IS SPONSORSHIP CONDUCIVE TO LONDON 2012?

AS OLYMPIC FEVER grips the UK, institutions all over the country have gone into overdrive to promote the benefits of sport.  Even in these troubled financial times, the Government has allocated money to schools and other educational bodies to help increase sports awareness, in the hope that more people will actively engage in physical exercise.  And although this stance is admirable - a lack of exercise is seen as a major contributory factor in causing obesity - the manner in which funding has been appropriated to support The Games has been somewhat suspect.

     An argument supporting the growth of obesity in society - and especially obesity in the young - has been blamed on the 'fact' that children do not exercise as much as they did as the previous generation.  Indications, however, now show this belief is largely false.  For although there has been substantial growth in the areas of computer technology, implying children spend most of the day inside at their Playstation, studies show that many young children still engage in outdoor activities concurrent to levels shown 20-years-ago.

Coke sponsoring London 2012 - A mixed message?

     Although no simple answer to obesity exists, studies have shown that a dramatic increase into the accessibility of unhealthy foods have been a major factor causing weight gain.  Multinational corporations including Cadburys and MacDonalds are selling chocolate bars and other foods that are saturated with calories, the excessive consumption of which are leading to obesity and other health related problems.  And clever marketers in this sector, who now have an inherent understanding of the value of healthy cuisine, are happy to promote their products as being 'the healthy option' when this is not necessarily the case - an example being the sandwich retailer Subway who promote their food as being 'freshly made' when, in actual fact, some of their baguettes contain more calories than a Big Mac!

     Which brings us back to the London Olympics of 2012.  MacDonalds and Coke are just two of the sponsors who have made vast financial contributions to help fund The Games.  Their sponsorship will ensure that their brand will be clearly identified with this global sporting event, even though the products they sell will do little to advance the ultimate health of their consumers.  By allowing these two prominent organisations to take centre stage in sponsoring this event, people are left with a mixed message.  Subliminally, we are being told to go for a five mile run to improve our lifestyle, then quench our thirst with a large coke at the end.  In itself, is this not an ultimate irony?

ANOTHER SUMMER WASHOUT

ANOTHER WEEK OF HORRENDOUS weather has flooded most of Scotland,  effectively ending our hopes of enjoying a glorious summer.  Torrents of rain, cascading from the skies, have disrupted travel and damaged homes, as the seemingly unrelenting bombardment continues.

     In the space of my short lifetime - I am in my early 30s - I cannot recall experiencing such inclement weather.  Scotland is synonymous with an abundance of wind and rain, however over the past decade, the deterioration has become marked.  During my childhood and adolescence, June and July were often blessed with clear blue skies and bright, sunny weather.  True, the autumn and winter were often driech and gloomy affairs, interspersed with gales, hailstones and snow.  Yet each season could be accurately measured.  Appalling winters would always be offset by beautiful, hot summers.

Scotland's weather has never been so inconsistent.

So as I stare out my window, watching as the drizzle and rain batter upon the street, the realities of global warming really hit home.  As time moves on, our seasonal weather appears to have altered beyond all comprehension.  This March, parts of Scotland recorded the warmest weather on record; yet now those same parts are languishing under rivers of water.  From day to day conditions are constantly interchanging, and nobody is really aware of what tomorrow may bring.

     As a layman, I can only assume climate change is the denominating factor effecting change.  For why else has the weather altered so radically in such a short space of time?  And if climate change is the motivating factor, what can realistically be done to address this situation?  In recent years, governments and organisations have been uncommonly verbose in stating that they are serious about addressing this issue.  A raft of new legislation has been issued in the UK to ensure private companies reduce emissions.  Vehicles operating in the haulage industry are legally obliged to add cleansing fluid to their engines, and organisations including oil companies must conform to targets laid down by the Department of Environment and Climate Change (DECC), or face hefty government fines for non-compliance.

     However, when will this legislation make a tangible difference?  Despite our complexities, human beings are essentially simplistic in nature.  Our perceptions are based primarily upon what we see, which, in turn, allows our sense of reason and logic to decipher the world around us.  Only when we are faced with stark realities are we shocked into making a change.  If governments' broadcast films which depict how the planet will change if this issue is not addressed, it may motivate people to adopt a more environmentally friendly approach.  For at present, many of us have an understanding that human behaviours are having a deleterious effect on the health of our planet.  But until we are given a visual representation, there is a danger our patterns of behaviour will not change until it is too late. 

WILL SCOTTISH FOOTBALL BE A WASH OUT?

SCOTLAND'S MISERABLE WEATHER may have flooded several rivers across the country this week, however most of the country is experiencing a drought compared with the deluge of tears that has swamped Govan.

     Thousands of Rangers' fans wept in disbelief after a majority of SPL clubs vetoed their request to re-enter the Premier League after Rangers were officially liquidated.  And whilst this move is both admirable and morally right, football fans cannot help question whether this decision will have a catastrophic financial impact upon the game.

     The loss of Rangers from the SPL will damage all 12 SPL clubs.  Celtic and Rangers were the only clubs that could regularly guarantee full ticket sales.  Teams including Inverness Caledonian Thistle and Aberdeen - each of which hold one fifth of the capacity of Parkhead or Ibrox - struggle week in, week out to sell just a quarter of their capacity, and the exclusion of Rangers from appearing in the top flight for the foreseeable future will severely restrict the broadcasting revenue which flows into Scottish football.

     The clubs who determined Rangers fate were always going to find themselves in an impossible position.  If they had invited Rangers' Newco into the top-flight, fans across the country would have lambasted them for adopting a weak and cowardly stance.  So many fans will now carry an air of smug conceit; the mighty Rangers, consigned to oblivion through their own arrogant financial mishandling, now rest in the gutter where they belong.  However, it must be questioned, when the air of smug conceit evaporates, how long will it take before despair sets in?

     World class football players like Paulo De Canio, Giovanni Van Bronkhurst and Rino Gutusso will no longer come to Scotland to learn their trade, as an SPL without real competition will offer no incentive.  A lack of on-field talent will create generic disinterest in Scottish football, and broadcasting rights - which are soon to be revised - will fall considerably. 

     Rangers atrocious financial mismanagement has cost them and the whole of Scottish football dear.  But whereas Rangers, under the auspices of a Newco, will rise to play football again, the question remains: will Scottish football ever truly recover?

WIKILEAKS - PROMOTING THE TRUTH???

THE SAGA SURROUNDING Julian Assange has assumed a greater degree of intrigue now that he has sought asylum at the Ecuadorian Embassy.  Assange is clearly an intelligent man, and his decision to seek refuge in this particular Embassy smacks of premeditation.

     When Wikileaks began operating, Assange proclaimed his organisation was incorruptible.  He vowed to publish secret information in order to to facilitate real social change no matter what the cost.

Julian Assange - manipulator or modern crusader?

However, by choosing to approach the Ecuadorian Embassy recently, it is possible to infer that Assange lies at odds with the very ethos which founded his company.  Approaching the Ecuadorian government suggests Assange has privileged and damaging information about their government, allowing him to effectively persuade the Ecuadorian's to grant his request.  
     If, however, Assange does not hold privileged information which is clearly damaging to the Ecuadorian government, why else has the Ecuadorian Ambassador not chosen to expel him due to the legalities of his current situation?  Are they really acting in the best interests of human rights?

     Theoretically, the conception of Wikileaks is commendable. Publishing sensitive information which is damaging to a government or organisation but rests in the interests of the public good is an admirable ideal.  Especially if such publication results in a positive policy change.  However, this latest move by Assange appears to have perverted the ethos and values upon which his organisation was originally founded.  His move suggests that whilst Wikileaks has already published a raft of sensationalist information which has been devoured by the mainstream media, Assange's true motivation has not been to promote change through openness and transparency; his main aim seems to promote the information at his disposal to secure and advance his own position, without really considering the majority and masses, of whom he originally claimed to represent.

DO THE PRESS REALLY REPORT THE TRUTH WHEN IT COMES TO THE BANKS?

Due to the ravages of a kidney infection I have not been able to update this blog for the past two weeks.  However, during my illness (I spent the majority of the time in bed), many television news  reports focused on the Euro crisis as well as the generic banking crisis as a whole.

     Reporters used ambiguous terminology including "toxic assets" to describe why the banks are losing money.  They also stated how the crash has resulted in billions of pounds being lost through negative investments.  However, it soon became clear that the Press are not reporting this crisis in a way which will enforce change.  We are given figures relating to the losses, however, the figures used are so large many of us cannot really comprehend them.

     For example, over one fifth of the UK's working population receive a weekly wage of £250 per-week.  A large majority will be lucky if they have £150 per-month to spend on food after bills including rent, electricity and telephone have been paid.  Simply being able to afford a night out at Wetherspoon's is a luxury.  However, with the noticeable exception of Fred "The Shred" Goodwin, the Press have failed to investigate the rapacious lifestyles top level bankers currently lead.  There are currently over 10,000 bankers working in The City who earn over £500,000 per-year.  Many of these analysts think nothing to paying over £100 for a single bottle of wine; they have no qualms about booking an exclusive island resort in the Seychelles for a weekly cost of £20,000, and despite facilitating the worst recession since the Wall Street Crash, many are now accruing bonuses comparable to those they received prior to the crash.

        However, if the Press conducted in-depth investigations into the individual lifestyles lead by these city slickers, the main source of resentment would not stem from the most impoverished in our society.  The middle classes, who are the real instigators of political change in the UK, would be on the verge of revolution.  For university and college lecturers, teachers, nurses and middle-ranking managers - people who's financial power allows them to live frugally yet comfortably in order to save for retirement - would force the government to introduce legislation to limit the everyday excesses which are so prevalent in the UK's financial sector.

     However, instead of disgracing individual bankers by publicising their excess, the Press have simply chosen to report the issue generically, blackening the name of the banking industry as a whole.  By reporting the financial costs of the issue without actually attributing specific examples of greed and excess, we are all angered by the actions of the banks.  Yet without actually targeting individuals who are guilty of excess, our anger at the titanic losses sustained will not force politicians to introduce the necessary legislation which will really regulate the banking industry.  Because to many of us the millions of pounds lost are merely statistics.  Only when we can equate the actual cost with tangible examples of greed and rapacity will we as a people actively demand change.

NORTH SEA OIL - SCOTLAND'S BARGAINING TOOL

A SENIOR SOURCE within the oil industry recently divulged that the stricken Elgin Platform, operated by French energy giant Total in the North Sea, released enough gas to power the city of Aberdeen for the next ten years.

     This phenomenal amount is almost incomprehensible, for Aberdeen, Scotland's third largest city, has a population of over 250,000 people.  And in the same vein of other Western cities, the majority of Aberdeen's population consume vast amounts of energy on a regular basis.

     To think that Total's Elgin Platform released such vast quantities of gas in such a short time period - the Elgin Platform leaked gas for just two months - really brings North Sea Oil into perspective.  For decades the people of Scotland have accepted that oil and gas reserves in the North Sea are dwindling, and that they will run out in the not so distant future.  During the 1990s, the closure of the huge oil fabrication yards at Nigg and MacDermots in The Highlands, confirmed to many that North Sea Oil was in an advanced state of decline.  However, the recent accident at the Elgin Platform proves that vast quantities of gas still remain.  In effect this means that far from dwindling, Scotland's oil and gas industry will continue to flourish well into the 21^st century.

Total's Elgin Platform: the recent leak could have powered Aberdeen for 10-years

A recent blogpost questioned whether the financial costs of Scottish Independence would prove viable.  Now that Alex Salmond has launched his Independence campaign the details pertaining to secession from the Union must be closely scrutinised.

     In the current undulating economic environment the small State of Scotland may be buffeted around should we secure Independence.  Even with the vast tracts of oil that are still present in the North Sea, these revenues alone will not guarantee that Scotland will remain buoyant and prosperous.  However, the extensive, untapped oil and gas fields present in the North Sea give the people of Scotland an excellent bargaining tool to ensure we receive the full benefits of Union with England.

     For a number of years politicians South of the border have questioned the viability of the Barnett formula, whereby the people of Scotland receive higher amounts of public subsidies from the UK Parliament per-head of population than their English counterparts.  The Barnett formula was originally conceived as a short-term solution however has been utilised by successive UK governments over the past 30 years.  In light of Scotland's propitious position regarding the oil industry, Pro-Union politicians should attempt to secure the continuation of the Barnett formula in-perpetuity, in order to persuade those Scots who are vacillating over the Independence question to remain firmly within the Union.  For if Britain is to remain a United Kingdom, Scotland's people must be given a tangible reason to want to remain in partnership with England.  Without such a reason Independence will become inevitable, and the consequences will be irrevocable.

WHY HOLLAND'S BAN ON CANNABIS IS DOOMED TO FAIL

Holland's decision to ban non-residents from smoking cannabis appears to be more self defeating than ever in light of my recent visit to Amsterdam.  Boarder cities throughout The Netherlands have already introduced the ban, with Amsterdam set to follow suit next year.  However, as the ban will only apply to non-residents, Coffeeshop owners and tourists alike remain sceptical that introducing such a ban will prove tangible.

     When relaxing with a beer by the Prinzengracht Canal yesterday friends and I were openly approached by a scruffy looking gentleman in a leather jacket who was professing to sell "good" Cocaine.  Although we politely declined his offer, the thought did occur that such a blatant approach - no doubt successful with many - was executed so casually that the gentleman in question did not fear interference from the law.  My friends and I simply opined that if Cocaine - an illegal drug in Holland - was so readily available, nothing would prevent permanent residents who live in Amsterdam from simply purchasing pre-rolled, branded joints from Coffeeshops, to then sell to tourists for a small cash profit after Amsterdam introduces the ban in 2013.

     Therefore, the wise and sagacious bureaucrats who have formulated this legislation appear to have ignored that fact that such enforcement will not really impact upon the Cannabis trade.  If anything it will have the effect of reducing legalised revenue from Coffeeshops as well as inadvertently promoting illegality in the form of unregulated sales.  For if the peddlers of hard drugs including Cocaine believe they are effectively immune from prosecution in Amsterdam, how can Dutch police realistically prevent the sale of weed from permanent residents to non-residents after the ban comes into force?

     If the authorities were determined to tackle the problem effectively they should simply introduce a blanket ban outlawing all Cannabis sales throughout Holland.  However, the lackadaisical approach now adopted appears to be a PR stunt aimed at pacifying Holland's more conservatively minded, without providing any real remedy to a disease nobody seems willing to cure.