Scottish independence: Rival North Sea oil visions set out

The equivalent of more than 40 billion barrels of oil have already been produced from the UK Continental Shelf, but production is declining

The Scottish and UK governments have set out competing visions for the future of North Sea oil and gas.

Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond called for a Norwegian-style approach, under independence.
Prime Minister David Cameron said reserves could be better managed with Scotland as part of the Union.


Both the Scottish and UK government cabinets are meeting separately in the Aberdeen area, to argue the case for their proposals.

Prime Minister David Cameron visited a North Sea oil installation ahead of the UK government cabinet meeting

Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond led a meeting of his cabinet, also in the Aberdeen area

The two events came as Westminster ministers said they would fast-track plans to get the most out of remaining UK offshore oil and gas, in the wake of an industry review which included calls to set up a new regulator.

The future of North Sea oil and gas has been a major campaign battleground ahead of the 18 September Scottish independence referendum.

Mr Salmond has outlined plans to earmark about a tenth of oil and gas tax revenues - about £1bn a year - for an oil fund similar to the one operated in Norway.

This, he said, could create a £30bn sovereign wealth pot over a generation.

The first minister, who held a meeting of his cabinet in Portlethen, welcomed the prospect of a new regulator for the oil industry, but rejected Prime Minister David Cameron's claim that the "broad shoulders" of the UK could better support the North Sea oil and gas industry.


He said an independent Scotland would "run oil and gas a great deal better" than Westminster had, and said Scotland needed "the Norwegian approach to things as opposed to the Westminster approach".

Analysis Nick Robinson Political editor

Within just a few miles of each other, the PM David Cameron and Scotland's First Minister Alex Salmond will chair meetings of their cabinets - one in Aberdeen, the other just outside it.

Both are unveiling plans which they claim will ensure that North Sea oil and gas continues to pump billions into the economy.

The two men and their ministers will talk about this issue, which is central to this autumn's independence referendum, but they are not scheduled to meet let alone to debate - a fact which will allow Alex Salmond to claim that David Cameron is making a rare excursion to Scotland to lecture and bully.

The prime minister will respond that he has come to talk about the future of North Sea oil and gas, or what nationalists have long called "Scotland's oil".

• Read more from Nick

Asked whether an independent Scotland could withstand volatility in the oil market, Mr Salmond told the BBC: "Of course people in Scotland, in Aberdeen in particular, just look across to Norway where a country smaller than Scotland, more oil and gas dependent than Scotland, has handled its resources infinitely better than Westminster.

"It hasn't been so much the broad shoulders of Westminster as the vast cavern in the Treasury over the last 40 years where they've accumulated massive oil and gas revenues from Scotland.
"The reason they want to hang on to Scotland's resources is that they've done so well out of them over the last 40 years. I think the next 40 years should be Scotland's turn."

The Scottish government's Fiscal Commission, in October 2013, said there was "clear merit" in an independent Scotland setting up two oil funds - a short-term "stabilisation" fund to buffer the effects of volatility in the oil market, and a long-term savings fund to ensure future generations benefited from the wealth.

Norway's oil fund was created by the Norwegian government in 1990 in a bid to protect the country from oil market fluctuations, and is now worth around £470bn.

Continue reading the main story

Analysis

 

James Cook Scotland Correspondent, BBC News

It's the clash of the cabinets in the battle over the black gold.
Well, almost.

There will be no face-to-face clash, with Prime Minister David Cameron continuing to refuse a debate with Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond.

Instead, separate governments will hold separate discussions about the future of the North Sea.

For 40 years, the industry has brought huge wealth to the UK, both in profits for the private sector and in taxes for public services.

But as the oil and gas become harder and more expensive to extract, the question is this: who is the best custodian of a fragmenting sector?

Sir Ian Wood, one of the industry's most respected figures, wants a new regulator, to ensure every last drop of oil is squeezed out in the most efficient and co-ordinated manner.

He thinks such a body could "facilitate, catalyse and remove barriers" in a "patchwork of interdependent oil and gas fields" operated by 300 different companies.

Production has been declining and estimates of remaining reserves vary but Sir Ian says there could be between 12 and 24 billion barrels left, worth between one and two trillion pounds.

Now two cabinets are competing to implement his recommendations.

David Cameron says the UK government is best placed to manage this volatile resource and to boost profits from the remaining oil and gas.

Alex Salmond insists Westminster has squandered the spoils for decades and only an independent Scotland would ensure a new bonanza.

The glory days of the North Sea may be behind us but there is still a battle for the treasure beneath the waves.

The fund owns around 1% of all the world's stocks and shares and is being saved for future generations, though the Norwegian government can choose to spend 4% of the fund each year.

The review produced for the UK government by businessman Sir Ian Wood, made several recommendations, including revitalising exploration to ensure recoverable oil and gas resources in the UK are fully explored and exploited.

Westminster ministers said the changes would produce an extra three to four billion more barrels of oil.

The Prime Minister visited a North Sea oil installation ahead of his cabinet meeting, which is being held five miles away from the location of the Scottish government session.

Mr Cameron told the BBC: "What we see with the North Sea is a great success story for the United Kingdom - and now the oil and gas is getting harder to recover it is more important than ever that the North Sea oil and gas industry has the backing of the whole of the United Kingdom.

"I think this family of nations is better off together. We want you to stay. My argument is one that is unremittingly positive about the success of this family of nations.

"It is worth listening to people like Bob Dudley from BP who talk positively about the strengths the UK brings to the North Sea oil industry."

The first North Sea oil came ashore in June 1975 and production is thought to have peaked in 1999, with more than 40 billion barrels extracted so far.

Although the oil and gas are now tougher to extract, the reserves are substantial - between 15 billion and 24 billion barrels of oil equivalent - meaning possibly another 30 to 40 years of production. And there could be new discoveries such as the fields west of Shetland.

But concerns over falling production led the UK government to ask Sir Ian to review the offshore industry.

He said the UK government's Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) was "significantly underresourced and far too thinly spread" to effectively manage the increasingly complex business and operating environment.

During his visit to Scotland, the Prime Minister was also asked, in the event of a Yes vote in the referendum, if he would support an independent Scotland's application to join the EU.

Mr Cameron said: "Absolutely, but it's not my choice how EU applications work."

The Scottish cabinet usually meets in Edinburgh, but regularly holds sessions in towns and cities across Scotland, especially in the summer months.

Mr Cameron's predecessor as prime minister, Gordon Brown, held a meeting of the UK cabinet in Glasgow in 2009.

Before that, the UK cabinet had last met in Scotland in 1921.

Will you be voting in the 18 September independence referendum? Are you concerned over the future of the North Sea oil and gas industry? Please send us your comments using the form below.

Foreign aid to Somalia 'helps Al Qaeda': Pressure grows to divert cash back to the UK

• David Cameron has approved huge handouts to the East African state
• Money is handed over in a bid to stop country becoming next Afghanistan
• Leaked UN report has warned of 'systematic abuses' by Somali officials
• Government has passed weapons to Al Shabaab, group behind Kenyan mall bombings  

Brutal: Hundreds of newly trained al-Shabab fighters perform military exercises in Somalia

By TOM KELLY and TIM SHIPMAN

Britain is donating more than £90million a year to Somalia despite strong warnings that its corrupt government is arming Al Qaeda-backed terrorists.

David Cameron has approved the huge handouts to the war-torn East African country in an attempt to stop it becoming the next Afghanistan.

But a leaked United Nations report has warned of ‘high level and systematic abuses’ by Somali government officials who have passed weapons and ammunition to Al Shabaab – the Al Qaeda-linked Islamic fanatics behind last year’s Kenyan shopping mall massacre in which 67 people died.

British aid to Somalia is already channelled through charities and agencies, rather than central government, in a bid to sidestep rampant corruption among officials.

Prevention: David Cameron has approved 

the huge handouts to the war-torn East African country

in an attempt to stop it becoming the next Afghanistan

et a separate study revealed that many of these organisations have been forced to hand over large sums in ‘protection money’ to Al Shabaab to be allowed to work there – even during the drought and famine of 2011 when nearly 260,000 Somalis died. 

And nearly £500,000 of British aid and supplies has previously been stolen by Al Shabaab militants.

The revelations last night prompted MPs to renew calls for a portion of Britain’s £11billion international aid budget be diverted to help flood victims in the West Country and the Thames Valley.

More than 290,000 people have now signed the Daily Mail’s petition urging the Government to raid the aid budget to help pay for the clean-up.

Ian Liddell-Grainger, the Tory MP for flood-hit Bridgwater in Somerset, told the Mail: ‘This is new evidence of what many MPs have warned about for years – that our aid money ends up in the wrong hands.

‘There are a lot of countries where we shouldn’t be sending aid because we’re not helping the locals and often the money finds its way to despicable people. 

We need to remember that charity begins at home. There are people in need here.’

Terrorists: Somalian government officials are said to have handed weapons over to members of the militant group al Shabaab

Stewart Jackson, the Tory MP for Peterborough, said: ‘Taxpayers are willing to support overseas aid if it goes to deserving people. But when it goes to Third World kleptocrats and terrorists they will be concerned. We need a reassessment of aid when there are pressing priorities at home.’

Somalia was plunged into lawlessness after President Siad Barre was overthrown in 1991.

However, International Development Secretary Justine Greening has said Britain is forging a ‘new and special relationship with Somalia’ and must fund it to stop it slipping back into ‘terrorism, famine and insecurity’.

The Prime Minister also hosted an international conference in London last year, in which he pledged to help the country rebuild its security forces to tackle insurgents.

Mr Cameron said: ‘If we ignore it we will be making the same mistakes that we made in Afghanistan in the 1990s. I’m not prepared to let that happen.’ 

A Department for International Development spokesman said: ‘This report provides absolutely no evidence that any UK funds have gone to Al Shabaab.

‘DfID works in Somalia because creating a more stable and prosperous world for the UK means tackling the causes of poverty, disease and terrorism at the root.’ 

Click HERE to sign the Mail's flood petition

ok

Political science professor explains UN intervention policy

Photo courtesy of Albion College

By Emma Planet

Last Wednesday, Feb. 19, assistant professor of political science Carrie Booth Walling delivered a lecture on a matter of international interest: humanitarian intervention.

Bobbitt Auditorium was packed with students and faculty eager to hear about Walling’s recently published book, All Necessary Measures: The United Nations and Humanitarian Intervention.

“I have a passion for human rights,” Walling said in her lecture.

This passion, she said, started when she was the same age as many of her students here at Albion College. While Walling was in college, the wars in Yugoslavia and the Rwandan Genocide were both ongoing.

“I was really struck by a horrific sense of injustice and an immense amount of frustration that these crimes were being permitted to continue,” Walling said.

It was within this context that Walling discovered international human rights, which provided dignity, justice and equality on a global scale.

Most deplorably, crimes similar to those in Yugoslavia and Rwanda continue today.

Walling’s work focuses largely on international responses to these mass crimes.

“When we get to the point of debating whether or not humanitarian intervention is appropriate or necessary, it’s a sign that our policy or our international policy has already been a failure,” Walling said.

Wondering what drives the United Nations Security Council to interfere in some crises and not others, Walling researched patterns in council member reactions and the consequent solutions. She investigated situations where the council stepped in – Somalia, Bosnia-Herzegovina and Sierra Leone – and noted the council’s absence in the cases of Rwanda, Kosovo and Sudan.

Walling set out to determine what prompts the use of military force in defending human rights.

“[P]ower in the Security Council at the start of the 21st century is no longer simply about whose military can win but also about whose story can win,” Walling says in her book.

The key, she decided, is in the council members’ stories about the conflict’s cause and nature, as well as the target state’s authority.Walling explained that Security Council members must conclusively agree on the conflict, its clear perpetrators and victims to reach a solution. In addition, state sovereignty must often allow for intervention.

“Generally, the Security Council needs a ‘bad guy’ to stop and a ‘good guy’ to work with or defend,” Walling said.

In the end, it’s largely an argument of definition – is a conflict intentional, inadvertent or complex?

“An intentional story identifies a perpetrator [which] is deliberately and systematically harming a particular set of victims,” Walling said.

For example, following a massacre in Sarajevo, the Serbian government identified Bosnian-Serbs as the perpetrators. The victims were the Muslims of Bosnia-Herzegovina. A casual chain is evident through use of the word “ethnic cleansing” in this case.

A story like this, with clear perpetrators and victims, opens up the possibility that you can get humanitarian intervention, Walling said.

However, when states are labeled perpetrators of a crime, mediation doesn’t happen because this would bring state sovereignty and military intervention into conflict.

“The protection of state sovereignty prompts policies of non-intervention in the domestic affairs of states, whereas the protection of fundamental human rights prompts the possibility of humanitarian intervention,” Walling said.

Albion College junior Patrick Lopez of Boise, ID, attended Walling’s lecture.

“Her presentation was very effective in demonstrating the UNSC’s decision-making logic when it came to the use of force,” Lopez said.

Lopez, who especially appreciates learning how supranationals make decisions, said she did a great job boiling it down to the basics.

First-year Madeline Beattie of Mount Prospect, IL, works with Walling through the Student Research Partners Program.

“I really liked the lecture,” Beattie said. “Most of the research I help Dr. Walling with is centered on Syria, so it was interesting to hear about how our ideas applied to other events,” she added.

Walling’s exploration of the Council’s values, national interests and their impact on decision-making is especially valuable as they suggest prospective UN intervention.

The Albion Pleiad staff strives to correct all errors of fact. If you've seen an error in our pages, let us know at pleiad@albion.edu. General comments should be posted in our comments section at the bottom of each article.

ABOUT AUTHOR

Emma Planet

Emma is a first-year at Albion College from Sterling Heights, Michigan. She is pursuing a double-major in English and Environmental Studies as well as a pre-law concentration. She uses her writing to raise awareness about environmental issues and adores pretzels paired with junior mints. Add her on Twitter:

Somaliland v Somalia: great new paper on an extraordinary ‘natural experiment’ in aid and governance

Could someone please clone Sarah Phillips? The University of Sydney political scientist has a great new Developmental Leadership Program (DLP) paper out on Somaliland, following her excellent paper a few years ago on Yemen.

Political Settlements and State Formation: The Case of Somaliland may not sound like much of a page turner, but it is brilliant. It explores one of those natural experiments beloved of researchers – what can we learn when two neighbouring countries part company and head off in different directions (North v South Korea, West v East Germany).

Phillips compares Somaliland v Somalia – while the first has emerged from the  shared chaos of the 1990s (and a brutal effort by Somalia to put down Somaliland separatists) into the sunlit uplands of relative peace and stability (some taxation, rudimentary public services, security, two peaceful presidential transitions through the ballot box, including one to the opposition), the other is the quintessential failed state. How come?

Her conclusions do not make comfortable reading, for they trample on any number of received wisdoms. Try these on for size:

Somaliland’s government has received virtually no direct financial aid, largely because it is not internationally recognized. The country itself gets a lot of aid via NGOs, UN projects etc etc, but the government has been generally outside this loop, forced to rely on local sources of funding.

Perhaps more important than the financial aspects, this meant there was no pressure to accept template political institutions from outside. Instead, Somaliland had time and political space to negotiate its own (e.g. clan-based) political settlements. The process involved a series of ad hoc, messy, consultative, and local peace conferences. In the most important conference, in 1993, one group stalled proceedings by reciting the Koran for several days. That’s not in the good governance playbook.

The peace process was almost entirely locally funded, due to Somaliland’s unrecognized status (so no bilateral aid or loans were available). That produced a strong sense of local ownership (literally). In the words of one minister, when asked by Phillips about aid ‘Aid is not what we desire because [then] they decide for us what we need’.

What’s less discussed is the power politics that underlies this transition. The second president used private loans to demobilise about 5,000 militia fighters. He offered stability (and tax breaks) to the business elite in exchange for funding demobilisation and the nascent state institutions. This was effective but certainly not inclusive – the elite came mainly from the President’s own clan. But according to Phillips, Somalilanders generally still see it as a legitimate process – that’s what leaders do.

The paper highlights the critical political importance of elite secondary schools in forging leadership. Available to a relatively small group of often privileged Somalilanders, this is in stark contrast to the donor emphasis on universal primary education. In particular, many of Phillips’ interviews led to the Sheekh Secondary School, set up by Richard Darlington, who fought in WWII as the commander of the Somaliland Protectorate contingent. Sheekh took only 50 kids a year and trained them in leadership, critical thought and standard (Darlington borrowed from the curriculum of his old school, Harrow). Sheekh provided 3 out of 4 presidents, plus any number of vice presidents, cabinet members etc. And no it isn’t a weird Somaliland version of Eton and Harrow (I asked) – it stressed student intake from all clans, especially from the more marginalized ones.

Somalilanders believe they are special, but also at risk:

‘For Somalilanders, the threat of violence was less from an external invasion than an internal combustion. This perception had profound impacts on the institutions – and the ideas about violence that undergird them – that were fostered during this period. Protection from violence was viewed as an internal matter, and if violence had been a political tool and a political choice for local actors in the recent past it was believed that it could become so again with little warning. Peace was precarious, and it rested on a tenuous balance between coalitions with roughly equivalent power.  Somaliland’s civil wars in the mid-1990s provided the opportunity for local coalitions to determine that no one clan could dominate the others.’

Conclusion (with due nods to local context, can’t generalize etc etc)? There is an upside to detachment from external aid and political influence. In the right circumstances, being detached can promote co-dependence between local elites, leading to durable, authentic institutions: ‘legitimate institutions are those born through local political and social processes, and that these are largely shaped through the leadership process.’

oxfamblogs.org/fp2p/somaliland-v-somalia-great-new-paper-on-an-extraordinary-natural-experiment-in-aid-and-governance/

How much nuclear power does Iran need?

Summary

Iran could clarify the bottom line on enrichment with an up-to-date assessment of its needs for nuclear power in domestic energy production.

European Union foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton (L) and Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif arrive for a press statement after a conference in Vienna, Feb. 20, 2014.  (photo by REUTERS/Heinz-Peter Bader)

by Seyed Hossein Mousavian

The new round of Iran nuclear talks concluded on Feb. 20, where the world powers and Iran agreed on a framework, a plan of action and a timetable to conduct negotiations on a comprehensive agreement in the next four months. “We have had three very productive days during which we have identified all of the issues we need to address in reaching a comprehensive and final agreement,” European Union foreign policy head Catherine Ashton said.

One of the major challenges that negotiations would face, however, is to determine Iran’s real domestic demand for nuclear energy. The reason is that according to the Geneva interim agreement, the comprehensive solution should “involve a mutually defined enrichment program with mutually agreed parameters consistent with practical needs, with agreed limits on scope and level of enrichment activities, capacity, where it is carried out, and stocks of enriched uranium, for a period to be agreed upon (emphasis added).”

Nuclear energy results from the fission or splitting of uranium and plutonium nuclei when a small particle called a neutron hits the uranium atom. As a result of this process, an enormous amount of energy in the form of heat and radiation is released. This energy is used to convert water into steam, which is used for rotation of turbines that generate electricity.

Nuclear energy is a significant source of electricity production and will remain so for the foreseeable future. Nuclear reactors continue to increase in number around the world. As of February 2014, there are 434 operable reactors with the capacity to produce 380,000 megawatts (MW); 70 more reactors with the capacity to produce 75,000 MW are under construction and another 173 reactors are planned or ordered to be built worldwide. According to a January 2014 report by the World Nuclear Association, "Over 45 countries are actively embarking upon nuclear power programs."

Determination of Iran’s practical needs requires consideration of the country's optimal energy resource portfolio and supply of energy services to sustain economic growth. I was told by related Iranian officials that based on several studies, Tehran is determined to have an optimum share of nuclear energy in Iran’s power generation program.

The studies consistently reaffirmed the importance of nuclear energy. For instance, a 1973 study by the Stanford Research Institute concluded that Iran would need nuclear power plants capable of generating 20,000 MW of electricity by the year 1994. A joint study in 1994 of the Research and Training Institute for Management and Development Planning of Iran and Sharif University was conducted with the intent of determining energy options in 2021. That study indicates that out of 52,000 MW of forecasted electricity demand, the optimum share of nuclear energy would be 11,000 MW, which amounts to 20% of Iran's projected consumption. It is noteworthy that this study assumed an oil price of $30 per barrel in its calculation of the optimum share of nuclear energy. We may infer from this that oil prices rising above $30 per barrel should discourage the use of fossil fuel-based electricity generation in favor of other forms of energy including nuclear energy.

Studies conducted by the Iranian Atomic Energy Organization prepared for the Energy High Council of Iran for the year 2021 forecast the optimum capacity of nuclear energy in electricity production at 10,000 MW or 12.5% of the forecasted total electricity production. The latest studies conducted by the Iran Power Generation and Transmission Company (TAVANIR) using the Wien Automatic System Planning (WASP), a computerized model for power generating system expansion planning for the year 2031, recommend a nuclear energy share of 8,000 MW — out of 120,000 MW total electricity consumption forecasted — as the optimum share of nuclear energy in Iran’s energy basket.

Some argue that infrastructural investments and overhead costs in the port of Bushehr, where Iran’s first nuclear power plant is located, does not justify adding only 1,000 MW of electricity to Iran’s national grid. This is a valid argument. According to studies by the Iranian Atomic Energy Organization, Iran needs to add between two and four more power plants in Bushehr to make the project economically viable. That explains the normal practice in nuclear power plant projects to build four to six plants beside each other, thus reducing operating costs per unit and justifying the initial infrastructural investments. As an example, both Turkey and the United Arab of Emirates (UAE) have each started with four units.

It was based on these considerations that Iran decided to pursue the construction of four more nuclear power plants in cooperation with Russia. Construction of the first unit in Bushehr with a capacity of 1,000 MW is expected to start in 2014, while construction of the second unit, also in Bushehr, would begin in 2016. After that, construction of two more units would start, each two years apart.

One of the arguments against Iran’s nuclear program has been that Iran as an oil-rich country does not need nuclear energy as a source for power generation. When we look back, we see that Iran entered into the nuclear field in 1957, encouraged by the Americans, specifically thanks to President Dwight Eisenhower’s Atoms for Peace Initiative. In the 1970s, the shah had ambitious plans for expanding the nuclear program, envisioning 23 nuclear power plants by 1994, with support from the United States. One wonders why this argument was not raised then, when Iran’s population was only one-third of what it is today. 

In any event, this argument ignores the fact that oil consumption in Iran is increasing exponentially as a result of increasing population and more and more cars on the road. The domestic demand of oil increased from 1.3 million barrels per day in 2001 to 1.9 million in 2010. This shows an increase of almost 50% in a decade. By looking at the trend in Indonesia — i.e., the country’s transformation from an oil exporter to a net oil importer — there exists the likelihood of a similar scenario in Iran.

A recent study by the World Economic Forum ranked countries based on how secure they are in terms of energy. Iran, interestingly, was ranked 102 out of 124 countries. This of course does not mean that all the energy-related problems in Iran are a result of a lack of nuclear energy. Rather, it means that lots of work needs to be done in the field of energy including but not limited to optimal expansion of nuclear energy.

Saudi Arabia's intent to build nuclear power plants was actually the biggest blow to proponents of the argument that oil giants do not require nuclear energy. In April 2010, a royal decree espoused, “The development of atomic energy is essential to meet the kingdom's growing requirements for energy to generate electricity, produce desalinated water and reduce reliance on depleting hydrocarbon resources.” According to the World Nuclear Association, Saudi Arabia plans to build 16 nuclear power reactors over the next 20 years, the first one scheduled to come on line in 2022.

Another oil-rich country, the UAE, with a population of just over five million and an area of 85,000 square kilometer (32,8187 square miles) — as opposed to Iran's population of 77 million and 1.6 million square kilometer (617,763 square miles) — is traversing the same path. A February report indicates that by 2020, four nuclear power plants will be generating up to one-quarter of the UAE’s electricity supply. The first two plants are estimated at 35% complete.

Within the framework of the Joint Plan of Action moving toward a final deal, talks between Iran and the P5+1 will focus on the issue of Iran’s real nuclear demand. Iran's justification should center on the economic optimization of power generation costs. This will be critical in determining the mutually agreed level and extent of Iran’s uranium enrichment program. To that end, Iranians should prepare and present to the P5+1 an updated study that clearly defines the optimum share of nuclear energy required by Iran for power generation in the coming years, aiming to responsibly sustain economic growth.

Source: al-monitor.com

Scotland's Future: Glasgow Film Festival not immune from independence debate

Wes Anderson's The Grand Budapest Hotel was this year's opening film

By Neil Smith

Entertainment reporter, BBC News, at the Glasgow Film Festiva

The referendum that will decide Scotland's future is seven months away, yet it is hard to get away from it at this year's Glasgow Film Festival.

The subject seems to have even made it to Beverly Hills 90210, if comments made by actor turned director Jason Priestley after a screening of his latest film are anything to go by.

Asked how he might follow Cas and Dylan, a road movie starring Hollywood veteran Richard Dreyfuss and Orphan Black's Tatiana Maslany, the former TV star joked that he might consider something on "the proposed secession of Scotland".

His light-hearted remarks followed David Bowie's more earnest plea for unity at this week's Brits, an episode that led some to ponder the wisdom of celebrities involving themselves in political affairs.

Scottish comedian John Sessions, in town to give a highly entertaining talk on his life and career, says it can be "a bit toe-curling and "luvvie-ish" to hear actors like himself pontificating on weighty matters of state.

That does not prevent him, however, from insisting a Yes vote in September "would be one of the biggest disasters to ever befall this wonderful country".

There are some, though, who opt to keep their counsel, amongst them The IT Crowd's Richard Ayoade.

"I feel the expectation is not there for my pronouncements," says the comedian turned director, in town to present his dystopian black comedy The Double.

"I haven't been asked to lob my tuppence into the political fray, and I'm not sure my particular brand of banality will be called upon."I haven't been asked to lob my tuppence into the political fray, and I'm not sure my particular brand of banality will be called upon."

Richard Dreyfuss stars as an ageing surgeon with a terminal brain tumour in Cas and Dylan

Whatever the people decide later this year, the Glasgow Film Festival can at least be confident in its own future.

Now marking its 10th anniversary, the event has grown to be the third biggest in the UK (after London and Edinburgh) while retaining its reputation for accessibility and inclusivity.

"A person has the right to end their life as he or she wishes, and no one has the right to take that away”….Richard Dreyfuss

This year's opening night film for example - The Grand Budapest Hotel, the newest star-laden oddity from US auteur Wes Anderson - was followed by a party to which all the audience were invited.

The festival has also continued its policy of finding unusual places to hold screenings, encouraging its audiences to discover parts of the city they might not know existed.

Celebrity guests, meanwhile, are gently encouraged to interact with patrons in a way that would be unthinkable at the likes of Cannes or Venice.

Yet accessibility only goes so far. Richard Dreyfuss, for example, had his every move on Saturday shadowed by a pair of burly security guards, who were in no mood to let his adoring public get too close.

Dreyfuss, incidentally, was also eager to sound off on a potentially divisive subject. In his case, however, that subject was euthanasia and the right of an individual to choose the time and manner of their passing.

It is a topic raised by Cas and Dylan, in which an ageing surgeon with a terminal brain tumour contemplates suicide with the help of a free-spirited would-be authoress.

"I personally think that anyone who tries to interfere with the most important decision a person could possibly make, how one chooses to exit one's life, is terrible, intrusive and cruel," the 66-year-old declared.

"A person has the right to end their life as he or she wishes, and no one has the right to take that away."

The Glasgow Film Festival continues until 2 March.

Scottish independence Pounded into submission: It has not taken much to reveal the folly in Scottish nationalists’ plans

ALEX SALMOND’S first foray into politics was in primary school, when he represented the Scottish National Party in mock elections—and won, after pledging to replace his fellow pupils’ daily allowance of milk with ice cream. As that party’s leader, he kept the flame burning during the dark days of Tony Blair’s government, when devolution seemed to have killed nationalism stone dead. Given how long Mr Salmond has been pondering the cause of Scottish independence, he might have thought up some better answers to the first real political attack on his plans.

A joint assault from London and Brussels has knocked Mr Salmond onto his heels and jeopardised his chances of winning a referendum, due in September, on Scotland’s future (see article). Britain’s three main political parties flatly declared that they would not countenance a currency union with an independent Scotland. Since four-fifths of Scots want to keep using the pound, this is a devastating blow. Then José Manuel Barroso, president of the European Commission, added that Scotland would find it almost impossible to join the EU.


Mr Salmond has responded with a mixture of bluster, denial, obfuscation and crude threat. How dare Westminster politicians, and especially posh Tories like George Osborne, the chancellor of the exchequer, talk down to Scotland? Don’t they realise it will drive Scots into the secessionist camp? A currency union would work fine, he continues: see pages 140 to 149 of a technocratic review carried out for the Scottish government last year. Any Westminster politician who rules it out is surely bluffing. If by some chance they are not, and refuse to let an independent Scotland share the pound, well, Salmondland will refuse to shoulder its share of the national debt.

This newspaper believes it is entirely up to Scots to decide whether their country should leave the United Kingdom. If they want to be independent, they should go for it. But this week’s fracas ought to give any Scot pause. It has abruptly revealed some of the dangers of going it alone—and some of the dodginess of the man who touts that future.

Mr Salmond promises Scots the grown-up equivalent of free ice cream: an easy separation that will leave everyone better off. This is a confection. An independent Scotland might be able to pay its way at first, but its finances will deteriorate sharply as its people age and the North Sea runs out of oil and gas. Even while it remains a petro-state, Scotland’s revenues will veer up and down with oil prices. It could not sustain its current (very large) welfare bill, let alone the extra toppings the nationalists promise, involving free child care and the like.

Divorce in haste, repent at leisure

And Mr Salmond is wrong: Westminster is not bluffing over the pound. The Treasury means it when it says currency unions only work when budgets are controlled centrally—hardly the autonomy nationalists are planning for. The rest of Britain would also want control over Scotland’s large banks. Sharing the pound might be intolerable even then. Buried in the technocratic report Mr Salmond cites are plans for formal Scottish representation on the Bank of England, but English voters are unlikely to tolerate a foreign country weighing in on their interest rates. Mark Carney, the governor of the Bank of England, delivered the same message as Mr Osborne, more softly.

Nationalists promise, blithely, that everybody will start behaving nicely when Scotland votes for independence. Nonsense: the dispute over the pound is just a taster of the bitter rows that would follow—involving the division of North Sea oil, pension payments and much else. Mr Barroso may overstate the difficulty of Scotland joining the EU, but the process would probably be slow, especially if Britain kicks up a fuss. Mr Salmond seems to forget that British politicians would no longer be beholden to the people of his country.


Picking a fight with Scottish nationalists is a risk, too: it might drive voters into their arms. But Mr Osborne and other unionist politicians are right to do it, because the alternative is worse: Scots voting for independence in the belief that it would come with a couple of scoops and a chocolate flake

Egypt to officially demand halt in construction of Ethiopian dam

The minister of irrigation says unless Ethiopia offers a mutually agreeable solution, Egypt may demand the Ethiopian government to stop the construction of the Renaissance Dam

Ethiopia's Great Renaissance Dam is constructed in Guba Woreda, some 40 km (25 miles) from Ethiopia's border with Sudan, June 28, 2013. (Photo: Reuters)

By Marina Barsoum,

Minister of Irrigation Mohamed Abdel-Motteleb told Al-Ahram daily newspaper that Egypt may in a few days send an official statement demanding that construction of the Ethiopian dam be halted until a mutually agreeable solution is found.

Irrigation Ministry spokesperson Khaled Wassef told Ahram Online that four attempts to negotiate the matter, the last of which proved an utter failure, have already been extended by Egypt.

Abdel-Motteleb also told Al-Ahram daily that should the Ethiopian government offer new solutions, Egypt would nevertheless welcome a new round of negotiations. 

"All proposals submitted by Egypt to the Ethiopian government have been obstinately rejected and without explanation," Wassef added.

The planned Grand Renaissance Dam is a $4.2 billion hydro-electric dam on the Blue Nile, one of the main tributaries of the Nile.

The project has been a source of concern for the Egyptian government since May last year, when images of the dam's construction stirred public anxiety about possible effects on Egypt's share of the Nile water, the country's main source of potable water.

Egypt, Ethiopia and Sudan formed a tripartite technical committee to study the possible effects of the dam and try to generate consensus. Ethiopia maintains that Egypt's water share will not be negatively affected by the successful completion of the project.

In recent meetings in Khartoum, the tripartite committee was scheduled to formulate a document that entails "confidence building measures" between the countries, and also to form a special international conflict-resolution committee.

However, the tripartite committee's success was thwarted last December when Sudanese President Omar Al-Bashir announced his support for the dam during a meeting with Ethiopian Prime Minister Hailemariam Desalegn.

Wassef has earlier said that the Ethiopian Grand Renaissance Dam faces financial as well as technical problems, and that the Ethiopian government's statements that the project has been 30 percent completed are a "media show" for its own political gains. 

Egypt has demanded that Ethiopia submit construction plans for the dam for assessment by international experts.

Meanwhile, Ethiopian Irrigation Minister Alamayo Tegno said his country is committed to the recommendations of an international committee of experts.

Source: english.ahram.org.eg

EXCLUSIVE: NOW IT'S ETHIOPIA SPYING ON AMERICANS' COMPUTERS

Maryland resident accuses foreign state of electronic stalking with spyware

A lawsuit has been filed on behalf of a Maryland resident who claims the government of his native Ethiopia spied on him with an electronic program that was created – and is sold to governments – for the purpose of observing the life people have on their computers – unnoticed.

Amid all the reports of spying on Americans by the U.S. government, through the National Security Agency, FBI and others, the complaint filed by the Electronic Frontier Foundation on behalf of a man identified only by the pseudonym of Mr. Kidane takes allegations to a whole new level.

The complaint filed in the U.S. District Court in Washington alleges the Ethiopian government infected his computer so that it could wiretap his private Skype calls and monitor his family’s every use of the computer for months on end.

“We have clear evidence of a foreign government secretly infiltrating an American’s computer in America, listening to his calls, and obtaining access to a wide swath of his private life,” said EFF Staff Attorney Nate Cardozo.

“The current Ethiopian government has a well-documented history of human rights violations against anyone it sees as political opponents. Here, it wiretapped a United States citizen on United States soil in an apparent attempt to obtain information about members of the Ethiopian diaspora who have been critical of their former government. U.S. laws protect Americans from this type of unauthorized electronic spying, regardless of who is responsible.”

The EFF said a forensic examination of the computer revealed the spyware, which is made and sold to governments by the Gamma Group of Companies, was installed when Kidane opened a Microsoft Word document.

There was an attachment with a program called FinSpy, and that program over months recorded his activities on the computer. It was discovered because the spyware left traces of the files it copied and surreptitiously sent to a secret control server located in Ethiopia and controlled by that government, the claim alleges.

“The problem of governments violating the privacy of their political opponents through digital surveillance is not isolated – it’s already big and growing bigger,” Cindy Cohn, the EFF legal director, said. “Yet despite the international intrigue and genuine danger involved in his lawsuit, at bottom it’s a straightforward case. An American citizen was wiretapped at his home in Maryland, and he’s asking for his day in court under longstanding American laws.”

Officials with the EFF said the attack apparently is part of a systematic program by the Ethiopian government to spy on perceived political opponents in the Ethiopian diaspora around the world.

They said human rights agencies and news outlets elsewhere have made related claims.

And they said Ethiopia is not alone. They said CitizenLab, a team of University of Toronto researchers, has discovered evidence that governments around the world are using FinSpy and other technologies to spy on human rights and democracy advocates.

EFF reports, “Essentially, the malware took over our client’s computer and secretly sent copies of his activities, including Skype calls, web searches and indications of websites visited [and] other activity, to the Ethiopian government.”

“This case is important because it demonstrates that state-sponsored malware infections and can indeed are occurring in the U.S. against U.S. citizens. It seeks to demonstrate that warrantless wiretapping is illegal and can be the basis of a lawsuit in the United States, regardless of who engages in it,” EFF said.

The complaint explains FinSpy can record Internet telephone calls, text messages, and file transfers transmitted through Skype, record every keystroke on the computer, and take a picture of the contents displayed on a computer’s screen. It can even covertly record audio from a computer’s microphone even when no Skype calls are taking place.

The complaint said the Internet Protocol to which the spyware sent data was inside Ethiopia, and was under control of the state-owned Ethio Telecom communications company.

Source: wnd.com