IT'S SCOTLAND v. ALEX SALMOND, ACCORDING TO LABOUR!

Dear Scottish Labour (or actually Dear Labour Scottish branch),

The referendum is not, as you indicate in your tweet, Scotland versus Alex Salmond.

If it were you really wouldn't need to be funded by the English Tories, Dukes, Earls and Marquises. They could keep their rotten gold that you've been bought and sold for.

You wouldn't need to get people from West Derby to be bussed in, with the previously mentioned Tories, Lords and such like paying for their travel and all their food for a jolly day out either.

If it were Alex Salmond against Scotland, I suspect that even you lot could work out that only Alex and maybe Moira too would be voting YES, and the rest of us...ie the Scotland that you say Alex is against, would be voting No.

And... even if there were a few more people...you know Nicola, John, Kenny, Shona, Humza, Stewart and their likes who would vote for independence, do you not think that if it was, as you suggest, Alex (and a few mates) versus Scotland, you might be able to save a bit of your English Tory dosh, by rounding up this potentially massive support for NO in Scotland and getting it to collectively knock on the doors of the Cabinet and their best mates. it's probably a 2 hour job max!

I completely fail to understand why, if Scotland is on one side and Alex Salmond is on the other, you need to bus people in from the next door country? 

You enthusiastically defend your beloved prime minister, saying that he shouldn't have to debate on behalf of your country, because he is English and he doesn't have a vote. 

So why then do you feel obliged to pay English people to come and campaign on something which is nothing to do with them and upon which they do not have a vote? Is their opinion more important than that of the British prime minister? Is Mr Cameron the only Englishman barred from taking a part?

As  a parting thought, you may wish to remember that the British government has said that all Scottish people alive and their offspring will be able to chose their citizenship, British, Scottish or joint.

This means that you and your ilk will still be able to take a title from Britain and presumably collect your £300+ a day for sleeping on a red bench. Lady Lamont, Baroness Curran... have a ring. (Not sure about Baillie though, although lying through your teeth seems to be no barrier to ennoblement.)

This may save you some of the effort, and expense, not to mention the environmental damage of transporting these people to Scotland and continuing with your campaign.

Yours sincerely 



Munguin
Important Media Mogul.
*****************************

Just for a laugh... 

Better Together opened a shop in Kirkcaldy, and plastered No stickers all over it.

Meanwhile the people who own the upstairs part of the building decided to put YES stickers on their windows.

I suppose it could have happened to anyone...
*******************************

Not the first time they've bussed people up

SNAPS ON SUNDAY

Too busy, too posh, too thick? Nah, just too hated
Send Flipper instead.
Never mind the fact that we have a Secretary of State
who is supposed to be Scotland's man in the Cabinet.
Get the bloke who is an opposition backbencher in to do it.
That way when if all goes belly up, it's not our fault.

Chicken Dave: What was it he said, something about doing
everything that was in his power to keep Scotland in the union?
Did he mention any exceptions?

Absolutely, you don't. Not a bloody word you big posh girls' blouse.

Yellow Dave. Apparently Tories are to get free transport in Manchester this week.
Welfare state for rich Tories

Have you caught it yet?

Brilliant wee lad at the rally

The Ugly Face of Westminster

The Uglier Face of Westminster

Bloody Hell. Apologies in advance to John Brownlie

Free Transport for Brown too

This one is for Deano

Welfare state when it's not about Tories getting free transport

And then, just for a laugh:

True....

No wifi here, speak to each other! (For the Urchin)

Such an important part of the democracy...yeah right

There had to be one attractive image in the photos

And last, and absolutely least, here's Mr Pointless.
(Even if it should be North British Governors General)

MAGGIE, MAGGIE, MAGGIE

'Angus' just posted this over on WoS (where Stuart unveils another series of out and out lies from Anas Sarwar, this time about the Joseph Rowantree Foundation's report into poverty. Labour and the No Campaign need to watch how many different people they slander. Ms Lamont may have protection if she lies in parliament, but Anas might find himself being sued for this kind of "misrepresentation").

I thought it was worth watching, just to remind ourselves of a couple of things:

Firstly, that this is the level of argument we can expect if we stay with the UK and in the decreasingly likely event that the UK elects Ed Miliband and his team to government. Curren was pathetic;

Secondly, that it looks to me that Labour isn't going to do anything much about the people at the poorer end of the scale. 

You can say that she argues that it's only the richer pensioners that will lose their heating allowance, but even Curren said that she believed that universal benefits should be universal. 

That's not because the poor pensioners need it the money; it's because once you means test, you make the benefit a handout to the poor. No one in power then has personal interest in it, except that they pay for it. It becomes as resented as benefits for the unemployed and the sick...and people who do need it, and are entitled to it, are made to feel like scroungers.

Once these changes are made, they will never be reversed. It's not "while we are in this terrible financial situation". It's forever. 

Click to enlarge

And what follows? If heating benefits are only for the poor, then why not other benefits? Most obviously the retirement pension itself. 

Already one of the most niggardly in Europe (as a percentage of average earnings), most well-off people don't desperately need it. So the next time the government needs to save money, why not cut the pension for the rich? Then the retirement pension becomes a hand out for the poor in which the rich have no stake and poor pensioners become scroungers.

Of course what Mrs Curren and Labour fail to consider in their quest for savings (£100 million in nothing in governmental terms) is the massive tax fraud that is allowed in the UK. 

Indeed the whole of the London economy appears to be based on the fact that tax fiddling here is like taking candy from a baby. It's hardly fashionable to be paying more tax than your servants, dear boy!

The figures show that even by HMRC's own figures there is a sum of £30 billion (approx Scottish government's running costs) of uncollected taxes annually.  According to the Tax Justice Network the figure is actually four times that size. 

We know that the Tories neither care that pensioners should be made to feel like paupers begging for their pension, nor do they wish to make any inroads into the excellent tax avoidance schemes that have been set up with government acquiescence over the years. But instead of making poorer pensioner feel like they are scroungers, why doesn't Labour (the party of the workers, remember) look to these tax evaders to lay their hands on the £100 million that Margaret needs for her houses. 

Incidentally, why does Labour let this woman anywhere near a tv or radio studio? She is a car crash every time she goes near a mic.

SORRY SEEMS TO BE THE HARDEST WORD...FOR SOME

Apology has been very much on the mind of the political parties and press in Scotland over the last few days.

The unionist media has made much of Alex Salmond coming to parliament to apologise for an error he had made in further education figures. Headlines like "Salmond apologises for misleading MSPs at Holyrood", and "Salmond says sorry for misleading MSPs again" have had unionists rubbing their hands together and prophesying the end of independence hopes.

It appears that Salmond had said that the budget for further education had risen by 0.18%, whereas the truth is that it had been reduced by 1.7%.

Right let's get it out of the way. It was a bad mistake for the first minister to make. And someone who provided that figure will now be wishing most heartily that he'd checked again, just to be sure.

It's particularly bad for the FM, because of the number of times he has had to correct the mistakes on figures provided by Lamont, Gray and Alexander, who all seemed to have come to the chamber armed with incorrect statistics. Now it appears he has fallen victim to the same error.

There will be those who think that he deliberately lied to make the situation look better than it is, but that seems unlikely to me. Who would invent an increase of 0.18%? It seems far too small to be impressive, and if you are going to lie, and risk being caught out, you might as well do it for something a little more impressive than 0.18%. More likely that a civil servant provided the FM with false figures.

To my mind, the important thing was that the FM came to parliament and apologised.

However, someone else has also been giving false figures this week. Yes that's right, it's you... Stand up Maggie Curren.

I quote from Newsnet: "This week Margaret Curran used a speech to the STUC women’s conference to launch an attack on the way in which receipts from the 4G radio spectrum auction will be spent in Scotland and demanded that the Scottish Government to make clear how it will spend its ‘windfall’."

The trouble is that Scotland has absolutely no receipts whatsoever from the G4 Auction. That is to say no windfall, which means that they can't spend it on anything at all.

All monies from that go directly to George Osborne's Treasury and stay there. I'm not saying that some of the money will not be spent in Scotland, but if it is, it will be spent by Michael Moore, not Alex Salmond.

Several questions have been asked in the London parliament about this question and it has been made clear by Danny Alexander that there will be no Barnet Consequential for this money.

So, did Mrs Curren know this? 

If she didn't, then why didn't she? She is supposed to be the Shadow Secretary of State. She should know how the Barnet system works in general terms, and in this particular one she should be aware of questions being asked on the subject... and of the answers given.

If she did know then why did she mislead the STUC conference? Is she so blinded by hatred of the SNP and the Scottish government that she doesn't care what the Tories do with the money as long as she can take a pop at the SNP.

Mrs Curren should be aware (although maybe she is not) that the Scottish government has done much to help people worst hit by the inhumane policies emanating from London. Maybe she should make it her business to check exactly how John Swinney is finding money to help the poor.

When she has done that, she might like to emulate the First Minister and apologise for her error.

Or not. 

************

I thought it might be helpful to you to share with you one of the Pippatips that may be seen in Her Royal Highness's best seller "Celebrate". (Now less than half price on Amazon.com.)

#PippaTip: Save time by doing things more quickly
I was surprised to read that actually, I would have though HRH's answer to the time problem would be simply to employ more servants. Well, you live and learn.
What an excellent gift this book wouldn't make for Christmas.

OH, MARGARET, HOW COULD YOU?

Well, blow me down! According to an article in the Herald, talking about Mr Miliband's speech... well, no, I'll not tell you about it, I'll quote direct:

Margaret Curran, the feisty Shadow Scottish Secretary, could not contain her enthusiasm as she skipped down spin alley, singing Ed's praises and how he had delivered a fantastic speech. He had, she insisted, displayed a "Thatcheresque" inner confidence; an adjective she meant as a big compliment but which others might raise an eyebrow at.

Seriously, can anyone honestly say that they would ever have foreseen the day when a Scottish Labour MP would praise his or her boss and leader by using the word "Thatcheresque"?

Oh well, I suppose we were forewarned of Labour's move to the right, but Maggie Curran!!!!????

For those who enjoy Labour's discomfiture over the Lamont and Miliband lurch to the right, Ian Bell's column will be to your taste.

A PATRONISING GIT LOOKING OUT AT THE SILVERY TAY

This is Labour's Shadow Defence Secretary being tied in knots by Brillo, despite quoting almost word for word what his leader (or is she?) said in her speech. It seems, though, that Johann Lamont (sadly neither Andrew nor Jim  seems able to pronounce her name correctly) will lead the campaign against "separation". 


But perhaps not on television, because according to Spud, it is the BBC that decides who will do that. Now I'd heard (and seen) that the Beeb and the Labour party in Scotland were more of less one and the same thing, but really? The BBC chooses who leads campaigns?!


You might be interested to know that, according to Mr Murphy, Mr Cameron won't be playing a leading role in the campaign. This is probably because Mr Murphy refuses to share a platform with him. 


So, can we look forward to him sharing that platform with Ruth Davidson?


If this is supposed to be one of Labour's hard hitters, I'd suggest that they will have to rely on the Conservatives to put someone forward to make the case for the union.


Oh, and did anyone notice... not a single word about the Shadow Scottish Secretary. Does Mr Murphy know something we don't about Maggie's future?

WHY?

Full list of 32 Scottish Labour MPs who voted for further privatisation of the NHS in England On Monday January 16, 2012. No wonder people ask the "West Lothian question". (Apposite picture Mrs Lamont, wouldn't you say?)

Sarwar, Anas - Deputy Leader of Scottish Labour
Curran, Margaret - Shadow Scottish Secretary
Alexander, Douglas
Bain, William
Banks, Gordon
Begg, Anne
Brown, Russell
Clark, Katy
Clarke, Tom
Docherty, Thomas
Donohoe, Brian H.
Doran, Frank
Doyle, Gemma
Gilmore, Sheila
Greatrex, Tom
Harris, Tom
Jamieson, Cathy
Joyce, Eric
McGovern, Jim
McKechin, Ann
McKenzie, Iain
Morrice, Graeme
Murphy, Jim
Murray, Ian
Nash, Pamela
O'Donnell, Fiona
Osborne, Sandra
Robertson, John
Roy, Frank
Roy, Lindsay
Sheridan, Jim

Teller - David Hamilton

Can someone from Scottish Labour please explain


why they saw fit to do this? Who ordered them to?


Was it Miliband, Curren, Lamont? And who IS in 


charge of Labour's Scottish MPs?

Grateful thanks to Dubbieside from bringing this list of Labour, Tories, oh dear, Laries maybe...to my attention.  I wonder if they would dare vote for this kind of private health system in Scotland?

February 08, 2012 8:43 PM

WHAT DOES 2012 MEAN FOR SCOTLAND? ...BRING IT ON AND LET'S SEE

It's December 31: a time to reflect on the year past.


For Scotland it has been momentous. There was a general election which produced an SNP majority government, though the system was designed specifically to avoid any majority government, much less an SNP one. 


So far, with the exception of the Sectarian legislation, all has been well and support for the government has increased rather than diminished in the months since May.

John Swinney has worked miracles with ever decreasing financial settlements over the years  first from Labour and now the Liberal Tory coalition and has continued his magic touch, and Scotland's pensioners, sick, poor and those looking for homes, enjoy much that England's equivalents do not.


Of course, despite having made it clear before the election that the referendum would be in the second half of the 5 year-parliament, the opposition parties seem to find little else to question the government about. And talking about opposition parties, all but the Greens have had a change of leader since May. 

First the Liberals, having swapped their 16 seats for 5, swapped Tavish Scott for Willie Rennie, a bad deal in my estimation. Tavish, despite his intense dislike of the SNP, had at least heard of constructive opposition and was prepared to apply it for the benefit of his country. Willie, maybe having failed to realise that his party had lost 2/3 of its seats because of its participation in Westminster with David Cameron and Tavish's inability before the election to distance himself from that, threw away his opportunity to start a fightback and backed Cleggameron's policies from day one. Duh!

Then the Tories swapped the estimable Annabel Goldie, a woman much more popular than her party, for Ruth Davidson, who had only just been elected to her seat a few months before. In doing so they threw away the opportunity to move forward as a new distinctly Scottish right of centre party under Murdo Fraser, and lost a good deal of support, including from our own resident Tory (or ex-Tory), Dean from New Right.


Finally Labour ditched the inestimable Iain 'don't sleep in the subway' Gray, a dreary soul who never seemed to make the right decision and whined his way through FMQs every week before being left battered and bruised. Iain had presided over Labour's most humiliating defeat ever in Scotland, and it was clear to everyone that a drastic change  of direction was needed, so Labour elected the woman who had been second in charge under the catastrophe, Johann Lamont. Smart thinking.

Each one of the parties has failed to see that there is a new politics in Scotland. Maybe we are on the road to independence; maybe devo max, or independence light, but the status quo is not an option, and sticking to it, on orders from their London bosses, may minimise the damage done to the government (which is of course all about change), but it's not what is best for Scotland.  


While a new separate identity is what people seem to want, Willie Rennie walks around in Clegg's shadow and Ruth is David's woman all the way. After all, David's own strategist man came to Scotland to give her campaign advice.


Whilst it is true that Mrs Lamont in now supposedly leader of everything she surveys in Scotland: (in order of importance, or should that be 'impotence') MSPs, MPs, MEPs, Councillors, the tea fund? the Lords, it's not quite clear what that means. 


Do Labour's English/Scottish stars, Spud and Wee Doogie, at Defence and Foreign Affairs respectively, report to her? Would they continue to do so were Labour in government? Does Vinegar Maggie report to her? Who's boss of whom? 

I suspect that the changes in Labour's constitution are cosmetic only and that orders will inevitably continue to come from London. I don't see Johann as a rebel. But I wonder how long it will be before someone blows a hole in the pretence. That will be interesting.


So far there has been an air of unfinished business about parliament. Now the new leaders are all in place, let's hope that somehow, together we can take Scotland forward to survive what everyone predicts will be battering year all over Europe.