK's population. This means its MPs can be overruled in
Westminster and is taken as an indicator of the unsuitability of the
Union for Scotland. It seems a reasonable point to make, until you
explore that logic a bit further.
There are only 15 MSPs from the Highlands out of a total of 129, meaning with Scott's logic the Highlands get a raw deal in terms of political representation. We
all know the difference in culture, history and traditions between
Highland and Lowland. However, I see no political movement in the
Highlands using these differences as evidence that the Highlands be
independent from Scotland, and the UK. Sounds silly doesn't it?
Moving this logic in the other direction, the SNP plan for an
independent Scotland involves continuing its membership of the EU. Yet
Scotland only makes up 1.03% of the EU population. This somewhat
undermines Scott's argument that that is it unfair for Scotland to
belong to a political institution to which it contributes only 9% of
the population of that institution. On top of this, 75% of UK laws
come from the EU. An independent Scotland wouldn't have the ability to
steer the EU as Britain does, and would be much more at the mercy of
the whims of Brussels bureaucrats. Indeed, many of Scott's criticisms
of "external control", "the English" and their influence on Scotland
could seamlessly be applied to the EU. Yet the SNP are more than
willing to continue the European arrangement in their hazy view of a
post-independence Scotland. As we can see, the logic falls apart."
"Paul Henderson Scott (Opinion, 10 September) argues that Scotland has
9% of the UK's population. This means its MPs can be overruled in
Westminster and is taken as an indicator of the unsuitability of the
Union for Scotland. It seems a reasonable point to make, until you
explore that logic a bit further.
There are only 15 MSPs from the Highlands out of a total of 129, meaning with Scott's logic the Highlands get a raw deal in terms of political representation. We
all know the difference in culture, history and traditions between
Highland and Lowland. However, I see no political movement in the
Highlands using these differences as evidence that the Highlands be
independent from Scotland, and the UK. Sounds silly doesn't it?
Moving this logic in the other direction, the SNP plan for an
independent Scotland involves continuing its membership of the EU. Yet
Scotland only makes up 1.03% of the EU population. This somewhat
undermines Scott's argument that that is it unfair for Scotland to
belong to a political institution to which it contributes only 9% of
the population of that institution. On top of this, 75% of UK laws
come from the EU. An independent Scotland wouldn't have the ability to
steer the EU as Britain does, and would be much more at the mercy of
the whims of Brussels bureaucrats. Indeed, many of Scott's criticisms
of "external control", "the English" and their influence on Scotland
could seamlessly be applied to the EU. Yet the SNP are more than
willing to continue the European arrangement in their hazy view of a
post-independence Scotland. As we can see, the logic falls apart."
Sunday 9 September 2007
The Challenge Ahead
Fairly balanced article in today's Observer looking at Wendy Alexander and the challenges ahead for Scottish Labour.
"Wendy sets sail on a political odyssey
Don't be fooled by the new Labour leader - she is a mature politician hellbent on reviving her party
Wendy Alexander moves forward as if facing down a gale, even when she's entering the less than tempestuous Apex International Hotel in Edinburgh. The impression is of a busy politician who will not brook the attentions of the casual buttonholer.
No one would deny Alexander needs her sense of purpose. This week, she embarks on an epic, almost Odyssean, journey and must prepare for a rough crossing. On Friday, she will be adopted as leader of the Scottish Labour Party, replacing Jack McConnell. Then she will face the increasingly presidential First Minister, Alex Salmond.
The talk in Holyrood is that she will fail, scuppered by a lack of charm. 'This could be a spectacular disaster,' said one observer. A frustrated supporter in the party confirmed: 'She just doesn't listen.'
A lack of obvious empathy will, the thinking goes, alienate her from voters, from an electorate ever more delighted to discover, after all these years, that it is possible to live without the dreary old automatons of Labour. You hear the oddest people talking warmly of the Scottish National Party these days.
For Alexander, this will combine with the impossible task of reforming the Scottish Labour Party. It is a political machine all but untouched by Tony Blair's reforms: moribund (if not just dead - remember Salmond's put-down of McConnell: 'There's only one dead parrot in this chamber'?); still in denial about its defeat; and as resistant to change as any of the old regimes of communist Eastern Europe.
With its newfound habit of appointing rather than electing its leaders, leadership could offer Alexander the most poisoned of chalices. It was in her search for the antidote that she turned up in the Apex, on the penultimate stop in a nationwide 'listening and learning' tour.
The conference room she entered was full, but not overpopulated. The crowd of 100 or so had a smattering of MSPs, the capital's ex-provost Eric Milligan, but it was mostly taken up by activists, the true believers. A glance at the crowd was to see how traduced, how depressed, Scottish Labour is.
Yet as soon as Alexander stopped walking, it became apparent that she has the moves to prove her detractors wrong. At the most superficial level, she is refreshing. At 44, she is young. She has new twins and her husband, Professor Brian Ashcroft, has stepped down from a good position at Strathclyde University to look after them. For Scottish politics, that is downright modern. It is also wonderful.
There is the whiff of sexism in Scottish politics about some of the criticisms. Ludicrous comparisons have been made with Margaret Thatcher. The introduction of the phrase 'to be Wendied' as a substitute for 'to be bullied' reflects badly against general admiration for Salmond's ability with the vicious put-down.
Alexander has been called a nerd, yet she put her political career on ice to have children. She has been berated for being a policy wonk, yet last week's performance showed she actually has beliefs. She grew politically mature at the hand of Donald Dewar. She is a serious politician.
Her ideas for reforming the party - those that she will admit to - are, as yet, obvious. She wants to reform the hierarchy and bring technology into the heart of the operation, getting rid of the smoke-filled rooms in Wishaw in favour of stream-of-consciousness blogging on the web, encouraging back the young.
What was truly startling - and unsettling - about the evening in the Apex were the hints at how she plans to combat Salmond and the SNP. For these could see the Union itself threatened.
Her opponent set out his stall on Wednesday. Salmond announced the 11 bills that make up his legislative programme. Legislation-lite, as the Lib Dem leader Nicol Stephen put it. But measures such as dropping the tolls on the Forth and Tay bridges will appeal to voters, as Salmond gets on with the main business of driving a wedge into the union. As he lands the blows, he continues to look hurt when anyone plays party politics.
At the Apex, Alexander hinted at how she might be prepared to call Salmond's bluff. 'There will be a referendum in 2010,' she told the delegates.
That's quite a statement. Why must there be a referendum? Her certainty was odd, for there is no need for one. The SNP have not got the votes in Parliament to call it. Could she be planning to have Labour back this call? Her advisers were not forthcoming, beyond encouraging speculation.
'There will be a referendum in 2010 and the SNP will lose,' she told the delegates. Once that vote was lost, her theory seemed to be, the SNP will turn in and start devouring itself, and Labour will return to power.
The are many flaws in this theory, but the brinkmanship suggests Alexander does not suffer from McConnell's natural timidity. The chutzpah could re-energise the Labour party and the wider debate. Sadly, for Scotland, it will mean the constitutional settlement will remain the pre-eminent issue in Scottish politics for the next three years, distracting from problems in governance, in housing, in energy, in economics.
The impression Alexander gives is that she recognises this, but the battle is necessary to renew the Labour party, and to that end the Union itself must be risked. It's hardly surprising that she is walking as if facing a storm."
Wonder what that "2010" comment means - maybe she is planning for Labour to vote down the SNP's referendum bill and legislate a new one, perhaps a multi-option referendum with certainly different wording to the independence question.
With some work, the Labour bill would get the support of Parliament, with the ideological instransigence surrounding the SNP's bill having doomed it. This would also give Labour a better chance of being able to frame the debate on independence as a choice between pragmatic support for status quo/greater powers or ideologically-motivated support for independence with all the attendant dangers and risks.
"Wendy sets sail on a political odyssey
Don't be fooled by the new Labour leader - she is a mature politician hellbent on reviving her party
Wendy Alexander moves forward as if facing down a gale, even when she's entering the less than tempestuous Apex International Hotel in Edinburgh. The impression is of a busy politician who will not brook the attentions of the casual buttonholer.
No one would deny Alexander needs her sense of purpose. This week, she embarks on an epic, almost Odyssean, journey and must prepare for a rough crossing. On Friday, she will be adopted as leader of the Scottish Labour Party, replacing Jack McConnell. Then she will face the increasingly presidential First Minister, Alex Salmond.
The talk in Holyrood is that she will fail, scuppered by a lack of charm. 'This could be a spectacular disaster,' said one observer. A frustrated supporter in the party confirmed: 'She just doesn't listen.'
A lack of obvious empathy will, the thinking goes, alienate her from voters, from an electorate ever more delighted to discover, after all these years, that it is possible to live without the dreary old automatons of Labour. You hear the oddest people talking warmly of the Scottish National Party these days.
For Alexander, this will combine with the impossible task of reforming the Scottish Labour Party. It is a political machine all but untouched by Tony Blair's reforms: moribund (if not just dead - remember Salmond's put-down of McConnell: 'There's only one dead parrot in this chamber'?); still in denial about its defeat; and as resistant to change as any of the old regimes of communist Eastern Europe.
With its newfound habit of appointing rather than electing its leaders, leadership could offer Alexander the most poisoned of chalices. It was in her search for the antidote that she turned up in the Apex, on the penultimate stop in a nationwide 'listening and learning' tour.
The conference room she entered was full, but not overpopulated. The crowd of 100 or so had a smattering of MSPs, the capital's ex-provost Eric Milligan, but it was mostly taken up by activists, the true believers. A glance at the crowd was to see how traduced, how depressed, Scottish Labour is.
Yet as soon as Alexander stopped walking, it became apparent that she has the moves to prove her detractors wrong. At the most superficial level, she is refreshing. At 44, she is young. She has new twins and her husband, Professor Brian Ashcroft, has stepped down from a good position at Strathclyde University to look after them. For Scottish politics, that is downright modern. It is also wonderful.
There is the whiff of sexism in Scottish politics about some of the criticisms. Ludicrous comparisons have been made with Margaret Thatcher. The introduction of the phrase 'to be Wendied' as a substitute for 'to be bullied' reflects badly against general admiration for Salmond's ability with the vicious put-down.
Alexander has been called a nerd, yet she put her political career on ice to have children. She has been berated for being a policy wonk, yet last week's performance showed she actually has beliefs. She grew politically mature at the hand of Donald Dewar. She is a serious politician.
Her ideas for reforming the party - those that she will admit to - are, as yet, obvious. She wants to reform the hierarchy and bring technology into the heart of the operation, getting rid of the smoke-filled rooms in Wishaw in favour of stream-of-consciousness blogging on the web, encouraging back the young.
What was truly startling - and unsettling - about the evening in the Apex were the hints at how she plans to combat Salmond and the SNP. For these could see the Union itself threatened.
Her opponent set out his stall on Wednesday. Salmond announced the 11 bills that make up his legislative programme. Legislation-lite, as the Lib Dem leader Nicol Stephen put it. But measures such as dropping the tolls on the Forth and Tay bridges will appeal to voters, as Salmond gets on with the main business of driving a wedge into the union. As he lands the blows, he continues to look hurt when anyone plays party politics.
At the Apex, Alexander hinted at how she might be prepared to call Salmond's bluff. 'There will be a referendum in 2010,' she told the delegates.
That's quite a statement. Why must there be a referendum? Her certainty was odd, for there is no need for one. The SNP have not got the votes in Parliament to call it. Could she be planning to have Labour back this call? Her advisers were not forthcoming, beyond encouraging speculation.
'There will be a referendum in 2010 and the SNP will lose,' she told the delegates. Once that vote was lost, her theory seemed to be, the SNP will turn in and start devouring itself, and Labour will return to power.
The are many flaws in this theory, but the brinkmanship suggests Alexander does not suffer from McConnell's natural timidity. The chutzpah could re-energise the Labour party and the wider debate. Sadly, for Scotland, it will mean the constitutional settlement will remain the pre-eminent issue in Scottish politics for the next three years, distracting from problems in governance, in housing, in energy, in economics.
The impression Alexander gives is that she recognises this, but the battle is necessary to renew the Labour party, and to that end the Union itself must be risked. It's hardly surprising that she is walking as if facing a storm."
Wonder what that "2010" comment means - maybe she is planning for Labour to vote down the SNP's referendum bill and legislate a new one, perhaps a multi-option referendum with certainly different wording to the independence question.
With some work, the Labour bill would get the support of Parliament, with the ideological instransigence surrounding the SNP's bill having doomed it. This would also give Labour a better chance of being able to frame the debate on independence as a choice between pragmatic support for status quo/greater powers or ideologically-motivated support for independence with all the attendant dangers and risks.
Sarah Boyack Picks Up the Ball
Great article by Sarah Boyack MSP in today's Sunday Herald:
"Poor climate for delaying green bill
It's not been a good week for the Scottish environment. The SNP programme for government was a huge disappointment to climate change campaigners as we discovered a promised Scottish climate change bill will be delayed for at least a year.
The UK government is now powering ahead with plans to deliver reductions in CO2 emissions with a draft bill published in March this year and the establishment of an independent climate change committee dedicated to implementing the Stern Report on tackling climate change.
Alex Salmond's explanation rested on the requirement to produce a regulatory impact assessment - something not slowing down the SNP's bill to abolish bridge tolls.
Not only has a climate change bill been kicked into the long grass, but SNP ministers said they will oppose my member's bill on energy efficiency and microgeneration. Although John Swinney, cabinet secretary for finance and sustainable development, said he is interested in the proposals, he has not guaranteed that key measures will not be dropped.
The bill aims to reduce fuel poverty and tackle climate change by providing tax incentives to householders and businesses with one-off reductions in council tax and business rates if they install energy-efficiency and microgeneration devices in existing buildings. It would also require all new buildings to include some form of microgeneration to enable people to produce their own heat and power and see their bills reduce.
The bill is very much in tune with SNP announcements on low-carbon buildings, but rhetoric needs to be turned into reality.
My bill is backed by a wide range of groups, such as Barnardos, WWF and Energy Action Scotland, who have come together to ensure action in the Scottish parliament. It also has the support of 51 MSPs from every party at Holyrood.
The ball is now in the Scottish government's court. If we are going to play our part in tackling climate change we need to start now, not next year.
This autumn's budget review would be a practical place to start, but so far SNP ministers have only committed to including a "greener" approach, not the tougher approach of carbon reduction targets across government.
We cannot afford for Scotland to lag behind the rest of the UK. The challenge is both for the new SNP government and for the Scottish parliament to make sure we don't let that happen."
This approach is exactly how Labour should act in the Scottish Parliament - gently teasing out the disparity between the green rhetoric and reality, demonstrating a clear committment to green energy beyond what the SNP are prepared to do, and - at last - legislating while in opposition.
This approach is win-win. If the SNP support this bill, we can claim credit for it and highlight their initial distaste for it in our next manifesto. This will in turn improve our image to being seen as proactive in Parliament even while we're in opposition, rather than us not legislating, not contributing to Parliament and simply reacting to any policy the SNP or other parties propose.
If the SNP reject this bill, it severely undermines their green rhetoric and most, critically for them, makes Alex Salmond and his "Green Energy Day" look silly.
Our next manifesto must be filled with ideas like this, and our behaviour in Parliament proactive rather than reactive.
"Poor climate for delaying green bill
It's not been a good week for the Scottish environment. The SNP programme for government was a huge disappointment to climate change campaigners as we discovered a promised Scottish climate change bill will be delayed for at least a year.
The UK government is now powering ahead with plans to deliver reductions in CO2 emissions with a draft bill published in March this year and the establishment of an independent climate change committee dedicated to implementing the Stern Report on tackling climate change.
Alex Salmond's explanation rested on the requirement to produce a regulatory impact assessment - something not slowing down the SNP's bill to abolish bridge tolls.
Not only has a climate change bill been kicked into the long grass, but SNP ministers said they will oppose my member's bill on energy efficiency and microgeneration. Although John Swinney, cabinet secretary for finance and sustainable development, said he is interested in the proposals, he has not guaranteed that key measures will not be dropped.
The bill aims to reduce fuel poverty and tackle climate change by providing tax incentives to householders and businesses with one-off reductions in council tax and business rates if they install energy-efficiency and microgeneration devices in existing buildings. It would also require all new buildings to include some form of microgeneration to enable people to produce their own heat and power and see their bills reduce.
The bill is very much in tune with SNP announcements on low-carbon buildings, but rhetoric needs to be turned into reality.
My bill is backed by a wide range of groups, such as Barnardos, WWF and Energy Action Scotland, who have come together to ensure action in the Scottish parliament. It also has the support of 51 MSPs from every party at Holyrood.
The ball is now in the Scottish government's court. If we are going to play our part in tackling climate change we need to start now, not next year.
This autumn's budget review would be a practical place to start, but so far SNP ministers have only committed to including a "greener" approach, not the tougher approach of carbon reduction targets across government.
We cannot afford for Scotland to lag behind the rest of the UK. The challenge is both for the new SNP government and for the Scottish parliament to make sure we don't let that happen."
This approach is exactly how Labour should act in the Scottish Parliament - gently teasing out the disparity between the green rhetoric and reality, demonstrating a clear committment to green energy beyond what the SNP are prepared to do, and - at last - legislating while in opposition.
This approach is win-win. If the SNP support this bill, we can claim credit for it and highlight their initial distaste for it in our next manifesto. This will in turn improve our image to being seen as proactive in Parliament even while we're in opposition, rather than us not legislating, not contributing to Parliament and simply reacting to any policy the SNP or other parties propose.
If the SNP reject this bill, it severely undermines their green rhetoric and most, critically for them, makes Alex Salmond and his "Green Energy Day" look silly.
Our next manifesto must be filled with ideas like this, and our behaviour in Parliament proactive rather than reactive.
Saturday 8 September 2007
More Energy Issues
As a postscript to the last post, here's some data I found while trawling on the Scotsman -
"In the 12 months to 31st December 2006 Scottish wind farms produced 1,968,151 mwhs this being 3.86% of the Scottish electricity output for that year. The installed capacity at 31st December was 8,489,286 mws giving a capacity of 23% although because several wind farms only came on stream during the year this perhaps understates the capacity by 1-2%.
Hydro produced in the last year for which figures have been given(2004) 4,546,000 or 8.9% ofthe total. Renewables can therefore be assumed to be producing 12.77% of the total as there was no increase in hydro between 2004 and 2006. Again in 2004 nuclear produced 18,013,000 mwhs or 35%."
"In the 12 months to 31st December 2006 Scottish wind farms produced 1,968,151 mwhs this being 3.86% of the Scottish electricity output for that year. The installed capacity at 31st December was 8,489,286 mws giving a capacity of 23% although because several wind farms only came on stream during the year this perhaps understates the capacity by 1-2%.
Hydro produced in the last year for which figures have been given(2004) 4,546,000 or 8.9% ofthe total. Renewables can therefore be assumed to be producing 12.77% of the total as there was no increase in hydro between 2004 and 2006. Again in 2004 nuclear produced 18,013,000 mwhs or 35%."
Energy Issues
I support the UK Government's plan for our next generation of energy facilities, including a new generation of nuclear power plants across Britain. It is a pragmatic combination of nuclear and green energy solutions.
I'm disappointed in the SNP's refusal to contemplate new nuclear power stations for Scotland - I support new nuclear as a reliable base for our energy needs, which will not waver if the wind stops blowing, the sky becomes cloudy or if its a calm day at sea. We can experiment with all the green energy solutions preferred by the Scottish Government with this nuclear base, but without the risk of gambling our entire energy grid on these solutions, many of which are untested.
As the Scotsman correctly points out today, nuclear energy is also much more efficient than the renewable sources championed by the SNP. Nuclear power plants operate at 80% of capacity, while "renewable plants" operate at "around 30%". Therefore the taxpayer gets more electricity for his tax money if it is spent on nuclear rather than renewable energy.
To directly compare nuclear with wind farms, as the most visible example of green energy in Scotland today, wind farms produce only 16% of their capacity or less for a quarter of the time. For half of the the time they produce 22% or less, and only produce more than half their capacity for 16% of the time. Again, this doesn't compare to the reliable 80% offered by nuclear.
But still, I support a combination of the two. In an ideal world, I would like to see Britain being powered entirely by green energy. However, a new, and possibly final, generation of nuclear power plants will provide a reliable and clean source of power while we experiment with green energy. We can't afford to let our entire grid become the experiment.
I'm disappointed in the SNP's refusal to contemplate new nuclear power stations for Scotland - I support new nuclear as a reliable base for our energy needs, which will not waver if the wind stops blowing, the sky becomes cloudy or if its a calm day at sea. We can experiment with all the green energy solutions preferred by the Scottish Government with this nuclear base, but without the risk of gambling our entire energy grid on these solutions, many of which are untested.
As the Scotsman correctly points out today, nuclear energy is also much more efficient than the renewable sources championed by the SNP. Nuclear power plants operate at 80% of capacity, while "renewable plants" operate at "around 30%". Therefore the taxpayer gets more electricity for his tax money if it is spent on nuclear rather than renewable energy.
To directly compare nuclear with wind farms, as the most visible example of green energy in Scotland today, wind farms produce only 16% of their capacity or less for a quarter of the time. For half of the the time they produce 22% or less, and only produce more than half their capacity for 16% of the time. Again, this doesn't compare to the reliable 80% offered by nuclear.
But still, I support a combination of the two. In an ideal world, I would like to see Britain being powered entirely by green energy. However, a new, and possibly final, generation of nuclear power plants will provide a reliable and clean source of power while we experiment with green energy. We can't afford to let our entire grid become the experiment.
Friday 7 September 2007
Welcome
Welcome to the blog, a result of procrastinating from pre-reading for IR and applying for British citizenship. If its anything like my previous blogs, I'll launch it as a way to keep busy in the late summer then abandon it when the work really ramps up at uni. But here goes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
