Thursday, 21 August 2014

FOTOS FOR FRIDAY


Outings for the workers. Labour hasn't changed a bit
On Twitter I asked her if she could account for this. She didn't.
I presume she couldn't.
Well, of course we wanted to gift these millions of pounds to our friends in England.
It's not like we need the money to feed our starving children or anything
NO NO NO, Peter. We are much Better Together.
We're not like ordinary people. We like being poor.
Well, at least they seem to have discovered who Lamont is. That is an improvement.

Yes, she was wrong about everything.
In addition to keeping quiet about half  the establishment apparently
  having very funny tastes in sexual matters.
Never mind though, it's only our lives.
Don't say we didn't tell you
Not looking good for what passes for an ordinary family in D C Thomson
We ignore this at our peril. As I've said before, she knows what she is talking about.
Rule Britannia. It was ever thus.
Over you you Alistair?
Re,mind us how much better it is going to be!
Yes, because like we need this gas to heat our homes, because there's nothing else .
No wind, no waves, no hydro, no oil, no north sea gas.
Oh wait....
All alone, Jim, with your Irn Bru crate?
Watch out for that auld woman you ignored.
She'll take her stick to you and no one will do squat .
I think the public are saying No Thanks to Jim.
More at home with a submarine, before his demotion I suspect
I'm up for giving it a push on it's way.
Think of all these billions of jobs it would bring to London.
Don't ask me...ask Jackie Baillie. She knows about them.

IF YOU ARE FREE ON SATURDAY AT 1...


WASTEMINSTER

Wednesday, 20 August 2014

ALEX SALMOND IN ARBROATH and OUI IN FRANCE

(with thanks to Cynical Highlander)
(with thanks to Bugger le Panda)

Tuesday, 19 August 2014

AND WHAT DO THEY SAY OF THE BARNETT FORMULA?

Written by Steve Asaneilean in answer to a post at Wee Ginger Dug, and reproduced here with his permission.

In case anyone is in any doubt about the Barnett formula, the stated aim of Westminster is to reduce public spending so even if Barnett is retained its value to Scotland must fall if Westminster achieves its stated aims on public spending.

But, despite noises from BT?NT to the contrary, as you point out Nancy there is real doubt that Barnett will survive and its replacement will certainly not be more favourable to Scotland than Barnett. And there are plenty indications out there that all the Westminster parties want to see Barnett chopped as these quotes posted on Wings Over Scotland in February clearly demonstrate (the “best” one being from Joel Barnett himself after whom the formula is named):

David Cameron, Prime Minister “[The Barnett formula] cannot last forever, the time is approaching”

Alistair Carmichael (Liberal Democrat) – “We do want to see Barnett scrapped. We want to see that replaced by what we call a needs based formula.”

Margaret Curran (Labour) – “I do believe that we should allocate public funding on the basis of need and it should not be around just a regional or a national demarcation around that.”

The House of Commons Justice Select Committee – “The Barnett Formula is overdue for reform and lacks any basis in equity or logic. It creates controversy in all of the constituent parts of the UK. There is controversy in England that the Barnett Formula allows for higher levels of public spending in Scotland from the UK Exchequer and does not deal with different needs in different parts of England. We urge the Government to publish its position as a matter of some urgency and to proceed to devise a new formula which is needs based, takes into account regional disparities in England as well as in Scotland and Wales, is transparent and is sufficiently robust to enable long-term planning.”

Local Government Association, England – “Council leaders in England are to campaign for Scotland’s block grant to be cut. Local government chiefs south of the Border say they are envious of the powers and funding given to a devolved Scotland and have revealed they will push for the UK Treasury to scrap the Barnett formula, the system that gives Scotland more per head of UK funds than it does to England and Wales.

The All Party Parliamentary Taxation Group – “The APPTG echoes the findings of the House of Lords Committee on the Barnett Formula in recommending that a shift is required towards a ‘needs-based’ formula, whereby a ‘dynamic’ and ‘simple, clear, and comprehensible’ system is used to allocate resources to the devolved regions ‘based on an explicit assessment of their relative needs’, calculated ‘per head of population’.”

Ruth Davidson, Leader of the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party – “Barnett was only supposed to be temporary… I do think that there will be a review of Barnett after 2014. The ground has shifted since devolution.”

Lord Lang of Monkton – “On the Barnett surplus, everyone knows that the basis of the present distribution of funds is out of date. We know that that, too, created an imbalance that can be put right. A fair-minded Scotland would agree. We need an up-to-date measurement of relative need in Scotland and elsewhere in the United Kingdom.”

The Calman Commission – “The commission has decided major changes need to be made. Significantly, however, experts believe the change will result in a drop in Scotland’s budget – which could lead to cuts in service”.

Lord Joel Barnett, who devised the formula – “It’s quite wrong. It clearly should not be based on per head expenditure but should be based on needs in particular areas. The amount of money going to Scotland on a needs basis by comparison, say with my own North West or the North East, is far higher than it should be, so it should be changed. They'd lose quite a bit in my guess, done on a proper needs basis”.

So what do you think that means for you if we are in the UK? 

Monday, 18 August 2014

QUESTION TO WHICH THE ANSWER IS PROBABLY ALISTAIR DARLING

With apologies to James for using his format of heading.
Imitation is the highest form of flattery, James.

Sunday, 17 August 2014

ARE THE SLAB BIG HITTERS ASHAMED OF THEIR MESSAGE?

I found an interesting article over at the Hootsman. (I know, I know… in itself that is worthy of a post…)

It is a piece, written my Dr Andrew McFadyen who used to work for the Labour Party as a media advisor, and was part of Iain Gray’s team in the last general election. An inside man then and with his doctorate in Labour and Scottish Parliament, possibly a knowledgeable one.

I don’t agree with all that he says, but I base my opinions on observation from afar, and he bases his on actual experience of working with these people and researching at a high level. I accept, therefore, that he knows a deal more about Labour and Labour politicians than I do.  

Anyway, the piece made me think, and that’s never a bad thing, right? So somewhat rambling (and far too long, sorry), this is what it made me think.

He says he has respect for Johann Lamont. Now, I’m sure that Johann is a very nice woman, face to face, but as a party leader and potential first minister, it is hard to see where that respect comes from. But, thinking on, Lamont is a woman who takes orders from a London boss with his own agenda. Even McFadyen admits that the role of overall Scottish leader which Lamont achieved, and Gray never desired but never managed, is truer on paper than in actuality.

He also talks about Labour’s big hitters, and the fact that in the event of a yes vote, they would have to come home and practise politics in Scotland rather than at Westminster. And he names Dougie Alexander, Jim Murphy and Margaret Curran, none of whom I consider to be big hitters.

In fairness though, maybe their lack of ability to get across a message lies in the fact that they really, at heart, don't believe anything they are saying. They are flogging centre right to right wing policies, like benefit caps and austerity for the poor, because they know that it is in the interest of their careers, not of their constituents, and contrary to their political beliefs. Labour is wearing someone else’s clothes and they don’t really suit, or fit. Always an uncomfortable and confidence sapping experience.

But I think the main point he makes is that Labour’s task after the defeat of 2011, the worst showing apparently since the 1920s, was to build a vision “and imaginative agenda” for Scotland,  which he says has given way to “project fear”.

Alistair denied last week that the Better Together, No thanks, NoBorders, UKOK team had ever referred to itself as Project Fear… but we can be pretty certain that it has. And it certainly is.

Initially people like Cameron and Darling tried to impress Scots by talking up the union. 

That’s not a difficult job when you are addressing the massed oligarchs of the City of London but I don't think that Cameron understood that that message isn't universally successful.

Power, prestige, position, military might, closeness to the USA, CLOUT (even imaginary),  went down rather less well in the ordinary streets of Scottish towns, where the number of embassies, consulates, the position of the UK in the G8, UN, Nato and a few hundred other organisations, mean absolutely nothing to the residents. But a lack of childcare, decent facilities, housing, the reduction in tax credits and the high cost of essentials like gas and electricity  means everything.

It must have been apparent pretty quickly that, although there was a certain type of Scot that this would impress, it wasn't a winner with the many who had to be won over.

So they must have searched around for something else that was positive about the union, something that didn't involve faraway places and strange sounding names!

But it was difficult to find anything that would stick. Better Together has to mean something. Why is a person living on minimum wage in a Scottish backstreet, with only JUST enough money to make it to the end of the month (and sometimes not), better together with the UK? Why are people queuing at food banks better with the UK? Why would students be better in the Uk at £9,000 a shout? Why are pensioners on £110 a week, the lowest pension by comparison to wages in the developed world, bar Mexico, better in the Uk? Why is the UK the most unequal society in the EU?

In reality so many of our ordinary people are not Better Together. So what you have to do is imply that it would be even worse if we weren't in the UK. 

And although it has attracted criticism it has worked, at least to an extent. You wouldn't get in the EU (tens of thousands of jobs would disappear; maybe yours). Scotland won’t be able to pay your pensions (you’d starve to death, despite having paid for a pension). There would be a barbed wire border (no problem if you live in Lerwick or Stornaway, but more of an issue if you are in Dumfries and want to see your girlfriend). You won't get Doctor Who or anything else for mm the BBC (a real issue for some). You won't have a currency/will be made to use the Euro, despite being denied EU membership (a real puzzler). You won’t be able to defend yourselves (against what, who, and in any case why not?) The oil is going to run out in 2 years time (in which case the UK should worry, and start asking of it can become the 51st state).

Ridiculous though these claims, and many more like them, are, if all you ever read is the main stream media, then that is what you know. Yes, there’s information out there on blogs like Wings and Scot Goes Pop and Bella and a shed load of others… but many people don’t know where to go for that information, and many don't even know that there IS that information.

So Project Fear, with the compliance of the BBC and the bulk of newspapers, has been much more successful than the real ‘positive’ message for the UK… which is Clout, War, State Dinners, Clout, Embassies, Consulates, War, Big ships, and Nuclear weapons, more CLOUT and the fourth largest spend on military in the world, photo opportunities with President Obama, the City, Loadsamoney, Bombs and even more bloody CLOUT.

How comfortable with that reality is LABOUR?


Well Labour in London has bought into it. They know that it is the message that the rich in the South East want to hear in their masses, and they are the people who can deliver Ed to Downing Street.

But maybe the shaky performances of so-called “big hitters” of Slab, can be attributed to the fact that they know they are talking garbage to the very people who vote for them. Maybe there is some shame there.

I know that some of you have been members of the Labour Party in the past, or worked with some of the people at its head. I'd be interested in your thoughts.

Saturday, 16 August 2014

SOME RANDOM THOUGHTS

According to three senior ex-policemen, the level of policing in England and Wales has fallen dramatically, whilst in Scotland it has risen by over 6% since 2007. The consider that the only way to protect this is to vote YES. So if you're a policeman and you want to go on being a policeman, it might be a good idea to get your cross in the YES box on September 18.
**********
**********
**********

Friday, 15 August 2014

Fotos For Friday...

YOU CAN'T, CAN YOU?
No, don't say clout.
No more?
Gideon and his right hand odd job man Dan.
And of course the other Ed, the one that lost.
So  are you looking for a seat in the Lords?
Companion of Honour? I'm sure Dave will oblige.
Do you have half a million?
They should just call it HM Prison and of course, privatise it.
That's how it works, is it?
Yes, some people remember when Labour was the party of the working man
You were never very good with figures were you?
I mean you managed to be claiming for 2 houses at once and said it was a mistake;
You had to employ tax advisors at our expense to help you avoid tax;
You oversaw the decline of the Uk economy and watched as it nearly crashed.
No wonder you knew sod all about Ireland and Iceland.
IRONY METER BOIIIING!
Most of the country would only be behind you if you
were standing on a cliff.
People all over the country at every age group
have been left behind.
The elderly have been hurt, the frail too and the vulnerable all been punished
for breaking the country's economy.
The poor are poorer and the divide between rich
and poor is heading towards Victorian levels.
What a complete prat you are, you SPIV.

TO BE FAIR, THE SAME QUESTIONS, WORD FOR WORD, AMAZINGLY, SEEM TO HAVE BEEN SENT TO SEVERAL BORDER TORIES, ALBEIT FROM ENTIRELY DIFFERENT PEOPLE


And they said Harry Potter was magical. 

I suspect that when you have been caught out lying, the best thing to do is admit it was a publicity stunt gone horribly wrong and apologise. 

Jeez, not only have these people not heard of the internet, they don't appear to have heard of television, radio or indeed the electric telegraph or ink.
Fortunately someone has taken the time to correct the most idiotic of the statements that Johann Lamont has churned out here. (Nice glasses Johann. They make you look younger and erm... more masculine.)

Thursday, 14 August 2014

SYNCHRONICITY IN THE BORDERS (and other interesting thoughts)

Suggestions that Westminster might take "revenge" on Scotland in the event of a No vote in the referendum are very real, according to one of the leading architects of devolution.

Canon Kenyon Wright, who chaired the Scottish Constitutional Convention which laid the groundwork to set up the Scottish Parliament in 1999, has urged people to vote Yes.

The canon said independence is "the only way left open, to give Scotland power over her own affairs that is both complete and secure", describing promises of further powers from the unionist parties as looking "suspiciously like a rather desperate bribe".

Labour, the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives have all put forward their own proposals for further devolution in the event of a No vote.

Yes campaigners have questioned whether these will be delivered, and have claimed Scotland's budget could be cut in future years.

The retired Episcopalian clergyman said: " I believe the suggestions of revenge against the Scots emanating from Westminster are very real if there was a No vote on September 18.

"There will undoubtedly be cuts to the Barnett Formula, affecting the NHS in Scotland, social security, and that benefits will suffer - we've already had (Chancellor) George Osborne and his 'bedroom tax' - and I envisage devolution being undermined despite promises of more powers. Not that I believe that the devolved parliament will be abolished, but its powers will be diminished.

"Like many, I argued for a second question offering a middle way - which I saw not as devolution but as 'constitutionally secure autonomy within a reformed UK'. That door was slammed shut - but not by Scotland.
"Devolution is no longer enough; it's incomplete and even 'max' leaves key areas unguaranteed. So Messrs Cameron, Miliband and Clegg cannot be surprised if I now see independence as the only way left open, to give Scotland power over her own affairs that is both complete and secure. Their way offers neither."

He added: "The latest 'offer' of more powers from the unionist parties looks suspiciously like a rather desperate bribe - but it is not an answer to Scotland's needs."

The canon was speaking as he signed the independence declaration at Yes Scotland's headquarters in Glasgow, and ahead of an appearance in Edinburgh tomorrow.

He will be part of a panel at the launch of a new book, A Constitution For The Common Good by Dr Elliot Bulmer.
**********

**********
I very nearly choked with laughter at the Rev's latest discovery.

I'm sure our readers in the Borders area of Scotland will not be surprised that Munguin and I fell about in spontaneous mirth when we read that so many people had been contacting the Conservatives (and so many of them Conservative officials) and asking their elected representatives, EXACTLY, word for word, the same questions... in the same order. And even more amazingly, regardless of which representative they asl,  they are given the word for word same answer. Is't that just awesome togetherness?

It is almost like there was some sort of concerted campaign going on... But obviously the Tories would never sink to anything so despicable, so it must just be good old co-incidence, or synchronicity, a bit like fish in a shoal, only not quite so pretty .

It is interesting too, that at least 3 locals have done an interview with papers, and would you ever believe it. The similarities in  the interviews of "Keith and Michelle" (wasn't their an actor singer by that name),  Alexander and Lavinia (very Tory) and Rachel and Billy (not so Tory) are amazing. In fact, more than amazing.  Not only is their motivation exactly the same, but they have chosen to express it in exactly the same words, with the same punctuation.

They are a close lot the Border Tories.

Any of our Borders based readers recognise them?
**********
**********
Just a thought: What are you going to do down there in the south if the No side wins? There will be No Borders (which is the Sunday name of Nob Orders, that well known, grassroots millionaire Tory club). You'll have to go and live in the islands with John. Good luck with that!
***********
So... in an independent Scotland, Labour would be killed?
How so Labour. Can't stand on your own two feet?
Too wee? Too poor? Too stupid?