CAMERON WENT TO SCOTLAND AND ALL WE GOT WERE SOME DAMP SQUIBS

Him all in blue, and her in red and tartan.

I see that the Scottish TUC had something to say about the proposals for the devo super max, federalism released today by the British prime  minister.

I wonder if the newly socialist, newly Scottish, Scottish Branch office has anything to say on the subject. Are they with the TUC or the Tories?

Scottish Trades Union Congress (STUC) General SecretaryGrahame Smith said:

"Despite being represented on the Scotland Office Stakeholder Group to consult on the draft clauses, the STUC was not given sight of the final details.

"STUC will now analyse this paper in some detail, however it is already clear that in key areas such as welfare and capital borrowing, the recommendations will not match the intentions of the Smith Commission proposals.

“It is unacceptable that the Scottish Parliament should require Westminster approval to create new benefit entitlements in Scotland. The current proposals will also seriously hamper the ability of the Scottish Parliament to make different fiscal choices by tying Scotland to UK deficit reduction targets.

“Given that the STUC was underwhelmed by totality of the Smith Commission proposals, this further watering down of the promise that was made to voters in Scotland is unacceptable. The UK Government will present today’s publication as significant progress, but the truth is that we are not even at the end of the beginning of progress to meaningful additional devolution.

“It is now vital that the fullest possible public consultation is conducted, including a citizen-led process. It is also a matter of particular importance that the Scottish Labour Party looks very carefully at these clauses and takes a clear view on whether they meet its aspirations and the spirit of the Smith Commission proposals.”

Any comment Mr Murphy, Ms Dugdale, Ms Baillie.... Anyone?

No? 

I did all this: It was me that got you all these watered down fig leafs.
Me, I tell you. I saved the banks, I saved the world and I saved the union.
Now I'll save the universe.
Take that Alistair Loser Darling, you couldnt even save your membership
of the Faculty of Advocates!

Well somehow the BBC managed to unearth Gordon Brown from whatever 6 star hotel he's staying at, and he's enthusiastic. 

So he is clearly on the side of the Tories. Surprise surprise!

Brown said he was pleased that there are new powers "of huge significance in employment and welfare that no one can undervalue with credibility".

He added: "Two issues have dominated Scottish politics for the past 30 years: the call for action on jobs and social justice.

"And the Scottish Parliament will now have substantial powers in both areas, as well as in tax matters, which will enable it to secure jobs and make decisions in fairness for the people of Scotland.

"This will ensure the new Scotland Act is a modern version of home rule for Scotland in an interdependent world."

**********

It appears that dogged persistence, threats of legal action, and the prime minister of Britain saying that he would withdraw unless the Green Party were included in leaders' debates ahead of the British elections in May have in the end worked in favour of democracy. The BBC carry a story that their debate will include all 7 leaders of major parties on the British mainland.

Icelandic tv debate with more that 4 people!
Cunning lot these foreigners!

The original proposals had been for the two major parties along with UKIP and the Liberals having a four-way debate. Not unreasonably, given the minority nature of both UKIP and the Liberals, other parties wondered why they were to be excluded.

Various excuses were trotted out including how difficult it would be to manage a debate with so many people but that was put to bed somewhat embarrassingly when it was pointed out that Scandinavian countries and Ireland all manage to organised them.

There were then a series of arguments about the minority nature of the other parties which wanted to participate, including:

That it was a prime ministerial debate (a silly argument in a parliamentary democracy, where the majority of us do not get a vote for a potential prime minister, and in any case, why would Clegg or Farage be included in such a debate?). 

And that the SNP, Plaid and the Greens were not national parties... (but then neither is Labour as it fields no candidates in Northern Ireland).

So far the BBC has announced the parties' inclusion on its website, but at the time of writing it hadn't bothered to inform the party leaders of the decision so we base this on the BBC website. 

I wonder what will happen if the Irish parties wish to get involved. Will Cameron support them as he supported the Greens?

GET RID OF TRIDENT

Tomorrow there is a vote in the London House of Commons on the renewal of the Trident Weapons System.

The Greens, Plaid and the SNP will vote against, but it is expected that the *three London parties will largely vote for spending more than £100 billion on a weapons system that is very little use for today's wars or today's enemies.

I know we live in a dangerous world. But most of today's danger seems to me to come from terrorism. You can't fight terrorism with nuclear weapons. Even if a terror organisation got hold of a nuclear bomb and threatened to use it... 

what could the West do with a nuclear deterrent? Where would we target it? 

In any case the United States of America has more than enough weapons to deal with the "mutually assured destruction" question, and for those who feel it is wrong to let the American's take  the financial strain, there is no reason why a financial contribution to their costs couldn't be made by other Nato countries.

No western country (that means France or the UK) would dare use a nuclear weapon without permission from America. But at least France does have the dignity of that option. The UK does not. While the French President does have a red button, the British government does not. The weapons system is part of America's defence capability, and the launch codes are held by the USA.

Retired senior military have said that they would prefer that the money be spent on something that they can actually use.

Some say that America, too, would rather than Britain spent some more money on conventional forces which could be used by them in the various wars in the Middle East that we get involved in. On the other hand, some say that America would prefer us to maintain the nuclear capability because it guarantees us a seat on the Security Council where, in anything important, we take America's side.. or you might say, 'vote the way America tells us to'.

Tony Blair apparently said in his autobiography that the weapons system was of no strategic value and maintained only for prestige. It is the membership fee for the big boys' table, at which, along with France, the UK really should have no place.

I discovered from Neil Findlay, during his unsuccessful leadership campaign, that the Labour Party's Scottish conference voted to scrap Trident, but was overruled by the party leadership. 

When there are hungry kids (look at the figures for food banks), freezing pensioners, folk living on the street adn sleeping rough in sub zero temperatures and so many privations for so many people, why are we paying over £100,000,000,000,000 (that we don't have) for weapons that we won't use?

I'm sure that every Tory will vote for the system, but some decent Labour and Liberal MPs will vote against. You can urge them to do so here.

Correction: * I've just read on Twitter that the Labour Party intends to ignore the debate, classing it as a meaningless stunt.

If the SNP, Plaid, Greens, Labour and some Liberals and maybe a few of the Northern politicians voted together, then we could rid the country of these abominations.

And we'd have £100,000,000,000 to spend on improving the lives of the wretched. And Labour thinks it's a stunt because the SNP is involved in organising it?????

And Jim Murphy says that they care about Scotland and its poor.

Oh well...

SMART SCOTS GIVE IT ALDI (AND LIDL)

I remember hearing about a woman who used to take her neighbour shopping in her car. The neighbour liked to buy some of her weekly shop from one of the bargain supermarkets, but driver (a bit of a snob) informed everyone that she didn't even get out of the car.... The thought of being seen shopping in a cheap supermarket put her off.

I remember thinking that it was a shame to be so strung up on image, because the quality of the products in both Lidl and Aldi is pretty high.

Not being the kind that worries about being seen poking around in Oxfam or Save the Children (and having laid my hands on some fine brand names at a fraction of the cost of their new price, who can blame me), I've never been shy about shopping in the German supermarkets.

But until recently I wondered how they managed to make any profit. They were nearly always more or less empty, and even on a Saturday morning there was never a crush in the small car parks.

Now things are different, I suspect as a result of the 'neverendession' (to paraphrase one of the very few genuinely funny things that David Cameron has even said.

The car parks are full; the tills are all open and goods, far cheaper than the main British/American supermarkets are selling, are flying off the shelves.

Indeed according to this Yahoo article Aldi made £56.8 million in profit last year, having recorded a loss the previous year. They opened 29 new stores and plan to continue opening new ones in the coming year, creating over 4,000 new jobs (welcome, albeit most of them will probably be part time).

Lidl and Aldi concentrate on selling their own brands to the almost total exclusion of big brand names. This means no premium paid to the big names, and the savings can be passed on to the customer. In the other supermarkets only around 50% of their products are own brand.

Frequently supermarket own brands are of much poorer quality (some custard I bought at Asda was so inedible it had to be thrown out). Aldi and Lidl's brands in contrast are of very high quality. Indeed, recently a taste test organised by "Good Housekeeping" magazine found that Aldi's Christmas Pudding was the second best brand behind Waitrose. Fortnum & Mason came 29th!! And Aldi's pudding cost £7.99, whereas Fortnum's was around £29.00.

And a study by Grocer magazine found that on a shopping basket of 33 items Aldi was 16% cheaper than Asda, 20% cheaper than Tesco and 40% cheaper than Waitrose! And there is not a lot of difference in price between Aldi and Lidl.

Judging by the readers'  comments on the Yahoo article, Aldi's rise in the ranks is due in part to price, but also to the quality of service you can expect. Tesco's (the worst of all the UK chains, in my opinion), Asda, Morrisons, Sainsbury and Waitrose, have all been working hard to try to maintain their market share in the straitened economic times. 

It seems they have no room for slacking.

**************
On rather a different topic I see from comments at Wings, and an article by Rod at Auld Acquaintance that there has been a debate in London about Scottish Independence, and that 336 - 5 found that Scotland would be better off in the union. 

Now, somewhere between 30 and 40% of the population wants independence, and around 20-25% is undecided, so it occurs to me that the presentation of Scots' views in the English parliament is very unrepresentative.

I understand that a further proposal put by the SNP that Scotland would enjoy a special relationship with the UK, rather like that enjoyed by Canada, Australia and New Zealand, was defeated by a similar number.

So it appears that the English (and the Welsh and Irish) don't really like us. If we go they will not be friendly towards us. But they want us to stay. 

Weird.

I can only conclude that that is because, according to them the North Sea has the potential to be the World's Global Energy hub. 

In other words they want our money.

Incidentally the 5 were the SNP members in the Commons chamber. (According to Rod, Stewart Hosie was not there due to illness. Get well soon, Stewart. You will surely be missed in London.) 

I was surprised not to have the support of the Welsh Nationalists.

Plaid makes a fool of Paxman

Truly hilarious as Paxo the arch Celto-phope starts of in his usual condescending manner, but soon finds he has bitten off more than he can chew with Eurfyl ap Gwilym Palid's economics advisor. "Do your homework Paxman!"

WHAT HAVE WE DONE TO OUR WEE BIT DEMOCRACY?

The BBC Trust has rejected the SNP/Plaid Cymru appeal against their exclusion from the leaders' debate. And it looks like, at this late stage the two parties will not go to court over it.

I suspect that there may not be enough money for the fight, or at least that, with two debates down and one to go, the leadership of the two parties just don't feel that the game's worth the candle.

It's too late. The money could be better spent than keeping English barristers in port and stilton.

Forfar Loon has an excellent article here on the subject of the debates. It’s well worth the read.

Anyone, as he points out, who suggests that these debates were not significant should look at the 10 point rise in the polls of one of the parties, the rise that party from “also ran” to the status of challenger in their smug so-called two horse race.... and then repeat their assertion. The debates have indeed been ground breaking. They have completely shaken the whole political system in the UK in more ways than one.

Of course, the insult to people in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland should not be underestimated. All the debates were held in England, and participants had to live within a 30 mile radius of the debate location, ergo no one who is resident in Scotland was allowed to participate in this exercise in democracy. It was, therefore, an exercise in democracy in England. Can we then assume that the election is an English one? The Scots, Irish and Welsh matter so little that they have been excluded in more ways than that their Nationalist Parties’ leaders have been excluded from the debate platforms. They, themselves have been excluded from participation in the actual debates.

But the whole essence of it is wrong anyway. We do not elect Prime Ministers here. And, in any case, as the Loon points out, the assumption has been made that Cameron, Clegg and Brown will be re-elected. Oh, we know that are in safe seats, but surely our democracy can’t be taken for granted like that...or at least it shouldn’t.

It has been said that the pressure for these debates has been strong from the Press for decades and wiser prime ministers have resisted, seeing more problems that advantages in them... not just for themselves, but for the already dubious version of democracy that we have in the UK (with FPTP and whipping, an unelected chamber and hereditary head of state).

Wiser prime ministers said no. Then along came King Midas in reverse.

ALEX OFFERS AN ALTERNATIVE TO THE COZY LONDON ALLIANCE

Alex Salmond with his successor as candidate for Banff and Buchan, Eilidh Whiteford, and Gordon constituency candidate, Richard Thomson, were at a rally of local supporters. In a speech, Alex said:


"For 23 years, I have been a Member of a Parliament dominated by a cosy Westminster arrangement among the London parties.


"All three want to waste billions on obscene nuclear weapons - stored here in Scotland - as they slash Scotland's budget, putting at risk Scottish jobs and our cherished public services.


"All three London parties have played starring roles in the scandals which have totally discredited the Westminster parliament. From dodgy donors to duck houses and cash for access to cash for peerages, the UK parties are implicated.


"And all three are denying the people of Scotland a say over their own constitutional future - despite backing referendums for just about everything else.


"People are raging against the tired, grubby Westminster machine, but Scotland doesn't have to be a cog in that machine. A vote for the SNP can change the system and make it work for the people of Scotland, not against them.


"Westminster has failed us and that is why we need a fresh start - a new approach that will allow us to make the most of the opportunities that exist in such abundance for our nation.


"In the past few days the prospect of a balanced parliament has come to dominate the political agenda. Labour and Tory are now in a state of panic. They fear this outcome because they fear the people.


"This weekend, David Cameron looked close to hysteria as he realised his chances of a Tory majority was slipping away.


"For the old and tired parties, a balanced parliament is a difficult. For Scotland, it is an opportunity.


"The success of the Scottish Parliament demonstrated that a balanced parliament can achieve far more than unbalanced one party rule at Westminster.


"On polling day it is the people not the politicians who have the power and at this election the people can give real power to Scotland by voting SNP. A vote for the SNP here, and Plaid Cymru in Wales, is what will help create the balanced parliament - and what will open the door for big wins for the people of Scotland in that parliament.


"The opportunities for Scotland are not with a vote for the London parties - Tweedledee, Tweedledum or for that matter the Tweedledems - they are with the local and national SNP champions who will always put Scotland first.


"The people want an alternative to the cosy London consensus. In Scotland, the way to achieve this is with the SNP and in Wales with Plaid Cymru.


"The London parties think they can keep the SNP off the television debates, but they cannot keep us out of the election. From our activists at grassroots level to our high profile media appearances, we will make this an election about what Scottish votes can achieve.


"Working in a Celtic Alliance with Plaid Cymru, we can secure a better deal for Scotland and Wales.


"For too long Scotland has been short changed by the London parties. But with a balanced parliament the issues that matter most to the people here will come centre stage. The tide of this election is now moving towards Scotland. Scotland can be the real winner of this election with the SNP."

Pics: Alex Salmond, Eilidh Whiteford, Richard Thomson

If we all pull together..... then maybe, just maybe.....

According to the Caledonian Mercury, senior SNP figures have been involved in discussions with other smaller UK parties about how they will deal with the possibility of a hung parliament. They are understood to have had talks with Welsh Nationalists and may have similar contact with unionists and nationalists in Northern Ireland.

The aim is to form an informal block of MPs to push for concessions for their countries from one of the two English based parties in return for keeping them in power.

No party alone would be able to influence government in this way, however as a loose coalition, the smaller parties could have a sizeable number of MPs, certainly big enough to influence policy, given a close match between number of Tories and Labour MPs.

According to recent opinion polls a hung parliament a hung parliament remains a distinct possibility and the smaller parties wish to seize the opportunity for some power in Westminster where normally they have absolutely none.

It has always been the policy of the SNP not to involve themselves in any way with matters that do not affect the people of Scotland and therefore any formal coalition with any UK party would be impossible, but a ‘Celtic block’ pushing for concessions on issues relevant to them all would be well within their remit.

It is thought, according to the Mercury, that some of the items on the shopping list might include:
Securing millions in extra funding in areas which the parties should be covered by the Barnett Formula, but which are not, likely spending increases as a result of the London Olympics and money for English prisons;
No major cuts to the block grants for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland;
Transferring new powers to Holyrood over airguns, drink-driving and speeding limits, areas which could be devolved without any major revisions to the Scotland Act;
A commitment to enhanced powers for the Scottish Parliament in the next Westminster parliamentary session.


It seems to me to be an admirable idea. Anything that brings more independence to the Scottish people will get my vote. There is a great deal that is still unequal.


I hope that the English population will protest strongly against the aspects of the current settlement that is unfair to them... like Labour’s Scottish MPs voting on all-English matters, which should be banned immediately.


================================