UKIP, the Scottish Parliament and the smoking ban
Wednesday, April 6, 2011 at 9:59 Scotland: UKIP vows to scrap the smoking ban.
Fair play to Nigel Farage. He's obviously pushed this through himself because it wasn't in UKIP Scotland's manifesto last year.
I also like his pledge to sack MSPs. Sadly it will never happen (not in the foreseeable future, anyway) but it's a nice thought.
Question is, if any UKIP candidates are elected as MSPs to the Scottish Parliament, would they then resign – or sack themselves – on principle, or would they join the gravy train like many other politicians?
It reminds me of when I was a student at Aberdeen. I was editor of the 'unofficial' (non-union) student newspaper and we decided to put forward a candidate in the election for delegates to represent the university at the National Union of Students conference in Blackpool.
There were something like 16 candidates for six places and our man stood on a platform of 'Not Going' if elected. (The NUS was and still is a complete waste of time and money.)
Well, he romped home and, true to our word, we promptly declared that he wasn't going. And he didn't. And all the student union reps had the hump because we'd treated their conference as a joke.
PS. Our candidate who didn't go went on to have a long and successful career in ... the Foreign Office.
Reader Comments (43)
Hi Simon,
You might want to take a look at this blog on the subject.
http://f2cscotland.blogspot.com/2011/04/devolution-smoking-ban-and-scottish.html
UKIP is an evolving party and a lot of its new support has come from smokers in the LibLabCon who know their former traditional parties don't care about them and are not listening to them.
As UKIP MEPs are currently campaigning for the loss of their own jobs in the EU - then I think it highly likely that if elected as MSPs they would indeed scrap themselves.
For all the rubbish spouted about UKIP - including the unfair allegation of being racists in blazers or a posh BNP - I have found the party to be filled mostly with people with honest and true intentions who don't care one ounce for spin - or that damn Westminster Bubble that is enforcing a dictatorship in us all in the image of their own likes and dislikes.
An MSP is elected to represent constituents. I haven't actually decided whether to vote UKIP or not (whatever my blog says!) but if I were to, I would be pretty annoyed if whoever I voted in to represent my views immediately stood down on principle. The point is to work for a constitutional change, not to start grandstanding and making wild gestures. Say an MSP were to get in for UKIP and then failed to show up it wouldn't actually make any difference to the constitutional mess that is devolution. It would just leave the people that voted that person in without an MSP (or possibly they would get the runner-up, and what good would that be?)
Good point Belinda - and maybe we English are more concerned about MSPs than the Scottish - especially because Scottish MPs who we cannot vote for can sit in our parliament and make decisions for us - such as the smoking ban - but our MPs cannot sit in their's.
The truth is that since NuLabour broke up the UK, the English have been the poor relation. If I was Scottish for sure I'd want to get rid of MSPs if all they can do in sit in the Scottish Parliament making laws that control our lifestyles. As the smoking issue is THE most important to me, I fail to see how any other issue matters as all current three parties have pretty much the same view on all other issues so on those nothing islikely to change whoever gets in power. The NuCons for their all big ideas for "change" are now backtracking on almost every "change" on other issues that they have imposed or are thinking of imposing.
A UKIP vote is one way of making them listen to smokers. Support for any other party just says the smoking issue doesn't matter at all. That was my view at the last election and it proved to be correct given that nothing all has changed for us but has in fact got markedly worse.
Thinking about it I guess many Scots voters feel that their Parliament gives them what they want (smoking ban aside of course), namely a Parliament whose make-up doesn't take into account who sits in Westminster. For example I might be an SNP sympathiser, but vote Tory to keep Labour out for tactical voting purposes at a Westminster election, but if voting in a Holyrood election I wouldn't need to be bothered about the balance of power in Westminster but only in Scotland.
A combination of improving the voting system (AV) and getting rid of MSPs would be nice. Its daft the a country one tenth of England's population pays for two lots of representatives (Wales is even smaller of course), while England only pays for one. Even if the regions don't pay for all their representation, it's still a constitutional dog's dinner. Simon is right about the sheer unlikeliness of UKIP gains or any change to the Holyrood system but I can't help feeling how messy it is at the moment!
A vote for UKIP for smokers is, if nothing else, making a statement. That's how I see it. I honestly feel it is my duty as there is no point in moaning about smoker discrimination if at the end of the day when the time comes to give politiicians a message, I vote LibLabCon (or SNP) and say I don't care how much you denormalise me
Simon,
I have been a supporter of Forest for many years and appreciative of you and all the hard work you have put into the fight against injustice and intolerance, However, this posting smacks of "sour grapes" on your part because I think you realise that UKIP may be eating into the Tory vote. Both yourself and other Tories on here implied that they would lead us to the promised land once elected. Nothing has changed, in fact, there is every indication that things will only get worse for smokers under the coalition. At least UKIP offers some hope even if it may not be in my lifetime.
Geoff, I wrote this post not to have a go at UKIP but to draw attention to what I think are two excellent policies. At the same time I threw in a little personal anecdote. I'm surprised you read this as sour grapes.
It was not Nigel Farage who "pushed throught" the issue of the smoking ban, this was in our manifesto for the 2007 elections and we have stuck by our policy that people should have choices and be able to make up their own mind either as customers or as publicans. That is why we advocate Swiss style referenda to get people involved in politics again and make decisions not just complain about what the political class are foisting upon us.
As for not taking our place in Holyrood, we would, as our MEP's in Brussels do, be working on the inside to get rid of the overpaid residents. We would use the access to the media to highlight the waste of taxpayers money to maintain the ego project which is follyrood and turn public opinion in our favour.
Peter
At the moment UKIP are reviewing their policies on the smoking ban and pubs. Are you able to confirm that UKIP is still in favour of repealing the ban? If not do you believe that they will retain this policy.
Why would it need to be reviewed anyway - it seemed just fine the way it was.
I can confirm it JJ. The reviewing of the policies will NOT affect the party's view of choice on the smoking issue.
Simon - I didn't read sour grapes into your piece
JJ Have a look at this link ,http://www.ukip.org/media/pdf/LocalManifestoScotsDL.pdf
which is the manifesto we launched on Monday look at top of page five ref the smoking ban. We belive in letting responsible adults make their own decision and not be dictated to by a nanny state where the politcal class think they know better.
Our policy review was to do with the costing of various areas in view of the almost bunkrupcy of this country by the previous adminsitration.
Thanks Peter - I was just about the post this link http://news.scotsman.com/scotland/MSP-axe-vow-as-UKIP.6746241.jp UKIP would hardly be reviewing the smoking issue with a view to coming down on the side of the LibLabCon if it has made public in this election that it intends to scrap it and bring back choice.
Ooops it should be banckruptcy not bunckruptcy. Still there is a lot of bunkum for the political classes these days.
even got that wrong, shouldn't try to rush and maybe should have gone to specsavers after all.
Pat –
Sorry I couldn’t get back to you earlier, I tried. Anyway thanks for your reassurance about their policy on the smoking ban.
I didn't read any sour grapes into Simon's piece either. Sorry Geoff, maybe we're just not sour grape type people - eh?
Simon - still getting problems with leaving comments. I've been trying to respond to Pat since about 15.45.
Peter – thanks, good link.
IE cannot display webpage.
Pat - Good link thanks.
I find it very surprising that none of the news reports mention the views of the Licensed Trade in Scotland towards the UKIP policy on the smoking ban.
Have the media lost their touch?
Perhaps they didn't ask, Eddie
"UKIP is an evolving party........................"
Not for the first time, Pat has spoken wisely and well. She, at least, has substituted words and action for mere words alone. To achieve our objectives (which, of course, go way, way beyond overturning the petty tyrannies of Tobacco Control), we need to operate on two fronts: the political and the public.
Simon, FOREST, and all the other organisations and individuals are doing sterling work in keeping the debate alive and slowly educating a distracted public about the absurdities, the injustice, the economic fall-out, and (let's face it) the monstrous incivility of the Ban.
On the equally important political front, however, it must by now be obvious to all save the willingly blind that all attempts to 'persuade' any of the components of the Three-Party Dictatorship of the justice of our cause have failed, and will continue to do so. They don't 'do' Justice. They don't 'do' Humanity. They don't 'do' Common Sense. They're Control Junkies feverishly hunting after the next fix.
If you want to continue throwing snowballs at tanks - then go ahead. Who knows ? Maybe the Forest Elves will rally at the last moment and impose a crushing defeat upon the Darksiders.
Alternatively, you could wake up, forget about the Elves (for now), and join the only resistance movement that lacks just one thing to give it the growth (and the fire-power) it needs: numbers.
It's a bit like the National Lottery, really: if you aren't in it, you can't win it. And all it takes is a phone-call, a few quid via Paypal, and a little 'x' on the ballot paper. And a little faith.
Nigel Farage recovered from a near-fatal air crash to re-join the desperate struggle for Liberty, Decency, and Truth. Chris Monckton is the most prominent and articulate opponent of the Climate Change Mafia. If any other leadership or any other party is more worthy of our support, then I'd like to know who and what.
Action this day !
as a smoker an an English person I think you are all missing the point here. UKIP UKIP UKIP. I am fed up with hearing about silly bleeding UKIP you might as well vote for Nutter R Us as to vote for them. how can they do anything about the smoking ban? UKIPERS are just Tories who have been kicked out because of the extreme views.
You want a real alternative party that will do something about everything that affects true English people, then have a look at this http://englishdefenceleague.org/content.php?136
You're having a laugh Grace. Kicked out of the Conservatives for extreme views? (The EDL won't be running many candidates in the Scottish elections anyway.)
Grace2, I have never been a Tory although many in UKIP have been but we also have ex Labour, SNP and it may be hard to comprehend but LibDems as well, but most of all our membership is increasingly of those who would not vote for the old failed parties as they couln't see much differnce between them and had given up voting. Now they have a reason to vote and it's for UKIP the only party who think the people can and should make decisions about their life and encourages people to have the Freedom to Choose and not be dictated to by the nanny state or the political classes.
come off it peter, what is Ukip offering that is so different from the other 3 parties? 'll tell you shall I, LIES that's what UKIP are offering. UKIP have got as much chance getting into power as Donald Duck has, in fact Donald would probably beat them.
And if they ever did get in, the bookies are offering a billion to one by the way that they wont. But if the world suddenly ended and we did end up with UKIP they still couln't get their act together to ban the ban. Forget about them, there a bunch of loosers.
grace 2 -
All parties have their fair share of 'nutters'. In fact, almost any organisation beyond a certain size has.
And I can't think of any more 'extreme' form of nuttiness than the Climate Change Act.
The solution - given a general support for the principles upon which any such organisation was initially founded - is, surely, to encourage as many 'reasonable' people to join as share one's opinions.
As I said - 'numbers'.
And not just 'English' ones !
martinv you admit that they are a load of nutters in UKIP but you nor anyone else here seems to know what is this special thing that UKIp can offer what no other party can. I wonder why that is?
grace2, from your comment "LIES that's what UKIP are offering." you obviously have your own version of truth so I will not waste my time responding any further..
Grace 2 I take offence at you calling me a nutter I am an ex memmber of the Royal Air Force and have been a Firefighter in civie street and am anything but and have every intention of getting the UKIP message out to all the (normal) people.
" there a bunch of loosers.............."
But at least most of them can spell.
Sorry, grace 2 - I nearly fell for it. Well done !
But I've neither the time nor the inclination for Youtubery. Not dim enough, I'm afraid.
Grace 2 - you're obviously one of those smokers who votes to be a turkey Xmas due to your loyalty to the Cons. Please don't insult people like me who I can assure you are not nutters. If we end up living with this ban and being criminalised in future then frankly it will be nutters like you who have brought it about.
None so blind as those that can't see is there.
*Sigh* with people like that it makes you wonder why anyone bothers.
As for what UKIP can offer - ask your Tory friends as they have been nicking UKIP policies left right and centre - or why not just check out their manifesto rather than spout your own vile prejudices about people trying to work hard in whatever way they can to do something about this spiteful ban that people like you say you hate and yet sit in your backside whining and doing absolutely nothing about it.
Prooves your a nutter. Tories are as nutty as UKIPs. Theres only one party with any guts and thats the EDL.
With people like you going about well never get rid of the smoking ban your all mouth and trousers. And nutty!
Ha ha ha - Oh, I get it now too Martin V. The EDL is the new BNP given that BNP members have crawled over there since falling out with their great leader.
Pat -
I think it time that the BNP went into alliance with the Green Party. They have both demonstrated over the years the same deep and abiding love for Humanity, Liberty, and Common Sense. And they have so much else in common, too (more, perhaps, than even most of their supporters appreciate).
In fact, it's only really the tattoos which divide them.
Were it not for the absence of serious brain damage, I could so easily have joined either myself. But that's my loss !
"In fact, it's only really the tattoos which divide them" (Martin V)
Bet the Greenies have those soluble ones - weren't they called transfers? :))
UKIP ??? Who the hell belives and be so naive as to that party amending the smoking ban ? You might as well belive the earth is flat and made of green cheese !! We have signed the Master Settlement Agreement remember. Nu Death did it on our behalf. Do you really think UKIP will spend millions of our money trying to reverse it ? The pubs are the fault full stop!! by abject cowardice. So Long pubs. Adios.
Peter -
I understand your anger. Share it, in fact. Totally. But what has the MSA to do with (eg) smoking in pubs and clubs ? Nothing at all, so far as I can see. It was simply a monstrous fraud (they do things on a grander scale in the States), designed to rip off the tobacco companies, and subject the American people to a further dose of Socialist (ie State) Control. And to make some lawyers very, very rich.
It has absolutely nothing to do with the Ban in the UK. As a result, UKIP doesn't need to spend a penny - never mind 'millions'.
And please allow me to remind you: one of the objectives of UKIP is to restore the right of the British People to frame and enforce its own laws. No single body body outside these shores has - or should have - that right - whether it be the European Commission, the bloody United Nations, or any other globalist, trans-national monstrosity.
I'm annoyed with the supine conformity of the pubcos etc, too. But they are not the source of our problem. That lies elsewhere, and at least UKIP is prepared to face it head-on.
Credit where it's due, I think.
Some of you may recall that I spoke at the UKIP conference a couple of years ago about about abolishing funding to these so called smoke free charities and by an almost unanimous vote ( I think two voted against out of over 1000) UKIP delegates voted in favour. I hope that the vote then led to the UKIP policy which is in black and white for anyone to read.
Why so sceptical? No fake, no fraud, UKIP is the only party willing to support you PeterJjames and others smokers like you. Would you throw that back in their faces? Not me. I know they are genuine and as much as some of you cling on to your traditional parties in the vain hope that they will stop ignoring you and treating you as something worse than they pick up at the bottom of their shoe, I for one will not.
I know that UKIP has attracted a lot of new members and activists from smokers. I honestly wonder how much more "proof" you need to show you that will amend the ban.
As for cost, it is nothing. It;'s simply a case of tearing down those Nazi swastika No Smoking signs. Landlords that choose to can do it themselves.
Sometimes I wonder why smokers are their own worst enemy but then I guess that's nothing new or we wouldn't be where we are today. It is not the pubs who have been forced into compliance by the threat of prison and having their properties taken from them - it us the smokers who did precious little to stop it before it happened.
Stop blaming others and shunning the help that is offered. Do something or stop complaining and join the antis. You might as well.
Pat & Martin V I am just being realistic thats all. The general public is now is so apathetic its unbelivale. This sitiuation would not have existed 30 years ago. And the MSA was signed to agree for tobacco control and other matters, not to mention Brussels are are ulitmate masters whom I never voted for and want a smoke free Europe.What are representives doing ??MPs taking our money.
And Pat Nurse thank you very much but i'm not complaining and would never ever join the Antis. But I think you are in dream world if you think UKIP will overturn the ban. They will come accross far too much oppostion and have no experienence of dealing with the ' Sir Humphreys'.
Apologies Peter I was probably a bit rude to you in frustration after all I had said previously about being counter productive on my own blog.
I still think that votes pouring towards UKIP at council elections will stop and make the Govt think and yes - I do also believe that UKIP will amend the ban - a positive step forward which isn't the same as overturning it and WILL make civil servants do as they told. For sure if I was elected as an MP I would. UKIP would certainly get ASH out of the DoH. If civil servants rule then why the hell do we vote at all and why don't we all just give up voting and accept we live in a dictatorship where our vote is worthless and just used as window dressing.
I still think throughout all of this that a vote for the LibLabCon which has made clear it hates smokers is like saying to them - it's fine, Denormalise me. I deserve it because my vote for you proves it.
The Tories haven't amended it because they can't. They haven't amended it because it is an anti smoker party that doesn't even want to consider it. Lansley has said as much. They've picked up Labour's anti-smoker policy and run with it with few changes except the Tories are even worse and that, frankly, is saying something.
So sorry for all of you that can't see. The future looks very bleak. I still wait to see what the "final solution" will be for us when Lansley bullies down our numbers to 18.5% in five years. I hope I die before then. This future of hate is not a future I want for myself or my children.
"What (our) representives doing ??"
Bugger all, Peter.
Which is why we need some new ones ! Totally 'new'.
And I know I've said it before, but I'll say it again (and again and again, if necessary): History has never been made by Majorities. Only by Minorities. Sometimes extremely small ones, at that. But it takes dedication and time. To say nothing of an unconquerable belief in one's cause.
You can bow down before the Common Purpose creeps, or run back to join the Sleeping Many if you wish. Me ? I'd rather be blown to pieces than submit to their smiley-faced-but-soulless despotism.
Since when was an easy fight a fight worth winning ?
Martin and Pat No worries I have no intention of joining the Common Purpose brainwashing creeps. I would die first. But the Coalition is the last straw for me, so many people on this site had faith in them, and what have they done?? Gone back on every single pledge. So how do you expect me to belive UKIP will be any different ???
Peter -
Yes, these people are ghastly, and your sense of betrayal is quite understandable - and entirely justified.
But only your Friends can truly 'betray'.
Whatever made you think that Cameron, Clegg, or Miliband were ever that ? What did they ever 'promise' - beyond some vapid, meaningless generalisation of Good Intent (a standard CP ploy, by the way) that no-one could seriously disagree with (without being thought 'weird', 'conspiratorial', or 'paranoid') ?
Why should a 'new' party be any different ? A very good question. And I think I would ask three short questions - by way of an answer:
1. Does the party have a fully laid-out Set of Principles and Beliefs by which it seeks to attract like- minded people, and by which it declares its intention to govern the Country ?
2. Does the party leadership include among its number (as you see it) people of excellence and ovbious conviction whom you'd be prepared at least to see given the chance of putting the aforementioned Principles and Beliefs into practice ?
3. Is there any evidence (as you see it) of the party's effectively being 'owned' by the Establishment, as the Big Three (and probably one or two others I could mention, if history serves as any guide) quite obviously are ?
If you can answer Yes, Yes, and No to the above, then perhaps - just perhaps - the door is not quite as firmly shut as you had feared.
All of Life's a gamble, Peter. But even having four Aces in your hand isn't much use - if you're not prepared to play it. And what more can you lose than you have already (quite a bit, of course - but you get my point) ?