Recently Scotland had voted no on the referendum for Scottish independence, however this vote has not scared of the Catalonian government from issuing their own referendum for the future of Catalonia. With the genesis of the referendum in Scotland, it was little surprise that other regions seeking full autonomy would use this wave of self-determination ideals to reach their goal. However, the notion of self-determination in Catalonia is utterly unrealistic goal and both Spanish and Catalonian government must recognize the implausibility of self-determination at this time. Though the concept of an independent Catalonia is possible at a far later date, the idea full autonomy is impossible with the current political situation.

The announcement of the Scottish independence referendum has created an atmosphere of self-determination. Prior to the vote, Catalonia, Basque Country, Veneto, and South Tyrol were watching the vote closely to see whether independence ideals where strong enough to merit an attempt to secede from their respective countries. As of September 30^th 2014, only Catalonia has issued a vote to take place on November 9^th, 2014. The Spanish government responded to the proposed vote by stating that the vote for independence was only put forth to Catalonians and thus was not in conjecture with the law. Soon after the Spanish government took the referendum to the constitutional court to determine the legality of the vote. The most recent news is that Catalonia has officially suspended the vote, though some Catalonians are calling for an informal vote to happen on the 9^th of November anyway.

Firstly, the entire concept of a referendum in Catalonia is remarkably similar to the highly controversial Crimean independence referendum. The Spanish government has reacted justly to the claim that the vote would be illegal because it would only encapsulate the Catalonian region and not the rest of Spain. Scotland was only able to circumvent this rule of law through the Edinburgh Agreement with England, thus giving them full legal authority to cast the vote entirely within their country. The only justifiable reason that Catalonia would call an illegal vote would be to foster Catalonian pride for when the Spanish government proclaims their referendum illegal. Thus the idea that an independent Catalonia will be seen in the near future is not possible, as they now need to get the referendum accepted under the Spanish government.

The most important matter, that very few journalists seem to reiterate, in concerns to the Catalonian independence referendum is the Basque Country in north-eastern Spain. The international implications that could easily arise if Catalonia were to achieve independence are too great for the Spanish government to even consider in an option. This unwillingness derives from the Basque Country. The Basque Country has housed a separatist-terrorist organization known as the ETA, known for killing upwards of 800 people in violent attacks (ceasefire had been declared as of October 2011). The international concern now rests on the fact that if Catalonian independence is achieved, or even considered for that matter, The Basque Country will consider this their chance to gain independence. One of two situations could arise from this:

1. The Basque Country is denied their independence, the ETA is upset and resumes violent actions against the state.
2. The Basque Country is gains their independence, this signals to terrorist groups that terrorism is a functional modicum of achieving a goal.

Neither of these options are viable for Spain, the former of a domestic level and the latter on an international level.

The concern of Catalonia becoming a state is not being properly addressed to have a full understanding of the political situation. We cannot dismiss the fact that the vote was called illegally and that Basque separatist movements would gain momentum in Spain. Thus Catalonian independence would have terrible implications on both a domestic and international level and should not be attempted at a near future date

The state of Iran has had a turbulent past concerning economic sanctions with western countries. However these dodgy relationships seem to be thawing and Iran seems to be on course to join in the process of globalization. This marks a substantial increase in trade potential for business leaders as a previously untapped market of near 80 million people appears to be opening up to global trade. This has led to what is currently considered the “race for Iran”. Currently the question remains, should business leaders be racing to open their markets in Iran, or should they be wary of the vast loss that could occur due to the constantly changing political situation in and around the country?

To truly got a grip on the current economic situation in Iran we need to understand a brief history of modern Iran. In 1941, the Shah Reza Pahlavi took leadership of the country, in 1953 nationalization of the oil industry under the prime minister looked immanent. This resulted in a covert operation by CIA and British intelligence to force the prime minister out of office and issue full control to the Shah Pahlavi. The Shah held his position while westernizing Iran until 1979, when he was overthrown by the Iranian (Islamic) revolution. This revolution demonized westernization and effectively limited relations with the west. This coupled with the accusations of nuclear weapons programs in the 21^st century has limited Iran’s trade relations with the rest of the world.

Now with Iranian president Hassan Rouhani’s reform and gradual opening of the economy, business leaders are intent on strengthening ties with Iran to gain a amicable foothold in the country. Though it is understandable to try and be the first in an emerging market to have the advantage, is Iran a sound investment? Iran has already been involved in a coup that distanced foreign investment and, to an extent, internalized their economic system. In addition, it is clear that anti-western sentiment is not yet dead in Iran. Rouhani has already expressed that in a statement that it is the west’s blunders that has allowed IS (Islamic State) to generate such power in the Middle East. So with an already dodgy situation with western relations in Iran and also the poor score on the property rights index (currently resting a 10/100), Iran is high-risk investment to say the least.

Currently in Iran, foreign investment is resting at a meager 0.5 percent. Australia has already signed a trade agreement for livestock to be sold to Iran. Renault, a French automaker already invested in Iran, is currently exporting vehicles to Iran and hoping to resume production in Iran through a means of slow re-introduction into the country. Renault has expressed their keen interest in getting their foot in the door before new diplomacy opens the Iranian market to competitors.

With so many concerns surrounding Iran (property rights, past diplomacy, current distaste of the west) it is surely an extremely high-risk investment. Companies able to afford a loss of such an investment though are more than willing to take the risk to get their foot in the door for the “race for Iran”. Benefit certainly can be gained from being the first in Iran, though Iran is still unstable on international terms and business interest could see a situation reminiscent of the Iranian (Islamic) revolution in the

A quick test

Welcome to UBC Blogs. This is your first post. Edit or delete it, then start blogging!