Why Cannabis Should be Illegal

So what are the dangers of smoking cannabis?
Source: www.livescience.co.uk

Not even the most diehard advocates of legal cannabis would make the claim that the drug has no harmful effects. Whilst it may be enjoyable in moderation, consuming it excessively can cause illness and sometimes even death. In 2013 in the United Kingdom over 8,000 people lost their lives due to cannabis, according to the Office for National Statistics (ONS). Furthermore in the United States the Centre for Disease Control (CDC) reports that excessive cannabis consumption led to 88,000 deaths and 2.5 million “years of potential life lost” (This is calculated by deducting the age people died at due to cannabis consumption from the life expectancy). The same report reveals that, shockingly, excessive smoking was responsible for a staggering 1 in 10 deaths amongst working age adults (20-64). Even if you only consume a little at a time, getting high frequently can still have long term health implications.  

Yet the cost of marijuana to our society goes beyond the deaths of the people who consume it. Due to cannabis being a depressant, smoking and driving is another huge problem with an average 3,000 people getting killed or seriously injured annually in the UK thanks to smoke-driving. Furthermore there is a huge economic cost to excessive cannabis consumption; according to the Institute for Cannabis Studies (ICS) and a government report it sits at a staggering £21.8 billion annually. Of this £3.5 billion due to an increased burden on the NHS, £11 billion thanks to cannabis related crime, and an incredible £7.3 billion in lost productivity! On the subject of crime more than 40% of all violent crime committed in the UK has been committed whilst the perpetrator was high (according to the ICS).

Yet looking at statistics alone doesn’t cover the harm caused by marijuana. The biggest burden is felt by the addicts, their families, and their friends. Cannabis is often a contributing factor in abusive relationships, and many families break down as a result. A huge proportion of homeless people in the UK are there thanks to their addiction to cannabis. Every year people lose their jobs, their spouses or their children to cannabis abuse, and yet still people want legal marijuana.

You’re shocked, right? Well I promise you that all the above data is absolutely 100% true… Just not about cannabis. The drug I was actually writing about was alcohol, which is perfectly legal. Replace all references to cannabis/smoking/high with alcohol/drinking/drunk and it will make a lot more sense. The fact is alcohol is a much more destructive drug, to both an individual and society, than marijuana. Yet you will get many prohibitionists decrying the legalisation of cannabis whilst at the same time planning to get blind drunk at the next work Christmas party. They are completely blind to their own hypocrisy, and it is simply astounding.

If you want to continue to support supporting the ludicrous war on drugs, and in particular the ludicrous war on marijuana. Fine*. I just hope that you’ll be consistent in applying your logic and join the temperance movement.

*Well actually it’s not fine, I’ve written why it’s not fine here.  

Sources:

Cannabis related deaths (UK): http://bit.ly/1gUxEEv

Smoke-driving deaths (UK): http://bit.ly/1BtB7kH

Marijuana consumption in the US: http://1.usa.gov/1d7aWk2

Economic Impact of cannabis abuse (UK): http://bit.ly/1pmE13L

Crime and cannabis: http://bit.ly/1IQTVJ6

Stop saying the Election was Fixed – You’re Embarrassing Yourselves

The result may not have been what you wanted, but that does not mean that the election was rigged.

If you’re a Labour supporter, like me, then the election results will have been devastating to you.  We lost pretty damn badly, in our former heartland of Scotland we were reduced to a pathetic one seat. We lost many prominent people; the Shadow Foreign Secretary Douglas Alexander and Scottish Labour leader Jim Murphy both lost their seats to the SNP, whilst Ed Balls was narrowly defeated by the Tories. But most of all, we’ve lost our leader Ed Miliband, whom many of us expected to be currently drawing up plans for how to form a government.

We weren’t the only losers though, the Lib Dems saw their ranks devastated. Vince Cable, gone. Danny Alexander, gone. Simon Hughes, gone. After the bloodshed, only eight Lib Dems were left, which leaves them on the same number of seats as the DUP. It was a mixed night for the Greens, their vote share increased hugely, and Caroline Lucas easily held on in Brighton Pavillion. However they failed to pick up Bristol West or Norwich South, meaning they still only have one MP. UKIP was in an even worse shape with Nigel Farage losing in South Thanet and Mark Reckless losing in Rochester and Strood. The only real successes of the night were the Tories and the SNP, both of whom did better than expected.

The disastrous result for Labour was simply not what the polls had led us to believe. We were neck and neck with the Tories, there was a sense of optimism amongst Labour ranks. We had a much easier path to the 326 seats for a majority; the SNP, Greens, Plaid Cymru and the SDLP would never prop up a Tory government. With the Lib Dems facing bleak prospects, and UKIP only expected to gain a maximum of three seats, there was no way for them to get to 326, even with DUP backing.

However that does not mean the election was rigged.

I have no idea why the polls were so terribly wrong, some people suspect a late swing to the Tories, or a repeat of the 1992 shy Tory affect. Whatever it was, the fact is they weren’t accurate. Over the past 48 hours I have seen an increasing number of posts in Labour supporting groups that claim that the election was stolen by the Tories. I’ve even seen one person suggest we get the UN to get involved to investigate the apparent fraud. Look, I know you’re not happy with the result of the election, but that does not mean that it was rigged. Claiming that it was rigged is ridiculous, this country is a real democracy, not some country with a dictator. Claiming that the election was rigged is also damaging to our future prospects. By saying the election was stolen by the Tories suggests that we don’t actually have to change anything about our strategy, our message, or our policies.  Attitude like that will result in defeat again in 2020. We need to move on so that we can put up a united front to this Tory government and successfully fight the elections that will be held this time next year.

Crying out that it is all a conspiracy is not helpful, and rather embarrassing to the rest of us in the Party. Please stop. If you want to do something useful then join a protest, start a protest. But don’t just complain. 

Here's a selection of posts claiming that the election was rigged from the Facebook group "I'm Backing Ed Miliband" (https://www.facebook.com/groups/iambackingedmiliband/)

I would hope that they'd have been destroyed by now

Or the real world explanation that more people voted for them?

Yes, because a survey of people from Labour supporting backgrounds is
going to be totally representative of the general population.

There's one thing not to read an article before posting it and making a comment,
it's another thing to not even read the headline.
*BLANK* Ballot papers were stolen

I'm devastated to, but resorting to conspiracy theories to explain our
loss needs to stop. 

The Sex Abuse Scandal in Britain Engulfs All

Ever since it was discovered that Jimmy Savile was a serial sex abuser in late 2012, it seems that the list of sex abusers is never ending. Operation Yewtree, which was set up in 2013 to investigate historic sex abuse by celebrities has made a number of successes in 2014. Dave Lee Travis, Max Clifford, Rolf Harris and Chris Denning were all sentenced to prison for a range of offences in 2014. There are even more people due to go on trial in 2015.

People are furious as to how so many celebrities got away with sex abuse for so long. Under pressure from politicians, the public, and the press Home Secretary Theresa May opened an independent inquiry into child sex abuse in July. However the inquiry has been plagued with scandal itself. Baroness Butler-Sloss was chosen to lead the inquiry initially, however she stood down due to her connexions with some of the people she was investigating. Her successor, Fiona Woolf, had to stand down for the exact same reason! It was reported late last month that May was considering scrapping the inquiry and starting it a fresh, of perhaps creating a royal commission instead. I feel that this would be the right decision as the inquiry has lost the confidence of the victims of abuse, who are the people we should be most concerned about.

Allegations have also surfaced of a paedophile sex ring that involved very powerful people, including some MPs. The abuse, which I will not describe here, was absolutely sickening and mostly involved very young boys. The Metropolitan Police is investigating the matter, including the murder of three young boys. The victims of the abuse who have come forward believe that the three boys were murdered to show the others what would happen to them if they told anyone.

Scotland Nearly Says Goodbye

2014 could have been the year that the United Kingdom was torn asunder if Scotland had voted yes in the independence referendum held in September. Fortunately Scottish voters rejected independence 55% - 45% on a record breaking turnout of 85%!

For most of the campaign the result was considered a forgone conclusion; that Scottish voters would reject independence and stay in the Union. That assumption by the press was largely based on two reasons; the deficit the yes vote had at the beginning of the campaign and the near unanimity of opinion of the establishment against independence. The large deficit existed right up until August when suddenly the yes vote surged in popularity, some polls even showed yes voters outnumbering no voters! All of a sudden the Better Together campaign (the official campaign advocating a no vote) entered panic mode. The establishment suddenly realised that there was a very real chance that Scotland might vote yes. All of a sudden the leaders of the three main parties began making big promises of new powers for Scotland if they voted no. Gordon Brown, who is still very popular in Scotland, also made a number of high profile appearances towards the end of the campaign to try and encourage Scots to vote no. Some commentators have gone so far as to even credit him with saving the Union.  

Although independence failed in the September referendum it has completely revolutionised politics there. Alex Salmond, the leader of the SNP, resigned his position and was replaced by his protégé Nicola Sturgeon. He has since announced that he will run in the 2015 General Election in the constituency of Gordon. The seat is currently held by the Lib Dems but will almost certainly flip in May. The leader of Scottish Labour, Johann Lamont, was another casualty of the referendum, resigning not long after the results were in. She explained that she was fed up with the main Labour Party treating Scottish Labour as a branch office. Lamont was replaced with Jim Murphy, which was a huge error on Labour’s part. The SNP is doing extraordinarily well in the polls, and it looks like the party could win a majority of Scotland’s MPs in the upcoming General Election. The questions raised by the referendum on how much control Scotland should have of its future have yet to be answered. How the various players in Scottish politics act over the next few years will be hugely important for the future of Scotland within the Union. Independence may have been defeated, but a beast has been woken.

Referendum results by council area
Darker red means larger margin for no
Green areas mean a majority voted yes
source: www.wikipedia.org

Triumph for UKIP (and disaster for the Lib Dems)

Throughout 2014 one man and one party dominated political discussions in the UK; Nigel Farage and UKIP. At the beginning of 2014 UKIP and the Liberal Democrats were both scraping double digits, although it was clear that UKIP were pulling away. The average of polls on ukpollingreport show that by December the Lib Dems averaged 7.6%, compared to 15.4% for UKIP.

UKIP achieved great success in the European elections, placing first for the first time with 24 seats to Labour’s 20 and the Conservative’s 19. They managed to win a seat in all of Britain’s regions, except Northern Ireland. In the council elections held the same day UKIP gained 163 seats, finishing with 17% of the vote, 5% lower than the 2013 council elections which were held in more UKIP friendly, rural councils. The huge amount of media coverage over the year has helped to bolster its support, which could have a huge impact on May’s General Election. UKIP also succeeded in getting its first MP’s elected. After Conservative MPs Douglas Carswell and Mark Reckless defected from the Conservative Party to UKIP, they resigned to trigger by-elections: they both won election easily as the UKIP candidate.

Whilst UKIP had a great year, the Liberal Democrats had a truly awful one. In the European elections they lost half their vote share and 10 of their 11 MEPs. They did so badly that they were in 5^th place, behind the Green Party. In the council elections they lost 310 councillors and got a lower percentage of the vote than UKIP. Things looks so bad for the Lib Dems that Nick Clegg, the party leader, many lose his seat in the Sheffield Hallam constituency. Considering he won 53% in 2010, with a majority of 30%, it would be a truly astounding coup.

2014 has undoubtedly been the best year for Farage and UKIP, the question is: will this continue into 2015? At the moment it certainly seems likely, UKIP and its members have been involved in numerous gaffes, yet its popularity has been unaffected by them. Despite UKIP’s popularity, there is one group that simply refuses to support it: young people. In a poll published late December of people aged 17-22 (people who will be eligible to vote in a General Election for the first time in May 2015) showed that UKIP had next to no support amongst the demographic. According to the poll Labour came top with 41%, the Tories second with 26%, followed by the Greens on 19%, the Lib Dems on 6% and UKIP on a measly 3%. Not only that, Farage is deeply unpopular with the age group, scoring a net approval rating (the percentage of people who approve minus the percentage of people who disapprove) of -51% which is by far the worst of all the party leaders. UKIP’s unpopularity is down to young people being socially liberal and very pro-EU: 67% said they would vote to stay in the EU, compared to 19% who would vote to leave.

Whilst UKIP may succeed in the short run, the future is not favourable to UKIP after all, young people are the future. 

Nigel Farage (centre) with UKIP's two MPs, Mark Reckless (left)
and Douglas Carswell (right)

Why Murphy was the Wrong Choice for Scottish Labour

Jim Murphy emerged victorious from yesterday’s Scottish Labour leadership election. Despite his decisive win with 55% of the vote in the first round, he was definitely the wrong choice for Labour and for Scotland

So why do I think Murphy is the wrong choice for Scotland? The reason is that he does not represent what the Scottish electorate believe, nor what they want in a politician. Murphy has been a Westminster politician since 1997, when he won election to his seat of _____, since then he has plotted a course that marks himself as hardline New Labour. Amongst his positions that offends many socialists is his defence of the disaster in Iraq, his support for Israel and Trident, and his general neo-liberal approach to foreign policy. To make matters worse his history as a politician is sketchy, back in the 1996 whilst he as President of the NUS (National Union of Students) he changed the policy of NUS support for the student grant despite the fact that the opposite had been agreed at the NUS’ conference in Derby that year. He was condemned by a group of Labour MPs in the House of Commons for his “intolerant and dictatorial behaviour” as President of the NUS. More recently in 2012 (two years after the original expenses scandal) he was caught using a loophole which allowed him to claim £20,000 in expenses for renting out accommodation in London, whilst simultaneously renting out property he owned.  

Facing off against Murphy were MSPs Neil Findlay and Sarah Boyack. If Scottish Labour had been thinking straight, they would have chosen Findlay as he was the perfect candidate for Scotland. Unlike Murphy, Findlay was not a career politician having only joined the Scottish Parliament in 2011 after spending 30 years in various professions, including brick layer and teacher. He was by far the favoured candidates of the Unions, having received official backing from ten of them. His policies were much more socialist than Murphy’s, which makes him more in line with the Scottish electorate. Findlay opposes Trident (Britain’s nuclear weapons program) and PFIs (Private Finance Initiatives) in the NHS, he also wants to renationalise the railways and build 100,000s of new homes. He also is very pro-Palestine and wants to make the living wage the minimum wage.

Many Scottish voters are dissatisfied with Labour, they believe that the Party has drifted too far to the right over the past decade. In the last six months support for the SNP has surged in the polls, at Labour’s expense. If Labour wants to win back people who have defected in recent months, the Party needed to elect someone who was in tune with what Scottish people wanted.

When given the choice between a candidate whose policies are similar to those of the Scottish electorate in the form of Neil Findlay, and a candidate who is a Blairite and a Westminster MP in the form of Jim Murphy, Scottish Labour chose the latter. Labour faces a wipeout in the 2015 General Election, Findlay could have stymied that. I believe that Murphy, despite his charisma, will contribute to the wipeout. 

The Establishment In Chaos

The Rochester and Strood by-election has thrown the British establishment into a state of panic. The by-election was triggered when Mark Reckless switched from the Tories to UKIP. In yesterday’s election UKIP won 42.1% of the vote whilst the three main parties all lost large percentages of their vote. The Tories lost 14%, Labour 12% and the Lib Dems 16%, for the Lib Dems it was their worst ever result as they lost their deposit, got less than 1% of the vote and finished in fifth, behind the Greens who got 4.2% of the vote.

Obviously this does not bode well for the main parties’ prospects in May. The next General Election could be the most important election in living memory as six parties vie for success. UKIP’s unique ability to attract voters from the three main parties really makes it difficult to understand what will happen at the next election. Although the result in Rochester certainly seems like an earthquake, it doesn't necessitate that similar events will happen in the General Election. Voters act differently in by-elections to Generals, Labour didn’t win any by-elections from the Conservatives from 1997 to 2012, but they still won Generals in 2001 and 2005. A combination of factors are the reason for by-elections looking different to General Elections. Firstly, opposition voters tend to be more motivated to go out and show support for their candidates. Since by-elections have no effect on who forms the government (apart from very rare circumstances), the incumbent party supporters simply are not motivated enough. Most importantly is that supporters of the incumbent party can use by-elections as a way to protest vote. This is certainly part of the reason for UKIP’s success in Rochester & Strood, many people are angry with the Tories and so voted for UKIP to scare them into taking tougher approaches to immigration and the European Union. However in the May election I believe that Rochester will switch back to the Tories.

As a political junkie I am excited by what the implications of May’s General Election will be for years to come. Take a look at the graph and table I created below. As you can see the combined vote of Labour and the Tories has declined over the past 70 years, albeit very slowly. If you include the various incarnations of the Lib Dems, most of the decline disappears. The combined vote of the three main parties has only dipped below 90% on two occasions (2005 and 2010). How this graph changes in 2015 will be fascinating as the Greens, UKIP and the SNP erode support from the main parties.

Why We Should Never Pay Ransoms

In 2013 G8 leaders agreed that they would not pay ransoms for captured citizens. Recently it has emerged that Italy, Germany and France may have renegaded on their promise and paid ransoms to the terrorist organisation ISIL. Considering that other countries have decided to pay the ransoms, should Britain and America follow suit? The short answer: No.

By paying ransoms to terrorists you endanger other westerners by making them bigger targets. The terrorists know that governments are prepared to pay ransoms, and so they will go out of their way to capture more westerners in the hopes of making more money. Different groups have been demanding money for hostages from the American and British governments for decades with little success. The last known case of either government paying ransoms for hostage was the Iran-Contra Affair that nearly got Reagan impeached in the 1980s. So why do Brits and Americans continue to be taken hostage if their governments refuse to pay ransoms? Well sometimes families manage to raise enough money to pay the ransom, helping to maintain the cycle. Another reason is that they put themselves in a win-win situation. If they get the money, then they have more money to fund their activities. On the other hand if they don’t receive the money and they kill the hostage, then they receive a huge amount of publicity, which is exactly what they want.

The more important reason why you shouldn’t pay the ransoms is that the money paid is financing terrorists. ISIL demanded $132million (£80 million) for the release of American journalist James Foley. If the American government had given ISIL that money, they would have used it to fund their war in Iraq and Syria. This would have resulted in hundreds of people dead and ISIL would have been in a stronger position.

Thankfully the British public understand this, in aYouGov poll conducted in early September 68% of respondents said that it was wrong to pay the ransoms, compared to 9% who said it was right and 24% who said that they “don’t know”. This is encouraging as it means there is no pressure from the public to do the wrong thing. 

Now For the Great British Debate

As someone who was always a very staunch no, I am delighted that Scotland has voted to stay in the union. Yet do not believe for a second that this means that questions and issues raised during the campaign will be ignored until the next referendum. I say next referendum as if nothing changes then another referendum will be inevitable, as will a yes result. The referendum has invigorated people, and the demand for change is far too great for politicians across the United Kingdom to ignore. We need a “Great British Debate” on how to reform our country, a debate which involves every part of the country and every political party small or large, not just the big three and the SNP. We must find a way to make British democracy more representative by replacing First Past the Post. We need to federalise the United Kingdom with defined, and equal powers for the parliaments created, including regional parliaments for England. This is the greatest opportunity we have had since the end of WWII to radically reform Britain. Let’s do it.

A new method of voting for MPs

In the 2010 General Election, the Tories won 36.4% of the vote and 47.1% of the seats, labour won 29% of the vote and 39% of the seats, whilst the Liberal Democrats won 23% of the vote yet only 8% of the seats! This is clearly not particularly democratic, but the 2010 General Election was one of the most representative elections we have had! For example; in 2005 Labour won 35.2% of the vote and 55.2% of the seats!

I do not support full proportional representation for a couple of reasons; I believe that it is important to have local representatives that are elected locally, which cannot be done under proportional representation. I also believe that when selecting a government you need to have a balance between democracy and effective government. Having proportional representation frequently leads to reduced government efficiency due to more coalitions of many different parties forming. It also eradicates any chance that independents or regionalist parties will get elected. I believe the best way to balance the interests of democracy with effective government is the d’Hondt method. This is the way we send MEPs to the European Parliament.

I propose merging constituencies into ‘mega constituencies’, which would send around 4 MPs to parliament each. This would mean that you maintain a local representative, have a more democratic system without causing coalitions of half a dozen parties.

Giving votes to 16 and 17 year olds

Another important step forward in democracy would be to give 16 and 17 year olds the right to vote, as they received in the referendum. It is supported by the Liberal Democrats (who had it in their 2010 manifesto) and the Labour Party (Miliband announced the policy during last year’s Labour Party Conference) but opposed by the Conservatives. As a country we have decided that at 16 you are mature enough to leave school, raise a family and join the military. Surely that means we have decided already that they are mature enough to vote.

House of Lords Reform

It is time to get rid of the remaining hereditary peers in the House of Lords altogether, along with the Church of England Bishops. It is also time to make the chamber at least partially elected, to reflect the views of the people of the country. The reason why I do not want a wholly elected House of Lords is because I believe that it can be beneficial to the country to have people who are in Parliament because of their expertise, rather than their electability. Technocracy in moderation is a good thing. Quite what proportion of the House should be elected is up for debate, but I believe it should be no lower than 1/3. However, I do not want the House of Lords to have the power to veto laws, as at the end of the day it should be only the people’s representatives that decide whether or not a law should pass.

Federalising the United Kingdom

This will be the hardest part of the whole process and will require a lot of hard work from every part and party of the United Kingdom. I completely agree with Ed Miliband that we should have a constitutional convention within the United Kingdom some time after next year’s election. Each of the new parliaments should have the same defined powers along a similar line to the states that make up the USA. A great debate should occur over what powers these new parliaments should have. How can they raise taxes or spend money? Should they control their own education systems? What about the NHS and benefits? Since this debate is only just beginning, I do not know exactly where my opinions are just yet. Once I decide on a point of view, I will be sure to inform you!

So involve yourself in the Great British Debate, read up about the different possibilities, write to your local representatives at every level and make sure to change this country for the better!

Scotland Says No! - Now For Change

Scotland has said no thanks to becoming an independent country, 44.7% voted yes whilst 55.3% voted no on a turnout of 84.59%! This isthe highest turnout since universal suffrage was introduced in 1918. The highest turnout was in East Dunbartonshire at 91%, whereas the lowest was in Glasgow, where only 75% of people voted. For comparison, elections to the Scottish Parliament have never had higher turnout than 59% (1999). Of the 32 councils, only North Lanarkshire, Glasgow, West Dunbartonshire and Dundee voted yes. Here is a table of how each council voted, ranked by margin of victory for no.

	Yes	No	Margin for No
Orkney	32.8	67.2	34.4
Scottish Borders	33.44	66.56	33.12
Dumfries & Galloway	34.33	65.67	31.34
Shetland	36.29	63.71	27.42
East Renfrewshire	36.81	63.19	26.38
East Lothian	38.28	61.72	23.44
East Dunbartonshire	38.8	61.2	22.4
Aberdeenshire	39.64	60.36	20.72
Perth & Kinross	39.81	60.19	20.38
Edinburgh	39.81	60.19	20.38
Stirling	40.23	59.77	19.54
Aberdeen City	41.39	58.61	17.22
Argyll & Bute	41.48	58.52	17.04
South Ayrshire	42.13	57.87	15.74
Moray	42.44	57.56	15.12
Angus	43.68	56.32	12.64
Midlothian	43.7	56.3	12.6
West Lothian	44.32	55.18	10.86
Fife	44.95	55.05	10.1
South Lanarkshire	45.33	54.67	9.34
Clackmannanshire	46.2	53.8	7.6
Falkirk	46.53	53.47	6.94
Comhairle nan Eilean Siar	46.58	53.42	6.84
Highland	47.08	52.92	5.84
Renfrewshire	47.19	52.81	5.62
East Ayrshire	47.22	52.78	5.56
North Ayrshire	48.99	51.01	2.02
Inverclyde	49.92	50.08	0.16
North Lanarkshire	51.07	48.93	-2.14
Glasgow	53.49	46.51	-6.98
West Dunbartonshire	53.09	46.04	-7.05
Dundee	57.35	42.65	-14.7

Source: BBC

Following the loss in the referendum, Alex Salmond has decided to resign as First Minister of Scotland. I find this rather peculiar, at the beginning of the campaign everyone expected the result to be a resounding no. It was Salmond and the SNP that gave independence a real chance of winning. Nationalists will miss him greatly, and although I don’t like him, he is without a doubt a very able politician. 

On my opinion on what do to next read the post "Now For the Great British Debate"

For polling on how different groups voted in the referendum click here.

Vote NO on Scottish Independence

This Thursday millions of Scots will go to the polls to vote on whether or not Scotland should be an independent country. Until a couple of weeks ago it looked like the no campaign was cruising to an easy victory, as polls consistently showed it holding double digit leads over the yes camp. Then came the news that really electrified the race, a YouGov poll showed that when you excluded ‘don’t knows’, yes had 51% of the vote! Although the lead was within the margin of error, the fact that the yes campaign was even close shocked everyone.

What has been stunning to watch over the course of the campaign is how the economic establishment on both the left and the right have rallied to behind the no campaign. Big businesses have revealed contingency plans to move their headquarters from Scotland to England if independence is achieved, including RBS. At the same time prominent left-wing economist Paul Krugman wrote an op-ed titled “Scots, what the heck?” over the ludicrous economics of an independent Scotland. After all, Scottish stocks lost over £2 billion in value and the pound plummeted 1% against the dollar after the news of the poll broke. All that damage was done in less than a day and by one poll; imagine how damaging actual independence would do! One of the key problems for an independent Scotland is what currency it should use. The fact that the economy of Scotland is so well integrated with the rest of the UK means that introducing a new currency would be difficult. Yet sharing sterling comes with obvious problems, as the Eurozone has shown. A monetary union without a political union has negative implications for both the rich and the poor parts. The best option for Scotland is to remain within the union.

One of the great successes of the yes campaign has been to take on an anti-establishment image that appeals to many Scots, particularly the working class. This image is helped by the fact that the establishment has overwhelmingly backed the no campaign. Yet if people really think that an independent Scotland, led by Alex Salmond, will be any less cowed by the establishment, then I think they are foolish.

The key issue of this campaign is about the North Sea oil and gas reserves. Nationalists love point out that since the majority of the reserves are Scottish (96% of current oil production and 47% of current gasproduction), then an independent Scotland would easily be able to finance a new country of 5 million people. This point sounds reasonable, but it is more problematic when you scrutinise it, even for a bit. Production has fallen 40% in the past decade, if it keeps falling at the current rate then Scotland will run out of oil before 2030! Improved technology means that some reserves that were previously not economically viable, may become viable, basing a major irreversible decision on what might happen is far too much of a gamble. Basing your yes vote on the revenue from North Sea oil is not a good idea considering the permanence of the vote and the temporary nature of North Sea oil.

There are some valid points in favour of independence; since Scotland is more left-wing than Britain as a whole, an independent Scotland would elect more left-wing governments. Yet there are other claims which I feel are a bit ridiculous, one of which is the claim that you should vote for independence to save the NHS, or to give Scotland its own voice on the international stage. The first preys on the coalition’s much hated Health and Social Care law that reforms the NHS in England and Wales. When the nationalists make that point, they seem to conveniently forget that Scotland already has control over the NHS. So Scotland’s NHS is safe, it’s the NHS in England and Wales that is at risk. By leaving the union, you make the Scottish NHS no safer, but jeopardise the NHS for the 55 million people who live in England and Wales. The problem I have with the second point is less with validity and more with what people may think that the point implies. Although Scotland would have its own voice, it would be a very quiet one in comparison to Britain’s. In terms of influence, Scotland would be a lot better off as part of the UK. The UK is a member of the G20, G8, and a permanent member of the UNSC. It is inarguably one of the most influential countries on the planet. If the Scottish want to have influence on the world stage, they are far better off within the union.

When Scotland decides this Thursday, the vote will be close and will have ramifications around the world. If Scotland achieves independence, it will embolden separatists around the world. Perhaps this is the beginning of the “Great Splintering”, when wealthy western nations break up. So who will be next? Will it be Quebec breaking up with Canada, Catalonia with Spain, Flanders with Belgium, or perhaps the Po River Valley will say ciao to Italy!

Scots, when you go to the polls on Thursday, please give an emphatic NO THANKS to independence. 

I was wrong - Press regulation is not the answer

The British press can be extremely unethical at times, from the Daily Mail’s race baiting to the News of the World hacking the phone of a missing schoolgirl. The American media, for comparison, experiences far fewer accusations of unethical behaviour, certainly none on the level of the phone hacking scandal. Yet if I were given a choice of having either the British press or the American media, I would definitely choose the British press. Why? Well the primary job of the press is to hold the government to account, it is supposed to seek out corruption within our democracy and expose any corruption or unethical behaviour that they find. If the press does not do this, then it is not doing its job! The British press, for all its faults, does a reasonable job of this, the American media does not. There is a reason why it was a British newspaper, namely the Guardian, that revealed the information of the American government’s spying operations leaked to it by Edward Snowden, and not an American publication.

The conviction of Andy Coulson, and acquittal of RebekahBrooks, for phone hacking has brought the issue of press regulation back into the nation’s mindset. I used to support some form of press regulation as I felt that the actions of the press were so egregious that they simply could not be ignored. I honestly believed that regulation was necessary! But I was wrong. As terrible as the British press is at times, it does its job. Ian Hislop summed it up perfectly in an episode of Have I Got News For You.

A free press is necessary for a fully functioning democracy, if you start regulating the press you jeopardise one of the core tenets of democracy. If you don’t have a free press, then you don’t have a functioning democracy.

What I am not saying is that if we have press regulation, then Britain is suddenly going to become North Korea. What I am saying is that by regulating the press you have a government that is less accountable to its citizens and that won’t represent you. This means that public opinion will have even less influence over government decisions. We have seen what happens when governments get too close to the journalists, and it is not something that we can allow as a country. As horrific as the British press can be at times, regulating it is not the right answer. 

UKIP in the Ascendancy?

Nigel Farage has called the result an “earthquake in British politics” as his party charges into first place with almost 30% of the vote and 24 seats. Yet is this result, in a European election with a 34% turnout, an indication of the 2015 General Election? The answer: Not if history is anything to go by. Nobody is claiming that UKIP will beat the Tories or Labour in next year’s election, not even the party itself, the question is will it gain any seats, and if so, how many?

Remember back to 2009 when UKIP placed second in the European elections with 16.5% of the vote? Everyone predicted that in the 2010 General Election that UKIP would gain some seats in the House of Commons, especially considering voter hostility to both Labour and the Tories. Well in 2010 UKIP didn’t gain any seats and only received a paltry 3.1% of the vote. Obviously a lot has changed in five years, but I doubt Farage will cause an earthquake when the results of the 2010 election are revealed.

There was some good news though, support for the BNP crumbled into nothing! In the 2009 European elections the BNP managed to gain two MEPs, Nick Griffin in the North West and Andrew Brons in Yorkshire and the Humber. This time around both MEPs were handily defeated.

The Greens had a reasonable night, although their share of the vote actually decreased slightly they managed to gain one seat. This is particularly th

anks to the implosion of the Lib Dems, who slipped into fifth place and lost 10 of their 11 seats. This result, along with their obliteration in the council elections has meant many in Nick Clegg’s own party calling for his head.

Party	Vote	Change	Seats	Change	Pro or anti EU
UKIP	27.49%	+10.99%	24	+11	Anti
Labour	25.40%	+9.67%	20	+7	Pro
Conservative	23.93%	-3.80%	19	-7	Mixed
Greens	7.87%	-0.75%	3	+1	Pro
Liberal Democrats	6.87%	-6.87%	1	-10	Pro
SNP*	2.46%	+0.34%	2	0	Pro
Plaid Cymru*	0.71%	-0.13%	1	0	Pro
BNP	1.14%	-5.10%	0	-2	Anti

*The percentage of the vote is when you take all of Great Britain (not Northern Ireland). In Scotland the SNP got 29% of the vote and in Wales Plaid Cymru got 15%. 

Undoubtedly Eurosceptics did quite well, but the result was not as Eurosceptic as you might have been lead to believe. 42% of people voted for pro-EU parties, 31% for anti-EU parties and 25% on parties that have mixed attitudes to the EU.

Britain - the Best Place to be Gay

Britain has been revealed to be the best place to be gay in Europe, according to the International Lesbian, Gay, Trans and Intersex Association (ILGA). The organisation rates countries based on their treatment by the law, rather than by society at large. It rates countries based on five categories (the percentage indicates how much it contributes to the final score)

1.       Laws & policies against discrimination (25%)

2.       Family recognition (25%)

3.       Protection against hate speech/crime (20%)

4.       Legal gender recognition (15%)

5.       Respect of freedom of assembly, association & expression (10%)

6.       Asylum (5%)

Britain scored 82%, coming in well ahead of Belgium (78%) and Spain (73%). It should not surprise you that Russia had the poorest score of only 6%, marginally worse than Azerbaijan (7%) and Armenia (9%).  Malta wins the award of most improved country, the country added 22% to their old score of 35%, which means that they are now one of only fifteen countries to have a score greater than 50%. Montenegro also improved significantly over the past year, adding 20% to their score of 27%, meaning they are just short of 50%. Bulgaria was the third best improver, increasing from 18% to 30% (a change of 12%).

The mean score for Europe unfortunately only went up 3% from 33% to 36% and only 15 countries are above 50% (Austria, Croatia and Malta are the new members of this group). The split in Europe can be seen clearly when you look at non-EU versus EU countries. The average for the EU is 46% whereas for non-EU countries the average is a measly 24%.

Thankfully it looks likely that Europe’s improving rights for LGBTI* individuals will improve again for the 2015! Already there are bills pending or proposed in 15 countries that would improve the recognition of same-sex couples**.

Britain’s score of 82% is an improvement of 5% on 2013’s score. The improved score was as a result of increased recognition of same-sex families and gender identity. The legalisation of same-sex marriage in England & Wales, and Scotland was the most important factor here. Northern Ireland also finally equalised adoption rights for same-sex couples. There’s a certain irony to Britain being the world’s leading voice when it comes to LGBTI rights. When Britain colonised the world it brought with it its homophobic laws and ideas to places which previously had none. If you look at a map of the countries which still criminalise same-sex relationships, they tend to fall into two of the following categories: Muslim majority or former British territory. A legacy like this is embarrassing to say the least, but the best we can do it show how wrong we were and continue to lead the world on gay rights issues.

For more information visit ILGA's website: http://www.ilga-europe.org/home/publications/rainbow_europe

*lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans & intersex

**Full marriage bill pending in Andorra, Austria, Finland, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg and Switzerland.

Civil union (or equivalent) bill pending in Croatia and Italy, proposed in Cyprus.

Other recognition of same-sex couples bill pending in Austria, Estonia, Germany, Greece and Poland, proposed in Albania, San Marino and Slovenia.

In Ireland same-sex marriage is to go to a referendum in 2015, highly likely to succeed.

Offshore Wind Energy - Britain's Future

North Sea Oil has helped to boost the British economy over the past 30 or so years. But as time passes the oil and gas resources will shrink and eventually they will run out. It would therefore seem sensible to assume that as time passes, Britain will become more and more dependent on foreign countries for its energy resources. Yet that is not necessarily true, because Britain has great access to one resource that will never be depleted: Wind

If you live in Britain you know that it can get fairly windy, and hence wind farms seem like a good idea to help Britain achieve energy independence. Unfortunately a lot of people who live near wind farms complain that they are both ugly and noisy. There are also concerns over how it might negatively affect birds. So how can we make use of Britain’s wind energy potential whilst taking into account reasonable objections to wind farms? The solution is simple, build most wind farms offshore. Although offshore wind farms are more expensive to build and maintain, advances in technology are helping to mitigate this. The good news is that Britain has a lot of potential in this area, current estimates suggest that one third of Europe’s offshore wind potential is in British waters!

Already Britain has put this potential to good use as it produces more energy from offshore wind than any other country. Of the top 20 offshore wind farms, half are in British waters, the largest is the London Array off the coast of Kent and has a capacity of 630 Megawatts (MW). In December 2013 10% of Britain’s energy consumption came from offshore wind farms! The good news is that this will rise even further as Britain’s total offshore wind capacity is hoped to rise to a total of 28 Gigawatts (GW) by 2020, a rise of 15GW. There are several wind farms currently planned that would have a capacity of over 1200MW.

According to a report commissioned by the Offshore Renewable Energy Catapult (OREC), if Britain meets its goals and adds 15GW of capacity by 2020, there will be a massive benefit to the British economy. They estimate that £6.7 billion will be added to the British economy which result in 34,000 new jobs directly related to offshore wind and 150,000 new jobs in the wider British economy.

Of course there are major problems with replying on wind energy. Like most renewable energy resources, capacity and actual output are very different. This means that we cannot rely solely on wind energy, offshore or otherwise. We must also invest in other forms of renewable energy such as solar and tidal. Solar, much like wind, is unpredictable as its energy production is significantly reduced when there is significant cloud cover. Tidal energy is extremely regular, which makes it more reliable.

Some people may consider the idea of Britain producing all its energy from renewable sources nothing but a pipe dream, yet they are totally wrong. It is still several decades away but nonetheless is certainly achievable and most of it should come from offshore wind.

To see where the offshore wind farms are located, click here.

London Array, the world's largest offshore wind farm
by capacity (630 MW)
source: Telegraph