Saturday 30 June 2012


The dependence parties, have been accusing the SNP of ‘constitutional hokey-cokey’ claiming that the SNP has  changed its positions since the 2011 election on a number of independence issues – the Queen, currency, financial regulation,  Britishness and a shed load of other stuff.
This is just another example of how no-one can trust a word the dependence parties say. Their claims are untrue.
Obviously no-one has bothered to look at SNP policy or Scottish Government proposals, all announced before the historic 2011 election result.
What does this misrepresentation say about the credibility and honesty of other things the dependence parties are telling people? With the help of the SNP records, I debunk a few of these issues here. I shall continue with more items in the next days and weeks.
Retaining the Monarchy has been SNP policy since the party’s foundation in 1934. This position was also clearly laid out in the Scottish Government’s White Paper “Your Scotland, Your Voice” (published in 2009).
The current constitutional arrangements, with the Queen as Head of State of an independent Scotland, … would provide a robust and tested constitutional framework for Scotland in the event of the transition to independence.” (“Your Scotland, Your Voice”, page 130)
The Queen is already head of state of 16 Commonwealth Realms, and also head of a Commonwealth of 54 independent states - a quarter of the earth's independent countries. I'm a republican, and I dread the idea of Charles Rothsay as the Kind of Scots, but the majority of Scots seem to want the monarchy, and if so that's OK with me.  That's democracy!
Using sterling and therefore sharing the independent Bank of England has been SNP policy since 2005 if they had cared to read ‘Raising the Standard” (published in November 2005):
“The currency shall continue to be sterling…”
And ‘Your Scotland, Your Voice” (November 2009) said:
“Scotland would continue to operate within the sterling system...” (page 31)
I would have prefered to have a Scottish Dollar or Crown or whatever, independent of the BoE, but it has been suggested, by economists, that if Scotland, with it's oil, left the sterling zone, it would cause a run on the pound, which would be devastating to the English economy. Contrary to what some non thinkers suppose, we do not wish England to suffer, indeed as one of our major trading partners, as well as allies and friends, we need their economy in a good shape, as we need France's, Norway's, Iceland's, etc...
We cannot NOT be British; our country is on the British Isles. Just like Sweden cannot NOT be Scandinavian; it is a part of the land mass of Scandinavia. Just as Portugal cannot avoid being Iberian because it lies on the Iberian peninsula.  No one has seriously suggested carting Scotland off to the Mediterranean or the Baltic . Indeed in an article in the Herald from as far back as 1974  the SNP’s then Vice-Chairman Douglas Crawford wrote:
For the record the SNP seeks self-government under the Crown, with a Customs and passport union with England and the other countries of the British Isles, and an association of States of the British Isles to look after the mutual interests of all the countries.”

Friday 29 June 2012


I'm indebted to Doug the Dog for drawing my attention to this video, and to the fact that there is a serious question here which Alistair Darling refused to answer. Where is the No Campaign (sorry "no" is negative, so they very cleverly called it Better Together...although as we are together at the moment, I'm not sure how it's going to get better if we stay together...more likely by far to get worse) getting it's money from?

The Yes Campaign got most of its money from a couple of multi-million pound lottery winners, and  from the recently deceased Makar, although there have been many thousands of individual donations; the No campaign appears to have been funded largely by the Tories, but Alistair refused to answer the question and just said that they would comply with every law about declaring finances, later.

So it appears that the campaign is to be fronted by a Labour man (given the lack of popularity of the Tories, and more recently the Liberal Democrats in Scotland, either of them would do well to keep their heads well down...) and funded by a Tory donor. Clearly Alistair did not want to talk too much about this.

As far as the "ordinary" people that they "flooded the stage with" in comparison to the "celebrities" who joined the Yes campaign, I'm inclined to agree with them. I'm not that interested what "celebrities" think, specially ones who chose to live in the Bahamas and in California. 

But Labour have been happy enough in the past to employ the services of "celebrities" including, if I recall rightly, Billy Connelly, as much a stranger to Scotland as Sean Connery any day, and the Tories, when they can find a celebrity that isn't ashamed to admit his/her Tory allegiance (given how many of his/her fans it might put off) are happy to be seen with the likes of Cilla Black and Gary Barlow, so there is an element of hypocrisy there. 

I wonder if they simply couldn't find anyone prepared to get involved?

Thursday 28 June 2012


"The time for remorse is over" Bob Diamond, Chief Executive, Barclays, January 2011.

Erm, no, it's not, Bobby. Not by a very long way. In fact, for you, I'd say it was just beginning. 


The NO campaign imply many things which are simply not true. 

Yesterday's video took vapidity to a whole new level, with a succession of so called "ordinary" unionists making obviously scripted statements that made very little sense; some utterly no sense at all. The Rev Stu analysed it here, to great and hilarious effect.

So here are some facts that the YES campaign are using to counter the nonsense about loving how green the scenery is (like it would all turn brown or orange if we were independent), or being proud of Scotland's health or education services (like they weren't already independent).
  1. Being independent means that the people of Scotland will be in charge of Scotland’s future. Together, we care most about our nation, so nobody else is going to do as good a job of making Scotland a success. 
  2. If Scotland votes yes, the first independent parliament will be elected in 2016 – we will get the government we vote for, unlike today, with a government in London the majority of voters in Scotland did not support. 
  3. Scotland more than pays her way in the UK. We get 9.3% of UK spending, but contribute 9.6% of UK taxes. We are in a stronger financial position than the rest of the UK, to the tune of £510 per person last year - that's over £1000 for each Scottish household. As an independent country, this money would stay in Scotland.
  4. Scotland already pays for all the government services we need as an independent country - we don't have to start from scratch. However, the money will be spent in Scotland, rather than London, creating thousands of Scottish jobs.
  5. With independence we'll save on some UK spending - so the initial start up costs will be met by the £250 million annual saving from the UK's existing nuclear weapons and the £50 million annual saving by no longer paying for politicians at Westminster.
  6. Scotland would remain part of the EU. EU law doesn't allow for Scotland to be unilaterally kicked out on independence. And, EU law also makes clear that Scotland can't be forced to join the euro. We will continue to use the pound, just as we do today.
  7. Scotland has 25% of the EU's offshore wind and tidal energy potential. By 2020 our renewable energy could be generating £2 billion a year of exports and by 2050 our renewable energy could be worth £14 billion a year.
  8. Scotland doesn't need oil to become independent, but our oil and gas resource is worth over £1 trillion and gives us a safety net for the future. Last year saw record investment in the North Sea and in October, BP said they expected North Sea oil and gas to flow for at least another 40 years.
  9. The UK government doesn't include oil and gas when it talks about Scotland's finances. But, if you do include oil and gas in our national accounts, we would be the 6th wealthiest nation per capita in developed world.
  10. Scotland has a wealth of talent - for our size we have more world-class universities than any other nation and our research tops world league tables.

Wednesday 27 June 2012


I think David Cameron made another mistake tonight by telling Sayeeda Warsi that she can keep her job and seat in the Cabinet, despite her having been found guilty of breaking the ministerial code. He gave as the reason for this decision the fact that she had not benefited personally from an official  trip she made to Pakistan accompanied by her business partner and friend, and neither had he.

So this sends a message to people that it is OK to break the law as long as you don't benefit personally. If I break into a house but don't steal anything, does that mean that the courts won't punish me?

I presume Cameron means benefited financially (because that's as far as his mind is likely to go, but if she, and/or Mr Hussain, did not benefit in any way at all, then why did she take him? And why did she not inform her officials that she was taking him? She obviously intended to deceive. Why?

It was reported that Mrs Warsi's office was stretched when it came to making arrangements for foreign travel. This might be because Mrs Warsi is joint chairman of the Conservative party with special responsibility for communications with the grass root membership, a task which should, I would have thought, kept her  firmly in the United Kingdom... mainly in England, where there is or are some grass roots. Just how many of the Conservative Party's grass roots live in Pakistan?

Mrs Warsi also faces a further inquiry, apparently this time by the House of Lords (not the police) for claiming for overnight expenses from the public purse, when in fact none had been incurred, as she had stayed at the home of a supporter who charged her nothing.

It's a mistake on Cameron's part because once again he has demonstrated that if you are an ordinary student, and you take a bottle of water from a shop that has been looted, you can expect 6 months in prison, but if you sit in the House of Lords, for no particular reason, and you knowingly break the ministerial code, you can carry on as if nothing has happened.

House of Lords' enquires are convoluted and designed to keep the police (who are employed to menace  unimportant little criminals, and protect the aristocrats in their Lordships' House) at bay. I'd be surprised if they find her guilty of anything. 

There is a list as long as your arm, of Lords and Ladies, who fiddled like Nero, and about whom we have heard no more.

They are all in one thing together... and we are all in something entirely different.

Tuesday 26 June 2012


Apropos of nothing really... and not connected to the video, it was interesting, yesterday, to see that in the staunchly unionist Tory newspaper, The Daily Telegraph, on the day of Alistair (yawn) Darling's launch of the No Campaign (no sorry that's negative) The Better Together Campaign (that's erm, better), and in the midst of a typically biased news account, that an opinion poll, based on the government's preferred question has: Yes = 45.73%, and No = 54.27%.

There was no option for Don't Know (as of course there will not be on the day... more than 2 years in the future). Earlier in the day, the yes and no responses were running at around 50-50 and I wouldn't be surprised if there wasn't a bit of a campaign to get that situation rectified, without actually cheating.

Nonetheless, this is, I suppose a rather surprising result, even as it stands at the moment, given the political leanings of the typical Telegraph reader.
The piece was titled "Alex Salmond is running scared of Scottish Independence", and was based on what Alistair Darling had said, rather than any actual fact. Perhaps good, unbiased, broadsheet journalism might have demanded a ..."says Darling" at the end of the headline, to make that clear. Clearly the "Scottish Political Editor", Simon Johnson, was more interested in the effect rather than the accuracy. 

Saturday 23 June 2012


I noticed that the First Minister of Wales, Carwyn Jones, has suggested that, as the bulk of the Scots appear in polls to want a third question on the ballot paper in 2014, offering devolution max as an alternative to independence or dependence, the two options currently on offer from the coalition of Labour, Liberal and Conservative Unionists, or Dependentists... according to how you see it, I suppose, it would be a good idea to include this option on the ballot paper.

It's strange that Ms Lamont, his Scottish equivalent in the Labour hierarchy is so vehemently against this and seems to be more of a mind with Mr Forsythe the ex-Tory SoS.

Mr Cameron's solution is a vague promise that if Scots vote against independence, he will offer some extra unspecified powers to him!

I don't want devolution max. Although no one has spelled out exactly what it would mean, the consensus appears to be that although Scotland would run all its own affairs, it would still be dependent upon the UK for Defence and Foreign Affairs

At present two of the most disastrous departments of state, in my opinion (although I admit it's hard to single any out), are Defence and Foreign Affairs.

In Defence the UK still seems determined to renew a weapon system which would be a small contribution in any fight against the Soviet Union, which doesn't exist, at a cost of tens of  billions of pounds, which of course we do not have, while troops fighting endless unwinnable wars in selected Muslim countries, go under equipped and all the time a massive bureaucracy far larger than the fighting force, and including no fewer than 47 admirals who do not have ships, never mind fleets, gobbles up money as if we had some. It sounds like something from "Allo Allo", but without Von Smallhausen.

In Foreign Affairs no one appears to have told them much about the 20th century, never mind the 21st, mush less that we have arrived there. They do seem to realise that America is now in charge, but apart from that they appear to think Britain still has imperial responsibility for a quarter of the Earth. Like an embarrassing Smithers to America's Mr Burns, we trail around agreeing with everything they say, no matter how ridiculous, all the while maintaining a Rolls Royce ambassador in nearly every country on the globe in a standard to which the Queen might like to become accustomed. Notably, however, when people need their help, they are regrettably unable to offer anything but the scantest advice.

So no, if Devolution Max means England (and it would be England) keeping control over these functions, it is, whilst immeasurably preferable to the current arrangements,  not my preferred solution.
British Ambassador's residence in Washington...
But what is it that these people ave against a referendum on people's wishes being just that.  Last year the referendum on voting systems for Westminster offered two options that most of the population didn't want, whilst the third that the polls suggested would have been popular, was omitted, on it seems orders form Downing Street, that font of all wisdom. 

And while opinion polls have shown that the public wants a referendum on continued membership of the EU, it has been denied to them.

Now, with most opinion polls showing that over 40% would vote for Devolution Max, were it included on the ballot paper, is it not time for the coalition of Labour, Tory and Liberals to give some though to allowing a referendum including this as an option? 

Mr Cameron should note that you can only get away with offering people a choice of what they don't want and what they don't want more, for so long. That way you end up with people not ever getting what they want. 

Eventually surely even the long suffering Brits, faced with a series of choices between bad and worse, whilst a better is just out of reach, are going to say, enough is enough.

Incidentally, if the Welsh can have an articulate, intelligent multi lingual Labour leader (who also happens to be First Minister) who wants only the best from Wales, why did Scotland get lumbered with Johann Lamont.

Thursday 21 June 2012


Further to the last post.... not not The Last Post, just the last post... and Danny Alexander's comments on Jimmy Carr, no less an exulted figure than the prime minister himself (everybody stand in hushed and awed respect) has weighed in with his 1/2p worth in the debate on moral repugnance.

It seems Camernob also feels a revulsion at the LEFT-WING entertainer's tax regime (a tax regime which, the moment he thought it looked like costing him ticket sales, or tv gigs, he appears to have abandoned with left-wing fervour, agonising over the error of his ways). 

However, when asked by ITN’s Tom Bradby how he felt about Gary Barlow, another entertainer, but this time a RIGHT-WING one, and whether Mr Barlow should now return the OBE he got for his part in organising the Queen's Jubilee concert, Camergit passed up the chance to comment on his fellow Tory, saying he "would not give a running commentary on different people’s tax affairs” as “that would not be right”.  
It shouldn't be any surprise to those of us who know and loathe the schoolboy prime minister's ability to U-turn on a U-turn, and simultaneously feel two different things about the same thing, that he could actually believe that it is wrong for him to comment on people's tax affairs, except in the case of people who make a living out of making a fool of him. So watch out Mr Hislop and Ms Toksvig, and a cast of thousands... 

Amazingly, or not, the idiot that plays the part of the prime minister had nothing to say about Philip Green, one of his advisors, who is doing nothing wrong by transferring the ownership of his company to his Monegasque wife, knowing that she will not be obliged to pay a €cent in tax, based as she is in her home country of Monaco. 

Nor was he prepared to talk about Ashcroft, Goldman-Sacks or Vodafone. Well of course he couldn't. It wouldn't be right for him to give a running commentary, blah, blah, blah.
He also strangely appears to be prepared to give succour to French tax dodgers, no matter how morally repugnant they are. Indeed he said he will roll out the red carpet for them, if they wish to come to England to escape the new and very popular French president's proposed 75% tax on the highest earners. (So is it now 'British jobs for British people, and morally repugnant French tax evaders'...?). 

The wine must have been flowing and he must have had rather too much of it... or maybe he really is just that stupid and naive about the way that so called allies behave.

One of the candidate's for the presiding officer's position in the new parliament, Claude Bartelon, implied that he thought that Mr C had imbibed a little, and pointed out that there were already many French people who lived in England, but that most had to have their children educated in France, and all their medical needs catered for in France, because the quality of all public service was so low in England. 

Oh well... as my granny would say...'whit's gaed tae gie's no ull tae tak', or as they might say in France :Ce qui on est content à donner, on ne doit pas être mécontent à recevoir.

Wednesday 20 June 2012


Multi-millionaires who use tax avoidance schemes to pay low income tax are the ‘moral equivalent of benefit cheats’, a Cabinet Minister said yesterday.

That Cabinet Minister was the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Danny Alexander.

In fact this is not really true. Tax avoidance is legal, and if something is legal it can hardly be as morally repugnant as something which is not. Indeed some parliamentarians, and close advisers to the government practise it in spades. Many City bankers and financiers, possibly even most, wouldn't be without it. 

On the other hand, benefit cheating is illegal, as indeed is the cheating that went on in the House of Commons and in the House of Lords, and probably still does. That is theft, as is taking benefits to which you are not entitled.

[The main difference between these two seems to be that the penalties from stealing from the state if you are in receipt of benefits are more severe than standing up in front of a load of other cheats and apologising, which is the average punishment for a  politician.]

However, that's not really my point. As I said, these tax avoidance schemes, such as that practised by Jimmy Carr, publicised all over the papers today, are perfectly legal.

Mr Alexander is chief secretary to the treasury, one place down from the secretary of state. If he is as offended by these people as I am, the solution would appear to be in his hands. 

Why does he not make it illegal to avoid tax?


Yeah, like a Tory government will let that one through, even for a little while (like so much of the last budget!!)!!

Click on Twitter Reaction for full size. I particularly liked John Prescott's effort!

Tuesday 19 June 2012


I'm not one of those who thinks that military personnel are above reproach, but I do think that if our government sends them off to do America's their bidding, they have a duty to treat them decently.
So the next time that you hear Hammond or Cameron, or any of the rest of the hypocrites that make up the London government, lecture about how wonderful 'our brave boys' are, how they are heroes we should be proud of, the men who put the Great in Britain [someone needs to explain the origins of that name to them one day] then, remind yourself of this little carry on. 

Not that it is the first case of this kind. Troops have always been treated like dung, until they are needed... and they are frequently needed by the government in the none too subtle game of 'hiding behind the khaki'. 

The Telegraph article, to which I linked above, tells the whole story, but for those who prefer a shorter version, suffice it to say that the little pipsqueak of a Defence Secretary, Hammond, has overseen the paying off of troops who are within a very short time (in one case just 3 days) of qualifying for pension payments. 

One 40-year-old sergeant serving in the Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers was only three days away from serving 22 years and qualifying for an immediate pension pot worth £108,000. He will now have to wait until he is 65 to receive the pension.

OK, they are generous pension situations, but whether or not you agree that they are warranted, given the extreme dangers involved in some of these guys' jobs [there are a fair few who will not collect any pension at all], these were the terms the guys signed up for. And Hammond has ridden roughshod over their contracts. The Military Covenant, my butt!
It takes a special kind of SPIV to do that, [whilst making no attempt to do anything about ministerial or parliamentary pensions, which are even more generous] and then call upon the citizenry to show more respect for them... Fortunately, or unfortunately, Hammond is that kind of SPIV.

But even worse...these morons at the MoD, seem not to learn from their mistakes. 

Not two months ago, 'Private Eye' reported that the MoD had sacked around 3,000 of its admin staff in order to save money, but had unfortunately neglected to undertake a skills needs analysis before they let them go (with redundancy payments). 

Unfortunately for the taxpayer, but luckily for the individuals, the MoD had decided, on what passes for mature reflection in London, to re-employ at least half of them, with no hope of clawing back the redundancy money! Duh!

Now The Telegraph goes on to report on the serving men's situation...

“The decision is not being made on the grounds of ability, experience or commitment, purely on cost. [Ring any bells?] It would appear that capable, experienced and dedicated officers are being sacrificed. 
"His [a redundant officer's father] suspicions were further raised after 38 out of 50 of his son’s Sandhurst 1999 intake have been sacked. In the most recent round of redundancies announced last week the Army lost 300 officers in total, who are seen as they most combat experienced for generations."
So, don't despair men; you may get a creepy phone call in a few weeks asking if erm... you'd like to erm... come back... bit of a cock up, doncha know, old chap...
And yet, can you believe, they have a billion pounds to spend on the first steps of updating a weapon [which will eventually cost many many billions] that we don't need and won't/can't use, but which will guarantee British prime ministers a seat at the top table for the next 20 years. 
Quad Erat Demonstrandum.

Sunday 17 June 2012


The Mail on Sunday proclaims from its front page today that the Queen has involved herself in the politics of the referendum on the future of Scotland.

The piece written by Katie Nicholl (anyone heard of her?) declares that the Queen is attempting to establish the monarchy's ties with Scotland ahead of the referendum, and has done so by making Prince William a member of The Order of the Thistle, the second highest order in the United Kingdom, coming, as you would expect, under its English equivalent, The Order of the Garter, of which this 30 year old is also a member.

Of course the Mail is havering, as the Mail is inclined to do. After 60 years of keeping her royal beak out of the sordid business of party politics, the Queen is unlikely to be stupid enough to break that habit now over something which won't actually affect her at all.

There are no plans at present, or likely to be in the future, to make Scotland a republic. None of the parties stands for republicanism, except perhaps the Scottish Socialists, but with no members of parliament, even after an election with showed such disillusionment with Labour, the the royals need have no fear from them. True, there are republicans in Labour and the SNP, possibly even the Liberals, but they are few and far between. So come what may Elizabeth will almost certainly keep her Scottish crown.

In any case I seriously wonder if handing out a gong to her grandson and letting him join the ranks of the extremely privileged in the limited membership of the  Order of the Thistle will sway any Scots that are toying with the idea of independence.

I somehow can't image anyone saying... "Well I was thinking of voting for an independent Scotland but now Prince William of Wales, the Duke of Cambridge, is a member of the Thistle, I think I'll just vote to stay  British and for our order of chivalry to remain subservient to the English one".

Ms Nicholl may want to apologise to the Queen for attributing her with such a lack of political nous. It's the kind of scheme that a parvenu like Cameron would come up with, while searching for a mislaid child down the pub. Not the idea a woman with 60 years' experience in the job would even consider.

PS: It seems that William will receive £10 million as a 30th birthday present from his mother's will. Oh, how the other half live.


Saturday 16 June 2012


Dr Richard Pike, a former oil industry consultant and now the chief executive of the Royal Society of Chemistry, said: "Rather than only getting 20 to 30 billion barrels [from the North Sea] we are probably looking at more than twice that amount."
His analysis is supported by petroleum experts who believe there are some 300 fields off the coast of Britain still to be explored and tapped properly. If energy prices continue to soar, companies will become increasingly willing to tap previously uneconomic oil fields.
A spokesman for UK Oil and Gas, the offshore industry's trade association, said: "The current estimates are that there are around 25 billion barrels left." Everyone laughed like a drain.
Dr Pike claims that the industry knows the true figures but refuses to release them because of commercial secrecy. (Or maybe, Dr Pike, it's because the government has bribed them to lie about it, just like it hid the McCrone Report... You see, once bitten twice shy, and British politicians hardly have a record for veracity, do they?)
Still, Mr Cameron, I imagine the Falkland Islands/Malvinas will be bringing some oil on tap pretty soon, and they seem to want to be British... I expect  that will supply the Great British needs so you can dump us. 

Please dump us. 

Sunday 10 June 2012


A few weeks ago I published a copied post detailing ten advantages of being independent. 

One of the most startling points made in this post was the fact that we would be much richer as an independent nation (according to OECD figures the 6th richest nation on Earth).

Whilst that is pretty important (I'd like to live like a Norwegian), probably the most important aspect of independence for me is that we would no longer be tied down to a choice of government by one of two political parties, pitching much the same policies to people who live at the other end of the UK. 

I didn't include the Liberal Democrats in the "parties of government" because, under the voting system that we have, there is no chance of them being in government, except as, at present, the junior partner in a coalition.  If Mr Clegg had held out for a referendum on Proportional Representation instead of the silly fudge that he accepted and almost no one wanted, this might have been a thing of the past. Now it will not happen for a very long time, even if the Liberals survive their time with the Tories.
I've suggested to unionists who read this blog that they might want to come up with a list of advantages for Scotland in staying in the union. No one, to date, has ventured a single one advantage.

The leader of "Scottish Labour" has said that we are better off and stronger together. I don't know what she means by that. It sounds like a cliché to me. Stronger in what way? Economically? Militarily? Physically? Better off in what way? Economically? The figures suggest otherwise.

Certainly she may be agreeing with Cameron that Britain packs a punch in Europe...although that's a someone dubious notion. 

Perhaps Ms Lamont agrees with the prime minister that Britain's fighting force (one of the largest in the world) is an advantage of our union. He remarked that the UK was either respected or feared because of that. 

I think he forgot to mention "ridiculed". I'm not talking about the quality of the men. I'm sure most of them are fine, but the situation is a bit fur coat and no knickers.  Britain can fight wars but it has poor equipment and kit, and the men's rations are pathetic in comparison to American or French soldiers. 

It's also a source of amusement to some that although our troops are out there with the Americans, standing shoulder to shoulder, we have 1960s railways/hospitals/roads/bus service/education...etc. 
Mrs Lamont may think that being a permanent member of the security council is important. I suspect it's another of these things that we are supposed to swallow without analysing in what way it is good for you and me.

Cameron got misty eyed at his speech in Edinburgh when he talked of the history that our two countries shared, as if on independence we would no longer share that history (which incidentally has been that of independent nations for far more of the time than it has been as a union). But then  education at Eton ain't what it used to be...certainly not if that is what they turn out.

Having failed to hear any sensible arguments for staying together, I was interested to read this Wings over Scotland post today. It lays out very clearly the disadvantages in staying in the union, by describing what the current set up is; how little we are offered; how undemocratic our country is. As I said earlier, two (he says three) parties pitching the same policies to the South East of England.

I think that every Scot should read this post, and certainly anyone campaigning for an independent Scotland should know it off by heart.

My heartiest congratulations and thanks to the Rev Stu. It's just a superb post.

Friday 8 June 2012


Don't you just love it when one of them, in an effort to pull the rug from under the feet of the Scottish nationalists, shows their contempt for Scotland and its people.

The most recent example is that fool Hammond (who bears a startling resemblance to Chris Langham the actor who played the part of the incompetent moron of a minister in "In the Thick of it"), who has said that we are fooling ourselves to think we could have a Scottish Defence Force. Nobody, he says, would want to join it.
Ah right. Not only are we too wee, too poor and too thick to run anything on our own, it would appear that we are so lacking in pride that no one in Scotland would want to join the Scottish Armed Forces.

Brilliant Philip. Absolutely brilliant. Keep it up.

In the meantime, didn't I read that the British Army is being reduced to a rump now, because you can't afford to run it. That may be something to do with the fact that the MoD, managed by you, spends money on failed contracts faster than Imelda Marcos used to buy shoes! In future you will be obliged to rely on foreigners and contractors (aren't they called mercenaries?), and with all your back office worked provided by private companies (which is fine until Santander buys them over and you go to war with Spain over Gibraltar). 

Well done. All that puts you in an excellent position to lecture others.


Pics: Philip Hammond, Chris Langham...see what I mean about the resemblance.

Tuesday 5 June 2012


Probably everyone knows about this by now, as it was released by the Guardian last night, and, quite rightly, many bloggers have written about it.

Close Protection UK was paid £1.5 million by the Home office, DWP and DCLS, to provide stewarding services for the boat thing on the Thames with the Queen and royal family, which was staged on Sunday. Instead they used unpaid labour.

Worse still the unpaid labour wasn't informed that they were not to be paid until they were being coached in from outside London; they were left to sleep on concrete under London bridge in the wet and the cold; there were no toilet facilities and they had to get dressed in their uniforms with no privacy at all.

I wonder if Mr Cameron and his rotten DWP ministers Duncan-Smith and Grayling are proud of the fact that they are paying out £1.5 million to a company which uses slave labour instead of using taxes to actually pay its staff.

The firm  has issued "sincere apologies" for what it called the "London Bridge incident", but insisted that it had not been exploiting individuals, but providing work experience.

Aye, Close Protection... tell that to William Wilberforce.

Although I'm a republican and consider the amount of money spent on this jubilee to be excessive, and I wish it hadn't been rammed down my throat so much, I am perfectly happy that people who like that kind of thing, have enjoyed a little break from work, and a bit of humbleness before their betters. Quite genuinely I am saddened that it has been spoiled in this way typically by a government which seems to think that everything has to be farmed out to chiselling, cheating, lying scum bags, namely their friends, so that they can make money out of providing a second rate service. 

Slavery goes a tad too far though, even for Cameron's despicable crew.

Monday 4 June 2012


TEACHER: Why are you late?
STUDENT: Class started before I got here.

TEACHER: John, why are you doing your math multiplication on the floor?
JOHN: You told me to do it without using tables.

TEACHER: Glenn, how do you spell 'crocodile?'
TEACHER: No, that's wrong
GLENN: Maybe it is wrong, but you asked me how I spell it.

TEACHER: Donald, what is the chemical formula for water?
TEACHER: What are you talking about?
DONALD: Yesterday you said it's H to O.

TEACHER: Winnie, name one important thing we have today that 
we didn't have ten years ago.

TEACHER: Glen, why do you always get so dirty?
GLEN: Well, I'm a lot closer to the ground than you are.

TEACHER: Millie, give me a sentence starting with ' I. '
MILLIE: I is..
TEACHER: No, Millie..... Always say, 'I am.'
MILLIE: All right... 'I am the ninth letter of the alphabet.' 

TEACHER: George Washington not only chopped down his 
father's cherry tree, but also admitted it.
Now, Louie, do you know why his father didn't punish him?
LOUIS: Because George still had the axe in his hand.....

TEACHER: Now, Simon , tell me frankly, do you say prayers before eating?
SIMON: No sir, I don't have to, my Mom is a good cook. 

TEACHER: Clyde , your composition on 'My Dog' is exactly the same as your brother's.. Did you copy his?
CLYDE : No, sir. It's the same dog.  (I want to adopt this kid!!!) 

TEACHER: Harold, what do you call a person who keeps on talking when people are no longer interested?
HAROLD: A teacher 

Sunday 3 June 2012


1. Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them .
2. A fine is a tax for doing wrong. A tax is a fine for doing well.
3. He, who laughs last, thinks slowest.

4. A day without sunshine is like, well, night.
5. Change is inevitable, except from a vending machine.
6. Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.
7. Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently talented fool.
8. The 50-50-90 rule: Anytime you have a 50-50 chance of getting something right, there's a 90% probability you'll get it wrong. 
9. It is said that if you line up all the cars in the world end-to-end, someone from California would be stupid enough to try to pass them.
10. If the shoe fits, get another one just like it.
11. The things that come to those who wait, may be the things left by those, who got there first.
12. Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day. Teach a man to fish and he will sit in a boat all day drinking beer.
13. Flashlight: A case for holding dead batteries.
 14 . God gave you toes as a device for finding furniture in the dark.
15. When you go into court, you are putting yourself in the hands of fifteen people, who weren't smart enough to get out of jury duty.