Friday, 1 January 2010


The latest Yougov poll, the last of 2009, shows the Tories with a 10% lead over Labour, and the Conhome Poll of Polls suggest a possible Conservative majority of 48 in the new parliament according to Conservative Home.

But this is not a good result. With the last years of disastrous government; the catastrophic wars; the complete collapse of the UK economy (despite all the rubbish that Brown has spouted about leading the world out of recession and saving all the banks, not to mention climate change), why on Earth aren’t the Tories 20 or 30 points in the lead? Why is there even the slightest chance that either there will be a hung parliament (heard all the lamp-post jokes thanks) or worse still a Labour majority after May?

Is it because despite the fact that almost no one has a single good word for Brown and his hapless bunch of second raters, no one has that much confidence in Dave either?

If you look at what Labour has done, how much different would it have been if the Tories had been in government? Would they have reigned in the greedy speculating banks? Would they have stopped the bonus by results? Would they have seen the danger of the Housing Bubble? Would they have warned us that it would burst sooner one day?

Did they not vote wholeheartedly for both the wars, despite being allowed access to secret information on a Privy Council ‘need to know’ basis? Would they have succeeded where Brown failed miserably at Copenhagen? What would they have done differently about terrorism? Were they not equally culpable in the expenses scandals? Would the really have tackled tax evasion and non-doms?What, in fact, is different about them?

Oh yes, when they get in they will slash public spending. That’s not a lot different from what Labour will do in reality, but the Tories have been honest about their intent. The truth is of course that, just like Thatcher, Cameron will not be able to slash public spending by nearly enough to make a difference, because if he does he will bring public services to a standstill, everyone will be out on strike and the UK will continue its downward spiral. Everyone knows that a Tory government will bring hard times for all (except the super rich) because they told us they would. Labour will bring pretty much the same thing, it was just that Brown was smart enough to lie and tell us he wouldn’t.

It is possible that even if the Tories do get in with a small majority, they will wreak such havoc that after 5 years Labour will be back. Remember Thatcher only got back after her first assault on us because “she” won a war. The only wars that we shall have in the future we shall almost certainly lose because they will be against terrorists, and they never surrender.

There is a solution for Scots though.... Let's show them without any doubt that we have no trust in either of their parties. Let's make sure we have at least 20 members in Westminster come June this year and get another foot on the ladder of independence.


  1. There is a solution for Scots though.?????????
    Look at Scotland as a long term independent country whose borders are defined. In particular sea boundaries as defined by UNCLOS, not gerrymanderd by anyone
    Tell us what Scotland turns over in each year, in other words all taxes applied and raised within these boundaries would accrue to the Scottish treasury.
    you know the kind of thing ie paye, vat, corporation, NI, capital gains,inheritance tax, council tax fuel tax and everything else you can think of.

    someone should be able to tell us this.

    If we make less than the union handout we have no solution.

    if we make more than the handout we should be screaming about it.

  2. Anon: Yes, you're right, but who could actually tell. it would depend on our taxation policies... how it is just now is how it is regulated by a parliament made up of largely English members.

    But I see what you are saying...

    However, not everything can be measured in financial terms... there are poorer but happier countries than Scotland I'm sure.

    Freedom and it's practical applications (I’m talking about more than the mere feeling of freedom) is a huge draw for me.

  3. Tris
    personaly I do not mind being less financialy well off. Indeed being free is more important

    Still !! someone must have the answer, are we giving away to much for a pitance in return and to be sneered at.
    why should we face any cutbacks if we are giving away more than we get back.
    I have asked this question on many nationalist blogs but never seam to get an answer, everyone always wriggles out of it.!!!!!!!
    So for me their is a huge problem

  4. I don't know the answer. All I know is that there are people living in Norway in a way that I can't even begin to aspire to.

    There's no reason we can't live like that. We must be contributing more to the UK than we get in all sorts of ways, but I have no idea where we can get that information.

    For sure we wouldn't have WMDs or be involved in two wars... that would save a lot.

    We export vast amounts of gas to England for which we get nothing. Our oil brings nothing in to Scotland. No VAT, Income Tax...etc...

    I don't know... but I bet we would be better off.

  5. Anon, there's no solid answer for you. As Tris explains, it all depends on what the 'deal' is. The SNP aren't going to give much detail to London because that would be giving them more ammo for negotiation. We'll just have to be patient.

    More importantly, we have to up the standard of our education system and give youngsters hope. It can be done. It was done after both world wars when most were badly off. Schools then created incentives for the young to achieve. Now it's just a sake of getting them 'through' the curriculum by ticking all the boxes.

  6. AH HA!!!!!!!!
    so someone does know but is keeping the powder dry.!!! I can live with that for the time being.!

  7. Additionally Subrosa, we need something at the end of it for them in the way of decent jobs. That's what we need more than anything else in Scotland I think. Good jobs for the population, especially for youngsters. Something for them to look forward to acheiving. And let's get rid of tick box targets. If the rector is doing his job supervising his staff he doesn't need to check on them by ticking boxes.

    As for results, there are other ways of measuring success than the number of highers a school acheives

  8. there again, !! if as we are so often told, we are to poor to be independent.

    someone should be able to tell us how poor we are.

    therefore they must know what Scotlands income is

    Any unionists out there care to tell us how poor we are, you must have the figures, otherwise you would not be ly-ing would you,!!!!!