Thoughts on Scottish Independence Referendum (II)

It’s been ten months since the EU referendum and Scotland has become the latest arena of speculation due to a new referendum on Scottish independence. It has been encouraged by the SNP leader Nicola Sturgeon, who has called for a second referendum stating that the “circumstances since the EU referendum have change considerably”. 

Although it may be the Scottish people’s right to self-determination, the prospect of another referendum and a general election after the EU referendum (it is hard to keep track of the different elections around the world) it has become a difficult period for the electorate. In my opinion the question of Scottish Independence has been answered. It’s not due to the fact that I believe in the Union but rather that we cannot constantly have elections and referendums to solve every political problem that arises. Our current political system is a representative one, if we elect politicians to speak for us then they should use that trust we place in them to carry out our wishes.
With all this been said, it is clear that if the SNP have been elected on a mandate of obtaining independence for Scotland (from the Scottish people) it is there duty to try to obtain it. I will say again that I am for the Union and would prefer Scotland to remain within the Union. However, with that said, the previous referendum has settled the debate on independence. I believe therefore that Sturgeon and the SNP should make the case for an Independent Scotland to the British and in particular English electorate.

In order for Sturgeon to obtain another referendum from the UK Government, the British electorate as a whole must be convinced that not only Scotland would be better off outside the Union but the remaining Union would be better off too. Unfortunately for the SNP, I think the case for Scottish independence does not convince English voters, in part due to the SNP not presenting a case to the English electorate. If a case was presented to the English voter, myself included, we may change our minds and this will make it much more difficult for the UK Government to ignore the question of a second referendum if the English electorate is in favour of it.

At the moment, the SNP are further away from a second independence referendum as although many English voters feel that a second referendum should be given to Scotland; at present, it’s not the right time. The negotiations to leave the EU will take up to two years and we also have the delights of another election campaign from now until the 9^th June. Although it is difficult to see Scotland having another election.

Now you have had my opinion, and I make it clear that this is my opinion, I will now present to you the arguments for independence forwarded by the Scottish Government and the counter-argument presented by the UK Government after the EU referendum. 

The most important reason for the SNP in advocating independence has been the change of circumstances after the EU referendum. It was argued through 2014 that Scotland could only guarantee its place in the EU if it voted to remain in the UK. This has given the SNP a reason to now demand a new referendum on Scottish independence. It has also been argued alongside this that an independent Scotland can guarantee welfare state, as the increasing austerity policies adopted by the Conservative Government has put the NHS, social care, benefits and much more in jeopardy of being cut.

These continue to be points in which the SNP and Nicola Sturgeon press for a second referendum, and to some extent these arguments have weight behind them.

The debate surrounding independence in 2014 had many focuses, but the Scottish economy was one of the most important and widely debated and discussed. Although, in the last three years, the economic circumstances have change considerable. Oil in the North Sea, and in particular the price of oil, was seen by the Scottish Nationalists as being an important part of their economic policies upon independence. But the oil prices since 2014 have dramatically decreased, which would not provide enough revenue to support the independent state budget (also subsidies that are provided by London would be removed upon independence).

Trade was also a big part of the economic argument and with 63 percent of Scotland’s exports going to the UK, an independent Scotland would find it difficult to continue trading unabated. Finally it was unclear in 2014, and still is now, whether Scotland would be able to use the British pound and if it was allowed, it would still be under in the influence of London because the Bank of England would have control.

Although I have presented my opinion on this matter, it is up to you to decide for yourself if Scotland should be given another referendum or whether it should be denied for the foreseeable future. 

General Election 2017: Reaction and Analysis

After months and months of denying that she would call a snap General Election, Mrs May has finally succumbed to - what many have suggested as - the temptation to widen her majority in the Commons. A shrewd move for some, mere political game-play for others and even, for some people, an attempt to establish a one-party state for many years. But whatever reasons are put forward to explain Mrs May’s rationale, the election is happening on June 8^th whether we like it or not.

For what it’s worth, I do agree that an election is in the best interests of Britain. Since the 2015 election, it is quite obvious that the political landscape has changed massively. Most people assumed (very, very wrongly) that Britain would vote to remain in the EU, that Scotland would not be walking down the path of another independence referendum for at least another generation (remember that pledge Mr Salmond?) and that Northern Ireland would continue to be stable (well for Northern Ireland’s standards!).

However, all that has quite clearly changed. Britain did vote to leave the EU, Scotland are on the road to independence once again and Northern Ireland has no executive (which is not normal, even for Northern Ireland’s standards!). That is not to mention the issues going on in the wider world and what Britain’s role should be in helping to solve those issues. All that leads me to believe that things have quite clearly fundamentally changed since 2015 and that an election is necessary to show where the majority of the country stands on these issues.

So, some of the key questions now are, firstly who will be the winner(s)? Secondly, who will subsequently be the loser(s)? And thirdly, what will Britain look like on the morning of June 9^th?

The answer to the first question is more than likely the Conservative Party and Mrs May. We have seen in both the recent EU referendum and the election of Donald Trump in the USA that polls cannot always be trusted. But realistically, it is looking like it will be a Tory win with a fairly big majority. Some have even suggested it could be 100 plus. The Conservatives seem to currently be on the right side of the debate on Brexit, on providing stable leadership and well on pretty much everything else bar the NHS. That usually is a recipe for victory.

What is also important to point out is that ‘voter fatigue’ will also play a part in the forthcoming election. Voters would have gone to the polls only a month previous for Mayoral (in some parts of the UK) and Council elections. The EU referendum was only last June and we had a General Election the year before that. For voters in Scotland, you can also throw in the independence referendum in 2014. That is a lot of voting, even for people who love politics. But low turnouts usually favour the incumbent government as there just isn’t enough votes for the other parties to obtain the swings they need to win. Therefore, with all those reasons added up, you’d expect (and I say expect as no one can be certain) that it should be a comfortable Tory win.

But, on the subject of ‘winners’ in the election, it may be worth mentioning the Liberal Democrats too. They are clearly the party of ‘remain’ and are passionate about the EU and the single market. That will surely resonate with Tory and Labour remain voters. Also, when people typically look at the choice between the two main party leaders, as one of them will be PM, they may decide they like neither Mrs May or My Corbyn and that Mr Farron is the best of the rest. So, I would expect to see the Liberals pick up some seats in strong remain areas. Could it be the beginning of a Liberal revival?

The answer to the second question is more than likely the Labour Party and Mr Corbyn. Again, that is based purely on the latest polls and also that Labour seem to be on the wrong side of the debate on Brexit, on providing stable leadership and well on pretty much everything else bar the NHS. But there is also the big issue of Jeremy Corbyn. The purpose of this article is not to comment on Mr Corbyn’s leadership of the Labour Party. But it is clear from the vote of no confidence in him from the Parliamentary Labour Party last summer that they don’t have much confidence in him as leader. You would expect (and again you cannot be certain) that the lack of confidence in him from the PLP will filter through to voters. The common consensus is that if Labour come out of the election having not lost many seats, it will be a good night. That shouldn’t be the attitude of a government in waiting. Those reasons are what will probably make them the biggest losers of the election and with that, you would also have to expect that Mr Corbyn’s time as leader will be up.

But Labour may not be the only losers. UKIP have looked a spent force since the EU referendum and despite them now having no MPs; the Brexit on offer from Mrs May’s government could persuade many of the millions who voted for UKIP last time around to vote for Mrs May to ensure she continues with that plan. I would expect UKIP to still have no MPs come 9^th June. However, if Mr Farage stands in South Thanet, I don’t think anyone would be shocked to see him win and continue revelling in his media attention.

I also would put the SNP into the potential ‘loser’s’ category too. They currently hold 56 out of the 59 seats in Scotland and don’t stand in any other parts of the UK. The ceiling has almost been reached. Yes, if they take the remaining three or even hold what they have, then clearly they wouldn’t have lost. But, if that doesn’t happen and the Tories (banging the Unionist drum) take even a few seats off them, that will severely damage their attempts to hold another independence referendum. The stakes are high for the SNP and it is imperative for them that they have a good night to keep the independence bandwagon rolling.

So, with all that said, it looks like a win for the ‘right’ and a loss for the ‘left’. I repeat again, the polls have been wrong before and could be again. The mood of the country may have been hugely mis-judged by Mrs May. There is also a lot of time for things to go wrong for her between now and June 8^th.  But you have to say, right now, that looks unlikely and a Tory win is probable.

The answer to the last question then is that the country will look very blue on the morning of June 9^th when the map is shown of who voted what. The country will be set for a ‘hard’ exit from the EU and Mrs May will be free to pass pretty much any domestic legislation she pleases. That will be great news for some, absolutely horrific news for others. But I would assume the biggest feeling on 9^th June from most people, no matter which way they voted, will be sheer relief it’s all over.

What is certain though is that it will be a very interesting 6-7 weeks for Britain and a period in which the path the country is set to take for, at least a generation, will be set in stone for all to see.

Why did David Cameron’s ‘Big Society’ policy disappear?

The 2010 Conservative buzzword of ‘Big Society’ was repeatedly thrown in the electorate’s face as David ‘call me Dave’ Cameron and George Osborne attempted, and succeeded, in riding to power with a centre-right, arguably maybe even dead centrist, set of ideas which were designed to reduce the deficit and set Britain on a path of economic and social recovery.

I seem to vividly remember the engaging live TV debates been littered with reference after reference to the creation of a ‘Big Society’ by Mr Cameron.

Mr Cameron’s proposal to the British electorate was the latest Tory attempt to shake off the ‘nasty party’ tag and portray the Conservatives as the party of working people and of aspiration as well as, of course, retaining traditional party policies that were still, and always will be, popular with traditional Conservative voters. Mr Cameron proposed to redistribute power from Westminster to communities throughout the UK by encouraging volunteering and local groups to take control of local public services, such as managing libraries and maintaining and running museums and heritage sites. Mr Cameron said that the purpose of the policy was to reduce the role of the Government in people’s everyday lives, which would give ‘power to the people’ and take it away from the politicians.

A good idea for sure and one that should have been popular with a large proportion of voters.

But the coalition Government, certainly its Conservative members, quickly stopped talking about the idea and it slipped out of political discourse altogether soon after the 2010 election.

Why was this? Why did ‘Big Society’ get the chop after Mr Cameron could not and did not stop talking about it on the campaign trail?

Was it simply due to more pressing matters arising for the PM and the Government? Or was it down to the policy being the PM’s personal pet-project that he simply lost enthusiasm for? Many Conservatives struggled to sell the idea on the campaign trail in the run up to the 2010 general election as critic after critic suggested it was all a big façade to cover up the planned budget cuts to public services. At the time, the General Secretary of Unison Dave Prentis stated "make no mistake, this plan is all about saving money”.

Now we all know that Mr Cameron’s right hand man, Mr Osborne, was Austerity’s biggest fan so that comment could hold some traction.

However, could it also be put down to the fact that the idea had been proposed by the previous Labour administration? Voters would have remembered that Mr Brown released the White Paper ‘Communities in Control: real people, real power’ which promised “to empower communities and citizens and ensure that power is more fairly distributed across the whole of our society”. That sounds very much like ‘Big Society’, to me.

So, was the idea just to left for the traditional Tory heartlands who were so keen to be rid of 13 years of Labour policy which they argued had stagnated the economy, which was undeniably suffering dreadfully from the 2008 crash.

Or, after 13 years of Labour Government (that, to say the very least was unpopular with a large proportion of the British electorate by then) was the ‘Big Society’ policy the scapegoat the Tories craved and needed to explain why they could only muster enough seats to become the largest party in the Commons but not to form a majority administration? The election should have been a walk in the park for the Tories, surely? The Labour Party was out on its feet, tired and weary of Government and in need of a fresh injection of leadership and ideas. The Liberals talked the talk and sounded good on the campaign trail, but were never really going to command masses and masses of support. Surely this was the time for a great Tory renaissance, especially as public opinion had swung its way on key topics such as the economy, Europe and immigration. It was clear the electorate did not trust the Labour Party with the money by then.

But the 2010 general election result did not really, or convincingly, portray a Tory renaissance. Yes, Mr Cameron was in number 10 but was he really? And with what actual power? It was always going to be difficult to run a truly Conservative administration with the Liberals as partners, even though Nick Clegg proved himself to be more than spineless on several occasions; Tuition fees anyone? That debate/character assassination is for another day (and blog!).

But, I believe there lies the most plausible reason for the quick ditching of the ‘Big Society’ policy. It just did not fit with the majority of public opinion at the time. Yes, society and community cohesion was important to people then and always will be, but 2010 was a time where voters were deeply concerned with the perceived lack of direction the country was moving in and they felt that strong leadership was required. The ‘Big Society’ was a good idea, maybe one that will eventually catch on under a different banner. But in 2010, it just did not work. It just was not the time.

All the reasons mentioned are perfectly credible arguments and suggestions for why the policy of ‘Big Society’ was dropped by Mr Cameron’s Government almost as soon as he entered number 10. Not one of them is the right or only answer and the more probable explanation is that it was a combination of all the reasons discussed.

But all we do know is that as soon as the euphoria of a Tory led Government again for the first time in 13 years had died down, the ‘Big Society’ policy was binned and the 2010 election Buzzword was consigned to the political dustbin.

Has Africa benefited from China’s economic connections to the continent?

Africa’s relationship with China has been one of domination since the 1980s and has developed into one of its most important trade and economic partners. However, has Africa benefited from China’s economic connections to the continent?

Africa as a continent has suffered throughout its history of high levels of poverty and forced economic exploitation from the world global powers. Now that China has assumed the mantle of being the leading Asian power in the world and the world’s second largest economy. Has China, with its new found economic power, been exploiting Africa’s natural resources for its own economic development like the old colonial powers of Europe?

China’s economy has been one of the rising stars of a new globalised world (after the Collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991) with economic growth in the 21^st Century averaging around 7 percent annually. China’s population too has grown exponentially to over 1 billion with the Communist Party still reigning supreme over the average Chinese citizen and worker. Economic growth and an increase in the prosperity of the Chinese people keep the crowds from storming the Communist Party Headquarters in Beijing, but how does the Chinese Communist Party sustain its spectacular economic growth in a world of economic uncertainty.

The continued expansion of the Chinese economy can be the only way to secure the Communist Party grip on power. However, this continuous expansion of the Chinese economy requires huge amounts of natural resources, with Africa becoming the prime place to extract natural resources for its own domestic use. This may be good for the average Chinese worker and the Communist Party (because they stay in power) but this leads me to my original question, does Africa benefit from China’s economic connections to the continent? Peter Hitchings would be firm by saying ‘no’ to this question, offering instead to refer to Chinese policy as ‘a new slave empire in Africa’. Although I would not use this language, it appears for the time being China is getting a better deal.

China has become one of the world’s biggest trading partners with Africa and one of its most prominent investors. Trade between Africa and China has increased massively over the past decade. In 2000 trade between the continent and the country amounted to US$6.5 billion, in 2006 this increased to US$55 billion. From 2010 trade reached US$114 billion and towards the end of 2015 trade reached US$300 billion. This increase in trade has come from the exportation of raw materials, such as oil, coal, copper, iron ore, diamonds, and natural gas (to name a few!) which has made Africa a prime target for increased Chinese involvement and interest in the continent. 

It is clear that china is benefiting from increased trade with Africa, but what does Africa get in return? China in recent years has been heavily investing in infrastructure and development projects with Beijing committing to UD$60 billion for 2017. This investment in infrastructure projects will begin the process of developing the region, but is this investment from Beijing and Chinese corporations more sinister then it may first appear? The development of Africa’s infrastructure would give China the ability to extract natural resources more easily with 1,700 infrastructure projects in 50 different African countries from 2000 to 2011. In this same time frame trade between Africa and China increased at a rapid rate (figure shown earlier in the article) again asking the question is China benefiting more than Africa from China funded infrastructure projects?  

Chinese workers have also benefited from more co-operation as they are being employed, by Chinese companies across Africa. Although Chinese workers can be more skilled in areas such as engineering, mining and other essential skills, Chinese companies have been instrumental in keeping Chinese workers employed and preventing them from being critical of the Communist Party for not providing work. This has been a benefit for Beijing because it removes potential dissentients from mainland China. On the other hand this has prevented African workers across Africa developing necessary skills so that economic development can continue without the need of foreign (Chinese) skilled labour and investment.   

Although this development of infrastructure could be a way in which Africa will industrialize in the future. Other Chinese investments especially in the extraction of minerals and other natural resources are creating enormous environmental damage, also making African countries dependant on natural resources to develop their economies. This, in my opinion, will create unsustainable economic development leaving African countries reliant on fluctuating commodity prices and ever dwindling resources to create prosperity for their citizens (just look at other countries such as Russia, Venezuela, and Nigeria whose economies have been negatively affected by a slump in oil and natural mineral resources).  With the proceeded, from the sale of oil, coal, copper, iron ore, diamonds, and natural gas, going to the elites of these countries both democratic and authoritarian. China has followed a policy of ‘don’t ask any questions, because you won’t like the answer’ when it comes to human rights violations and damage done from the extraction of these resources.       

Thus I believe that China has taken a big step to open up Africa to the world in terms trade and investment. However this has come at a price. China has been the net beneficiary of this increased trade with Africa and, so far, has been reluctant to look at what its own policies are doing to the environment, to alleviant poverty, and to create sustainable economies in Africa. I believe it is too early for us to make a judgement of the long term affects of China’s policies in Africa. However, if China continues its current policies I do not, in good conscience, think Africa will be about to shake of the shackles of economic exploitation and poverty.

Gibraltar: Mrs May’s Falklands? History tells us why it shouldn’t be…

It didn’t take long did it? Less than 48 hours and already a spanner has been thrown into the Brexit works. On Wednesday 29^th March at around Midday, Mrs May published the letter she sent to Donald Tusk invoking Article 50 and triggering the starting gun on the UK’s divorce from Brussels. On Friday 31^st March, again at around Midday, Donald Tusk published draft guidelines of the EU’s position on the forthcoming negotiations. Tucked inconspicuously away in ‘Core Principle 22’, was the said 2.625 square mile spanner. Did Mrs May forget about Gibraltar in her letter to Mr Tusk? Or do we believe the narrative that has since come out that Gibraltar had been consulted about the letter and it was agreed to leave it out for ‘tactical reasons’, or more probably in the hope the EU, and especially Spain, would forget about Gibraltar.

Well unfortunately that has not happened. Now, I would like to think I am as patriotic as the next man on the street, but after Lord Howard’s comments on Sunday 2^nd April I did have to check I was actually living in 2017, and not 1917. Yes, clearly the sovereignty of British citizens is imperative and of course Britain should stand with countries like Gibraltar and allow them to live the way they desire and not be bullied. But in 2017, as civilised nations, is it wise to call for the Navy to turn on its engines and a task force to be assembled ready to sail down and ‘dig in’ on the Spanish-Gibraltarian border? I’d like to think not.

It is clear that the negotiations with the EU will be fraught and hostile, but the scary thing is it took less than 48 hours for some to begin talking about going to war with Spain. I’d happily invite people to say what they want about the EU, as it is certainly far from perfect. But it is an undeniable fact that the EU has calmed a continent down that had a taste for conflict in the first half of the twentieth century. We shouldn’t forget that; and not only has it calmed it down, it has facilitated it in coming together in a spirit of mutual co-operation through political, economic and social integration. I repeat again that the EU is far from perfect and Britain may very well thrive outside it, but we cannot ignore the lessons of history, as much as some would like too. However, for some people those lessons have disappeared from their mind and less than 48 hours after both sides draft negotiating positions had been revealed, they were ready to fire up the gunboats and begin talking about war.

The row has given rise to links to the war with Argentina over the Falkland Islands in 1982, when another female Conservative PM sent a task force to re-take an overseas territory against a foreign invader. It can be suggested that history has shown us that was the correct move, as it was always clear that the Falklanders wished to remain part of the UK, as do Gibraltarians today. Their wishes are the most important and should be the ones listened to and respected. Fortunately, it seems the UK is on the right side of public opinion in Gibraltar, as it was in the Falkland Islands. However, in 1982 Argentina was governed by a military junta; Spain clearly is not.

The link is an obvious one, but let’s hope that’s where the comparisons stop. I’m sure for some in the UK, an under-dog Britain fighting for the rights of a smaller nation against a bigger bully would be a tremendous renewal of British spirit and patriotism, a cause the whole country can rally behind as we stick it to the Spanish in their own backyard. Really? Is that the ‘truly global’ Britain we want to build as we depart the EU? Again, I’d like to think not. I’d like to (safely) assume we have a lot more to be proud of in Britain and we don’t need a war to show our British spirit.

Britain stood up for a smaller nation in 1914, 1939 and 1982 and I’m sure at some point in the future we may again. British foreign policy should always be outwardly-looking and ready to lead in the world. It’s part of being British, it’s part of our identify and our history. We shouldn’t be ashamed of it. But we should also be proud of our efforts since 1945 to bring peace and stability to Europe and the wider world by exporting our values. Britain, I hope, will always be a nation ready to stand behind smaller countries and their right to self-determination.

Having said all that, we are in 2017 and not the early part of the twentieth century. There are better ways to solve disputes than armed conflict. We mustn’t let the disputes that will almost certainly cause hostility towards the UK from the remaining 27 states and towards those states from Britain, from throwing us back a century into the arms of conflict.

We can be patriotic without having to hang out the bunting for ‘victory in Gibraltar’ day. We can save the bunting for support of our nation’s sports men and women surely?

So, let’s hope we continue to sit around the table and talk to fellow nations about disputes, safe in the knowledge of what history has taught us about how far those disputes can and have been taken. We don’t need a repeat of that, there are enough textbooks for people to get stuck into if that’s their cup of tea; they don’t need to watch it on the news every night.

Let’s hope we won’t see a return to gunboat diplomacy or the Navy assembled on the Southern Spanish coast any time soon. It is 2017, not 1917, after all.

‘Is the UK’s difficulty Scotland’s opportunity?’

Nicola Sturgeon has announced plans to hold a second referendum on Scottish Independence sometime between Autumn 2018 and Spring 2019. The SNP leader is arguing that the ‘material change’ threshold that was in the SNP’s manifesto in 2016 has been reached due to the UK’s vote to exit the EU.

The similarities of the situation in Scotland can be related to the situation in Ireland a century ago. In 1917 Britain was still locked in a war that many said would have ended by Christmas 1914 and there seemed no immediate prospect of victory. Despite many in Ireland signing up to fight for King and Country, there were a handful who stayed at home. The saying ‘England’s difficulty is Ireland’s opportunity’ was used to try and add respectability to the Easter rising in 1916 which ultimately failed and was greeted with initial condemnation from the majority of the Irish public. However, replace Ireland for Scotland and that saying still resonates very strongly a century on.

A few weeks before the EU referendum, Ms Sturgeon was asked whether if the UK voted to leave the EU but Scotland voted to remain would that strengthen the chance of a second referendum on Scotland’s position in the UK. Her response was ‘if we find ourselves, having voted to stay in the EU, being taken out against our will, I think there will be many people - including people who voted No in 2014 - who would say the only way to guarantee our EU membership is to be independent’. The fact that the SNP campaigned for the UK to remain in the EU, for some, could slightly pour scorn on the idea that a vote for Brexit was good a thing for Scottish nationalism. However, it has certainly presented an opportunity that Ms Sturgeon seems very keen not to pass up.

Putting aside personal feelings on Brexit, as Mrs May has repeatedly said ‘Brexit means Brexit’ and anyone who believes in democracy would agree the vote on June 23^rd must be respected, surely a United Kingdom standing strongly together at its stubborn yet resolutely determined best would go a good way to ensuring we secure the best terms for our exit. However, instead of standing stubbornly and resolutely behind Westminster at a time of great uncertainly and difficulty for the UK, Ms Sturgeon and senior SNP politicians are seemingly using the UK’s difficulty as Scotland’s opportunity to finally achieve what the SNP have dreamt of since their birth in 1934.

The arguments for and against Scottish Independence are fascinating and the 2014 referendum, despite being played out against a divisive backdrop, was a refreshing renewal of UK constitutional democracy that we haven’t really seen since the late 1990s. However, as is the case with a minority of the crudely yet accurately dubbed ‘remoaners’, surely the SNP cannot expect that the Scottish or the UK public will allow them to carry on holding referendum after referendum until they get the result they desire. If this is what politics and maybe even life in general has become, surely we can all think of better things we can do over and over again until we get the result we want?! Boris Johnson quite aptly said that ‘you can’t have neverendums’.

Whilst many would say, and quite rightly so, that the Scottish people should never be shunned or banned from voicing their opinion on the future of their country, surely that must be done against the correct backdrop as it was in 2014. Surely, even the most ardent SNP supporter would concede that a vote when the SNP have suggested would be damaging for the UK in the Brexit negotiations and unfortunately that would also mean damaging for Scotland.

Surely the correct time to re-visit a hugely important constitutional question would be when the UK and Scotland are in a time of relative stability. Unfortunately, the Brexit vote means that it is unlikely that stability will be present for a good while.

Many in the UK would not be-grudge the Scottish people another say on their future, despite the last one only been in 2014, which is in stark contrast of the feelings towards Irish nationalism a century ago. However, as the saying that was used to justify the Easter rising in Dublin just over a century, it very much feels as though the SNP are using the UK’s difficulty as Scotland’s opportunity and that tactic will alienate many in the UK, including in Scotland, from having the appetite to re-visit the Scottish question once again in the foreseeable future.

Mrs May has set herself on a hugely dangerous collision course with her ‘now is not the time’ response to the SNP’s calls. However, as the Prime Minister for the UK, I think it’s a response that is correct and will win the approval of many in every corner of the union.

The ‘benefits’ of Conflict with the Islamic Republic?

  The election of Donald Trump has caused tensions to rise, once again, between the United States and Iran over the past months. Trump’s travel ban of 6 different Muslim countries and his criticism of Obama’s administration appeasement towards Iran, signal yet another change in the U.S-Iranian nexus. 

If Iran is the world’s leading sponsor of terrorism and in fact the ruling class of Iran have a fundamentalist ideology, wouldn’t they want war? Wouldn’t they want to fight the ‘Great Satan’ in an apocalyptic showdown that would bring forth the twelfth Imam?

If the answer, therefore, to these questions are yes. The second thing we must consider is what Western government would benefit from war with Iran? Or who would benefit, on an individual level, from war with Iran?

I will thus leave you with a few conclusions to these questions.

The short answer to the first question would be, apart from Saudi Arabia and Israel, no Western government would benefit from war with Iran. Unless another ‘Trillion dollar wars’ would bring economic growth and prosperity. War with Iran would be another pointless venture with little guarantees that a war could be won in a short space of time or terrorism would decrease. Therefore this directs me to the second question, who would benefit on an individual level from war with Iran?

Although a more complex answer than the first, war with Iran (to my mind) would benefit the executives and shareholders of oil and arms companies, not to mention the stock markets that will profit from trading company stocks.

Iran’s military budget, as of 2016 stand at $6.2 billion with the United States military defence spending being $585 billion. The United States, under the leadership of Trump, seeks to further increase the amount by announcing an extra $54bn of military spending bringing the United States military budget to a staggering $639bn by 2018. To further put this into perspective in 2016 the entire Russian defence budget was $65.8bn. Trump’s additional defence spending will be $11.8bn short of Russian entire defence spending of 2016. The fact that the additional $54 billion of military sending is eight times more than the entire defence budget of Iran, makes one wonder what threat does Iran pose to the United States and its Western Allies?

Although the numbers may be difficult to recognise as a fact, and believe me I find it difficult to understand why a country needs such a big military/defence budget. The numbers raise two important points. 1) Who’s benefiting from this gargantuan amount of military spending and 2) could a new arms race/ conflict be the unfortunate result of this? It is now becoming clear that the military-industrial complex stands to benefit from increased tensions between Washington and Iran. But will these tensions and an increase in the United States military arsenal, with it’s  secure knowledge of being the world’s sole military super power, cause a new conflict in the Middle East?

The region surrounding Iran, in particular around the Persian Gulf, produces 28 per cent of the world oil and has 55 per cent of the world’s proven oil reserves. Any disruption to the follow of oil will cause a vast downturn in the world economy (as in 1971), with the likely target for both Iranian and American efforts being concentrated around the Straits of Hormuz with one fifth of the world oil being transported through the Straits.

I do not deny that Iran constitutes a challenge to stability in the Middle East. However this challenge cannot be solved through increased military spending, and increased tensions, but rather through cooperation and dialogue. The increase in the United States military defence spending and the rhetoric from Washington suggests America could be sleepwalking into a conflict that will cause more instability in the Middle East. However if you are a CEO or a shareholder of an arms or oil company, a pretty penny could be made from this instability.

Welcome to Balanced Opinion

As British politics has become consumed by Brexit and negotiations with the EU, the authors of Balanced Opinion feel other issues have been neglected and side-lined. Although we cannot ignore Brexit because of its implications for Britain, other issues remain important to the United Kingdom and the world surrounding our island. Therefore, we have decided to write various articles that are both being discussed within the public domain and that are also close to our hearts.

It is our hope that our readers will also find our articles and discussions both enjoyable and informative. The main topics we wish to discuss are of a political, economic, and social nature. We are seeking to present balanced arguments and conclusions to questions that will affect all our lives.

We encourage all our readers to comment on our posts and to enlighten us on our shortcomings in regards to our articles. We very much appreciate any reader who can expand our own knowledge and provide counter arguments to our own opinions. This helps foster honest and polite debate on issues that affect Britain and the world at large.

We thank you for taking the time to read our opinions and for contributing to the discussions we wish to foster on this blog.

From the Authors;

Tom Salliss,

Martin Baker,

Kieran Nicholl