Thursday 17 September 2015


As a Scot I tend to dislike the British national anthem because it represents the UK. If I hear it on radio, I turn it off. 

Additionally, as a republican I'm unlikely to be enamoured of a song in praise of a system of government that I think is outmoded, undemocratic and ridiculous, especially as it is a creeping and obsequious as it is.

So I think you can be fairly sure that you will NEVER hear me sing "God save the queen". In most circumstances I wouldn't even stand while it was played. (I would if I were at a Scotland England match and the English were using it as their anthem.)

Whether Mr Corbyn does or does not is a matter for him to decide.

But in the great scheme of things, what he does during the anthem isn't terribly important. 

By that I mean that we have a government absolutely set on getting rid of the Human Rights Act.  We have a government which is working to get rid of most of the freedoms that trades unions fought hard for. We have an incompetent liar as the minister for Work and Pensions causing deaths by the hundreds and lying about the figures. These are important.

The UK government is also hell bent on going to yet another war in the Middle East, seemingly oblivious of the chaos that the last three have left in their wake. At the same time it is reducing the armed forces, relying on volunteer territorials, and spending more than £100 billion on a weapons that will never be used. That is important.

Of course that list in not exhaustive, but it will do for starters...

In comparison with this, whether or not Jeremy sang the queen's song is a matter of such piddling unimportance, it really barely registers and only small and empty minds would find it in the least worth a mention.

Yet all day today, I'm told, this story was the BBC lead on all their newscasts and it was headlined in numerous papers, some of which are not renowned for showing respect for the queen themselves.

Some journalists too, were whining that it was a mark of disrespect for the armed forces.

In what parallel universe does that make any sort of logical sense?

None. It's complete nonsense. It may have shown a lack of regard for their commander in chief, but it indicated nothing more than that. 

Personally I can't help thinking that sending troops into an illegal war, with poor equipment, second rate kit and clothing, and a lack of support helicopters shows a bloody sight more disrespect that not singing GSTQ.

I think that allowing physically and sometimes mentally damaged troops to return after wars and give them as little as possible support, allowing them to become homeless or sanctioned by the Department of Death and Pensions leading to their death from starvation, is decided less respectful than not singing any bloody song at any time ever.

(Incidentally, now might be a good time to remind anyone who hasn't already bought it that Mark Frankland's 'Great Food Bank Siege' is still on sale and all the profits are still going to his food bank. Relevant here becasue the story covers the plight of two ex-soldiers fallen through the system, ignored by the government and left to deteriorate in a life of isolation, nightmares, drugs and drink... It's a cracking read!)

And when they weren't quibbling about this perceived insult to our brave boys, they were outraged that Mr Corbyn's top button wasn't done up and his tie had slipped down exposing some of his throat!!!!!! 

Listen to yourselves, you idiots. What in the name of heavens does that matter to any sane person? You sound like 19th century maiden aunts.

This, is what we should be concerning ourselves with. Austerity that makes money for the super rich, leaves many of us with simply less, and completely abandons the least favoured.

I don't agree with everything Mr Corbyn stands for, not by a long way, but I'd rather have him and his followers in 10 Downing Street, if that accursed place has to have a say in our governance, than any of the other people who have been there all through my life. 


Warlike person, Ruth Davidson somewhat rashly tweeted this (below) today. Presumably in respect of Mr Corbyn's meeting with, or being praised by these names.

Gerry Adams Martin McGuinness Cristina de Kirchner Hamas Did I miss anyone?

Is this a help Ruth?
Augusto Pinochet, who was fond of torturing women
by introducing rats to their undergarments, and who dropped his enemies
into the Pacific Ocean from aeroplanes, but who allowed Maggie
to fly from his airports in order to thwart his deadly enemies
in Argentina.
The late King of Saudi Arabia, the regime which chops of hands and
heads with abandon, but does buy a lot of arms from England.
The King of Bahrain, who put down the Arab Spring uprising in his country and imprisoned doctors who treated the wounded, but also spends billion in England
on more arms so that he can do it again if need be.
The lovely PW Botha, PM and President of Aparthied South Africa.

And one last gripe on the subject of Mr Corbyn.

Could the BBC stop referring to him as "the left wing leader", or if they feel that can't manage that, then could they start referring to Cameron as the "right wing prime minister"?

You know, just for a wee bit of balance...

Oh wait. It's the BBC...silly me!


  1. Jesus,

    Ruth Davidson and tanks. It is certainly playing into some sort of sad zeitgeist, perhaps this one:

    I am no psychologist of the odd and the weird, but it strikes me as a bit 'follow my leader' and have a bad hair day?

    What was she thinking?

    1. Ha ha...

      I really don't know what she was thinking, but they seem to like posing on tanks.

    2. We are still waiting down here in Annan for her to arrive at the head of the 1st Tory Panzer Division, as promised by her on May 7th.

      I'm beginning to think the news that we had a few burly men ready and waiting has turned her off attacking Annan after all!

    3. Let me know if she arrives. I'd love to come down and see the battle of Annan.

  2. On the Corbyn situation, well he has backed down already so I am still sitting waiting on how he and his party vote when it comes down to important issues, it seems that given that he seldom voted with his party the rest will do the same now, so how he runs a cohesive shop is beyond me. All for people being individual but if they all make it up as they go along the Tories will walk all over them, so no change there then.

    1. Has he said he will sing their anthem in future, Helena?

      I agree, I must admit I don't see how he is going to hold discipline in the current Labour party.

      But the party as a whole needs to remember that he was elected by a fairly large majority.

      With 4 contestants he had 59.5% of the vote, and not just from new or temporary members.

      In the referendum with only 2 choices, they called 55% an overwhelming majority. They need to remember that the people who voted Corbyn are the people who will vote Labour at an election. His policies as stated before his win, are the ones that nearly 60% of the Labour party that cared enough to vote at all, voted for.

      Can't help thinking that they might find themselves wiped out in England if they don't do what the membership wants.

      Of course it is early days, and Labour supporters are finding out just how biased the press and the BBC are.

      Most of it, like with YES is lies.

      Things like singing the bloody song or bowing to the queen to get your Privy Council membership so that you can be briefed on security matters, is nothing. Who cares? He can go back on stuff like that if he wants.

      As long as he doesn't go back on warmongering, killing off the sick and getting rid of Trident.

  3. Tris

    I wrote about Tim Farrons comments today regarding many in the Labour movement contacting him because of Jeremy Corbyn win, I hope you don't but here it is below as I know you cant access my blog and would like to hear your opinion on this revelation:

    Potential Defectors and the Liberal Democrats

    Today Tim Farron the leader of the Liberal Democrats reported that he had received texts and calls from Labour members distraught at the election of Jeremy Corbyn as leader of the Labour Party. I suppose the implication being that some or many might defect to the Liberal Democrats.

    Now anyone who knows me or has read this blog knows that I have little time for the Labour Party, or for many within it. I have tweeted over the last few days that I suspect the Parliamentary Labour Party will try to bring Corbyn down, thus destroying their party as they go against the clear vote by the members of the party. I never considered the worst scenario that might be many defecting to the Liberal Democrats.

    There are many within the Liberal movement that want the party to seize the middle ground therefore they might welcome an influx of both disillusioned Labour members and MPs. I don’t. I feel the Liberal movement should not be about left, right or center but about what’s right, about an honest politics. I would like to think that it is about what is right and wrong, is it right to purchase new weapons of mass destruction when many are going hungry and using food banks, is it right to cut tax credits while allowing big business to avoid paying tax, is it right to claim we live in a democracy when we have an unelected and unaccountable head of state and unelected second chamber.

    These are some of the questions I feel we should be asking ourselves as Liberals. No more politics of hate, or power for power sake, no more broken pledges, but a politics that voters can embrace because of it’s honesty and common cause that most or many can agree with. I think people have had enough of the politics of old. Labour members who embraced the war on Iraq, that embrace austerity for austerity sake, that embrace the poorest paying for the richest, Labour MPs that will drop every principle they hold and run to safer ground to save their parliamentary privilege would not be welcomed by me.

    I believe the election of Jeremy Corbyn was a moment where many in the Labour movement stood up against the politics of old, the politics of Blair and Mandelson. No matter if you agree with them or not I admire them for standing up to what was in effect the Tory Party within the Labour Party. They have started to clean out a dishonest infection within their party and I wish them every success in the world, however I DO NOT want the Coopers of the world , the opportunists of the Labour right to infect the Liberal Democrats with their politics of greed, and their politics of selfishness. If that happens I dread to think what will happen to the Liberal Democrats and ask myself where do the real Liberals go.


    1. Bruce: I can (and do) access your blog …and tweet your articles. It's just that I cannot comment. (As I can't on most of the wordpress blogs.) I haven't been able to for a couple of years, but please don’t think I don’t read your stuff. Your blog is excellent. I wish I could comment.

      To your article:

      I agree that you would have to be very careful about an influx of MPs crossing to your party.

      I can completely understand that there are some right wing Labour MPs, Blairites, who can't accept Mr Corbyn's policies of the centre left/left. His lack of enthusiasm for wars at all costs; his wish to preserve a civilised level of benefits and treatment of workers and to rid us of nuclear weapons, must be anathema to Cooper and Kendal et al. Once upon a time he would have been relatively normal in the Labour party, but we all know that Blair was a Thatcherite, and Blairism was just Thatcherism pushed to the next stage.

      These MPs must be only too well aware that ordinary voters not only voted by a majority for Corbyn, but did so in a situation where his nearest rival (the next most centre left) got fewer than a third of his votes, and the true Blairite candidate got only 1/15 of his support. They must be asking if there is a future for them in Labour, and doubting that there is.

      If they overthrow Corbyn, they will lose vast numbers of their core support. The trouble is that if they stick with him they may lose that support too. They must be painfully aware what happened to Labour in Scotland when they got on the wrong side of the Scottish voter.

      But surely the question they would have to ask is... Is the Liberal Democrats the right place for us?

      What does a post Clegg Liberal Democrat Party stand for? I have to admit that I don’t know. Probably you do, and quite possibly they do.

      Of course, defecting MPs (and members) don’t have to agree with everything that the Liberal Dems stand for, but it would help if they agreed with a fair whack of it.

      Under Clegg the Liberals came dangerously close to embracing Blairism in its latest for… Cameronism, although no one can be bothered to call it that. He simply isn’t important enough.

      With the LDs having so few MPs, an influx of as few as 10 new defectors from Labour would totally swamp the party, and it would seem more like New Labour than Liberal Dem. You could lose whatever identity you have. (I’m not being snide here, but I really don’t know what LD policies are on so many things since Farron, who strikes me as being not particularly Liberal and not particularly Democratic.

      If Labour want to defect so they can go on collecting their fat salaries and hope to get shadow cabinet posts, possibly on the basis that they could move back to Labour when it ditches Corbyn and elects David Miliband then my advice to Farron is … Say NOPE.

      There may be genuine believers amongst them, but by and large they are a bunch of sleazy opportunists.

  4. Just in case anyone thought that wee Davie Cambam was the only one in the world who has an answer to the "Syria question" Tris I can confirm that a solution was put forward in 2012 by a "furriner." Needless to say the said proposal was rejected by messers Obama, Cambam and co. I guess their military equipment sales people needed yet another showcase for their super duper weapons.

    1. Russia BAAAAAAAD.

      There is a very great amount of money to be made in Syria. I suspect from more than one group.

      If only these pesky migrant refugee type people wouldn't get in the way.

      Russia of course has great influence in the area, unlike either the USA or its lap dog.

  5. For the one and only time I'm going to defend Thatcher. Her decision to retake the Falklands was correct (even if it was for cynical political purposes - the same reasons as Argentina, deflect attention from home). But that does not defend her meeting with Pinochet.

    However, the problem for senior politicians is that they have to have good diplomatic relations with everyone. And that means meeting distasteful regimes. Not defending it but it is an unfortunate fact. Scotland does a lot of business with China, who are not exactly known for their human rights. Not all business is arms related. Diplomats have the unenviable task of making horse shit taste like nectar.

    As to Corbyn, well I'm glad he won, as it will make Labour reform. I don't know if he will survive for too long to be honest, but I do like his casual dress attitude. He's more interested in policies rather than the shiny appearance bullshit. And his approach to PMQs was a welcome break, especially as it pissed off a Tory backbencher who couldn't get his question in.

    As to singing the national anthem or not - that is an individual's choice. The Queen must be bloody sick of it by now anyway!


    1. Hi Zog.

      Yes, Mrs Thatcher was happy for the Argentinians to have the Malvinas, until she was looking shaky for the next election, at which point, having, until then, ignored all the signals that were coming from Buenos Aires, she decided to act. Task Force sent, ships sunk... she loved it.

      And despite her immense unpopularity, she was re-elected with a bigger majority, because she was Winstoness Churchill the war heroine.

      Of course you have to meet and do deals with horrible regimes if you want their business. I think you can be less enthusiastic than Thatcher was for DEAR General Pinochet. She could have shown her gratitude at the time by saying "thank you" (although as I said, I suspect he didn't do it to help her, but because it gave him a chance to hurt Argentina). Thatcher didn't need to go visit him when he came to the UK later, having been deposed. There was no advantage to the UK in that. I seem to remember there was some talk of him being sent to the Hague for crimes of torture and murder, but the Straw man decided to cut him some slack and let him off.

      Co-incidentally, what goes around comes around, because Straw was let off with being a devious money grubbing lowlife today, so doubtless it will soon be Lord Straw of Fiddle, adding another creep to the upper house competing with the other creeps for the financial advantage a title brings. lots of lovely loot. (I dare say that Rifkind will be joining him.)

      I'm a great one for informality in dress too Zog. What you say that counts, not whether you are wearing a £3,500 suit and £2,000 shoes.

      You look along the Tory or Labour benches and there they all are looking like elderly, usually overweight school boys, all in uniform, blue suits, blue ties, all costing more than a pensioners 6 monthly income.

  6. tris

    wot mystifys me is how the Tory vermin scum slime bang on about our jeremys
    lack of respect for queen and country flag waving lands of hope and glory...dambusters
    music etc u know what i mean..

    And yet and yet any of the Armed forces who get their arms or legs eyes blown
    out skin burned to shred bodily mutilated fighting for said Queen and country
    dambustersmusic etc u know what i mean..



    says it all to me

    1. Absolutely my point Niko.

      Not just not normal, but frequently left to die.

      I'm against all wars. I think that by the 21st century we should be able to sort stuff out without people blowing other people up. But clearly we are not that bright, so we have to have soldiers.

      And we have to send them off to make money for rich people and big corporations, or out of hatred for Muslims, or whatever it is that motivates people like Cameron and Blair to want to kill other people.

      And even November 11, all these fine politicians in their £3000 suits turn up at the Cenotaph and look incredibly solemn, and then off they pop and start another war. As long as it's not their kids that age in the firing line.

      When the bodies come back they stand solely again at Brize Norton, but if they come back maimed or badly injured, they can go piss off and get a job.

      And the press say that not singing a song insults the troops.

      This place becomes more ridiculous by the day.

  7. tris and other nat malcontents

    I have rejoined Jeremys labour party to show support for an old labour movement

    Erm ! sorry many apologies hope u can forgive me or not once again
    wery sorry

    "The Fool On The Hill"

    Day after day, alone on the hill
    The man with the foolish grin is keeping perfectly still
    But nobody wants to know him
    They can see that he's just a fool
    And he never gives an answer

    But the fool on the hill
    Sees the sun going down
    And the eyes in his head
    See the world spinning around

    Well on the way, head in a cloud
    The man of a thousand voices talking perfectly loud
    But nobody ever hears him
    Or the sound he appears to make
    And he never seems to notice

    But the fool on the hill
    Sees the sun going down
    And the eyes in his head
    See the world spinning around

    He never listens to them
    He knows that they're the fools
    They don't like him

    The fool on the hill
    Sees the sun going down
    And the eyes in his head
    See the world spinning around

    Thatl be me

    1. I'd have done the same in your place Niko. I wish him luck.

      I really hope that he can work with the SNP, Greens, Plaid and Irish to stand up to the loonies in the Tory Party.

      What you think are his chances of survival?