Alba x ST
Critique of the Scottish smoking ban, separation and more.
Many of us who are skunnered with the ban can be forgiven for thinking we're only any use for obscene amounts of tax, our votes and our body parts. We may not be flavour of the month, but we're still good as organ donors!

Like those held recently in England, the official line continues to be that the smoking ban was a not an issue at the last Scottish election. Odd therefore that the only parties to increase their share of the vote were the Publican Party (formed for the sole purpose of amending the ban), the British National and our National Party. Seems voting intentions stated via forums and online tabloids were indeed carried out, with gutted smokers doing their bit to oust a complacent administration. Interesting how the same scenario was repeated in London, where 5.33% of Londoners voted for their National Party (one of two with a commitment to amend the ban).

Our second First Minister may have told us what he thought his legacy was for Scotland. History will certainly remember him for the outrage that's the Parliament building, the lousy costing of his home health care, his blatant attempts at voter seduction with subsidized airfares from the outer islands and his idiotic attempts to tax the living daylights out of businesses. However his crowning glory was to fall for their Trojan Horse (the ban) and, in so doing, hand Scotland to the Nationalists on a plate.

We're left in no doubt that the Nationalists have no experience of governing and harbour in their midsts some of the most radical control freaks this side of Pyongyang, hence their blatant attempt at centralization by seeking to increase income tax by 3p in the Pound under the guise of doing away with domestic rates. Nevertheless, they have used their collective common sense on most issues and are grudgingly respected for it. Okay, they need a boot up the backside once in a while, but they are what about one third of the people voted for - albeit favoured by the 6% threshold that blew away so many small parties. Proportional representation is a myth in Scotland.

The Scottish Local and Regional Elections were a fiasco and we all know it. Since that horrid day in May '07, we've discovered the whole thing cost 40 million quid to stage and no, contrary to what was said at the time, we do not have a lot of daft folk in Scotland. A ballot paper is deemed as spoiled if the person used a circle or underline to clearly convey their intentions: only a cross is acceptable. Thankfully the tab was lifted by Westminster for, at around £20 for each "valid" vote, it was lousy VFM.

In May '08 The Commons Scottish Affairs Committee finally came out with their report. In essence they're dead set against allowing any Scottish Government the power to run future elections, feeling they should continue to be organized and run from Westminster. They have also hiked the figure for spoiled ballot papers from 140,000, which was all our lot would admit to - to a thumping 180,000.

Fact is they're petrified the Nationalists could pull it off, perhaps not in 2010, but they may if given time. Explains the shot across the bows questioning the status of the Orkney and Shetland Islands, however their future may well depend on what happens with the Faeroe Islands and just how strongly they feel about rule from Edinburgh.

Whether consciously or not, their decision to retain control of future Scottish elections simply gives the Nationalists yet another reason why separation would be good for both parties. On the other hand all this whining about Westminster not giving them this, that and the next power has started to grow ears. Time therefore to bite the bullet and put it to the people. Do we really trust you lot to control an army, navy and air force? Do we really want you to have a diplomatic service and have full control of our pensions and taxes? Indeed, do we even want you to carry on with this charade? For sure the questions will be less emotive, however it might add to their credibility if they undertake to declare the results null and void if they do not achieve a minimum 50% turnout at their referendum - and guarantee a ten year moratorium on any repeat.

Now to that business of whether the EU will accept us. Of course they will; they just love all the little countries that emerged from the former USSR, CZ and YU and we too can join them for our handouts of regional aid, subsidies and so on. All we need do is bucket the Pound, adopt the Euro and implement all their laws and treaties to the letter. No dissension, no negotiation and absolutely no opt outs. One tiny little voice amongst 27 others.

The case in favour of separation is compelling for our cousins down south. They get shot of the subsidies they pay us, rid themselves of a whole pile of defense establishments they never really needed in the first place and get out from under the demographic time bomb that is our pensions, given our children have sought pastures new for generations. A superb opportunity to rack up the tab for our share of the national debt, to charge us a fortune for obsolete military hardware and land us with a vast number of soldiers that we'll have keep as they're too much of a political sacred cow to disband. On the other hand, with no Labour MP's from Scotland, the political landscape in England is likely to be very different and that, more than anything, is why they want to keep us on board.
Your Vote.
Things are beginning to get to room temperature in Scottish politics, with one lady getting stuck in at long last. There really wasn't much in the last election, in fact it boiled down to 49 voters in Cunninghame North. Now the Nationalists have fallen into the same trap of trying to appease folk who talk to them, not those who voted for them (hiding smokes), there could be a push to see the whole edifice collapse. We'll have to wait and see if they'll risk it all, or simply hang on to what they've got. Just in case an early election is forced, here's the position of each party that is committed to reviewing the ban:

 Scottish Conservative Party
They did not vote for the ban, stating that they saw no reason to include tobacconists, nor to ban actors from smoking on stage. Their current position is that they intend to review the ban, "which may, or may not result in change".

British National Party
They have stated their commitment to enable people to choose. They too intend to review the ban and are in favour of allowing the establishment of private clubs that cater for smokers and for tobacconists to allow smoking on their premises.

Publican Party
Basically a grass roots party that consists of a group of pub owners. They favour service providers being empowered to offer indoor smoking areas, albeit within guidelines similar to their counterparts in mainland Europe.

UK Independence Party
They will review the legislation and tend toward a system that will take into account the size of the premises, so little places can choose to go all smoking, or remain non smoking. Larger establishments will be required to provide separate no smoking areas.
Your Voice, Your Money, Your Choice.
If you can't be bothered waiting until the next election, here are a few things you might want to ponder.
§ The smoking ban was suggested by the SNP, then adopted by the previous Labour / Liberal administration and supported by the SNP as well as the Greens. Many readers will find merit in these parties or, for whatever reason, will not alter their vote. If the smoking ban is an issue with you, then do take every opportunity to let your MSP know your views. It's all very well for a politician to consider "the big picture", however it's a whole different ball of wax when made to face up to the effects the ban continues to have on individuals, businesses and communities. Your opinion does matter, as a whole clutch of redundant MSP's will testify!

§ There has been a curious silence about these bans from the Civil Liberties groups as well as others, supposedly looking out for our freedom to associate with like minded folk without fear or compromise. Curious because there's no doubt that many individuals, smokers or not, would like to provide facilities for us, yet are denied this ability under present legislation. The question is not perhaps their silence on this matter, rather their willingness to be selective as well as to compromise their principles with us. Many depend on government handouts as well as public donations. Not from us fellas, not any more.

Nice to see The Archbishop of York, talking on a far wider range of topics, was quoted on 4 June '08 as saying that "government bureaucracy" was putting civil liberties at risk and "petty mindedness" was threatening personal freedoms. Well said Sir!

§ Always take advantage of relatives, friends or workmates who are off on holiday. Each adult can bring back 200 cigarettes duty free if their destination is outside the EU. Within most of the EU they can bring back up to 800 cigarettes if they're gifts or 3,200, before questions may be asked, if they're for their own use. Make sure your non smoking buddies bring back at least the 800 they're legally allowed. As you might expect there are a few caveats and some EU countries are specifically excluded, however the rules are laid out in reasonably plain English at www.customs.hmrc.gov.uk.

§ Talking of tax by another form, then do avoid the National Lottery. It's been acutely politicized for decades and beginning to weather badly; fully 25% of the money for good causes will be blown on the London Olympics, which you'll pay a fortune to attend - if you can get a ticket.

Thankfully this issue has come to the fore. In Feb '08 the Conservatives pledged to leave the Trustees alone to decide where money for good causes should be allocated. They claim that £3.8 billion has been siphoned off by the government since 1998 and used to plug gaps in their budget: an amount that sounds suspiciously close to overspend caused by their willingness to "send in the troops". Of course until there is a change in Westminster, it'll continue to be all snouts to the trough.

§ Make sure you hold your elected officials accountable for their actions. Your domestic rates help finance the Environmental Health Departments and it is they who are charged with enforcing the ban. They're the outfit that employ the Smoking Wardens and it is your Local Councillor you'll want to explain why your rates are being used in this manner.

§ It's no secret that we're way down the food chain when it comes to medical treatment. Consider very carefully any donations to cancer charities, or anything associated with the medical fraternity. Donations include blood as well as eggs. They're rock solid on this business that we're all mass murderers and that social exclusion is the only solution for smokers.

§ Next time you're subjected to statistics about the death rates of smokers, how the cost to the NHS is this, that and the next thing and how morally justified the ban is to save lives and stop us self harming, do make sure your MSP, Local Councillor, Doctor, Health Worker, Sanctimonious Twit, or whatever, answers the following question. How many abortions were carried out by this self same NHS in the UK in 2006? 206,860 is the answer of which 13,160 were carried out here in Scotland. Furthermore, despite claims by the Nationalists that we're all one big happy family, just waiting for the chance to make our mark on the world stage, fact is the number of abortions went up in Scotland, to 13,700 in 2007.

When our Public Health Minister made her speech about hiding ciggies, then reeled off a bunch of highly questionable statistics, the only true statistic was that every 9 minutes she spent grandstanding, yet another was carried out. In due course her English counterpart will stand in Westminster and regurgitate the same drivel, however in this case the time frame is one every 36 seconds of every eight hour five day week.

At least here most abortions are conducted in house. In England and Wales, the majority are paid for by the NHS, but actually carried out by the private sector at full whack, which varies but can go up to three grand. They don't even begin to see the connections, even with a full frontal lobotomy they couldn't join the dots. Okay, we're at the sharp end and see things as they are, so we'll do it their way: you want to save lives, then get yourselves together and help the lassies who can't afford to keep their bairns.

§ Avoid places that make no attempt to cater to Smokers. The laws in Scotland are some of the most repressive in Europe, however a fair number of owners have gone to a whole load of time and expense to lay out gardens, or build half decent smoking shelters. They deserve our custom and - if you kick in your local knowledge - perhaps a few more of us can venture out on our own terms.

§ Keep informed. There's a wealth of information out there, Freedom2Choose is a UK based site that has grown rapidly over the past couple of years and has several dedicated Scottish reporters as well as a forum. For those travelling further afield, NYC Clash does a sterling job of assisting New Yorkers as well the American Smoker. Full details of the NYC as well as the NY State bans can be accessed through this site. Smokers Club is also US based, has a huge archive and carries articles as well as a wealth of data on every part of the world. They too have a forum.

§ Vote with your feet! Fully 385,000 people quit the UK for good in '07 (Office for National Statistics). Irrespective of your destination, don't give up your right to vote. Once settled, contact your nearest British Embassy / High Commission and register with them. They'll give you the low down on how to vote in General as well as European elections.

All interest paid on savings / deposit accounts left in the UK are taxed at source. If you've no wish to support this shower by default, go see a specialist about this as well as how to minimize taxes on any house you keep and chose to rent. All the big name high street banks have dedicated expatriate units and can even help set up accounts in your new country. Alternatively any solicitor worth the name can assist with advice as well as introductions.

And, should it all go pear shaped, the Scottish administration has a policy of free home health care for life.
Divide, Isolate, Control, Obliterate?
There is always a risk when granting powers to any entity to police, control and penalize elements in society. This is especially alarming when those charged do not have the culture, the personnel, the training, the front line support, nor the controls that apply to the regular police. All too frequently they become problems themselves, as we have seen with speed cameras, wheel clamping and the CSA.

We have a similar situation evolving with our Local Authorities and their visible arms, the Environmental Services and the Smoking Warden. In most areas they operate within the letter of the law, enforcing it sensibly and with some degree of competence. Unfortunately in some regions they have taken it upon themselves to enforce "the spirit of the legislation" hence lies, deceit and a willingness to exceed their remit are all too common. Irrespective of their presumed moral justification for doing so, they operate outside the law. It was partly for this reason that one senior police officer stated that "it (the smoking ban) is the worst piece of legislation I have ever seen" and refused outright to commit his officers to having any part to play in its enforcement.

It's a chilling reminder that, from the outset, it was known that the ban could never be policed, only enforced. Any prospect of a phased reduction in head counts is little more than pie in the sky, if anything, the cost of enforcement will rise as attempts are made to extend the ban to include outdoor areas.

It is known that the four areas listed are easier to live with and therefore require less officious enforcement. They sit well with the vast majority of Scots, who generally favour a live and let live workable compromise and share a belief that there is enough room to accommodate all lifestyle choices. These are:

Private Members Clubs
The dilemma our MSP's faced when the legislation came up for discussion in '05 was that they did not have a mandate from the electorate. Fully 74% of those surveyed said they did not want to see private members clubs (or pubs) included in the ban. As they discovered, there's a world of difference between democracy and politics so, rather than listen to what the voters told them was okay, they decided it was better to exceed their mandate and include them anyway.

The difficulty with this tactic is that hardly a month has passed without private members clubs petitioning them for a review. While these have been ignored, the clubs have several valid points. Club premises are most certainly not public places, they are only open to members, who are usually invited to join. Many club premises are owned by their members and in the majority of cases are run by volunteers, thus everyone has a stake in the building, there are no "employees" by any stretch of the imagination and there are no "customers".

Certainly, for the many non profit clubs run by volunteers for their membership, there is no viable reason for their inclusion. The only things holding this together are the overwhelming cost of fighting it through the courts and the cast of hundreds that now have a vested interest in holding onto their jobs, which is to "enforce" the thing.

Indoor Smoking Rooms
We're an eyesore hanging around outside pubs, diners and the like. We upset folk living in neighbouring properties with our incessant chatter into the wee hours. We intimidate some, who would prefer to avoid running the gauntlet of smoke and lots of strangers. We in turn know only too well how vulnerable we are, especially on our own, to the evil eye, verbal and - at worst - physical abuse. Bad enough for the able bodied, the present system further disadvantages folk who need wheelchairs, crutches and the like.

Environmentalists have highlighted the waste of energy consumed by space heaters. Service providers in turn would prefer to avoid the cost of any outdoor heating, as well as calls from irate neighbours. These frequently result in a visit from "the man from the council", with the usual lecture, finger pointing and threats of further visits from Trading Standards, Fire, Health and Safety and so on. Were that all; they also have to contend with unpaid bills as well as piles of litter.

Indoor smoking rooms negate all that at a stroke. They even the playing field, which currently works in favour of premises with decent outdoor areas as opposed to those that simply have a pavement outside. Properly ventilated using the same criteria as Italy and NYC, these are increasingly seen as the only sensible compromise, especially north of the 40th parallel.

The Self Employed
Here they've had to manipulate the workplace rule to the point of incredulity - and still it doesn't even begin to work in practice! One reason for this ban is to protect employees from the effects of 2nd hand smoke in the workplace. That's fine in a call centre, or a forex dealing room, however it does fray at the edges when extended to include things like a village garage, a carpenters workshop, an artists studio, or any number of places where there's just one person doing everything. They are legally required to make these smoke free premises, yet the smoke they produce is not 2nd hand, it's primary. If there is no hired help, then there is no "employee" who needs protecting from 2nd hand smoke.

We know it doesn't work in practice because we've all seen truck drivers and solo business people puffing away in their vehicles. If we can, then so can their lot - and they do spend an inordinate amount of time trying to enforce this legislation. Trouble is it's costing a fortune to do so, with pretty pathetic results; that's why they're calling for more money, more resources and more powers. On the other hand, there are a whole bunch of parents seriously ticked at primary school closures, when all that cash could have have kept the schools going until the current baby boom gets to age five, when we'll need them all again, big time!

Save us all a whole pile of cash and unnecessary grief: exempt the self employed where there is no hired help.

Specialist Tobacconists
There's no reason for anyone to enter a tobacconist, except smokers. Usually family owned they can offer informed advice as well as product information, which will become more of an issue when all ciggies are hidden from public view. Community based, they know their customers and are far more effective at upholding the under 18's law. Perversely, given the open hostility toward us, many smokers prefer to turn to their tobacconist for help with non tobacco substitutes which, while relatively new to the UK market, are known to be far more effective than gum or patches for some.

Legislating these as smoke free premises leaves folk with a choice of The Web or word of mouth, where regulation or impartial advice is close to zero. Messing around at the margins as they have in England with their "cigar and pipe tobacco sampling" exemption does no one any favours: remove specialist tobacconists from the list of banned premises and be done with it.

As the prospect of an indefinite future with platoons of enforcers - and the financial burden that entails - begins to permeate, the greatest weakness of this system becomes apparent to many more ratepayers; it's sheer cost. Given their stated preferences at the 2002 survey, this is one travesty that can and should be rectified before further damage to our social infrastructure takes place.

V8 Jun 08
Front Page