COME ALONG AND FILL THE HILL.

Wasted on wars and unemployment while Norway invested in infrastructure, jobs and education

£1.9 billion; thats 6% +/- our total budget at the moment...and that would be extra.

Denmark joins Iceland in its acceptance of Scotland

Name me an actual FACT that they have used, if you disagree

I bet Cameron was thinking..."I wish I'd brought my union flag. Why does Salmond always outthink me?"

Pretty , not. The Brit "loyalists" of whom Brits everywhere should be ashamed. The YES campaign by comparison want to press their case with logic, not hatred.

Et cette affaire est reproduit dans d'autres régions de l'UE. Nous ne sommes pas seuls. Vive une Ecosse libre.

Useful answers for doubters. This time the truth, not from Project Fear

Just like the bedroom tax, Scots have opposed the privatisation of the Post Office, but of course no one gives a toss what we think, when there is money to be made for the Friends of the Tories and their lap dogs.

You should... no MUST...read the Rev Stu's take on this nonsense. Labour's policy is its usual half thought out  hair brained, moronic  fail.

This surge in English national awareness is a good thing. Clearly the devolution settlement was unfair from the point of view of "West Lothian". The English should  remember, though, that  THEY call the tune on anything that is not devolved, and until 1999, for nearly 300 years, on everything! However, when national identity gets out of the bag, it's hard to put it back, and this is a game changer.

LABOUR OR TORIES... SAME MUCK, DIFFERENT PAIL

I was reading an article in the New Statesman about how Labour is trying to out-Tory the Tories on the benefits cap (something that really doesn't affect Scotland at all, but, because of massive rents in some parts of the south east of England [you can pay £18,000 for a very modest hovel in a bad area], is a red hot topic there).

The article is interesting and I have provided a link, but what I thought was interesting was this comment from a correspondent, a retired man who goes by by the nom de plume "Terryec".

I have reproduced it here, without his permission, but in the hopes that he won't mind.  It seems to sum up what I hear from a some ex-Labour supporters here, around town and at the gym.

I am an old socialist and make no apologies for that, I believe we pay our taxes and NI for a reason, and that is to protect ourselves and others who fall on bad times, I was lucky in life not to have any disabilities, bad illnesses or long stretches of unemployment, I am now retired and have a decent if not luxurious lifestyle.

I have seen the standard of living since just after the last world war improve greatly until about twenty years ago when salary caps and cutbacks have become the norm for all but the wealthy industrialists and bankers, very few have a better standard of living than they did in 2001 even after the so called boom years and a so called Labour party.

Labour has now become so far removed from the problems of the working class that they feel it is legitimate to allow the rich to avoid taxes while hitting those that need to rely on the state, don't misunderstand me If you can work it is beholden to you to work.

Last week we had a Labour MP (WTF) Danczuc felt it was OK for a Tory proposal to stop benefits for a further week on people who lose their job bringing them up to 4 weeks without money, I could get by on that as could Danczuc, who gets £1000 a day advising PFI companies, and you wonder why these companies got a grip during the Labour years, but people who get next to nothing can't, how out of touch is that from a "LABOUR", I said a "LABOUR" MP

And this is what we have, as soon as they join the Westminster bubble they forget why people voted for them, it seems it becomes a scramble for as many paid consultancies as they can muster and become different people, what’s the answer, but I do know a lot of people won't be voting Labour again.

I also thought that this was an interesting article from the same magazine.

Iain Duncan Smith's plans will probably not only not save money, but they will COST money whilst making life immeasurably harder and more miserable for poorer people.

All this from a man who lied on his cv about having been to a prestigious Italian university, founded by the Pope in 1308, and having graduated from a management college in England, when in fact, he went to a foreign language college in Italy (a bit like EFOL course here) from which he gained no qualifications and did not even finish his exams, and he attended, as part of his job, a few short course at his employer's staff training department. (Acknowledgement to BBC Newsnight)

Additional Photograph

Found on Facebook with the caption: IDS with his medals for lying

AHHHHHHH......ISN'T DEMOCRACY WONDERFUL?

There is to be an election on Tuesday. Yes, Tuesday, not Thursday.

Now there's a break with tradition. Never let it be said that the UK is so steeped in the past that it won't try something new.

There is, it appears, due to the sad death of Lord Reay (pronounced Ray) the Caithness peer and head of the Clan Mackay, a vacancy in that most august of chambers, the House of Lords.  Reay was a Conservative peer, elected to be one of the 92 proper aristocrats allowed to stay in the House after Tony Blair's half arsed, unfinished reforms of 1999. 

According to the law, upon the death of one of their number, the remaining 91 vote to elect a successor from the hereditaries who are now unrepresented in the House, having been replaced by political placemen. 

Unfortunately then, neither you nor I can take part in this election for someone who will take a seat in our parliament.... 

Often these peers are little known nonentities and their deaths and the subsequent election of a replacement recipient of the taxpayers' largess that accompanies these posts, goes pretty much unnoticed by the public at large.

The only reason this particular election came to my attention was that one of the frontrunners for the £300 a day tax free perk, is the Noble Viscount Hailsham, appropriately otherwise named Douglas Hogg. I say appropriately named, because when our Douglas was a mere MP he had his snout well and truly in the trough. 

He was the fellow who thought it reasonable for us to clean his castle moat...the cleanliness of the aforementioned waterway being essential, apparently, to his carrying out his parliamentary duties as per the rules. (Well, I mean, a chap can hardly be expected to keep his mind on affairs of state if his moat is clamming like a council estate drain, can he?)

There is a tradition (how quickly the Brits establish "tradition") that only peers belonging to the same party as the deceased nobleman should stand for election. However, in a daring break with this tradition of at least 13 years, Liberal Democrat peers in need to £300 a day are standing too. They are joined by a crossbencher or two and a Ukipper who goes by the name of John David Clotworthy Whyte-Melville Foster Skeffington, 14th Viscount Massereene and 7th Viscount Ferrard. Yes, Clotworthy...you couldn't make it up, could you? Full list of hopefuls here just for a laugh.

It is thought, however, that these upstarts will be ignored by their peers and either Lord Hail(No)Shame or another Tory, this time a mere baron (and a man who made his money in custard...trade), Lord Borwick, will be elected.

The Hogg had his snout removed from the trough after the scandal of his expenses, and paid back over £2,000 to the taxpayer. He decided (or was advised) not to stand with an electorate of ordinary people who don't have moats and wouldn't understand how important, nay essential, it is to keep them clean.

He is reckoned to have more of a chance among people of his own kind, who doubtless have a better understanding of the expenses involved in being a toff, although this will be his third attempt to get into the
old boys' retirement home. 

He was nominated as a life peer by the airbrushed Eton Boy/Lizard (above) who had persuaded him not to stand for election to the Commons, because of the baggage he carried, in what I guess was a quid pro quo. (After all, if a chap went to the same school and up to the same university, he can't be too bad, no matter how he gets his waterworks cleaned. What!) 

Strangely this appointment was not approved. (Maybe the Queen doesn't like him, or maybe the sneaky Cameron went back on his word.) He also stood in an election following the death of Earl Ferres and was unsuccessful. Wasn't that a shame.

Still, Buggins turn, don't ya know!

I wonder how many days he will have to attend before he can get the peasant from the village with his fishing nets to come and get rid of the slime.

FOXY SAYS...

From the Daily Mirror I thought this was pretty funny and worth a read, even if it has lost its topicality now.

Dear MPs,

How are you? What’s it like up there? I do hope the cuckoos and clouds aren’t bothering you too much.

Down here on Planet Earth things are a bit different. Everyone has less money than they used to, will be working for longer, and all our services – health, schools, roads, councils – are being cut back.

It’s generally accepted that we are, in fact, on our arse.

It has now come to our attention that you have been recommended for a pay rise. Not the 1% which is the most any other public servant could expect (and most of them get nothing), but 10%.

This would be offset, very slightly, by a reduction in the golden goodbyes you get when booted out of office so they are in line with what mortals receive, a downgrading of your platinum-coated pension scheme and stricter rules about free dinners.

All this has been recommended by the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority that was set up in the wake of the expenses scandal of 2009.

You remember, that time when you all looked really bad.

Now, the Prime Minister says the pay rise is ‘unthinkable’, Nick Clegg says he won’t accept it, and Ed Miliband says it should be no more than 1%.

Funnily enough none of them have called for a vote on the issue, or ordered their MPs to refuse it.

Some MPs have insisted they should be paid more than their current £66,396, others think it’s electoral suicide, and no f***er has mentioned the fact you had a pay rise only three months ago.

As your employer, it falls to us to decide your pay. Allow me to explain our thinking:

* Your existing pay puts you in the top 3% of earners in the UK. This means 60million people would describe it as ‘a shitload’. If ‘a shitload’ is not enough for you, you might want to try the belt-tightening you have recommended for the rest of us.

* Last month the 2:1 history graduate in charge of the nation’s purse-strings capped pay for public servants at 1%. He said automatic rises were ‘antiquated… deeply unfair… the private sector has to pay for it.’ If that applies to teachers, nurses, police officers and prison staff then it also applies to you.

* You would merit a similar 1% pay rise if you were doing a good job of steering the ship of state through choppy waters. Instead you behave like a bunch of argumentative teenaged drunks with the munchies driving a clown car through a minefield, while ignoring the 62million people on board all screaming at you to stop.

* It is part of your role to promote democracy and uphold the rule of law. In recent weeks you have threatened to pull out of the European Convention on Human Rights, which was drafted by Churchill and largely based on British law, failed to deport a hate preacher who left of his own accord after being invited to stay here by Michael Howard in 1994 (advised at the time by one David William Donald Cameron),welcomed a military coup in Egypt and shown yourselves, regardless of party, to be up for sale to whoever wants to purchase your tainted souls.

On top of this you have such a reputation for corruption and venality that only 65% of us could be bothered to not really vote for anyone at the last election.

* It is also your job to pass the laws which we, your employer, would like to see enacted. The idea of gay marriage enjoys greater public support than a single politician, yet still you argue over it. Most of us have no wish to penalise the disabled or their carers by whose devotion the nation saves, for each, £5,000-a-week in health costs, yet still you do so. Most of us want to know what Prince Charles thinks and keep a rough eye on the Queen’s spending, yet you pass laws that say we cannot.

* Everyone else who has to work after 7.30pm buys their own sandwiches. You can do the same.

* To claim that losing automatic payments of up to £65,000 is a cutback is somewhat cheeky, seeing as it is merely being cut back from ‘excessively disgusting’ to ‘standard for everyone else who loses their job’.

* Furthermore, with a pension scheme that has 29% contributions from the taxpayer compared to 14% for the rest of the public sector, it can probably stand a little trimming without losing any of its soft and privileged belly fat.

* Many of you moonlight. This is not on.

* Finally, your ‘independent’ standards body was set up by MPs, consists of people employed by MPs, and has its budget set by MPs. The MPs are in turn overseen by the Speaker of the House of Commons, who is also an MP. It is about as independent as David Cameron’s thought patterns.

All in all your performance is not what it could be, and you are subject to a personnel appraisal just once every five years. No matter how appalling you are at your job, you generally lose it only if your line manager is more unpopular than the other line managers.

In short you have a fairly cushy job and to complain you might lose the associated free dinners is, frankly, insulting.

There is an argument that we would have better politicians if we paid you more. Seeing as enriching you by means of an enormous salary, generous pension and a free house has not achieved this, it is difficult to see how extra cash would help.

We do however need politicians, so here are a few suggestions for your future pay and conditions which, if agreed, could bring you year-on-year salary increases.

* Sleep in a dormitory like every other public servant who has to live away from home. You expect the military, nurses, doctors and care workers to do the same; perhaps if you have to endure state housing you would ensure it wasn’t a death trap. We’d call yours The Ivory Tower.

*A salary, pension and redundancy package which is precisely the same as the national average. If you want this to improve, you will need to raise the national standard of living which is what we voted you in to do in the first place.

* Commit to a yearly public meeting with your constituents, open primaries so that anyone of merit can be selected as a party candidate without the need for financial backing from their own pockets or those of a union, and give voters the power to recall MPs when they have been disgraced. This would finally end the outrage of a politician being booted, resigning or losing the whip but clinging on to their MPs’ perks for years to protect their party from a by-election. Patrick Mercer, Tom Watson, Mike Hancock , I am looking at you.

* You would be expected to work for a rise in voter turnout, have holidays reduced to six weeks a year, take on no other employment, and spend one day a month doing community work in your constituency in order to keep your feet on the ground. Food bank, picking up litter, teaching assistant – we don’t care what, so long as you talk to actual human beings whose lives are different to yours.

Of course like every other public servant if you do not accept your employers’ pay offer you have the right to either go on strike or seek better-paid work in the private sector.

We look forward to you either manning the braziers or trying to get proper jobs. Some of you are entirely unqualified – the Chancellor used to fold towels, the Prime Minister was a PR man, Clegg used to lobby for Libya and Miliband’s never done anything else.

Still, with a skill set which includes avoidance, evasion, immorality, blatant criminality, and hypocrisy there should be a role for you in the financial industry.

We hope that you see sense, and as IPSA are asking for public feedback on their suggestions through their website, Twitter and by email at mppayandpension@parliamentarystandards.org.uk you can rest assured that we will be urging them to do the same.

Otherwise, there is a strong chance of a lynch mob marching on Parliament armed to the teeth with rotten vegetables if you continue on your present course of snuffling right down to the bottom of the trough.

Yours sincerely,

Foxy

THE POSTAL SERVICE WILL BE AT RISK IN AN INDEPENDENT SCOTLAND, SAYS CABLE

"77% of Scots are opposed to the privatisation of Royal Mail- more than any other part of the UK. 

"Vince Cable has spouted nonsense about independence being a threat to post offices, yet Scotland could be losing their post offices due to a UK government they did not elect. 

"Only with independence can Scotland be assured of a mail service that meets the needs of Scotland and our communities rather than the money men of London."

Liberty Ecosse

If they want to sell something off, why not something we don't need... like most of the BBC for example? There are a number of potentially profitable tv stations with  even more radio stations which provide what is relatively "populist" programming, which could easily be run by the private sector.

On the other hand we actually need a functioning post office

AND WHAT OF THE ENGLISH QUESTION...?

Iain Macwhirter

This is a well thought out piece by Iain Macwhirter about the new plans for an "English Parliament" within the UK parliament in an attempt to deal with the West Lothian question and the recent stirring of English sentiment.

At first glance of course, it makes a lot of sense that, if English MPs cannot have a say on Scottish education, health, law and order, etc, etc, why on Earth would Scottish MPs be allowed a say on English education, health, law and order, etc.  The current system is an insult. (However, as Iain points out, pre-1999, when everything was decided in Westminster, many laws were forced on Scotland by English MPs who had no interest in Scottish Law.

As Iain points out there is more to it than that. And his piece shows once again why we are would be so much better as two friendly nations enjoying good relations but with separate government in the style of Scandinavia. We are quite simply too different to be one country.

An English grand committee/parliament dominated by Conservatives, could overrule a Labour UK administration, dependent for its votes on Scottish and Welsh MPs, rendering a Labour manifesto even more of a piece of fiction than at present.

At present Scottish MPs can, as with Welsh and Irish MPs, vote on every matter. In fact all SNP MPs only vote when finances which translate to Barnett Consequentials are involved. Other parties may vote on more. I have no idea. 

An obvious problem about removing this right is that Scots MPs would no longer have any say in the amount of money being spent in England (not their business), but by consequence, how much was to be given to Scotland.

Of course it would also make a two-tier parliamentary system with some MPs entitled to vote on everything and some not. Surely that would, or should, involve a different set of terms and conditions, salary and status.

Of course the whole thing has been a dog's dinner since it was set up with the express intent of making the Scottish and Welsh parliaments "parish councils" (as Blair described them) with puppet leaders, chosen by Blair leading a perpetually Labour led administration.

There are those who would say that Blair (or indeed the Conservatives) would not tolerate an English parliament because it would greatly reduce the power of the prime minister and Cabinet. Shuffling off unimportant matters to Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast was one thing...who cared about them, but to lose power over the English health service, English education or indeed law and order, was unthinkable and would leave the UK prime minister with less authority than the English first minister. 

There should always have been an English parliament and the funding mechanisms should have been changed from Barnett, to tax and spend within the nations, with a Federal parliament, of greatly reduced size, making decisions on matters not devolved. It would have been the perfect time to abandon the anachronistic house of aristocrats and replace it with a senate with elected members form the 4 "countries". Probably 50 members in total would have been all that was required.

I accept of course that the different status of the nations in the late 90s would have presented problems... with Wales not having a legal system of its own, and Northern Ireland being a province, rather than a country, and sharing some of its laws with the Republic. But more work should have been done on this before the flawed legislation was enacted.

After reading Iain's piece I am even more convinced of the need for us to be two, or possibly more, separate nations.

MPs LIKELY TO RECEIVE 12%, (£10,000) A YEAR PAY RISE

I know Vince is a boring old windbag, but at least knowing the cameras were likely to catch you, specially as you are dressed like warning flares and we couldnt miss you, you'd think you could have stopped playing on the phones for the duration. Like, I mean, you ARE at work!

I'd like to be the first to congratulate the MPs on their massive pay increase, expected to be announced in the near future.

It must be nice for them to be able to sit there in the House of Commons (knowing that in a few years it will be renovated at the cost of something like £2 billion), playing on their phones (check out the two women sitting behind Vince, dressed as if they were off to a garden party (left), and to Tescos (right), paying not a blind bit of attention to what is going on in the House (ie their job, for which they get paid) and knowing that to hell with everyone else who works in the public sector, they are going to get a 12% increase.

Now, for the first time this is NOT at their behest. The right to set their own salaries and pension was taken away from them after they were found to have among their number a very large pack of cheating, thieving, on the make bastards. 

But the Independent Parliamentary Standards Committee which got he job of looking after these matters, appears to think that if they are not awarded this money their will simply steal it. The Ipsa chairman Sir Ian Kennedy insisted there was “never a good time” to deal with the issue and warned that avoiding an increase could create another expenses-style crisis as politicians sought to top up their salaries. He seems to think that they are worth it. This will be a mystery to those of us who are watching the country disappear further and further down the drain. 

And yes, I've read that they will lose a few perks and have some of their fabulous pension rights removed, but there are many other people in the UK who have lost all kinds of perks since the government and the banks brought the country to its knees 5 years ago. How many of them were compensated with a £10,000 a year pay increase?

So, as I say, congratulations. 

Loadsamoney Spiv

But just a wee word of caution. Remember you important people need to work with us ordinary people.  You may find that your pay rises of more than many people earn, and twice what you pay pensioners, three times what you pay the unemployed and the sick, don't go down terribly well with us plebs.

If I were an MP, I'd be looking at listing on my website and in my local paper, the charities that will benefit from this unexpected, and completely undeserved windfall.

I'll be happy to list any here too, if any MP wants to get in touch.

TIME TO SHUT THE PLACE DOWN AND START AGAIN?

According to a story on the BBC website, there are toilets in the House of Lords which require an upgrade because they haven't been improved since the 1990s (how terrible) and the state of them is of concern to members and distinguished visitors. The cost is estimated at around £100,000 of your money and mine.

This is indeed a worry.

After all you would think that the aristocrats and "distinguished visitors" who make use of these facilities, and the staff who maintain them, could manage to keep them in a state which would not be "of concern". You know, most of us manage with the odd wipe around with disinfectant and Flash .... (No pun intended, John Brownlie!).

The inordinate cost is apparently down to the fact that English Heritage lists the Palace of Westminster as a Grade 1 building, with attendant consequences.

This is in addition to the renovations which are required to bring the whole building up to standard, which have been estimated to cost somewhere in the region of £1.5-£2 billion.

If this royal palace is starting to become a massive liability to the people of the UK, then isn't it time that MPs and Peers looked at moving to a building more in keeping with the austerity that the rest of us are obliged to live under, leaving the current building to be made into a museum and for use on state occasions.

In any case, it has always seemed to me to be wrong that the UK parliament is housed in a royal palace within which normal laws do not apply. It adds to the impression these people seem to have of being a bit above the rest of us.

It may, then,  be time for parliamentarians to consider moving to cheaper, more practical accommodation on the outskirts of London, or maybe Birmingham, Liverpool, or why not Newcastle, for day to day work.

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.

THE REAL BENEFIT SCROUNGERS

Den of thieves

They want a 15% pay rise;

They claim for food and drink;

The expect subsidized bars and restaurants;

They claim for travel expenses and spin the system so that they can travel first class, like their backsides were too special for second class travel that most of us use;

They claim for second homes;

They claim for decorating;

They claim for gardening;

They claim for furniture;

They claim for office stationery;

They claim for council tax;

They claim for tv subscriptions and tv licences;

They claim for household bills, including domestic servants;

They will claim for anything they can 

And then they call the unemployed, the old and the sick benefit scroungers.

David Freud, failed merchant banker rewarded with a blue blood transfusion

And their neighbours are just as bad. They manage to avoid paying taxes on their salary by calling expenses, which are paid regardless of any expense involved. And from their number, without ever being elected are chosen ministers of the crown like this piece of garbage, a failed merchant banker who lies through his teeth about benefit fraud in the working classes, insults the very poor by insisting that they beg for food at food banks because he assumes that, like his "noble" colleagues, they will do anything for free food...  but doesn't mention that he sits in a house full of people who take non stop from the state, and in some cases, from anyone else who will offer them any money to subvert the will of parliament.

These people really do make me sick, and although I accept that there are probably some who aren't on the make, I will be damned glad to get rid of all of them. 

Note: I am aware that the Edinburgh parliament is not perfect and that there are benefits there too, and I'm sure people taking every advantage of them. But the conditions were set up by Westminster members, who have or had a sense of entitlement.

I'd be happy to see the subsidies there go too in an independent state.

THE DUBIOUS TAX AFFAIRS OF THE DUCHY OF CORNWALL

If you missed it, Dispatches has an interesting feature on the payment of tax and the Duchy of Cornwall.

Interestingly the programme must have been made before the revelation that Margaret Hodge's family company is perhaps not all it should be, when it comes to tax matters.

Hodge, however, does make a good point that although the Duke of Rothsay pays income tax, it is done so on a voluntary basis. The state has no powers to demand tax from him. No one, she indicates, should pay tax on 'a voluntary basis'. Quite right. There should be rules and they should apply to me and Charles Mountbatten equally... oh, and to Margaret Hodge.

The thrust of the programme is that the duchy pays neither corporation tax nor capital gains tax, and in not doing so has advantage over other commercial entities doing exactly the same thing; that because of this the estate makes a great deal more money than an equivalent that wasn't owned by a royal and that it is all rather 1913 rather than 2013 in its running. A side line in teh programme is that for all the Baron Renfew talks about green this and green that, some of his business affairs don't appear to reflect his stated concerns.

Time the thing was ended and the heir to the throne relied only on the £16 million he gets from the state to run his office.

DON'T LET THEM DO IT AGAIN

*Click to enlarge

Well, that worked marvellously well for us, that 1979 thing. Listen to another Eton Tory Boy, Earl Home, Sir Alec Douglas Home, Lord Home, or whatever, when he promised us more... Of course we didn't actually say no, we said yes, but we hadn't counted on perfidious unionists wanting to count the dead and the uninterested as being on their side. (For further information on this count through the cemeteries see here.)

So they did all the above to us and a very great deal more.

We got 18 years of Tory rule that we didn't vote for and that devastated our country, threw our people on scrap heaps and destroyed communities across the country from one side to the other and from islands to borders. 

1979

Then we got Tory light for a further 13 years, and although a few things got better, not much did. And even when it did, it wasn't much better. Then, when the south of England tired of the New Labour experiment, we got Old Etonians running the place again. Sod all to do with us, of course. We voted the way we had been voting for years.

Now we have Nigel Farage's Ukip showing the way to the Tories, scared stiff that the colonels and their memsahibs in the shires are getting sick of wishy washy Cameron.

The Labour Party, having elected Red Ed as their leader, are going out of their way to show the City and the South East that, in fact, they can be just as heartless as uncaring as the Tories.

The Liberals...oh dear, what can you say. By the next election I reckon that they will have more or less disappeared; at least no one will take them seriously, unless, of course, they need a half dozen extra members who will sell their principles for a redbox between them at the next election.

Labour promises more devolution if we just say no. They won't say what that "more" is, because they know perfectly well what the situation is. There can be no more significant devolution unless the English agree to it...and clearly they won't. Anything that will advantage Scotland will disadvantage England, and turkeys don't vote much for Thanksgiving or Christmas.

The Tories have set up a commission under some hereditary lord, which guarantees, of course, that it will be totally in touch with the needs and desires of Mrs McTumshie down the road there... Well it might have more of a chance of being, if only it would meet. But what seems like about a year after it was announced, it hasn't. Thomas Galloway Dunlop du Roy de Blicquy Galbraith, 2nd Baron Strathclyde, CH, PC,  for I think it is he who is to chair it, appears to have other, more important things to do.

The Liberals seem to have had convention after convention, headed by every well known Liberal Scot there is...Steele, Campbell. I'm expecting Joe Grimond to be asked to rise from the dead to chair yet another one any day now...except of course it doesn't much matter what they think. They won't have the power to institute it.

As arch unionist Andrew Neil said, if we say no this time, not only will they not give us anything; they will probably attempt to take things away.

In theory, of course, the powers handed to Edinburgh in 1999 were done so on the back of a referendum, and it would seem unlikely that they could be easily taken back, but never ever underestimate the perfidy of a nation which has no constitution and makes things up as they go along to suit the elite. They aren't called the Perfidious Albion for nothing.

I'm just hoping that we don't give them the opportunity to try it.

"YOUR TIME HAS COME , DARLING"

By Allan Grogan

Twa Rich Embra Lawyers

Going against the grain can be a daunting, yet sometimes, uplifting experience. But in politics it is often viewed as an ink blot on your copybook – by both sides. Disagreeing with the Labour Party in its opposition to independence and founding Labour for Independence guaranteed an uncomfortable ride. Suspicion among some Nationalists as to our intentions was to be expected. But it has been closer to home where we have faced our harshest critics.

Labelled a front for the SNP by no less a figure than our Deputy Scottish Leader Anas Sarwar, we at Scottish Labour for Independence (SLFI) have taken these accusations on the chin while insisting that independence will not only be good for Scotland, but for the Labour Party too.

Funnily enough, we never attended an SNP conference, meeting or social event. So it came as some surprise to me when I read that our former Chancellor, eminent Labour politician and Chairman of the Better Together campaign, Alistair Darling, was to appear at the Scottish Conservative conference in Stirling.

If nothing else comes from this referendum, surely this indicates a seismic shift within the Labour Party in Scotland. The sight of a senior Labour politician at a Tory conference must have Keir Hardie, Bevan, Smith and Dewar burling in their graves.

The Labour Party's very foundations are fairness and equality, so in the interests of these values let's ask: If I were to represent SLFI by speaking at the SNP conference, how many of my party members would call for my immediate expulsion?

Other questions about Mr Darling’s curious decision need to be asked. Was our Scottish leader Johann Lamont, for example, aware of this engagement? If so did she try to forbid it?

If the answer is yes, then surely Mr Darling’s actions present a clear and present danger to the Scottish Labour Party.

The truth is that many within Labour are no longer sure where their party lies within the No camp. Was it a voice of protest from within the membership calling for a removal of Labour from Better Together that prompted the creation of United with Labour? If this is the case, then why is Mr Darling still the head of BT? More importantly, why is he given carte blanche to speak at another party's conference?

One Posh Boy from Oxford

I accept that currently SLFI is in a minority within the Labour Party in relation to the referendum. I also concede that when I speak, I do not do so for the Labour Party; I do not have that mandate. But nor does the Labour leadership, because they have acted without a members’ vote on such a crucial issue.

Yet I want to make clear that our issue is not with the Labour Party, the members, supporters and voters... we are still among you. Our battle is against the top brass taking our party to the brink of the abyss in Scotland.

In Westminster we are seeing Labour chase the tail of UKIP and the Tories. The desire to gain election-winning votes in Southern England is causing Labour to be further removed from its values and founding principles. One need only look at Ed Balls for proof of this. Despite demanding a Plan B for three years, he now declares Labour will continue the austerity package. This means further cuts, harder days and nights ahead for the poorest and most vulnerable. Some of the poorest right here in this country.

This is not why I, nor most Labour members in Scotland, joined the party.

Independence is not, of course a silver bullet. There is no magic potion to Scotland's ills. But many a learner driver will tell you that the only way to succeed is to have full control of all the levers of power.

For those within my party who say that a change of government is all that's needed, let me say this: If the imposition of the Bedroom Tax, ATOS deciding disability benefits, and anti -trade union laws, are not enough to convince you Scotland can do better, then the fact that the Labour Party in Westminster either voted for or abstained on these issues surely must.

It occurs to me that the longer Labour for Independence has been in existence the further the UK Labour Party moves to the right. But the more this happens, the more it proves our message to be true. Labour for Independence doesn’t just believe in Labour policy. We believe in what Labour truly stands for. We believe in a vision of a society based on equality, fairness and justice. We believe in a society for all. This vision is not only shared by members of our party but by former members, voters and supporters yet to come.

We are proud of Labour's trade union links, not because they fund us, but of who and what they represent. Most importantly we are proud to support Scottish independence, not as a final destination, but a starting point to a better, fairer and more socially just society.

At the Stirling Conference there were those listening to Mr Darling - and there were many more outside protesting the UK Government’s actions.

Labour for Independence was outside, with the people, where Labour belongs.

  

This is the full version of the extract that appeared in the Daily Record on Saturday 15th June, 2013 and has been lifted by me (Tris) from the Labour for Independence site.