"I will be with you whatever."

At this point I'm not going to attempt much of a comment on the Chilcot Report. But I thought it worth putting Mr Robertson's comments on the blog. In the very short time that he (and Mr Corbyn) had to see the report, I think that they seem to have got to the nub of the matter.

I've always thought it sad that the UK, a military nation if ever there was one, treats its ordinary military with such disdain. I'm often reminded of the truth of Kipling's poem "Tommy". (I'm sure the top brass get a REALLY good deal.)

Oh, yes, there is such respect for "our brave boys" from the top people on Remembrance Sunday,  when politicos and royals dress up in their very best black and stand at the Cenotaph looking inordinately serious.  But they show a good deal less sympathy for the guys who come back alive but traumatised, find it hard to fit back into their families and ordinary civilian life, and end up homeless and alone.

Worth noting here the Tory press criticise Mr Corbyn for not bowing sufficiently low at the Cenotaph (forgetting to mention that he stayed behind to speak to the veterans while the rest of them went to the VIP lunch). If you have the time just read the hypocritical crap in that article.

From what little I've heard of Chilcot, the line that Angus mentions (and the title of this post) won't leave my head: "I will be with you whatever."

It would be a ridiculous thing to say at the best of times, but when the lives of millions of people were hanging in the balance, it beyond parody.

I'm tempted to say that my first thought was of a particularity immature teenage lover rather than the prime minister of a war-faring nation.

Seriously, what kind of an idiot would promise unyielding support to another country, no matter what. The man gave away the power of the UK prime minister to the president of another country. "No matter what happens, you call the shots and I'll do what you say". 

And not just to any other head of government. To George DubYa Bush for heaven's sake. it would be hard to find a head of government I'd trust less!

And yet, almost undoubtedly, becasue he is who he is, he will walk away with his miserable head held high, to carry on money making giving spin doctor advice to some of the most repugnant regimes on Earth.

Someone joked on Twitter that Blair was asked if he would defend himself at the Hague (he is a barrister). He replied, "what does it pay?"

Hundreds of under-equipped British troops died in this fiasco of a war; hundreds more came home minus limbs or traumatised beyond treatment and often dependant upon charity to help them becasue the British government would not.

In Iraq hundreds of thousands of totally innocent civilians with no connection to Saddam, and no knowledge of the non-existent WMDs that could hit British targets in 45 minutes, according to Blair, died, and people continue to die in the chaos we left behind. How many were maimed we have no idea.

Iraq, a stable, albeit unpleasant, regime, with which Britain was happy to do business when it suited them, was destabilised because no one, not Bush, not Blair, not anyone, had a post war plan in place, not even in their heads (as Angus says, just like they didn't for Afghanistan, Libya or indeed Brexit).

Saddam ran a tight ship which did not allow for terrorist organisations, and no religious extremism was tolerated.  The aftermath of the war was infiltration by Islamic terrorists in the form of ISIS and we know where that has led.

Over the next few weeks more of the report will become known to us, as legal experts pour over the intricacies. It took a long time to write. It will take a long time to decipher, but I hope that at the end Blair and his bunch of  self serving, money grubbing thugs will be made to pay...as much as I believe it won't happen. 

WAR, WHAT IS IT GOOD FOR? ANTI SNP HEADLINES!

A man who might be expected to know something about the area.
But as Craig Murray will tell you, they never listen to people who know anything about anything.

Aye, so you will be.

Playing soldiers while other people suffer.

What would a country like Saudi Arabia need £3.9 billion of arms for?
Oh yes, ISIS.

I wonder if he has worked that out yet.
And worse, whose side he will be on when it's all over.

If only you would lead.

Sums him up. Please, I want to be Winston Thatcher and
 Margaret Churchill all rolled up with Tory Blur.

For those who have a passing interest in the truth, Alex Salmond did indeed unveil his portrait today in Edinburgh at lunch time.

He had attended First Minister's Questions in his capacity as a MSP, and afterwards hosted a reception for veterans. He also briefed MSPs on the Syrian situation. 

He knew about the Syrian situation, you see, because he himself had been briefed the evening before by the Cabinet Office (along with some other Privy Councillors), of exactly what the Prime Minister would say. There was no need for him to be in Westminster.

It should also be noted that when The Prime Minister makes a statement, the leaders of the opposition parties are required to give a response. That would be Mr Corbyn first  (not Hilary Benn), then Angus Robertson (not Alex Salmond). That's the way it is done. You'd have thought they would know that kind of thing.

The Prime Minister has said that a debate will be held next week on whether or not to go to war.

Mr Salmond's duties in Scotland were pre-existing. The notice of the Prime Ministerial statement was made latterly.

It says something for the state of the press and of the opposition parties that the best that they can do to fight the SNP is to tell half truths and apply innuendos to the comings and goings of Alex Salmond.

Perhaps if there were a policy or two from the opposition parties in Scotland... and I mean policies that don't fall to pieces within an hour, the newspapers would be able to propose a better and brighter future for us under Labour or the Tories.

 As it is, of course, all any of them can do is bleat SNP bad.

QUESTIONABLE QUESTION TIME

Like many other people, I wrote a letter of complaint to the BBC over the choice of panelists for last night's 'Question Time'.

The BBC will, I am sure, in due course, acknowledge that I have written to them and will doubtless come up with some long winded management speak gobbledegook reply, about overall balance, and period of referendum campaign, etc.

In a debate clearly meant to be largely about the referendum (why otherwise invite an audience of only 16 and 17 year olds?*), it was odd that neither the YES campaign nor the NO campaign was invited to take part. Instead of that  the Respect MP from Bradford and the UKIP MEP for South East England were invited.

A cynic might think that with the dual disadvantage for UK viewers of the programme coming from Edinburgh, and having questions supposedly framed by 16 and 17 year olds, the largely English audience would give it a miss and  the ratings would suffer. So to spice it up, why not bring in two well known hopefully adversarial figures from England, to make the tv audience feel less alienated? (After all, the English audience neither know, nor care, who Robertson, Davidson, Riddoch or Sarwar are, and both Galloway and Farage are good tv.)

I'm glad to know that, among all the letters of complaint from unimportant ordinary people like me, the BBC will also have received a letter from the unaffiliated Electoral Reform  Society of Scotland. They may have to put a little more effort into answering this one.

Dear Ms Valentine

The Electoral Reform Society in Scotland seeks to inform and improve Scotland's democracy. With that in mind, we have being undertaking an inquiry into what a good Scottish democracy looks like.

A major theme that has emerged from this year long, citizen led inquiry, is the importance of the media to instruct, publicise and inform the debate. There has been support for a publicly funded media provider, but a strong sense that that body should be impartial and should seek to provide balanced and informed coverage of politics. Clearly this is of particular concern in the run up to the 2014 referendum.

We were concerned therefore to see the lineup for the BBC Question Time programme to be held in Edinburgh this evening (Thursday 13th June). Not only does the selection of panellists fail to represent the makeup of Scottish politics, but it also seems to be aimed more at pantomime than serious debate.

That this should be the case when the audience is, very pleasingly, to be made up of 16 and 17 year olds in recognition of the extension of the franchise to that group for the referendum is  worrying.

It seems to  show a lack of respect for these young audience members - implying that they do not deserve serious political debate. It also fails to allow them to hear from their elected representatives in this public debate forum which receives the widest of political attention. Two of the parties which will be competing for their vote in 2014 are unrepresented and the Yes and Better Together campaigns are needlessly unequally represented. Were this not bad enough, available spaces on the platform are taken instead by George Galloway MP and Nigel Farage MEP, two individuals and parties who are not represented in Scotland.

We welcome the decision to involve 16 and 17 year olds in a public debate about the referendum, but the chosen panelists do those 16 and 17 year olds a disservice as they will not be able to hear from the parties who represent them and who will be seeking their vote in 2014.

We would ask the BBC to urgently reconsider the panel, and at the very least to re-schedule a repeat of this edition of Question Time, but with a panel representative of Scottish politics that respects the BBC's role to be impartial and equal.

Yours sincerely

Willie Sullivan

* The programme actually was divided up by topic as follows (thanks for Rev Stu's research)

PRIVACY AND SURVEILLANCE:  15:47, INDEPENDENCE: 33:01, SYRIA: 7:28.

(By the way, I'd like to make it clear that I have not watched the programme. I wouldn't give them the audience numbers. My complaint is about the makeup of the panel; the exclusion of two parties which have representation in parliament and the inclusion of two parties which have none.)

MAKING THE POINT FOR LOSSIEMOUTH

Angus Robertson MP (Moray) has met with Defence Secretary Liam Fox in London to press the case for RAF Lossiemouth, as the campaign to secure the future of the Tornado base, supported by the major parties in Scotland, gathers pace.


Mr Robertson, the SNP Westminster leader and Defence spokesperson, pressed the Mr Fox on the strategic military arguments which support Lossiemouth as the best place to base the Joint Strike Fighter aircraft, both in terms of cost and location. Mr Robertson also raised concerns over the economic and social cost of closure.


Mr Robertson reported:

“Liam Fox confirmed that the timescale for decisions on the future of Lossiemouth will be made in New Year. On one hand this will prolong the uncertainty for the families of service personnel, but on the other allows the Moray taskforce and campaigners more time to build the case for retention of the base.


“It is clear that no plan has been agreed to mitigate the economic and social impact of base closures by the UK Government, which is regrettable and irresponsible, and UK Ministers, including the Defence Secretary, need to understand their responsibilities.


“RAF Kinloss and Lossiemouth make an enormous contribution to the local economy, and the closure of both bases would be the equivalent of 700,000 job losses in the Greater London area.


“Liam Fox has just returned from Norway, as have I, after discussing the opportunities for defence cooperation and this again reinforces the case to maintain and utilise RAF Lossiemouth as a northerly home for the Joint Combat Aircraft. This would allow easy and cost effective transit to and from Norway and a capability commitment able to address the challenges facing the Arctic and the High North.


“There is no doubt that the successful future of RAF Lossiemouth can be secured through cooperation with our Nordic neighbours if the right military facilities are maintained and vital capabilities such as maritime reconnaissance and fast-jet capability located in the best strategic location.


“The national significance of the RAF's role in Scotland is demonstrated by the endorsement from each of Scotland's political leaders, including the Scottish Tories and Liberal Democrats, is that RAF basing should remain in Moray.”


What good common sense. It seems reasonable to me that we should look at co-operation with other countries in matters of defence. For far too long the British taxpayer has punched well above his or her weight in these matters. Now we simply cannot afford that ”luxury”.

Mr Robertson’s point that the economic impact of the job losses would equate to the effects of 700,000 redundancies in the London area was a point well made. The government would never consider such a move.

Let’s hope that the MoD can see sense as far as this is concerned.

SO GORDON, YOU'VE NEVER SEEN YOUR OWN FLYER?

Last night Gordon Brown was caught out lying in the TV debates when he said that he had never authorised a leaflet scaremongering over bus passes for the elderly.

Incredibly, this very claim is made on his own constituency flyer.


Challenged by David Cameron on Labour's scaremongering tactics in relation to cuts in concessionary travel for pensioners, Brown said that he had not authorised any leaflets saying that.


His own leaflet in Fife states he will fight against "cuts to concessionary travel" as you can see from the illustration. Now I accept that Cameron would have no authority over cuts or otherwise in Scotland and that Brown may have been talking specifically about leaflets in England warning that the Tories would cut these benefits for English people, but it was a pretty stupid thing to say. Incidentally Cameron gave a reassurance that he would not cut these benefits, so some good has come out of it for English pensioners.


In Scotland the SNP has actually expanded the concessionary travel scheme to include disabled veterans from April 2011 and has guaranteed concessionary travel for the elderly.


As Angus Robertson said: "If he can't be trusted on his own leaflets then what can he be trusted on?

I’m interested in two things. Firstly, the Prime Minister was caught lying last night on tv. (He MUST have authorised the leaflets in his own constituency). This is a big story. He lied. So why can’t I find a story about it in either the Herald or the Scotsman?

Secondly, when you look at the things that he’s fighting the election on, why does he mention things over which Westminster parliament will have no control? Is there not an MSP for these things? As well as the pensioners’ concessionary travel, which he denies having on his flyer, he talks crime and supporting the police. Does he not know that that is nothing to do with him or his parliament? Is he THAT out of touch with what’s going on?


Pics: Gordon Brown with an advisor, twice... and Gordon's flyer.

Labour candidate maybe didn't understand that Twitter could be seen by everyone

Oh dear, oh dear...when Labour Party goes off message they show just how unlovely they are....

Stuart MacLennan, who had been standing in Moray, has been sacked because he posted highly offensive comments about voters, politicians and others on Twitter.

What a damned fool. Is this really the calibre of people they are putting up as candidates for the London parliament? Half a brain cell should have told him that Twitter is not exactly a confidential means of communication.

He branded the elderly “coffin dodgers”; he talked about chavs; he called Commons speaker John Bercow a twat, Nick Clegg a bastard and Dianne Abbot, a f****** idiot (well duh, you thicko, she’s in your party, you’re supposed to pretend to like her!!!!!). And he actually complained about being “up north again”. You really have to wonder at him.

One of his tweets read: “God this fair-trade, organic banana is shit. Can I have a slave grown, chemically enhanced, genetically modified one please?

The sitting MP is Angus Robertson who is defending a 5,676 majority. He called the remarks “totally unacceptable”, while Annabel Goldie, Tory leader, said his comments where "disgraceful".

One of the really amusing things about the whole sorry tale is that MacLennan in followed on Twitter by a host of what passes in Labour circles for "glitterati", including Sarah Brown, Ed Balls, John Prescott, Jim Murphy and Labour’s 'Twitter Czar' Kerry McCarthy (some all-women shortlist MP for Bristol).

Of course, it's fair to say that none of the people concerned would give a fig for what he called them. I guess they have all be called much worse and a little oink's opinions are hardly likely to cause them much lack of sleep. It is the fact that he didn't think that bothers me.

MacLennan, a taxation lawyer, said: “Some of the things I twittered before I became a candidate were very, very silly and I can see they are offensive. I have let myself and my friends down and am really sorry.”

Amazingly he appeared to have predicted his own downfall when he wrote: “Iain Dale (Tory blogger) reckons the biggest gaffes will likely be made by candidates on Twitter – what are the odds it will be me?” Err, pretty high, I'd say Stewie.

So in summation, this guy is a lawyer (therefore potentially bright), he is a candidate for a constituency, he knows that saying daft stuff on Twitter can lead to the downfall of candidates because Iain Dale told him so, and yet he says daft and offensive things about people on Twitter. Nob!

Right. Sorted. I hope he’s never my lawyer.

Pic: Stuart MacLennan