United We Stand

I love Scotland.  I have made many visits there over the years on holiday and on business and it is always a pleasure.  It is quite a big place and accounts for 32% of the land area of the United Kingdom.  I have never been much further north than Inverness and I have never been to any of the islands.  My first visit was as a 10 year old when I was still at St George's school and we had a school trip for four days.  We spent most of our time around Edinburgh and visited the castle — of course — saw the Scottish Crown Jewels and shivered in the dungeons.  In later years I have holidayed on the west coast and worked in distilleries, creameries, chemical plants, and pharmaceutical plants.  For most of my life I have lived in Sussex and sometimes the people I visited in Scotland thought I was just another bloody southerner coming to tell them what to do and to gloat over the superiority of life in southern England.  Once I had re-assured them that this was not the case and that [a] I was a northern Englander, [b] Scotland was a much better place to live than south-east England because it was so much less crowded, [c] the people were generally friendlier and [d] I liked going there.  So it was with much relief that I celebrated Scotland voting "No!" in the referendum.  

It was clear from my own experience that there are some in Scotland who suffer from a mild persecution complex when it comes to relationships with England.  This has been exploited by Alex Salmond as he fought for an independent Scotland.  It is a difficult case to make and there was a widespread belief around the world that Scotland was going mad.  The United Kingdom is probably the most successful union of a group of countries anywhere in the world, with a single currency, a stable government and generally considerable prosperity.  It has survived for 307 years since the act of union but for 411 years if we date from the first coming together when James VI of Scotland was invited to England to take the throne made vacant by the death of Elizabeth I.  He became James I of England and after one hundred years of tooing and froing and a civil war the nations came together in the Act of Union in the reign of Queen Anne in 1707.

The arguments against Scottish independence are considerable and it was important that the Scottish Nationalists set out exactly how it was going to work.  They never did this.  Alex Salmond regarded everything as being a plot against Scotland by the English.  He claimed much exaggerated oil reserves, never properly addressed the currency question — as an independent nation he could not use the £ sterling — never told us what he would do with the border, how he would finance defence, how he would keep the big banks [with all their jobs] in Scotland, etc etc.  And above all this Scotland was being controlled by rich, southern public school educated Tories.  Yes, this last does happen but it is an argument that could be made by all in the north of England, as well.  But the Labour Party was lead by John Smith [a Scotsman] and then by Tony Blair [ a Scotsman] who became prime minister for ten years and then by Gordon Brown [a Scotsman], so the southern Tory argument is a bit weak.  Add to that the fact that some 57 Scottish MPs in parliament in London vote on matters that affect only England while similar matters are decided for Scotland by the Scottish parliament.     

The independence argument has gone on for years but during the intense phase before the referendum it has been the Yes camp that has been most active. One thing that has certainly been achieved during this referendum campaign has been a resurgence in public interest in politics.  Not since 1951 has there been such a turnout to vote in any election.  At 84% overall no one can question the validity of the vote — 45% Yes and 55% No is a better result than anyone expected.  It has to be said, however, that there have been some ugly demonstrations of thuggish nationalism with threats made against potential No voters.  Even death threats!  Alex Salmond gave a vote in the referendum to 16 and 17 year olds  — not for reasons of democracy but because he thought they would give a massive vote in favour of independence — and in that he was correct.  But listening to some of the discussions from the Yes camp I came to believe that they had lost all connection with reality.  There was a universal belief that if they were independent they could have free education, free health care, no prescription charges, no Trident bases and an endless supply of money from oil.

In the last week or so, the break-up of the UK looked like a serious possibility with serious implications for the other 92% of the electorate that were never consulted — including a million or so Scots men and women living in England.  It was absurd.  Potentially, the break-up could have been decided by just 8% of the UK population including children and temporary residents from Poland, Lithuania, etc while ignoring  those Scots living south of the border.  Yet, no-one in Scotland seemed ready to question the why Scotland, alone should answer a question that affected the whole of the UK.  A key figure in strengthening the case for unity has been Gordon Brown, who on the eve of the poll made a magnificent rousing speech in Glasgow encouraging Scotland to vote for the most successful union in history.  More devolution has been promised and to a tight timetable but David Cameron has linked this to tackling matters of English devolution and the West Lothian Question.

Nevertheless, in spite of everything, I am very glad they voted "No!"

#

Watch What you Are Breathing

Doping in Sports.  It is a never ending subject for discussion and it will remain so as long as we have armies of people involved in the anti-doping industry.  I was interested to read recently that a number of retired bike riders were suggesting that Lance Armstrong should be reinstated as a seven times winner of the Tour de France, in spite of his shock/horror drug use.  I must admit that I take the same view.  He won those races and everyone knows that to complete just one day of the Tour is hard enough, let alone go further and ride 2,300 miles in three weeks on flat roads, on cobble stones and up and down the mountains and be first back into Paris.  I doubt if Lance Armstrong did anything that was not being done by half the peloton — at least.  I know that, he knows that and I should think everyone involved in cycling knows that.  Some of the ex-racers who suggested his reinstatement probably themselves dabbled with illegal substances as well.  However, no matter how much we admire Lance Armstrong's abilities as a racer, I doubt if the powers that be will allow him back into the fold.  He is after all, now the arch-fiend.

However, again, my primary reason for bursting into print today is the news from the world anti-doping authority that they have added the gases argon and xenon to the list of banned substances because, they tell us, these gases could have a performance enhancing effect similar to EPO.  Breathing in these gases mixed with oxygen could encourage the body to produce more red blood cells and thus increase the blood's oxygen carrying capacity and boost athletic performance.  There is evidence, they tell us that certain athletes have been doing this — particularly in Russia.  Is this really true?  Does it really improve performance?  

The big problem for WADA is that they have no means of testing for these gases and, I suspect, it will be a long time before they do.  In the atmosphere there are a number of inert gases — like argon and xenon — and they react chemically with almost nothing and it is this which will make devising a test very difficult.  Added to which the gases are present in the atmosphere everywhere on Earth.  One or two people have pointed out that putting athletes in chambers that mimic conditions at high altitude to do the same thing — increase res blood cells, is probably at least as effective and if you ban gases, you should ban the high altitude chambers.  That is, of course, outside the remit of WADA.  Perhaps if WADA did not exist these bits of international nonsense could be avoided.

How long before they ban krypton and its derivitive kryptonite?  That will get them worrying!

#