GOOD QUESTION... DON'T BREAK THE LAW, BUT DON'T PAY THE LICENCE FEE. WATCH CATCHUP

Laughable: The British authorities couldn't cope
with more than 3 or 4...But they can elsewhere...
Fortunately for democracy, not everywhere is as crap as the UK
(or as corrupt).

Norway

Netherlands

Sweden

Eire

FOTOS ON FRIDAY AND SOME BONNIE MUSIC

For those of you who missed it on the post a couple of days ago this is an unmissable version of Caledonia. Seriously, give it a listen and a thumbs up if you like it. It is spectacularly beautiful. I want to hear more from these guys. (Sorry, the link is not working any more. As soon as we get it fixed I'll reload it.)

***********
Can I instead direct anyone who has not yet see it, to read the article by Peter Arnott published on Bella Caledonia, and the commentary on it published on Wings. We do need to realise that after 19th September life will change for us, whichever way the vote goes. 

And why would they not? The alternative is permanent Tory rule from the Tories or Labour,
with Ukip in the background pulling the strings.

Maybe we could put a railway in Scotland for the money?

Oh look, the border between Sweden (EU) and Norway (EFTA)
I see no barbed wire. 

Add to that a Foreign Secretary who wants to come out of the EU.

They are going to make you prove that you are mentally ill
before you can get benefits.
This is presumably because most of the prime ministers
and for that matter, ministers, of the last 40 years have been barking
and still drew their salaries.

Well done Dundee and Dundee United

Arranged marriages don't always work

Better Together, without any doubt.

Yes, without any doubt.

Despoilment of Glasgow Green

Go on yersel', Flipper.

I WONDER WHERE SCOTLAND WOULD BE ON THE LIST

Ranking of happiness: Top 20

Denmark

The top five happiest countries in the world were Denmark, Norway, Switzerland, the Netherlands and Sweden, according to the report published by the UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network. Denmark also took top spot last year.

1. Denmark 

2. Norway

3. Switzerland

4. The Netherlands

5. Sweden

6. Canada

7. Finland

8. Austria

9. Iceland

10. Australia

11. Israel

Costa Rica

12. Costa Rica

13. New Zealand

14. United Arab of Emirates

15. Panama

16. Mexico

17. United States

18. Republic of Ireland

Luxembourg

19. Luxembourg

20. Venezuela

Ranking of happiness: Bottom 10

Togo

1. Togo

2. Benin

3. Central African Republic

4. Burundi

5. Rwanda

6. Tanzania

7. Guinea

8. Comoros

9. Syria

Senegal

10. Senegal

A PRETTY SCANDINAVIAN LADY: : A PRATTY ENGLISH MAN

This is how grown up people, mature people, un bitter and twisted people, deal with small nations which exist side by side, there to help each other  share stuff, do-operate with one another, BUT at the end of the day, elect THEIR OWN GOVERNMENTS.

Meet Marit Fält

I am both Swedish and Norwegian - and am proud of being both. Having been brought up on the Norwegian side of the border of these two small, independent nations, I am delighted to live in another small nation on the cusp of the independence. I may not be Scottish, but I have come to call Scotland my home.

There are many benefits of living in a small independent nation. Complete influence over the decision of who rules our country. My vision for Scotland is to have a proportional electoral system which forces consensus in parliament, similar to the Scandinavian model. Scaremongers wax lyrical about the uncertainty of independence. I don't see it this way. No matter what we vote there is going to be uncertainty. For me the key question is who we want making the decision in our main national political forum. This dilemma wouldn't enter my mind in Scandinavia. We represent ourselves, and it seems to work very well.

The other aspect of the Better Together argument which confuses me, is their talk about the "abandonment" of England. Sweden and Norway's separate cultures are flourishing as well as maintaining strong ties. Actually the cultures overlap to the extent that I always shopped in Sweden, all Norwegian children watch Swedish television, and Swedes make up the biggest immigrant group in Norway. This is an easy relationship - building on historical, cultural and family ties. It absolutely is not abandonment. This is working together to help both nations. I hope that Scotland gets the opportunity to build these relationships for herself - in the UK, in the North, in Europe and globally.

Marit Fält

Lifted from National Collective.

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

That said, a little gloat never hurt anyone, especially the Tories. So here are some pics you might like...

Bad headline day, Dave?

You say it's not like Iraq, but then you're a liar.

Unless of course he's standing next to me...

Bad News Dave?

Not used to losing, is he? And hasn't he aged?

DOES WEE WILLIE KNOW WHAT HE IS DOING?

ACCORDING to the BBC's Today Programme, the Foreign Office has told Ecuador that Britain has the right, under legislation passed in the 1980s for a one-off purpose only,  and unknown to any of the interviewees on the programme (including the ex ambassador to Moscow), to remove diplomatic status from their London embassy, enter it by force, and arrest Mr Assange.

It is certainly true that Mr Assange is on the run from the English police, having broken the conditions of his bail and "gone abroad" as it were, and that that makes him a criminal in English law. But I wonder if Willie Hague is quite aware of the gravity of what he is considering.

According to the international Conventions on Diplomatic Relations, diplomatic missions are considered to be a part of the territory of a foreign state and cannot be violated by the host state for (almost) any reason.

It seems that Britain, quite rightly in my opinion, introduced law at the time of the siege in the Libyan mission in London, which allowed the SAS to storm the building after Yvonne Fletcher was shot from its windows. That was, however, an example of an embassy building being used for something well out-with the terms of the convention, and thus, arguably, the action was justified.

However, to use it in a situation where someone has sought refuge from what they perceive to be a political use of extradition is surely a error of monumental proportions.

My understanding of the reason that Sweden wishes to charge Assange is that he  allegedly had consensual sex with a Swedish woman, which, at some point became non-consensual, and that this may have involved the use or otherwise of condoms. In any case, it is doubtful that this would be considered a crime in the UK, and it is a question of one persons word against that of another (there only being two people involved in the sex).

Assange fears that he will be further extradited from Sweden to the USA where the authorities want to talk to him about leaking a fair few of their (and the UK's) dirty and embarrassing little secrets.

Whatever the truth of all that is, and aware as I am that everyone who is anyone in London is now on in Tuscany, Monte Carlo or aboard the yachts of Russian oligarchs, I can't imagine that Hague hasn't been briefed that if he does violate the Ecuadorian Embassy, no British diplomat will ever able to do his job again and certainly none will ever be safe again. 

The problem now, it seems to me, is that having indicated that they can do it, it will look like a climb down if Ecuador do not give the man up and the English police do not carry out the FO threat.

Another cock up?

UNTIL WE CLOSE THE INCOME GAP WE WILL NEVER PROGRESS

I was reading an excellent article yesterday on Newsnet Scotland about the state of the Scottish branch of Labour (or is it still New Labour?). It’s well worth the read for the warning that it gives about how the media can shield Labour from the worst excesses of its incompetence, and how the SNP’s faults are highlighted and its achievements ignored or belittled.

However, I digress.

In the comments beneath the article a contributor highlights an article on universities, their financial problems and the Vice Chancellors’ snouts in trough situation from the Daily Mail...(yes, I know, and the writer, “Spagen” describes the article’s style as the Mail’s “usual shock and awe” style). However, he in his turn, sites a reader’s response to THAT article:

"I teach at a small Swedish university, similar in size to Gloucestershire University. Here, everyone's pay is a matter of public record, and I know that our very eminent "rektor" (vice chancellor) is paid roughly £80,000 a year. Conversely, our neighbour's teenage daughter works as a waitress in a coffee bar and her basic pay is a respectable £18,500 a year. Pay differentials in the UK are verging on the obscene and I can only conclude that the British establishment is intent upon reverting to some kind of feudal society in which the vast majority have to live on the edge of poverty with minimum wage levels, terrible pensions, massive student debts, unaffordable housing etc, while ruled by a tiny, and very affluent and all-powerful elite. Are you prepared to accept this?"- Stu, Laholm, Sweden, 25/3/2011 07:

I hope that neither “Spagen” nor “Stu” will object to my using their contributions. I have long said that the differential in pay from bottom to top in this country is one of the reasons that we are so desperately far behind our competitors.

It produces a widely divided society, one which got markedly worse during 13 years of Labour rule and which is not going to do much narrowing under the Tories.

Our wage differentials say a great deal about us. We appear to value bankers, whom we all detest, about 100 times more favourably than we value our surgeons, who save our lives. We have no problem with the likes of Wayne Rooney or bruce Forsyth earning telephone directory wages while workers in shops and offices subsist.

Stu asks: are you prepared to accept this? I don’t think that what we are prepared to do counts. The people at the top are wont give up anything easily and the people at the bottom have no power. If the unions try to take action, they have been warned that new laws will be brought in to stop them. I'm not sure what else we can reasonably, or at least peacefully, do.

But it almost certainly is our problem, and for sure, no matter what the politicians promise us at election time, life in this country won’t get better until we tackle it.

WIKILEAKS: THE POLL...AND THE FUTURE

I’d like to thank everyone who took part in the poll (which I didn’t really announce, but just stuck there) on whether WikiLeaks were a good or bad thing.

A majority said that they thought a good thing (78% is pretty conclusive). One person could care less... representing 5% of the votes and 3 voted “bad” representing 15%.

I should have introduced the subject in an article, but the idea came to me when there was something else to post... so sorry about that. It may explain the very small number of voters.

I voted good, and I have been fulsome in my praise of Julian Assange. I was disappointed on the day that he gave away details of places, plants, installations, etc, which were vital to security and economy of America. That was wrong in my opinion. However, overall I’ve not changed my mind.

I believe that the extradition application is trumped up. They have chosen a “crime” that most people will find distasteful. The US government has cobbled together something too and may also ask for Assange. In theory as Sweden got in first they should have precedence, but as we all know American presidents or secretaries of states only have to make one phone call to overturn British policy on any subject. That reminds me of the minds of Alan Johnston or Vince Cable.

The magistrate who refused his bail despite Assange having gone to the police voluntarily, despite his surety being £100,000, backed by well known people, and despite the prisons being full, says that he fears the man would flee the country. But that’s highly unlikely given that he would be obliged to surrender his passport, and surely the border guards must be aware of Mr Assnage’s face by now.

I suspect that he may be looking for a seat in the House of £300+ a day.

But despite Mr Assange’s custody, the leaks continue. Despite efforts to close the websites and starve the organization of cash, Wikileaks are now mirrored by hundreds of sites all over the world... plus an email, or a letter, to the newspapers covering the story would suffice to continue the leaks. They must all exist in paper form by now....somewhere.

The “Authorities” in the UK and around Europe, not to mention the USA, would do well to tread carefully. They seem to have no idea just how angry people are.

We have been lied to; our troops have been sent on pointless missions where they have died, relatively frequently in “friendly fire” incidents; despite our best efforts we appear to have been thought useless by America and Afghanistan alike.

Our banks have been bailed out with our money, which they are now refusing to use for our good; a few stupid people have ruined people’s lives and made others very much harder; our politicians have been stealing from us, and continue to do so; our government in London has been crawling up America’s backside and doing us down in the process. And now to cap it all we are suffering the worst winter weather in decades, just as fuel companies are lying to us about why they are putting up fuel prices by more than twice the rate of inflation.

No one believes a word any politician says now, and yet the London lot address each other as Honourable, Rt Honourable and bloody Noble when many of them are quite simply the dregs of humanity.

Something has changed, and I don't think it will change back.

Pics: (1) Julian Assange in a nicer place than he is tonight; (2) Wikileaks, our opportunity to see just how much lying they've been doing; (3) One seriously angry group of people done over by their governments and their banks in Eire. It's possibly their standards of living will have to fall as far as parity with the UK's! No wonder they are angry.

Hurrah for strong government: We should be the best run country in the world

David Cameron says that Nick Clegg wants to “hold the country to ransom” over his party’s desire for a proportional voting system. This would lead to a “permanent hung parliament” he said.

The Tories seem to be absolutely determined to push the point that ‘strong’ government is the only form of government the UK can have. Without it we would go belly up. I even heard someone say yesterday, when faced with the fact that Germany has coalition government that they are ‘different’.

Different in what way, I thought. ‘Different’ like Mr Winterton pointed out people who travel ‘First’ were? What absolute rubbish.

Strong government can be a good thing, but not at the price of democracy.

Taken to its obvious conclusion ‘strong’ being equated with ‘good’ government implies that the previous regime in Iraq or the current regimes in Saudi Arabia or China are good. After all they do not come much stronger. Do we think of them as being good? We see that they produce a society with little crime; a society which is regimented and orderly. But is it one any of us would care to live in.

In the past, for as long as I can remember we have had ‘strong’ government. Strong in that it the governing party required no partner to command majority in the House of Commons and a large enough majority to pass their legislation without any help. Strong in that they had a whipping system which meant that even if their own members disliked the legislation, disobedience could mean the end of a promising career, the telling of tales to wives and families and disintegration of family life and perhaps disgrace and humiliation.

Strong in that the revising chamber had very limited powers to interfere with government legislation, and strong in that the head of state had only an advisory role in government. I’ve never known a weak government.

This government was often conducted away from the House of Commons. It was frequently conducted with people who had not been elected; in the ‘kitchen cabinet’ of Margaret Thatcher where decisions were well after midnight in Thatcher’s flat. The same thing with Blair and his mates, often nothing to do with people we’d elected.

So ‘Strong’ government has brought us to where exactly?

Well, roughly speaking, from statistics I’ve seen, or my own experience........we had the deepest recession, and came out of it more slowly than the rest of Europe; we have more criminals and recidivism; we go to war more often; we have among the biggest debts as a government and individually; our children can barely speak English never mind compete with foreign kids who learn 2 or 3 languages; our railways are the most expensive and worst in Europe; our health service is in the bottom half of the European tables; our children are amongst the least happy; our pensioners are amongst the poorest; our roads are the most pot holed; our troops are the worst supplied; we have the most old people’s homes; we have the most teenage pregnancies; we have the biggest drug problem; our houses are the smallest and the most expensive; our dental services are the worst; our petrol is the most expensive; we start paying income tax at around the lowest amount. Our cancer rates are horrific and we produce almost NOTHING

Jeez that’s depressing.

It’s not, in short, done much for us all this strong government. Whereas Germany, Canada, Denmark, Sweden, Finland, etc, etc have coalition, balanced parliaments and........... better lives.

Don’t listen to the scare stories about weak government. It’s all lies. You wouldn’t call Angela Merkel weak would you?


Finnish 'Hung' Parliament Building in Helsinki: Nick Clegg who wants PR.