CAMERON WENT TO SCOTLAND AND ALL WE GOT WERE SOME DAMP SQUIBS

Him all in blue, and her in red and tartan.

I see that the Scottish TUC had something to say about the proposals for the devo super max, federalism released today by the British prime  minister.

I wonder if the newly socialist, newly Scottish, Scottish Branch office has anything to say on the subject. Are they with the TUC or the Tories?

Scottish Trades Union Congress (STUC) General SecretaryGrahame Smith said:

"Despite being represented on the Scotland Office Stakeholder Group to consult on the draft clauses, the STUC was not given sight of the final details.

"STUC will now analyse this paper in some detail, however it is already clear that in key areas such as welfare and capital borrowing, the recommendations will not match the intentions of the Smith Commission proposals.

“It is unacceptable that the Scottish Parliament should require Westminster approval to create new benefit entitlements in Scotland. The current proposals will also seriously hamper the ability of the Scottish Parliament to make different fiscal choices by tying Scotland to UK deficit reduction targets.

“Given that the STUC was underwhelmed by totality of the Smith Commission proposals, this further watering down of the promise that was made to voters in Scotland is unacceptable. The UK Government will present today’s publication as significant progress, but the truth is that we are not even at the end of the beginning of progress to meaningful additional devolution.

“It is now vital that the fullest possible public consultation is conducted, including a citizen-led process. It is also a matter of particular importance that the Scottish Labour Party looks very carefully at these clauses and takes a clear view on whether they meet its aspirations and the spirit of the Smith Commission proposals.”

Any comment Mr Murphy, Ms Dugdale, Ms Baillie.... Anyone?

No? 

I did all this: It was me that got you all these watered down fig leafs.
Me, I tell you. I saved the banks, I saved the world and I saved the union.
Now I'll save the universe.
Take that Alistair Loser Darling, you couldnt even save your membership
of the Faculty of Advocates!

Well somehow the BBC managed to unearth Gordon Brown from whatever 6 star hotel he's staying at, and he's enthusiastic. 

So he is clearly on the side of the Tories. Surprise surprise!

Brown said he was pleased that there are new powers "of huge significance in employment and welfare that no one can undervalue with credibility".

He added: "Two issues have dominated Scottish politics for the past 30 years: the call for action on jobs and social justice.

"And the Scottish Parliament will now have substantial powers in both areas, as well as in tax matters, which will enable it to secure jobs and make decisions in fairness for the people of Scotland.

"This will ensure the new Scotland Act is a modern version of home rule for Scotland in an interdependent world."

**********

It appears that dogged persistence, threats of legal action, and the prime minister of Britain saying that he would withdraw unless the Green Party were included in leaders' debates ahead of the British elections in May have in the end worked in favour of democracy. The BBC carry a story that their debate will include all 7 leaders of major parties on the British mainland.

Icelandic tv debate with more that 4 people!
Cunning lot these foreigners!

The original proposals had been for the two major parties along with UKIP and the Liberals having a four-way debate. Not unreasonably, given the minority nature of both UKIP and the Liberals, other parties wondered why they were to be excluded.

Various excuses were trotted out including how difficult it would be to manage a debate with so many people but that was put to bed somewhat embarrassingly when it was pointed out that Scandinavian countries and Ireland all manage to organised them.

There were then a series of arguments about the minority nature of the other parties which wanted to participate, including:

That it was a prime ministerial debate (a silly argument in a parliamentary democracy, where the majority of us do not get a vote for a potential prime minister, and in any case, why would Clegg or Farage be included in such a debate?). 

And that the SNP, Plaid and the Greens were not national parties... (but then neither is Labour as it fields no candidates in Northern Ireland).

So far the BBC has announced the parties' inclusion on its website, but at the time of writing it hadn't bothered to inform the party leaders of the decision so we base this on the BBC website. 

I wonder what will happen if the Irish parties wish to get involved. Will Cameron support them as he supported the Greens?

...WE ARE ALL IN THIS TOGETHER, AREN'T WE?

Quite right too. The poor souls hardly get by.
And they do such sterling work. I was listening to their farmyard
 impressions at PMQs today.
They should all have parts in a circus.

Good idea, and then the people who are unemployed
 and don't live in towns won't be able to go for jobs.
And those with sick /elderly relatives won't
 be able to provide transport for them
or go to shops, and those who are only out of work
 for a few weeks will have to sell their cars
and start again when they get jobs.
Just how moronic do you have to be to get into UKIP?
Is Stephen Hammond thick enough?

I'm sure you will get your reward in hell, Smith.
There's a cheering thought.

Yep, you're all jolly good Eton sorts.
How much did you get for your mother, Dave?

Maybe that idiot Donohoe was right. Maybe there's a Russian sub trundling up
past the BBC right now, but the blinds are down and no-one is answering
the phone in Manchester, so they can't get permission to open them
 and we'll never know... unless Spud is out for another run?

If it worked it might be worth the hell we are going through.
But it doesn't work, except of course for the likes of the grasping
 chubby idiot in the top picture.

And Margaret Thatcher/John Major were all the fault of the SNP.

Vinegar Mags says they were voting to balance the books.
30 billion pounds to wipe out the £1.5 trillion black hole?
Give me strength, Mags.
I expect you'll give your pay rise (if you're re-elected)
to the local food bank?

So what, they will say, they are only Scots...
We'd never be stupid enough to have the bombs
anywhere near our cities!

My granny has always said that up to 40 you have
 the face you were born with.
After 40 you get the face you've earned.
This must have been Thatcher at 41!

Your country needs you, Gordon.
So, if you see this report to your boss right away.
he wishes to make use of you again.

The Captain of the Titanic wasn't named Cameron, was he?

DEAR LABOUR

From the office of the proprietor

Munguin Towers,

Munguin Rise,

Munguinstown,

SCOTLAND

Dear the Labour Party of Great Britain,

I was just reading a Wings over Scotland story about your voting today on the issue of Trident Renewal, of which, incidentally, I feel you should be heartily ashamed.

I noticed that, with his usual aplomb, Stuart was able to provide a link to  the 2010 Labour manifesto "A future fair for all"  in which you said that you were committed to maintaining Britain's independent nuclear deterrent.

I was wondering if any of you could explain to me in what way a weapons system which is joined at the hip to America's system and which cannot be used with a) permission, and b) the physical passing of the firing codes from the Pentagon to the submarine commander, could be called "independent".

You might also like to comment upon the fact that the Scottish Conference, according to Neil Findlay, voted against the retention of the weapons of mass destruction. Given the alleged ''independent (not a branch office at all) nature'' of the Scottish party, (according to what you said when Iain Gray was leader, again when Johann Lamont was leader and now that Jim Murphy is leader), is it not strange that this resolution has been discarded. Particularly given that the weapons are based not 20 miles from the centre of Labour's heartlands...Glasgow.


Kind regards

Munguin
Proprietor: Munguin's Republic.

PS: Take my advice and tell that dimwit Donohoe, if he can't say anything that isn't completely and laughably ridiculous, or that doesn't even remotely make sense, then he'd be better to shut up and just take the money. 

He really made a fool of himself tonight.

(Dictated by Munguin, signed in his absence by TPW.)

GET RID OF TRIDENT

Tomorrow there is a vote in the London House of Commons on the renewal of the Trident Weapons System.

The Greens, Plaid and the SNP will vote against, but it is expected that the *three London parties will largely vote for spending more than £100 billion on a weapons system that is very little use for today's wars or today's enemies.

I know we live in a dangerous world. But most of today's danger seems to me to come from terrorism. You can't fight terrorism with nuclear weapons. Even if a terror organisation got hold of a nuclear bomb and threatened to use it... 

what could the West do with a nuclear deterrent? Where would we target it? 

In any case the United States of America has more than enough weapons to deal with the "mutually assured destruction" question, and for those who feel it is wrong to let the American's take  the financial strain, there is no reason why a financial contribution to their costs couldn't be made by other Nato countries.

No western country (that means France or the UK) would dare use a nuclear weapon without permission from America. But at least France does have the dignity of that option. The UK does not. While the French President does have a red button, the British government does not. The weapons system is part of America's defence capability, and the launch codes are held by the USA.

Retired senior military have said that they would prefer that the money be spent on something that they can actually use.

Some say that America, too, would rather than Britain spent some more money on conventional forces which could be used by them in the various wars in the Middle East that we get involved in. On the other hand, some say that America would prefer us to maintain the nuclear capability because it guarantees us a seat on the Security Council where, in anything important, we take America's side.. or you might say, 'vote the way America tells us to'.

Tony Blair apparently said in his autobiography that the weapons system was of no strategic value and maintained only for prestige. It is the membership fee for the big boys' table, at which, along with France, the UK really should have no place.

I discovered from Neil Findlay, during his unsuccessful leadership campaign, that the Labour Party's Scottish conference voted to scrap Trident, but was overruled by the party leadership. 

When there are hungry kids (look at the figures for food banks), freezing pensioners, folk living on the street adn sleeping rough in sub zero temperatures and so many privations for so many people, why are we paying over £100,000,000,000,000 (that we don't have) for weapons that we won't use?

I'm sure that every Tory will vote for the system, but some decent Labour and Liberal MPs will vote against. You can urge them to do so here.

Correction: * I've just read on Twitter that the Labour Party intends to ignore the debate, classing it as a meaningless stunt.

If the SNP, Plaid, Greens, Labour and some Liberals and maybe a few of the Northern politicians voted together, then we could rid the country of these abominations.

And we'd have £100,000,000,000 to spend on improving the lives of the wretched. And Labour thinks it's a stunt because the SNP is involved in organising it?????

And Jim Murphy says that they care about Scotland and its poor.

Oh well...

TORIES BRING BACK APPRENTICESHIPS

Merci, Bugger the Panda!

SNAPS ON SATURDAY

Puts a whole new meaning on
 "It's a crime that he's unemployed".

Good to see that we punished the people who caused the last crash,
and are causing the next one. Oh wait...

Aye Danny, you're important right enough.
You and Gideon together. What a team!

Dave, solver of problems.

How does this man function in the real world?

Another of Danny's right wing mates.

Yeah, nice one, Anas...

I see that the guy with the 8 (it was 10) YES badges
was pulling Dimjim's chain!

Two cheeks of the same butt.

And they will support you on Trident too.
You're practically the same party.

See Eck  got a new job?

That's Britain. As it always was, and always will be.

+++++++++++++++++

It appears that the opposition don't understand finance or the various constraints put upon the Scottish government by Westminster. 

It also seems that no one reminded them that the underspend had actually been reported to parliament in June of last year. Does their finance spokesman not pay attention to finance matters?  

As has been demonstrated so often in the past, their researchers don't seem to be up to the mark. 

Sadly, none of the other parties seem to have a grasp on finance either, otherwise they would surely have pointed out the error of the Labour attack, which Dugdale threw, yet again, at the First Minister on Thursday.

I thought it was worth putting up John Swinney's comments about the underspend in full: 

The Scottish Government firmly believes Scotland will prosper best when all revenue raised here stays here.

Meantime, there is an obligation upon us to ensure what funds the UK Government does allocate to Edinburgh are managed responsibly. That’s why this government ensures that we put every penny we receive towards improving the lives of people in Scotland.

In contrast, Brian Wilson’s comments (Perspective, 10 January) betray the same problems understanding ­public spending that must have bedevilled the Labour Party when they managed Scotland’s finances.

Mr Wilson’s colleagues managed to forget to spend £700 million in one year and left more than £1 billion in a Treasury bank account which could have supported our economy and public services.

Thankfully the SNP secured the release of that money.

I can assure Brian Wilson, and your readers, that if the £444m of underspend he ­refers to was all money over which I had control, then every penny of it would be being invested properly to mitigate the impact of ­Westminster cuts and welfare reforms.

The £444 million underspend against the annual accounts-based budget, ­reported in the Final Outturn Report and in the media last week, also reflects variances in Annual Managed Expenditure programmes and other technical non-cash accounting budgets – for example depreciation and impairments.

So such underspends therefore do not reflect a missed opportunity to spend more on public services – much as Mr Wilson and his Labour ­colleagues try to claim otherwise. The reality is that the  fiscal underspend the Scottish Government has available from 2013-14 to invest in public services is only 0.5 per cent of our budget, or £145 million.

Far from keeping it a secret, I announced it to Parliament in June, and confirmed that it would be carried into the next year – and that every penny would be allocated to support people in Scotland.

On top of that, some £31 million of financial transactions was also brought forward to support vital investment in housing and regeneration. This is funding restricted by Treasury rules and can only be used for the provision of loans or equity investment beyond the public sector and has to be repaid to HM Treasury in ­future years.

We agree that Scotland’s schools and hospitals are worthy of the best possible levels of investment and, until we are responsible for our own financial affairs, they deserve better than the successive real-term cuts to which Scotland’s budget has been subject and which the Labour Party clearly intend to continue.

JOHN SWINNEY

Deputy First Minister

Lies, deceit and the death of the Labour Party

Thanks to CH for bringing this to our attention.

*********

ALLAN GROGAN'S LETTER TO THE DUNDEE COURIER

Dear Sir,

Today in a crucial vote in Westminster in which a further £30 billion in austerity cuts was voted upon the people of Dundee West were once again unrepresented. Jim McGovern MP joined a list of notable absentees including the new Scottish Labour Leader Jim Murphy.

We should not be surprised that Mr McGovern missed the vote. Yyour own paper covered his recent absence “Fury at Dundee MP for missing crucial ‘bedroom tax’ vote”. (20/12/14).

This no show highlights how little regard he has for his constituents, showing little empathy for those in his ward who are already struggling to pay bills and put food on the table. Once again Mr McGovern will not show face and stand up for the people he is paid to represent.

Again the question must be asked; other than take home a large pay check and over £200,000 a year in expenses.... What exactly does Jim McGovern do for the people of Dundee West?

Allan Grogan
Scottish Socialist Party.

I too, would like to know what he was doing. Thank heavens he is not my MP but he's from my town, and many of my friends are saddled with him. If he's not going to turn up for these votes, what use is he, and why are we paying him a salary 3 times the average wage. 

High time he was gone and an MP that actually represents the constituency was elected. I trust he won't be standing in May. In most cases a standing MP as candidate is considered an asset to the party. I doubt he is. I've yet to hear anyone with a good word to say about him.

THE MEMBERS WHO VOTED AGAINST TORY/LIBERAL/LABOUR AUSTERITY

I suppose most of us would agree that there has to be some cutting back.

But cutting back on social security, pensions and in general anything that benefits the poorer in our society is hardly fair, and exactly what we expect from the Westminster coalition of three parties. 

After all, we are in this situation because a succession of right of centre governments, Thatcher, Major, Blair and Brown adn Cameron, have wantonly spent money on stuff we couldn't afford and didn't need and have allowed the banks and insurance companies to play fast and loose with the financial services industry that served the country well enough until Thatcher started to deregulate.

If we need to save money, (we do), and if we really are all in this together (we're not), there are several things I'd like to see cut. 

Firstly, our nuclear weapons aren't needed. They are not even technically ours. They belong in every way (except paying for them), to America. America counts them as part of their weaponry. Whilst the French WOULD NEVER use their nukes without America's permission, the truth is that we COULDN'T even if we wanted to, because America holds the firing codes. So Cameron doesn't even have a red button!

In any case America has plenty of nukes of its own. Britain only has them for show, and to allow it to have a seat at the top table. It's a bit like the family whose main breadwinner just lost his job but they keep the Mercedes in the drive to impress the neighbour, even though they can't afford to put petrol in it adn sneak out the back to get the bus. 

So let's bin it.

A smaller saving, but one nonetheless that we could make is to rehouse all the royals into Buckingham Palace (it has over 500 rooms after all) and sell off the other palaces. Clarence House, St James's, Kensington Palace, Windsor Castle and all the other grace and favours in London would raise a fortune not to mention the vast treasures that are housed in them. And it's not like the royals would be falling over each others' corgis. They all have private houses to live in, and some of them have several. On the subject of the royals, we should slim them down to just the very top ones. The rest should go get jobs, or sign on just like other people do.

I read that the Westminster parliament buildings are falling into ruin. It seems that several billions are going to have to be spent on renovating them, and, in the meantime finding suitable accommodation for the UK parliament, both houses, including the preposterously large house of lords. 

I suggest a fairly simple building be constructed or perhaps even converted, preferably in one of the northern English towns and made available for them. I'd close their restaurants which are subsided to the hilt and they can do what most people do at lunch time and go to the shops for a sandwich... or bring it in with them and eat it at their desks. (Oh shock horror... but they really are just ordinary people with ordinary red blood. They won't die, unlike some of the people they've kicked out into the street, from queuing in a sandwich shop.)

In the interim they can use one of the vacated royal palaces with a large enough room for debates. let's be fair most of them don;t turn up most of the time anyway. (The lords will probably need beds because the old fellows/dears sleep a lot of the time.)
Then we should sell off the BBC. It's not necessary to have a state broadcaster. The BBC may have originally been meant to provide us with mind improving programmes but they long ago ceased to serve that purpose. The garbage they produce at enormous cost could easily be provided by the private sector. And let's be honest, the coalition of three parties in the UK LOVE privatizing things.

I'm going to stop there, but the list is endless...

I'd welcome any suggestions for what kind of austerity you would like to see in the 2015-2020 parliament.

Addendum:

Here's the list of New Tories that voted for £30 billion cuts. I wonder how many of them voted against their own pay rises!

List of Shame. The New Tories.
Sod the poor, we're getting 11%!

And again... you couldn't make this dame up...

And today she voted for another £30 b in cuts.
I can't think of any words for her.
Munguin can, but he's a very rude animal!