VISIT FROM THE VICEROY

So, yesterday the ever-inept David Mundell (Fluffy Muddle as Munguin calls him), having accepted an invitation from Trussel Trust, turned up to open their new food bank in Dumfries.

There are so many stories about the bold boy's disastrous day, I don't know where to start.

But I'll direct you to this account of his visit and its background written by the manager of First Base, the independent food bank that operates in the town. I'd urge you to read it. Mark writes very amusingly!

I also urge you to read the "Scottish" Daily Mail's account of the event, which is literally quite unbelievable. 

And if your blood pressure with stand it, some of the comments from their readers. Clearly these people swallow the lies that their chosen newspaper lays out for them on a daily basis. 

Here's an example:

Strange how the SNP take no responsibility as normal. They are the Government here not Tory party. . They have the power in Scotland. This is their core support out their [sic] Everybody's fault in the world apart from themselves. The true face of the nationalists. Bitter angry and full of hate. These people need to take a look as [sic] Ms Sturgeon and Co. That is [sic] any off [sic] them can leave London for 5 minutes and visit their constituency. At least Mr Mundall [sic] has the courage to show his face.

Erm, yes, if only for a few minutes!

The Mail's headline screams that the Scottish Nasty Party (yes, it says that... It's clearly competing to take over where the "Daily Sport" laid off) strikes again.

By the time you get down to the sub headlines (the bullet points for the hard of thinking) it has admitted that it is anti-austerity campaigners who were responsible, although it can't help but add, yet again, for the benefit of the dim, that that includes the SNP. 

I'd take being anti-austerity as a badge of honour, but it seems that being against people starving is a bad thing in the eyes of the good Lord Rothermere's Mail.

The account goes on to say that these activists (again stating that they included SNP people, without saying who else was there) forced him (Fluffy) to flee by the back door. 

But the video shows that what appears to have forced him to leave the place in such a hurry, was a polite question from a lady who was in the building, asking why he had accepted the invitation from Trussel Trust to be involved in this food bank, but had refused a request by First Base to visit their food bank. (See mark's story for all the details.)

According to the Mail Mundell looked visibly shaken. It's not my place to offer advice to the great and the good...or indeed Fluffy... but, if a polite question like that has the effect of visibly shaking you, then maybe politics, or any other job which is public facing, is not for you.

Our own Arbroath was at the event, and has provided Munguin with links to some of the articles that covered the story. She was herself interviewed by numerous organisations including television! 

As she points out in the comments of the last story (linked above), it seems that Mundell is not even the MP for the location of the food bank, and that that may be a protocol faux pas.

Maybe some of you can help in this matter. I've a dim recollection that MPs are not permitted to take part in public affairs in any constituency other than their own, unless invited to do so by the member for that constituency. In the case of ministers (which by default, if not merit, Fluffy is), whose jobs clearly involve national or pan national responsibility, whilst they can appear officially in any constituency, it is considered good manners to get permission from the serving MP and to invite him or her to join them at the event.

It would be interesting to know if that's true or it I dreamed it. And of course, if the MP was invited to come along...

Oh, and it's worth noting that in Mark's story he points out that there was a spread laid on for the people at the launch. 

How ironic is that? 

Can't help feeling that a food bank should have been saving every bit of it food for people who needed it, not for overpaid MPs and thier retinues, with ministerial salaries and expenses to keep them in ice cream.

Incidentally, for those of you who didn't read the whole of Mark Frankland's article, he goes on to talk about the perilous financial state of First Base.

In order to survive it needs another £15,000 before January, and it has no obvious way of raising that money.  So Mark, who is, as well as being a food bank manager, an author, has written a novel "The Great Food Bank Siege" which will be published on Amazon Kindle in a few weeks time at the price of £2,99 to raise some money.

Munguin will be buying a copy!

++++++++++++++++++
Terrifying mob of middle aged people shouting "shame on you", and plenty of police to keep them away from the sainted viceroy.

Workers hit out at Stirling Council's 'bully boy' tactics as they are told work longer for less.. or be sacked

THE Labour-run authority sent letters to their staff requesting they accept a pay cut and an extra hour's work a week or face redundancy in November.

A LABOUR-RUN council have been accused of acting like “bullies” after threatening to sack all staff unless they agree to poorer pay and conditions.

Stirling Council workers staged a one-day strike yesterday after the local authority tried to scare them into taking a pay cut and working a longer week.

The council, run by a Labour–Tory ­coalition, have proposed a 0.5 per cent pay cut across the board and an additional hour of work per week.

But Unison say it’s a 1.5 per cent pay cut compared to council staff in the rest of Scotland, who narrowly accepted a one per cent pay rise.

And they say the extra hours add up to 7.5 days of work a year – meaning workers have to swallow an effective pay cut of 4.5 per cent.

Last week, staff were sent a letter by chief executive Bob Jack demanding they accept the new pay and conditions or find a job elsewhere.

The letter, sent to all 3000 employees, said: “If you do not accept the council’s offer of employment under the enclosed statement of particulars, the council gives you formal notice that your employment will terminate with effect from November 15, 2013.”

The council claim that 40 per cent of staff have signed the forms.

Unison Stirling branch secretary James Douglas said he was consulting lawyers about whether the move was legal.

He added: “In my view, this is bullying and harassment trying to intimidate people to sign up. Some people have accepted the terms and they have told me they did that because they were frightened.

“I have been a Labour member all my life and to see the party involved in this type of practice is ­disappointing to say the least.”

Labour and the Conservatives took control of the council last year, despite the SNP being the largest overall party.

When the Record attempted to contact the Labour leader of the council, Johanna Boyd, Stirling Council’s press office released a statement in the name of chief executive Jack.

He said that because of a cut in funding in real terms from the Scottish Government, along with a council tax freeze, the authority need to find savings of £24 million to balance their budget and the changes would save £2.5million.

Jack demanded proof from the unions that their members had been bullied into signing but had received nothing.

Employees on the two lowest grades, he added, would see an increase in pay following the implementation of the Living Wage at £7.50 an hour.

The SNP’s Stirling MSP Bruce Crawford said: “With only four Tory councillors, it’s clear this coalition is Labour doing their dirty work for them, abandoning all principles the party once had.”

Scots Labour leader Johann Lamont declined to comment. A party spokesman blamed “an underfunded SNP council tax freeze”.

He added: “They took Tory cuts, doubled them and passed them to councils.”

Tris's addition: 

Got any figures to prove that Mr or Ms annon party spokesman? Took the cuts and doubled them? Come on, explain where that calculation comes form?

Maybe if the council had tried cutting out some of the fringes...the celebrations, free bars,  etc. it would have done better.

We take the Tory cuts, you thicko, because there is no choice. They don't negotiate cuts with us; they enforce them upon us. We are trying to keep tax down on people who simply cannot afford to pay it. If councils act responsibly they CAN manage. They simply have to cut out the frills. There are no frills under the Tories. Get rid of the cars, the expenses, the fat salaries at the top, the first class travel...

As for Ms Lamont not being available for comment, isn't it high time she was? Has Ed told her to stay hidden lest she say something vaguely socialist, that might damage his chances with the south east voters?

In my opinion she should encourage the workers to go on strike. It's legitimate, it seems to me.  With inflation for essentials at over 10%, a 4%+ drop in wages is an outrage. To hell with Stirling Council ,guys. Strike. And yes, I'd say that if it were an SNP council too.

ENGLAND AND SCOTLAND MOVING IN DIFFERENT DIRECTIONS

There’s a good piece over in the Caledonian Mercury written by Hamish Macdonell highlighting the increasing differences between the fundamental principles of the governments in Scotland and England.

I won’t repeat all the arguments here, but Mr Macdonell makes some good points.

In England the whole basis of public life is being changed by a reforming government. Along with the cuts which we know are coming in October, are complete changes in the way that things will be done. Schools will be free to opt out of council control; people will be able to set up their own schools. Of course most of the money for these schools will still come from the government in some form and therefore the targets are likely to remain and the rush for exam results as opposed to education will be unlikely to disappear. Heath will become more and more a matter for private companies bidding for contracts to treat NHS patients, and a full internal market is the aim.

In Scotland there is no enthusiasm for this level of free market intervention in public services. Unsurprisingly I am in agreement with that. There are some services that can be provided reasonably by private enterprise or left to the charitable sector, but only the ones that people do not absolutely depend upon. Private bus services in my home town, for example, are a complete shambles with the company doing what it wants, cutting services and running others willy nilly with no information available, even to their own staff about what they are doing. But buses, while vitally important to some people, are rarely a matter of life and death. Far from perfect though NHSS is, I know I can get treatment, free, when I need it. On the other hand, for no apparent reason other than the company’s greed, my private dental insurance has doubled over the last 5 years!!

However, the cuts are coming, whether we like it or not. Scotland may run its own affairs in matters of health and education, but it does not run its own budget. It must depend upon the London government for the grant to run these services, and the money given can only be a percentage of what the English spend on their services. And so if there is a 25% cut in the English services because that is the policy of the de facto English government... then the Scottish government will have a corresponding reduction in funds regardless of its policies and its public’s wishes.

Mr Macdonell’s article points out that Labour (as usual) opposes the SNP policies (their default position) but also opposes the cuts in services of the Tory government. (They oppose magnificently and at great length don’t they?)

The Liberals are between a rock and a hard place. They know that by and large Scots are unenthusiastic about the Tory cuts, but they have to do what they are told by London, and now they have ministers in London, so they are saying nothing. Clearly the Tories are behind all the cuts and the privatizations, but they are few and are unlikely to form the next government.

So the SNP has made its position clear, but Labour is just opposed to everything, everywhere, forever, end of story! So if they form the next government in Scotland it’s anyone’s guess what will happen.

It will be interesting to see how this pans out over the next few years, but clearly some new form of devolution and financial agreement will have to be found, so that Scots who didn’t vote for these cuts will have their democratically expressed wishes granted.