When thousands of Scots travel to the United States for the World Cup, many will come back with more than memories of football. They will also return with fresh eyes. And that may matter more than we think.

I have spent much of my career working with American firms. At the height of the internet boom in the late 1990s, I consulted at Sun Microsystems, which had built a sophisticated manufacturing site in Linlithgow. Sun arrived in Scotland on the back of this country’s reputation for producing silicon chips, and it exposed many Scottish managers to the demands of global logistics and world-class industrial ambition.

Sun was one of the companies that powered the early internet era. It was successful, confident and generous too: it helped equip Napier University with an advanced computing lab, where I did my postgraduate work. That period opened doors for me professionally and shaped my view of what serious economic dynamism looks like.

I saw something similar years later when I worked with J.P. Morgan during the 2008 banking crisis, helping the bank integrate Bear Stearns in the aftermath of its collapse. Since then, my company has continued to support Fortune 500 firms with software Made in Scotland. I still speak regularly with Americans, meet them at conferences, and spend time with them on holiday. Recently, one conclusion has become harder to avoid: Scotland has fallen behind the United States in living standards.

Many Scots visit America and assume everything is simply more expensive. In part, that is true. But the deeper truth is less comfortable: we are becoming relatively poorer. World Cup fans will notice it for themselves. They will compare homes, cars, phones, wages, energy costs and public space with what they see in America. In many cases, Scotland will not compare well.

That matters because travel changes expectations. People who see how others live begin to ask why standards at home feel lower than they should be. A joiner, builder or electrician from Scotland may look at the life enjoyed by his American equivalent and wonder why a wealthy country like ours cannot offer more to working people.

That is why this World Cup could have political consequences. Exposure broadens horizons. It forces comparison. And comparison breeds impatience with managed decline.

What worries me is that too much of Scottish politics now seems focused on coping with stagnation rather than reversing it. The recent SNP talk of intervening in the price of supermarket staples is a good example. Price controls are what governments reach for when they want to treat the symptoms of economic failure rather than its causes. They may sound compassionate, but they are usually a sign that policymakers have run out of ideas for growth.

The better answer is not to micromanage prices but to make Scotland richer: cut the cost of government, back enterprise, raise productivity, and put more money into the pockets of working people. Scots do not need managed scarcity. We need a government prepared to pursue higher living standards.

The World Cup will give many Scottish fans a glimpse of a different scale of prosperity. The real question is what they do with that knowledge when they come home. I hope the Tartan Army starts a political riot.

If Trump’s blockade of Hormuz was intended as a new weapon against Iran, then it is another miscalculation to place alongside the original belief of a three-day blitz and victory. This error has even more possible dangerous consequences.

As I write there are Chinese owned and flagged ships heading for Iran and others already in the Persian Gulf loading oil. If China, as a sovereign power, has an agreement to pay Iran, another sovereign power, $2m for each oil ship to exit the strait, that is their business. China is not at war with any state in the Gulf, nor with the United States. So, what legal basis can Trump cite that will allow the US navy to stop, search and detain Chinese flagged ships entering or leaving through Hormuz? He cannot claim that the US action is an inescapable result of war, because while the US may be attacking Iran there has been no declaration of war by Congress, which is the only US organ of government that can so declare.

This is not a matter of semantics. This blockade can now become a matter of Chinese standing in the world. China has every right to send its ships to Iran and, once loaded, have them exit Hormuz to the open sea without interference by another state.

Does Trump believe that the CCP, one of whose main claims to legitimacy is that China now stands tall in the world, will allow Trump to humble it by his navy boarding its ships at will? The CCP of Xi Jinping could never allow that to happen. China, as the tariff squabble showed, is the one state Trump cannot bully into submission.

China to date has been playing a background diplomatic role, seeking a resolution to the present conflict. That has been of advantage to both sides, and wisdom would have kept it there in reserve. But with one new ill-thought- out policy of blockade, Trump is in danger of forcing China into a belligerent role, directed against the Unites States, to ensure the safety of its own vessels and the uninterrupted supply of oil it has paid for.

What happens after the US navy boards and detains the first Chinese oil tanker, and China thereafter sends its warships as escorts for all of its other vessels that will leave Hormuz? What will Trump do then? Escalate with China? We shall have to hope that he really is TACO.

I thought I’d ask ChatGPT what it thought of the Scottish Government’s recently published AI strategy. What follows is the unvarnished response from the AI engine on the paper:

Scotland’s new AI Strategy for 2026–2031 arrives wrapped in the right language for the times: trust, ethics, inclusion, and public good. In an era where artificial intelligence is as feared as it is celebrated, this emphasis is not only welcome — it is politically and socially necessary.

But good intentions are not the same as strategic clarity. And while Scotland’s plan is thoughtful and principled, it risks being remembered less for what it achieves and more for what it hesitates to define.

A strategy grounded in values

There is much to admire. Unlike the AI arms race mentality seen in the United States or China, Scotland has deliberately positioned itself as a champion of “trustworthy AI.” That matters. Public trust is becoming the decisive factor in whether AI succeeds or fails in democratic societies.

The strategy also avoids a common trap: treating AI as a niche tech sector rather than a foundational force. By embedding AI across healthcare, education, and public services, it recognises what many governments still struggle to grasp — that AI is not an industry, but infrastructure.

This broader vision is a genuine strength.

The problem of trying to be everything

Yet therein lies the difficulty. Scotland’s AI Strategy tries to do almost everything at once: grow the economy, transform public services, lead ethically, upskill the workforce, and influence global norms.

What it does not do clearly enough is choose.

In a world where scale matters — and where the United States, China, and the European Union are investing at levels Scotland simply cannot match — success depends on focus. Where, exactly, does Scotland intend to lead? Health data? Fintech? Energy systems? Public-sector AI?

The strategy gestures in many directions but commits decisively to none.

Without that clarity, ambition risks dilution.

Coordination is not investment

Another weakness lies in the familiar language of modern policymaking: collaboration, coordination, alignment. These are necessary, but they are not sufficient.

What is less visible is the hard edge of strategy — the scale of funding, the long-term capital commitments, and the incentives required to drive private sector innovation. Coordination cannot substitute for investment, and ecosystems do not grow on governance structures alone.

If Scotland is serious about competing in AI, it must be equally serious about backing that ambition financially.

From pilot to reality

There is also a quieter, more practical concern: delivery.

Governments are good at launching pilots. They are far less good at scaling them. The history of digital transformation in the public sector is littered with promising initiatives that never move beyond trial phases.

The strategy acknowledges the need for adoption but underestimates the barriers — legacy systems, procurement rules, institutional inertia. Without confronting these head-on, the risk is that AI becomes another layer of experimentation rather than transformation.

The ethics–growth tension

At the heart of the strategy lies an unresolved tension.

Scotland wants to be both a global leader in ethical AI and a competitive AI economy. These goals are not incompatible, but they are not frictionless either. Ethical safeguards can slow deployment; rapid innovation can test ethical boundaries.

The strategy leans heavily toward the former, but says little about how it will manage the trade-offs when they inevitably arise.

That silence matters.

A question of statecraft

Ultimately, this is a question not of technology, but of statecraft.

The most successful AI nations are not simply those with the best engineers, but those with the clearest sense of their own strengths, limits, and strategic interests. They know where to lead, where to partner, and where to concede ground.

Scotland’s strategy shows awareness of its values. It is less certain about its power.

A solid foundation — but not yet a defining plan

None of this is to dismiss the strategy. It is serious, coherent, and far more grounded than many national AI plans. It will likely build trust, improve coordination, and support gradual progress.

But if Scotland’s ambition is to be more than a careful participant — if it seeks to shape the global AI landscape rather than simply adapt to it — then it will need to be sharper, bolder, and more willing to choose.

Because in the age of artificial intelligence, standing for everything may ultimately mean leading in nothing.

When it comes to the Persian Gulf region history shows there are no states or regimes which have clean hands. There are no shining examples of respect for the individual human being or populations, superb government, or respect for and adherence to international law. That stricture applies to the UK, Russia and the USA as much as it does to the Gulf governments.

So, when it comes to the present crisis in the Gulf, we should set aside the idea of a clash between goodies and baddies. Looked at objectively, no matter what one may think about the theocracy that is Iran today, there were, and remain, sound geopolitical and economic reasons for opposing the Israel-US war on it. Those reasons are being played out on the world’s economy, and will have long term consequences for the USA’s relations with its allies.

The Trump contribution to China

Whatever may happen in the weeks ahead, one winner of the Gulf war is already known- China. Consider: for the past year the United States, through the actions of its president, has attacked the economies of all countries by weaponizing tariffs, made no difference in his targets between long-standing allies, neutral developing states, and potential adversaries. In a telephone call to Canada’s prime minister, who later released it on US television, Trump threatened to “ruin” its economy.

Alongside this state conduct, he has poured personal insults on the heads of Zelensky, Macron and Starmer, combined with revelations of his ignorance of history causing him to denigrate the dead of Nato allies who fought alongside Americans in Afghanistan. The bonds of trust and respect between the USA and European states, built up over the past 80 years have been stretched to breaking point.

The Trump administration has deliberately shattered the ordered system that has kept the world in a reasonable equilibrium: a world in which there was a reliable, predictable set of broad rules and conduct upon which countries, big and small, could rely upon in state- to- state relations.

His language, crude, often puerile, is more expected from a bully in a playground than from someone occupying the same office of predecessors who, whatever one thought of their general policies, were class acts. FDR, Reagan, Obama come to mind. Class and Donald Trump? The man demeans the office.

Now, with his war of choice against Iran declared won, but with a bunged- up sea exit from the Gulf in place, he wants the world to come to his rescue.

China, by comparison with the USA, a comparison it is making day in day out, is promoting the importance of the United Nations Charter, adherence to international law, the benefits of the trade rules embodied in the WTO, its conduct as a reliable trade partner, and its belief in dialogue not war. China is presenting itself as the stable major pillar of the world economy, not the major disruptor. China has “friendly” states with which it has special relations, but no military treaties with any other state which can drag into war.

China is far from being a paragon of virtue. It has used the power to close its market to punish those who cross its political path, as Lithuania and Australia (to mention but two) discovered, and its position as the supplier of rare earths is a lever it has pulled without hesitation. But in the context of a world crisis caused by United States action, it is now seen by many, especially in the global south, as a much more reliable superpower than its US counterpart. China’s mastery of the art of doing nothing, is paying handsome political dividends.

STATECRAFT

How did it come to this mess: a democratic country now intensely disliked in regions of the world, including those with which it has made alliances over the years, while an authoritarian one sees western leaders beat a path to its door, and much of the global south sees it as a far more sensible and stable partner?

It is all about statecraft. Something well understood in China as its dynasties have come and gone throughout the centuries. The present CCP dynasty has a legacy of statecraft not only from China’s history but from the years of its own pre and post-1949 struggles to survive and be recognised. The 1972 rapprochement with Nixon’s America was an outstanding example of the art, on both sides. That happened despite China being weak in the chaos of the cultural revolution, and America with a president who was the outstanding anti-Communist. Mao and Nixon had different but similar reasons for meeting. Neither agreed with the other on their respective political systems, but their state interests coincided. Mao wanted to demonstrate China’s non-reliance upon and independence from the Soviet Union, and Nixon wanted to place a wedge between the two major communist powers. Statecraft brought Mao and Nixon to shake hands.

Statecraft involves the assessment of one’s own power, how far it extends into other states and regions, the allies created and worth keeping onboard, its limitations as well as its potential, and that of possible adversaries and any allies they may have. It also requires a cold-blooded calculation of one’s true state interest, and action if any such is contemplated based on knowledge of the world’s people, their histories and their many complexities.

The United States does have a history of presidents exercising statecraft. FDR comes to mind, but the one engaged in our recent time, who expelled Saddam Hussein’s Iraq from Kuwait, is a classic example. Although he had a UN Security Council Chapter VII resolution in his pocket, George H.W. Bush knew that Saddam would exploit a sole American attack upon a Muslim country, making it impossible for Saudi Arabia to make itself available as the US military base for 500,000 troops, and aircraft, from which to launch an attack on Iraqi forces.

Bush needed to bring in others, Europeans not so much for the military power they would bring but the UN identity they would give him; and Arab states for the legitimacy they would bring in the eyes of the Arab street. America could win without the former, but he could not even start without the latter.

The Bush statecraft was impressive. His coalition worked, and he made sure it did not fracture when, with Saddam’s army expelled from Kuwait and the UN mandate secured, he did not go beyond it by invading Iraq itself and totally wiping out its military.

Thereafter, however, his statecraft disappeared. He encouraged the Iraqi Shia to rise up against Saddam who, allowed to keep much of his army and attack helicopters, proceeded to slaughter them. An additional statecraft failure was what Bush thought was a bonus – keeping a number of large US military bases in Saudia Arabia. This took no account of the real feelings of the Saudi people about infidels seemingly rooted in what they regarded as Muslim holy land, and it was from there that Al Qaeda emerged.

Trump and Statecraft? Even “Oxymoron” doesn’t fit the description

Statecraft must be learnt by reading books on history, military history, diplomacy, biographies, memoirs, academic investigation in the affairs of nations, engaging in discussion; all a necessary forerunner to being able to absorb and evaluate information before making a decision.

Learning it seems is an unknown world for Trump. Daniel Finkelstein in The Times writes: “I remember how startled I was when first told by an advisor to Donald Trump that the president didn’t read anything. If you want to brief him the best way was to go on daytime television and hope he was watching. And this subsequently became a widely known and practised technique.” The appointment of Hegseth, a macho television performer, to the war department seems to bear that out.

One thing is for sure, he has never read a word on the history of Islam, the persecution of the Shia within it, the place of Iran in the Shia world, and the importance of the martyrdom of the Imam Hussein in 680 CE in the mental make-up of the 200m Shia and their view of the outside world even today. When Trump described the clerics in Iran as “deranged scumbags” that was far from how they are seen in Shia eyes, where they are respected as scholars gifted with divine knowledge. Trump’s contempt will not be forgotten.

Western logic doe not apply to the Shia. Consider Hezbollah and its deliberate intervention in support of Iran. The disparity in power between it and Israel is enormous, and the absolute certainty of Israel responding as it has done would be known. Yet, the rockets went into northern Israel. Standing by its Shia brethren came before any other consideration. The same applies in Iraq where the Shia there see Iran very differently from America; and we are still waiting on the Houthis of Yemen to kick into this conflict.

The superpower and its client state: a unique relationship in world history

Trump has now mentioned the war on Iran more than 90 times on his Truth Social. He has given impromptu press conferences sitting his golden chair in the White House, yet there remains doubt about why he entered into it.

The only coherent statement we have is from Marco Rubio, Secretary of State but also the National Security Adviser to whom all intelligence flows through to the president. If Rubio is to be believed, Trump went to war because Israel made a unilateral decision to strike and the US had to follow, because it was bound to be attacked as Israel’s ally. Think of that: the superpower led into war by its client.

If Oman is to be believed, and there has been no rebuttal to Oman from the USA, negotiations between the USA and Iran were making progress and due to resume on Tuesday 3^rd. March. Could it be that the supreme leader and most of the Iranian leadership were all together, discussing the expected further negotiations, unsuspecting sitting ducks, when Israel struck on Saturday 28^th February? It is not outlandish to see the last thing Israel wanted was a successful negotiation that left the Iranian regime in situ; and that it attacked on the Saturday to destroy any chance of that happening on the Tuesday. It has, after all, been Netanyahu’s ambition for 40 years to kill the regime and knock Iran out of the power equation in the Middle East.

This is primarily Israel’s war of choice not Iran’s. A number of academics and former diplomats who speak Hebrew are telling us, although not reported in western mainstream media, that the Israeli ministers are intent on creating a Greater Israel, an ambition to be the undisputed hegemon of the Middle East, something that cannot be accomplished while Iran still has the potential of being a significant player in the region.

The potential consequence of Unconditional Surrender: world economic catastrophe

When Trump declared one of his war aims was unconditional surrender by the Iranian regime, I doubt if he understood the import of that to those to whom it was directed. It means there can be no negotiated settlement, just abject submission, and that the victor can do anything it wants to the vanquished.

Given their history that is a proposition no Shia regime can ever accept. Fighting to the last then going into martyrdom is their only possible reaction to such a threat. And this is where the world should tremble.

Right now world leaders are concerned with getting the Strait of Hormuz open to all shipping, and it looks as though, at the time of writing, Trump is contemplating Marine boots on the ground for that purpose. The view all round seems to be that if that is done, then we can all relax, the price of oil will drop back below $70, and Israel and the US can continue to knock seven bells out of Iran until the regime can fight no more.

But closing the Strait is far from the worst Iran can do to world oil, gas and fertiliser supply. If the Strait is forced open, and there is no halt to Israeli and US action, Iran is capable of destroying completely the energy industries of every Arab Gulf country, and with such action gifting the world an economic catastrophe. If world leaders have not thought of that possibility, they should.

In the past week western leaders have telephoned Iran’s president with lectures on his country’s unacceptable actions. They would be better turning on those who started the war and did what, so far, they have avoided – make a public demand for Trump and Netanyahu to end the war.

No one knows what will transpire in Iran and the Arab region in the next few days, weeks, months or even years, and that “no one” includes Donald J Trump.

Of course the USA, as the instrument of Israeli policy, can continue to blast and degrade the Iranian regime’s nuclear and long- range missile systems, and probably can again decapitate a new supreme leader and those who take over control of the IRG and the army. But what is the follow-on plan?

Trump tells the regime’s internal critics to rise up and take over. But those critics are not a well organised opposition. They have no structures. They have had no training. They are not armed. They have no leaders with well-prepared plans for a popular coup. Moreover there is still in that nation of 90 million a good number still adhering to the theocratic beliefs of the late Ayatollah Khamenei who hate America the Great Satan (and used to hate the Little Satan of the UK) who are armed, and showed a short time ago that they will use them against their fellow citizens.

America can destroy the big weapons Iran aims at other countries, but it cannot disarm the IRG of its smaller but lethal weaponry it can use internally. It could only disarm them by placing boots on the ground, which it won’t do.

The lesson from history, going way back in time, is clear: don’t go to war if you do not have a clear war aim, and have the means to achieve it. There is another lesson: war creates its own dynamic, and the new situations that develop from it often undoes what appears to be a victory.

The USA-Iran conflict is asymmetric warfare. There is no comparison of power. But Iran and its regime have something a military superpower opponent cannot crush – the Shia belief and its unique role in it. Iran is the Shia state that stands central for millions of Shia Muslims all over the world. The murder of Khamenei, which is how they will view his killing, fits perfectly into the Shia view of themselves as the true believers persecuted since the 7^th century CE. They revere The Five Martyrs, Shia scholars executed for their Shia beliefs over the years 1385-1980, and will see the late Ayatollah as in that tradition.

As well as revering their martyrs, the Shia, as has been proved recently in Iraq, will strike back against those they perceive as their persecutors. Today there will be many in all parts of the world who will want their latest great martyr avenged. All over the world they have many targets neither America or Israel can protect. That is one of the factors in this particular example of asymmetric warfare that I doubt Donald J Trump understands. I hope I am wrong, but I fear there are innocent people living today who will in the months, and perhaps years ahead, pay the ultimate price for the death of Khamenei.

The present Iranian regime is theocratic in the most fundamental sense. No one immersed in Western culture can do other than rear back in horror (and sometimes disbelief) at its inhumane practices.But “sorting it out” to US satisfaction is not another challenge like small Venezuela, or small Cuba. It is another Iraq. Another Afghanistan. I fear that Trump is doing what the Turkish spokesman claimed: thatonce again the USA has gone into the Middle East with all of its power, and once again it will create and leave a mess.

I can literally feel shifts in the energy market.
No, I don’t have a mystic crystal hanging round my neck - I live next to the East Coast Railway line.

Most of the time I barely hear the electric trains passing.
It’s a different story when the price of electricity rises above diesel. That incentivises operators to switch to fossil fuel instead.
These replacement dinosaur locomotives roar past like a Tyrannosaurus Rex with toothache. I can smell the exhaust fumes as they go by.

So what does this have to do with AI data centres?

In Part 1, I explained why I support building AI data centres in Scotland.
In a recent post, I also set out why Scotland’s guaranteed energy capacity is inadequate for our needs.

Put the two together and the natural conclusion is to equip AI data centres with diesel back-up power. That way, if renewable output dips, there’s no need to raid the national grid for scarce electricity.

All large data centres operate under service level agreements (SLAs), typically “four nines” - meaning 99.99% uptime. That’s critical for business applications, as customers are refunded for unacceptable downtime.

The problem is that the weather doesn’t operate under an SLA with the National Grid. Any AI data centre in Scotland relying on renewable energy risks a service default when the wind isn’t blowing. That’s why most of the world’s AI data centres draw power from gas-backed grids.

Scotland is awash with relatively clean-burning natural gas. Yet we have just one gas-fired power station in Peterhead, and no more are planned. As a nation, we are top-heavy with renewable generation but light on firm capacity.

The answer is diesel back-up - just as the NHS uses in many hospitals. The hidden problem is the same as with the trains: when electricity prices rise, the temptation to run entirely on diesel grows.

UK industrial energy prices are currently twice those in France and four times those in the USA. At those levels, running Scotland’s new data centres on diesel may look commercially attractive. No wonder Aggreko - the Scottish kings of diesel generation hire - are returning to the stock exchange.

The real risk is that, alongside 17 proposed data centres, we quietly build 17 diesel-fired power stations.

Let’s hope the Artificial Intelligence engines bring a better class of thinking to energy policy than we’ve seen from this Scottish Government.

There was a time when energy security was simple.

Fuel arrived physically. Coal was stacked in the cellar. If you had fuel, you had heat. Capacity meant what was available when you struck a match.

Today, the word capacity means something very different in Scotland’s energy debate and that shift in meaning is at the heart of a growing policy problem.

When ministers boast that Scotland has nearly 20 gigawatts of generating capacity - rising potentially to 40 gigawatts by 2045 - it sounds like abundance. Given that Scotland’s peak electricity demand today is only around 4 gigawatts (and perhaps 9 gigawatts by mid-century), the numbers suggest a nation awash with power.

But installed capacity is not the same thing as reliable supply.

Capacity vs Reality

Installed renewable capacity represents the maximum output under favourable conditions. It tells us what wind farms could produce in strong winds, not what they will produce on a still winter evening.

On many days, only 35–40% of theoretical wind capacity is realised. During prolonged low-wind periods - the so-called Dunkelflaute events seen across northern Europe - output can fall dramatically for several consecutive days.

Electricity systems must be designed around worst-case conditions, not average days.

That brings us to the uncomfortable question: how much of Scotland’s generating capacity is actually firm - capable of delivering power reliably, regardless of the weather?

Today, firm thermal generation consists largely of Torness nuclear station (around 1.3 GW) and the Peterhead gas plant (around 1.2 GW). Short-duration storage and pumped hydro add flexibility, but they cannot sustain output for multiple days at national scale.

In practical terms, Scotland has roughly 2.5 gigawatts of firm generation against peak demand of 4 gigawatts. The gap is managed through imports from the rest of Great Britain and through interconnectors that move power south when Scotland has surplus and north when it does not.

This is not energy independence. It is system balancing and dependency on our neighbours.

The Storage Gap

Much hope has been placed in battery storage. Scotland now has around a gigawatt of grid-scale battery power capacity installed, with more planned. But batteries typically discharge for one to two hours at full output. They smooth volatility; they do not provide long-duration backup.

To illustrate the scale of the challenge: a three-day winter low-wind event at 4 gigawatts of demand would require roughly 288 gigawatt-hours of stored energy. Scotland’s current battery storage holds only a tiny fraction of that.

Hydrogen has been promoted as the long-term solution — using excess wind power to produce hydrogen via electrolysis, storing it, then converting it back into electricity when needed. But round-trip efficiency is typically only 30–40%. Most of the original electricity is lost in conversion. Hydrogen may have industrial uses, but as bulk electricity storage it remains expensive and inefficient. Consequently, none of the fabled 300,000 hydrogen jobs, promised by Scottish Minsters in 2023, are on the horizon.

Renewables do not eliminate the need for firm generation but the Scottish Government is energy blind to this fact.

Exporting Power — and Curtailment

Scotland is frequently described as producing “more electricity than it needs”. Annually, that is true. But electricity must be delivered when and where it is required.

Interconnectors currently allow several gigawatts of transfer capacity to England and Northern Ireland, with major expansions planned by 2030 and beyond. Without them, much more wind generation would have to be curtailed — paid to switch off because the grid cannot absorb the surplus.

Constraint payments have already become a material cost in the British electricity system. Consumers ultimately bear those costs.

Meanwhile, hundreds of thousands of Scottish households face fuel poverty. The paradox of paying generators to reduce output while families struggle with energy bills ought to be politically unsustainable.

The Question That Matters

The central issue is not whether Scotland has abundant renewable resources. It clearly does.

The question is whether Scotland’s energy strategy adequately distinguishes between:

• Installed capacity

• Average generation

• Firm, weather-independent supply

A system can have vast theoretical capacity and still face reliability risks during adverse conditions. Headline gigawatt numbers are not the same as security.

As nuclear stations age and gas faces political and regulatory pressure, the amount of firm generation on the system is likely to shrink unless deliberate policy choices are made to replace it.

Energy security requires clarity about trade-offs. It requires honest accounting of storage limitations. It requires planning for worst-case conditions, not just average ones.

Scotland’s energy future should be built on engineering realities rather than comforting arithmetic.

Capacity matters - but reliability matters more.

Compare the pragmatic leadership of Norway’s Labour Party on oil and gas with the climate zealotry of its UK counterpart: one invests in a sustainable future for offshore workers, while Starmer’s Labour abandons the industry and outsources jobs and supply chains to China.

Overview

Yes United is delighted to announce our 3rd National meeting, where we learn from the past and chart a winning course towards independence.

You are warmly invited to join our Highland gathering to consider Scotland’s potential as an independent nation and the practical and pragmatic steps that we must take to get there.

As we gear up for Scotland’s next chapter, Yes United will be looking forward to the opportunities and strategies which will drive us towards full Scottish statehood. Speakers include JEAN URQUHART, ANDY WIGHTMAN and JIM SILLARS.

Plus a review of Yes United’s achievements to date, how we will create a people’s manifesto for Scotland and why there is a NEW CASE FOR OPTIMISM.

The meeting will take place in CULTARLANN, INVERNESS from 10.00am until 4pm. Doors open at 09.30am.

Tickets cost £6.50 and must be reserved in advance. This will include a signed copy of Jim Sillar’s book, lunch, tea, coffee and refreshments (with gluten-free options available - PLEASE ADVISE).

Register for the Event

Click HERE for tickets

As we near the year’s end, two matters with major policy implications for international relations are still rattling around political and think tank minds – the Trump US National Security Strategy, and the warning of war with Russia from Mark Rutte, Nato’s Secretary-General. Let us take the US National Strategy first. There will be a piece later on the alleged war threat.

Because this is a Trump administration document whose foreword, signed by him, is full of bombast with paragraphs in the main body making false claims of him ending wars and bringing peace and stability to the whole world, it would be easy to dismiss it as another sycophantic exercise by his officials playing to his massive ego. It is more than that. It has serious implications for European security.

The Strategy Principles have a clear message from Trump for other countries in the next three years. It explains: ‘President Trump’s foreign policy is pragmatic without being “pragmatist,” realistic without being “idealistic,” muscular without being “hawkish,” and restrained without being “dovish.” It is not grounded in traditional political ideology. It is motivated above all by what works for America – or in two words “America First”’

The only thing new in “America First” is that it states an old consistent US policy openly, whereas in previous administrations of both colours it was clothed in soothing words of comfort for those who were useful to advancing US national interests. Europe should be grateful to Trump for spelling out that reality, and we here in Britain should, surely, at last, get the message that the “special relationship” is one in which only one side gains while the other, the UK, is delusional.

Trump’s brand of America First is consistent with the isolationist strand in that country’s thinking since its birth. It condemns “allies and partners” who free load on America and “sometimes suck us into conflicts and controversies central to their interests but peripheral or irrelevant to our own.“ It makes plan that “The affairs of other countries are our concern only if their activities directly threaten our interests.”

It puts the question ‘What Should the United States Want?’, and answers ‘First and foremost, we want the continued survival of the United States as an independent, sovereign republic whose government secures the God-given natural rights of its citizens and prioritizes their well-being and interests.’ That aim is to be achieved by making the USA strong economically, innovative and in the lead technologically, having a military with unsurpassed lethality along with strong soft power.

The Monroe Doctrine Plus

When it turns to the World it wants the rest to comply with America’s needs, especially those countries near-by in the western hemisphere who remain subject to the Monroe Doctrine. Which now has a Donald Trump add-on of “we’ll threaten and hit whoever we want whenever we want,” as Maduro in Venezuela is finding out. Not only is Venezuela threatened with a large fleet, its air space has been closed, with more than a dozen international airlines now ceasing to fly there.

A side effect of the blockade of Venezuela’s oil exports is the effect upon Cuba. Denied its 40% reliance on supply from Maduro, its economy is being brought to the brink of ruin. Cuba’s GDP has already shrunk by 15%, inflation is astronomical, and 2.7m active young people (25% of the population) have fled.

America First is not America Alone

But America First cannot be served in a world of 193 states of differing economic and military weight, some in strategic positions, by a policy of America Alone. Yes, there is that strand of isolationism, but the Trump National Security is not isolation. It recognises the need to maintain “a broad network of alliances, with treaty allies and partners in the world’s most strategically important regions.” In short, it is in the USA’s national interest to continue dominating the Indo-Pacific, and given the vast extent of that region’s landmass and oceans, that can only be done with allies located there. Step forward Japan and South Korea. And good old Australia, a valued ally.

Then there is the question mark about Europe

As for Europe, despite the obvious contempt the Trump has for what he sees as its woke-obsessed weak leadership, it is a region that has been in the US sphere of influence for 80 years, and the reasons for that have not changed. ‘Europe remains strategically and culturally vital to the United States’ because ‘Transatlantic trade is one of the pillars of the global economy.’ Which is why it states “We want to support our allies in preserving the freedom and security of Europe” but adding “while restoring Europe’s civilizational self-confidence and Western identity.” (my emphasis)

Here we come to the caveat on that “support.” Viewed from the White House, Europe is not dependable. It is in danger of ‘civilizational erasure,’ by undermining ‘political liberty and sovereignty, migration policies that are transforming the continent and creating strife, censorship of free speech and suppression of political opponents, cratering birthrates, and loss of national identities and self-confidence.’ Then comes the warning: ‘Should present trends continue’ and Europe become ‘unrecognisable in 20 years’ then it is questionable whether some countries will ‘remain reliable allies?’ That places an implicit question about US forever engagement with Nato. A view that has gripped and made anxious, Europe’s present leadership.

But all is not in America as Trump sees it

This is the Trump outlook on Europe, and may remain the long-term policy. But that will depend not only on who the Republican nominee is for the 2028 election, and if he will win. The assumption at present is that J D Vance will be the nominee, and continue the Trump policy to the letter. But if it is Vance, he will need more than the isolationist tendency to become President. He will have to take into account what Americans actually believe is in the interests of their country, and how it relates to the rest of the world. They don’t line up all the way with Donald J Trump.

Consider first an important segment of the American people – the elected Senate. With worry in the air about Trump’s hostile attitude to Europe, Republican and Democrat Senators together- by 77 votes to 20 - in December, pushed through The National Defence Authorization Act, described as a push-back against the administration. It deliberately makes it hard for the White House to withdraw any US troops from Europe, or relinquish the top military command position in Nato. Legal salt on the Trump tail.

A number of those Senators will be up for re-election next year. All Senators, along with House members, don’t do Trump-style rallies; they do town hall meetings where they listen and pay close attention to public opinion expressed there, also in their emails, and the opinion polls.

The Reagan Institute, far from a democrat organisation, has been polling on US foreign policy for years. Its latest polls show 68% of Trump voters view Nato favourably. 76% would support USA military force if a Nato ally is attacked. The majority of Americans, 59%, oppose leaving Nato. Among those not in favour of Nato, a significant number, 25%, change their attitude when told European members of the alliance have agreed to shoulder more of the financial costs.

Nor do the polls show the people lining up with Trump’s peculiar view of the Russian-Ukraine war. By 62% to 11% Americans want Ukraine to win, and 68% support selling weapons to Europe to pass on to Ukraine. When Republicans alone are polled on that, the support is 75%. While it is difficult to discern if Trump really trusts Putin to honour any peace deal, 70% of Americans do not.

The polls show entrenched views on the desire for allies. These views are unlikely to change in the coming mid-term election year, which is also when aspiring presidential candidates begin to fashion their campaign policies. It is an open question, therefore, whether Trump’s National Security Strategy will figure prominently in Republican campaigns as a vote winner.

Trump is leaving a long-term Nato legacy Europe cannot ignore

It would be foolish however for Europeans to take too much comfort from those polls, and ignore the long-term impact of one important Trump policy – European share of Nato’s cost. Other Presidents have complained about other members of Nato not pulling their weight financially, and piggy-backing on America, but did nothing. Trump has been different.

He has called out the Europeans, demanded, not asked, that they take a bigger share of Nato’s financing; and there is in the National Security Strategy a hint that if they back-track on their spending pledges, the 5% of GDP, then the “support” that has been there in the past may not be there in the future.

Europe must grasp that this“Nato cost”factor is now permanent in the American mind. Trump has set a high bar on how American Presidents in future are going to judge the worth of European allies within Nato, whatever the colour of the administrations.

Click here to order Jim’s new book directly from Amazon.

Listen to Industry Experts on how Labour is destroying jobs in the North Sea

There is a brilliant broadcast by industry experts on the North Sea Oil & Gas industry here:

HyperNormalTimes & In The Company of Mavericks

Will the UK Sacrifice the North Sea to Net Zero?

As Keir Starmer and Ed Miliband return from COP30 in Brazil, I wanted to take a look at the UK’s energy policy amid a global backdrop suggesting the world is turning away from net-zero absolutism towards more human-centric policy options…

Listen now

6 months ago · 4 likes · 1 comment · Jeremy McKeown

I’ve used an AI engine to summarise the top twenty points listed below. However, I strongly encourage you to listen to and share the full podcast. It is also free to hear on Apple Podcasts & Spotify. What’s happening to this vital Scottish industry is a wholly preventable tragedy. One that is largely being ignored by the Scottish political class and a woke mainstream media.

Bottom line: Scotland needs independence to save the North Sea Oil & Gas industry from Westminster.

Key Industry Points on Energy Policy

Keep these points in mind when you listen to Labour MPs like Dr. Jeevun Sandher MP waffle on about oil running out in 5 years. This doctor of political economy has as much of a clue about energy policy as he does about fixing your elbow but that doesn’t dissuade him from gaslighting Scots on the North Sea.

• UK households and industry face some of the highest electricity prices in the developed world, but gas itself is no longer the main driver as gas prices have fallen sharply from 2022 peaks.

• Evidence from suppliers and historic price data suggests that policy costs, subsidies, and system charges linked to renewables are now a major cause of high electricity bills.

• From the mid-2000s to 2021, wholesale gas and power prices stayed broadly low and stable while retail electricity bills rose steadily, implying the increase was driven by the energy transition rather than fuel costs.

• Wind has received large direct subsidies for decades, and early cost reductions have stalled; capital and operating costs are now rising again due to normal industry drivers (materials, labour, energy).

• Renewables’ low energy density and location mean huge extra grid and connection costs (new “wires” and infrastructure in remote areas), which are socialised onto consumer bills rather than paid by project developers.

• Because wind and solar are intermittent, gas capacity must be kept on standby and paid via capacity markets, and system balancing costs have risen by billions per year to manage real-time variability.

• The gas fleet (especially CCGTs) is being used in a way it wasn’t designed for—rarely and flexibly—which raises maintenance costs and reliability risks, especially as a large portion of the fleet is old and nearing end-of-life.

• With nuclear closures coming and ambitions for further electrification, failure to reinvest in gas generation assets risks serious security-of-supply problems and potential blackouts.

• In the North Sea, the key problem is not geology but policy: exploration drilling has collapsed (no exploration wells in 2025), a red-flag indicator of future supply decline.

• The UK’s Energy Profits Levy (windfall tax) and unstable fiscal regime have driven companies and capital away, in stark contrast to Norway’s high but stable and investment-friendly tax system.

• There is still substantial recoverable oil and gas in the UK sector, especially through new technology, infill drilling and tie-backs to existing infrastructure, but this depends on a supportive policy and tax environment.

• The industry is already shedding around 1,000 UK jobs per month, supply-chain firms are leaving (e.g. shifting factories abroad), rigs are moving to more attractive regions, and critical pipeline infrastructure is at risk of becoming uneconomic.

• If key North Sea infrastructure is shut down, viable reserves may be stranded, triggering a disorderly, sudden decline in production with major consequences for UK energy security and gas availability on cold winter days.

• The speakers argue the current problems are “self-inflicted” and could be quickly reversed if the upcoming budget: (a) removes the EPL now, (b) sets a pragmatic long-term licensing regime, (c) accelerates consents for new projects like Rosebank and Jackdaw, and (d) adopts a positive political tone toward the sector.

• Industry says it doesn’t need subsidies—just a fair, predictable regime (e.g. reverting to the pre-2022 40% rate plus a properly designed, genuine windfall tax), which could unlock an estimated £50bn of new investment.

• Trust in UK fiscal promises is low; merely pledging to end the EPL in 2029 is viewed as insufficient because companies doubt future governments will stick to it, so investment decisions require immediate, credible change.

• The discussion stresses that oil and gas underpin modern life far beyond power and heating—fertilisers, food production, hospitals, pharmaceuticals, manufacturing, and all modern technology depend heavily on hydrocarbons.

• Producing more oil and gas domestically is portrayed as better both economically and environmentally: it supports UK jobs and tax revenues, avoids higher shipping emissions, and leverages the UK’s relatively strict environmental and safety standards.

• Norway’s backlash against electricity exports (after interconnectors raised domestic prices and volatility) is cited as an early example of resource nationalism that could threaten UK electricity imports and expose the risks of relying on other countries.

• The speakers conclude that the next two weeks (budget and “future of the North Sea” consultation outcome) are a critical inflection point: either the UK pivots pragmatically to support domestic hydrocarbons and secure supply, or it continues on a path toward infrastructure loss, higher reliance on imports, and rising blackout risk.

In the 1970s, Margo MacDonald distilled the complex politics of North Sea oil into three unforgettable words: “It’s Scotland’s Oil.” That slogan captured the essence of resource nationalism and challenged Scots to take ownership of their natural wealth. It propelled the SNP from the political fringes into national prominence and put Scotland firmly back on the map- no longer a North British afterthought, but a country with something the world wanted.

SNP Scotland’s Oil Leaflet, c.1972 © Scottish Political Archive, University of Stirling

Today, we face a similar moment of opportunity. The question is the same: who benefits from Scotland’s resources? The answer should be just as clear. Our wealth should serve the people who live here- not be siphoned off by multinationals or a distant Westminster government focused on its own priorities. What we need to prevent the resource drain is one collective foot on the end of the Scottish export pipe.

The idea behind “It’s Scotland’s Oil” never died. It simply needs to evolve. And now, we have a new resource worth protecting.

The future demands a new slogan: “It’s Scotland’s AI.”

The Reverse Tariff: Using Our Advantages at Home

Donald Trump demonstrated how import tariffs can alienate partners yet boost domestic popularity. But a different kind of tariff - an export tariff - could offer Scotland a major strategic advantage. By ensuring domestic companies pay less than the global market rate for key resources, we can transform our economic landscape.

Take oil, gas, electricity, and AI compute as examples.

Oil & Gas

As internationally traded commodities, their prices are set by global forces- not local needs. An independent Scotland could lower the price of oil and gas for domestic use, instantly making energy-intensive industries more competitive. Instead of Grangemouth winding down, it could be expanding. Lower household bills would follow overnight.

Energy

Norway is learning the hard way that unlimited energy exports push domestic prices up. The Norwegians are responding by throttling their export cables to make domestic electricity cheaper- protecting their own industries and households. Scotland could do the same. If we want to build world-leading robotics or advanced manufacturing, cheap domestic energy is the foundation.

AI Compute

A global AI arms race is underway. Countries are building data centres at extraordinary speed. In the US alone, projected AI demand could require the equivalent of 40 new nuclear reactors just to power future data infrastructure.

Scotland, with vast renewable capacity, can play a major role in this new ecosystem. But we must ask a critical question:

Should we simply export the benefits of our energy and data capacity, or use them to build a stronger Scotland?

How Scottish Communities Can Win From AI

Scotland has a proud history of enlightenment, but it was not born from grand institutions. It began when ordinary Scots were taught to read so they could study the Bible. Once educated, our ancestors used their new skills to innovate, question, and transform society.

AI can trigger a similar revolution but only for those who have access.

Imagine every Scot having a personalised tutor in their pocket: patient, tireless, and able to teach any subject, at any level, at any pace. Ask AI to explain quantum physics to a five-year-old, and it does- instantly and clearly. This is just the beginning.

Today’s young people already turn to YouTube to learn trades, repair bikes, and acquire new skills. When AI begins consuming that content and generating personalised, practical video courses, learning will leap to another level entirely. Traditional universities, selling outdated courses at exorbitant fees, will struggle to justify their relevance.

We must ensure Scotland is not a passive consumer in this transformation.

A New Deal for Data Centres

I am not suggesting the state should nationalise AI data centres. The sector moves too fast and carries too much risk. But we can negotiate a fairer settlement.

Where data centres are built, communities should receive a share of the benefits. That means:

• Free AI access for every school, home, and business in the area

• Guaranteed local educational uplift

• Support for new skills, new industries, and new opportunities

Rather than being seen as drains on energy, land and water; data centres could become engines of economic revival- especially in Scottish towns that have been overlooked for decades.

Conclusion

Just as oil once reshaped Scotland’s political imagination, AI now offers a chance to reshape our future. We have the resources, the energy, and the talent. What we need is the will to ensure these assets serve the people who live here.

The message is simple, powerful, and long overdue:

It’s Scotland’s AI.

Yes United — Scotland’s Journey to Statehood

Our 2nd National Meeting

Date: Saturday 22 November 2025
Time: 10:00am–4:00pm
(Optional 9:00am leafleting on Sauchiehall Street)
Venue: Garnethill Room, Renfield Centre
260 Bath Street, Glasgow, G2 4JP

Tickets: £6.50 (reserve in advance) — includes tea, coffee, lunch + a signed copy of the latest book from Jim Sillars: “The New Case for Optimism”.

Gluten-free lunch options provided.

Why we’re meeting

Join independence supporters from across Scotland to chart Scotland’s Journey to Statehood—reflecting on lessons since 2014 and aligning the ideas, expertise, and energy needed to win hearts and minds for the next stage.

Programme highlights

• Prof. Ailsa Henderson — Understanding the weaknesses in 2014: what the evidence shows

• Robin McAlpine — Planning for Statehood: building the institutions we need

• Jim Sillars — Thinking Strategically: the route to 2028

We’ll combine keynote inputs with discussion sessions to turn insight into action.

Taking part

For early birds, we’ll leaflet at 9:00am on Sauchiehall Street, then reconvene at the Renfield Centre for a 10:00am start. The day concludes at 4:00pm.

Following Glasgow, our next Yes United meeting will be in Inverness as we continue to build support nationwide.

We look forward to seeing you there.

The Yes United Team
Jim Sillars · Alex Neil · Calum Miller · Simon Forrest · Sheena Jardine · Carole Inglis · Jim Eadie · Colin Fox · Stuart Clements · Andrew Ewen

When the first iPhone launched in 2007, I paid £500.
Had I instead spent that money on gold coins, they’d be worth roughly £2,500 today — enough to buy the latest top-end iPhone and a pair of wireless earplugs.

That simple comparison reveals how poorly sterling has performed as a store of value over the last 18 years.
And things are about to get worse — fast.

A Market Rebellion

When the Bank of England (BoE) cut rates to 4 % in August, something odd happened:
the cost of government borrowing went up.1

The BoE lost its economic breathing room because
a) inflation stayed above target, and
b) the new Labour Chancellor had already borrowed far more than forecast.

According to Treasury data, the running deficit rose from £68 bn in August 2024 to £84 bn in August 2025 — a 23 % increase in just a year. 2

As Roger Lee, Head of Equity Strategy at Cavendish, observes, that’s a £40 bn overshoot versus expectations.3
The Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) had assumed falling rates would shrink borrowing costs.
Instead, revenues are slowing, spending is rising, and debt-servicing costs are soaring.

Lee reckons the deficit will hit £190 bn this financial year, not the £120 bn forecast.
That’s unsustainable — and it’s why I doubt Prime Minister Starmer will survive a full term.

Taxing Into Decline

Emergency tax hikes in November might buy Labour some time,
but the government is already on the dark side of the Laffer curve — squeezing revenue by over-taxing growth.

Take the Energy Profits Levy (EPL):
introduced at 25 % by Sunak in 2022, raised to 35 % in 2023,
and hiked again to 38 % by Rachel Reeves in 2024.

That means total taxation on North Sea oil and gas profits has risen from 65 % to 78 %.
Production has plunged, taking tax receipts with it — revenues forecast at £20.7 bn in 2023-24 came in at just £5.4 bn, and are falling further.4

This is what economic suicide by tax looks like:
Britain is taxing itself into stagnation, sleepwalking toward another financial crisis.

What Happens Next — and When

As the deficit drifts toward £190 bn, UK borrowing costs will first creep up — then spike.
For comparison, the EU’s Stability and Growth Pact limits deficits to 3 % of GDP.
At £190 bn, Britain’s deficit would be roughly 7 % of GDP.

Here I diverge from Roger Lee.
He expects the BoE to restart Quantitative Easing (QE),
buying government bonds like a mini-IMF — but only if the Treasury cuts spending.

I don’t buy it.
The BoE’s record shows little appetite for discipline:

• 2009: Launched QE after the crash — £92 bn initially, ballooning to £900 bn by 2020 with barely a protest about inflation.

• 2020-22: Completely missed the post-COVID inflation wave.

• 2023: Saddled taxpayers with £150 bn in losses from buying back QE-era debt. 5

• 2022: Helped topple Liz Truss’s government by starting Quantitative Tightening (QT) during her mini-budget chaos.

• Later: Realised its own pension fund was imploding from QT-induced gilt losses.

Meanwhile, the Debt Management Office (DMO) — a Treasury agency — has issued the world’s highest proportion of index-linked debt,
about 30 % of borrowing rising automatically with inflation.6
That makes controlling prices a matter of national survival.

Yet nobody can clearly say who holds many of those bonds.
Rumours that China owns a meaningful slice of UK linkers might be speculative — but if true, Britain’s debt “partners” could exert uncomfortable leverage.7

The Coming Sterling Storm

When financing the deficit becomes impossible on the open market, QE will return, that’s what happened in Japan: Money will be printed faster than an Irn-Bru can rolling down Ben Nevis.

But unlike Japan, where debt is mostly domestic, Britain’s is largely held abroad.
Foreign investors, fearing depreciation, will sell bonds — and the pound will fall with them.

With Labour unwilling to cut welfare or abandon net-stupid-zero orthodoxy,
the UK is trapped.
Only a currency collapse can release the pressure.

Scotland’s Opportunity

Those who back an independent Scotland should be prepared to make the case for a Scottish currency. The Scottish Currency Group has made excellent progress in stating the options but broader debate is needed.

An independent Scotland with its own Central Bank, currency, and a Treasury could give us more tools to manage our own country. Here are a few of my thoughts:

• A Scottish central bank could be more transparent than the BoE’s London elite.

• It could adopt a dual mandate like the U.S. Federal Reserve — aiming for both price stability and full employment.

• Interest rates could reflect the real economy north of SW1 — likely lower, spurring growth and tax revenue.

• No more governors preaching climate virtue while crippling local industry. (Remember former BoE Governor Mark Carney? Grandstanding on climate initiatives then ditching his commitments as soon as he became Premier of our fossil fuels competitor...Canada.)

• Fiat currencies worldwide are losing investor trust; gold keeps rising even with high rates.
  Scotland could back its currency with tangible assets — land, energy, and commodities — restoring confidence.

• A targeted zero-corporation-tax policy for goods made in Scotland could re-industrialise communities Westminster left behind.

A currency that preserves its value is the economic essence of nationhood.
Scots can no longer afford to leave ours in Westminster’s hands.

So next time someone says, “North America feels expensive,” remind them:
it isn’t that the world got dearer — we got poorer.
That’s why Scotland must control its own money — to give the next generation an affordable stake in tomorrow’s technology-driven future.

4

Catherine McBride’s Substack

Doom Loops, Debt Spirals and Dumb Taxes

Both the IMF and Ray Dalio, founder of Bridgewater Associates hedge fund, agree that the UK is in trouble. The government is spending more than it raises in taxes, and its efforts to change this are actually lowering tax collections, not increasing them…

Read more

9 months ago · 44 likes · Catherine McBride

I have watched, listened and read commentators who have expressed bewilderment at how events in Palestine, thousands of miles away, have filled our streets and social media with so much anger directed at Israel, and become the number one issue especially for the younger generation. But this phenomenon of a foreign country cause before all else, is nothing new in western society.

The cause this time come from all the events and actions that have flowed from the hours on 7^th October 2023 when Hamas committed atrocities when killing Israelis, and engaged in the foul practice of taking human beings as hostages, with the Amalek policy response of utter destruction and high number killing by the Israeli government – all embraced in the history of how Israel was created at the expense of dispossessed Palestinians, and the permanent conflict that has followed.

Now and again an issue emerges that a generation believes captures all the principles, ethics, morality and justice that are crucial to their view of the world that should be and isn’t, and so but must be at the forefront of everything else. Gaza and Israel is the latest.

Earlier examples are the “morale crusade” led by Gladstone in 1876-80 against the Ottoman Empire’s atrocities committed in putting down a Bulgarian rebellion. ‘There is now,’ said Gladstone,’ for the first time in a good many years a virtuous passion’ let loose. In the 1930s it was the Spanish Civil War, when a generation, again the younger one, desperately tried to prevent a victory for fascism. Then there was the Vietnam war, when in the USA, Europe and the UK people, especially the younger generation, erupted in anger at the superpower bombing and killing at will a people who sought to unify their country and bring an end to its colonial submission. There was a riot in the London.

In all three examples, as is the case of Gaza, a generation picked a side, ignored any unpleasant facts that might not readily keep their side on the high pedestal they had placed it on, concentrated on the wickedness of the other side; and elevated their crusade as the one that mattered most in the world, well above anything else that was happening. Today, look at Sudan where mass rape and murder with millions displaced and hungry is a day-to-day situation. Or the Congo where M23 backed by the Rwanda government is doing the same. Yet there are no worldwide protests.

In Gladstone’s crusade, that the Bulgarians committed atrocities in the rebellion were swept aside. In the Spanish Civil War those participating on the government side had engaged in atrocity, and the international brigades knew, but kept quiet until afterwards, that Stalin’s agents were taking time out to kill followers and suspected followers of Trotsky. North Vietnam was not a democratic paradise. It was a harsh communist regime that didn’t hesitate to kill its internal opponents. It didn’t recognise downed US pilots as prisoners of war, and treated them accordingly. Yet Jane Fonda, a leading anti-war activist didn’t give a second’s thought to the propaganda value to the North when visiting, to sitting, helmet on, manning an anti-craft battery aiming at the sky where her American compatriots flew their planes.

And so it is with Gaza

Two years ago Hamas organised an atrocity which involved mass slaughter, rape followed by murder of the victims, torture and inhumane treatment of the hostages, all done with glee and recorded on their bodycams by those engaged in this horror. Greta Thunberg, the first time she was detained by Israel, refused to look at the unedited Hamas bodycam videos. She didn’t want to see anything that would disturb the position she had taken. And so it is with so many others. Hamas an Islamist fundamental organisation, like its sponsor the Iranian regime, is opposed to every western value. But the 7th October and the reality of the Hamas set of Islamic anti-western beliefs don’t matter.

Those who speak and write in favour Israel in this war wring their hands, then raise them to heaven in frustration and ask why no-one but them reacts against a Hamas that is capable of such brutality and savagery. Why they ask isn’t what happened on 7^th October at the forefront of every mind in the world. Why is the biggest outrage against Jews since the Nazis not given the consistent condemnation that it calls for? Why is it that for those demonstrating in country after country Israel is the target?

Step Forward Netanyahu

One man, Netanyahu, and his proto-fascist cabinet colleagues is the answer. That Israel would retaliate to Hamas atrocity was a given. But as the Saudi Arabian Foreign Minister pointed out, Israel has a proven ability to strike at its enemies with precision, and has since 7^th October done so in Gaza, Lebanon and Iran, only failing in Qatar. But Netanyahu decided, not only on getting Hamas, but on wanton destruction of the homes, businesses, institutions and cultural heritage of the Palestinians in Gaza; a policy that was founded on inhumane treatment of a mass of people in which high levels of civilian deaths was inevitable.

What has happened in Gaza is not mission creep. It is the policy set out by Netanyahu in his letter to each member of the IDF and security forces before they went in. Let me quote:

“The current fight against the murderers of ‘Hamas’ is another chapter in the generations-long story of our national resilience.

‘Rember what Amalek did to you.’”

In ancient times the Amalek were enemies of the Israelites who ambushed them on their way out of slavery in Egypt, and fought and oppressed them. Retribution came when Israel not only defeated the Amalek but killed every man, woman, child and their livestock. The message to the IDF when invoking Amalek was clear: unleash unrestrained power irrespective of who the casualties are.

In that letter Netanyahu not only invoked Amalek, but dehumanised those the IDF was about to attack: “This is a war between the children of light and the children of darkness.” That covered all Palestinians.

The Israeli massacre of the Amalek was a genocide. By giving Amalek emphasis in one separate line in a long letter, Netanyahu cannot complain when the UN and others now describe events in Gaza as a genocide, while the scale of Israel’s war crimes allow the anti-Israel demonstrations to evade facing what Hamas did on 7^th October.

Netanyahu is a tragedy for Israel and the Jewish diaspora.

Israel’s prime minister boasts about his state’s military prowess, its assaults on its enemies, and asserts it as the hegemon of the Middle East. Yet nothing except one factor has changed. Israel remains a small country surrounded by states that know they are in no position to oppose it effectively, but continue to intensely dislike it, and who have populations seething with anger over its occupation practices in the West Bank, and want to settle scores over Gaza. That means the future for Israelis will be a mirror of the past – a permanent target of terror and insecurity.

The factor that has changed is world opinion. If Israel is not yet in everyone’s category of a pariah state it is dangerously near to being held as such. Its strongest surviving link is the United States, but given how the view of Israel has been changing there among tomorrow’s leaders, it could prove in a few years to be its weak link. Despite what Netanyahu says about Israel “standing alone” that will never be true without the so far unconditional backing of the USA, and that is a long-term doubt.

Right now there is pressure on those European countries that have recognised a Palestinian state to go further by applying sanctions on Israel. The logic of those arguing for sanctions is “you have recognised a Palestinian state where one part is under attack and the other part under brutal occupation, so you must apply the only weapon available and that is sanctions.” The answer to that will not be made in public. It is that with Trump in the White House, EU or UK sanctions on Israel would invite massive tariffs imposed on them by the Trump USA, with millions of jobs at stake. But the public pressure for sanctions will grow, and Trump will not always be president even if he hopes so.

The disaster for our Jewish communities

The other Netanyahu disaster is for Jews who live in countries outside Israel. People dodge this, but given the centuries of hate directed at them, the Israeli state was established so that all Jews have a place to go to, the only place to go to, where they can be guaranteed to be free from persecution for no other reason than being Jewish. Israel’s “right of return” is an open door to everyone who is a Jew. That gives every person who is a Jew a stake in the continued existence of Israel, and unfortunately by association in the mind of others, a degree of responsibility for what Israel does.

That of course is grossly unfair. Many, many diaspora Jews are critical of Israeli governments (as are Jews within Israel) and there are many today who do not hesitate to describe Israel as committing genocide. It is unfair, wrong, but association is a reality. Were it not so, our Jewish communities would have no need to formally organise security for their schools and Synagogues, and be free from fear.

Netanyahu should know that you cannot create a specifically Jewish state, reach out to and expect Jewish communities in the western world for continued support for all Israel does, as exampled by AIPAC in the USA and some bodies in Europe, without making those communities targets for the anti-Semites when Israel’s actions cause worldwide revulsion.

I cannot help come to the conclusion that Netanyahu and Hamas are two sides of the fanatic’s coin.

Hamas don’t care about Palestinian casualties as the more deaths the greater is the anger and desire for revenge upon which they can recruit and rebuild. Hamas, which didn’t build one single shelter for the people it governed, could have ended the carnage by releasing all hostages, thus denying the Netanyahu government of a principal reason for continuing an Amalek policy, allowing western pressure, which at the start still had leverage on the Israeli government, to limit its actions.

Netanyahu’s Amalek war crimes assault on Gaza has caused immense problems and threats to Jews in the diaspora, and he has used those threats to bolster his claim that they are proof of a world showing its true anti-Semitic colours, thereby justifying his actions as vital for Israel’s security as the only safe homeland for all Jews.

The old poison is back

Between them, Hamas and Netanyahu’s government have let loose an old poison into the world’s politics and people: Jew hatred. Look at the words shouted loudly by students at Glasgow University on the anniversary of 7^th October 2023: we “Celebrate the glorious Al-Aqsa Flood which permanently crippled the Zionist entity.” That was the same language used by Hamas to describe the atrocity it conducted against Jews. No pity from Scottish students for the terror of a young woman being raped and realising during it that she was to be murdered, or for a mother seeing her baby killed? Instead celebrate it. No wonder Jews in Scotland are afraid.

Where Jew Hatred has already led

As previous articles show, I am a long- time critic of Israel and its conduct towards the Palestinians. In my days as a newspaper columnist, and politician, I have clashed with Jewish groups over Israel’s policies and been described by them as anti-Semitic. They had taken a position, as had AIPAC in the USA (the most powerful lobby in that country) to support Israel on whatever it did. In Scotland we called them Likud’s Scottish platoon. I never rose to the bait about being called anti-Semitic because of criticism of Israel. It might have brought comfort to them, but it was false.

For someone of my generation, who even as a child could not but be aware of what Nazi Germany had done to the Jews of Europe, it should be impossible, as it is for me, to hate a human being who is a Jew no matter what stand they take in respect of Israel.

I come from a generation of Scots who believed grown men should not cry. That was one of a number of our foibles that thankfully no longer apply. But I did cry when I was 22, on reading a book The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, by William L Shirer, published in 1960. It recalled an affidavit from a German civilian read to the Nuremberg Trial of the Nazi war criminals, by Sir Hartley Shawcross the UK chief prosecutor. Here is a section.

It began by recording that Jewish men, woman and children were forced to fully undress and went on:

“Without screaming or weeping these people undressed, stood around in family groups, kissed each other, said farewell and waited for a sign from another S.S. man who stood near the pit, also with a whip in his hand. During the fifteen minutes that I stood near the pit I heard no complaint or plea for mercy.

An old woman with snow white hair was holding a one-year-old child in her arms and singing to it and tickling it. The child was cooing with delight. The parents were looking on with tears in their eyes. The father was holding the hand of a boy about ten years old and speaking to him softly; the boy was fighting his tears. The father pointed to the sky, stroked his head and seemed to explain something to him. At that moment the S.S. man at the pit shouted something to his comrade. The latter counted off about twenty persons and instructed them to go behind the earth mound…I well remember a girl, slim and with black hair, who, as she passed close to me, pointed to herself and said ‘twenty-three years old’. I walked around the mound and found myself confronted by a tremendous grave…….I looked for the man who did the shooting. He was an S.S. man who sat at the edge of the narrow end of the pit, his feet dangling in the pit. He had a tommy-gun on his knee and was smoking a cigarette.”

Sir Hartley Shawcross made no prior statement. He just read it. First to stunned silence, then to the sound of tears as even the hardest men in the court began to cry.

That obscene scene, replicated across killing grounds in Europe, is what Jew hate can come to if men and women become so caught up in a cause they are blinded to all sense of decency.

This article is based on a speech I made on 2^nd September at the Edinburgh conference organised by the Institute for Cultural Diplomacy.

THE THREE VERITIES

There are three verities in international relations – geography, state interests and spheres of influence. These have been “constants in the conduct of international actors” since the Armana civilisation of around 1350 BC. The book “Armana Diplomacy” by Raymond Cohen and Raymond Westbrook is worth reading for anyone interested in international relations today.

Because of state interests, Scotland will leave the union with England and change our relations with Europe. It is important to understand, however, as Margo MacDonald pointed out in the 1970s, political and economic disengagement from England will not affect the social union with our neighbour – shared families, broadly shared culture (although there are differences), and shared political and democratic values.

Scotland at present has no role with influence in world, European economic, trade or defence policies, yet we are important. We are Nato’s unsinkable aircraft carrier barring enemy access from the North Sea to the Atlantic sea lanes’ link with North America; we accommodate one of its nuclear bases at Faslane; now the Arctic has joined the Atlantic and Pacific as a geopolitical area of strategic importance, our geography invites the interests of others, that we are again starting to call the Great Powers. We are, for example, in the United States sphere of influence.

Scotland’s oil reserves have, this week, brought into sharp focus the different interests of Scotland and the UK. “Drill the North Sea Dry” proclaims Kemi Badenoch, the leader of the Tory party. That is a UK fiscal need, a short term solution to its debt problem. Whereas for Scotland our interest lies in longevity of production.

North Sea oil reserves, and the giant Clair field west of Shetland, are seen by English politicians as a temporary bonus for England with its 60m population. For Scotland, a population of just over 5m, it is a long-term resource. Its worth to England is not as great as its worth to Scotland.

Let me give a simple but illustrative arithmetical example of the difference between a resource for a large unit of 60m people and a small one of 5m people. Let us assume the resource to be distributed is £60. Dived by 60 it gives each person in the large unit £1. But dived by 5, it gives each person in the small unit £12 each, making them much better off. Apply that equation to North Sea oil, and you will understand why that resource for Scotland means significant long term economic advantage, while for England, draining it dry quickly, is for short term rescue. In its own interests Scotland cannot sit back and allow it be drained at speed.

At present, within the UK, means the Scottish interest cannot be applied to one of our major resources. At present this nation does not own a cupful of the oil. Placed on our land and sea are great numbers of wind Turbines: we don’t own one of them.

That locked-in, impotent position will not change until we can employ sovereign power to assert our own interests, command our own resources, and decide where to place ourselves in the alliances and institutions of Europe.

The Legacy of 1707

1707 is still for many in the independence movement an event that hurts. Some see the union created in 1707 as Scotland taken over by England through bribery: best expressed by Robert Burns condemning the union signatories: “We’re bought and sold for English gold -such a parcel of rogues in a nation”

That is emotional. Money did land in certain pockets, but the events and circumstances were complex, with the role of the King, whose interests were anchored in England and whose policies foreign and domestic, played a key part. In Rosalind Mitchison’s “A History of Scotland” she devoted 14 pages to that complexity.

Boiled down to its essentials, the compelling motive for Scotland entering union with England was our state interests based on necessity; and I believe it will be a new assessment of state interests by Scots, based on necessity, that will end the union.

In 1707, in legal terms, Scottish and English states dissolved and created a new polity, Great Britian. Removal of Scotland as a French proxy on its northern border was the English state interest, and in eliminating that border gained a bonus of strategic territory and people.

Scotland, as Rosalind Mitchison records “entered the biggest trade slump, the worst economic crisis, she had ever known.” In that setting the financial disaster of the Darien scheme, designed to create a colony in Panama, made Scotland almost insolvent. From necessity - the need to recover economically - Scottish state interests could only be served by a union that gained it entry to the large English market (from which it had been blocked by the English Aliens Act of 1705) and to the expanding English imperial market. The price paid was sovereignty, and membership in a lopsided Union which, whatever the legal language, was in fact England continuing with a Scottish appendage.

There is no evidence in the historical record that the English state thought it had dissolved. The English state with its 513 MPs, added 45 Scots MPs, and 16 peers to the 199 English ones to its parliament, and continued with its rules, traditions and conventions unchanged. In the eyes of those in charge, the new Gt. Britain was England and its state interests were to the foremost in policy. This reality of England was, to take but one example, manifest at Trafalgar, Ninety-eight years after the union came into being, when Nelson hoisted the signal: “England expects every man to do his duty.” notwithstanding that 5 of his captains and 30% of the crews were Scots.

That reality of England continuing kept appearing.

In 1914 the newspaper headline was “England at War with Germany.” In 1939 the largest circulation newspaper headline was “England declares war.” Winston Churchill, Vol I of his History of the Second World War, published in 1948, 241 years from 1707, writes while ‘the Fuehrer was at grips with his generals, Mr. Chamberlain himself was preparing to broadcast to the English nation.’ In 1953 the late Queen chose to be known as Elisabeth II, which is accurate only if the English state has continued.

These and many others I could cite were not slips of the tongue or pen. They represented a mindset, based on a political reality.

Other countries with which the UK has done political and other business over the years since 1707, always used England to describe that supposedly new state. It still happens today.

Readers may think this is just another catalogue of complaint from a narrow-minded nationalist bearing a grudge at history. You would be wrong. I am of the realist school of international relations. 1707 and what followed, could not be otherwise given the respective positions of size, wealth and the overriding state interests of England, and the impoverished condition of Scotland.

Had the power equation been reversed, with Scotland the powerful one, we would in subsequent years acted as England has done. There is no reason to shed tears now at that reality.

2014 was 1707 repeated

But times and circumstances have changed

That reality of 1707 was re-presented in the 2014 referendum on independence, when the union case was that small Scotland, to survive, had to shelter under the umbrella of the large economically powerful United Kingdom (meaning England). “Better Together” was the slogan. A message no longer valid in 2025– a fact with profound consequences for the Scottish-English relationship. We now have a weak England and a Scotland rich in what matters – energy.

After two major shocks to its system – the financial crisis and the mishandling of the pandemic when the economy was trashed - England may still be the larger, but it is no longer the strong economic power that can allow it to make Scotland an offer to continue in the union that it cannot refuse. It is now inherently weak, – broken, a nothing works food bank society, gone from managed decline to precipitate decline

UK/England, to quote the unionist newspaper The Daily Telegraph is “a poor country pretending to be rich.” It lives by borrowing: £250,000 a minute. Now paying the highest yields on the 10yr and 30yr bonds as doubts grow about its creditworthiness.

The deteriorating state of the UK/England economy can be seen in the 2024-25 figures from the Office of Budget Responsibility. Its first estimate of the borrowing need was £87bn, then revised to £127bn, well short of the actual £148bn, of which £105bn was employed in debt interest payments. The Debt Management Office aims to borrow £299.3bn in 2025-2026. The formally acknowledged national debt is £2.7trn. When “off the books” items are added, such as PFI and unfunded public sector pension liabilities it is nearer £4.38trn.

UK/England is now in a deep trench of debt. The Wall Street Journal describes it as insolvent.

The union now has nothing to offer Scotland except decline. That makes our state interests dictate not “Better Together” but “Better Apart” – fully sovereign and able to bargain with the EU over terms of re-entry, or to seek membership of the European Economic Agreement via membership of EFTA, and take our place in the dialogue in Nato as one of the countries of strategic importance to that alliance.

Get ready to enter the world of realpolitik

I know that mention of continued engagement with Nato will be anathema to many, but as well as being in the US sphere of influence we are in Western Europe’s also, and those countries, along with Poland and the Baltic states, have state interests in Scotland as part of their defensive shield, and have economic and political levers to pull on us if we threaten to take away “their” unsinkable aircraft carrier by leaving Nato.

Scotland’s geography makes us important for others. In our current non-independent condition we can pretend to ourselves that we can do anything we like, and stand alone, distinct, in all policy fields, and virtue signal to our hearts content. Those indulgences will not be available to a small geopolitically strategically important nation on Independence Day. Going independent means entering the world of realpolitik.

It is better to understand that now, and let that knowledge shape carefully what we say that those other powers will pick up as they listen and respond to our efforts to gain independence.

The lesson from Lord Palmerston

Some in the unionist camp might accuse me, and many others in Scotland, of jumping off a sinking ship of state that we have been on for 318 years, neglecting the inter-marriages, the development of common cultures, political ideas, and having shed blood together. But Scotland’s state interests dictate that we do just that.

And there is no one better to draw that judgment from than the great English statesman Lord Palmerston who brushed aside notions of nostalgia, and the comfort to be found in pleasing rhetoric.

He spelled out state interests even better than Henry Kissinger: “We have no friends, only interests.”

Prologue

This article is based on realpolitik, in a situation where power has been exercised, where power is limited, and where power has been lacking. While recognising the longstanding Russia complaint about NATO advancement, it in no way excuses Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, on which I am on the record of condemning as a war crime.

Two of the World’s major institutions damaged

There are already two major casualties, other than Ukraine, from the Alaska and White House meetings - the United Nations and the European Union. The former is now looking more and more like the League of Nations which proved wholly inadequate as Italy’s aggression in Ethiopia and Japan’s invasion and atrocities in China went unpunished in the 1930s. The latter, far from being a major power has been reduced to a subservient bit player in a Trump constructed drama.

The United Nations: who can ever again take it seriously on matters of security when two of the Security Council permanent members are about to carve up a member state, against every principle in the UN Charter which prohibits the threats of force or the use of force in resolving disputes, and declares the territorial integrity of states as sacrosanct.

The UN, unlike the League of Nations, has an extensive apparatus on humanitarian, cultural and political subjects well beyond the basic original intention of the Security Council as an instrument for keeping the peace. It will not, therefore, fold as the League did, but when two powers at its core act on Might is Right, its ability to intervene decisively and punish aggressors, as it did with Saddam’s Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, has gone.

The EU, a paralysed giant, has only itself to blame for being locked out of the Alaska meeting, and consigned to a White House side room while Trump held court before the world’s media, acknowledging the 20 times Ukraine’s president thanked hm. Right at the start of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, which was a military shambles on the Kremlin side, had the EU Nato states given the weapons, tanks and aircraft Zelensky asked for, Ukraine would have inflicted defeat on Russia within Ukrainian territory. But that didn’t happen.

What happened was that EU Nato states, with the exception of the UK, dithered and temporised; sent tanks in penny numbers, set conditions on how some of the more lethal weapons were used (don’t fire at Russia), and didn’t supply the aircraft. That allowed Russia to learn from its mistakes and use the first winter to construct a three-belt defence of minefields, barbed wire, and deep trenches, ready for the expected Ukrainian summer offensive.

Everyone with military knowledge knew that Ukraine, lacking massive fire power and air superiority could not break through those Russian defences, and they never did. From then on, Ukraine was on the defensive, fed just enough weapons not to be defeated, but never enough to win back territory. It’s incursion in Kursk proved a false episode: it couldn’t hold the land.

The trilateral meeting trap

There are four things that most, but not all, people are avoiding in relation to Trump’s proposed trilateral meeting, with the EU and UK excluded.

• First, Trump will not be a neutral arbiter. Both in rhetoric and action, he has shown hostility to Zelensky and has blamed Ukraine for starting the war. Even before the White House meeting on Monday, he claimed Zelensky could end the war, which would be true only if Ukraine gave Putin everything he demanded.

  Then there is the American state interest which will be in play, not to Ukraine’s advantage. For the Trump administration, the US state interest is to re-establish relations with Russia to an extent that weans it away from its close alliance with China. As well as being a European power, Russia is a Pacific one too, and the Pacific, and China, is where the United States sees its main interests to be. There is no USA state interest in Ukraine. It is an inconvenient sideshow best got out of the way.

• Second, Trump has threatened Russia, but never actually did it any harm beyond the present range of sanctions which have long been in place, but have not prevented Russia’s war economy building capacity. He has never condemned Putin as an aggressor. The red-carpet treatment in Alaska, preceded by threats of what the US would do to Russia if there was no ceasefire, produced no punishment for Russia, only a self-assessment of 10 out of 10 because they got on great together, manifested by the display of being on first name terms. Alaska was consistent with the US state interest in re-engaging with Russia as an important power, and getting out of Ukraine.

• Third. Putin has not moved one iota from his demands that are aimed at restoring Ukraine to Russia’s sphere of influence. There has been no comment on what was an important piece of symbolism on display in Alaska, by Lavrov, the Russian foreign minister. He is one of the highest-ranking diplomats in the world, always soberly dressed, conscious of the dignity of the office he holds. But at Alaska he arrived wearing a t-shirt emblazoned with the USSR on the front. A signal that Ukraine is one of the states Russia regards as its “near abroad” over which it must have influence.

  Then there is the battlefield. Putin has no reason to modify his demands for territory being formerly transferred and recognised, and Ukraine kept out of Nato, because he is winning there and cannot be defeated there. The brutal truth is that Russia’s military strength is superior to that of Ukraine.

• Fourth. The president of Ukraine has no cards to play. Something that Trump told him in that infamous meeting in the White House. America will not supply him directly with the weapons that might drive the Russians back a bit. They will sell them to the Europeans to give to Ukraine, but there will be the stings attached of no targets on Russian soil. Europe is good on talk “as long as it takes” but not so hot on the level of supply, and is now, supposedly, rebuilding its own weapons production.

Ukraine is in the awful position of being reliant on others, with personnel losses it cannot afford, when its enemy is self-sufficient in both manpower and weapons.

There is, of course, the constitution which prohibits any transfer of land from Ukrainian sovereignty. But that was recently dismissed as no obstacle by Trump. So, as well as dealing with Trump and Putin, whose state interests are aligned to a considerable extent, president Zelensky will face a political crisis internally if he gives away land and people, to which he will have no solution. The man is in a trap.

Security for Ukraine– what happened to the one already in place?

When the Soviet Union collapsed most of its nuclear weapons were in Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan. Those countries agreed to give them up and the USA, Russia and the UK , in the Budapest Memorandum of 1994, agreed to “respect the independence and sovereignty of the existing borders” as a prize for them becoming non-nuclear. So, Ukraine security done and dusted. But how cast iron would those guarantees be if the geopolitical positions then in place changed? And change they did.

At that time of Budapest, Ukraine was neutral and Russia had received assurances from Nato officials (and the USA) that there would be no advancement eastwards. In a seminal speech given to the 2007 European Security Conference, President Putin stated that “Nato expansion represents a serious provocation that reduces the level of trust” and went on to quote Nato Secretary-General Woerner stating in May 1990 “the fact that we are ready not to place a NATO army outside of German territory may give the Soviet Union a firm guarantee.”That backed up US Secretary of State James Baker’s promise to Gorbachev that NATO would advance not “one inch.” NATO has advanced big time towards Russia, the succeeding state to the USSR. Worse from Russia’s perspective, Ukraine deserted its neutrality and indicated a wish to join NATO, thus altering the situation when Budapest was signed.

Putin was not alone in his complaint of provocation. Away back on 26 June 1997 Robert McNamara, former defence secretary, along with Senators Bill Bradley and Gary Hart wrote to President Bill Clinton warning that the “US led effort to expand NATO is a policy error of historic proportions” and would “foster instability in Europe.”

They were not a fringe on the US foreign policy establishment. George Kennan, the architect of the cold-war containment policy, was forthright: “expanding Nato would be the most fateful error in American policy.” Senators Ted Kennedy, Sam Nun and Thomas Friedman, also warned against the policy of expansion.

The point to grasp is that whatever may be written in a security guarantee by any outside power or group of powers to Ukraine today in the present circumstance, will not hold if there is any change in that circumstance in future.

Even in the unlikely event of no change, I cannot see the USA give a security guarantee that it would in fact carry out. I can see it give some sort of guarantee to extricate it from the present, but does anyone believe that any US administration would engage in conflict with Russia?

The only security guarantee that Ukraine can have is one that it establishes itself. That is it builds its own formidable defence production capability; has conscription that works; militarises its society; and declares as policy that any possible invader will be severely punished in its own territory. It will have to adopt a new role, as Henry Kissinger advised in his Davos speech in May 2022, as a neutral “buffer state rather than the frontier of Europe.”

How has this come about?

There is a full-scale war in Europe in which the European members of Nato have played a minor role, ceding to the United States the role of main supplier to Ukraine and political mastery of the situation. Statesmanship and statecraft have been conspicuous by their absence. Dance to Biden’s and then Trump’s tune has been the policy. There has been nothing more pitiful in all European diplomacy than witnessing the Nato Secretary-General playing to the Trump ego by describing him as their “Daddy.”

What has been needed is what our present so-called leaders are incapable of thinking and delivering: telling the USA that it being a European problem, they will call all parties together in a new Congress of Berlin, where the legitimate interests of the combatants, along with the legitimate interests of all others, the EU states and UK, Russia, the USA, would be considered and a solution hammered out by the major powers combining to enforce one. In that setting the EU, with 12 times the GDP of Russia, could have set and dictated the agenda. It never crossed one mind in that union of 27 states.

Introduction

This is long, but I hope you will read it through because what happened in the past in the Middle East is always an influence on the present. Just think of the Arab world reaction when George W Bush, after 9/11, used the word “crusade” to describe his country’s response. In the history applicable to Iran two western powers, the UK and the USA, played roles that helped create that country’s regime in 1979.

Trump is very pleased with himself. He has exercised the muscle power of the USA, bombed a sovereign state which presented no military threat to the territory of the United States, as much a breach of international law as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and is now in the grip of hubris. He has warned the members of OPEC: “EVERYONE. KEEP OIL PRICES DOWN. I’M WATCHING! YOU’RE PLAYING RIGHT INTO THE HANDS OF THE ENEMY. DON’T DO IT!”

Trump has assumed the role of the world’s Chief Executive, expecting all to obey and bend to his will. So omnipotent that can condescend to inform the Iranian head of state that he can sleep easy, as he is not going to be assassinated.

Trump lives in the moment. But that is not how it is in the Middle East.

The ignoramus has been let loose

In a letter published in The Herald Thursday 19^th June, I described Donald Trump as “a President whose knowledge of the world outside New York real estate hustling, is non-existent“. I noted that while the United States has had a mix in its Presidents, “none until now has ever qualified as the world’s number one ignoramus”.

That was not meant as an insult, just an accurate description of a man, Trump, whose conduct in the international sphere shows a complete absence of knowledge of the historical, cultural, religious, and political complexities that have shaped the world of today. All the qualities required of a leader of a superpower are missing - exercising diplomacy through deed and language, cementing alliances, acknowledging the interests of lesser powers, respecting the international law your own country has created and expects others to follow, using power to promote stability, all in the context of understanding how the tides of history have washed up on the shores of today, and sculped its present political contours and realities.

Trump has insulted allied leaders – Trudeau, Macron, Zelensky – called into question America’s commitment to NATO partners, insulted the national pride of Canadians and Greenlanders, showed his disdain for the G7 by walking out early, destroyed the trade treaties he personally made with neighbours Canada and Mexico, sabotaged the world trade system, and recently, with no recognition of international legal norms, demanded the “unconditional surrender” of a country with which at that time the US was not at war. This is the man who gave himself two weeks to decide on whether he would openly intervene militarily in that country, as though such a decision, with all the deaths and destruction that would follow, was one of a kind that he alone was entitled to make.

Now that he has unleashed US military might on Iran, this ignoramus has handed to every adversary of the USA a potent propaganda weapon that will weaken, if not destroy, what influence it has in the global south where new powers have risen; and will give every jihadist a spur towards wreaking terrorist revenge on the peoples of the states lining up with him.

The world order has changed: but some have not yet grasped this

For some three hundred years as major European states carved their empires, followed since 1945 by the USA, our leaders did not have to bother with the views of others. De-colonialisation and the rise in power of states in Africa and Asia made that old world redundant. In that geopolitical setting, with a slow burn, due principally to the writings of Egyptians Hassan al-Banna and Sayyid Qutb, there has been a resurgence of belief in Islam and its teachings.

After the defeat of the Ottoman empire and its dissolution in 1918, Islam went into a period where it was putty in the hands of western imperial powers, France and Britain. They dictated who would rule and ensured they ruled always in the imperialist interest. In the Gulf the tribal leaders were in the pocket of the British. Syria and Lebanon were in the hands of France. In Asia, Muslims were ruled by Britain in India and in Indonesia by the Dutch. Egypt was nominally independent, but British controlled. For Muslims it was the years of humiliation.

The first backlash was not Islamic but Arab, when Nasser nationalised the Suez Canal Company, owned jointly by Britain and France, in 1956. This was proclaimed as a victory for Arab nationalism, a secular idea, and held sway until Israel crushed the secular Arab alliance of Egypt, Syria and Jordan in six days, in 1967. First, tribal chiefs had never stood against foreign powers, now Arab nationalism too had failed, opening the way for the idea in Hassan al-Banna’s famous book “Islam is the solution” to become a driving force in Islam.

Over the last 60 years or so there has been a resurgence of belief in the value and importance of Islam as set out in the Koran among Muslims worldwide. Moreover, something that is hardly mentioned in the West, is that Islam by comparison with Christianity or Judaism is a young religion. In the Islamic calendar this is not 2025, but 1446. Today Christianity and Judaism, those old two, are fairly settled, institutionalised, whereas the young Islam is in a dynamic period. Wisdom decrees that the leaders of western states, especially that of the US with its wide each, will tread carefully in dealing with every part of that Islamic world. I doubt in Trump’s limited vocabulary the word wisdom is to be found.

Shia: the added factor in Islam

There is an added factor of Islam when dealing with Iran. It is Shia not Sunni. Shia represents around 10-13 per cent of the whole body of the religion. Often in Islamic history the Shia have been persecuted, regarded as heretical by the majority. They are the majority in Bahrain, but ruled by a Sunni monarch. They were the majority but did not rule in Saddam’s Iraq, but do now. There is a Shia minority in Lebanon, ignored until recently. There is a significant Shia minority in the Eastern province of Saudi Arabia, who have cause for complaint and frequently rebel. The Shia are used to being picked out for punishment; the US attack fits their experience, and as ever, gives them the cause for striking back. If I was an American, I would ponder and fear the implications of what that Shia woman in Iran told the world when saying “death is sweeter than honey.” It is what every suicide bomber believes as he presses the button, and takes him straight to paradise.

The consequences of not understanding history and Islam today

Sensible conduct of international relations today, as distinct from imperial times, requires looking at issues from the point of view, and interests, of those you are engaged with. Anyone who has read the extensive material that has come from Arab and other Islamic country leaders, writers, commentators, students, street demonstrators, should be aware of the “double-standards” accusation; the citing of historical wrongs, and the lies and hypocrisy employed when attacking an Arab or Islamic country and people.

Always when I talked to Arab friends I got told along the lines of “Israel can do whatever it wants, ignores international law, hasn’t a finger laid upon it, whereas Iraq was subject to the most severe sanctions, had lies told about it having weapons of mass destruction, and was invaded. The west, especially America, preaches the rule of law to us, lectures us on human rights, but breaks the laws it preaches, and itself engaged in torture, water-boarding, at Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib in Iraq. Stinking hypocrisy.”

With that background of attitudes among Arab and other Islamic people, within a Pandora’s box of anti-American anger, it would be wise for any US President to tread carefully. Blow open the lid of that box, and trouble, real trouble, will emerge; if not immediately, eventually.

Iran and external powers: a toxic history

The present regime is a nasty bit of work

I doubt if anyone reading this has a good word to say about the regime that has been governing Iran since 1979. It is an Islamic theocracy, brutal against political opponents, savage in its policies against people who are gay, with serious questions as to its claim of legitimacy, with the 2024 elections at a low turnout of 41%, with 5% of the ballots papers spoiled in protest at what many saw as a rigged event.

It is anti-Semitic to a level not witnessed since the Nazis. The founder of this regime Ayatollah Khomeini, wrote that “From the very beginning, the historical movement of Islam had to contend with the Jews, for it was they who first established anti-Islamic propaganda and engaged in various stratagems, and as you can see, this activity continues down to the present.” He saw the Jews as agents of the west. This conspiracy theory does not accord with the history of Islam, where Jews and Christians, between periods of persecution, were tolerated, paid extra taxes, and lived in safety as minorities who never challenged or tried to subvert their Islamic rulers.

The present supreme leader Ayatollah Khamenei has an Israel Doomsday Clock set up in Tehran, ticking away (when it is not stopped by electricity cut offs) to the day in 2040 when, as the Ayatollah’s prophecy puts it, Israel will be destroyed. This foolish stuff gives Iranian diplomats a sore head, and is meat and drink to Netanyahu. One minute’s consideration shows it is just word stuff with no substance.

If the Ayatollah’s clock means Iran gets the Bomb and obliterates Israel, it is not only the end of Israel but also the end of Iran, because Israel is a nuclear power and would retaliate. There is no indication that the Iranian regime is suicidal.

Moreover, the present supreme leader, despite his prophecy, issued a Fatwa a long time ago against Iran acquiring and using a nuclear weapon as it is against Islamic teaching. It was explained by an Iranian general that the only way Iran would escape from the Fatwa is if it was threatened by the two nuclear powers United States and Israel – thus invoking the deterrent theory, and exposing the Clock as a stupid piece of useless but damaging theatre.

This nasty bit of work is a result of Western action in Iran

The 1979 Iranian revolution was no random accident. The causation lies in Iran’s involuntary involvement, to its disadvantage, with Soviet, American and British governments’ interests.

In World War II there were two ways of getting United States lend lease material and weapons to the Soviet Union: by sea via Icelandic convoys and landward through Iran. The USA was not at that time in the warn, but committed to supplying the USSR with aid. Iran was a neutral state, with the ruler Reza Shah Pahlavi favourable to Germany, and thus not amenable to the allies using the Iran route.

In August 1941, with no complaints from the American President FDR, the USSR and Britain invaded Iran, deposed the Shah, replaced him with his compliant son Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, and opened the way for supplies of considerable volume. Although Iran had a parliament dating back to 1906, the Soviets and Britain paid no heed to it, and were effectively in control of Iran, with the promise to leave six months after the end of the war. For Britain there was the added bonus that the Iranian oil field, which Britain had owned and controlled, remained in our hands.

At war’s end, eventually both occupiers left, but Britain maintained its ownership and control of the oilfield. There was no share allocated to Iran.

The MI6 & CIA Coup to topple Mosaddegh

In 1952, following elections, Mohammad Mosaddegh, a lawyer, longstanding member of parliament, an Iranian nationalist, became Prime Minister. He, with the support of the parliament, nationalised the oil company, just as government in Britain had done with several utilities and industries in our country.

Democracy alive and kicking in the Middle East, with a government enforcing its legitimate power to take control of the nation’s resources? This idea might catch fire elsewhere in the Middle East, and America and Britain’s grip on the Gulf oil producers could be in danger. Mosaddegh was denounced in the west as a dangerous radical, and the CIA along with MI6 organised a coup against him, something now openly admitted here and in the USA.

Iran’s parliament was stifled. The Shah, delighted with the coup, centralised authority on himself, used the US army to train his military, and the CIA to train SAVAK , his secret police, with its well-known torture routines practised on opponents, one of which was to tie a naked person to a bed with no mattress, link the springs to electricity and heat them until they were red hot. When confronted with this in an interview, the Shah ended it abruptly. His regime was oppressive, and detested. There was a quiet little reported side-show in 1954 after Mosaddegh was ousted, when the British agreed to a 50/50 split on ownership of the oil field. That made the Shah, who acted as though he owned the country, personally very rich, and helped cement his role as the West’s man whom we could rely on.

By their actions from 1941 onwards the USA and Britain helped create the Shah-ruled Iran against which the people revolted in 1979, and opened the way for Ayatollah Khomeini, an outspoken opponent of the Shah, with the legitimacy of having been exiled, to come to power. US and UK sowed the seeds. He got the harvest.

Again, we have a policy of military attack larded by lies and facts upside down

It is an astonishing mind that can lie, or stand facts upside down, and expect the world to believe it. We had an example at the time of the Iraq war preparations when the USA vice-president claimed Saddam Hussein was in bed with al Qaeda, which everyone knew was a whopper.

Trump has that mind. That he won in 2020 is but one example. That he never met Stormy Daniels while paying her $130K is another. Over the weekend we got two upside down facts. He said Iran should come back to the negotiating table, when in fact it never left it, but the US did. Then he called for Iran to end the war, which it never started, but the US and Israel did. He also claimed that Iran was within weeks of having a nuclear weapon, when there is no such evidence, as explained by his own Director of national intelligence, who draws on information from 18 US intelligence agencies.

It is Iran as a state we need to look at

As I have written earlier, this Iranian regime is a nasty bit of work. But it is one among many, with whom we must live in the international world of states.

With Iran, whatever one thinks of the regime, it is in the context of state interests we have to examine the situation now created. As a state there is at present little it can do to hurt the USA without inviting a total blitz from the sky. That reality was manifest when Iran signalled to the USA it was going to mount a token missile attack on its base in Qatar, giving plenty of time to make sure they were shot down with no damage done.

Iran has the ability to close the Hormuz strait but that would damage China which gets 80% of oil from Iran, and it would also inflict pain on its Arab neighbours’ trade with the world, with whom it is anxious to maintain good relations. With America it can wait. The Shia are used to enduring, biding their time, until they get an opportunity, however far down the line of time, to get even. But it is not powerless in the short term. It still has options as a state.

The Iran state can now do what the USA- Israel doesn’t want it to do

“Long Term, this makes an Iran bomb likelier”

William Hague, The Times 24^th June

Iran is a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty. This allows it to have a civil nuclear power programme that includes, of necessity, the ability to enrich uranium. It is, under the treaty, subject to inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency. It reports Iran having enriched uranium well beyond the level required for civil needs: to 60% which can quickly be geared up to weapons grade of 90%.

Why would Iran do that while claiming it is not in pursuit of nuclear weapons? It reflects what academics, from knowledge of the regime, have been saying: that with constant threats from the USA and Israel, there is a strong faction arguing that, given the deterrence theory worked in the cold war and since, Iran should acquire its own nuclear weapons and so gain protection from attack. Going up to 60% provider that future option.

One of the consequences of Trump’s attack, is that the future option has become a likely present one. That would require two things. First, resigning from the Non-Proliferation Treaty, membership of which has allowed the AIEA to inspect its nuclear sites and tell the world what Iran is doing. Out of the treaty and Iran would be as secretive as Israel. Second, the Ayatollah cancelling the Fatwa, which so far he has not done, and is not likely to do until Iran has nuclear weapon capability. Then it is just a matter of a signature on a piece of paper.

As I write there is talk in Iran, but so far only talk, about taking that first step of withdrawing from the Non-Proliferation Treaty. If it does so, the pro-nuclear weapons faction will have won.

What about regime change?

Netanyahu has been open about it being his objective, and Donald Trump has more than hinted it is his too. But as neither intends to invade with feet on the ground, they must expect it to happen from within. If they think the Revolutionary Guard, who own one-third of the Iranian economy, will give up power easily then Bibi and Donald live in a fairyland.

Dictatorial regimes are never overthrown until the people are unafraid of them, and the military will not shoot the people.

In Tiananmen Square the students were unafraid, by the PLA was prepared to shoot, and the Communist Party of China remained in power. The GDR fell when the people demonstrating in Leipzig were unafraid and the armed militia refused the order from the politburo to shoot. There is no sign that the Iranian people are no longer in fear of the regime, and every sign that the Revolutionary Guard would not hesitate to shoot.

The talk of regime change that came from Trump, and the open call for it from Netanyahu, did no favours to the Iranian people. It put the regime on their guard.