The Sheffield half-marathon was a victory for common sense which seems to be totally lacking in today's world of Public Relations dominated activity. On the 10th of April the race was due to be run in Sheffield Yorkshire in the UK. The race was cancelled the very last minute because water supplies for the runners failed to be delivered. The organisers thought it would be better to cancel the race for "health and safety reasons".
The runners themselves decided something different and chose to run despite the best efforts of the organisers to stop them. The police initially decided to unblock the route to motor traffic but changed their mind and allowed the unofficial race to go ahead as originally intended.
Water was supplied to the competitors who need it by spectators along the route.
The sports organisers were described as "risk averse" by a former sports' minister and I agree totally. Every sport has risks attached. Most of the 4,000 or so runners knew what those risks were and decided accordingly.
I am in my sixties and regularly run 10 to 12 k without having to drink any water whatsoever or take glucose tablets. I can run 10 k on a hot summer day and drink my fill after running. If I attempted to run 20 k, then I would probably need to drink some water along the way so I would take supplies with me. I often train on my own and there is a risk that I could trip over and break my leg or even push it too far and get heart tremors.
Most of the competitors for the Sheffield half marathon would have been a lot younger and fitter than me.
I minimise the risk of a heart tremor by not running too fast for my age and pacing myself to run at a constant and comfortable heart rate. I do not need a doctor to tell me what the risks are or how to minimise them. I cannot completely minimise the risk of tripping and breaking my leg but so be it.
If I had been there in Sheffield, I would have made sure that I had trained adequately for the event and would have ran the unofficial race along with the others. I would have stopped or slowed down if I needed to drink and no one from the onlookers had a bottle to give me. It would have been applied commonsense.
The unofficial race has now been run and the residents of Sheffield do not have to put up with the inconvenience of having their roads blocked again for a re-run.
The water suppliers claim that they had a contract where the organisers were obliged to pay for the water before the race was run but no funds were forthcoming. But, the best sort of PR for the water company would have been to supply the water and ask for the cash later. If ,all this is true, then someone has got it badly wrong and no amount of PR waffle will get those responsible of the hook.
At least both the police and the competitors knew how to do the right thing - it is just a small victory for common sense.
http://www.sheffieldmarathon.com/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-26938226
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26923501
http://www.sheffieldtelegraph.co.uk/news/local/call-to-change-sheffield-half-marathon-organisers-1-6555425
Tuesday, 15 April 2014
Wednesday, 19 March 2014
Crimea again
It may be illegal from a Ukrainian point of view and doubtful from an international legal viewpoint but Crimea is now effectively Russian territory. The people of the USA, Canada, Western Europe and the rest of the free world have no stomach to face down Russian irredentism; they prefer HD television sets and satellite broadcast football to confrontation.
In June 1963 President Kennedy visited Berlin after the completion of the wall separating West Berlin from East Berlin and uttered the words "Ich bin ein Berliner". This represented support for freedom and the willingness to stand up against tyranny using force if necessary. Can you imagine any Western politician uttering those words today? This is why JFK was regarded as a hero as he supported freedom not only for his own citizens but for others to. He is a politician who I admire for this reason. We all have short memories.
Western politicians have gravely miscalculated Russia's reaction to the overthrow of President Yanukovich and the unrest in Kiev. The Russian government was prepared to shoot at hapless and helpless Greenpeace activists who posed no real threat to oil drilling operations. How did anyone think that the Kremlin would react to a perceived military threat to its political and economic interests in the Black Sea area.
NATO can only offer moral support to the new government in Kiev and the Kiev government has gravely miscalculated the willingness of Western governments to support them militarily. There will be no"no fly zone" or "boots on the ground" - just words and sanctions with no real teeth. It was plain to see what would happen - what about Georgian sovereignty when it choose to defy the Kremlin? We all have very short memories.
There is only one hope for the people of the rest of Ukraine. And, that is, that there will be completely free and honest new elections and that the people will be free to vote for a President and Parliament that genuinely represents all the people of the Ukraine. It would have been preferable if Russia had stayed its hand and waited until a new Ukrainian government was installed in Kiev. The Crimean people could have then been allowed time to reflect before they voted for independence.
If the people of the rest of the Ukraine vote for and support full democracy then the EU should support them economically but the EU should insist that all the economic support falls into the hands of all the people.This is the only way that there can be true economic growth and development in the Ukraine. Perhaps the Crimea will then want to rejoin the Ukraine or a Ukrainian Commonwealth to share in this prosperity.
The EU can still insist on fair fresh elections and insist that ultra right-wing politicians are not allowed into government unless there is fair electoral support for such a situation. One of the fears of the Crimean people is that of the ultra-right.
I fear for the plight of Ukrainian soldiers left in the Crimea; they are effectively prisoners of war and they should be protected under the Geneva Convention and the European Human Rights Convention. Russia and Ukraine should negotiate their disarmament and their rapid repatriation to the Ukraine if they wish to go back home. There should be no retribution taken against any of these soldiers either in the Ukraine or the Crimea. I fear this will not happen and that they have now become pawns in a superpower struggle.
If the Ukraine or Russia choose to mistreat Ukrainian soldiers or prisoners then the West should take action with real economic sanctions; but a military option is not feasible. The Ukrainian military men and women left behind in the bases in Crimea are on their own and they are at the mercy of the Russians. The West is too weak to support them.
In the wake of President Putin's remarks yesterday about the break up of the Soviet Union I would not sleep so easily if I were an Estonian, Latvian or Lithuanian. Where would NATO draw the line? How much support do the newly independent Baltic states really have? Would the average Joe in the USA, France, Germany or Britain be prepared to fight or risk nuclear war for their independence? We need a new form of realpolitik and diplomacy. It might be better to have a more inclusive attitude to Russia and lock it into fresh trade, economic and political agreements that would be in its interests to maintain rather than break.
In June 1963 President Kennedy visited Berlin after the completion of the wall separating West Berlin from East Berlin and uttered the words "Ich bin ein Berliner". This represented support for freedom and the willingness to stand up against tyranny using force if necessary. Can you imagine any Western politician uttering those words today? This is why JFK was regarded as a hero as he supported freedom not only for his own citizens but for others to. He is a politician who I admire for this reason. We all have short memories.
Western politicians have gravely miscalculated Russia's reaction to the overthrow of President Yanukovich and the unrest in Kiev. The Russian government was prepared to shoot at hapless and helpless Greenpeace activists who posed no real threat to oil drilling operations. How did anyone think that the Kremlin would react to a perceived military threat to its political and economic interests in the Black Sea area.
NATO can only offer moral support to the new government in Kiev and the Kiev government has gravely miscalculated the willingness of Western governments to support them militarily. There will be no"no fly zone" or "boots on the ground" - just words and sanctions with no real teeth. It was plain to see what would happen - what about Georgian sovereignty when it choose to defy the Kremlin? We all have very short memories.
There is only one hope for the people of the rest of Ukraine. And, that is, that there will be completely free and honest new elections and that the people will be free to vote for a President and Parliament that genuinely represents all the people of the Ukraine. It would have been preferable if Russia had stayed its hand and waited until a new Ukrainian government was installed in Kiev. The Crimean people could have then been allowed time to reflect before they voted for independence.
If the people of the rest of the Ukraine vote for and support full democracy then the EU should support them economically but the EU should insist that all the economic support falls into the hands of all the people.This is the only way that there can be true economic growth and development in the Ukraine. Perhaps the Crimea will then want to rejoin the Ukraine or a Ukrainian Commonwealth to share in this prosperity.
The EU can still insist on fair fresh elections and insist that ultra right-wing politicians are not allowed into government unless there is fair electoral support for such a situation. One of the fears of the Crimean people is that of the ultra-right.
I fear for the plight of Ukrainian soldiers left in the Crimea; they are effectively prisoners of war and they should be protected under the Geneva Convention and the European Human Rights Convention. Russia and Ukraine should negotiate their disarmament and their rapid repatriation to the Ukraine if they wish to go back home. There should be no retribution taken against any of these soldiers either in the Ukraine or the Crimea. I fear this will not happen and that they have now become pawns in a superpower struggle.
If the Ukraine or Russia choose to mistreat Ukrainian soldiers or prisoners then the West should take action with real economic sanctions; but a military option is not feasible. The Ukrainian military men and women left behind in the bases in Crimea are on their own and they are at the mercy of the Russians. The West is too weak to support them.
In the wake of President Putin's remarks yesterday about the break up of the Soviet Union I would not sleep so easily if I were an Estonian, Latvian or Lithuanian. Where would NATO draw the line? How much support do the newly independent Baltic states really have? Would the average Joe in the USA, France, Germany or Britain be prepared to fight or risk nuclear war for their independence? We need a new form of realpolitik and diplomacy. It might be better to have a more inclusive attitude to Russia and lock it into fresh trade, economic and political agreements that would be in its interests to maintain rather than break.
Friday, 7 March 2014
Ukrainian Gas
Gazprom, the Russian energy firm, has said that Ukraine owes them 2 billion USD for gas and is threatening to cut off supplies unless they are paid. This has happened before and the last time Russia cut off the gas to the Ukraine the government tapped into the gas line and "stole" supplies destined for Europe. This caused a minor crisis. Lots of people have got very short memories.
The EU, US and the IMF are arranging 15 billion USD in loans for the Ukraine. Some of this money will no doubt be used to pay for Russian gas. So much for the financial sanctions aimed at Russia.
Russia can easily turn off all the gas and make Europe and the Ukraine suffer. Russia can do without BMWs and Consumer goods but Europe cannot do without gas. Trade sanctions will hurt everyone but they will hurt Europe much more. They can break us without having to use military force.
This is why Russia will get away with its technically illegal "annexation" of the Crimea. There is simply nothing that the US or Europe can do about this situation. The Ukraine will not get the Crimea back unless unpalatable concessions are made to Russia. De facto, the Crimea is lost; it seems that only Germany understands the true meaning of Realpolitik.
The West has no choice but to accept a diplomatic solution. The Ukraine may be forced to elect politicians which are more acceptable to the Russians and this will mean that the far right, which the Russians fear so much, will have to be excluded. Someone's calculations have gone badly wrong. It is time for the West to rethink its "carrot and stick" strategy - more of the carrot and less of the stick. The stick is very thin.
The West no longer has the stomach to face down the Russians as John Kennedy did. The West's weakness has been cruelly exposed and it might have been better to have done nothing in the case of Ukraine and leave the showdown for another day. Then, just hope that another crisis about the borders of NATO does not arise again.
Is it not time for Russia to show some true statesmanship and some generosity and make some concessions? A little bit of altruism helps when you hold all of the levers of power. A trade agreement between Europe, Ukraine and Russia might be to everyone's mutual benefit and this could easily be based on the EEA model. It is not too late. Free trade and the free movement of people across Europe and the Asian part of Russia could be the key to a peaceful and prosperous future for us all.
The EU, US and the IMF are arranging 15 billion USD in loans for the Ukraine. Some of this money will no doubt be used to pay for Russian gas. So much for the financial sanctions aimed at Russia.
Russia can easily turn off all the gas and make Europe and the Ukraine suffer. Russia can do without BMWs and Consumer goods but Europe cannot do without gas. Trade sanctions will hurt everyone but they will hurt Europe much more. They can break us without having to use military force.
This is why Russia will get away with its technically illegal "annexation" of the Crimea. There is simply nothing that the US or Europe can do about this situation. The Ukraine will not get the Crimea back unless unpalatable concessions are made to Russia. De facto, the Crimea is lost; it seems that only Germany understands the true meaning of Realpolitik.
The West has no choice but to accept a diplomatic solution. The Ukraine may be forced to elect politicians which are more acceptable to the Russians and this will mean that the far right, which the Russians fear so much, will have to be excluded. Someone's calculations have gone badly wrong. It is time for the West to rethink its "carrot and stick" strategy - more of the carrot and less of the stick. The stick is very thin.
The West no longer has the stomach to face down the Russians as John Kennedy did. The West's weakness has been cruelly exposed and it might have been better to have done nothing in the case of Ukraine and leave the showdown for another day. Then, just hope that another crisis about the borders of NATO does not arise again.
Is it not time for Russia to show some true statesmanship and some generosity and make some concessions? A little bit of altruism helps when you hold all of the levers of power. A trade agreement between Europe, Ukraine and Russia might be to everyone's mutual benefit and this could easily be based on the EEA model. It is not too late. Free trade and the free movement of people across Europe and the Asian part of Russia could be the key to a peaceful and prosperous future for us all.
Tuesday, 4 March 2014
UKRAINE Crisis
The Ukrainian people were naive if ever they thought that Russia would not intervene to maintain its influence in the Crimea. They are also naive if they think that that Western nations will give them direct military help in the form of troops, air strikes or naval operations. Western governments and their electorates have no stomach for this. The Ukraine is on its own as far as military action is concerned.
Europe will also be reluctant to enter into a trade war with Russia as the European economies as so reliant on Russian oil and gas. All the high cards are in Russia's hands.
The Western powers have a habit of backing the wrong politicians when they try to advance democracy in other countries. General Noriega of Panama comes to mind - along with the Shah of Iran and Pinochet etc.
It is time that the Western powers stood up for democracy wherever it has the support of the majority of the people. They expect nothing less from a US President, a French President or a Germany Chancellor and a British Prime Minister.
It is almost as if democracy can only belong to an exclusive club. How many votes would the current leaders of the Ukraine get in an election in Germany or France? I think that French and German voters would get the impression that some of the current leaders of the Ukraine like the deposed president are unfit for public office. The Ukrainian people deserve better.
Instead of the governments of the West and Russia throwing accusations and counter accusations at each other, would it not be better if they sat down and negotiated a solution? A genuine constitution could easily be established in the Ukraine with the help of UN institutions.
This constitution could provide for the pluralistic and regional political rights of all of the people of the Ukraine. It could also provide for political parties which encourage membership from all the various cultural groups which make up Ukrainian society - just like the Conservative, Liberal and Labour parties do in the UK.
The constitution should also allow for the impeachment of the President if he misbehaves. A democratically elected president or constitutional monarch or head of state should never be overthrown by violence. All government ministers should either be appointed by election or their appointments approved by a democratically elected parliament.
Putin has said he agrees that the Ukraine should be free to determine its own destiny democratically. Let us see him put his money where his mouth is and allow John Kerry and Sergey Lavrov to negotiate a deal backed by the US President. This deal should take into account real democracy for the Ukraine and the interests of its neighbours.
There is nothing to prevent the Ukraine from being a neutral state which should be allowed to make trade agreements with the EU - just like Switzerland. The Ukraine could also negotiate trade agreements with Russia. Such a deal would be to the benefit to us all. It is time to stop the posturing and seek a diplomatic solution.
What is good for France, The USA, Germany and the UK should be also be good for the Ukraine. Let the Ukrainian people freely select leaders who have the genuine interests of all the people at heart. That is why there were protests on the streets in the first place.
Europe will also be reluctant to enter into a trade war with Russia as the European economies as so reliant on Russian oil and gas. All the high cards are in Russia's hands.
The Western powers have a habit of backing the wrong politicians when they try to advance democracy in other countries. General Noriega of Panama comes to mind - along with the Shah of Iran and Pinochet etc.
It is time that the Western powers stood up for democracy wherever it has the support of the majority of the people. They expect nothing less from a US President, a French President or a Germany Chancellor and a British Prime Minister.
It is almost as if democracy can only belong to an exclusive club. How many votes would the current leaders of the Ukraine get in an election in Germany or France? I think that French and German voters would get the impression that some of the current leaders of the Ukraine like the deposed president are unfit for public office. The Ukrainian people deserve better.
Instead of the governments of the West and Russia throwing accusations and counter accusations at each other, would it not be better if they sat down and negotiated a solution? A genuine constitution could easily be established in the Ukraine with the help of UN institutions.
This constitution could provide for the pluralistic and regional political rights of all of the people of the Ukraine. It could also provide for political parties which encourage membership from all the various cultural groups which make up Ukrainian society - just like the Conservative, Liberal and Labour parties do in the UK.
The constitution should also allow for the impeachment of the President if he misbehaves. A democratically elected president or constitutional monarch or head of state should never be overthrown by violence. All government ministers should either be appointed by election or their appointments approved by a democratically elected parliament.
Putin has said he agrees that the Ukraine should be free to determine its own destiny democratically. Let us see him put his money where his mouth is and allow John Kerry and Sergey Lavrov to negotiate a deal backed by the US President. This deal should take into account real democracy for the Ukraine and the interests of its neighbours.
There is nothing to prevent the Ukraine from being a neutral state which should be allowed to make trade agreements with the EU - just like Switzerland. The Ukraine could also negotiate trade agreements with Russia. Such a deal would be to the benefit to us all. It is time to stop the posturing and seek a diplomatic solution.
What is good for France, The USA, Germany and the UK should be also be good for the Ukraine. Let the Ukrainian people freely select leaders who have the genuine interests of all the people at heart. That is why there were protests on the streets in the first place.
Monday, 17 February 2014
Scottish Independence
The Scottish people have a big decision to take. At least they know now that the rest of the UK will set them adrift as far as the pound is concerned - no matter how unfair this may seem.
An independent Scotland could also find it difficult to become a member of the EU. Spain might well veto Scotland's accession or severely delay it. The fact that Scotland was already a member, because it was an integral part of the UK, might not cut any ice with Spain who are trying to block Kosovo's membership of the EU. Spain does not recognise Kosovo as an independent state.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/referendum-news/barroso-in-kosovo-warning-on-hopes-of-eu-membership.23445822
It is not a preposterous notion that Spain will baulk at Scotland joining the EU. This is the harsh reality of politics which is quite often not based on idealism.
Spain does not want to encourage the secession of Catalonia or the Basque country. This is the type of realpolitik that the voters of Scotland have to take into account. Scotland is a small country and in a weak position.
Even if Scotland is granted admission to the EU , it might well be forced to join the Euro along with all other new member states.
Scotland cannot rely upon the rest of Britain either supporting its entry to the EU or its entry without having to accept the Euro. Britain has its own difficulties with the EU and vice versa so why worry about an independent Scotland?
Scotland may well be forced to join the EEA and maintain its own currency - in which case it will pay for the privilege of joining the European free trade area but having to obey EU rules without having a say in how those rules are set.
There is no doubt that Scotland will continue to prosper no matter what the outcome of the the independence vote. But the Scottish people must realise that they will become a small nation with very little say in international affairs. They will have no more power in Europe than Lithuania does. This is the painful reality and it cannot be glossed over by those who support independence.
Why not see the benefits of saying united with the rest of Britain? We are your friends and life will become more difficult outside of the family rather than at the heart of it.
An independent Scotland could also find it difficult to become a member of the EU. Spain might well veto Scotland's accession or severely delay it. The fact that Scotland was already a member, because it was an integral part of the UK, might not cut any ice with Spain who are trying to block Kosovo's membership of the EU. Spain does not recognise Kosovo as an independent state.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/referendum-news/barroso-in-kosovo-warning-on-hopes-of-eu-membership.23445822
It is not a preposterous notion that Spain will baulk at Scotland joining the EU. This is the harsh reality of politics which is quite often not based on idealism.
Spain does not want to encourage the secession of Catalonia or the Basque country. This is the type of realpolitik that the voters of Scotland have to take into account. Scotland is a small country and in a weak position.
Even if Scotland is granted admission to the EU , it might well be forced to join the Euro along with all other new member states.
Scotland cannot rely upon the rest of Britain either supporting its entry to the EU or its entry without having to accept the Euro. Britain has its own difficulties with the EU and vice versa so why worry about an independent Scotland?
Scotland may well be forced to join the EEA and maintain its own currency - in which case it will pay for the privilege of joining the European free trade area but having to obey EU rules without having a say in how those rules are set.
There is no doubt that Scotland will continue to prosper no matter what the outcome of the the independence vote. But the Scottish people must realise that they will become a small nation with very little say in international affairs. They will have no more power in Europe than Lithuania does. This is the painful reality and it cannot be glossed over by those who support independence.
Why not see the benefits of saying united with the rest of Britain? We are your friends and life will become more difficult outside of the family rather than at the heart of it.
Friday, 14 February 2014
Scottish Independence and the Pound Sterling
If I lived in Scotland I would vote No in the independence referendum. I believe that the UK should remain united even if there is a degree of self government for both Scotland and Wales and what could be wrong with a degree of autonomy for the English regions? Northern Ireland has also benefited from a form of self government and even shared sovereignty with Ireland.
I see no reason why the issue of Scotland remaining in the "Sterling Area" should be used as a type of political football.
At one time during the past, when the pound was under threat, the Scottish Nationalists were quite happy to traduce the pound. They have changed their minds for fear that the Scottish people might vote No if they are deprived of their Sterling.
UK national politicians from the major political parties have now joined in the argument saying that it would be impossible for Scotland to join in a currency union if it were to secede from the UK: it would not be to the economic benefit of either Scotland or the remaining parts of the UK if there were to be a currency union.
I presume that the Liberal party no longer supports British membership of the European Currency Union for the same reason. It is quite possible that the Euro nations will return to prosperity and that the Euro will again become a success and it could become an attractive possibility for Britain to join in the future.
It is nonsense to suggest that Scotland should not join the UK in a currency union if they were to become independent. Britain and Ireland effectively had a currency union between 1928 and 1978 and this was reasonably successful.
If Scotland were to join in a currency union a treaty could be used to decide on what settlement risk Scotland should take on but depending on the size of its population or its economy. An independent Scotland would probably maintain similar fiscal rules to the UK as both economies would have a similar structure.
It is disingenuous of UK national politicians to put pressure on the Scottish electorate so a currency union should be negotiated if and when Scotland votes for independence. The Scottish people would be natural allies and partners of the rest of the UK.
Whatever will be proposed next? Is the UK to deny the Scottish people a "Common Travel Area" arrangement like we have with Ireland? Are we going to erect border posts and deny Scottish people a vote if they move to England, Wales or Northern Ireland? Are we going to take "sour grapes" that far?
Scotland, if left to its own devices, could choose to use the pound Sterling as its currency for all transactions including taxation on a semi-official basis. The downside of this decision would be that the Scottish treasury could not set its own national interest rate independently.
Many countries have decided to use a foreign currency in this way. And many countries use the dollar in a process of "Dollarization" or Currency Substitution. Montenegro uses the Euro as its national currency even though it is not a member of the EU.
Scotland could choose to join the Euro or even use its own currency if allowed - there are many options available and no doubt Scotland would continue to prosper.
There are dangers that Scotland would be forced to re-apply for membership of the European Union. Spain is likely to insist on this in order not to set the precedent of a seceding nation being granted automatic membership of the EU on existing terms. Spain is wary of Catalonia seceding from Spain.
Scotland might face the possibility of being forced to join the Euro but perhaps this would be an entirely acceptable solution.
It is preferable that Scotland does not leave the Union; the whole of the UK including Scotland will be stronger if we remain united. This does not mean that the rest of the UK should pressure the Scots not to vote Yes and that we should not help them if they do.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Currency_substitution
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/currency-substitution.asp
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1740493.stm
http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/moving_country/moving_abroad/freedom_of_movement_within_the_eu/common_travel_area_between_ireland_and_the_uk.html
http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/moving_country/moving_to_ireland/introduction_to_the_irish_system/right_to_vote.html#l862a3
I see no reason why the issue of Scotland remaining in the "Sterling Area" should be used as a type of political football.
At one time during the past, when the pound was under threat, the Scottish Nationalists were quite happy to traduce the pound. They have changed their minds for fear that the Scottish people might vote No if they are deprived of their Sterling.
UK national politicians from the major political parties have now joined in the argument saying that it would be impossible for Scotland to join in a currency union if it were to secede from the UK: it would not be to the economic benefit of either Scotland or the remaining parts of the UK if there were to be a currency union.
I presume that the Liberal party no longer supports British membership of the European Currency Union for the same reason. It is quite possible that the Euro nations will return to prosperity and that the Euro will again become a success and it could become an attractive possibility for Britain to join in the future.
It is nonsense to suggest that Scotland should not join the UK in a currency union if they were to become independent. Britain and Ireland effectively had a currency union between 1928 and 1978 and this was reasonably successful.
If Scotland were to join in a currency union a treaty could be used to decide on what settlement risk Scotland should take on but depending on the size of its population or its economy. An independent Scotland would probably maintain similar fiscal rules to the UK as both economies would have a similar structure.
It is disingenuous of UK national politicians to put pressure on the Scottish electorate so a currency union should be negotiated if and when Scotland votes for independence. The Scottish people would be natural allies and partners of the rest of the UK.
Whatever will be proposed next? Is the UK to deny the Scottish people a "Common Travel Area" arrangement like we have with Ireland? Are we going to erect border posts and deny Scottish people a vote if they move to England, Wales or Northern Ireland? Are we going to take "sour grapes" that far?
Scotland, if left to its own devices, could choose to use the pound Sterling as its currency for all transactions including taxation on a semi-official basis. The downside of this decision would be that the Scottish treasury could not set its own national interest rate independently.
Many countries have decided to use a foreign currency in this way. And many countries use the dollar in a process of "Dollarization" or Currency Substitution. Montenegro uses the Euro as its national currency even though it is not a member of the EU.
Scotland could choose to join the Euro or even use its own currency if allowed - there are many options available and no doubt Scotland would continue to prosper.
There are dangers that Scotland would be forced to re-apply for membership of the European Union. Spain is likely to insist on this in order not to set the precedent of a seceding nation being granted automatic membership of the EU on existing terms. Spain is wary of Catalonia seceding from Spain.
Scotland might face the possibility of being forced to join the Euro but perhaps this would be an entirely acceptable solution.
It is preferable that Scotland does not leave the Union; the whole of the UK including Scotland will be stronger if we remain united. This does not mean that the rest of the UK should pressure the Scots not to vote Yes and that we should not help them if they do.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Currency_substitution
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/currency-substitution.asp
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1740493.stm
http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/moving_country/moving_abroad/freedom_of_movement_within_the_eu/common_travel_area_between_ireland_and_the_uk.html
http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/moving_country/moving_to_ireland/introduction_to_the_irish_system/right_to_vote.html#l862a3
Thursday, 6 February 2014
Climate Change and the UK floods and Beavers
Meteorologists have been at pains to point out that the recent floods in the UK cannot be attributed to climate change despite comments by David Cameron, the UK Prime Minister, and the Prince of Wales. Of course there is no direct evidence. But David Cameron only said he "suspected" that climate change was linked to the abnormal weather events.
We would all do well to listen to this. There is a connexion between the weather and the climate and that is why it rarely rains at the South Pole. The south polar climate is in general too cold for rainy weather. Weather is what happens on a short timescale and climate dictates the weather on a long timescale.
If the Antarctic ice cap melted completely it would have serious and noticeable effects on the weather in the southern hemisphere and its long term climate.
It is a scientific fact that the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere affects the climate. These facts were ascertained by scientists such as James Tyndall in the 19th century. Tyndall proved that there was a greenhouse effect caused by an increase to concentration of carbon dioxide and other gases such as methane in the atmosphere. Much of this proof was obtained by his work on absorption spectroscopy. He also ascertained that water vapour was the principal greenhouse gas in the Earth's atmosphere.
Svante Arrhenius was one of the first scientists to make the calculations regarding the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide. He worked out that if the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere doubled then there would be in increase of 5 to 6 degrees Celsius in surface temperatures on the Earth.
We would all do well to listen to this. There is a connexion between the weather and the climate and that is why it rarely rains at the South Pole. The south polar climate is in general too cold for rainy weather. Weather is what happens on a short timescale and climate dictates the weather on a long timescale.
If the Antarctic ice cap melted completely it would have serious and noticeable effects on the weather in the southern hemisphere and its long term climate.
It is a scientific fact that the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere affects the climate. These facts were ascertained by scientists such as James Tyndall in the 19th century. Tyndall proved that there was a greenhouse effect caused by an increase to concentration of carbon dioxide and other gases such as methane in the atmosphere. Much of this proof was obtained by his work on absorption spectroscopy. He also ascertained that water vapour was the principal greenhouse gas in the Earth's atmosphere.
Svante Arrhenius was one of the first scientists to make the calculations regarding the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide. He worked out that if the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere doubled then there would be in increase of 5 to 6 degrees Celsius in surface temperatures on the Earth.
Equally, if the concentration of carbon dioxide were to be halved surface temperatures would be reduced.
Why cannot climate change deniers accept these facts? If we were to take measures on an industrial scale to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere completely we would have a catastrophe on our hands. Our atmosphere would freeze and so would the oceans; we would all die. No sane person would advocate that we did this.
Unfortunately, we are doing the exact reverse as we are pumping industrialised quantities of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. We are heating the planet up.
Much of the heat has gone into the oceans and warmer oceans mean more water vapour in the atmosphere and what does more water vapour do? It causes more rain and it also causes the atmosphere to heat up further. The additional energy in the atmosphere helps to generate more wind. We can expect more "abnormal" or "unusual" storms in the future. David Cameron's suspicion could easily become a dreadful reality.
I am not advocating that anyone should take any action to reduce their own emissions of carbon dioxide. I am only advocating that we at least admit that there might be a problem. We need to be aware that the climate is going to change and we need to take action to mitigate the problems of increased flooding and storms.
Nothing is going to be done to reduce our usage of fossil fuels. We will still have fracking and exploration of oil in the Arctic. The concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is going to double from what it was at the end of the last ice age and this will happen sooner than you think.
It will take a catastrophe which kills hundreds of thousands of people to make the human species sit up and take note but by then it could be too late.
So what can the people of the UK do to protect themselves from the floods? We could abandon such areas as the Somerset levels and evacuate everybody and leave it all to nature but the upheaval and distress caused would be unbearable.
We could learn some lessons from the indigenous people of South East Asia who live in areas of heavy rainfall. They build Kampung houses on stilts. These types of house are often built on the sea shore. We could do something similar on our flood plains.
We could also learn to work with nature instead of against it and restore deciduous forests to the hill side water catchment areas above and near the flood plains. I was amused to see that some local authorities were chopping down trees to damn up streams in the catchment areas to act as buffer systems to assist natural and gradual drainage. Beavers do this and it doesn't cost a penny.
It is as shame that we have chopped down nearly all of our forests and shot all the beavers; they could have provided cost free and very effective flood protection schemes. We have been very stupid not to have protected our environment and to have chopped down or killed any plant or animal which has got in our way.
We need to be more imaginative about how we treat our environment and we need both short term and realistic long term solutions. The use of the bulldozer, chain saw and shotgun (to kill beavers etc.) is no longer a solution.
We also need to listen to Prince Charles; for on this issue he is right. As a constitutional prospective Head of State and Monarch he is expected not to intervene in national politics. But the dangers of global climate change transcend national politics and I am glad that he has reminded us of our responsibility to protect our planet and our living space..
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
