Beware the CyberNats – they point to a very dark place.

“In extreme situations nationalism appears to neutralise that part of the mind which is able to fathom complex equations. Instead, action is motivated by a single Leninist principle: “Those who are not for us are against us”

Misha Glenny

Mr Glenny was writing about The Balkans where nationalism was the driver of that most bloody of wars as Yugoslavia collapsed into lethal chaos in the early 1990s. But his words will also ring a bell with observers of present-day Scotland where sufficient numbers have given up trying to fathom anything and have descended into crude nationalistic abuse of those who are not “for” them. I use the word “sufficient” advisedly – it is not the majority who are standing screaming abuse on these particular soapboxes but those who spew their bile especially on social media. The so-called “CyberNats”.

I am neither famous enough nor controversial enough to get much abuse on Twitter. Some of my 2600 followers often disagree with me, but politely! But if I make any mildly critical remark of the Scottish National Party or the fanaticism of some of their supporters then the Twitter feed becomes X-rated! All that is of little consequence – I block abusers (including one deeply unpleasant SNP Member of the Scottish Parliament!) and that is that. But what is of consequence is the distorting effect that the “Those who are not for us are against us” mind-set in Scotland has had on British politics. I was told in all seriousness that the Scottish Labour Party should have supported the “Yes” vote in the Independence Referendum and it was because they didn't that Scotland turned against Labour. I would like to address that view here.

On the night of Labour’s General Election defeat Ed Milliband said this:

“...in Scotland we have seen a surge of nationalism overwhelm our party,"

He was right - that is exactly what happened. History tells us that nationalism can force out tyrants and replace dictatorships with democrats – or it can have the reverse effect. (In the Balkans it did both simultaneously depending where you were). In Scotland there were no tyrants to be deposed and no dictators to be sent packing. What there was was firstly a concern about the established British political order and its power and secondly a view that to secede from the Union was the solution. But the truth was that Scotland was not being governed by the people-oppressing English at all and arguably never had been since the Act of Union in 1707! (The Jacobites thought differently, but they were as much opposed by fellow Scots as by the English)

The rebellion of 2015 North of the Border was a mass protest by half of those who voted and the electoral system meant that this 50% got a wholly disproportionate 95% of the seats. This was the “surge of nationalism” Milliband referred to. The momentum towards secession, briefly halted by the referendum defeat, was given a possibly unstoppable push.

The minds that were and are able to “fathom complex equations” want nothing to do with Scottish independence and the break-up of the United Kingdom. To be proud to be British (I am) is in no way incompatible with a pride in being Scottish (which I would be, if I was!). My Britishness incorporates the heartfelt conviction that Scotland is an indissoluble part of it. Having lived in Scotland permanently for three years, owned a house there for twenty and visited the country frequently I relate to it as being part of me. The idea that I would be visiting a foreign country if Scotland became independent is deeply repellent.

So let me say to the CyberNats who occasionally abuse me (including that MSP!) you have fallen into the trap of flaying your arms in a random way and catching innocent people in your trauma. You don't have to be Scottish to love Scotland and you don't have to be a Nationalist to protect your country. The modern world encourages breakaway as the last resort to combat evil or repression – but by no stretch of the imagination can that be said to apply to Scotland. After 300 years of Britishness which has been a great success story - and in which the Scots fully played their part - please don't go into denial because a new paradigm (a Federal Britain for example) is too difficult to fathom. Better Together!   

UK Energy consumption - We'll be using oil and gas for a long time !

To call, as the G7 has, for a non fossil fuel world by the end of the century is all very well. But it needs technology advances that are not in the pipeline.

Energy use can conveniently be divided between that which is competitive between primary energy alternatives and that which is not. Electricity generation is a classic example of the former. You can generate electricity from Coal, Oil, Gas, Wind, Nuclear,  Solar, Hydro...etc etc. To have all our electricity from renewable resources is technically feasible. Which does not mean that it is affordable, practical or the best of choices in all cases.

In the non fuel competitive category are the Oil specific uses. Primarily in Transport. Here it is either technically non feasible to use anything but oil (Aircraft), or has a hugely negative economic consequence. Shipping is presently 99% oil reliant. Road transport (Cars and trucks and buses etc) not much less. You can use electricity to move cars (etc.) but until there is a technology breakthrough which gives cost and range parity with petrol/diesel it will not happen to any significant extent.

In the UK and across the rest of Europe we substantially use Natural Gas as our domestic fuel - in the home.  We heat our homes with Gas and cook with it. These applications are not hydrocarbons specific - you could use Electricity as an alternative and many homes do. But to switch existing gas-using homes to electricity would requirement a truly enormous capital investment. Who would pay, and would it be worth it? And to generate the necessary electricity from renewable sources would also require a huge capital investment in (mainly) wind turbines - where would we locate them, and where would the money come from?  Alternatively it would require many new Nuclear plants to which we could apply the same question.

The reality of our primary energy use shown in the pie chart above is that over time there is potential to shift it substantially from hydrocarbons. But to predicate a "non fossil fuel world" by the end of the century is pie in the sky...

Lucky Dave could stop the Eurosceptics, and for that at least we should be grateful.

In an article in The Times today Tim Montgomerie praises David Cameron - not something that comes naturally to him! Fair's fair! In my view Cameron has been lucky - but then Napoleon (and Montgomery) wanted lucky Generals above all else. His is the Tale of Two Referenda. The Scottish one destroyed Labour's power base in Scotland completely. This was luck for Dave, he can claim no credit for it. Labour fought an honourable and right campaign for a "No" vote in Scotland - won, and were punished for their victory. It really was an astonishing fall from grace. And Cameron was the main beneficiary as Tim correctly points out.

And the EU Referendum? Well here Dave has used his unexpected strength to play a political game Machiavelli , or his representative on Planet Earth Peter Mandelson, would have been proud of! The "Outers" are probably a majority in the Parliamentary party. The Fury of the Hannans and their ilk at the moment is palpable. (Even Tim and the ConHome lot are fuming, albeit slightly more rationally than the Hannanites). As ever the Europhobic wing of the Party is an existential threat. But Dave has power and patronage. A new MP with hopes for a job won't want to blot his/her copybook. The payroll vote will mostly do what they are told. Boris is mumbling but will come into line. We all, from both sides of the EU debate, know that the "negotiations" are all smoke and mirrors. There will be a bit of window dressing signifying little, but capable of being sold as a good outcome for Britain. And Dave will sell it. End of Story!

A few short weeks ago a united Labour Party seemed to be en route for victory. Even Dave thought so - and had written the speech. But the Great British People (GBP) thought otherwise. They probably surprised themselves with what they did. Dave was the least worst choice - he still is. The GBP has got over its flirtation with the shallow and frankly lightweight souls of UKIP. Farage has had his day. Labour is leaderless and all the old Blairite v Brownite battles are being fought anew. And Teflon Dave smiles his way onwards and upwards. And if he delivers an emphatic "Yes" vote in the EU referendum even this ageing Fabian will settle for that !

The technology advances required to eliminate Fossil Fuels as G7 wantsare not on the horizon.

To call, as the G7 has, for a non fossil fuel world by the end of the century is all very well. But it needs technology advances that are not in the pipeline.

Energy use can be conveniently be divided between that which is competitive between primary energy alternatives and that which is not. Electricity generation is a classic example of the former. You can generate electricity from Coal, Oil, Gas, Wind, Solar, Nuclear, Hydro...etc etc. To have all our electricity from renewable and non carbon resources is technically feasible although, of course, some very large investments would be required to make the switch possible in a world in which energy demand is inextricably rising. 

However much of our primary energy consumption is in the "non competitive" category - mainly all the "Oil specific" use in transport. Here it is neither technically feasible to use anything but oil  or there is a hugely negative economic consequence. Aircraft can only fly on oil and there is no alternative (outside Science Fiction!) to this. Shipping is presently 99% oil reliant. Road transport (Cars and trucks and buses etc) not much less. You can use electricity to move cars (etc.) but until there is a technology breakthrough which gives cost and range parity with petrol/diesel it will not happen to any significant extent.

There isn't a "Labour case for Europe". There is a "Case for Europe" PERIOD

Labour leadership contender Andy Burnham is apparently saying there should be a "Labour YES to Europe" campaign. He is wrong. Here's why.

In my response to a recent article by Tory arch Eurosecptic Tim Montgomerie I argued the case for Britain in the EU as follows:

(1). Every European nation, even Germany, cannot expect to compete and have influence on its own. The power blocks of the U.S., China, Russia,  ASEAN etc. will have respect for and have self-interest in dealing with a strong United Europe. Britain alone would be just another player. Large yes, but cast adrift from Europe without bargaining power or even an automatic right to be at the table. We'd be like some embarrassing old Uncle clutching gamely on to the nobility of our history and our once achievements but in reality mumbling on impotently on the sidelines whilst the younger, brighter more forward looking members of our once family get on with managing today and tomorrow.

(2). The undeniable fact that peace in Europe since 1945 did not happen by chance. I'm actually in Croatia as I write this and not one Croatian I've spoken to would argue that their membership of the EU was not strongly predicated on the peace dividend it brings. When I visit Mostar in a day's time I will see the rebuilt bridge which replaced the one destroyed by conflict a few short decades ago. That bridge is a handy metaphor for the wider cooperative benefits of cooperation - Jaw Jaw rather than War War. Churchill was right.

(3)  The EU has its problems and yes twenty plus years after Maastricht it's right that the precise basis of individual nations' membership (not just Britain) should be reviewed. But in my lifetime - precisely coinciding (so far!) with the post war era of cooperation not conflict - nothing has been as uplifting as the removal of barriers across Europe. The free movement of labour and capital, the elimination of tariff and other barriers. The common currency. But above all the recognition that in return for a modest surrender of sovereignty you can be part of strong, credible, multinational Union and you can add to the pride you feel for your own nation a parallel pride in being a European. We must, as Britons, never give up this privilege.

I could add other points to these and I will. But at the highest level of abstraction this are key messages. To be competitive. To build together on post-war peace. To manage change whilst acknowledging the core economic advantages of union.

These things transcend Party. There isn't a Labour (or a Conservative)  case for Britian in Europe there is a British case. The more divided the "Yes" campaign is the more confused the electorate will be and the Party neutrality of the campaign will be lost - a potentially disastrous outcome. 

Sad, Myopic and wrong - Tim Montgomerie on Britain and Europe.

The above are the first three paragraphs in Tim Montgomerie's deeply sad article in The Times today. The rest of it carries on in the same vein. It is sad in so many ways. First a personal observation. I know and like Tim. I strongly relate to and have sympathy for his "The Good Right" initiative. I am no Conservative but I have respect for the post war One Nation Tory era to which it strongly relates. What is forgotten by Tim is that this era was also internationalist and European. Macmillan knew, in part because Churchill and Eden had taught him, that Britain's only future was as an active and wholehearted participant in Europe. The baton passed to Heath who to his great credit overcome the obstacles that De Gaulle had put in Macmillan's way and took Britain formally and rightly into the European Community. After Harold Wilson with characteristic political skill arranged and won a referendum the deal was done. Margaret Thatcher in her Prime Ministerial years sorted out some anomalies of this membership and post Maastricht, and certainly during the Blair/Brown years, the Thatcher outcome was consolidated. That's the history, and it's one that we can all be proud of.

If this first sadness is Tim ignoring history and achievement the next is the myopia that his arguments have to the realities of the modern world. Every European nation, even Germany, cannot expect to compete and have influence on its own. The power blocks of the U.S., China, Russia,  ASEAN etc. will have respect for and have self-interest in dealing with a strong United Europe. Britain alone would be just another player. Large yes, but cast adrift from Europe without bargaining power or even an automatic right to be at the table. We'd be like some embarrassing old Uncle clutching gamely on to the nobility of our history and our once achievements but in reality mumbling on impotently on the sidelines whilst the younger, brighter more forward looking members of our once family get on with managing today and tomorrow.

The next sadness is the lack of robust logic that Brexit has. Tim has a fine mind so I'm certain that he sees the flaws in his own arguments. But, of course and here's the heart of it, he is playing dangerous games with the soul of the Conservative Party. Tim wants a Party largely modelled on the U.S. Republicans. "The Good Right" is clever and decent, but it is in part window dressing for a very different Conservative Party than the present Cameroon one. Tim these days hides that fact that he is a "NeoCon" - something he used to be more open about. But Republican NeoCons, Free Enterprse worshippers, proud Nationalists - all with an underpinning of Christian values is precisely the group with which Tim has most in common - on all counts. This Nationalism is deeply sceptical of all international groupings - the UN and international courts (etc.) among them. Wrong though it would be the U.S. could be more separatist if it wanted to - it's big enough. The UK is emphatically not.

The area where the Europhobes are most exposed is the undeniable fact that peace in Europe since 1945 did not happen by chance. In 1918 the European nations said "Never Again". In 1945 they said the same - and did something about it.  I'm actually in Croatia as I write this and not one Croatian I've spoken to would argue that their membership of the EU was not strongly predicated on the peace dividend it brings. When I visit Mostar in a day's time I will see the rebuilt bridge which replaced the one destroyed by conflict a few short decades ago. That bridge is a handy metaphor for the wider cooperative benefits of cooperation - Jaw Jaw rather than War War. Churchill was right.

Yes the EU has its problems and yes twenty plus years after Maastricht it's right that the precise basis of individual nations' membership (not just Britain) should be reviewed. But in my lifetime - precisely coinciding (so far!) with the post war era of cooperation not conflict - nothing has been as uplifting as the removal of barriers across Europe. The free movement of labour and capital, the elimination of tariff and other barriers. The common currency. But above all the recognition that in return for a modest surrender of sovereignty you can be part of strong, credible, multinational Union and you can add to the pride you feel for your own nation a parallel pride in being a European. We must, as Britons, never give up this privilege.

My argument against Daniel Hannan's "Fantasy" anti EU rant in theTelegraph today

Fantasy stuff. Useful though, on  "Know your enemy" grounds. Political obsessives are usually laughing-stocks, or dangerous. I haven't quite decided which Mr Hannan is - maybe a bit of both. The Europhobes are either ignorant, rude bigots like Farage or pseudo-intellectual bores like Hannan. His life long (it seems) obsession about the EU has blighted his career. "Oh that's just old Dan banging on again". So how do I know that Hannan is wrong, culpably wrong? Well I can work it out for myself because there is no quantified case for Britain to leave the EU - indeed it is absolutely the reverse. Were the case even slightly as Hannan would like us to believe it was don't you think that the serious commentators in the media would have said so, and that a major political Party at some point in the last 40 years would also have said it? 

I intend to play personally an active part in the EU Referendum campaign when I hope those of us campaigning for a "Yes" vote will organise ourselves properly to rebut the likes of Hannan with facts and arguments. It's not difficult. And I hope that we will challenge not just Hannan's lies but the gross jingoism and faux-patriotism (seasoned with bigotry and prejudice ) of the Farage wing of the "Out" movement. A senior LibDem politician said to me yesterday that her absolute pro-EU position was "for her children". Exactly. Let's look FORWARD not BACKWARDS - the challenges of the modern world demand cooperation not retreat.