Monday 29 October 2012

Review? What review? Oh, THAT review ?... snigger.

It appears that the Tories, in the form of Philip Hammond, have shown the Liberals once again how highly they value their input into government policy.

I'm talking here about the Trident replacement.

I'd always had the impression that Liberal Democrats were essentially against Trident, however, I found I was wrong when that party, in government,  suggested that instead of the Trident renewal, costing untold billions of dollars we don't have, we should have something a bit cheaper; a sort of Asda own brand version.

And why not, I say. Clearly I hope that Scotland will have no part in paying for this waste of money, but whatever Scotland does, I expect that the RUK will wish to continue to play a leading role in the world, and for that you need to have nuclear weapons of mass destruction. Sad old world, huh?

As even the outlandishly expensive weapons system that Britain houses in Scotland aren't any kind of a deterrent to any nation that might be likely to use nuclear weapons against us; as we can't use it without not just permission, but information, from the USA, and in reality we never will use it against any of the "enemies" the UK has or is likely to have, why not just have cardboard cutouts?

Anyway, in what appears to have been a sop to the Liberals it was agreed to have a review to look into the possibility of an alternative and cheaper system. 

Almost undoubtedly this was also a complete waste of the enormous amount that these reviews always cost, as rich and influential people get together and charge vast amounts for their services, and lunches... because clearly it is America which decides what we should have. 

In any case it appears that Mr Hammond already knows the outcome of this inquiry, which is not due to report until 2016.

According to the Guardian, Hammond, the posh man's Jim Murphy (in more ways than one), is due to announce the spending of £350 million we don't have on the next part of the renewal scheme that the review has yet to report on.

The Ministry of Defence has , they report, said the  contract would sustain 1,200 UK jobs, adding that the investment made "clear the government's firm commitment to maintaining continuous at-sea deterrence for future decades".

I'm not sure for how long that will sustain these jobs, or what kind of jobs they are, but the cost per job appears to be £300,000, so I hope it is for a very long time, or that they are very good jobs.

Apparently Hammond is visiting Faslane on the Clyde, where the UK stores its WMDs, well away from the South East of England. (I noticed in recent discussion about what the RUK would do with the nukes, when Scotland invites the RUK to remove them, the only English port suitable, Devonport, was rejected on the basis of the high density of population. Devonport itself has a population of around 27,000, but Plymouth has over 250,000!!!). 

Mr Hammond intends making announcements of expansions to the work of Faslane, in some sort of bribe to locals. He seems to be working in concert with Jackie Baillie....(who seems to have an issue with maths, having mixed up the ratio of the figures of 11,000 and 600 to the point that she managed to make it 1 : 1. Thank goodness she's not the spokesman for education, eh!

The MoD is one of the departments of government with no Liberal Democrat minister, their only representative there having been sacked in the recent reshuffle. So Hammond, it seems has carte blanche to operate as if the review has come down in favour of the good old untried and untested expensive option.

I suppose that, given that in 2016 the Liberal Democrats will almost certainly be out of government and/or reduced in number so substantially as to have no influence on policy, and that the two other right wing parties, the Tories and Labour, can't wait to get their hands on yet more WMDs the better to to show off at the UN Security Council, Hammond is on a safe bet.

Mr Hammond says that he is certain that Scots will decide to stay in the UK and offer the UK a place to store these dangerous weapons, within 50 miles of a city of over half a million in a metropolitan area of well over a million. Och well, only plebs, and Scottish plebs at that!


  1. tris

    Philip Hammond was only talking 'in terms of the debate' so your entire post is bogus

  2. tris

    Obviously you do not support Osbornes attack on universality. The taking way of child benefit for those on 60000 English pounds.

    A simple yes or no will sufice

  3. I'm trying to figure out what is more offensive; Scotland hosting nuclear weapons or Scotland hosting Jackie Baillie.

    I'm leaning toward the latter.

  4. pa and others

    what is more offensive is your and other members of the inclusive snp party.

    Constant sexist comments and references to her body-shape.
    enough to get you thrown out of the snp.

  5. Couple of things there Niko, I'm not a member of the SNP and I said nothing about her body shape, it seems to me you made that assumption, I was referring to her politics.

    I know you labour types are in to making reality defying statements, but in order to be thrown out of something, one must first be in it.

    Its a wee bit like the relationship you have with your own mind, one assumes you haven't always so conscientiously supported the Union, we can assume at that time you were 'in' your mind (as it were.)

    Now though, with your energetic support of an arrangement that is so self-evidently & demonstrably rubbish; you are completely out of your mind.


  6. I don't care for means testing Niko. I think it's fair to pay a little towards the upbringing of kids who will nurse you and me when we are old, but I agree with the Tories that we should not be paying out for endless children.

    Gordon Brown brought in these tax credits by the way and set them at these levels.

    Clearly Mr Hammond was talking through his ass, and ignoring the fact that the Liberals exist, while spending £350 million on a ticket to the party...and this at a time when the actual army/navy/airforce that does the job, is being cut.

    He maintaining jobs at £300,000. Well good for him!


  7. tris

    The eastern world, it is exploding
    Violence flarin', bullets loadin'
    You're old enough to kill, but not for votin'
    You don't believe in war, but what's that gun you're totin'
    And even the Jordan River has bodies floatin'

    But you tell me
    Over and over and over again, my friend
    Ah, you don't believe
    We're on the eve
    of destruction.

    Don't you understand what I'm tryin' to say
    Can't you feel the fears I'm feelin' today?
    If the button is pushed, there's no runnin' away
    There'll be no one to save, with the world in a grave
    [Take a look around ya boy, it's bound to scare ya boy]

    And you tell me
    Over and over and over again, my friend
    Ah, you don't believe
    We're on the eve
    of destruction.

    Yeah, my blood's so mad feels like coagulatin'
    I'm sitting here just contemplatin'
    I can't twist the truth, it knows no regulation.
    Handful of senators don't pass legislation
    And marches alone can't bring integration
    When human respect is disintegratin'
    This whole crazy world is just too frustratin'

    And you tell me
    Over and over and over again, my friend
    Ah, you don't believe
    We're on the eve
    of destruction.

    Think of all the hate there is in Red China
    Then take a look around to Selma, Alabama
    You may leave here for 4 days in space
    But when you return, it's the same old place
    The poundin' of the drums, the pride and disgrace
    You can bury your dead, but don't leave a trace
    Hate your next-door neighbor, but don't forget to say grace
    And, tell me over and over and over and over again, my friend
    You don't believe
    We're on the eve
    Of destruction
    Mm, no no, you don't believe
    We're on the eve
    of destruction.

    Read more:
    LetsSingIt - Your favorite Music Community

  8. I was going to mention the fact that neither Pa nor I mentioned Jackie's body shape. You did.

    I mentioned the fact that she exaggerated 590 to 11,000, and Pa indicated that he thought we shouldn't be hosting her...

    Nothing about the fact that she is a well upholstered woman.

    Come to that I seem to remember you making comments about Alex being a tad on the tubby side. Which he most certainly is adn growing...

    Nothing wrong with that. Old Ruthie has been putting on the beef and Johann isn't exactly skinny.

    This politics business must be fattening. Osborne's looking decided rounded these days and so is Cameron.

    Your leader still has the figure of a boy though, so that's OK.

  9. Good poem Niko...

  10. pa

    its my mind and i can do what i like with it.


    so you are at one with ids and his strategy to reduce the working class.
    By forcing families to have abortions in order to be able to accesses the benefits they need to sustain themselves on the meagre wages the exploiting classes pay them.

    I myself come from a family of 8 boys 2 ladys and mum and dad.

  11. I don't think I said anything about forcing people into abortions. You don't half read arms and legs into things I say.

    I think that the state should not offer extra support to people who want to go on having children.

    We should replace the race... 2, maybe 3 kids to make up for all the people that don't want or can't have kids.

    That's all.

    After that it's up to you. If you want to give up fags say, or drink, or maybe work every Saturday, in order to have more kids, fine... but that should be your choice.

    Like I enjoy having foreign holidays, some people might want to have more kids. I don't expect anyone to subsidise my holidays.

    But I think that the UK minimum wage is a joke. 80% marks to Blair for reinstating what the evil Thatcher got rid of, but he should have made it more.

    it is disgusting that people have to try to live on that wage. But the government shouldn't be subsidising companies. They should be forced to pay a decent minimum wage. £8, or £9 might be reasonable, but we know that won't happen.

    Lordy, there's another 9 like you...?


  12. tris

    Not a poem a song have you nut heard it am surprised

    Mother was er! fruitful not all unionists by any means.

    I have decided after much cogitation decide to do a blog on why the Union a sensible one to.
    but you will have to bear with as time is at a premium at the mo.

    And Have let my Labour party membership lapse it was ed saying he did not agree with striking.

    me i am old Labour striking is sometimes most times your only defence .after everything else has failed. i think ed wants the people to wait for the Labour party to put things to rights..the last time that took eighteen years

    I do keep getting emails calls etc asking me back into the Labour fold
    but we will see

  13. Thanks Niko. Now that I hear it I realise that I had heard it before.

    It's powerful stuff.

    Striking is absolutely necessary as a power for workers, at all levels. But it must be a last resort.

    I think the reason that Thatcher got away with the early destruction that she did get away with was because of the over use of striking in the 1970s.

    I'm not saying that the management wasn't crap, but the unions over used their powers, and by the end of it the public were sick of never knowing what was going to be working, or running. I think a lot of strikers were sick of being called out. They never made their money up.

    But Ed is wrong to be against all strikes... I didn't know he was mind you...

    In my opinion that threat has to hang over management that if they don't work to get things sorted the place could shut down for a week or two!

    I'm not a 'joiner' of anything really, and certainly not political parties. I'm only in the SNP because I see it as the best way to get what my vision of the future is.

    I might have been Labour if I was around before Tony Blair, but it's too right wing for me now. Now that I'm a wild lefty by any manner...

    But I don't believe in business running things that are better run by the state. And I do believe that above all the state has a responsibility to ensure that everyone has a decent house. And it that means the state has to build the houses, then so be it.

    I might have been Liberal if the management of the party wasn't so pathetic and of course they weren't unionists. Now that they have, in the UK, joined up with the Tories, they are finished for me, and a lot of others.

    It's hard to reconcile sometimes, your own feelings with those of the party. I can understand that. Of course compromise is the only way.

    Otherwise I'd have to start up the Tris party...

  14. tris

    this made me laugh

    Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg admitted today that axing child benefit for the richest families was an “excruciatingly difficult” decision.

    didnt find as hard to take the pittance away from those in hardship.
    And who have no large income to cushion the loss oh no but the they are only pleb.

    compromise is good??? you compromise and you compromise and you compromise eventually who you were no longer anymore exists.

    and Old Labour turns to New Labour

  15. One would almost think that the Tory's want rid of us by setting the Trident renewal in motion. I hear that Labour are abstaining on the attack on public pensions certainly not on the workers side if they ever were.

  16. A lot of these public pensions are actually quite pathetic. Nothing like the way they have been presented in the press, in order to cause resentment from the private sector.

    Sometimes, CH, I reckon the Tories do want rid of us.

    They think they would get England all to themselves, but they wouldn't.

    Times change, situations change, and voting changes.

  17. Times change, situations change, and voting changes. and so do boundaries!

  18. Ha ha Niko...

    Pooooor Mr Clegg.

    I can appreciate that if you have £50,000, you probably live to that standard, just as if you have £20,000, you live to that standard. So at that level loss of money will mean a change in life (unlike for the super rich who could lose all their income and not notice for 20 years).

    That's the way life is, but you know, we are two years into their poxy government and only now are the relatively well off being asked to be in it together with the poor.

    If you lived on about £6,000 with Incapacity Benefit, it didn't take them very long to take you back to £3,500 on JSA, unless you were on a life support system. I wonder if poor old Nick lost any sleep over that!!

    Certainly the unlovely Chris Grayling didn't...

    Yes... that is true about your principles. But times had changed and they saw, despite the fact that the Tories were making all kinds of messes of it, no way of getting back into power.

    Thatcher destroyed the unions, made it difficult to go on strike because people now had mortgages. But she also closed all the old industries and there was no longer any work in the north and midlands, not to mention Scotland and Wales.

    The successes of the South East of the country (where more than half the population lived), meant that even more went to live there, and that became where the elections were lost or won.

    You could not win in Hampshire Huntingdon, Gloucestershire, etc with flat cap policies for t' workers.

    There weren't any.

    So I suppose I can see why Blair had to turn Labour into New Labour...and why it would have been disastrous for his career if, having got in, he had tried to reverse what Thatcher had done.

    He only got in because they saw him as the new Thatcher.

    There just aren't enough people who would want to vote proper Labour to make it viable, Niko.

    Sadly. Because if Thatcher had been a bit brighter, we could have been like Germany. New INDUSTRY instead of all this banking and insurance...

  19. Yes CH, that's true. There has always been gerrymandering.

    Labour did it.

    Now the Tories are at it.

  20. Britain does not have an independent Nuclear deterrent.
    Our outsourced arsenal

    Labour's 2005 election manifesto stated: "We are also committed to retaining the independent nuclear deterrent." But can this system be called independent when so much of it is, as modern business-speak would have it, sourced in America? The deterrent is carried in four Vanguard-class submarines that were designed and built in Britain, incorporating US components and reactor technology. The delivery system is the Trident D-5 missile, which is designed, made and stored in the United States. The firing system is also designed and made in the US. So is the guidance system. The computer software is American. The warhead design is based on the US W-76 bomb. The warheads are produced by Aldermaston, which is co-managed by the US firm Lockheed Martin and uses a great deal of US technology. Some vital nuclear explosive parts are imported, we now know, from the US, as are some non-nuclear parts. The warhead factory is a copy of a facility at Los Alamos, New Mexico. The submarine maintenance base is also 51 per cent owned by Halliburton of the US.
    Google Dan Plesch

  21. The absorption of the UK into the US nuclear force was made explicit only this year. Stephen Johnson, the American admiral in charge of the US Trident programme, gave his annual progress report to Congress. Among his top accomplishments for "sustainment of our [ie the US] sea-based deterrent" was sending HMS Victorious to sea after a refit. He does not list the British Trident submarine separately. No, the British Trident submarine is simply listed with the American ones under the heading "Today's Force".

    Hammond can't remove the WMD's at Faslane because they belong to the US and are part of the US Nuclear deterrent. The software for the targeting of the missiles is locked to the Targets that have and will be chosen by the Pentagon.

  22. deewal:

    Welcome to the blog and thanks for the detail on that.

    It is ridiculous that the UK is paying for what is considered to be a piece of another country's kit.

    It's even more ridiculous that the kit is pretty much useless against the enemy that exists, while troops which are fighting THAT enemy are underfunded, the forces are being cut... and the poorest people in our society are being denied the state aid they require to live, when they have no earthly chance of getting employment.

    I was interested to see Haliburton mentioned there. Isn't that more of less owned by the man who used to be the VP of America, Dick (Darth Vader) Cheney?

  23. This is a must read on the subject.

  24. Interesting stuff about trident there.

    On this cap of child benefit after two kids.

    It just won't wash, its another (possibly even worse) example of a so called problem. They said it about DLA fraud but its a pittance of an amoount when compared to other areas of expenditure, of course, it shouldn't be happening but to cite it as an area of such extreme cost to the country is a daily mail fed lie.

    And so it is with this child benefit carry on. While I have no figures to back this up, just my observation (and a lady who was on the Sunday Politics,) I really don't think a couple who are in the throws of passionate unprotected sex are going to be thinking about whether or not they'll get child benefit for the sprog that may or may not make an appearance in nine months time.

    Its another ruse, a question of tory ideology. At best it sends a message, but are we really going to potentially let (blameless) kids starve or go with out heat to make a statement to feckless parents who can't keep their various reproductive parts to themselves?

    How about a preventative spend on vasectomies or other methods of contraception and really push it out (so to speak) to young folk so the uptake on it increases.

    (I understand STI's would rise but lets be honest, they can be character building, every cloud... ;-)

  25. deewal, I hope you won't mind, I've quoted your piece over at Wings Over Scotland.

  26. Pa... Just going out. Will get back to you later this afternoon....:)

  27. Niko, that First Eckness and Camaroon sure are doing Labour up like a kipper

    Been doing some number crunching concerning boundary changes and the effect on the Westminster mix if Scotland no longer sends MPs there. I wish I could incorporate a spreadsheet here but…
    A propos the boundary changes, for reasons of simplicity I have assumed that seats removed and thus lost by any party are lost. Of course the transfer of these voters to neighbouring constituencies could well change the balance of that seat and could go some way in mitigating the original losses. That would require a more sophisticated analysis and anyway would be time dependent, that is to say the then current mood of the country in general. N Ireland has been discounted.

    Today we have the following

    Con 304
    Lab 252
    Lib 57
    SNP 6

    The seat losses due to boundary changes as per The Guardian are as follows
    Con 15 of which none would be in Scotland
    Lab 18 of which 3 would be in Scotland
    Lib 14 of which 3 would be in Scotland
    SNP no losses

    This would put the Parties, remember the caveat above, at
    Con 289
    Lab 234
    Lib 43
    SNP 6

    Then when Independence is factored in

    Con 289 (no change)
    Lab 192 (loss of 41 of which 3 are already factored in by way of boundary changes)
    Lib 35 (loss of 14 of which 3 already factored in by way of boundary changes)

    SNP 0 ( all six seats)

    Thus Scotland going its own sweet way and the boundary changes gives the Conservatives, with usual caveats a seemingly unassailable hegemony in Westminster for the foreseeable future. Dave knows this and it is the Joker he keeps up his sleeve and Miliband has just sussed this and signaled a return to “New Labour” policies of stealing Tory policies to appeal to the SE of England.

    Johann is so thick that she does not realise the significance of the above and I am sure the SPADS have been sworn to spin any crap they can to stop her working it out. No great difficulty there, then.

  28. Niko,

    You'd be better quoting from Dylans prophetic "Hard rains gonna fall" which is more descriptive of the depth to which the world has sunk.

    I notice you've formed an unholy alliance with Grahamski on his blog. It was bad enough for you and Labour to be bending over for the Tories but that is quite frankly plumbing the depth.

    I notice in one of your previous comments that you referred to me as a "turn-coat". That's quite true I left the Labour when I realised the hypocrisy in the Labour party when those "comrades" who were vehemently opposed to WMD and wars went along with Blair.

    One of the first things I was told as an activist was to charge full price for air travel in expenses even though cheaper flights were available so as "not to rock the boat".

  29. Pa... Yes, I agree the figures are small, and I would never be in favour of taking away from existing families what they have now, and expected to have, and (perhaps) calculated having to help them bring up their kids.

    But in my work I've seen so many people with families they can't manage (and the money doesn't really cover the cost of having the child... it's just a help), either financially or any other way.

    I don't think it's unreasonable to say we will help to support two kids and no more.

    I take your point about the passion frenzied couple not stopping to think...

    I think more contraception awareness (sory catholics) is a good idea, and maybe yes, after 2 kids for those who want it, the snip.

    Of course it's up to the individual. If they want to have 10 kids that's their business. It's not like China.

    I don't see any of this happening anyway.

  30. Interesting Wolfie.

    I wonder what the Liberal Democrat meltdown factor, foreseen by so many will do to that. Will there also become UKIP seats. They are running more or less equal with the Liberals in may polls.

    Dave has to balance his opposition to/enthusiasm for the EU, enough to be able to blame everything on them and show England that he is standing up to the hated Johnnie Foreigner (thus spiking UKIP's guns), but at the same time making sure he doesn't convince the entire population that we/they should be out, because no government ever wants to come out of the EU for some reason.

  31. Aye John... if you can get flights cheaper, then why can't everyone...?

    That wouldn't do. There were a lot of people, quite rightly, laughing at George Gideon about his first class tickets, but I'll bet there are any number of the comrades who do the self same thing.

  32. Tris

    I think it pretty certain that England is going to lurch to the right.

    Miliband is adopting all the Tory policies, just like Blair did because he needs the seats in SE England. Project that target group wet a bit into Hampshire and north a bit into Oxon/Bucks/ Gloucester and there you have it Dave's working majority.

    Maggie Thatcher realised that and dumped Scotland, Blair realised that and dumped Socialism.

    Miliband is trying the same trick (see today's report re Miliband rethinking Labour commitment to the EU).

    The fight will be right wing fight and Scotland needs to be well shot of it.

  33. If by any chance Scotland votes NO in the referendum I could see Holyrood, at the very least, being emasculated and at the worst shut down, depending on the blood braying from the SE blue brigade.

    If that happened I think it would be a close call at the referendum and the SNP would still be thereabouts.

    I reckon it all get very ugly in Scotland as the Tory slash and burn tactics hit home. Kevlar vests anyone?

  34. I have a feeling you are right about Holyrood if we are stupid enough to vote NO.

    I suspect the answer will be that the Scots made it clear in the referendum that they were happy with London and that London will now be overseeing this and that and the next thing.

    Cameron would see it as HIS victory.

  35. Thanks for that, CH. I've retweeted.

    Joan McAlpine's column says this:

    'Scotland and England agreed a legal process for the referendum in the Edinburgh Agreement. This will be respected by Europe, as experts from the legal world and senior European officials have confirmed. Two equal “successor” countries will inherit Britain’s membership of the European Union, but not the euro, which we chose not to join, just as Sweden and Denmark did not join. The only threat to Scotland’s membership of the EU is Tory zealots in England determined to pull the whole UK out.

    'With independence, Scotland will have our own voice in Europe, focused on our own priorities. That’s what we should be talking about – how to get the best possible deal for Scotland. Ignore the bluster in the bubble.''

    As we have all agreed, when you don't have any concrete facts to hit your opposition with, you play nasty.

    Just give us a list of 5 things that will be better say 5 years after we turn down our chance for independence, No campaigners.

    OK... 3 things that will be better?

    1 thing?

    Ok... Thanks.

  36. If the Scot made it clear in the referendum that they were unhappy with London, (unlikely atm for various reasons)what makes you think that Scotland would be allowed to have Independence ?

    The governments have agreed to promote an Order in Council under Section 30 of the Scotland Act 1998 in the United Kingdom and Scottish Parliaments to allow a single question referendum on Scottish independence to be held before the end of 2014. The Order will put beyond doubt that the Scottish Parliament can legislate for the referendum.
    It will then be for the Scottish Government to promote legislation in the Scottish Parliament for a referendum on independence. The governments are agreed that the referendum should meet the highest standards of fairness, transparency and propriety, informed by consultation and independent expert advice.

    The highest standards of fairness, transparency and propriety have been thrown out of the window within 15 days.
    All i see is an agreement to have a referendum.
    Would you like me to give you a list of Promises that Cameron and Clegg made to enable their Junta's'siezure of Government ?

    (No probs with the quote tris, there's a lot more iv'e been collecting for years.)

  37. Thanks deewal:


    I'd put nothing past them.

    Cameron has already said (somewhat stupidly, even for him) that he will use all the resources of the civil service (that's the ones we all pay for) to work against the independence movement.

    I have no doubt that that includes MI5 and 6 and all the ones we don't know about, and probably Cameron doesn't either.

    I wouldn't trust them as far as i could throw them.

    I see CH has posted this link on Niko's blog:

    It's very long, but the jist of it is plain without reading more than a few lines:

  38. Absolutely CH. Brilliant post, well worth the read.

  39. Tris I am trying to post on Auld Acquaintance but seem to go into a perpetual Awaiting Moderation state.

    You seems to get through OK.

    Anything wrong with me?

  40. Erm... Well, I didn't want to say anything Wolfie, but...erm/!*(^

    Nah. No idea.

    I have no idea... maybe he's gone to work, or to the pub and hasn't checked his mail...

  41. How does anyone deserve a "brilliant post" accolade? I post brilliant posts at night after the bingo and wake up next morning to find that someone has changed it to absolute nonsense.

    It's the opposite to being in a bar when you go to the toilet and the drinkers are dire and come back and see that all the ladies are gorgeous. I was going to post on the article but I've forgotten what it was about. You are all my best friends, hic!! Especially Tris's MUM!!!!

  42. No, I'm not really drunk but I'll bet it fooled Niko but he must be used to that by now - being a Labourite.

    Got a suggestion for Niko, post independence, set up a Labour party geared to Scotland and guided by principled guys like Malcolm Chisholm (Good Hibbee!), John McAllion and Dennis Canavan. We can sweep the boards, mate!!

    I was going to put this on the Scotsman comments but you've got more readers.

    Brian Wilson, on the Scotsman, talking about "impartiality" and then being blatantly partial - you've got to feel for them eh?

  43. Great links CH. Love the rap especially...

  44. Ah John. I'm glad you're not drunk... but then I would never have believed that of you.

    My mum told me you were strict TT...sworn the oath of the Temperance Society.

    Of course a proper Labour party geared to Scotland's 21st century needs would sweep the boards. I vote for them, post independence. The Liberals look as if they will have disappeared.

    But it's too good to be true. They are all too bitter, and even at independence they will be too bitter to be left in charge of anything. They would poison it with their gall.

    Of course we have more readers than the Scotsman, and more intelligent ones too...

  45. PS: I read on Caron's musings that it's Willie Rennie's wedding anniversary today.

    She also points out that only a few weeks ago it was Barack and Michelle Obama's anniversary.

    Amazing...two world leaders celebrating their anniversaries in such a short time.

  46. Amazing...two world leaders celebrating their anniversaries in such a short time.

    Hehehehehehe.......... how do I get rid of a permanent smirk that has caused.

  47. I don't know what there is to smirk about CH


    Some mornings are better than others and no comments allowed.

  49. "There are clearly a whole range of weighty and authoritative views about whether an independent Scotland would remain in the EU and it is dishonest of the Yes Scotland campaign to hand-pick the ones that suit their argument."

    As if Labour...or any other party... or movement... would ever hand pick arguments to suit their purpose...

    Thanks Wolfie.