Jasmine Rambless

The average women in the UK wears a size 16 in clothing. In saying that, clothing sizes vary from store to store. How a size 10 is produced for Primark is completely different to a size 10 in New Look. Even the style of an item varies; you could have two tops but they’re different sizes.

The negative impact this can have on self confidence is immense. Typically, I’m a size 8-10, so any time I go shopping and I go to try something on, I always pick up the two sizes to try. I’ve been loving Primark’s trouser range lately, and I found a really cute pair of pink so I naturally picked up an 8 and a 10 to try. I was shocked when I couldn’t even get the trousers on over my thighs - I wouldn’t say I have massive thighs but still, it’s destructive. Needless to say the 10 wasn’t much better. Another time when I was in New Look, I tried on a size 10 pair of trousers and I was disgusted when I couldn’t even get the trousers over my ankles. Shocking.

With sizes varying, millions of women often need to buy a clothing item in a larger size. I know that I, personally, despise having to buy a clothing item in a larger size because I know fine well that it’s not my size. It does make you feel a bit miserable. I know for a fact I’m not alone in saying this as many women will be in agreement with me here. Then, of course, buying a smaller size does miraculous things, because it makes you feel super confident being able to fit into a smaller size than usual.

Linking back to the average women comment, a point which I discovered online whilst researching was the lack of “average” size models. Think of models you see in catalogues, online whilst shopping and social media. 9/10 times, the models are relatively petite built and slim, my estimates being that they’re a size 4, 6 or 8. In effect, this isn’t going to be a positive note for women, especially combined with the varying sizes. We need diversity within modelling; including weight, height and race.

I’ve seen the uproar on twitter numerous times, and that is what clothing companies class as plus size. It’s diabolical to say the least. Some of the models have hips, but aren’t plus sized in the slightest. But, the worst part is when the company stocks the clothing item in their clothing section and plus sizes section, but the two items are two opposite prices. Why? I wish I knew. It’s unfair. As soon as something is classed as plus size, they stick a few extra pounds onto the price. A size 6 is the same price as a size 14 but then once something is plus size, it’s a new price again. Inequality at its finest.

Bra sizes are the same. How one woman can wear a size 32A then a 34D in a different store baffles me. Sizes, whether they are clothing or bras, should remain the same across the board. Not only would it make women feel happy and confident in their own skin, but also make shopping a hell of a lot easier. One size for you, always. But, at the end of the day, don’t let the numbers get you down.

Social media is great, if it’s used in the right way and in the right hands. Used the opposite way though, and it’s a different story. Using social media can be all fun and games until things turn sour. That’s when things can go the wrong way and wreck people. This is when cyber bullying erupts. Cyber bullying, if you weren’t aware, is basically bullying via the internet, and it hurts. Perhaps it hurts even more than bullying because it’s someone sitting behind a screen, and that is a statement coming from a victim.

Cyber bullying is the third highest cause of death amongst young people, and causes around 4,400 deaths each year. 4,400 lives are taken each year. Does that figure shock you? It is ridiculously high. To think that someone needs to end their own life purely because of how someone else is treating them is repulsive. People really need to consider their actions online because the consequences are serious.

Snapchat is one of the worst, and easiest, forms of cyber bullying. If you aren’t familiar with Snapchat, it’s basically an app where you can send pictures for a specific length of time, up to ten seconds (I’m sure they’ve introduced a function for unlimited time viewing, but that hasn’t always been there). What do I mean by easiest? Well you send a picture, and boom, it’s gone. There’s no proof of it whatsoever. Same with the chat, it’s gone, unless you save it. This makes it difficult to prove anything. Sure, you can screenshot the picture but sometimes it’s gone that quickly, and the app can have a glitch, which means you aren’t able to catch it on time. Honestly, Snapchat irritates me. I wouldn’t say I’m a massive fan of it for that very reason given above - I’ve been on the receiving side of it and it’s absolutely not pleasant.

Cyber bullying affects people not only emotionally but also mentally and physically. Of course, the severity varies and people handle it differently. I know that when it was myself, it really shattered my self confidence and ruined my happiness. For others, it can impact them in ways which results in self harm or even worse. It’s sickening. The affects may be short term until the bullying comes to an end, but for others it’s more long term and it’s something that stays with them for life. Everyone is different. Cyber bullying isn’t something you overcome overnight, oh no. It’s a case of building yourself back up over a period of time.

According to the NSPCC, in 2016, Childline dealt with over 24,000 bullying issues, with over 16,000 young people were absent from school as a result of bullying. Sometimes, young people aren’t aware of the difference between banter and bullying, and this is when things go wild. They think it’s “just a laugh”, but honestly, words can hurt. Words stick by people more than actions in some cases. The “harmless banter”, ie bullying, sometimes comes from your friends, the people you least expect it from. You may post a selfie on Instagram whereby you think you look nice, and they leave a comment in which they find funny, but realistically, it hurts you deeply.

Watch what you say is the key message here. If you don’t have anything nice to say, then don’t say anything.

Mental health is a topical discussion which seems to be covered a lot more in the last few years. Anxiety, depression, OCD are just a few to note. Statistically, according to World Health Organisation (WHO), 450 million people suffer from a mental illness, with 1 in 4 people being affected by a mental illness at one stage of their life. Regardless of the amount of awareness raised, there is always going to be a stigma surrounding mental health. It seems these days as if it’s almost “glamorous” to have a mental illness.

Of course, I think it’s great for mental health to be such a hot topic. For those who may be suffering, it reassures them that they aren’t alone. It’s critical to provide the NHS with the funding to provide the help and support required, and help to deliver a high quality service and health practice. With that being said, mental health doesn’t receive the same funding as physical hospitals do - there is a gap, which creates inequality between those with a physical condition and those with a mental illness because varying funding means varying levels in treatment, staff and facilities. Reports from the BBC in 2017 states that the Scottish Government intend to invest an additional £500,000 into mental health funding in Scotland, whereas, NHS England saw a poor 2.5% increase in their budget spending in 2016-2017, as reported by The Guardian. But, then again, although Scotland is to receive this extra funding, inequalities will still exist. Such a thing as the Postcode Lottery exists, and this is where some local councils in Scotland will receive more funding than others for their treatment and medication, staff levels will vary as will waiting lists. It’s a vicious cycle which needs to be sorted, and quick.

The BBC stated that the number of people calling the NHS Scotland 24 for mental health had doubled within a 10 year period; increasing from 38,000 in 2006 to 87,000 in 2016. The call line provides over the phone care and advice for those who are experiencing depression, anxiety or low moods. If this isn’t an alarm bell, then I don’t know what will be. This alarming figure shows we need to act, and fast. Are we doing enough? The NHS staff are working extremely hard in their trained department, however, I reckon the media has a part to play here too. Their reporting never seems to portray mental health in a beneficial manner. Sure, they may be informing their viewers that such a celebrity has suffered from depression, anxiety etc, but I feel it’s never enough. Either touch upon the topic and dig deeper, or don’t go near it. By all means do I think it’s a great thing to raise awareness, but only raise awareness if you’re going to do it in the right way.

Social media is a brilliant platform to discuss mental health. I follow loads of bloggers, and I think it’s great that they talk about their own personal experience, may it be on their blog, Twitter, Instagram etc. Readers/audience have a high affinity with the blogger, hence why they follow them, so can relate to them on a personal level. The amount of people I have seen tweeting or messaging a blogger regarding a mental health issue whereby they’re thanking them for being so open and honest, and how talking about their experience has helped them, is incredible. I’m totally up for supporting each other, but do we really need to rely on social media to help support those suffering? Especially when the NHS is available?

Twice as many women go to their GP regarding mental health, but suicide is amongst one of the biggest causes of death for young men. Perhaps people find it difficult to come to terms with how they’re feeling, and unfortunately cannot cope. It genuinely rips my heart to pieces to think that some people feel so low and/or alone that they feel the need to take their own life. Some people aren’t aware of the services available to help them. Google “mental health Scotland” and you would be surprised with the number of charities whose webpages come up. SAMH, Mental Health Foundation and Mind are a few to name. Some people feel embarrassed to discuss their emotions and don’t want to rely on the NHS, so a charity is often a better option for them. I applaud volunteers who associate themselves with such charities because they are doing it for a good cause, and they must feel so fulfilled being able to help others.

As I touched upon earlier, waiting lists vary across the UK. A conclusion I have came to after observing the news is that NHS Scotland is better off than NHS England. Whilst doing research on this topic, an article by The Telegraph, published an report yesterday where GPs have allegedly been telling their young patients to “exaggerate their mental health conditions if they wish to receive any form of help”. The NHS have failed to provide a service to many young people because they are having to “ration” their treatment. To sum it up in one word, this is quite frankly, disgusting. I can tell you right now, this is absolutely not finding the root cause in order to help the patient and help prevent further deterioration in further adulthood. If their case appears serious enough, they may even have to wait as long as 18 months before they receive any form of help. 18 months, or a year and a half, is enough time for their illness to spiral out of control and become worse. A case given in this report was that a girl who was suffering with anxiety wasn’t allocated a slot for treatment because “she wasn’t thin enough”. I am appalled and sickened.

All in all, I feel that not enough is being done to help those suffering, especially those suffering in silence. One beneficial thing the Government could do is introduce mental health education at school, highlighting the main ways to access help and ways to identify the signs of developing illnesses, whether it’s within yourself or a friend/family. Funding is an indefinite problem because the NHS are always facing budget cuts etc, but I feel funding needs to be divided equally so that each area receives a fair amount to afford their resources. In ten years time, I really hope I can sit here and see an improved society in regards to mental health; that the stigma surrounding it decreases and that people are able to access help easier.

Scotland has its own devolved Parliament which currently has a minority SNP Government. The Scottish National Party, more commonly referred to as the SNP, is Scotland’s own party. In 2013, ex-leader Alex Salmond announced that on the 18th September 2014, we would hold a referendum as to whether or not Scotland should become its own independent country and leave the rest of the United Kingdom. With a turnout of 84.59%, the result was in favour of no to independence, at 55.30%; not exactly an overwhelming majority but it was a majority nonetheless. Only four overall councils voted in favour of yes, which included North Lanarkshire, Glasgow, West Dumbartonshire and Dundee City. The SNP’s main party ambition is to achieve independence from the rest of the UK, and of course, this was the result Salmond was hoping for. As the Scottish electorate voted against, he resigned, which meant that Nicola Sturgeon filled his positioned shortly afterwards.

Since Indy Ref 1, there has been various political events; Scottish parliament elections, UK general election, local councillor elections and not to mention, Brexit. The news gave its fair share of media coverage per event, but the potential of a second independence referendum has propped up numerous times. The amount of times I’ve watched the news and Sturgeon appears on my screen talking about Indy Ref 2 is probably unnecessary. It’s used tactically, as it’s mentioned a lot more during other election campaigns; to me, it’s used to try and force people to reconsider their vote as it may have some sort of relation to Indy Ref. Now that Brexit negotiations are underway, Indy Ref 2 may have a chance of taking place. Why? Looking at the overall result, 62% of Scotland voted No in favour to leaving the EU. Once again, a majority; not strikingly high but still, it’s over the 50% line. As majority of Scotland voted to remain, Sturgeon had been trying to negotiate with the EU leaders, and was trying to promise Scotland that if Indy Ref 2 went ahead and we voted in favour of Yes, Scotland would remain as part of the EU. Yet another attempt to persuade voters that independence was best for the country.

For Sturgeon to call for independence straight after Brexit was a bit eager; Brexit officially settles in next year, and I feel we need to give it some sort of try before changing things, again. Maybe Brexit will work, and the UK can collaborate as a whole. Nobody knows until it really happens. At least if Brexit fails, Scotland has Northern Ireland, Wales and England to fall back upon. Whereas if independent Scotland flopped, who would have our back then?

However, things don’t look like they’re working on Sturgeon’s behalf. According to The Scotman, a recent poll reported that 54% voted no to a second independence referendum in the next five years. What does that say? Majority of Scots do not want to see independence from the rest of the uk. Doesn’t that tell you something?

Coming from a personal point of view, I’m a no voter. I think we need to stay united within the uk for support. And I’m Scottish. I may fall into the youngest age bracket for voting, but I’m still politically engaged and fully aware of the impact politics has on me, and I know the significance this referendum would have on me. Unfortunately I was just too young to vote in the first referendum (oh so typical) but I was a no voter. And I still am. In my household, I’m the most politically engaged, but my family were also no voters, and even if they were yes voters, I’d still vote no, purely because I feel that it’s for the best.

The real burning question here is whether Indy Ref 2 is truly worth it. For me, it’s not. And for 54% of Scots, it’s not. We would need to start from scratch organising everything; currency, negotiations and a whole load more. Can we genuinely afford campaigning whilst we’re currently trying to sort out Brexit? Probably not. Scotland and England have been united since 1707, with Ireland joining in 1800. Why change things now?