Colour us chuffed

So, David, as well as taking pictures of Japan (Kyoto), had the idea to inform the public who don't know about blogs, that there is more information out there than you get from the BBC or The Daily Mail.

He designed, got printed and distributed these cards, advertising some of the blogs he reads which support independence.

We are rather flattered to be included in this list of somewhat illustrious publications (although, to be honest, I don't think that Munguin knows the meaning of the word flattery).

So thank you David for doing this, for doing your bit for the independence movement and for kindly including Munguin's Republic.

THE SCOTTISH EVENING NEWS

Ahead of the launch of the Scottish Evening news in  Spring 2015, the people behind the project have released some examples of what the news might look like. Their next broadcast will go behind the scenes and show how they put news together.

For more information on the show, and how you can help make it happen, visit http://www.scottishnews.scot/donate
***********
And....Bad news for Labour from the Yougov Poll for the Sun today.

Awwwwwww. 

For more information on the results of the poll... James has a piece over at his place. 

Norman Smith, BBC: Sources say new powers for Scottish parliament will be "an extension of existing responsibilities" - not Devo Max

 We'd have thought that having said that Bob, you'd have had
the sense to keep your gob shut.

One of the drawbacks about winning a referendum campaign in which you have made promises and signed pledges, is that it comes with some sort of obligations. 

Politicians don't perhaps realise this, because election after election they produce manifestos containing promises which are as swiftly broken as Katie Price's marriage vows.

Dave does a lot of pointing, doesn't he?
Maybe they teach it at posh schools
to save you having to remember plebs' names.

But as Cameron was quick to point out in a condescending speech to Scots a couple of weeks ago ("let's say F'ing; it will sound passionate, and I'm told the savages use it 3 times in every sentence, not that I speak to them as a rule"), this was not an election, and we can't boot the F'ing Brits out in 5 years.

Of course a great deal of the No's campaign was based on threats rather than promises. You won't use the pound; you won't be in the EU, you won't be in Nato; you won't have clout; you won't be able to visit your granny in Carlisle without a visa, food prices will spiral and you'll starve, mortgages will be unobtainable and you'll live in a tent, cyber attacks from space will knock out all your computers and you'll need to get an abacus, you'll lose your state pension, you'll be small insignificant and oil rich broke, etc, ad infinitum.

Most of the threats were demonstrably rubbish, and a decent and free press or state broadcaster would have pointed that out. But then we don't appear to have these, so that knocks that on the head.

Promises are, however, another kettle of fish.

Should have consulted him for the pledges and vows

Vague promises are best in these situations, and always peppered with words and phrases which will provide a strategic get out. "Consultations", "in conjunction with the countries of the UK", "in as far as is possible under legislation", "within a framework of regulations set by the European Union" make the job of unpicking what has REALLY been promised, and can be delivered, almost impossible.

The campaign started off with an absolute from Cameron. There will be no devo-max. It will not be on the ballot paper. His Scottish deputy, David son, went so far as to tell us that a line had been drawn in the sand. 

However, as the song goes, "la mer efface sur le sable, les pas des amis desunis"! and it wasn't long before the exigencies of the campaign meant that the line in the sand had followed the steps of the lovers and been wiped out, as vague indications of possible new powers were made.

Polling showed the campaign to be much closer than the final result, and so, with apparently not a trace of irony, a couple of weeks ago the two main UK parties joined with Nick Clegg... yes Nick Clegg, to sign a pledge... yes a pledge... to giving new powers to Scotland.  

Yep, Nick, we know poppet.

And then, with only 2 days to go with polls looking even more gloomy for unionists, a set of Vows were agreed to by the three English based parties, and published on the front page of one of Scotland's best selling downmarket organs, The Daily Record, (Scottish version of the Daily Mirror, and Labour's messenger to the Scottish working classes). Gordon Brown's fingerprints were all over this, but it was a promise from the two main UK parties and the Liberals. 

With immediate effect a process would be put in place, they swore. Better Together went further and actually annotated this process with date deadlines. This was a process that they would be obliged to leave to a Tory government with no electoral interest in Scotland, in a run up to a general election. 

Well duh! Saw ya comin', Brown.

The latest pledge, oh sorry, vow (has Nick Clegg signed a vow before?), promised that on the day after a no vote (ie the 19th September, 2014) a motion on more powers would be published in the London parliament. 

Missed the first deadline then?

It is now the 20th and flying in the face of the famous English tradition of Fair Play, no such motion has been published. 

In short they lied. 

Not the best of starts.

No one, in all this vowing and pledging, seems to have been aware that in other parts of the Uk all is constitutionally not well.

Gordon and the Mrs have grandma round for some advice
on how to grind the poor to dust.

Gordon Brown has the excuse of knowing nothing about this because he and his mrs spend most of their lives in 5 or 6 star hotel rooms, or travelling first class around the world on the back of their "charity". The Tories all went to Eton or Westminster or Harrow and "up to" Oxford, and are in their positions because of connections rather than brains, and that is their excuse for getting most things wrong. But surely there is someone somewhere who knew better?

Get rid of the 10p tax Gordon. The poor want to pay more.
Yes MA'AM.

No one seems to have thought that the English, who have always had the whip hand in this union of nations, provinces, principalities and little semi-detached islands, feel that they have been neglected since Blair's botched devolution.

Of course, they actually aren't that badly done by, but, compared with the total power they used to have it's not not quite good enough and they have been encouraged in the past by people like Boris, to feel resentment. 

It's a bit like the EU situation. If you blame as much as you can on an organisation or country, you shouldn't complain when the people turn against it. Governments and press have, for years, blamed all kinds of problems on EU regulations, to the point that a vast swathe of people loathe it and want out of it. 

Trouble is none of the political parties want that. Yes, they want you to hate it a lot so that you hate them a little less, but get out of it... Oh god no. 

Likewise, tell the English for decades that Scots are subsidy junkies, who get far more per head than good decent English taxpayers do. Encourage them to think it's their taxes that pay for our free education, and elderly care, prescriptions, etc, etc... and that most of us spend our lives staggering between the pub and the bookies and sticking pins in Englishmen... and then not wanting them to take umbrage when you appear to bribe the Jocks with more power and money lacks a certain level of perception. Duh, in fact.

Foresight isn't a quality with which the union politicians seem to be blessed. They must not teach it at Oxford on the PPP course.

So it looks like a complete constitutional rethink is going to be demanded and that's going to make mockery of BT's promises... especially with a UK election around the corner. We don't really care that you politicians have problems in England. You're problem. You promised us a real change, starting yesterday, and we want it.

Of course you have to feel for them. Well a bit. (Don't you?)

Once you start messing with the powers allotted in the London parliament, you open a whole new can of nasty poisonous worms. 

The most obvious of these are:

making Celtic MPs second class legislators; 

allowing English only MPs to vote on how much is spent on, for example, health or law and order, in the other nations, despite the other nations paying taxes;

and the most frightening and insurmountable of all, a possible situation where a potential Labour government of the day in the UK could find itself in a situation where it would not have a majority in a parliament which spends most of its working week on English only legislation.

Oh what interesting times we live in.

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

Ah. Unionist politicians and their past tenses.
Who could ask for more?
Who is he?
Apparently a minister in the NI government
who has... uhm..."went off" message

Munguin's Republic thinks there is going to be far too much fun and games in the coming months for it to take even a few days break.

I'm delighted to see that my friend James Kelly's Scot Goes Pop fund raiser is doing well, and I hope that he will raise the money to stay in the game  for at least the next 6 months. James' contribution to understanding polls and his quick wit and sense of humour make him an absolute must. 

I hope that other friends will stay on board too... too many to mention. You're all in the sidebar and I've appreciated all your contributions.

And especially (and I'm sure you other bloggers won't object to me singling him out)...

Stuart Campbell... I know you're tired. You've worked non stop with posts, broadcasts and wee blue books. You need a break. You deserve a holiday.

But please come back and help us fight. No one needs to tell you the dramatic effect you've had on the campaign. I don't mean to undervalue the efforts of anyone else, but you have made a phenomenal difference. 

Simply put. We need you. 

So have another fundraiser if you need to, but please don't go.
**********
I've just read Stuart's latest post on the BBC and its lies.

About a month ago I decided that I'd had the BBC up to here. It had been a long time in the coming. 

I felt for a long time that whilst a national funding scheme was probably quite reasonable for a tv service that was the BBC and only the BBC in the 1960s, it was already redundant by the time there were 4 channels. 

By the time I could, in theory, choose from a hundred or so channels on my Freeview, it seemed ridiculous to be paying for the BBC at the outrageous cost of £145 per year.

I've never been a tv watcher and neither of my sets was used regularly, so much so that I was at one point unaware that my aerial had been tampered with, and on another occasion when a friend asked me if he could watch something on my lounge tv, I had to admit that I didn't know how it operated. (We eventually found a switch underneath to put it on.)

The stories about decades of depravity and sexual liberty taking, known by all including amazing Esther Rantzen but reported by no one, and then finally the coverage of the referendum campaign sorted it. 

I wrote to the licensing authority (it's not an authority, it's Crapita) and they won't get another cent from me. I've spent my refund.

Like Stuart, I am not advocating illegality. (The Wings article lays down clearly the conditions under which you can use a tv and what you can watch on computers, phones and whatever else you have without breaking the law and it points to the website so you can be sure that you are not inviting the police to investigate you.)

But I urge you to ask yourselves if support of this state broadcaster, which one Pole confessed to Craig Murray, reminded him of Pravda in the days of Poland's Solidarity movement, is something that you really want to engage with.

INSULTS AND THREATS MORE LIKELY TO BE FROM UNIONISTS

Today Stuart Campbell has been defamed in the Scotsman.

Stuart, as we all know, is perfectly capable of taking care of himself. He has, as you will see from the link, demanded an apology and a retraction, and I have no doubt he will go to the Press Complaints Commission should one not be forthcoming. You don't mess with the Rev!

I actually wonder at the stupidity of the editor at the Scotsman. Bending the facts slightly is one thing. Lying through your teeth, another. Five minutes of research would have saved him making a fool of himself. 

But more widely the bias of the press is becoming worrying and vilification of "cybernats" but not of "britnats" is damaging the debate.

Let's be fair. Most people probably (and I'm no exception) say things in blogs or on Twitter, momentarily forgetting that they are public domains. Anyone can see an open blog and, depending on who is following whom, Twitter can have a massive impact. 

But, although from coverage you'd never have guessed it, a poll carried out for the Daily Express in March of this year showed that Pro-Independence supporters are far more likely than Unionists to receive hate mail or suffer insults for their political beliefs. 

Credit to them for publishing the poll (unfavourable as it is to their side), even though the tone of the article makes little of the findings, and is illustrated by a picture of a unionist who has been insulted. However it does include this paragraph: "In a worrying development for the Better Together campaign, 21 per cent of those planning to vote Yes have received abuse or threats compared to just eight per cent of those planning to vote No."

Not being a reader of the Express, I'd not heard of that poll until today, when I read about it on Scot Goes Pop. Can you imagine how many other papers and TV channels would have run with the story if it hadn't shown such an imbalance for their side? The BBC would have been overjoyed and dedicated a whole dumbed down programme to it.

No other mainstream media seem in the least interested in publicising some of the nonsense that emanates for the keyboards and Twitter Accounts of BT/UKOK/NO supporters. Like this little gem (above) for example. 

I read with dismay some of the words written by Jamieson yesterday, and dismissed them as trouble making ramblings. I just hope that he doesn't have a point.

CONTRASTING THE CAMPAIGNS... AND FUNDRAISING FOR A YES BLOG

I really thought that this was an inspiring video.  Such a diverse group of people, all with one purpose. It really cheered me.

**********

Over at one of my favourite blogs, Scot Goes Pop, James Kelly is looking to raise some money to help him continue to provide an invaluable service of dissecting the results of opinion polls... It's something for which I am incredibly grateful, as polling, and statistics, weighting,  and all that mathematical stuff is well beyond my limited intellectual powers. Of course SGP also posts on other matters, including some hilarious put downs of pomposity...as well as predicting the outcome of the Eurovision Song Contest (or not, as the case may be!). 

James has always been extremely supportive of Munguin's Republic and I'm delighted to see that the fund raising (for a modest £2,500) is going well. When we looked this morning it was standing at around £430, it is now at an impressive £1,687!

I know times are hard, but if anyone has a few groats to spare, there are worse ways of spending them...
**********
I was pleased to see that the Sunday Herald's declaration for 'yes' did them no harm at all in the sales stakes. Today's copy reports that last Sunday they sold 35,500 copies, up around 50% if my memory serves me well. They had 75,000 website hits, 2000+ retweets, and 4,600 members on a Facebook page...

I wonder what the Scotland on Sunday sales are looking like...
**********

THIS IS WHAT A LABOUR AGENDA SHOULD BE ABOUT, Ms LAMONT.

Today Allan Grogan addressed the Law Society's fringe meeting at the Labour Party conference in Perth.

According to James the esteemed Mrs Curran has never met Mr Grogan, despite her being a member of  Labour for 38 years... and despite him being leader of a sizeable faction of Labour members, opposing their party on Scotland, and her being the shadow Scottish spokesman.

I hope she managed to find time in her busy diary to go along today a listen to him. In cases she didn't make that time, I'll include his speech here, so that she can catch up with it in her leisure time.

I’d like to thank the chair and the Law Society for inviting me here. It is a great honour to speak with you all here today, particularly on such an important issue.

Labour for Independence consists of members, voters, supporters, former voters who felt the party left them not the other way around. Trade unionists, ex councillors, former Lord Provosts and the former chair of Scottish Labour. We believe in the ideals and principles of the Labour Party. But we also believe that independence is the best way forward for the people of this nation.

Scotland is at a crossroads, but it is not one between unionism and nationalism, rather the kind of society we live in today and the kind of society we can have. It is a choice between the status quo and real change for the better.

What is the status quo we live in today? Scotland, in this United Kingdom according to the Scottish Outlook Campaign, is in the midst of a humanitarian crisis. We are part of the 3rd most unequal society in the Western World. Life expectancy in some parts of this affluent nation is lower that the Gaza Strip. Most shockingly of all 1 in 4 Scottish children are living in poverty. 1 is too many, but 25% is an absolute disgrace. All of this is happening in a country that is the 14th richest in the world per capita.

These are not just some statistics read out in this hall, this is the reality of the society we live in today. Look about you; it’s happening to friends, family neighbours. Parents are going hungry to put food on the table for their kids, pensioners have to choose to heat their house or cook a meal.

But fear not friends, throughout the deprivation, the poverty and abject squalor we still have enough to pay for bankers bonuses, MP wage increases and find £100 billion to renew an outdated nuclear programme which has no place in a civilised modern society.

We are not better together, we can do better and we must do better. We need to create a society which will look after all of its citizens not just those who can afford to have their say.

 

Now there will be many here today who will argue that child poverty in Liverpool is just as important as it is in Scotland, and I agree with you. But this is the crux of the argument. This, rather than labelling everyone who votes yes a nationalist is the debate we should be having within the party.

Let me begin by asking the question to all those waiting for the British road to socialism. How close are we to achieving this? I have campaigned for a better society within the UK and there are many here today who have spent a lot longer doing so than I, and yet we seem to be further and further away from making this a reality.

Independence can lead to not only a more prosperous, more equal Scotland. It also increases the opportunities for our brothers and sisters in Northern England and other areas within the UK. Independence can lead to a more federalised Rest of UK. Giving these areas more say and more control in how to make their communities better. If nothing else we can lead by example proving to them that it is possible to be an economically vibrant, socially just, fair and equal society. One which Hardie and Maxton would be proud to call home.

How do we achieve this society within the UK? Are we to pin all of our hopes on a Labour victory in 2015? Even if we are successful, what kind of Labour government will we have? A Labour Government in which Ministers like Chris Bryant blame unemployment on immigrants working in Tescos? A Defence Secretary who has pledged the commitment to maintaining our nuclear deterrent. Most worryingly of all we will have a Labour Chancellor committed to the Tories austerity programme. A programme in which only 10p in every pound of cuts has been endured so far.

Because the reality is that in order to be elected, Westminster Labour are chasing the tail of the Tories who are chasing the tail of UKIP further and further right in a never ending spiral towards darkness. Shackled to Westminster the Scottish Labour Party is going along for the ride.

When did we begin to consider Scotland a something for nothing society, misquoted or not? When did means testing become Labour policy? For each according to ability to each according to their need, a cradle to grave universal system that lies in the very fabric of our party. For the first time in our history we are on the wrong side of this. This can change with independence.

Churchill once said “Some men change their party for the sake of their principles; others change their principles for the sake of their party.” Here today in this hall we can say that the members of the Scottish Labour Party need do neither. By voting yes in September we can remove the need to change our beliefs to win votes in the Home Counties. We can return to being the party of the people of Scotland that protects the rights of the workers, stands up for families and individuals who need a helping hand, which protects our unions, our poor, sick and elderly. That’s the party I grew up believing in and we can be that party again.

There is a saying within Labour for Independence. Vote yes in 2014 vote Labour in 2016. We can have Labour Party in the Scottish Government that rebuilds social housing, removes privatisation of energy, railways and Royal Mail. A party which removes the anti trade union laws imposed by Westminster. That uses our finite resources to rebuild our industries and creates renewable energy.

In 1997 we began this journey by voting yes to devolution, let’s complete the job. A real Scottish Labour Party, a Parliament decided by the people, representing all the people, a society which reflects the needs, wants and aspirations of the people of Scotland, these are all within our grasp. The choice is in your hands, continue the journey by voting yes, or be faced with the never ending roadblock of voting no.

I’m voting yes for change, yes for the ideals set out by our party’s founders so many years ago.

Yes for a better Scotland.

Thank you.

GIDEON: INEPTITUDE PERSONIFIED

Why does anyone care what this idiot says? Look at the mess he's made.

In  case any of you have missed James's hilarious post here, I'd suggest you read it, and you might also like to look at the Channel Four poll to which he refers.

As he says, the questions border on insulting, and it's clear from the wording that we are supposed to answer in the negative. Unfortunately for them, that seems not to have worked.

I don't really understand economics, but, as I see it the pound is a currency that both Scotland and England use. It doesn't belong to either country, nor does it belong to Northern Ireland, Wales, Gibraltar, Guernsey, Jersey, Sark, The Isle of man  or the Falkland Islands. It belongs to and in the world as an internationally recognized and tradable currency.

The UK government cannot stop us using it, no more than the Japanese government can stop us using the Yen. 

Not a fat lot of difference between Labour and the Tories then

What the Scottish government proposed was that we would continue to use it, with the backing of the rest of its users ...after all we helped pay for the printing of the notes, the minting of the coins and the very building that houses its offices and vaults. The gold stored therein (or what's left of it) is partly ours and our taxes help to pay for the salary of the staff including the  massive salaries and pensions of its top management and ex management.

In return for this the Scottish government was happy to work with the Bank of England (which should have been called the Bank of Britain), continuing to pay for its services, as presumably the government of Jersey does, and to take its share per capita, of the horrendous debt that it has built up. 

Fair's fair. It we share the benefits of being part of the sterling zone; it wouldn't be unreasonable to share the liabilities. 

It would work for England and the other countries in the sterling zone too, because Scotland's healthy exports would act in its favour.

Smart boy has a degree in history*

But smart boy Gideon, backed, somewhat publicly and indiscreetly, by the civil servant who heads the Treasury has said "no".

So Scotland has no alternative but to use the pound unofficially. This is perfectly legal. As I said earlier we could use any internationally traded currency; the Icelandic Krona, the Swiss Franc, or the Hungarian Forint... but it makes most sense to use the pound because it is what we already use; there would be no need to split the assets of the Bank of England, and there would be no exchange rates to consider between traders on either side of the border.

I see that as a relatively short term thing, because I can see no reason why Scotland should not have its own currency. 

However, using the currency unofficially absolves Scotland absolutely of any obligation to shoulder the trillion pound plus debt that sterling has built up. Just as we have to take the bad with the good, of we are refused the good, we are not likely to take the bad. But no, Gideon doesn't like that. Like all posh spoilt children he wants to have his cake and eat it.

Typical spoilt rich kid

Mystifyingly they tell us that if we do uses the pound and refuse to shoulder the debt, that they may well block independence, regardless of the vote, including our entry into the EU (how grown up is that?), and in the same breath tell us that we would be obliged to use the Euro, which is supposed to scare the living daylights out of people.

Dealing with the privileged, the elite of English society is really like working with spoilt children. 

They want it all their own way.

If this is designed to frighten the horses, then Gideon would know, that a) we don;t believe him and b) if he actually carries out the threat it only makes people more determined.

Scots don;t like being bossed about by posh Tories. And I include Balls in the second part of that. Posh he may not be, aren't but a Tory he surely is!

*After graduating in with a 2:1 in Modern History, Osborne did a few part-time jobs including as a data entry clerk, typing the details of recently deceased into an NHS computer database. He also worked for a week at Selfridges mainly re-folding towels. Osborne originally intended to pursue a career in journalism. He failed to gain a place on the Times trainee scheme, and instead did freelance work for The Telegraph. Then he got a job as a researcher at the Conservative Party. So he clearly is just the man for the job, erm... of folding the towels.

THOUGHTS ON NATE SILVER'S PREDICTIONS AND THOSE OF MATT QVORTRUP

It was interesting that the Scotsman, in common with most other papers in Scotland and the BBC, decided to ignore the opinion poll organised by Wings over Scotland.

Those which did mention it seem to have done so in a patronising fashion, or have suggested that the questions were biased, which I found odd, because Panelbase is a respected polling organisation which adheres to the British Polling Council rules, and many newspapers and the BBC use the company to conduct polls on their behalf.

Perhaps the silence is not surprising given that the general tone of the poll suggested that there was every reason for optimism from the Yes campaign, and that the question on who was considered trustworthy by the respondents showed the Press in a pretty bad light.

While completely ignoring the WoS poll, The Scotsman led their front page with comments from Nate Silver, an American mathematician who correctly foretold the results of each state and DC in the presidential election last year. Mr Silver said that the YES campaign had little chance of winning. James Kelly has done his usual top-class job of analysing Silver's prediction here.

The New Statesman, has also questioned Silver's predictions, based on the less than impressive predictions he made for the UK election, in an article by Alex Hern, which you can access here.

But I was somewhat taken aback to read an entirely opposite prediction in the Express, albeit one which was made a couple of years ago. 

Using historic precedent Professor Matt Qvortrup suggests that Yes will almost certainly win, given that, of 46 referenda on independence since 1905, 42 have resulted in a new country, two in Québec have resulted in status quo and the other two were later overturned by subsequent referenda which opted for independence (Malta and Montenegro).

Personally, I'm happy to know that we are moving slowly but surely in the right direction. 

We are still waiting to hear from Better Together how, apart from our seat on the Security Council, nuclear weapons and the respect and fear of all other countries for the the fourth largest military spend in the world, what exactly it is that makes us Better Together. 

The No campaign has been remarkably silent on what they can promise us for the future; indeed they all seem to say different things about further powers. Alistair Darling made an interesting observation that nothing could be promised at this time. 

Whatever may be further devolved will have to be in manifestos for the next UK election. And we all know that what goes in manifestos for Westminster is what the parties think will be well received in South East England where the votes are, and where elections are lost and won...so don't hold your breath for anything that will do Scotland any good.

SNAPS ON SUNDAY SPECIAL

My blogger friend, James, from "Scot Goes Pop" designed these posters and sent them to me with an offer that I could use them on Munguin's Republic.

I think he should send them to YES SCOTLAND and let them use them. Each one makes a point that is relevant to our situation, whether it is a comparison with Norway, a comment on the state of the nation's health under the funding we receive from Westminster, or the ever (un)popular Mrs Thatcher phenomenon. 

I like all of them, but my personal favourite is the depiction of Wee Willie Hague as our voice in the world... What an absolutely appalling thought, not only because he's a silly little man with very little judgement, but because his views on world affairs are probably shared by about 2% of the Scottish population. As I said to James, I'd love a t-shirt with that on, but it really would frighten the mice.

Anyway, what do you guys think? Which are you favourites? Should James send them to YES SCOTLAND? Tell us what you think. As they say in the Labour Party, vote early and vote late, and several times in between... 

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

AND SO IT BEGINS...

Mr Cameron's announcement to the press that he was going to take the fight on the independence referendum to the Nats and set standards and rules so that any referendum would be "fair legal and decisive", instead, presumably of "unfair, illegal and indecisive", were it left to the Scottish parliament to decide have kicked off, rather earlier than we might have expected, the campaign for Scottish Independence.


The Scotland Office has launched a consultative document and solicited responses from those who are interested. James Kelly at Scot Goes Pop drew this to my attention this morning in this post.


He points out that the consultation is a waste of time (well he actually calls it a "farce"). I largely agree. We all know what they think: they don't want Scotland to leave the UK. But over the few days since Cameron's rather sudden first mention of the UK government's intervention, made in the wake of his deputy apparent assertion that those who wanted either independence or the status quo were extremists, there have been a number of changes in tone. 


And as James points out, there is obvious difficulty from a PR point of view, in holding a consultation and then ignoring the results of it. 


Who knows if, or how, the UK government will persuade its supporters to complete the consultation giving the Westminster side, but it is certainly important that those of us who feel differently from the way Cameron would wish us to, do our best to balance the exercise by putting our point of view.


In his post James has generously offered first drafts of his responses to the consultation's questions. (They may be "first drafts" to him; they seemed like carefully honed responses to me.) And he has invited comments from readers.


I think that those of us who want independence for Scotland should take the time to take part in this exercise and the one that the Scottish government will launch. I hope that those of you who have blogs will consider linking to the Scotland Office site.


James has definitely come up with good stuff (far better than I'd have done) and my responses will certainly be influenced by his.


****

For those who are interested and who missed the broadcast. Mr Salmond was interviewed by James Naughtie  for the Today Programme this morning (Thursday, January 12) at approximately 7.50.


In the interview, which, as ever, he handled in the Alex Salmond way, courteously and intelligently, putting his point of view and never being flustered by Naughtie, he pointed out again that the SNP were campaigning for independence, but that he realised (as do we all) that there is a strong level of support for 'devo max' among the Scottish people. 


He said that the referendum would contain a yes or no option on independence, as has always been promised and as is demanded by Westminster, but did not rule out the possibility that it might contain another question relating to 'devo-max', if that was shown, by the Scottish Government's consultation, and in parliament, to have strong support.


****
I'd also like to draw you attention to an article at Lalland's Peat Worrier, and most particularly to a response from Peter Thomson, part of which reads:

".....In international law (which trumps Westminster) the sovereign people of Scotland have the legal right guaranteed by UN Charters, Helsinki Accords and the Treaty of Vienna to hold a referendum on the issue of independence. 

Further the UN legislation states the power from which the other is seceding can have no role in the organisation of or campaigning in the said referendum....."


I wonder if anyone has any thoughts on the legal legitimacy of this point of view? I can imagine condition's like these being put in place to protect citizens in a union where dirty tricks could reasonably be expected to be the order of the day. But if they do exist, they must surely be equally binding on a liberal democracy such as the UK...

THANK YOU VERY MUCH

ON behalf of Munguin and me, I'd like to say thank you to all the people who voted for the blog on the Total Politics list.

We are really pleased to have made so many friends on line who thought Munguin's Republic worthy of their vote.

Congratulations too to 'Subrosa', up one place from last year at 8, to 'Scot Goes Pop' at number 11, up from 23 last year, and to everyone else who made it into the list.

YOU COULDN'T MAKE THIS LOT UP...

James at Scot Goes Pop is having fun with Labour Hame. (Ye gads, how patronising is that name, especially as it is accompanied by a hideous cheap tartan background.) His posts on the subject all bear the logo on the left.

There are now 3 posts up about it, although if you care to look back on his site he takes quite a few of the articles at Labour Hame to pieces to hilarious effect, stripping them of any dignity they might have thought they had!!

More seriously, and more hilariously at the same time, Labour Hame appears to be run by Kazia Dugdale and Tom Harris two of Scotland's Labour parliamentarians! Sheesh; thank goodness they aren't in power anywhere.

LIBERTY? WHAT'S IT ALL ABOUT?

I’ve always been intrigued by the way that some Libertarians define their so called "liberty", and how the absolute imperative of them being allowed to do what they want is balanced against the fact that it denies that same liberty to other people.

If I were as eloquent as James Kelly, I would have written this article. Instead I suggest you might like to read it in its original form at Scot Goes Pop. It’s exactly what I would have said, if I’d had the wherewithal!!

There is an interesting tailpiece on the Welsh Referendum too, intelligently and amusingly written.

FMQ on SVR by SR

The account of today's First Minister's Questions can be found over at Subrosa's place, and a damned good one it is too.

Warning: This post may cause people to wonder about how much time can be wasted on trivia by highly paid public servants.

Someone told Tavish yesterday that his attack on John Swinney had been statesman-like. (I think it may have been Tavish as he was shaving this morning.) So, he resumed this afternoon where he left off yesterday. A forensic examination of that part of FMQ can he found here at Scot Goes Pop.

Warning: This post may cause uncontrollable mirth.

Pics: Alex Salmond's reaction on hearing that Tavish Scott was out to get him...

WHY DO THEY INSULT US? THINGS THAT IRRITATE

Day 3 of election hell........and according to a Yougov poll 43% of the population is sick to the back teeth of the whole thing already. It dominates the news as they all fight to get as much air time as possible, because it’s all a “party political broadcast” for them.

Needless to say this airtime is spread among the “3 main parties”... by which I mean the "3 main ENGLISH parties”, because in Wales Plaid is a main party, forming part of the coalition government of the country, and in Scotland the SNP is the party of government.

Out of the entire world it could only be in Wales and Scotland that the party that forms all or part of the government could be considered to be a minority party.

It is such an insult to us and our countries. It’s like Plaid and the SNP were running some little Community Council, organising the Village Fête and the Bring and Buy Sale for the Woman’s Guild, instead of being responsible for most of the things that affect our day to day lives.

When we complain they treat us like disappointed children. ‘Now now, don’t you worry’, they say, ‘we’ll fit your little man in at the end of the news programme, instead of the item about Mrs McTomshie’s cat being stuck up a tree.’

Last night I watched an impressive performance from Cameron. He called members of the public “sir”; he listened to their questions, long winded and boring though they were, with an eager and interested look on his face, then he opened his mouth and told them what they wanted to hear. It bore no resemblance of course to how it will be, but it made them happy.

But it’s an easy job for Cameron.

Brown has an altogether harder job. He has to explain why the country is in this mess under his stewardship. (When you think about it he’s been one hell of an unlucky Prime Minister. Within days of his taking over there were floods and an outbreak of pestilence, and within weeks the bottom had fallen out of the banking system and the economy collapsed.)

Clegg has the easiest job of all. He can make it all up. He knows he won’t have to do it.

Changing tack slightly....Something I wondered as I watched Brown last night, and again as I read this superb piece in Scot Goes Pop this morning: why do they refuse to answer the questions they are asked?

The interviewer asks his question and the politician, disappointed that it’s not to his taste, answers the question he’d hoped for. Clearly I can see that the reason for this obfuscation is that the answer to the question that said politician was asked is one which will embarrass him.

But do they seriously think that we are so incredibly stupid that we don’t see the unsubtle shift from “Wasn’t it rather insulting to business leaders to say that they were led astray by the Tories?” to “I’m glad you asked me that. Low Inncome Tax has always been a top priority of this government....blah”

I find it almost as insulting as my government being ignored as a party in the election. I’d far rather hear someone admit. “Yes. That was a howler. I’m sorry, I shouldn’t have said that.”

It would work for me. What about you?