2012-2013 Minimal Income Statement: Fill & Download for Free

1 IntroductionI have already written three major papers on the Medium site on this topic but due to the complete ignorance of the vast majority of people about this topic I will review and revisit these in response to different recent questions on Quora.This question refers to the economic case for a “Yes” vote for Scottish independence and the implication is that the Barnett Formula and the low oil prices might somehow inhibit Scottish independence.This Answer is a copy of The Economic Case for a “Yes” vote for Scottish Independence first published on the internet on September 13 2014. I have renumbered the paragraph numbers and added to the case where required.2 Purpose This Answer points out the main economic effects of a “Yes” vote and estimates that the financial gains to an independent Scotland are very real and quantifiable while the losses are minimal. Comment is also offered on the effects of an independent Scotland continuing to use the Pound or otherwise, and on other relevant issues.3 The effect of the transfer of 90% of North Sea Oil and gas receipts to Scotland An independent Scotland would become much richer due to the expected transfer of about 90% of North Sea Oil sales and tax revenues. The rUK, on the other hand, would receive a perhaps a few brass plates representing the registered headquarters of some insurance companies and some of the banks which the British Government have recently bailed out. On balance, there can be little doubt about the great benefit to Scotland and the minimal benefits to the rUK in that transfer.3.1 The Revenue Effect The BBC’s Robert Peston has calculated the major economic effect of the Yes vote — the transfer of of 90% of the oil and gas income to Scotland, which will result in the rUK having a balance of payments deficit of about 6.9% of its smaller GDP. (See http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29103437). These estimates provide a good indicator to part of the finances of Scotland’s future if independent, and the change in the finances of the rUK.Peston remarks that the current UK deficit in 2013 was about 4.4% of the UK GDP. Given that GDP was about $2.5 tr. (or £1.55 tr.), a 4.4% current account deficit is equal to a British borrowing requirement of about $110 bn (or £68bn) a year.The reduced GDP of the rUK would equate to the current figures minus the estimated $213bn (£132 bn) GDP of an independent Scotland, or an rUK GDP of about $2.37 tr. And Peston’s figure of 6.9% of that amount implies an annual rUK borrowing requirement of about $163bn (£101bn).The estimated value of the oil sales in this scenario are about £33bn a year, which is approximately 25% of an independent Scotland’s GDP (of £132bn).As Robert Peston points out, the independence deal is the southwards transfer of the “Brass Plates” of the heads of the registered offices of Banks and some insurance companies to London in exchange for the northwards transfer to Scotland of 90% of the receipts of of North Sea oil and gas. Given that there might be, say, six brass plates and the total revenue loss to the UK (90% of oil and gas sales plus the oil and gas taxes plus the revenue from 45% of the management and operating cost in the North Sea) is about £33 bn plus £9 bn, or £42 bn a year in total, that’s £7 bn per brass plate. Brass has never been so valuable. The £42 bn annual gains to the Government of Scotland are very real and absolutely enormous, the brass plate gains to England are unquantifiable and of minimal value compared to the near-certain Scottish gain of £42 bn a year. And the idea that an independent Scottish Government which has an extra 32% revenue is somehow not going to be able to pay its pensioners and keep a good quality NHS is laughable — these funds mean the Scottish Government can look after its people much better than ever before.All of these numbers are of course illustrative, but they are of the right order of magnitude. I have not included the recent upwards adjustments in UK GDP to include prostitution and drug dealing because these activities by their nature do not produce much direct tax revenues, although they act as income transfers and may increase expenditure-based sales taxes.3.2 The McCrone Report The current British Coalition Government, of course, know all about the above numbers — it would be very surprising if they did not know. And they have known all about this issue for decades.In 1974, a brief report was written by Professor Gavin McCrone to advise the Conservative Government then led by Edward Heath. (See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCrone_report.) As Wikipedia comments:‘The eighteen-page report focused on the likely effects of North Sea oil revenue on the economic viability of an independent Scotland. Professor Gavin McCrone wrote the paper as advice to the UK Government. The report predicted that North sea oil revenue would give an independent Scotland a large tax surplus, on such a scale as to be “embarrassing”, making the country “as rich as Switzerland.” He also surmised that this surplus revenue would make the Scottish pound the hardest currency in Europe “with the exception of the Norwegian kronor”.’Another paragraph of the Wikipedia report observes:“A year after Professor McCrone had written his report, civil servants in London (including McCrone himself) met to discuss its implications. They concluded that his findings had been accurate, and that the average income in Scotland would increase by up to 30% per head if the country became an independent state. They also concluded that Scotland’s “economic problems would disappear”, and it would become “the Kuwait of the Western world”, though this was balanced somewhat by the opinion that Scotland could risk “disaster” if the oil price collapsed. The civil servants in London summed up by finding that there was “a good case for the continuation of the Union.”And a much better case for Scottish independence! As the current SNP Government of Scotland have demonstrated, since in 2005/6 they got their hands on the previously classified-as-secret McCrone Report under the Freedom of Information Act. Furthermore, Wikipedia continues:“UK oil production peaked in 1999 and had declined 67% by 2012, but petroleum still contributed £35bn to the UK balance of payments in 2011. The UK government took an estimated £6,530m in direct petroleum taxes in 2012–13[7] plus £6bn in income tax, national insurance and corporation tax from supply companies in 2011–12. As of 2012 around 45% of UK oil & gas employees are in Scotland.”and“In his evidence to the Lords Committee on the Economic Implications of Scottish Independence in 2012, Professor McCrone stated that Scotland’s GDP would increase by around 20% if North Sea oil were counted as part of it.”Alex Salmond’s claims that Scotland would be much better off when independent are fully justified in the light of that report, which concludes:“In an interview for Holyrood Magazine on the 19th of May 2013, ex-Labour chancellor Dennis Healey (who served in the Cabinet at the time the McCrone Report was submitted) stated: “I think we did underplay the value of the oil to the country because of the threat of [Scottish] nationalism… I think they [Westminster politicians] are concerned about Scotland taking the oil, I think they are worried stiff about it.” [9]The Westminster Government, having miscalculated the likely outcome of the independence referendum, are now utterly terrified about the possible loss of about £33 bn (a bit less than the £35bn in 2011) on the future UK balance of payments and losing about 75% of the tax revenues arising from North Sea operations, equal to another c£9 bn a year. It’s not so much that a new love for Scotland has belatedly appeared in the breasts of the Cameron, Clegg and Osborne, it is more that their one indisputable and certain love — the love of money — is probably motivating their every action. The No case could be summed up as“Dear Voters of Scotland, please continue giving us £42 bn a year. We need it, we have got used to having it, and we have wasted it so far, but that’s no reason not to let us keep doing that. We know these oil revenues are yours, and acknowledge that we have tried to mislead you immensely to act against your own better interests by trying to imply that somehow the costs and uncertainties of independence are very great, because the economic case for Scottish independence is actually unanswerable. Our case is ridiculous because none of the disadvantages of independence could possibly total £42bn a year, and we have wasted hundreds of billions of pounds of North Sea gas and oil proceeds since these resources were discovered. But think of our position. How can the rUK possibly raise the £42bn a year Scottish Independence will cost us? Please be reasonable and help us by voting No! If you don’t our neoclassical economics game is up! ”3.3 Implications of the higher rUK borrowing requirement.An rUK borrowing requirement of 6.9% of GDP would probably not be seen by the markets as sustainable in the long run. Therefore the rUK would have to develop an industrial policy and to produce a lot more high-quality exportable goods because otherwise it would not only become, but it would also remain, as an economic basket case. Therefore a Yes vote would not only be to the advantage of the Scots, it would greatly advantage the English, Welsh and Northern Irish workers , because the future governments of the rUK of whatever hue would have to make a much better use of its very capable and highly trained workforce, by framing policies to increase economic growth and the productivity and employment in manufacturing. The rUK would not be able to continue the decades-long policy of successive UK Governments, of having a financial policy without an industrial policy, and of preferring the London-based financial sector over the nationwide industrial sector. Other nations — particularly Germany and the Tokyo Consensus high-growth group — have a financial system which supports industrial growth and development. (See https://medium.com/p/a-comparison-of-the-washington-berlin-and-tokyo-consensus-zones-221e7e53018b) The rUK would need to develop one.The “panic in the breastie” or desperation of the Westminster politicians is therefore because the UK cannot afford to lose the resources of Scotland and the Scots as part of the union. Far from the insulting initial No campaign refrain of Scotland being “wee, stupid and incapable of governing themselves”, Scottish resources per head are vast, the Scots are highly educated (as per ONS assessment “maybe the best-educated on the planet”) and the Scottish Government team are highly competent and credible.And the Scots will live in a much richer, high-growth economy if they vote Yes.3.4 The BBC and the media frighteners campaign Given the combination of two key facts — the fact that Scottish independence involves an inter-state transfer of about £33bn plus about £9bn a year, giving an enormous funds transfer to Scotland, and that the Scots through an industrial policy intend to turn that gain into an enormous advantage to Scottish industry — a Yes vote would require the end of Thatcherism south of the border. It would see the back of the existing Coalition government and its hopeless neo-classical economics and all that implies.Given the continual campaign of yammering lies told by the BBC on behalf of the No campaign, the BBC and BBC Scotland has acted and is acting as the major campaigner against the YES vote. Salmond and his team have been given one long programme but the headline is the story and the BBC have not acted with any impartiality — every downside of Scottish Independence is being given a daily major airing while the great commercial and economic advantages of independence are hardly mentioned at all. The 130 major industrialists not supporting Scottish Independence are featured prominently on the BBC TV headline, but the 200 in favour of independence are not. The relocation into London of several brass plates of financial institutions is interesting but has almost no economic effect at all, except to give these these institutions the comfort of the Bank of England as a lender of last resort, but that issue has been regularly featured as a daily item on the BBC TV news as if it was much more significant than it is, with an entirely mistaken “loss of jobs” implication either stated or implied. The McCrone Report has not had a mention on the BBC, although it is a major factor driving the actions on both sides of the campaign. The BBC have not highlighted the deadly analysis of their own economic correspondent Robert Peston which indicates the increased economic difficulty of the rUK after Scottish independence, which is hidden away on one page of the BBC website.It is perhaps inevitable, given the disastrous economic position of the Westminster Government if the Yes vote wins, that the BBC (with would not welcome renaming itself as the Rest of UK Broadcasting Corporation, or the rUKBC) would become the major mouthpiece of the Westminster campaign against Scottish Independence. The BBC is no longer the British Broadcasting Corporation, it has become the Westminster Broadcasting Service, highlighting and repeating all the misleading misinformation of the No campaign. It is already the rUK BBC in all but name.Of course, one defence of the BBC’s partiality is that it is acting in the interests of most, or the rest of the people in the UK and is only repeating the Westminster frighteners in order to keep all the the North Sea Oil assets within the income of the Government of the United Kingdom. But the effect is not as intended — the effect of the BBC’s activity might be to produce an increased No vote, which, if successful, would prolong the life of the Coalition Government which does not act in the interests of the people of the United Kingdom.The effects of Independence on rUKIf the Scots get independence it is not Scotland that is economically destabilised, it’s the rUK which becomes a bit more of a basket case. In retrospect, Cameron should have agreed to having Devo Max being put on the ballot paper and the price of his misjudgement is almost as high as that of Margaret Thatcher.But as the Guardian research has shown from the showing from the political donation registry, the Tories are 83% funded by 15 super-wealthy individuals, of whom 14 are London-based financial operators.The future of the Conservative PartyThe Conservative party was once popular, unionist and conservative. It has turned into a very unpopular party, ruling by division and belonging to the radical right, the purveyors of the mistaken neo-classical economics which only acts in the interests of the rich and privileged. When there are only 15 major financiers providing 83% of the funding of the Conservative Party, who can possibly believe that the UK is still a democracy? These piper-payers are dominating the policies of the Conservative-dominated Coalition Government, which are not framed to increase the prosperity of the majority of the people of the UK, but are acting in favour of the monied interests which fund the Conservative Party. A national “Party of the Rich” is only acceptable if it does not act viciously against the interests of the majority of the people, but the current poverty-increasing NHS-privatising Coalition does and is doing exactly that. So much national income has now been transferred out of wages and into profits since 1980 that the only way more of the same can be delivered is by impoverishing more and more of the working people. In my opinion the limit of doing that has not only been reached, but has now been exceeded. The Coalition Government have produced some economic growth which is of no benefit to the great majority of the British people, with more poverty and starving children, with a million people depending on food banks. That is one of the major drivers behind the rise of minor parties in general and the decline of the Conservative vote in particular.The Scottish Currency IssueThe highly paid Mark Carney, Head of the BoE, has said time and again again the Scots can’t continue to use the pound if the Yes vote wins. He will say the opposite shortly after the Scots vote for independence, because the pound will go into a very steep large nosedive if he doesn’t. The money markets can do their sums and they know that a 7% borrowing requirement for the rUK is not easily sustainable and the riskiness of UK lending will increase. The value of the pound will be much more stable if the oil earnings are part of sterling area sales, as Mr Alex Salmond intends. It will be difficult enough for the rUK to borrow to fund its balance of payments without having to defend the value of the pound as well.And What Can One Say about Paul Krugman’s Advice, that the Scots Should “Be Afraid, be Very Afraid”? Perhaps just this:“Be foolish, Mr Krugman, be very foolish. Please keep living up to your reputation as probably the most foolishly opinionated Nobel Prize Winner, as a man who argues in the abstract and never does his homework and who therefore often has no knowledge of what he is talking about. After all, your Nobel Prize win gives the right to be listened to, when there is often no substance, no research, and no merit whatsoever in what you are saying.“Was your opinion solicited by the current British Coalition Government, Mr Krugman, or did you manage to be that foolish all on your own? Even your analogies are bizarre. Global warning is making Scotland and the United Kingdom nothing like Spain without the sunshine. The weather over here is now bizarre, with long blazing heat waves, often warmer than Spain, and Scotland has in some years had blizzards which make the place look like Switzerland. Except many years you can’t get to the ski slopes in the Cairngorms (the Scottish central highlands) because the A9 is blocked by great drifts of snow. And the wind speeds here are now phenomenal, with more frequent building-damaging gusts of of over 80 miles per hour, and tornados have appeared in the centre of the UK, mild at the minute by tornado valley standards, but not previously seen here. It’s like Spain with the sunshine, and the sun even shines on Leith, and sometimes like a snow scene out of Switzerland, as well as having monsoon-like weeks-long downpours and massive floods burying farmers’ fields for weeks — sometimes for months.“How could a country like an independent Scotland with a GDP of c£130 bn, plus additional oil taxes of £9 bn a year, plus increasing reserves based on oil revenues of £33 bn a year, possibly become unstable? It would have to take the advice of many of your neo-classical colleagues before it could. The aim of Scotland’s government is to make Scotland into a western European economic miracle, into the most prosperous region in the sterling zone, and from my examination of the effects of the oil wealth plus their proposed industrial policy (see http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2014/06/5184) they know exactly how to do that. The government of rUK cannot prevent that outcome if there is a Yes vote because if the Scots were not allowed to use the pound after a vote for independence, it is not Scotland that would suffer: the value of pound would fall substantially and while the resulting devaluation might help British Industry to export more, it would do nothing to enable Mr Carney to sleep more easily at night.“Of course an independent Scotland, if it had an independent central bank, could bale out its own banks. It would be able to create its own credit for that purpose, in the same way the Bank of England did. And it would have very large reserves, increasing at about 25% of GDP a year, because the First Minister of Scotland is not proposing to waste these funds as the British Government has done for decades. The policy of an independent Scotland would be to build up a large national reserve fund as Norway has. The strength of any new Scottish currency would be enormous, similar to the Norwegian Kronor, as Professor McCrone has remarked in his Report. You seem to be writing without understanding any of that. As a good American liberal, your heart is in the right place but I have no idea where your head is. Perhaps you should do a little more research and not give advice without knowing a lot more about the subjects you pontificate upon.”In any contest between the advice of Krugman and the ponderings of the BBC’s Robert Peston, or the observations of the Professor Gavin McCrone’s Report, which ones would you give due weight to? My credibility scorecard would read: Peston 90%, McCrone 90%, Krugman zero percent.The Bad Faith of the No CampaignThe Coalition government has abandoned all constraint in trying to persuade the Scots to vote against independence. Although the Edinburgh Agreement states that“The governments are agreed that the referendum should meet the highest standards of fairness, transparency and propriety, informed by consultation and independent expert advice.”several problems have emerged during the last three weeks of the referendum.First, the referendum has not been conducted in a fair or honest way. The McCrone Report has not been promoted or widely discussed during the run-up to the referendum. The Coalition Government and its representatives have used much of the power of Government to try to disadvantage their opponents. The Devo unit of the Foreign Office has written to all foreign governments asking them to express support for the No vote (see http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/revealed-the-foreign-office-devo-units-drive-to-kill-off-independence.23269484). Most governments have quite properly refrained from endorsing the “No” campaign position. Weak expressions of qualified support such as Obama’s “There is a referendum process in place and it is up to the people of Scotland. The United Kingdom has been an extraordinary partner to us. From the outside at least, it looks like things have worked pretty well. And we obviously have a deep interest in making sure that one of the closest allies we will ever have remains a strong, robust, united and effective partner. But ultimately these are decisions that are to be made by the folks there” have perhaps been typical 0f the guarded response received. The BBC and the British newspapers have often treated these qualified replies as an endorsement of the No vote when it is not.Second, the BBC has not been impartial, as required by sections 21 to 23 of the memorandum of agreement. The BBC has usually exhibited extreme bias in favour of the No camp, and every disadvantage, however minor, of the Yes case has been given great publicity, with the great revenue and tax advantages of the transfer of 90% of the the sales proceeds of North Sea Oil to the Scottish Government hardly mentioned at all. There is no point listening to the BBC on this issue any longer, because their output is almost entirely biased, without any balanced comments or valuable information.Third, the Coalition Government has acted illegally a mere 10 days before the date of the referendum. All the main three leaders of the Coalition Government have quite wrongly argued that if the Scots will please vote No, then something close to the the Devolution Max Option (or Devo-Max) would be implemented. The political leaders have little inclination, no mandate whatsoever, and in the case of Labour politicians no power, to promise that. The leader of the Commons in the absence of the Prime Minister, William Hague, has said at PM’s Question Time that “the British Government has no plans to introduce Devo Max if the No vote prevails.” (See http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/referendum-news/hague-giving-scotland-more-powers-if-it-votes-no-is-not-government-policy.1410350878) The reason why Devo Max is not on the ballot paper is because Cameron red-lined that option — he would not allow it on the paper under any circumstances. And putting forward new proposals within 28 days of the referendum by either party is illegal under the Edinburgh Agreement. The postal voters have now voted and the reason why no new proposals should be put forward 28 days before the referendum date is that these early voters should be voting with the same information as the voters on referendum day, and any new information means they can’t. It is particularly misleading to argue, as all the panicking Westminster politicians visiting Scotland have done, that a No vote is somehow a vote for Devo Max. It isn’t and if the No vote succeeds it won’t be. Wiliam Hague has been very forthcoming on this issue, thoroughly demolishing the claims of the visiting David Cameron and the other part leaders by saying“The statements by the party leaders made on this in the last few days are statements by party leaders in a campaign, not a statement of Government policy today but a statement of commitment from the three main political parties, akin to statements by party leaders in a general election campaign of what they intend to do afterwards.“It’s on that basis they have made those statements.”Promises made during UK election campaigns are notorious for being broken. In 1979, Thatcher promised the SNP MPs that if they voted down Callaghan’s Labour Government and she came into office in the subsequent general election, she would implement the Kilbrandon Report for Scottish devolution. She did win the 1979 elect but did not implement any measure of the Kilbrandon recommendations. Thatcher also promised during the 1979 election that she would use the revenues from North Sea Oil to recover the productivity of the UK economy. Instead the revenues were used to strengthen the value of the the pound and to give very large reductions in income tax to the rich. A lot of British manufacturing industry collapsed in consequence of the higher pound but no doubt many millionaires enjoyed the extra income.In the joint publication “The Coalition: our programme for government” Cameron and Clegg promised that, “We will reform the banking system to avoid a repeat of the financial crisis, to promote a competitive economy, to protect and sustain jobs.” Nothing of that promise has been delivered. In fact quite the opposite has come about — the banking system has not been reformed and is still at risk, nothing has been done done to promote a more competitive economy, and jobs have been threatened, with the spread of zero-hour contracts which the government count as employment but which provide no guaranteed work or stable weekly income at all.William Hague is clearly signalling to the Conservative MPs that the Coalition Government have no intention whatsoever to give Scotland any additional powers after a No vote — it’s back to the normal business of ignoring Scotland as usual. A No vote means no change. The temporary agreement among the party leaders old and new is only a ploy to get a No vote leading to no change. Only a Yes vote can prevent that outcome.Conclusions(All of the above was written in September 2014 and the following conclusions remain valid.)1 The economic case for Scottish independence is very strong, and a Yes vote for independence could make Scotland into one of the strongest economies in Western Europe with high living standards and high reserves from its beginning.2 The No campaign is entirely based on fear and misinformation, and the BBC is the handmaiden of that campaign. The partial behaviour of the BBC was not what was ever meant to happen in a referendum campaign, because it is very unfair.3 The fear and panic of British politicians is soundly based on what happens to the rUK if Scotland leaves the union, but their actions are motivated by money, by the potential loss of oil revenues and probably not by any new-found love of Scotland or the Scots.4 The Referendum Campaign has changed into a race between education — about the real economics of the case for Scottish independence — and the No campaign fear-mongering based on misinformation. Hope should win over fear.5 The No vote is a vote for no change, a vote for the continuation of Westminster policies in Scotland.6 Scotland has led the world before and the referendum creates the opportunity for it to do so again. I hope education wins and the Scots vote YES for the sake of all the Scots and the people in the rUK and the wider world.Updated AnswerThe Barnett Formula is an economic pretence that Scotland is an advantaged English region. It isn’t.© George Tait Edwards 2014Note: George Tait Edwards has published a book about “Shimomuran Economics” at http://www.lulu.com/shop/george-tait-edwards/shimomuran-economics/paperback/product-21688864.htmlThe Economic Case for a “Yes” vote for Scottish IndependenceAn Acceptable Economic Solution to the Scottish Independence Issue?The most relevant question about this issue is: How would the Rest of the UK manage without the enormous contribution of Scotland to the UK economy?They would find that very difficult.

This is from a creative essay I wrote for a Neuroscience Seminar 6 years ago. It talks broadly about the possibility of mind control technologies. The short answer is theoretically, yes. But the technology is not good enough at this stage.The final frontiers in neuroscience – technologies of the mindNeuroscientists have always been fascinated by how our brains function so intricately to give rise to the experience of the world we take for granted. As understanding of these processes deepen, further questions arise as to how our knowledge of the mind can be applied to serve our everyday needs. This review will introduce medical and other technologies under development based on neuroscientific advances, such as mind controlled-wheelchair and prosthetic limbs, biofeedback as a therapeutic strategy to treat epilepsy or ADHD, as well as possible mind reading or manipulation devices.Disabling disabilityDisabilities relating to loss of control of movement of limbs commonly results from spinal cord injury, motor neuron disease or muscle wasting diseases, like Duchenne’s muscular dystrophy. These conditions usually involve some degree of immobility, and in more severe cases, complete paralysis of both upper and lower limbs. This loss of motor control drastically affects the ability of the patient to be self-sufficient, and they often require long-term, fulltime carer guidance and support. The ultimate goal for neuroscientists is attempting to restore some self-sufficiency to these patients, and this involves improvements to current technologies designed to assist with transporting the patient, enabling the patient to communicate more effectively with the external world, and further down the track to introduce prosthetic limbs that are able to be controlled by thought alone.In spinal cord injury, lower motor neurons are affected at segments pertaining the origin of injury, giving rise to flaccid paralysis, but upper motor neurons from the descending corticospinal tracts are also commonly affected, leading to spastic paralysis below the level of the lesion (McDonald and Sakowsky, 2002). Presently, the prognosis for complete spinal cord injury is quite poor, based on the extent of damage and the low intrinsic ability of central neurons to undergo repair or regenerate after acute damage, rendering both paraplegics and quadriplegics largely confined to wheelchairs for mobility. Electric powered wheelchairs have been developed in an attempt to allow efficient transport, both indoors and outdoors, of patients who lack sufficient upper limb control to operate an arm-controlled wheelchair (as with quadriplegics), or of patients who are less mobile, such as the elderly. These wheelchairs are fitted with controls which require minimal limb movements to operate, such as through joysticks, ball-mouse, keyboard, voice sensors or head tilting. A large majority of electric powered wheelchair users testify increased autonomy, social interaction as well as reduced dependency on carers (Frank et al., 2000). Thus there is an overall increase in quality of life which extends beyond health benefits (Davies et al., 2003). However, many users also complain that it is difficult to manoeuvre the chair indoors, due to the sheer bulkiness of the chair in relation to the confined indoor space, and that outdoor conditions may not be ideal for navigating a wheelchair, such as movement over bumpy or cracked pavements and roads. In addition, there are various safety concerns with collisions of the wheelchair with objects or people, as well as occasional mishaps, such as the chair tipping over (Evans et al., 2007). This has led to the design of sensors that can be installed on the chairs, which are able to detect incoming collisions using infrared, ultraviolet or laser detection strategies (Ishida and Miyamoto, 2013). Furthermore, these chairs are able to respond by slowing down in close proximity to surrounding objects with high accuracy (LoPresti et al., 2011).Although electric powered wheelchairs demonstrate the capacity to enhance mobility of patients who have paralysis or loss of motor function, these devices still require some motor function to operate, such as movement of a joystick, or turning of the head. Therefore, patients with severe motor impairment are likely to encounter difficulties operating the chair using its basic controls. For neuroscientists, the answer is a no brainer – bypass motor neurons! The basic principle behind all of our neurological functions is that neurons are able to receive information about environmental stimuli, transmit that information to other neurons, process that information and deliver an appropriate response via efferents that innervate target organs, or skeletal muscle in the case of voluntary movement. The idea is to use the same efferents involved in motor responses, but redirect these towards the control of wheelchair function in place of limbs, which may later extend to use in prosthetics. Technologies that enable communication to the external world via non-muscular routes are collectively termed brain-computer interfaces (BCIs). The primary function of any BCI is to convert brain derived electrophysiological signals into a desirable output that bypasses nerves and muscles (Wolpaw et al., 2002). These signals are best received through high temporal resolution monitoring of neural activity such as through electroencephalogram (EEG). The EEG may involve laying multiple electrodes on the scalp, which constitutes a non-invasive measure, or sometimes intracortically. Although intracortical methods produce less noise and provide substantially higher resolution compared to EEG obtained using surface electrodes, it is a highly invasive procedure and generally reserved as a last resort. The EEG conveys mass electrical activity of the brain to via an amplifier to an external device, which translates this activity into a desirable output, delivering feedback to allow self-regulation of the EEG signal through training (Schwartz et al., 2006). For instance, feedback such as the presentation of a visual stimulus moving towards, or away from a target can be used to allow the user to modulate their EEG output as required. This allows a binary ‘yes’/’no’ response, in which the user can select a target on computer screen to indicate a choice (McFarland et al., 2003).More precise selection can be granted with a P300 system based on event related potentials (ERPs) which are generated in response to highly salient or infrequent visual, auditory or somatosensory stimuli against non-salient, or common background cues. In this paradigm, the user is presented with a 6 x 6 matrix with letters on a screen and is required to focus on the number of times a particular letter flashes on a screen, which leads to the generation of a P300 ERP linked to the targeted stimulus (Donchin et al., 2000; Kubler and Neumann, 2005).One of the more obvious uses of this technology would be to enable written communication for patients with locked in syndrome, where motor and verbal responses are both impaired, leaving them largely unable to communicate with the outside world, although they are fully conscious. This system can be used reliably to spell words through letter selection with a minimal accuracy of 60%, although the selection rate is very slow, enabling selection of roughly five letters per minute. The selection rate can be increased, although this tends to correlate with an increased rate of errors. Further studies should aim to increase selection rate with a reasonable control of error rate. One of the advantages of using P300 BCI is that it does not require training since the ERP is naturally evoked to the desired choice (Wolpaw et al., 2002). Although there were initial concerns that the P300 may change over time, results were shown to be consistent across a period of several months (Nijboer et al., 2008), providing hope that this technology may enable patients with locked in syndrome to effectively communicate with the external world.In one study, Cincotti et al. (2008) demonstrated the feasibility of controlling an electronically driven assistive device using BCI. The trial involved both healthy able-bodied subjects and patients with severe neuromuscular impairment, such as Duchenne’s muscular dystrophy. After training, users were able to modulate their brain activity to control a cursor on a screen, and later a prototype robotic device. Patients indicated that they felt the device enabled them to act independently of a caregiver. This would be highly useful in both a clinical setting (hospital or a rehabilitation centre) as well as at home, where the user can operate various devices, such as light switches, television, adjustable beds and electronically activated doors on their own.For patients with degeneration of motor neurons but minimal muscular atrophy, there is the possibility that normal function of limbs could be restored by circumventing the usual pathway taken by motor neurons, allowing artificial control of limbs that are independent motor neurons. At present no experiments have sought to directly connect motor cortices with peripheral muscles, since this is a highly invasive procedure, and safety and efficacy has not been established. However, studies have started to use BCIs to control prosthetic limbs and this may serve a strong starting platform for research into this area.Hochberg et al. (2006) successfully demonstrated the feasibility of BCI for a quadriplegic patient to operate a cursor on a computer screen, and then open and close a prosthetic limb via a microelectrode array implant into the motor cortex. Importantly, they discovered that intended motor signals generated were intact in the motor cortex even three years post-injury, and therefore could be harnessed through a non-muscular route. Further studies into neural controlled prosthetics showed that monkeys are able to modulate motor cortical activity to operate a prosthetic limb for self feeding, with multiple degrees of freedom involved compared to the simpler one dimensional movement of cursors (Velliste et al., 2008). The results of the study have led to testing in humans, and have demonstrated positive results. Subjects had little direct training but were able to successfully perform reaching and grasping movements, with one subject able to drink out of a coffee mug (Hochberg et al., 2012). There are obvious limitations in using prosthetics, such as lack of fine control and accuracy, as well as the slowness, fragmentation and rigidity of movements, compared to healthy able bodied subjects. Nevertheless these technologies provide tetraplegics and patients with insufficient upper limb control otherwise inaccessible interactions with the outside world using only their thoughts.Biofeedback, ADHD and video gamesBiofeedback refers to a tuneable, conscious adjustment of internal physiological activity, such as heart rate, respiration rate and blood pressure. Similar to the training regimen employed using BCI, biofeedback involves transmitting real time physiological information to the user, allowing them to alter their physiological activity, often through relaxation techniques. The clinical applications of biofeedback are numerous. Studies have shown the effectiveness of biofeedback in controlling sympathetic output, a key component in chronic stress, as well as various diseases relating to the cardiovascular system, such as chronic heart failure (McKee and Moravec, 2010). Biofeedback can be used here to reduce sympathetic activation, while boosting parasympathetic activity, which leads to improved clinical outcomes and possibly reduced morbidity and mortality. However, there appear to be limitations to biofeedback in controlling certain physiological conditions. While many studies have focused on the control of hypertension via biofeedback, meta-analyses consistently find little to no significant improvements blood pressure regulation in biofeedback subjects (Greenhalgh et al., 2010; Nakao et al., 2003). This indicates that amidst much hype about simple non-pharmacological treatment strategies, biofeedback must be carefully investigated and compared against pharmacological measures in terms of efficacy.One of the more successful applications of biofeedback has been in the control of epileptic seizures, on the basis that learned behavioural inhibition correlates strongly with a 12 -15 Hz EEG pattern in the sensorimotor cortex (Sterman, 2010), and has been appropriately labelled as the ‘sensorimotor rhythm’ (SMR). Conversely, a slower EEG rhythm of 8-12 Hz is correlated with an increased frequency of seizure activity. Upregulation of the SMR and downregulation of the slower rhythm could have clinical benefits for epileptics, especially for those who do not respond well to anti-epileptics. The general protocol for EEG training involves an operational conditioning paradigm, which would reward subjects for successfully controlling their EEG rhythms conducive to seizure reduction. This could be contingent or non-contingent, in which the subject would see a false EEG reading not correlative with their actual EEG. A meta-analysis which examined 10 studies on EEG biofeedback on seizure events found a significant effect of biofeedback on attenuating duration and frequency of seizure events not accounted for by medication or placebo (non-contingent) controls (Tan et al., 2009). Thus, biofeedback could be an effective treatment especially for epileptics who do not respond well to medication.Biofeedback can also be a useful tool to train attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) patients to control their own brain wave activity, and hence control their attention. Patients with ADHD generally show symptoms of hyperactivity, impulsivity and inattention. This can have major disruptive consequences in their relationships with others, aptitude for learning, motivation to complete tasks. Pharmacological treatments involving psychostimulants such as methylphenidate or amphetamine (Antshel et al., 2011) have been considered of choice and have demonstrated efficacy in treating ADHD, although they are not without adverse effects, which can lead to anxiety, suppression of appetite and sleep disturbances (Sonuga-Barke et al., 2009). A meta-analysis (Arns et al., 2009) comparing across 15 different studies on the effect of neurofeedback on ADHD found the treatment to demonstrate strong efficacy and specificity, with a large effect size for measures of inattention and impulsivity, and a medium effect size for hyperactivity. The results establish the clinical significance of using biofeedback to manage ADHD, although there are still recommendations against ceasing medication.A step forward from biofeedback is the introducing of BCI to video gaming. Many ADHD patients turn to video games, and unsurprisingly, this would have certain benefits based on the level of attention required to interact with the game. BCI video gaming adds an extra dimension of personalised control to the game by adapting based on the user’s mental states (Nijholt et al., 2009). For instance, the game may involve the control of a racing car, where speed, ease of control or manoeuvrability is determined by the generation of brain waves linked to arousal and alertness. A lack of concentration leads to poorer performance in the game. Thus performance is predicated by the user’s modulation of brain waves to produce a specific outcome. Some companies like Playstation and Nintendo have taken this on board, with certain types of games, especially mobile role playing platform games, racing or sporting games, fitted with EEG based feedback devices that link with the joypad or controller. Others are investigating joypad independent (non-motor) systems where EEG activity is directly linked to an outcome on a screen (Lecuyer et al., 2008). The applications of such technologies are endless, and span beyond medical uses. For instance, it can be used to update standard hazard training and simulation for pilots, soldiers and surgeons to provide feedback about alertness and situational awareness. Studies show similar virtual reality training can be used as a means of exposure therapy for common phobias like arachnophobia (Hoffman et al., 2003), social phobia (Parsons and Rizzo, 2007) or PTSD (Goncalves et al., 2012), in which BCI could complement the user’s experience and control of the virtual scenario encountered. It could also be applied to research into how attention and consciousness works. But of course, it could be the realisation of quasi-3D virtual reality video gaming systems, marking a new era of video gaming.A Brave New World1. Do you see what I see?The concept of mind reading has been around for a long time, and it is not simply a trick of the trade that magicians employ. The most primitive measures attempted to shake the truth out with polygraph lie detectors, which is considered too unreliable to be admissible in court (Iacono and Lykken, 1997). Our latest advances in mind reading come in the form of fMRI – functioning magnetic resonance imaging, an imaging technology that highlights specific areas correlating to brain activity in close to real time. fMRI has confirmed consciousness of patients with locked-in syndrome (Owen et al., 2006) and may offer a crude means of communication similar to the ‘Yes’/’No’ paradigm discussed earlier. Neuroscientists are taking fMRI to the next level in an attempt to deconstruct a person’s thoughts.Kay et al. (2008) have attempted to decode cortical representations of visual images and use these as prototypes for classifying other images of a similar category. For example, an image of a particular shoe would evoke certain voxel activity, which could then be used as a reference for identifying other shoes. This was taken further to identify with over 85% accuracy certain mental states involved in everyday tasks, such as mental arithmetic, singing a tune silently, recalling recent events or relaxing (Shirer et al., 2012). The fear of having your mind read from a non-divine entity can be allayed for now given the crude, low resolution readings obtained and the difficulty of abstracting information from sources beyond those referenced. However, authors have suggested that it could be a useful tool for diagnostics or study into Alzheimer’s disease or schizophrenia.2. Mind controlIf mind reading sounded scary, then they might alleviate you of your fear by changing the way you think. The popular PC Command and Conquer series, Red Alert featured some Russian psionic commanders who were able to control an American crew member operating a nuclear silo to detonate the bomb in base. In the original Star Wars, Obi-wan Kenobi uses a ‘jedi mind trick’ to bypass a storm trooper interrogation. Avid Doctor Who fans tremble when the word ‘Cyberman’ is brought up – where a simple ear piece can force you to live against your own will. Believe it or not, there exists such technology even in its simplest stages of development – transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS). TMS involves the generation of magnetic fields that can excite or inhibit certain cortical neurons depending on the area stimulated, which has been shown to alter perception (Taylor et al., 2010) and evoke limb movements (Barker et al., 1985). A recent report (BBC News, 2013) commented on experimental ‘telepathy’ conducted by two psychologists, Rajesh Rao and Andrea Stocco, based in Washington University, where it was possible for one of them to move the finger of the other subject using a combined EEG input-TMS output interface. On the subject of mind control, the research assistant, Prat reassures, “There's no possible way the technology that we have could be used on a person unknowingly or without their willing participation.” That’s believable. It has been reported that leaked documents from DARPA confirm investigation into mind control technologies with TMS to disrupt or even change certain thought patterns, political ideologies or behaviours, and in the fullest extent to coerce people into acting against their will with minimal resistance (Activist Post, 2013)!ConclusionRene Descartes once said, ‘Cogito ergo sum’ i.e. ‘I think, therefore I am’, a statement of our identity linked so strongly with our capacity to think. It is an amazing feat for anyone to comprehend their own thoughts. Whoever imagined the mind should be given due credit. We do have marvellous and complex minds to think, reason and interact with the world. Neuroscientists are only just skimming the surface of how our minds work and the technologies using mind power to control wheelchairs, prosthetic limbs, and therapeutic video games will revolutionise medicine. At the same time, the future is a brave new world, one full of uncertainty as to how these technologies could be used to benefit many, or perhaps abused in the wrong hands.ReferencesActivist Post (2013). Secret DARPA mind control project revealed: leaked document. Available at DARPA Mind Control Secret Program Leaked (accessed 26 October 2013).Antshel KM, Hargrave TM, Simonescu M, Kaul P, Hendricks K, Faraone SV (2011). Advances in understanding and treating ADHD. BMC Med 9: 72.Arns M, de Ridder S, Strehl U, Breteler M, Coenen A (2009). Efficacy of neurofeedback treatment in ADHD: the effects on inattention, impulsivity and hyperactivity: a meta-analysis. Clin EEG Neurosci 40(3): 180-189.Barker AT, Jalinous R, Freeston IL (1985). Non-invasive magnetic stimulation of human motor cortex. Lancet 1(8437): 1106-1107.Cincotti F, Mattia D, Aloise F, Bufalari S, Schalk G, Oriolo G, et al. (2008). Non-invasive brain-computer interface system: towards its application as assistive technology. Brain Res Bull 75(6): 796-803.Davies A, De Souza LH, Frank AO (2003). Changes in the quality of life in severely disabled people following provision of powered indoor/outdoor chairs. Disabil Rehabil 25(6): 286-290.Donchin E, Spencer KM, Wijesinghe R (2000). The mental prosthesis: assessing the speed of a P300-based brain-computer interface. IEEE Trans Rehabil Eng 8(2): 174-179.Evans S, Frank AO, Neophytou C, de Souza L (2007). Older adults' use of, and satisfaction with, electric powered indoor/outdoor wheelchairs. Age Ageing 36(4): 431-435.Frank AO, Ward J, Orwell NJ, McCullagh C, Belcher M (2000). Introduction of a new NHS electric-powered indoor/outdoor chair (EPIOC) service: benefits, risks and implications for prescribers. Clin Rehabil 14(6): 665-673.Goncalves R, Pedrozo AL, Coutinho ES, Figueira I, Ventura P (2012). Efficacy of virtual reality exposure therapy in the treatment of PTSD: a systematic review. PLoS One 7(12): e48469.Greenhalgh J, Dickson R, Dundar Y (2010). Biofeedback for hypertension: a systematic review. J Hypertens 28(4): 644-652.Hochberg LR, Bacher D, Jarosiewicz B, Masse NY, Simeral JD, Vogel J, et al. (2012). Reach and grasp by people with tetraplegia using a neurally controlled robotic arm. Nature 485(7398): 372-375.Hochberg LR, Serruya MD, Friehs GM, Mukand JA, Saleh M, Caplan AH, et al. (2006). Neuronal ensemble control of prosthetic devices by a human with tetraplegia. Nature 442(7099): 164-171.Hoffman HG, Garcia-Palacios A, Carlin A, Furness Iii TA, Botella-Arbona C (2003). Interfaces that heal: coupling real and virtual objects to treat spider phobia. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction 16(2): 283-300.Iacono WG, Lykken DT (1997). The validity of the lie detector: Two surveys of scientific opinion. Journal of Applied Psychology 82(3): 426.Ishida S, Miyamoto H (2013). Collision-Detecting Device for Omnidirectional Electric Wheelchair. ISRN Robotics 2013: 8.Kay KN, Naselaris T, Prenger RJ, Gallant JL (2008). Identifying natural images from human brain activity. Nature 452(7185): 352-355.Kubler A, Neumann N (2005). Brain-computer interfaces--the key for the conscious brain locked into a paralyzed body. Prog Brain Res 150: 513-525.Lécuyer A, Lotte F, Reilly RB, Leeb R, Hirose M, Slater M (2008). Brain-computer interfaces, virtual reality, and videogames. Computer 41(10): 66-72.Lopresti EF, Sharma V, Simpson RC, Mostowy LC (2011). Performance testing of collision-avoidance system for power wheelchairs. J Rehabil Res Dev 48(5): 529-544.McDonald JW, Sadowsky C (2002). Spinal-cord injury. Lancet 359(9304): 417-425.McFarland DJ, Sarnacki WA, Wolpaw JR (2003). Brain-computer interface (BCI) operation: optimizing information transfer rates. Biol Psychol 63(3): 237-251.McKee MG, Moravec CS (2010). Biofeedback in the treatment of heart failure. Cleve Clin J Med 77 Suppl 3: S56-59.Nakao M, Yano E, Nomura S, Kuboki T (2003). Blood pressure-lowering effects of biofeedback treatment in hypertension: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Hypertens Res 26(1): 37-46.Nijboer F, Sellers EW, Mellinger J, Jordan MA, Matuz T, Furdea A, et al. (2008). A P300-based brain-computer interface for people with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. Clin Neurophysiol 119(8): 1909-1916.Nijholt A, Reuderink B, Oude Bos D (2009). Turning Shortcomings into Challenges: Brain-Computer Interfaces for Games. In: Nijholt A, Reidsma D, Hondorp H (ed)^(eds). Intelligent Technologies for Interactive Entertainment, edn, Vol. 9: Springer Berlin Heidelberg. p^pp 153-168.Owen AM, Coleman MR, Boly M, Davis MH, Laureys S, Pickard JD (2006). Detecting awareness in the vegetative state. Science 313(5792): 1402.Parsons TD, Rizzo AA (2008). Affective outcomes of virtual reality exposure therapy for anxiety and specific phobias: a meta-analysis. J Behav Ther Exp Psychiatry 39(3): 250-261.Schwartz AB, Cui XT, Weber DJ, Moran DW (2006). Brain-controlled interfaces: movement restoration with neural prosthetics. Neuron 52(1): 205-220.Shirer WR, Ryali S, Rykhlevskaia E, Menon V, Greicius MD (2012). Decoding subject-driven cognitive states with whole-brain connectivity patterns. Cereb Cortex 22(1): 158-165.Sonuga-Barke EJ, Coghill D, Wigal T, DeBacker M, Swanson J (2009). Adverse reactions to methylphenidate treatment for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: structure and associations with clinical characteristics and symptom control. J Child Adolesc Psychopharmacol 19(6): 683-690.Sterman MB (2010). Biofeedback in the treatment of epilepsy. Cleve Clin J Med 77 Suppl 3: S60-67.Tan G, Thornby J, Hammond DC, Strehl U, Canady B, Arnemann K, et al. (2009). Meta-analysis of EEG biofeedback in treating epilepsy. Clin EEG Neurosci 40(3): 173-179.Taylor PC, Walsh V, Eimer M (2010). The neural signature of phosphene perception. Hum Brain Mapp 31(9): 1408-1417.Velliste M, Perel S, Spalding MC, Whitford AS, Schwartz AB (2008). Cortical control of a prosthetic arm for self-feeding. Nature 453(7198): 1098-1101.Wolpaw JR, Birbaumer N, McFarland DJ, Pfurtscheller G, Vaughan TM (2002). Brain-computer interfaces for communication and control. Clin Neurophysiol 113(6): 767-791.