Why UKIP's argument is as strong as the SNP's (which isn't very)

I've been getting a bit infuriated recently by Alex Salmond and his push for an independence - of which the terms are becoming increasingly unclear. With all three major political parties in the UK rejecting the idea of a Sterling Union, and the President of the European Commission stating that it would be "virtually impossible" for Scotland to rejoin the EU once leaving Britain, the SNP's programme for independence, to most English people, looks dead in the waters of Loch Ness.

But to many Scots, the last 'week from hell' has only led to nationalists becoming more determined to be set free from the chains of British rule, whatever the cost.

The recent debacle over the Pound, and the acceptance of Nick Clegg's invitation to a debate on EU membership by Nigel Farage, has led me to one conclusion: if Scotland would not be entitled to keep sterling as a currency upon independence, why should the UK be allowed to have Free Trade Agreements with the EU if we should vote to leave it?

Whilst satirical, NewsThump have made an (almost) valid point in their article likening Salmond to a keen gym-goer who refuses to pay the hefty fees but claims he should still be able to access the rowing machines. But why would this be any different for the UK when it comes to Europe and UKIP?

NEWS! Alex Salmond claims he has every right to use gym he's no longer member of http://t.co/ADYWaFIwtD
— News Thump (@newsthump) February 17, 2014

Just as the UK was the third largest economy in the EU in2012 (set to overtake Germany by 2030 as the largest), Scotland is also the UK's second largest economy. Surely we could not expect preferential treatment from our neighbours when we were unwilling to dish it out to our brothers and sisters? Karma's a bitch when it comes to politics, after all. And there are some very intelligent people in Europe who would likely make this point come any Tory-led referendum in 2017.

It is important that we keep face during this time. For me, the answer seems not that we cede to Scottish demands but that we all stick together - both as part of the UK and EU. The lingering marriage we have with the EU may go through tough times, but as with any elderly couple - we'd be lost without the other. By all means, change the house rules, but don't move out because once you've left, you can never go back.

Missiles ≠ Love

I've been doing a little soul searching recently. Not the kind that George Osborne wants me to be doing, necessarily. But then it is hard to believe that George Osborne wants much in his life, other than to chastise the working classes for economic gain. The type of soul searching I've been doing has indeed led me to 'contemplate Britain's role in the world,' but the eventual conclusion that I have reached is probably antithetical to that which the Chancellor might have wanted.
In response to the British Parliament's blocking of the movement led by David Cameron to hypothetically support the US with intervention in Syria, my soul searching has yielded some fruits:

Firstly, and notwithstanding the huge complexities in the Middle East and Levant regions at the moment, Syria's neighbours must make an effort to intervene. The Arab League has decisively blamed the Assad regime for the chemical attack of the 21st August, yet declined to intervene. The Arab League consists of key global and regional players, with a huge military power, largely supplied by UK and US manufacturers. They have the capacity, and the necessity, to intervene. Yet they refuse. 
Jordan, an AL member, has seen a huge influx of refugees from Syria, placing huge strain on their finances and infrastructure. It is in their interest to see a resolve. Perhaps one spanner, however, is the support coming from Hezbollah to the Assad government; A key player in the Syrian government's recapture of Qusayr, Lebanon would not support any military intervention unless aimed at empowering Assad's regime.

Saudi Arabia has an upper hand in the region. The oil rich nation has access to a modern infrastructure of weaponry - something that it was keen to show off during the Bahrain uprising. This nation has huge power. But for years now it has been in a diplomatic melange: one of the US' key allies in the region, it is also one of the largest state sponsors of terrorism and supported the Taliban whilst it was receiving ground support from Al Qaeda. Nevertheless, it has supported the rebel-led opposition - if only verbally- and reports surfaced in the British Telegraph that they were colluding with Russia to offer a favourable oil deal if support for the Assad regime were dropped. Considering our arms ties with Saudi, there may or may not exist a stronger economic argument for the UK to support Saudi in a tactical military intervention. Saudi, after all, has more historical and social similarities to Syria than us. Not to mention more money.

My point is that it is almost pointless even considering any role in this region whilst diplomatic relations in the area are based on money and power. It is absolutely heart-wrenching to watch victims of Sarin, and more recently Napalm (or napalm like substances) suffering in makeshift hospitals, it honestly is. But We, the United Kingdom, are not responsible for any of this and as such have limited responsibility over it. It occurs to me that there are at least 3 types of rationale for intervention: rationale based on historical ties, on proximity or on morality.
I was in favour of French intervention in Mali: as an old colony, maintaining relations and accepting some degree of responsibility is of vital importance to the stability of certain regions. Britain, with its huge array former colonies, would do better to focus on improving relations with these countries, many of whom are ravaged by terrorism, diplomatic instability and poverty.
Yes, there is a moral argument for intervention in Syria. And I am not against the concept of any action in Syria. But it occurs to me that none of the parties with historic or proximate ties are taking their share of responsibility over their region.

Britain is a key global player, true. But sometimes it looks to me to be a jack of all trades: we want economic power, we like having London as a global financial hub, we like having influence and trade links and historical ties and giving aid. We also like to maintain military prowess. We are not the world police. We can no longer be a part of Team America. We must free ourselves of the notion that we still have colonial powers and realise that, if 190 members of the UN are not taking any responsibility for a country in the midst of one of the worst civil wars in decades, it is futile that 60% of the P5 tries to police the world. I do feel a heartbroken when I watch these people and their suffering, but I do believe that their neighbours are in a strategically better position to make a meaningful intervention, whether militarily or diplomatically.

So, George Osborne. I have been doing some thinking. And yet again, with regret, I believe that you are wrong.

Stop me smoking: Government U-turn on Plain Packs

Earlier this week, I visited the Doctor. After going through my questions related to my ailing body (yes, I am falling to bits at the ripe old age of 22), she asked me if I was still a smoker. I answered truthfully, which is quite difficult for me as even now after 4 years of on-off smoking, I’d still not recognise myself as a ‘smelly’ smoker.  Perhaps just a casual, ‘clean’ one?

I explained that I go through prolonged periods of abstention, followed by even longer periods of non-abstention. The doctor explained that I might need some support to kick the habit (because 2 months at a time is not really being a non-smoker, though could perhaps be considered semi-smoking?). “No”, I thought to myself, “What I really need is the packets of cigarettes that I love carrying around to be covered in dead people and black lungs and under-developed babies.”

And so then to today’s news from the government, that they will be waiting for at least another year to ban branding on packets, because the Australian introduction of this law is now acting as a trial for the British government.

What a useless excuse. We are not a reactionary country, based on statistics. We are a country based on morals. As a (semi-) smoker, I’d love nothing more than to have cigarettes branded in black. I would immediately quit. Whilst we still have red stripes on packets, I will continue to pretend I am the Marlboro man.

It seems, then, that the government has given in to the lobbying and soft-power marketing being dropped into packets of cigarettes. The companies that pushed so hard to ban black branding in Australia clearly have much more power in the UK. So whilst the tax goes up on cigarettes in the UK to the 2^nd highest prices in Europe, people are still attracted to smoking.

The government is at risk of creating a taxed fashion accessory. There is a theory in luxury, that the more exclusive or expensive an item is, the more attractive it is and thus the more people consume it. And they consume it openly, in order to attract attention. This theory is known as conspicuous consumption, and with cigarettes verging on £10 a packet; this surely will become a factor. There are only so many people who will quit smoking; the others will continue. And as a luxury image develops around these cigarettes, they will smoke more openly and attract more attention and smoking will quickly become what it was in the 60s: a luxury hobby (albeit deadly).

The only way to stop this from happening, to remove the fashionable image of cigarettes, is to remove the branding itself. Until the government gets out of bed with the Tobacco companies who unethically tempt us (me included) into inhaling their products that will - essentially, kill us - prices may rise but the sexual allure of cigarettes attracting young children to smoke will remain. Today’s youth are image conscious: make something look bad and they will abandon it.

I’ll stop when branding goes black. Until then, as the British Heart Foundation put it: thousands of people are at risk. 

Thought of the Day

If Saudi Arabia funded the Taliban, who used jihadists from Al Qaeda, who consisted at least partially of Saudi citizens (nb. 9/11 suicide bombers), surely the real problem was never Afghanistan?