Category: Comment

Democracy in freefall at Stirling Student Union

Leave a comment
By Peter Humfrey

 

Three weeks ago a motion was passed at the Stirling Student Union, exposing the crisis unfolding there for student democracy.

 

The plant-based commitment motion set a target of all Student Union food outlets being 100% vegan by 2025. Whilst this has prompted great debate amongst the student population over inclusivity; viability, and the ethics of such a move, the greatest point of concern should be what in fact has happened to student democracy at the University of Stirling.

 

In 2021, at the first round of voting for the Student Union president, just 1159 votes were cast out of a population of roughly 15600. That year Nela Cadinanos Gonzales was elected as Union President; taking 533 votes in the first round, and 546 in the final round. The turnout for that election was the lowest for at least the past 5 years, stretching back to 2017.

Worse was still to come when in March of this year the current Student Union president was elected with just 195 votes in the first round and a shocking 209 in the final round, beating Calum Brown into second place by a nail-biting 9 votes. The Union would go on to confirm this was the lowest turnout for a Spring election “in recent years”.

In a statement at the time a Union spokesperson said – “We note that turnout was low in comparison to pre-pandemic elections and we will be working with both outgoing and incoming Officers and students to further analyse this and establish how we can encourage both more candidates to stand and more students to engage in voting”

 

On another concerning and unusual note, a sabbatical post had not been filled, with no-one running for Vice President Education, despite it being a full-time paid role. The Union confirmed it was the first time on record no-one had run for a sabbatical post in the Spring elections.

In a by-election called on 26th April, incumbent VP Education, Calum Brown would win with just 99 votes. No-one else stood for the post.

In what was quickly becoming a farce, Brown resigned less than two weeks later on the 6th June.

 

Democratic representation had hit an all-time low, and now even a core position in the Student Union, could not be filled.

 

Taking a step back for a moment and it is worth putting into context turnout at Stirling versus the national picture.

Above are the percentages of the student body that voted in the Spring elections for Union President the past 2 years. An already abysmal figure of 6.92% fell to just 4.12% this year, but what does that mean stacked against the national average?

 

 

Well it’s not pretty reading with an already shockingly low national average of 11.7%, partially blamed on the pandemic, vastly exceeding Stirling’s turnout. The next year shows the scale of the problem though with no pandemic to blame as the world has begun to return to normal.

Stirling could not meet even a third of the national turnout. In an on-the-record interview in the run-up to the Spring 2022 elections, VP Communities, Alyson Mackay, was asked if the sabbatical officers could claim a democratic mandate off such a low turnout. In response she would go on to say the following.

“I don’t think so. I don’t think that we can accurately say we represent students when 6% [the 6.7% turnout figure for the 2021 election] of students voted for us”

 

Those words confirmed that even the core of the Student Union, those at the very top, had sat up and noticed the democratic crisis. The slump to 4.1% turnout in the election, just weeks after that interview, was the nail in the coffin for the Student Union’s democratic mandate.

 

There is currently a Union President of whom just 209 people voted for, from a population of 16,000 students. Just 1.3%.

 

In statistical terms that would be within the margin of error, of zero.

 

So where does this leave student democracy at the Stirling Student Union?

 

Voting turnout in terminal decline. Major positions with no-one running for them. Sabbatical officers admitting a lack of a democratic mandate.

 

Where this leads us is to just three weeks ago, when the Student Union’s general meeting on the 10th November voted through the plant-based commitment motion. Just 55.4% of those attending voted for the motion, and with 127 turning up that left 70 students from a population of 17,000, voting the motion through. That’s a microscopic 0.4%, and here’s what all that looks like.

 

 

The motion was proposed by the chair of the Stirling University Labour Society, and seconded by the secretary of the Vegan and Rights for Animals Society (VERA), along with three other motions. This meant two-thirds of the meeting agenda had been proposed by those two societies.

 

The reality is, that in a failing democracy only the most politically active remain, and their ability to shape policy and influence a system becomes greatly enhanced. The passage of that motion was the fault of neither the proposer or the seconder. They represented their agenda and political motivations as they should.

 

The fault lays at the feet of the Student Union for failing to adequately tackle student apathy.

 

The fault lays at the feet of Brig, the student paper that failed to report the motion when it was published on the Union website a week before the meeting.

 

The fault lays with the 16,783 students who did not attend that meeting.

 

Student democracy has died here, and what remains is a deafening silence.

Tesco and other supermarkets hit with price inflation

Leave a comment
By Achilleas Salaveris

 

Inflation in the UK has risen to 11.1%, and the consequences of this have not gone unnoticed. Tesco, the UK’s largest supermarket chain, has seen a huge increase in price of even the most basic products across all UK stores – and reported pre-tax profits have risen from £636 million to £2.03 billion since last year.

 

The corporate giant, which dominates 26.9% of the share market – far exceeding all other UK supermarkets – has experienced a sales drop of 1.5% in the first quarter of 2022, as the behaviour of consumers has changed due to the cost of living crisis.

 

The rising cost of food is one of the biggest challenges faced by consumers right now, as the prices of everyday products have increased so much over the last two years – making the same shopping basket almost unaffordable for many people.

Many individuals have been observing the difference in prices on products they usually buy during their typical supermarket trip.

 

Price comparison of basic products from June 2021 to November 2022.

 

Consumers seek bargains in order to afford three square meals per day, or sometimes only two or less. They have to cut back on spending, and one way they achieve this is by switching from name brand products to store branded ones. This switch is mainly between staple items such as bread; beans and cereal.

 

Consumer behaviours have changed in other ways, as they now do more frequent trips to the supermarket and buy less as a way to cope with prices soaring due to inflation.

 

Percentage increase across products, and the basket total price.

 

Of the effect of inflation on the company, Tesco Chief Executive Ken Murphy said, “We are seeing a higher frequency shopping trips so there’s an elevation in the number of shopping trips, we are seeing basket sizes coming down a little bit”.

 

He also added that “Those staples like pasta, bread and beans is where we’re seeing consumers chose to trade down to the entry level or the core own brand level product”.

Image Credit: Achilleas Salaveris

“We are seeing some early indications of changing behavior as a result of the inflationary environment.”

 

Many consumers turn to competitive supermarkets to do their shopping in search for a better deal. The second most popular supermarket is Sainsbury’s so the comparison of the same shopping bag among the two supermarkets is something many consumers will be considering.

 

Comparison of Tesco and Sainsbury’s prices last month.

 

The inflation in the UK has impacted the wages of people and therefore their ability to buy products. With the increase of the prices the buying capability of people has decreased, and this connection is depicted in the diagram below. It shows the percentage increase of the CPIH, the regular pay affected by the inflation and also the change of the basket.

 

The CPIH (Consumer Prices Index), is a measurement of the inflations, that indicates how more expensive owning and maintaining a household is.

Source: Office for National Statistics, latest data available.

 

The same bag in June 2021 would be £10.20 as opposed to the same bag in November 2022 which would be £13.35.

The Winds of Change in Europe

Leave a comment
By Katherine Rosenius

 

Finland, Sweden and Russia have a very intertwined history, featuring numerous wars and shifts in borders. This article will focus mainly on Finland and Russia, where much of the reasoning behind Finland’s application to NATO applies to Sweden’s application as well.  

The decision by Finland to apply to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) is an unprecedented shift in the politics of Europe, much like the controversial Brexit decision made by the United Kingdom in 2016.  

As a nation with a population roughly equal to that of Scotland at 5.5 million and a tenuous history with Russia, Finland is not known for bold international claims, demands, or making a fuss in general. In fact, the term Finlandization was coined in the 1960s to denote a smaller country refraining from challenging, in any way, its larger and more powerful neighbour – in this case, Russia.  

Over the years leading up to the present day, a mostly healthy and mutually beneficial relationship has been cultivated between Finland and Russia, only to begin rapidly deteriorating because of events unfolding on the global political stage today, particularly in Ukraine.  

The terms under which Finland and Russia have successfully co-operated have changed over the years, but one constant has remained: Finland is not to join NATO. Since NATO’s start, Russian leadership has dreaded the prospect of the western coalition having access to the 1340-kilometer-long border Finland shares with Russia.  

Directly east of the northernmost Finnish border lies the Murmansk region of Russia, which houses the Northern Fleet’s headquarters and main base, the largest naval base in Russia, as well as additional bases around the area.  

The strategic significance of this location should not be understated – a previous border connection for NATO forces to Murmansk exists through northern Norway but covers a significantly smaller area and only allows a small corridor of entry – the addition of Finland’s border, however, poses a much more serious threat for Russia in the event of a NATO invasion.  

The reason this is relevant is that it puts Russian leadership in an even more demanding situation than they have already carved for themselves. If the Russian regime had previously been anxious over their shared border with NATO, their worries would surely peak as the border doubled. 

 The fear is that Russia would become even more reckless as more countries take a seemingly hostile stance towards them. In essence, if Russia perceives the west to be gearing towards war with them, Russia will certainly do the same. 

 

While the topic of joining NATO has been on the minds of many in Finland for a long time, the beforementioned Finlandization effect has always prevented serious talks of applying, but in the past decade, events such as the annexation of Crimea in 2014 and the ongoing invasion of Ukraine have caused public opinion in Finland to shift dramatically in favour of NATO. 

According to polls orchestrated by Yle, Finland’s national broadcasting company, in 2017, only 21% of the population were in favor of joining, while in 2022 that number had soared to 62% in March 2022 and 76% in May. These polls signal a sense of uncertainty and escalation of fear amongst Finns. The extent to which Russia will negatively react to Finland joining NATO is unknown and is one of the sources of uncertainty. 

When asked about the conflict, John Ahlbom, a Finnish politics student at University of Stirling voices “I think that we don’t really need to join NATO because we have a strong military which is based wholly on defending Finland from a potential Russian invasion, the potential for conflict is in my mind increased by joining NATO, because of article 5.” NATO´s Article 5 articulates that an attack against one or several of its members is an attack against all, in other words, NATO offers Finland collective defence, and this is something a lot of Finns are aware of.” 

John continues “[We] just have to assume that the people in power have assessed the situation and there must be a reason for them to reach a different conclusion, but I also think a lot of it has to do with social pressure – it is seen as `the right move´ by a lot of people who actually don’t have a lot of information at hand and maybe don’t know as much about our defense forces, NATO, or international relations in general.

“While I am skeptical, I can say with certainty that I also see a silver lining in joining NATO. First and foremost, should the worst occur, we would as a matter of fact be better off as a NATO member if we were invaded, as help is always welcome even though you believe in yourself. Secondly, Finland has struggled to make decisions that wouldn’t sit well with Russia ever since WW2, but with the backing of NATO Finland could finally stop appeasing Russia.” 

Antti Kaikkonen, the Finnish defense minister vocalizes on YLE TV1 that “Finland is not facing an immediate military threat, but we must look to the future as well. Finland must prepare for the use or the threat of use of military force, against it as well as for political pressure”  

The relationship between Finland and Russia may not have been equal but has been stable for a long time. The events unfolding globally have forced this relationship into drastic changes, and in such a brief time, it may be worth considering what other previously unachievable changes may be coming to Europe, and which countries are next. 

Hunting – the Good and the Bad

Leave a comment
By Katherine Rosenius

 

Is hunting a necessity, a cruel sport, or somewhere in between? It can be argued that the root of the problem lies in humanity, the actions over the last hundreds if not thousands of years, have brought nature out of its natural equilibrium, resulting in certain species thriving, while others have been brought to the brink of extinction.

Today’s discussion is about hunting; its pros and cons; and the morality of hunting as an activity derived straight out of this imbalance, that humans themselves have created. 

Hunting has been vital in human history and for Mankind’s survival for millions of years, since the first Hominid species had to learn to survive in this world. The ability to forage food and hunt for meat was crucial for their survival and evolution. Nowadays, in the western world, hunting is scarcely a means of survival anymore, moreover, it is considered a sport that involves the seeking, pursuing, and killing of wild animals and birds.  

Currently, there are many laws and rules that follow the sport. One cannot pursue an animal or bird of the sort without the right means. That in short means one must have a firearm license, privately owned land or the right to use someone else’s, and the right hunting season for one’s prey. 

Some hunt for sport and competition, others use it to collect furs and pelts which can then be used for clothes, decorations, and various other uses. In more rural areas of the world, people still use hunting as a means of survival, as going to a grocery store is a luxury they do not have. Traditionally, hunting was intended for survival only, as natives would only hunt what they needed to survive. 

Even in the mid 16h century, hunting wasn’t a luxury and more of a necessity. At this time, hunts against foxes started occurring, but this was mainly a form of pest control. Foxes were generally regarded as vermin as they would greatly harm livestock such as goats, poultry and steal eggs. Later, hounds were trained to kill foxes to keep livestock at bay. 

During the Middle Ages hunting turned into an activity for people in higher societal classes to enjoy. This practice eventually led to overhunting and exploiting natural resources. Overhunting could lead to killing animals in a higher rate than they can repopulate which depletes the species population.  

There have been controversies about what hunting, and shooting is doing to the environment. The Destruction of habitats is a major driver in biodiversity loss in the United Kingdom. (Oldfield, TE)  

To understand the perspective of a hunter, Michael Rosenius, an experienced hunter, gave his take on the issue. “Natural predators such as wolves, bears and lynx were killed off and were reduced to mere extinction in most of Europe and the UK- the result is that the amount of deer, wild boar, and certain other species, have exploded to a point where they do substantial damage not only to farms but forest and woodlands as their main intake are young plants and trees (saplings), resulting in forests being unable to regenerate themselves and farmers suffering considerable damage to their farmland” 

“On the other hand, certain species such as pheasants, that aren’t part of natural fauna, have been planted artificially and in large amounts for sport hunting and game hunts. They are bred to be shot. 100-1000 birds can be shot in a day by a hunting party for pure fun, whether this serves any purpose other than sports aspects and economic aspects for the people who organize such shoots, is debatable. The moral issue for such shoots is also different from deer stalking.

“One benefit however of all hunting is that it supports and employs many people in the countryside where other employment opportunities might be very scarce, it is also deeply rooted in culture and serves a cultural and bonding purpose.”

A study on Field sports and conservation in the United Kingdom was conducted in 2003 which found that Landowners that take part in hunting and shooting are more likely to conserve and reinstate woodlands. The study shows they are 2.5 times more likely to plant new woodlands than landowners without shooting interests. These woodland habitats are essential for the persistence of a wide range of British wildlife. 

It seems the people I have interviewed and read about make it clear that the last thing they want is for their pray to suffer or the meat to go to waste, for it to be a useless kill. 

Hunting has been a popular activity for both necessity and recreation since the start of recorded history. It has been subjected to controversies and debate, as hunting can lead to various environmental issues like animal extinction and forest depletion but can also help control animal population and valuable woodland.  

A Lament that Lacks

Leave a comment
By Peter Humfrey

 

Earlier this month the ‘A Lament for Power’ exhibition opened at the Tolbooth, as part of the Stirling Science Festival and coinciding with Black History Month.

The Lament takes the form of a digitally animated short film, from artists, Larry Achiampong and David Blandy, that explores “ the ethics of scientific discovery” inspired by the true story of Henrietta Lacks, or ‘HeLa’.

It cycles through various scenes, starting with a wooden hut, moving through a lab, a hospital campus, a slum, and corridors with a voiceover that explores the concepts of ownership and exploitation in the name of scientific discovery.

The context for the piece comes from the story of Henrietta Lacks, a black woman who was diagnosed with cancer in 1951 at John Hopkins hospital, in the US. A sample was taken and, unlike others collected up to that point, the cells in the sample survived and multiplied.

The cells became known as “immortal” and to this day have directly contributed to breakthroughs in cancer treatment, vaccinations, and a wide variety of other medical treatments.

What makes this story so compelling and controversial is that, whilst the cells are being used even today, the Lacks family did not become aware of, nor were asked consent for the usage of the cells until the mid-70s.

The Henrietta Lacks story has prompted introspection about consent and privacy issues with some, including presumably the artists for the Lament, viewing the usage of her cells as exploitation.

Whilst the piece explores a profoundly important and incredibly interesting piece of recent history, it lacks the emotional punch that the topic should evoke. The animation feels very basic, almost dated, and comical, and the dialogue feels monotonous at points, droning away in the background. There will be many that can engage with this piece but for those with short attention spans or an inability to focus easily the Lament lacks any real pull. The piece definitely isn’t one that will appeal to children which is a disappointment as the topic is compelling and an important lesson for younger generations on the impact and contribution made by a person of colour.

Credit must be given though to Achiampong and Blandy, who have delved into a topic that few, if any, will have given much thought to and given much-needed exposure to a historical figure of who many people are unaware. Illustrating this exact point is that of the 20 or so people I have discussed this exhibition with; students, taxi drivers, cleaners, and people from all walks of life; just one had heard of Henrietta Lacks. This person was a high school biology teacher.

The story of Henrietta Lacks is one that is woefully unknown and unappreciated, so whilst the piece isn’t particularly engaging it is something I could recommend to at least go and sit throw the 4-5 minutes that piece lasts.

The Lament comes against the backdrop of Black History Month, which runs throughout October, with the exhibition being in the Tolbooth from the 6th to 29th October. The exhibition is free to all and comes as the result of a 9-month residency by Achiampong and Blandy at the University of Essex.