A Tale of Two Divisions

According to figures I’ve found, Scotland’s population last year was 5.3 million, which is about 8% of the UK’s total population of 64.1 million.

Everyone in England (including me) is now thoroughly alarmed at the prospect of 8% of the UK population becoming divided from the rest. All the party leaders have decamped to Scotland to campaign for the No vote. Nigel Farage too. Even ex-PMs Gordon Brown and John Major (no sign of Tony Blair though). It’s all getting very emotional:

Ed Davey just told BBC Radio 4’s WATO that our country as we know it “could be pulled asunder a week tomorrow” and that the time has come for the emotional case for the Union.

He said: “I think this emotional pitch is just right. We’ve had all the rational arguments. I feel emotional about my country, our country, the United Kingdom as we know it, could be pulled apart a week tomorrow. Britain, which we’ve all grown up with, for 500 years, could change a week tomorrow. It’s absolutely right that we don’t just talk about the currency, the jobs that will be lost and all that sort of thing, but we talk about what makes us special as a family of nations.

But where were they all when 23% of England’s adult population was “exiled to the outdoors” on 1 July 2007? Wasn’t that an equivalent division in British society? Where were the voices back then appealing to reason (or emotion)?

There was almost complete silence. Overnight smokers became non-persons to be completely ignored by everybody. And the smoking ban is now hardly ever mentioned.

If Scotland were to be treated the way smokers were, there’d be a brief report at the end of the BBC News that Scotland had just seceded from England, and a couple of interviews with people saying they were “glad to see the back of them”, and “it’s lovely to be scot-free now.” And then Scotland would never be mentioned again. And if it ever was mentioned, people would act as if it hadn’t been mentioned, and talk about something else.

The difference, though, is that the Scots have politicians to speak on their behalf. Smokers have never had anyone speaking for them.  David Cameron (a smoker) didn’t speak up for smokers. Nick Clegg (a smoker) didn’t speak up for smokers. Charles Kennedy (a smoker, and Lib Dem leader until 2006) didn’t speak up for smokers. There’s a very long list of politicians who could have and should have loudly protested, but didn’t.

In my view, what’s happening to smokers is actually far worse than Scottish independence. Because Scottish independence really only affects Britain. It’s a local problem. But smoking bans are now ubiquitous almost everywhere in the world. And given a total world population of smokers in the region of 1.5 billion, that’s 1.5 billion people being “exiled to the outdoors.” And then forgotten.

It’s a terrible, terrible thing to do to people. And there will be terrible, terrible consequences.


About Frank Davis

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

22 Responses to A Tale of Two Divisions

  1. harleyrider1978 says:

    I hope they do go Independent it may just be the move that puts the final nail in the EU experiment and propels independence movements everywhere and breakups and and and………………..Freedom from a Tyranny not seen since Adolph Hitler controlled the Continent.

    But of course those emotional Politicians wont look at any of it like that will they.

    Let em go cry in cold winter with the smokers then maybe they will remember what being Human is!

  2. harleyrider1978 says:

    Bogus unemployment again: If 92 million aren’t working, 6.1% can’t be true

    I want you all to comprehend this simple tidbit. Our U.S. unemployment rate cannot possibly be 6.1 percent. The only way it can be reported as such is by ignoring those no longer participating in the workforce.

    As reported by CNS News, “A record 92,269,000 Americans ages sixteen and older, did not participate in the labor force in August. The labor force participation rate matched a 36-year low of 62.8 percent, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The labor force participation rate has been as low as 62.8 percent in six of the last twelve months, but prior to last October had not fallen that low since 1978.”

    You see, this is what happens when we have a progressive socialist media reporting only half truths favorable to Obama. What Americans hear and see is that the unemployment rate in America is 6.1 percent. But what they do not realize is that when you force more people out of the workforce, you have a different pool for making the calculations.

    Here is the case for analysis. As CNS Reports, “the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) employment statistics are based on the civilian non-institutional population, which consists of all people 16 or older who were not in the military or an institution such as a prison, mental hospital or nursing home. In August, the civilian non-institutional population was 248,229,000 according to BLS. Of the 248,229,000 people only 155,959,000—or 62.8 percent – actually participated in the labor force. This means they either had a job or have actively sought one in the last four weeks. “

    “The 92,269,000 people who did not participate in the labor force, are those in the civilian non-institutional population who did not have a job or actively seek one in the last four weeks. Therefore, if they did not seek a job, they do not count as “unemployed.”

    Here is the math, per CNS. “Of the 155,959,000 people who did participate in the labor force, 146,368,000 of those people had a job. 9,591,000 people did not have a job but actively sought one. Those 9,591,000 people are the unemployed. They equaled 6.1 percent of the labor force—or an unemployment rate of 6.1 percent.”

    Folks, imagine if that 92,269,000 number were classified as “unemployed?” Yep, that’s why the real unemployment rate in America is closer to 12 percent. Can you imagine the ramifications for the Obama administration if that was the truth reported to the American people?

    Another example of politicized math is when Obama touts he has “cut the deficit in half.” This is a promise that was supposed to happen at the end of his first term – nah. In Obama’s first term deficits were $1.4 trillion, $1.29 trillion, $1.3 trillion, and $1.08 trillion. When you explode the deficit to record highs, and it begins coming down to $700 billion, it seems great. While that’s still high, it has been cut in half – but not in Obama’s first term.

    Why continue to occupy the la-la-land of high Dow Jones Industrial average numbers reflecting the results of “quantitative easing?” The folks on Main Street know it’s not going well. Be wary of the Orwellian manipulation of economic numbers, because as long as Obama is in the White House – you’re not going to get the truth from the media.

    Read more at http://allenbwest.com/2014/09/bogus-unemployment-92-million-arent-working-6-1-cant-true/#VP4w7K4gB93Ae4TO.99

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      Finance, energy & defense sectors: EU and US set to impose new Russia sanctions


      These EUrats just cant stop playing King of the Sand Hill………………..

      • harleyrider1978 says:

        It appears the EUrats want a war…………

        President Putin’s spokesman, Dmitry Peskov, said that new EU sanctions make no sense, as they are being introduced when Russia is making vigorous efforts to stop the bloodshed in southeastern Ukraine.

        “The EU doesn’t see, or prefers not to see, the real state of events in [Ukraine’s] Donbass and doesn’t want to know about the efforts aimed at settling the conflict,” Peskov said.

        “We regret the EU’s decision to impose new sanctions. We repeatedly expressed our disagreement and incomprehension about the sanctions that were implemented earlier, which we considered and will consider illegal,” he added.

        Russia’s Foreign Ministry said Thursday that the EU was apparently very much against any peaceful resolution of the crisis in Ukraine.

        “By taking this step, the European Union has de facto made its choice against a peaceful resolution of the inter-Ukrainian crisis,” the ministry said in a statement.

  3. Marie Engling says:

    Yes, Frank. Its terrible to spoil individuals and families.

  4. waltc says:

    Am I correct in presuming that Scotland would still be part of the EU? If so, and given what appears to be their own uber-nanny gov’t, I wonder what they think they’ll gain, Surely not liberty. I find of late I have little sympathy for national union, and little connection to the union itself. If Northern California seceded from SoCal, it’d likely please me. Same if California seceded from the country. I’d very much myself like to secede from the country but statism is globally rampant and there’s no place to run.

    Incidental intelligence: a friend in SoCal who’d switched to e- cigs, told me his apt complex had just banned vaping in private apartments –actual smoking was already banned– but (still) allows it outdoors on the park like property on the theory that children shouldn’t see people vaping lest it “normalize” smoking. Never mind the complete illogic that The Children would not see anyone vaping in his own bedroom but would, in fact, see it out on the porch. And of course, the sight of it would instantly corrupt them and lead to an early grave. The West, it seems, has gone collectively bonkers with no cure in sight.

    • prog says:

      I think they will need to apply as a separate state. If successful, potentially it could mean open borders between Scotland and other EU countries. This would require a secure border with England to prevent unrestricted immigration. And passports for any one crossing the border. Economically, Scotland will probably not be able to look after itself (bit like when adults kids move out …), let alone support an influx of foreign benefit seekers, so it would it be only too pleased to get them into the land of milk and honey.

    • Frank Davis says:

      If Northern California seceded from SoCal, it’d likely please me. Same if California seceded from the country.

      I know that Smokervoter – who lives in southern California – would like California to be broken up into NorCal and SoCal. I’ve also seen schemes to divide it into about 6 different states. But I think they’d all be part of the USA.

      Are you saying you’d not be bothered if California left the USA, and became an independent sovereign state?

      • harleyrider1978 says:

        Frank Id say SV means the leftist loonies could leave the US itd be fine. If California wasn’t on the coast and a maritime port nobody would really care if it left the Union and went back to Mexico. It might as well be a part of mexico for the way its run and the way it legislates.

  5. waltc says:

    I got to yesterday’s thread too late and tho I commented there too late, I want to be sure to get this across. Carol made an analogy to smokers and Gazans, implying our tormentors are akin to the Israelis and several people liked it. I not only detest it but find it inapt and posted this response that I’d like to have on the record, as it were.

    Sorry. I continue, as above, to detest the analogy. Gaza is being bombed only in response to Hamas’s sending 1000s of rockets into Israel and building elaborate tunnels through which Palestinians bent on terror can attack, kidnap, slaughter. Israel gave them Gaza and left them with all the concrete means with which to build a peaceful economy.. Instead they destroyed the infrastructure they inherited and used the cement given them to build schools and hospitals to build those tunnels. Israel has repeatedly ceded territory, offered peace and is perpetually answered with rockets, car bombs, and ever increasing demands by a Palestinian ruling cabal whose very charter seeks the total elimination of Israel. If anything– and no, I don’t think it’s the thing– the analogy should go the other way around. Exactly who is it who seeks the elimination, annihilation of whom in the war on smokers?

  6. Rose says:

    It’s a terrible, terrible thing to do to people

    Yes it is.

    I am a very different person today.

    Before the government of the day declared war on the law-abiding individual, I was happy and secure in my humble place in the world.
    Asked for nothing, played by the rules.
    I put my faith in the Conservatives to put things right, after all, they had opposed every single measure but it turned out that whatever they may have said in opposition, in power they have carried on turning the screw.

    What might have looked good on paper, they forgot that we humans have minds and will and can be deeply and irrevocably hurt.
    My will is iron and my mind is sharp.
    Now in these matters I am cold and deliberate, I watch them like a hawk and worse still, I enjoy it.

    And there will be terrible, terrible consequences

    Oh, I do hope so.

  7. Britain, which we’ve all grown up with, for 500 years, could change a week tomorrow.

    It’s only been 307 years. Shows how clued up Ed Davey is. But what do facts and figures matter when you are the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change?

    Can’t see a lot of change for rUK, but here in Scotland we’ll be run by the SNP and Labour (well, the EU and UN really, but a supercharged version compared to just now) and that means more regulations, more bans, more poverty and with Mr Salmond as ruler of the EU’s Scottish region, things can only get much worse up here.

  8. Frank Davis says:

    Even Gorgeous George Galloway has chimed in:

    “The proposition of so-called independence, while using another country’s currency, controlled by that other country, controlled by a government which, if you take out the Scottish MPs from Westminster, would by a Tory Government as far as anyone could see – and that would actually make Scotland a colony, which at this moment it’s not.”

    • That should lead to some undecideds voting ‘Yes’. Not fiscally competent enough to know if his point is important or not!

      • Jay says:

        Quote of the week from Tommy Sheridan on ‘Sunday Politics’ talking about the ‘No Campaign’: “They had the three stoogies up last week – millionaires imposing austerity on the rest….Ed Milliband’ll get in at the next election? You wouldn’t trust him to run a bath let alone the country.” ROFL

  9. harleyrider1978 says:

    There are a few still peddling this hype

    Thirdhand smoke is dangerous, too

    By moderator | September 10, 2014 | Cancer Prevention & Care, Family Medicine, Quality & Safety

    Drs. Norbert Herzog & David Niesel
    Drs. Norbert Herzog & David Niesel

    Medical Discovery News

    Science has long proved that smoking is bad for you and those around you, with 90 percent of lung cancer cases caused by smoking.

    Even secondhand smoke is dangerous enough to warrant banning smoking in public places. The idea of thirdhand smoke premiered in 2009, and scientific evidence shows that it, too, can harm human health.

    Thirdhand smoke is the many toxic compounds from tobacco smoke that settle onto surfaces (particularly fabrics) such as carpet, furniture and the inside of a car. Researchers have identified chemicals in thirdhand cigarette smoke called NNA and NNK that can bind to DNA, a person’s genetic information, and cause damage and mutations that could lead to cancer.

    There are 4,000 known pollutants in cigarette smoke, including a large number that cause DNA damage. Many of them have been found in the carpets, walls, furniture, dust, clothing, hair and skin of smokers long after they’ve smoked a cigarette. The pollutants from smoke can accumulate over time, making the environment increasingly toxic.

    Mainstream smoke has more than 60 known carcinogens, which cause cancer, and other toxins, many of which are present in secondhand and thirdhand smoke. Nonsmokers are exposed to these toxic compounds when they inhale, touch or ingest them off surfaces containing thirdhand smoke.

    To make matters worse, some of the smoke residue can undergo a chemical transformation into secondary compounds when it interacts with other indoor pollutants like ozone and nitrous acid. For example, nicotine reacts with ozone in the atmosphere to produce byproducts and ultrafine particles that can trigger asthma attacks.

    Other secondary products such as NNA and a related compound called NNK are also formed. A recent study aimed to discover what level of thirdhand smoke mutagens and carcinogens a nonsmoker might be exposed to in realistic scenarios, and whether these levels would be high enough to cause damage to DNA or other adverse effects.

    Unrepaired DNA damage can lead to mutations and increase the risk of developing cancer. They concluded that human cells exposed to thirdhand smoke or secondary compounds had increased DNA damage within 24 hours.

    These results provide evidence that thirdhand smoke does include carcinogens from cigarette smoke and the environment. The study also showed that NNA and NNK have damaging effects on developing lungs, making them particularly harmful to infants.

    Smokers themselves are giving off thirdhand smoke toxins, so going outside to smoke helps but is no solution. It is unclear how long toxic thirdhand smoke compounds continue to be a risk.

    Depending on the compound, they may linger for hours, days, weeks or longer. When smokers quit they should take steps to rid their homes and vehicles of thirdhand smoke. This is potentially a time-consuming and expensive proposition but it is worth doing.

    In 2011, 44 million American adults smoked cigarettes and 34 million of them smoked every day. Smoking causes 1 in 5 deaths, killing nearly 500,000 people in the U.S. every year — more than HIV, illegal drugs, alcohol, motor vehicle accidents and firearms combined. Is it really worth it?

    Professors Norbert Herzog and David Niesel are biomedical scientists at the University of Texas Medical Branch. Learn more at medicaldiscoverynews.com.


    • Rose says:

      That should destroy the antiques market, anyone for a masterpiece going cheap?

    • nisakiman says:

      Fuck, Harley, we’re all doooomed, I tell you. It’s a miracle, so it is, that you and I have managed to cling on to the remnants of life for so long, having been exposed to all these toxins for so many years.

      How did we do it? Are we somehow special people that God is saving for some higher purpose? Because if not, then we would have perished long ago, our genes mutated to such an extent that all our offspring would be deformed mutants.

      In fact, thinking about it, I might even start getting religion, because God is obviously saving most of the people for a higher purpose, otherwise they would all have died of third-hand smoke by now.

      When smokers quit they should take steps to rid their homes and vehicles of thirdhand smoke. This is potentially a time-consuming and expensive proposition but it is worth doing.

      Bloody hell, I’d better get scrubbing! Can’t rely on God looking after me forever, can I now?

No need to log in

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.