SALMOND HEADS FOR HIS OWN CULLODEN.

A couple of days ago, Alex Salmond's lot in the chilly wastes of Scotland published their plans for an independent nation. That these plans are peppered with so many assumptions and holes that are worthless has been missed by very few.

 

Salmond wants his 'country' to be independent and yet he also wants to keep almost everything it currently has - the Queen as Head of State, the pound sterling as its currency, membership of the European Union etc., etc. He seems to have a notion that Scotland is the most successful and productive part of the United Kingdom, based on a variety of past issues and the belief that North Sea oil will last forever. What he really seems to want is to turn the clock back some 300 years, to the days when Scotland was little more than a collection of fiefdoms, nominally under the overlordship of a king or queen.

 

Salmond is attempting to con the Scots into voting for independence by promising them that the only significant change they would see would be the cessation of control from Westminster. This is, of course, nonsense. His assertion that a newly independent Scotland would still be a member of the EU has been refuted by a raft of EU officials; they are united in saying that Scotland would have to make a fresh application for membership and take its place in the queue.

 

Whether or not the Queen would wish to remain as Head of State is another question; would she wish to be Head of State of a foreign country which had rejected the old Union ? Would, indeed, the people and government of England, Wales and Northern Ireland wish to share their monarch with a foreign country which had shown such antipathy to the Union ?

 

Regarding Salmond's stated intention of retaining sterling as the new nation's currency, he has again made a claim which ignores European rules. Any new nation wishing to join the EU is required to adopt the Euro as its currency; Scotland would be no different, whatever Salmond might want. Even if this were not the case, would the Government of the reduced United Kingdom wish to share its currency ? What would be the effects on both Scotland and the nation it had left ? Tying itself to a foreign currency would certainly have a significant impact on the ability of a Scottish government to manage its own monetary affairs independently and might well make many of Salmond's other plans for a future economy impossible to achieve. One has only to look at the mess of the Eurozone to see this.

 

Salmond is a fanatic and all fanatics are dangerous. In his case, he is dangerous to the stability and future of a country, the United Kingdom, which has endured since the Act of Union in 1707. Salmond is also dangerous to his homeland, Scotland which, by the way, has not really been a country in an international sense since that same Act; it is part of the United Kingdom in the same way that New South Wales is part of Australia and California is part of the USA.

 

If the Scots want to go their own way, so be it, but let it be for genuine and supportable reasons, not the hyperbole of a mad modern-day Jacobite.  The one good thing about this whole process is that it will all be over by the end of next year, at least for a generation or two.

ANTI-SMOKING FASCISTS AT IT AGAIN.

Now that the anti-smoking lobby has become all-powerful, one of the multitude of Government QUANGOs, "The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence", has decided that it's time to push the boundaries even further. They want to ban smoking in all hospital grounds in England, whether the 'offender' be patient, visitor or staff.

 

No one can deny that smoking is bad for you. It causes a raft of illnesses and it's smokey and smelly; its odours stick to your clothes in an unpleasant fashion. However, the constant barrage of criticism of smokers, regular excessive price rises, gory packaging and bans galore have surely gone far enough unless the Government intends a total ban on the sale and use of tobacco products. If this is what it wants to do, it should get on with it, otherwise, it should back off.

 

None of the measures introduced to date appear to have done much to prevent children from sampling and becoming addicted to the 'forbidden fruit' of cigarettes any more than has a plethora of sex education stopped them from becoming sexually active at ever-younger ages. The sad truth is that banning smokers from smoking is of little use; it is stopping the addiction from being developed that matters and no one is doing anything about this.

 

The imbeciles sitting in their comfortable offices at the Institute seem not to have thought about their latest pronouncement very carefully. People in hospital, whether patients, staff or visitors, are nearly all adults; their lifestyles have been developed and changing them is far from easy. Banning all smoking on hospital property would have a number of unwelcome consequences.

 

Firstly, the availability of staff would be reduced as many of them no doubt smoke; regardless of the known dangers, a habit caught in childhood proves very difficult to break and some may be unable, or not even want, to break it - are they to be sacked ?

 

Secondly, most patients are elderly with habits formed over lifetimes of many decades; for some, one of their few remaining pleasures may be a cigarette now and again - are these people to be denied a little pleasure at a time when they are already sick and, perhaps, dying ? My own grandfather gave up smoking on medical advice when it was already too late, and 'enjoyed' 5 years of increasing incapacity, which turned into a living hell, rather than 2 years of relative happiness. After smoking for 50, 60 or 70 years, can there be any justification for depriving such people of an occasional drag ?

 

Thirdly, if there is to be nowhere that people can smoke, some may decide that going to hospital is not for them; they'd rather put on a brave face and hope for the best, while sitting at home and getting out a packet of their favourite brand. The result of such a move would be, inevitably, that such people would not be admitted to hospital until they are very ill and require much more intensive care than would otherwise have been the case.  

 

Fourthly, have the Institute's experts given any thought to the calming effects that a little nicotine can have on an otherwise stressed smoker ? Do they actually have any understanding of the ways in which smoking acts, not scientifically but in real, everyday life ? While many smokers smoke because they enjoy it, for many it is an essential part of their lives; it is, after all, a narcotic addiction. To tell a prospective patient that they need hospitalisation for a week or two and, by the way, you won't be able to smoke, may be impossible to accept or, even if it is accepted, impossible to stick to. The result could be dangerously aggressive patients with nowhere to go.

 

Finally, there is universal acceptance that visitors can play an important role in the recovery of patients. However, knowing that there will be nowhere close by where they can nip off to have a quick smoke might easily deter many from bothering to visit. Smoking is not something that can be turned on and off like a tap; when the urge strikes, it has to be satisfied. Fewer visitors (and car park revenues) and longer recoveries could easily result.

 

I'm not a smoker and never have been. I don't particularly like others smoking, but this constant banging on about bans annoys me intensely. If the Government thinks it's wrong, BAN IT ALTOGETHER; stop picking away at it and do the deed. Stop the supply of cigarettes at source and make them prescription only for existing registered smokers. Yes, such a move would cause a few problems but it would be a clean and simple break with past behaviour, unlike the entirely ridiculous mess we currently have and that some want to make even more difficult, confused and unmanageable. 

PHILLIPINES STORM DWARFS BRITAIN'S LITTLE BLOW.

A couple of weeks ago, Britain experienced a storm; from the media coverage, anyone would have thought that it was a major event of cataclysmic effect which, of course, it was not. It was actually a pretty minor affair bringing a bit of wind and rain but little else.

 

Over the last couple of days a storm of an altogether different nature has ripped through the Phillipines, bringing death and destruction to thousands. Winds of extraordinary force, torrential rain and massive tides have virtually wiped out one city and brought chaos across the country. At least 10,000 people are believed to have been killed and many, many more have been made homeless; the devastation is enormous.

 

One can only wonder how the people who have lost friends and family, in addition to everything they owned, will manage. One can also wonder how the people of Britain would cope should such a real storm strike these islands. It hardly bears thinking about. 

EU MADNESS CARRIES ON UNABATED - VOTE UKIP !

Today it's being reported that the CBI, the organisation that represents the views of many of the bigger companies in the UK, is in favour of continued membership of the European Union. This is hardly surprising as the CBI membership includes many multi-national companies which want the least possible obstruction to their trading arrangements; many of these companies are also in favour of the UK joining the catastrophe that is the 'Euro', indicating just how 'European' their managements are.

 

While this stance of the CBI is merely a reiteration of their longstanding position, their report comes on the same day that it's also reported that EU lunatics want to standardize the power of vacuum cleaners and a few days after it was announced that they want to standardize the water volume of toilet flushes.

 

This may all sound completely mad, but these measures have been reported on the jolly old pro-EU BBC, so it seems highly likely that they're true. What will we have next ? An EU standard for the amount of water we can use to shower or bathe ? Perhaps a standard for the cutting power of lawn mowers ?

 

When will this idiocy end ? We can start the process in next May's European elections - VOTE UKIP !

LIVING WAGE MEANS CUTS IN BENEFITS.

Miliband minor, reputed leader of something called "The Labour Party", has come up with another vote-winning wheeze; he's promising to introduce the "living wage" should his mob be elected to power in 2015.

 

Notwithstanding the nonsense of the "living wage", what Miliband has not exactly dwelt upon is that every penny extra which an employee would receive in their wage packets would be taken away by the benefits' system. The total paid to families in tax credits, housing and council tax benefits would be reduced to compensate for the extra employment income and, overall, the vast majority of recipients would be no better off. The one lasting effect of Miliband's proposal would be a significant additional burden on businesses, not to mention public services such as health, education and local government.

 

The additional wages, without additional productivity, mean rising costs, higher prices and inflation; people will not be better off. Miliband's policy in this direction is nothing but a cynical attempt to con voters into voting for his misbegotten bunch of hypocrites. Don't be fooled.