We need a new army

Here we go again, off to foreign parts with our sophisticated forces to wage war on what is seen as a backward foe.
But it isn't backward. IS is a modern, fluid force with clever leadership which knows how to achieve strategic success on the battlefield and can use modern technology to get maximum impact in the world.
And we are not sophisticated. We have the old army-navy-air force-nuclear weapons mindset which assumes that our enemy will be another country with an army, navy, air force and nuclear weapons.
The world doesn't look like that today. Today's enemies know how to crash planes into buildings, blow up trains, behead people and put the videos on YouTube.
In the old world, all the Brits knew they were good guys and the Germans were bad buys. Today, Brits come in many flavours and opinions on who is an enemy and who isn't come in many flavours as a result.
IS is a dreadful murderous bunch of extremists. It is also bang up to date.
Air strikes are a 20th century solution to a 21st century problem.
We need a new army to defeat terrorism, one which works in societies, not on the battlefield.
War should be the last resort, not something we should rush into because we are outraged by the images we see on YouTube.

Cow'rin, tim'rous beasties

I'm sorry the Scots voted No. There are very few opportunities for radical political change and they ought to be taken when they appear.
Why did the Scots chicken out? People don't like change. Politicians don't want to lose power. 
Power exlains why politicians can take seemingly opposite views with a straight face: Scotland should not go it alone. We are better together. 
Britain should go it alone, we are better apart from Europe.
If Scotland had voted Yes, Westminster politicians would have had less power. If we work more closely with Europe, Westminster politicans will have less power.
Forget all this nonsense about making things better for people. Frighten people with bogey men and tell them you are the only ones who can save them.
Your pounds and pensions will be worthless, your banks and jobs will crash, plague, pesilence, doom. The church and the press have used this tactic for years. Scare people and they will stay in line.
The Scots who believed they could cope on their own had a typically sharp reply to these tactics. 'If we are better together, why aren't we better now?'
Alex Salmond gave Scotland a brilliant opportunity to show these doomsayers they are wrong. An independent Scotland would survive. It would thrive.
Sadly, there are more wee, sleekit, cow'rin, tim'rous beasties in Scotland than there are bravehearts.

Who are you?

The issue of youngsters in Britain wanting to go and fight with jihadi groups in the Middle East raises an interesting point.
Are we defined by the country we live in, by our religion, or by some other criteria?
Do the Scots see themselves as Scottish, or as Britons with a Scottish accent? We may find out on September 19.
Ukraine is having big problems with people who see themselves as Russians. The Kurds in Iraq, Syria and Turkey seem to be Kurds first and want a country to fit in with them.
Politicians expect us to be defined by our country because politics is defined by country. They expect us to support our country whatever it does. But this idea is waning. 
In 2003, when Bush and Blair planned to invade Iraq, there were protest marches all over the world against the idea. Bush and Blair ignored them and invaded anyway.
In 2013, when David Cameron was wondering whether to send troops to Syria, the Commons refused to sanction it. That persuaded President Obama to reconsider military action, too. 'Not in my name' carries more clout today.
The more multi-cultural we become the less we seem to think 'my country right or wrong'. And the more politicians have to think: How will this look in Bradford or Leicester?
I grew up on Tyneside, so I like to think of myself as a Geordie, although I have lived in the south for 50 years. I have had opportunities and a civilised life in Britain, for which I am grateful. I don't believe in any of the gods which cause such trouble. 
But the picture of Britain painted by our politicians is a mean place which wants to pull up the drawbridge and deny others those opportunities and that civilised life; which doesn't want to work with the foreigners in Europe. I am not defined by that image of Britain.
Companies no longer tie themselves to one country. They can fit in with several. People no longer tie themselves to one country. If there is a better life elsewhere, they will try to find it. Or they will live a life which defines them in whichever country they happen to be in.
Which makes life very difficult for politicians. We used to be British first and Labour, Tory or Liberal second. Now we are just us, in 60 million flavours.
How on earth do they address us all?

Protecting citizens or spooks?

Britain is rushing through emergency legislation to force internet and phone service providers to keep customers' data for a year to allow police and security services to check what criminals and terrorists are planning.
The Government and the opposition parties say we must do this because the European Court of Justice ruled on 8 April that Europe's 2004 Data Retention Directive on keeping such data was invalid and if we don't pass this new legislation, Google, O2 and the rest will stop keeping the data and terrorists will run riot.
Here, our media has debated this with those who say we will all be blown up if we don't grab this data on one side and those who say our data is not to be spied upon on the other. Our media has not asked what other European countries are doing. 
Finland's Education Minister Krista Kiuru is all for the new Court of Justice ruling: 'Naturally, we must clean out the paragraphs enacted due to the Directive. We will gladly adhere to this decision. If we want Finland to be a model country when it comes to data protection, our legislation has be be in accordance with the fundamental citizen rights'.
Germany and the Czech Republic challenged the Directive when it was enacted and were threatened with fines if they did not comply with it. They will be delighted now that it has been ruled invalid. Sweden refused obey the Directive for many months and will also be delighted.
Why is our government frightening us with terror talk? Two possible reasons spring to mind:
1. Terrorists are more likely to attack the UK because of our actions in Iraq and Afghanistan.
2. The Americans have told us to bring in new UK laws to ensure that the CIA has this data to use.
Ever since the Data Retention Directive was passed in 2004, countries in mainland Europe have been trying to protect their citizens by getting it repealed.
In that time, Britain has gone further than the Directive in keeping data and says it is protecting its citizens in the 'war on terror'.
Who do you want to be protected by?

Riders and racers

Last week in Bari, the riders in the Giro d'Italia refused to race at the end of the stage because it was raining too hard. They said it was dangerous.
In 2005 at Donington Park, it rained from start to finish of the Moto GP race. Many riders slid off. The remaining riders picked their way round carefully, trying to find where there were rivers and where they could go fast. Seven laps from the end, Valentino Rossi took off and went fast through all the rivers to win in style.
Yes, it was dangerous, but it was also a chance to show who was the maestro.
Some are racers. Some are just riders.
Jack Brabham keeled over this week. He was a racer, too.

Shoot the message, not the messenger

Europe appears to have missed the target in its dispute with Google over reputations which some people want to forget.
Google shows you everything there is on whatever you search for. Not everything except what Joe Bloggs wants you to see, or everything some government wants you to see. Everything.
If you are in the everything business, being told to change to become the everything but business is a big deal.
And if Joe Bloggs is upset because something embarrassing is out there, whose responsibility is to sort that out? The government's? Google's or Joe Bloggs'?
Google helps Joe Bloggs to sort out his problem. It shows him where the embarrassing item is. He can ask that website to remove it.
If you tell Google to remove it from its search results, it will still be visible to those who use Bing, or Yahoo or any of the other search engines. Will Europe tell them to show everything but, too?
The simplest solution is to remove the offending item. Then no search engines will find it.
The best person to ask for it to be removed is the person who is offended. 
Bashing big business is not always the best solution.

Promises, promises

UKIP and the Tories tell us immigrants and Europe are the cause of all our problems and they will get rid of them. It's nonsense.
Labour tell us they will bring in laws to stop our rents, energy bills and doctors' waiting lists going up. It's nonsense.
Is it any wonder people are losing faith in politics.