Trials are only way to restore faith after torture

THE release on Tuesday confirming that CIA officials used torture has only proven that which most people already knew a priori.

The 6000 page Senate report lambasts the intelligence agency for using extreme enhanced interrogation techniques which amounted to torture to gain information. Officials have long hinted at the idea that they may have gone too far in their pursuit of terrorists. Former US President George W Bush dismissed claims of torture, claiming that he had authorised enhanced interrogation techniques, something which the Senate had concluded what many had suspected is merely another name to cover horrendous human rights abuses.

Messers Bush, Blair et al may attempt to cleanse their souls through semantic debate but this report will leave them nowhere to turn. 

More than that though it will weaken the West in the eyes of the world an diminishes it ability to act as the policemen to the world. No longer can America and Britain claim the moral high ground in their battle against extremists such as Islamic State. There may be those who claim that torture was necessary to protect freedom and democracy from terrorist threats. What they forgot was that for freedom to exist it must exist for all or it exists for none. By judging that they could discard human rights for suspected terrorists they undermined the very foundation of the democracy they claim they were protecting.

It is too late now to backtrack. It is too late to apologise and move on. The damage has been done. The threat which the CIA was trying to battle through torture has been strengthened by its actions. To think that this will be anything other than a rallying call to terror groups would be delusional at best. This is not to say that it should not have been published though. What needs to happen now, however, is that the full weight of international law needs to be used against those accused. 

If the enemies of freedom and democracy are to be truly defeated then it will not be through torture. It will be by showing that no-one is above the law. That everyone is equal and deserves to be treated as such in the international theatre.

UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights and Counter-Terrorism Ben Emmerson has stepped forward to demand just such an action.

"As a matter of international law, the US is legally obliged to bring those responsible to justice," Mr Emmerson said in a statement made from Geneva.

"The US attorney general is under a legal duty to bring criminal charges against those responsible."

It had previously been claimed by officials that it was only left wing conspiracy theorists who would call for President Bush and former Prime Minister Tony Blair to be indicted for war crimes. Anyone who thought otherwise was in their view just as bad as the terrorists themselves. To prevent those terrorist groups gaining ground these officials must now recognise that a trial for war crimes is the only way to restore faith and hope in freedom and democracy.  

  

A terrifying definition of the data

FIGURES released this week have pointed to a dramatic upswing in the number of terrorist attacks globally. While the majority of these are based in Iraq where the self proclaimed Islamic State is a highly visible presence some in Western media and political circles have picked up on the news as an excuse to call for ever more draconian measures to be implemented in the curtailing of civil liberties.

Since the tragic events of September 11th 2001 for many in the West terrorism has become synonymous with Islam. The history of its use over even the last century has been lost. The actions of the Provisional Irish Republican Army appear to have been forgotten. 

White supremacist bombings in the United States are pushed to one side in favour of a new belief that terrorism is religious rather than political, and by religious the conservative right wing mean Islamic.

The report into the rise in terrorist attacks will not help the debate by making claims that the  four main groups responsible for 66% of all deaths from terrorist attacks throughout 2013, Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, Boko Haram and the self-styled Islamic State, were motivated by a radicalised and perverted form of Islam.

All four groups used "religious ideologies based on extreme interpretations of Wahhabi Islam", claimed the report before adding, "To counteract the rise of religious extremism, moderate Sunni theologies need to be cultivated by credible forces within Islam."

What the report seems to overlook by counting attacks by groups such as IS and Boko Haram is that terrorism, rather than the ideology of the groups, has changed. These are not loosely organise networks of cells with a clearly defined political agenda. These are highly trained hierarchical insurgent armed forces. If they are to be counted as terrorist groups, which by their methods of instigating fear and anti-state actions they can arguably be claimed as being, then so to should dissidents in Ukraine. So to should drug cartels in South America. 

If we are to get an accurate figure for terrorist actions then it needs to be made clear what a terrorist act is and what classes as a terrorist group. 

While the report itself is a well balanced academic and useful piece it allows for its misuse by the right wing by not addressing this issue clearly enough.

As with any form of data gathering, particularly on such a complex and wide reaching issue clarification of the measurements and ensuring a lack of bias is always going to be a difficult thing to do.

In Israel this week a horrendous attack on a synagogue has left five people dead. There is no doubt that this was a hideous and brutal attack. What could be questioned, however, is whether this was a terrorist attack. There is nothing to say that this was not an act of madness by psychologically traumatised individuals. Indeed if the act had been carried out by a Christians in exactly the same way then this is what it would quite probably have been counted as.

Before we dismiss a rise in killings as a rise in Islamic fundamentalism we must clearly identify what the criteria we are using is lest we taint a religion based on peace and honour unjustly. 

War hasn't ended but it has changed

"THEY shall grow not old, as we that are left grow old:

Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn.

At the going down of the sun and in the morning,

We will remember them." So say the words of the famous ode to remembrance taken from Lawrence Binyon's poem For the Fallen.

One hundred years ago millions of young men, and women, faced the horrors of a war unprecedented in the history of mankind. A war where the grim technology of death turned the fields of Europe into blood soaked patches of mud where the poppy sprung up in defiance, standing strong as proof that life will rise from death and loss shall never been diminished. It is those Poppies which continue to stand as a memorial not only to those who died in the first Great War but to those who have died in every conflict since.

There are those who have argued that after a century we should stop marking armistice, those who  have claimed that calling it the "Great War" somehow glorifies it. It is not nationalism to remember the dead. It is not idealism that allows us to thank those who laid down their lives in a bitter and futile struggle. Great is a reflection of size not glory.  

More than this though is that Armistice day is not just for those who died in World War One. The war to end all wars failed singularly in that particular respect, as in so many others. Only twenty years later the world was once again pitched into a brutal struggle, this time a fight for its soul against the evil of Nazism rather than a battle for land and resources as World War One at its core was. Nor has war ended since. Indeed as technology grows so to does the threat of death, although there are those who have argued that it diminishes it. There are many who would agree that far from being an obsolete idea World War Three is only a matter of time, an inevitability where the only question is if it will occur within our lifetimes. War has not ended, although its face may have. The implementation of violence within and without national borders is no longer the sole mandate of the state. With the emergence of powerful militia and terrorist groups such as in Ukraine, Nigeria, Iraq and Syria and elsewhere war has become an act between polities not states and polities are no longer just the states which once were their representatives.

There is very little that can be done to avoid further conflicts. If the memory of those who deaths have stained the global soul for a century could not prevent it then very little anyone can say or do will now. 

In their memory though we must not forget. Great is not glorification it is a warning. A threat for what will happen again if we fail to remember that they died for our very future. 

EU drives towards "flatter" world

The European Union has always proved to be a contentious subject in recent months, however, it has progressed to being an explosive topic.

For countries such as Turkey membership of the bloc has been something viewed with awe. Concessions have been made and flaming hoops jumped through as it continues down a long road to potential acceptance.

Meanwhile there is Britain which is fighting to rework the European Union into something more amenable to its electorate. For both sides of the debate the challenges can be daunting. For both the road they are walking is likely to be filled with opponents trying to stop their progress. The road has always had people waiting in the verges though to provide a helping hand. These good Samaritans seem to be becoming scarcer on both sides as states look to maintaining their own interests.

Most recently German Chancellor Angela Merkel warned British Prime Minister David Cameron that she was losing patience with him over Europe. In a widely quoted article in the German newspaper Der Spiegel she reportedly said that she would not allow Mr Cameron to introduce limits on the number of immigrants moving between countries within the bloc.

For potential members like Turkey such a move would be catastrophic. The freedom of workers to move around the European Union to follow the jobs has become a crucial part of its ability to maintain as standing as an industrialised trading bloc. This arguing in favour of such movement highlight the ways in which it helps European countries combat the hegemony of America and balance trade. 

Those who support Mr Cameron, many of whom have preferred to stay in the verges rather than risk crossing the powerful Merkel, would argue that this movement tends to be from low skilled workers who take jobs available to the indigenous population. 

Even the most ardent Eurosceptic must see that this argument is flawed. Possibly this is why Mr Cameron's usual supporters remain hidden in the shadows. The free movement of workers would allow countries, such as Turkey, to receive foreign capital as at least a portion of wages cross borders back home. Perhaps this is why right wing groups fear workers from outside their own country. It would make a better argument than unsubstantiated xenophobia or bigotry after all. 

The outflow of capital, however, is more than compensated for by lower wage costs leading to higher profits and therefore companies paying increased taxes. 

It is the reduction of jobs for locals which remains the main concern though. It is one which the honest solution of working harder and doing a good job is treated with genuine anathema amongst antagonists. The failure to realise that it allows for domestic workers to follow the jobs seems to have escaped their attention.

The European Union has moved on from is founding principles. It's growth and subsequent subsumption of countries has overridden the sovereignty of the Peace of Westphalia. It's evolution, however, distasteful to some, is inevitable though as the world becomes flatter. 

Those countries looking to join can saw hope from the fact that no matter what the countries seeking to change the EU may think the world is moving and it is moving towards a closer union. 

Uncertain future for a free Afghanistan

WHEN British troops pulled out of Afghanistan last week, ending a 13 year conflict which has claimed the lives of 453 British service personnel, it was hailed as a moment of change in the country.

In a display of marked solemnity the flag was lowered over Camp Bastion and once again the future of Afghanistan was left in the hands of the Afghanis. 

Despite the reassuring rhetoric of Western leaders it is an uncertain future at best. British Prime Minister David Cameron tweeted at the time: "I made a commitment that I would get our Armed Forces out of Afghanistan by 2015 and today sees the end of combat operations in the country.

"We will always remember the courage of those who served in Afghanistan on our behalf and never forget those who made the ultimate sacrifice." 

There are few who seem the rate the likelihood of the Taliban rising to power again as a likelihood. Too much has changed in the intervening years. For people given a taste of freedom, with girls now being educated in allied built schools and the ability to live their own lives without threat of brutal reprisal, returning to a life under Taliban rule holds little. 

The Taliban are not defeated, however, they still hold power in large parts of Afghanistan and its neighbours and for many they offer a form of stability and security preferable to the now uncertain future without them.

Warning of the threat still posed by the Taliban Professor Malcolm Chalmers, of defence think tank the Royal United Services Institute, was reported as saying that it was still "a very capable organisation".

"What we have to do to prevent the country slipping back is support the Afghan state - the civilian side, making sure that teachers and doctors and nurses are paid, but also critically the armed forces," he said.

"The Afghan army has come a long way in the last few years but they're still dependent on foreign money to pay their wages and right now there's a question mark over how long that will continue."

Even without the threat of the Taliban Afghanistan is far from being the bastion of peace and freedom which politicians led people to believe that it would be 13 year ago. Afghanistan is ranked as the third most corrupt country in the world. Not a position which was hoped for when Western forces stepped in to install democracy in the country. It has a weak government which many believe unable to provide coherent governance from a centralised location for the whole country. This just adds to the likelihood of disparate groups springing up around the country. If a group similar to the so called Islamic State in Iraq and Syria does not make itself known then the opportunity for powerful militia leaders to set up their own fiefdoms may prove too compelling for some.

When Russian forces were forced out of the country in the 1980's America declared that it was a new period of freedom for the people of Afghanistan. A century earlier the same had been claimed of the disastrous British route from the country. If diplomatic efforts are not increased and support still provided then for Afghanistan it may all just be a little bit of history repeating.

West prepared to sacrifice Turkey for security

ONCE thought of as a key ally of the West Turkey is becoming the scapegoat for all America and Britain's own fears.

While politicians in London and Washington wring their hands and promise increasingly sceptical and war weary electorates that they will not send in ground troops they have little compunction about demanding that Ankara does just that.

In a stunning display of arrogance and lack of foresight American lawmakers in particular have condemned Turkish government reluctance to provide support for Kurdish fighters battling Islamic State of Iraq and Syria terrorists.

The lynchpin moment has become Kobani, a town on the border of Syria and Turkey which has been pushed to a position of prominence in global politics its inhabitants would once have considered impossible. 

The French author Bernard Henri Levy wrote a widely published piece questioning whether Turkey should be allowed to remain in NATO if it does not deploy ground forces to protect the embattled holdout. 

At the same time the United Nations Security council held back from issuing a place on the Security Council, something which may have demonstrated that it was prepared to acknowledge that there were long term strategies for combating ISIS, in favour of that well known bastion of stability Angola.

While liberal thinkers may be happy to condemn Turkey for not throwing its full military might behind the West and its institutions they seem oblivious to the the implications for long term Turkish security, or the hypocrisy of claiming that American airstrikes can only do so much without Turkish ground troops. Not British, American, French et al but Turkish soldiers on the ground risking their lives in a battle they are being bullied to take part in.

From a realist position Turkey must focus on maintaining its own security. While international institutions such as NATO and the UN may be seen as necessary it is the authority of the state which is the highest authority in the international system. 

At present ISIS is unlikely to launch an attack directly against Turkey, although it undoubtedly has the ability. Alternatively Kurdish terrorists from the PKK have long made it clear that they are prepared to do just that. 

From a security position Turkey would at most risk individual acts from ISIS, which it could easily control with its experience of handling terrorists incidents, if it allowed its allies to use its airbases to launch airstrikes. If, however, it was to expand military forces and equipment in a ground war in Syria and Iraq it would spread itself across the region to protect the interests of its allies while weakening its ability to fight a longer term battle for its own internal security. By supporting Kurdish fighters against one threat officials in Ankara run a significant risk of giving them legitimacy which could lead to internal splits within Turkey further down the road.

Despite allowing Kurdish fighters to cross its borders to engage with ISIS this is no enough for Western powers who, in a stunning display of hubris, have yet again only seen the need to combat an immediate threat without any thought of the long term implications.  

Rise of right down to the fear it creates

WITHOUT realising the world seems to be sleep walking into an era of increasingly right wing and xenophobic principles.

All you have to do is look at the number of people reposting the supposedly harmless links from groups such as Britain First, many doing so without realising what and insidious and dangerous organisation this truly is.

The recent win by the United Kingdom Independence Party of a parliamentary seat in England is yet another sign of the inexorable rise of the right wing and the closing of minds across the world.

It is not just in Britain that this steady rise of the politics of fear and hatred has been seen. It is increasing across the globe, as with it brings a diminishing opportunities for solving the very problems which are pushing people towards the extremes of the spectrum.

Fears over terrorism, economic woes and increasing calls for isolationism are driving the focus of voters while hiding from them the long term impact removal from the international system would have.

Using Nigel Farage's UKIP as an example again, his calls for an exit from the European Union play well with voters but what would it actually mean for the country? Has anyone actually considered why so many countries want to join the bloc? Turkey has been in negotiations to join for years, is this merely because it enjoys the process? Of course not. It is because it knows that the benefits of joining far outweighs the negatives.

"I'm not prepared to wait for three years. I want us to have a referendum on this great question next year and if UKIP can maintain its momentum and get enough seats in Westminster we might just be able to achieve that," Farage told the BBC.

Essentially what he is saying therefore is that he is not prepared to wait until all the facts are in and people have had time to rationally analyse the arguments rather than being pushed into a decision which could, and will, diminish Britain's power in the international system for generations to come.

Parties on the far right play on fear. They attract the dispossessed not because they are any more motivated to move towards them than anyone else but because they make people believe that they are dispossessed. 

It is all too easy to think of xenophobic bigots as tattooed shaven thugs, and some still are. They have learned from the lessons of the past though. They are using social media to get people to share their insidious views, often without realising it, they preach there messages of hate coached in the language of sense by using half truths and distorted facts. They play on ignorance and fear. 

At their very worst, and here we go far beyond the hyperbole of Mr Farage's party of malcontents, and the recruitment by the global far right has much in common with that used by terrorist groups such as that calling itself Islamic State. The truth is that fear one is driving people to support the other. It is only through teaching tolerance and inclusivity that both can be defeated because it surely must happen that go one to go so must the other. 

The joy of conference season

IT'S AUTUMN and for the British political establishment that can mean only one thing party conference season. 

As politicians and party members meet for the last time before next year's General Election MP's are feeling the pressure to reassure people that they will be fighting fit for the campaigns ahead of them. The conferences are politicians opportunity to try out new ideas before committing to them in their manifestos. It is the equivalent of Paris or London fashion week for political junkies as they get a peek at the upcoming policies on offer. 

This year has been no different as the key parties look back at the mistakes and successes of the past year and lay out their future plans. 

For Prime Minister David Cameron it is an opportunity for back slapping over the debatable success of the Scottish referendum. For Labour it was a chance to prove that they had moved forward from its defeat at the last General Election and was ready for a new future. For the Liberal Democrats it is a time to demonstrate that they still exist, something which hasn't always been obvious since it joined the coalition government. 

As always though it is the crackpots and cranks which lead the way and monopolise the news cycle, which could explain the amount of coverage given to the UKIP party conference despite it having no MP's in Parliament.

It also a chance for individual politicians to flex their muscles and attempt to stand out from the crowd. It was no surprise to many that London Mayor Boris Johnson was among the forefront of this particular group.

In true Boris style he managed to someone try and stabilise the Conservatives and reaffirm his support for Mr Cameron while stealthily positioning himself as the saviour of the party.

Speaking at a fringe meeting ahead of his formal speech on Tuesday Mr Johnson demonstrated this ability with his usual panache.

"It is only if the great conservative family unites and we stop Ed Miliband seizing back control of this country that we will be able to deliver the referendum that this country wants and deserves," Johnson told activists.

"I say to the quitters, the splitters and the 'Kippers, there is only one party that can sort out the European issue."

"When you look at the vast leads that this party enjoys on the key questions of the economy and prime ministerial qualities, I think they (voters) will come over in droves," he said.

Being entirely honest though, while there is a certain interest in hearing plans for the future and debating which ones may actually make the grade, it is for the blunders which many will get the most entertainment. Staying true to form Labour leader Ed Milliband provided the greatest faux par so far by forgetting to mention the deficit in his speech, after all who would think the economy would be an important point.

With the Tories suffering body blows from defections and resignations, Labour trying to persuade people that Mr Milliband isn't completely incompetent, the Liberal Democrats pleading for someone to throw them a life ring and UKIP posturing on its overblown ego if the conference season is a good opening to the political season then the election campaign should be interesting to watch at the very least.

The West needs Iran against IS

AMID the chaos of the Islamic State assault on the Middle East the meeting of Britain and Iranian leaders offers a moment of historic potential.

The meeting in New York between Iranian President Hassan Rouhani and British Prime Minister David Cameron will be the first time that leaders of the two countries have held official meetings since 1979. 

For the millions of people under constant threat in Iraq and Syria the news of potential cooperation between the state, once considered one of the most dangerous in the world, and the rest of the allies opposing the threat of the IS the news cannot come soon enough.

Hundreds of thousands of refugees are flooding into Turkey as the fighting in Syria heats up and the first time since the start of the conflict American airstrikes have been used against IS forces in Syria. It is clear that the battle against the group is entering a dangerous new phase, far beyond that of the murder of western hostages.

At the weekend former British Prime Minister, and current Middle East Peace Envoy, Tony Blair released a 6500 word article on his Faith Foundation website calling for a ground incursion against fighters in Iraq and Syria. 

Laying out a seven point plan to combat the threat of global extremism Mr Blair makes repeated attempts to link unrest in China with a common problem of extremist Islam in the Middle East. As such he argues that it is only through joining with China that the West can show they are not the only ones fighting rising fundamentalism. His plan hinges on demonstrating that it is a global battle against such groups.

Mr Blair missed talking about how much more successful this plan would have been if it involved Iran in operations. Instead he did call for arguments about human rights in Egypt to be quietened down as we link arms to fight against terrorists. 

Working with Iran is only contentious due to historically imbedded ideals. Relations are already thawing and while talks on nuclear programmes have not met desired results for either side they are still continuing.

Potential cooperation has become all the more important as Turkish involvement in the fight against the state remains understandably cool. Unlike the West Turkey must look at the terrible prospect of IS success in the region. 

For Turkey the fight against IS has long term consequences no matter the outcome. Clashes with Kurds at the weekend are yet more evidence of the tenuous position its government is in. 

For the West arming and supporting Kurdish fighters seems a way of avoiding placing its own ground troops in harms way. For Turkey, however, it poses long term security implications as Kurds demand more autonomy from Ankara.

By bringing Iran into the battle all out Turkish involvement may be avoided while still demonstrating that this is a war not against Islam but against evil. 

Referendum sees Scotland stay

WHILE Scottish unionists plan for the future after defeat over independence Prime Minister David Cameron has promised an English parliament along with devolution.

The result was called after the No lead became unassailable, despite not all of the 32 Scottish councils having called their results. 

With approximately 55 per cent of people voting in favour of remaining part of the United Kingdom, against 45 per cent in favour of independence, the vote was not as close as many had predicted based upon recent polls.  

Scotland's First Minister, and leader of the pro-independence Yes campaign, Alex Salmond, has acknowledged the defeat: "It is important to say that our referendum was an agreed and consented process and Scotland has by a majority decided not at this stage to become an independent country.

"I accept that verdict of the people and I call on all of Scotland to follow suit in accepting the democratic verdict of the people of Scotland."

Meanwhile his former opponent, leader of the No Campaign Alistair Darling, hailed the victory and called upon Scots to work together to heal the divisions in the country.

"It is a momentous result for Scotland and also for the United Kingdom as a whole," he said.

Adding that the result "reaffirmed all that we have in common and the bonds that tie us together", adding: "Let them never be broken."

With the result still a lot closer than many in Westminster would have preferred Mr Cameron will be under pressure to keep to his promises of further devolution of powers to Scotland. 

The proposals made in the dying days of the No Campaign have caused widespread concern among English, Welsh and Irish voters who feel that too much has been sacrificed to keep the union together. Amongst the fears that many have is that Scotland will have too much control over England while being able to deal with their own affairs. 

Mr Salmond has made it clear that despite his side losing the fight has not ended and he wants to ensure that Mr Cameron doesn't back away from his devolution promises.

He told supporters: "The unionist parties made vows late in the campaign to devolve more powers to Scotland.

"Scotland will expect these to be honoured in rapid course - as a reminder, we have been promised a second reading of a Scotland Bill by March 27 next year.

"Not just the 1.6 million Scots who voted for independence will demand that timetable is followed but all Scots who participated in this referendum will demand that timetable is followed."

"Today of all days as we bring Scotland together, let us not dwell on the distance we have fallen short, let us dwell on the distance we have travelled and have confidence the movement is abroad in Scotland that will take this nation forward and we shall go forward as one nation."

Mr Darling appeared to back Mr Salmond's calls for devolution to be pushed forward. During his victory speech the former chancellor said: "More than 85% of the Scottish population has voted. People who were disengaged from politics have turned out in large numbers.

"While they have voted on the constitution, that was not the only or perhaps the major issue that drove them to the polls.

"Every political party must listen to their cry for change, which could be echoed in every part of our United Kingdom but had this opportunity to express itself in Scotland."

Speaking shortly after 7am this morning Mr Cameron spoke of how he was passionate about the country staying together and that what was important now was doing what was right for all countries in the union.

During the course of his speech Mr Cameron made it clear that he would look at creating an English parliament to decide English laws in an shake up of the entire political structure of the union.

Making it clear that he felt the debate for independence had been settled for now Mr Cameron said: "The people of Scotland have spoken and it is a clear result. They have kept our country of four nations together and like millions of other people I am delighted." Adding that now what was needed was a new and fair settlement" for not just Scotland, but also England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

While the battle to keep Scotland in the Union may have ended for now the fight for further Scottish powers begins. With Scotland likely to get substantial new autonomy it is the 'English question' which could turn out to be the bloodier battle for Mr Cameron. 

The floodgates of independence

AS MONTHS of campaigning finally reach a close it can be easy to forget that the Scottish referendum has been a peaceful affair compared to other struggles for independence taking place at the moment.

Both sides of the debate have worked hard to sway voters to their cause. Both have used words rather than violence and that is what truly marks the battle for independence.

For months Ukraine has been rocked by bloodshed as separatists fought to be allowed self determination. They didn't choose reasoned debate. There were no televised discussions about which currency they should use. Instead there were tanks and guns. Blood in the street has marked this battle not shouting from the podiums.

Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko put forward proposals to devolve more powers to Eastern regions. During the Scottish independence campaign British Prime Minister David Cameron offered a similar option to voters if they voted no to leaving the Union. Mr Cameron made the offer to keep Britain together Mr Poroshenko made it to save lives.

Meanwhile Spain is facing a similar threat to its unity as Catalonian politicians push to break away on its own. On Monday the Catalonian regional parliament began setting out the groundwork to allow it to pass a law giving it independence from Spain.

Speaking to the Catalonian regional parliament on Monday Catalan leader Artur Mass said: "This would mean that Spain would effectively bury the 'old Spain' and rediscover that it is a country made up of several nations.

"In an instant, Spain would emerge as a country with an impressive level of democracy, tolerance and one that is capable of listening and resolving what is, above all, a democratic challenge."

In France the Corsicans have watched the Scottish independence referendum with eager eyes. Likewise Flemish speakers in Belgium hungrily wait for their opportunity. 

Greeks in the Epirus region in Albania, Lezigstan, amongst others, in Azerbaijan, throw in groups from Denmark, Croatia, Finland, Georgia, Germany, Czech Republic, Italy, Latvia, Netherlands, Norway, Moldova, Poland, Romania, Sweden, Russia, Slovakia, Switzerland, Latvia, Bosnia and Herzegovina. This doesn't take into account the threats to Turkey by Kurdish separatists or the multitude of campaigns and wars outside continental Europe. 

Even when, after the hard fought battles, people are able to declare their independence it may not be enough. The Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus is still trying to gain international recognition despite having been an independent state for forty years. In Kosovo independence, recognised by many in the international community, is still a daily struggle.

The debate over Scottish independence has overshadowed these other campaigns but more than that it has invigorated them. In his burning desire to seperate from the Union and proclaim the independent state of SNP Alex Salmond may have unwittingly led the charge for the greatest shifting of borders since World War Two. What must be hoped now is that as with the Scottish referendum it is done without the bloodshed which has traditionally precipitated the creation of independent states. 

Passion not politics will decide Scotland's future

IN A SIGN that the pressure is building the leaders of the three main parties will travel to Scotland today to promote the better together campaign.

Forgoing Prime Minister Questions David Cameron, Ed Milliband and Nick Clegg are hoping that by providing a united front they will sway undecided voters to their side.

With eight days to go until the referendum the trio may find that it is too little too late, particularly as in an attempt not to alienate current supporters they will not be appearing on the same platform. Instead the 'united front' will be more of a three pronged attack as they travel to different parts of the country to give impassioned pleas to Scots to remain in the United Kingdom.

In a joint statement yesterday Messrs Cameron, Milliband and Clegg stressed that keeping Scotland in the union was their priority.

"That's why all of us are agreed the right place for us to be tomorrow is in Scotland, not at prime minister's questions in Westminster.

"We want to be listening and talking to voters about the huge choices they face. Our message to the Scottish people will be simple: 'We want you to stay.'"

With recent polls showing the two sides level and the Yes campaign still gaining momentum this last ditch attempt to play on the passions and emotions of voters may not be enough to stave off a split next week though.

Leader of the Yes Campaign Alex Salmond has called the move a sign that the No campaign is panicking as the threat of Scottish independence looms large on the horizon.

 "'I relish David Cameron, Ed Miliband and Nick Clegg coming to Scotland - collectively, they are the least trusted Westminster leaders ever, and this day trip will galvanise the 'Yes' vote.

"No-one believes their panicked pledges - it is a phoney timetable for measly powers. A 'Yes' vote delivers a real timetable for the full powers that Scotland needs."

He added: "The No side have lost their poll lead, and people are switching directly over to Yes - if David Cameron thinks he is the answer to the No campaign's disintegration disarray, let him put his case to the test in a head-to-head debate."

The recent news from polling results will not be adding to the confidence of the No campaign. Having already thrown Gordon Brown into the fight in a desperate bid to appeal to core labour voters they are now showing that they have started to realise that this campaign will be won on emotions rather than logic.

Where the campaign has failed is that it has tried to combat Mr Salmond's passionate patriotic propaganda with rational arguments, most notably about currency. This is not going to be a vote based on the head though. When people vote on independence it will be with their hearts. For months cries of "Freedom" and "Bannockburn" have resonated far more than "the pound" and "taxes". As both sides enter the final leg one day of passion may not be close to enough to save this troubled marriage.

ISIS aren't just another terror threat

BRITISH Prime Minister David Cameron has issued a stark warning that the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) has planned six terrorist attacks in Europe.

His warnings come as sources close to the security services revealed that they have identified the insurgent known as Jihadi John, believed to be responsible for the murders of American journalists James Foley and Stephen Sutloff.

In a statement to MP's Mr Cameron said: "The point I would make even today to the British people is: be in no doubt about the threat that so-called Islamic State poses to us. We have already seen something like six planned attacks in the countries of the European Union from [Isis], including of course that appalling attack in the Brussels Jewish museum, where innocent people were killed. That flows directly from this organisation."

While ISIS, which is also known as Islamic State (IS) and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), may be planning attacks against the West it would be far too simple to think of them as just another terrorist organisation.

ISIS may have started out as an offshoot from Al-Queda, however, it has now morphed into something all the more dangerous and insidious.

"This is not a terrorism problem anymore,” says Jessica Lewis, an expert on ISIS at the Institute for the Study of War, a Washington think tank. “This is an army on the move in Iraq and Syria, and they are taking terrain.”

"We are using the word encircle,” Lewis tells TIME. “They have shadow governments in and around Baghdad, and they have an aspirational goal to govern. I don’t know whether they want to control Baghdad, or if they want to destroy the functions of the Iraqi state, but either way the outcome will be disastrous for Iraq.”

ISIS's metamorphosis creates an issue in the way in which the British government, and nations as a whole, need to combat them. Traditional methods of dealing with a terrorist threat has involved cutting off supply and removing leadership. In the case of ISIS these are unlikely to work though. Due to the territory it has taken and the armaments it continues to capture it has essentially become self sustaining in terms of supply. While it has a powerful leader in the form of  Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi it is increasingly clear that his removal would have little impact on the long term effectiveness of the group with a replacement likely waiting in the wings. 

The British government has already confirmed that it will supply arms to Kurdish fighters and the Iraqi government waging a war against the spread of ISIS.

The Prime Minister has said: “I have always said we would respond positively to requests from them for the direct supply and we are now prepared to do that and so will be providing them with arms, as the Germans and others will.

“Also with allies, we think it’s right to step up our training and mentoring efforts and so we’ve said we would be willing if they would like to train a battalion of Peshmerga fighters because they are doing such a vital job.”

As the conflict continues though more may need to be done. While another military intervention in the Middle East is less than palatable it may become necessary as the group becomes viewed as an occupying army rather than a terrorist group. 

Green's looking at new direction

THE season of political party conferences gets underway today with the Green Party starting its annual roundup.

During the course of its four day conference party stalwarts are expected to signal a change of direction from its previous focus on environmental issues. Instead leader, and former Guardian journalist, Natalie Bennett aims to position the party to the left of Labour as an effective alternative to current parties.

Speaking at the People's march this week she said: "We marched from Bedford to Luton, there was massive support. We don't believe there is any place for the profit motive in the NHS, the internal market with NHS services competing is a failed policy - we would keep it public owned and free.

"We are really the only opposition to three parties who all back the same political and economic system, which is not working. We are proposing real change," she added.

As part of its new agenda there is expected to be more discussion about plans for a £10 minimum wage to be imposed across the board, regardless of age or circumstances.

Bennett told the Guardian: "We need to offer people hope for the future – a living wage, secure employment and no more zero-hours contracts.

"Under our plan no one would be paid less than £10 an hour in 2020," she said. "It is a scandal that under the coalition government the number of workers earning less than the living wage has risen by a staggering 50%. It makes a mockery of David Cameron's 2010 statement that a living wage is 'an idea whose time has come'."

The change of direction reflects the impact which the coverage received by the United Kingdom Independence Party during the European Elections had on the party.

At the time Green members, who have long stated that they are the fourth political party, complained that the UKIP media exposure was unwarranted and damaging to its own campaign.

"A difference between the Greens and UKIP is that we are not a one-person party, we are team and we have three women - Caroline Lucas in the House of Commons and Jenny Jones in the House of Lords and myself - all happy to work together, not competing," said Bennett.

Separately adding: "We got 6.6 per cent of the vote in May and I would be very happy if we got the same percentage of political coverage in the national media - but we are seeing our figures going up anyway,"

It is a change which poses risks for the party, which is polling below the Liberal Democrats, as they may alienate core voters with drastic and seemingly ill conceived policies.

Promising to impose a wealth tax of 1% on top earners will appeal to some voters, however, it seems unlikely to provide the necessary capital injection needed to fulfil additional plans for benefits and the health service. Meanwhile as the three main parties have already discovered raising the minimum wage dramatically would have detrimental impact on small business owners unable to meet the higher outlay, thereby driving up prices, the living wage and creating a potential inflationary spiral.

Re-branding themselves as a left wing party may seem like a good idea in an increasingly politically apathetic era. Without clear solutions though they could find that they have moved too far away from the policies which have brought voters to them in the past. 

Summit is adapt or die moment for NATO

ESCALATING chaos in Iraq and Syria and rising tensions in Ukraine will dominate discussions among world leaders at the NATO conference in Wales.

Not since the closing days of the Cold War have the stakes been so high for the NATO participants as they attempt to determine if the alliance is ready to face the challenges of the 21st century.

British Prime Minister David Cameron will join NATO chief Anders Fogh Rasmussen in leading the talks taking place over the course of two days.

Speaking ahead of the summit Mr Cameron said: "It's hard to think of a Nato summit coming at a more important time for our alliance.

"We see the appalling actions of Russia in eastern Ukraine. We see the appalling scenes in Iraq and Syria and the rise of this so-called Islamic Caliphate and its dreadful brutality in executing the American hostage we saw overnight.

"And in this dangerous and difficult world NATO has an absolutely key role in providing our collective security, and that's what the next two days are going to be all about."

Nato Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen gave his views to journalists: "In today's world we are, so to speak, surrounded by an arc of crisis.

"To the east, to the southeast, to the south - and at this summit we will address the whole range of security challenges and improve Nato's ability to act swiftly if needed."

The dynamics of global powers have shifted since world leaders last met in the UK as part of a NATO summit. When last gathered on British shores in 1990 Margaret Thatcher was Prime Minister and the Cold War, against the alliances old sparring partner Russia, was drawing to a close. There was a need to rethink NATO's operational concept and evolve to face a changing world. 

With the crisis in Ukraine reaching new levels, amid reports of Russian interference, and the dangers of allowing terrorist groups such as Islamic State to take hold of large areas of territory NATO's role has become crucial once again for international 

 stability.

A 2013 brief from the Atlantic Council warned, “The world is changing rapidly, and if NATO does not adapt with foresight for this new era, then it will very likely disintegrate.”

This summit needs to answer the question of whether the group is prepared to adapt, or if as the brief warns it will disintegrate amid bickering and internal divisions.

In a jointly written article for the Times Mr Cameron and American President Barack Obama laid out their plans for the future: "With Russia trying to force a sovereign state to abandon its right to democracy at the barrel of a gun, we should support Ukraine's right to determine its own democratic future and continue our efforts to enhance Ukrainian capabilities," they wrote.

"We must use our military to ensure a persistent presence in eastern Europe, making clear to Russia that we will always uphold our... commitments to collective self-defence.

"And we must back this up with a multi-national rapid response force, composed of land, air, maritime and special forces, that could deploy anywhere in the world at very short notice."

The world will now be watching to see if old animosities and competing agendas can be set aside as they once were decades ago to fulfil the future promise of not just NATO but global peace and security.

A threat to journalists is a threat to freedom

BRITISH Prime Minister David Cameron is set to chair a meeting of the government's emergency response committee COBRA in the aftermath of the brutal murder of another journalist.

A video purporting to show the beheading of 31-year-old American journalist Stephen Sotloff has created anger across the world. It follows the video released last month of the killing of fellow journalist James Foley.

Mr Cameron released a statement following the release of the video:  “I’ve just seen the news. It’s an absolutely disgusting and despicable act and I will be making a statement later.”

At the end of the video the masked terrorist warned that a British journalist would be next unless the United Kingdom stays out of the battle in Iraq and Syria against the group, which calls itself the Islamic State.

In the video entitled "A second message to America" the man, believed to be the murderer of Mr Foley, threatens to continue killing unless the United States ceases airstrikes against IS terrorists in Iraq.

"I'm back, Obama, and I'm back because of your arrogant foreign policy toward the Islamic State ... despite our serious warnings," the fighter says. "So just as your missiles continue to strike our people, our knife will continue to strike the necks of your people."

The video highlights the risks to foreign correspondents posed by terrorist groups. By utilising social media outlets the group has been able to maximise the impact of the killings has had, and subsequently made them seem more attractive to terrorist organisations.

Michelle Stanistreet, National Union of Journalists general secretary, released a statement in a August in which she warned of the dangers faced by journalists around the world.

"This summer's events in the Middle East, Ukraine and Africa have produced a dangerous and lethal climate for foreign correspondents and journalists in the field reporting on bloody conflicts and for the local journalists recording events in such dangerous territory. It is deeply alarming to see that journalists are becoming direct targets and their lives are being put at risk...

"It is a simple fact that freedom of the press and free expression are not possible where journalists face extreme violence for doing their job."

Playing on public opinion and feelings of horror allows the criminal gangs spreading bloodshed to feel that they are able to prevent governments from intervening to prevent further substantial losses of life.

It is the bravery of journalists such as Mr Sotloff and Foley who refuse to be cowed which undermines their insidious aims. Through the threat of death many more are still operating, reporting the news and bringing the publics attention to the very acts which the killers want to be allowed to continue. 

Terror laws create division

DESPITE only returning from summer recess on Monday the British coalition government is already mired in controversy and disputes with proposed anti-terror laws.

Prime Minister David Cameron has come into conflict with Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg and civil liberties groups over plans to tackle extremist elements in the UK.

The proposals come in the wake of revelations that approximately 500 Britons have travelled to Syria to join with the fundamentalist Islamic State organisation. 

Speaking to MP's on Monday Mr Cameron set out his commitment to the new laws: "It is abhorrent that people who declare their allegiance elsewhere can return to the United Kingdom and pose a threat to our national security.

"We are clear in principle that what we need is a targeted, discretionary power to allow us to exclude British nationals from the UK."

Civil liberties groups and MP's have expressed reservations over the issue amid fears that the far reaching policies could be used to curtail human rights.

Former Attorney General Dominic Grieve warned that some of the concepts in the proposed legislation would be a "mistake".

"I do share concerns that have been expressed that the suggestion British nationals, however horribly they may be alleged to have behaved, should be prevented from returning to this country. Not only does it offend principles of international law, it would actually offend basic principles of our own common law as well," he said.

Among critics from within the Conservative Liberal Democrat coalition is Sir Menzies Campbell who told BBC Radio 4's The World This Weekend: "I think it's rather difficult and it might well constitute illegality. To render citizens stateless is regarded as illegal in international law.

"To render them stateless temporarily, which seems to me the purpose of what's being proposed, can also I think be described as illegal.

"At the very least it's the kind of question that will be tested here in our own courts and perhaps also in the European Court of Human Rights."

The row has reinvigorated the debate over freedoms within the UK which were addressed last year following the detention of journalist David Miranda. At the time the National Union of Journalists released a statement warning of the impact upon the freedom of the press and democracy.

Michelle Stanistreet, NUJ general secretary, said:

"The shocking detention of David Miranda for the crime of being the partner of a respected investigative journalist points to the growing abuse of so-called anti-terror laws in the UK...

"This is not an isolated problem. The NUJ believes that journalists are coming under more scrutiny and surveillance, being stopped at borders and their work interfered with, simply for doing their job."

If passed Mr Cameron's plans to protect Britain against suspected terrorists could undermine the very values which he hopes to defend. For those travelling to conflict zones, whether for charitable or journalistic purposes, this could be inherently concerning. 

To combat extremism Mr Cameron needs to realise that by creating yet more feelings of isolation and separation within communities he is only magnifying the problem.

Scots debate turns into brawling debacle

ON MONDAY the leaders of the Scottish referendum campaigns went head to head and showed that the debate has taken a nasty turn.

Rather than holding to a well moderated back and forth of the views Alex Salmond and Alistair Darling's combative styles made it seem more like a drunken brawl in a Glasgow pub.

As has been seen many times in other countries the issue of independence is always going to be a contentious issue. Despite being forty years since the North and South separated there is still a deep rooted feeling of bad blood between some in Cyprus on both sides of the divide. Long after the separation negotiations have still dragged on with promises of resolute being given and then broken.

Despite both leaders claiming they would respect the will of the people based on the tensions on Monday Scotland may be running down a similar road, albeit in this case with less blood shed but also less reason.

Once again which currency an independent Scotland would use was high on the list of topics. Once again no clear answer was provided by Mr Salmond other than that he had three plan B's but didn't want to share them yet. Yes campaigners were vocal in their support of this move on social media, complaining that the No Campaign was too focused on currency and avoiding other key issues. 

As one pro-independence supporter wrote on social media site twitter: @macrae85: "There's a 'Plan A,B,C,D & probably E,but u lot are too thick to even think of that...why dampen u'r powder b4 the talks?"

While another said: @antyjan: "Omg! What is this obsession with currency!? We don't need a plan B! Jeeeez! Is that all the NOs have?"

It was during the cross examination phase, however, that the real passions behind the debate came out as Mr Salmond bludgeoned Mr Darling repeatedly with speeches about the "mandate" of the people. Without effective moderation it quickly dissolved into a shouting match with nobody making any helpful or substantive points.

By the time the moderator finally did step in both men looked bloodied but Alex Salmond had definitely regained his confidence after their last engagement and knew that he had won that nights bare knuckle drag out. A snap ICM poll after the debate bore this out with 71 per cent of those asked saying they thought he had won the debate.

It was in the final moments of the debate that the reality of what may happen in the future took hold for many as both leaders spoke of how they would respect the outcome of the referendum. Mr Salmond even going so far as to say he would ask Mr Darling to join him in the negotiations. From the reactions on social media though it seems that these two men will be in the minority of those shaking hands and making amends. The issue has split families and awakened old tensions, something not easily forgotten nor forgiven. Mr Salmond knows this and knows that his passionate rhetoric does not lend itself to peaceful reconciliation later. As Fevzi Hussein of TRNC human rights group Embargoed tweeted: "He is dying for his William Wallace moment..." The risk now is that he gets it.

Scots debate needs to be about more than sterling

WITH less than four weeks to go until Scots can decide on the future of the United Kingdom tonight's debate must be about more than just currency.

When Alex Salmond and Alistair Darling last confronted one another it was Mr Darling who many viewers saw as victorious. Despite a hesitant start his pounding away at the question of what would be a "plan B" if Scotland did not get the pound left Mr Salmond bloodied and shaken.

In the proceeding weeks Mr Salmond has continued to fail spectacularly in being able to answer the sterling question. Instead he, and others from the Yes Campaign, has belligerently stuck to his argument that the pound is as much Scotland's as it is England's. With so many questions still unanswered it would appear an irrelevance to attempt to make Mr Salmond see sense and state his back up plan, when he has continued to refuse to do so for so long.

It would seem, however, as another childish tug of war over the pound will be the opening gambit as the first area to debate will be the economy. Instead though it may make sense to discuss the recent revelations that the pro-independence campaign may have vastly overestimated the amount of oil reserves they are relying on. Oil economist and current SNP leader Mr Salmond has argued that his forecasts are correct and an independent Scotland would receive in the region of 7bn of whatever currency seemed appropriate. Meanwhile the head of the Aberdeen based Scottish oil services firm Wood Group, Sir Ian Wood, has warned that actual figures could be half this. If this is the case then it raises serious questions about how an independent Scotland would be sustainable. With Mr Salmond relying on all his predicted oil revenue, and more, to finance his health and education plans any indication that they might not be accurate needs addressing.

"The offshore oil and gas industry cannot figure significantly in Scotland's medium-term economic calculations," Wood said. "Young voters in the referendum will only be in their 40s when they will see the significant rundown in the Scottish offshore oil and gas sector, and the serious implications for our economy, jobs and public services."

Based on the pre-released debate format the two campaign leaders will be limited to what they can discuss by four compartmentalised areas of debate, each started off with a question from the audience. Following the discussion over the economy will be "Scotland at home", "Scotland in the world" before ending on the most important question "what happens after the vote?" 

With a recent YouGov poll giving topline figures of 38% for the Yes Campaign, a three percent increase on previous poll, and 51% to the No Campaign, a four percent drop, it still looks likely that it will be the undecided voters who have the most impact on the referendum. As Mr Darling has already pointed out Mr Salmond is continuing to play to nationalist voters who have already made up their minds. For many this debate will be a crucial factor in their decision making process and as such a clear answer on what will happen after the vote may be the game changer for both sides, not who keeps the pound. 

Danger if destabilisation as PKK armed

BRITISH involvement in Iraq is threatening long term stability in region according to some analysts.

British Defence Minister Michael Fallon has warned that military intervention to combat the threat from Islamic State extremists could last for months. 

The news, which broke on Sunday, comes in the wake of confirmation that the British government would aid the supply of arms to Kurdish fighters in the region, something which has led to fears about the long term implications for stability in the war torn area.

The defence secretary told service personnel at the South Cyprus RAF base in Akrotiri: "There may well now be in the next few weeks and months other ways that we may need to help save life [and] protect people and we are going to need all of you again and the surveillance you are able to give us,"

"We want to help the new government of Iraq and Kurdish forces. We want to help them stop the advance of IS and stop them from being terrorised.

"This is not simply a humanitarian mission. We and other countries in Europe are determined to do what we can to help the government of Iraq combat this new and very extreme form of terrorism that IS is promoting."

It is the arming of Kurdish fighters which is proving a controversial tactic, however, amid fears that once the current situation is resolved it could lead to long term conflict on the borders with Britain's NATO ally Turkey.

Richard Gowan, research director of the Centre on International Cooperation, at New York University, said: "There are moments in fast-moving crises when you simply have to stop events spiralling out of control, and worry about the consequences later. This is one of those moments. Arming the Kurds may be a step towards the final fragmentation of Iraq, with worrying consequences for Turkey and Iran. But if the alternative is losing more territory to Isis and allowing more atrocities, then this is still the best short-term option available."

Turkey has fought a long battle against the Kurdish terrorist group the Kurdistan Worker's Party (PKK), which wants more autonomy for Kurds within Turkey. Despite a tenuous peace between the group and the government in Ankara an influx of weapons and munitions from the West could destabilise the current situation.

“Wars are always a very important catalyst for change . . . In a year’s time the position of the PKK is going to be much stronger than it is now,” said Henri Barkey, a former US State Department official.

Officials in Ankara have been quick to play down the perceived influx of PKK fighters into Iraq, with one spokesmen stating: “I don’t think their involvement is real,” a senior Turkish official said. “It looks more like a media campaign than a real military campaign.”

As Britain becomes more active in the crisis and its reliance on Kurdish fighters increases the military campaign may become more apparent. Calls are already growing for the PKK to be removed from British and US lists of terrorist organisations as their fighters become crucial in the battle for Iraq. With possible legitimacy, training and British supplied weapons Mr Fallon may be creating a long term issue for which he is unprepared to deal with.

UKIP creating two party system

RATHER than establishing itself as a fourth political party recent figures on donations have highlighted how the United Kingdom Independence Party is creating a two party system.

In reports this week UKIP drew £170,000 more in donations than the Liberal Democrats during the April to June financial quarter.

While party representatives have hailed the figure as proof that they are being taken seriously the disparity between UKIP and the two leading parties is more likely to represent and shift away from the three, or four party, system towards and two party one controlled by the Conservatives and Labour.

A UKIP spokesman said it was "a sign that electorally and financially we are now superseding the Liberal Democrats".

Nigel Farage, the UKIP leader who is due to stand as an MP in South Thanet, said: "We have got a long way to go in terms of our fundraising but we are getting there. To overhaul the Lib Dems for the first time is another symptom of a very real change that is taking place in British politics."

The change Mr Farage has spoken of may not be the one which he hopes for though.

Compared to his party's £1.4 million Labour garnered £3.7 million in political donations while the Tories received £7.1 million.

The Liberal Democrats have dismissed the figures as unreliable. Party executives have claimed that £241,000 of the Eurosceptic party's donations should have been declared in the previous quarter, while a further £1million was from one donor. Businessman Paul Sykes made the donation stating that he was keen to support UKIP's bid for seats in May's European elections.

The release of the figures has led to a battle between the Conservatives and Labour, as each uses the donations to undermine their opponents.

Highlighting the amount received from Trade Unions since Ed Milliband became Labour leader  Conservative Party chairman Grant Shapps said: "We all know what payback they want from weak Ed Miliband: more wasteful spending, more taxes, and more debt than our children could ever hope to repay."

The figures will be an embarrassment to Mr Milliband as he continues to attempt to distance himself from claims that the party is in the pocket of the unions.

Meanwhile Labour Shadow cabinet office minister Jonathan Ashworth MP criticised the amount which the Conservatives have received from donors who have attended private dinners with Prime Minister David Cameron and other senior government figures.

"When millions are flowing in from hedge funds and exclusive groups of donors, is it any wonder David Cameron stands up for the privileged few?"

For now however if either UKIP or the Liberal Democrats want to be able to launch an effective campaign next year they have a long way to go. Based on the money it looks as though the Conservatives and Labour will be able to maintain their hold on the British political establishment for some time to come.

Grades drop but university places rise

AS STUDENTS across the country nervously await their exam results universities are struggling to fill the places available. 

Analysts have predicted that the number of top grades achieved will have dropped for the third year running. With even Russell Group universities suffering from an excess of places they may find that they are still able to get into their first choice establishment nonetheless.

Earlier this week Education Secretary Nicky Morgan dismissed concerns over the predicted drop in results.

"What really matters isn’t that numbers rise, but that standards rise. So no matter what the results, there is one important thing to remember.

“Each and every single pupil this year can be confident that the results they worked so hard to achieve represent real achievement – and will give them a better, brighter start in life.”

While the proportion of sixth form leavers entering higher education has increased the diminishing number of 17 and 18 year olds is putting pressure on universities to be more flexible with the entrance grades they will accept.

"Some Russell Group universities may still have places available in some subjects for students who have done better than expected," said the group's director general, Wendy Piatt.

"There may also be places available for highly-qualified students who have narrowly missed out on their first choice."

The view was backed by Nick Foskett, vice-chancellor of Keele University, who told the BBC: "More students are likely to be accepted into their first choice, even if their grades are slightly lower than universities requested."

The continued drop in high level grades is likely to cause concern amongst some in the education establishment. Experts have tried to allay fears by predicting a more stable level of results due to changes in grade inflation imposed by regulatory body Ofqual.

 Prof Alan Smithers, director of the Centre for Education and Employment Research at Buckingham University, was reported as saying:

“Ofqual has already concluded that there had been grade inflation in the past.

"Results were not reflected in improvements in understanding of subjects.

“It has attempted to regulate the outcome by looking at prior attainment of the students and this has – in the last two years – brought down performance at the higher grade levels

“The further application of that approach will mean that we are more likely to see a slight drop than an increase in grades this year, but the more likely outcome will be a set of results that are, in fact, very similar to those seen in 2013.”

Despite more opportunities for university places any drop in results is likely to be latched onto by opposition MP's as education becomes a crucial battlefield in the run up to the 2015 General Election.

Results have dropped in recent years from a previous high in 2010 and 2011 of 27 per cent for high grades.   

The West should be relieved Erdogan won

AS FORMER Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan relinquishes his post in order to become the first directly elected President of Turkey it signals a new era for Britain's NATO ally.

Mr Erdogan's election has not been without controversy but now that he has won the presidency he is preparing to reconcile with those who have opposed him during the campaign.

In his victory announcement to supporters Mr Erdogan promised that the changes he planned would benefit everyone.

 "I will not be the president of only those who voted for me, I will be the president of 77 million.

"Today the national will won once again, today democracy won once again. Those who didn't vote for me won as much as those who did, those who don't like me won as much as those who do."

Offering an olive branch to his two former rivals the President elect continued by saying:

"I want to build a new future, with an understanding of a societal reconciliation, by regarding our differences as richness, and by pointing out not our differences but our common values."

With Turkey already playing a key role in regional conflicts Western politicians have been watching the election closely. Mr Erdogan's victory has not come as a great shock and neither will his proposed constitutional changes to the previously predominantly ceremonial role of President.

Mr Erdogan has made no secret during the election of his plans to imbue the role with more powers. While some critics have voiced concern that this could be an attempt to garner more authoritarian rule in the country other more moderate voices have highlighted the key benefits to the move.

As Prime Minister Mr Erdogan has overseen a period of sustained economic growth in Turkey, while the rest of the world was still struggling to overcome the ramifications of the 2008 economic crisis. He has also manoeuvred Turkey into a position to be a key player on global affairs at a time when strength and experience are needed. 

Already taking a leading role in conflicts in Syria, Iraq, Gaza and Ukraine Turkey has proven itself to be an important ally to the West under Mr Erdogan's leadership. Having been barred from running again for the role of Prime Minister, a position which he has held since 2003, the post of President should give Mr Erdogan the opportunity to further strengthen the ties he has already created and utilise his experience to promote stability in the region.

As Britain, America and other nations start the air offensive against militants from the self proclaimed Islamic Caliphate in Iraq, along with aid drops for the besieged inhabitants, Turkey's assistance will prove invaluable. Likewise as fears grow over an escalation in Ukraine and NATO being drawn into the struggle Turkish support will prove essential. Previously Presidents have not had the necessary power to provide much say in such affairs. If Mr Erdogan's amendments succeed then the West may find that they have a powerful ally in the new Turkish leader at a time when they most certainly need one.

Schools to teach right and wrong

EDUCATION Secretary Nicky Morgan is set to announce further plans to deter extremism in schools by promoting "British values" in nurseries.

In an extension of the proposals laid out by her predecessor Michael Gove Mrs Morgan is planning to give additional powers to councils to stop funding early years providers with links to extremism.

In the measures, due to be outlined later today, Mrs Morgan is believed to be planning on saying that toddlers must learn "fundamental British values".

When the moves where first announced by Mr Gove, in relation to the alleged "Trojan Horse plot" by Islamic extremists to take over schools in Birmingham, they were criticised for trying to regulate what being British really meant.

Mrs Morgan's speech will come only days after the former Arch-Bishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams claimed that the true teaching of Islam was restoring British values in the community.

Speaking at the  annual Living Islam Festival in Lincolnshire last Friday Mr Williams said:

"In Birmingham we have seen a local parish and a mosque combining together to provide family services and youth activities.

"It's really important that we respect and try to understand diversity of conscience and belief and conviction. These are not just about what makes us British – they're about what makes us human."

Dilwar Hussain, chairman of the Islamic charity New Horizons, praised Mr Williams in The Times: "That is a sentiment we would agree with very much.

"We would also be concerned about any of those values being taken to extremes, whether it's communitarianism or individualism."

In an example of the difficulties deciding what British values really are Mr William's statement was condemned by some atheist and humanist groups.

Andrew Copson, chief executive of the British Humanist Association, warned that the speech could undermine social cohesion.

"Narratives that promote the view that religious belonging is necessary for social responsibility may be comforting to those for whom the promotion of religion is a profession, but in the UK they are totally unsupported by evidence."

A devout Christian Mrs Morgan has made it clear that funding would be withheld from establishments that teach creationism as scientific fact.

"One of the most important roles of the education system is that it should prepare young people for life in modern Britain," she is expected to say later.

"I am clear that public money should not be used to support any school or early years provider that does not support this aim because it seeks to promote ideas and teachings than run counter to fundamental British values."

The plans will also include forcing schools to take on roles traditionally associated with parents of teaching young children the difference between right from wrong, learning to take turns and share, and to challenge negative attitudes and stereotypes.

It is also believed that school inspectorate OFSTED will be given additional powers to inspect early years providers on how they are promoting the proposed values.

As Britain becomes an increasingly multi-cultural society Mrs Morgan may find that legislating what are and are not "traditional British values" may not be as clear cut as she had initially hoped.

Boris may be UKIP's undoing

BORIS Johnson's unsurprising announcement yesterday that he was planning to run for Parliament in 2015 will be a heavy blow to UKIP's ambitions.

Mr Johnson's revelation has been expected by political observers and is sure to cause much debate in the corridors of Westminster. It is the impact it will have on the growing threat from the United Kingdom Independence Party which may be the most important factor in his election campaign though.

Speaking to an audience at the Bloomberg headquarters yesterday Mr Johnson said: I can't endlessly go on dodging these questions.

"So let me put it this way. I haven't got any particular seat lined up but I do think in all probability I will try to find somewhere to stand in 2015.

"It may all go wrong but I think the likelihood is I am going to have to give it a crack."

While many in the media have latched onto the idea that this could be the London Mayor's opening gambit in a leadership bid he was quick to dismiss any immediate plans, telling BBC's James Landale: "I think it's highly unlikely that that will happen because there's no vacancy. I think David Cameron has been a brilliant prime minister."

Later clarifying his position on the Radio 4's World at One programme: "When David Cameron finally steps down, in 2030 or whenever, it may be that there's a vacancy, but it will probably be filled by a person who's a teenager now."

It was his eight point plan on Europe, however, which could see Mr Johnson's real achievement as an opportunity for the Conservative Party to draw back some of the voters they had lost to UKIP.

The proposals, laid out in a report  written by his chief economic adviser, Gerard Lyons, clearly state that leaving the European Union could have detrimental effect on Britain's financial institutions, while still opening the door for greater reforms.

"There would be some considerable uncertainty," the report said. "Some may view it as a liberating experience and be positive from the start but the likelihood is that the bulk of the economic, business and financial community would view it as a great unknown. For many aspects of the London economy, the day after any no decision in the referendum would be little different in economic terms from before, especially for those focused on the domestic economy. The financial market impact, however, could be very different."

An eight point agenda specifies the areas which Mr Johnson would look for reforms in, something which UKIP may find brings more moderate eurosceptics back to the Tories.

The key points are:

Scrap social and environmental legislation

Scrap the Common Agriculture Policy

Put justice and home affairs back as an intergovernmental competence

Strike out the provision for ever closer union

A yellow card system for national parliaments

Managed migration so that Britain has greater control over immigration

Completion of the single market in services.

It is Mr Johnson's popularity among the electorate which could provide the fatal blow though. UKIP leader Nigel Farage has relied on his bluff and bluster as a common man to win over voters. In the face of Mr Johnson's carefully staged bumbling buffoonery he may find that he has a losing hand.

A recent ComRes poll placed Mr Johnson on 41 per cent of voter popularity, the most popular British politician, compared to Mr Farage's 26 per cent.

"There is a kind of peasants’ revolt going on, a jacquerie. From Dublin to Lublin, from Portugal to Pomerania, the pitchfork-wielding populists are converging on the Breydel building in Brussels – drunk on local hooch and chanting nationalist slogans and preparing to give the federalist machinery a good old kicking with their authentically folkloric clogs," the Mayor of London wrote in his Telegraph column while describing the rise of UKIP, and other anti-Europe parties. If elected he may now find that he is the Conservatives key weapon in winning back those very same peasants he was once so quick to dismiss. 

A sterling performance Darling

THE battle for Scottish Independence entered a new phase as the leaders of the two sides went head to head last night in a televised debate.

Despite initial problems for viewers outside Scotland watching the debate online they were still able to witness Alistair Darling land some heavy body blows to the Yes Campaign.

Ahead of the debate analysts had predicted that Yes campaign leader and Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond would be the clear victor of the exchange. By the closing bell, however, and despite no knockout punches by either side, a snap ICM poll gave the win to Mr Darling.

Of 512 people surveyed 51 per cent believed that the Better Together leader had made the most persuasive arguments of the night.

With most of the debate focusing on the economic ramifications of an independent Scotland it was Mr Darling's persistent questioning as to what Mr Salmond's "plan b" would be in the event a currency union did not materialise which set the tone for the evening.

Refusing to be drawn on his options Mr Salmond started to appear more evasive and confused over the situation as Mr Darling continued to land hits.

In a dubious attempt to rally the SNP leader struck back at claims the No Campaign had said drivers in an independent Scotland would be forced to drive on the right. Mr Darling looked shocked that a joke made by MP Andy Burnham was being used as a serious argument.

Tweeting during the debate Mr Burnham weighed in by saying: "Can't believe a weak joke I once made about Scotland driving on right has actually been quoted by Salmond. He's lost the plot."

If Mr Darling thought that he had seen the end of the nonsensical arguments he was in for a further shock as he was challenged on claims that the No Campaign had said that Scotland would be unable to defend itself from an extraterrestrial attack.

Undaunted by the strange line he was facing the former chancellor pressed on with his questioning over what would happen to the currency saying: "Any eight-year-old can tell you the flag of a country, the capital of a country and its currency.

"I presume the flag is the saltire, I assume our capital will still be Edinburgh, but you can't tell us what currency we will have. What is an eight-year-old going to make of that?"

While the audience noticeably turned against Mr Salmond, with one Yes supporter saying he was disappointed that the First Minister was failing to address real issues, moderator Bernard Ponsonby became increasing aggressive in his questioning of Mr Darling as a balance.

Many of those watching the debate have been left with more questions than answers in the run up to September 18th following the face off. The key focus on the economy left little time to cover the wide range of additional issues which loom on the horizon. 

Whether or not there was an all out winner one thing was clear, Yes Campaign's hubris in claiming that Mr Salmond would route Mr Darling was unfounded. As Labour MP for Paisley & Renfrewshire South and Shadow Foreign Secretary Douglas Alexander tweeted: "Alex Salmond thought this debate would be his Bannockburn...it's turning out to be his Waterloo."

Debate night for Scotland

TONIGHT Scotland will get its first chance to see the leaders of the two campaigns, for and against independence, go head to head.

The televised debate between pro-independence leader Alex Salmond and the Better Together Campaign head Alistair Darling has been pitched as a key moment in the build up to September's referendum vote.

Political debates have long been an important part of politics. In America they are viewed as crucial for the success of Presidential campaigns. In Britain, however, they are still watched with a degree of scepticism by the voting public.

The televised debates between David Cameron, Gordon Brown and Nick Clegg prior to the 2010 General election were hailed by some observers as the reason for the astonishing gains made by the Liberal Democrats.

Despite Mr Clegg's presence and personality in the debates, however, he has failed to meet expectations, leading to the party's relegation to fourth place in opinion polls.

Both Mr Salmond and Mr Darling will be hoping that their performances tonight have a longer lasting impact.

The campaign has heated up in recent weeks as both sides have accused the other of misleading the electorate over the repercussions of Scotland leaving the Union. Tonight they will be able to confront each other face to face. Many will be hoping that they are able to make sense of an increasingly confused economic agenda amongst other things.

Blair Jenkins, chief executive of the Yes Scotland Campaign, has been reported as saying: "Viewers will get the chance to hear why decisions made on Scotland's future should be taken here in Scotland.

"Our experience is that most undecided voters choose Yes when they hear both sides of the debate, and therefore we believe the mass TV audience will benefit our positive campaign.

'We also believe that the No campaign have a problem with both the negativity of their message, and the unpopularity of their messengers."

Meanwhile Better Together campaign director Blair McDougall has lowered expectations of the debate, claiming that the real discussions will take place off air.

"The referendum debate isn't confined to TV studios. It is taking place in conversations between friends and family across Scotland.

"The biggest debate is taking place on the doorsteps, around kitchen tables and in workplaces across the country.

"And the more people talk about what leaving the UK would mean for our schools and hospitals, the more they are saying no thanks to separation."

The danger of the debates, as proven by the 2010 election, is that the policies are lost amid the personalities of the participants. Mr Salmond potentially holds the winning hand in this case. His bombastic and larger than life approach may appeal more to swing voters than Mr Darling's more academic reasoned arguments. Whatever the pro's and con's debated it could all come down to how well they are put across, rather than the actual merits of, the facts and opinions which persuade voters. With recent polls putting the difference between two camps in single digits the only thing certain for tonight is that both campaigns still have everything to play for.

The games are over but Scotland's race goes on

As the cheers subsided and the music went quiet the 2014 Commonwealth Games were brought to a close.

While it may be the final for the athletes it seems like it may have been just the reinvigorating starting pistol the pro-independence movement was looking for ahead of September's referendum. After the incredible displays of athleticism, the pomp and ceremony and the demonstration that amid much concern otherwise they could pull it off Scottish Nationalism is riding high. 

This has been the problem with the Scottish National Party's campaign from the start though. It has been about flash in the pan soundbites, putting on a good show for the spectators, without really thinking too much about what will happen in the long term.

Now the games are over the future of the new arenas and stadiums is far from certain. Plans have been made and promises given but experience has taught us that until the deal is done there is still much which can go wrong.

The same applies for Alex Salmond's campaign. Hitting out at the Better Together Campaign as being too negative makes for a brilliant spectacle, and may just be right. Without being able to give a positive long term argument to counter it though Mr Salmond is left floundering.

A key debate has been about whether staying in, or leaving, the Union will make the Scots better off. It is a complex debate which relies on numerous economic factors. What proportion of the United Kingdom debt will Scotland be responsible for? Will it be based on per capita income, proportion of funds allocated from Westminster or one of a number of other ways which are being debated? 

Neither side can categorically say and this means that no-one will truly know until long after the votes have been counted which side will come out on top.

Another bone of contention has been the pound. On one side there is Mr Salmond claiming that no matter what politicians in Westminster say Scotland will remain in the sterling union. On the other hand there are Prime Minister and leader of the Conservatives David Cameron, Deputy Prime Minister and leader of the Liberal Democrats Nick Clegg, Labour leader Ed Milliband, Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osbourne, Shadow Chancellor Ed Balls and a multitude of Bank of England and City economists saying it will never happen. 

If Mr Salmond is to succeed in his quest he is going to have to do more than rely on vague promises and forcing to people to watch Braveheart and listen to Flower of Scotland until their ears pop.

As has been evidenced in Cyprus and Crimea amongst others the right to self determination is both a strong motivator and a complex issue. It takes serious debate and a clear recognition of all the arguments. That hasn't really started to happen in Scotland and time is running out for it to do so. 

The Commonwealth games have shown that the country can pull of something spectacular when required. What is yet to be seen is if it can handle the more time consuming and necessary day to day mundanity of being an independent state.

Hypocrisy can't stop condemnation of Israeli offensive

Israeli supporters and officials have condemned numerous statements against the slaughter in Gaza as hypocrisy on the part of British politicians.

Drawing comparisons to Britain and America's invasion of Iraq in 2003 several senior Israeli politicians have called on current and former MP's to retract their comments opposing the blood shed.

Earlier this week former deputy Prime Minister John Prescott brought Israeli anger after accusing the country of war crimes in its ongoing bombardment of the beleaguered region.

Writing in the Mirror Mr Prescott said: "Imagine a country claiming the lives of nearly three times as many as were lost in the MH17 plane tragedy in less than three weeks.

A nation which blasted a hospital, shelled and killed children from a gunboat as they played football on the beach and was responsible for 1,000 deaths, at least 165 of them children, in just two weeks.

Surely it would be branded a pariah state, condemned by the United Nations, the US and the UK. The calls for regime change would be deafening."

Mr Prescott continues by acknowledging the part which the Palestinian authority Hamas has played in the conflict with its rocket attacks on Israeli territory before saying: 

"But who is to say some of the other 20 per cent weren’t innocent too? Israel brands them terrorists but it is acting as judge, jury and executioner in the concentration camp that is Gaza."

Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg has been among those to call on Israel to stop its attacks, which have hit UN buildings where people were sheltering, amid a growing humanitarian crisis in Gaza.

 "It is amounting now to a disproportionate form of collective punishment. It is leading to a humanitarian crisis in Gaza, which is just unacceptable," he said.

"I really would now call on the Israeli government to stop. They have proved their point. Israel of course retains the right to react. But you cannot see the humanitarian suffering in Gaza now and the very great number of deaths in Gaza without concluding that there is not much more going to be served in Israel's own interests … to see this festering humanitarian crisis get worse. It incubates the next generation of violent extremists who want to do harm to Israel."

Despite the majority of casualties in the conflict being innocent civilians the Israeli government has refused to back down, claiming that Operation Protective Edge is a responsible and proportionate defence of is people, going as far as to say that they "have a policy - we don't target civilians".

The figures tell a different story though. More than 1360 Palestinians, mostly civilian, have been killed since the attacks started on the 8th of July compared to 58 Israeli's, two of whom were civilian. Earlier this week Israeli fire hit a United Nations school, not the first UN building to be attacked, something which Israeli government spokesman Mark Regev said they would investigate and possibly "apologise" if they felt it was needed.

On Wednesday the IDF also breached a further ceasefire, claiming that truces only were in place where Israeli forces were not operating, by targeting a market where women and children were trying to gather supplies while they believed they may be safe.

Israel's argument that Britain is being hypocritical in its coverage of the abuse seems to warrant further attention, however. For the claim to be proven then it must by rights acknowledge that it has no legal justification for the level of armed intervention which it is currently engaged in, as many experts have stated was the case with former Prime Minister Tony Blair's engagement in Iraq. Even if this were the case though hypocrisy is no reason not to condemn an act of slaughter. In 1290 the English King Edward I instigated the expulsion of all Jews, leading to the "great Jewish expulsions" of the Middle Ages. Hypocrisy would not allow us, or many other countries, to have done all they could to intervene in a holocaust happening again. Hypocrisy cannot stop us from taking the right action now and calling for the senseless killings of innocent Palestinians to end and end now.