WEE JOHANN AND HER SLIPPERY TONGUE WENT WEE WEE WEE ALL THE WAY HOME

The right to set the minimum wage may be a wee thing to her, but for folk that can’t keep warm in the winter, don't eat for the last week of the month, or whose kids can't access a computer and go to school in rags it's a BIG thing. It's the wage itself that is a wee thing.

The Bedroom tax seems only to be a wee thing when she isn't making political capital out of it. But for folk worried about whether there will be an eviction letter in the morning mail, wee it is not.

Child care and making sure that kids get a hot meal at lunchtime is not a priority to ex teacher Lamont; she’s already made that clear. Just a wee matter of kids eating without the embarrassment of being labeled "poor" or "tinky" because their parents haven't the money to feed them, pffff! Wee indeed.

And nuclear weapons less than 40 miles away from the centre of Glasgow may be a wee thing to her, but most folk think it's a great big fat scary bugger of a thing, and so will she if there’s an accident. 

Her officials said it was a slip of the tongue... Nah, it wasn't. She looked pleased with it. Clever Johann.

She’s an embarrassment to Labour. No wonder they don’t let her out during the week. 

Still one day she'll probably be Baroness Lamont, then she can have the last laugh at all us detractors from the vantage point of her £300 a day tax free old aristocrats' home.

You rang, my lady?

THE ANSWER ISN'T BLOWING IN THE WIND; IT'S IN THE QUESTION

I haven't yet had time to look at FMQs from yesterday, but I had to laugh at the clip of Ruth Davidson on the STV (Grampian) News. Every poll ever published (in the whole wide world in the history of mankind) agrees with me? What? It's a wonder then Ruth that you're not First Minister, or the Queen, or something. And of course, as James points out, clearly the poll of September last year, and umpteen others showing a lead for independence over dependence, were figments of our febrile imaginations.

Lamont was just as bad. "He has the majority, he has the mandate...." (well, thanks for admitting that Johann) ...so why, she wondered, didn't he call the referendum now. 

Well, you see Johann, the clue to the answer is in the question. It works like this:-

He has the majority to decide whether or not, and when, to call the referendum. This is a majority given by us, we, the Scottish electorate. And although by Westminster standards it is a tiny majority, it is, in fact, the majority that should never have been: a majority that was never envisaged: a majority that the system was set up to avoid ever happening (because Blair  wanted 'parish councils' rather than strong government in 'the provinces'). 

And (and this is important), it's not a majority based on the voters being sick of the last lot, as so often happens, but instead a majority based on their being SATISFIED with the last lot, because as you may remember, the SNP was the last lot.

And as Johann says, the mandate is there; there's no escaping that. The referendum was in the manifesto. And, just in case someone who didn't know what the SNP was all about, and who didn't read the manifesto, was in some doubt, it was hammered home by none other than Tavish Scott in the Leaders' Debates when he pointed out that "a vote for the SNP is a vote for independence".

 And when pressed on the timing of that referendum, Johann, you may remember, Alex Salmond said, on national television, in front of the then leaders of the now opposition parties, a hand picked studio audience, and anyone who was interested enough to be watching, that if the SNP won the election, the referendum would be called in the second half of the parliament.

So, to answer Mrs Lamont question, he is calling a referendum, and he is calling it in the second half of the parliament because he has the majority, he has the mandate, and that’s when he promised the Scottish people he would do it.

And why, anyway, is Mrs Lamont in such an all-fired hurry now to have a referendum that only a few months ago her party, in an opposition coalition with the Tories and the Liberals, made clear would be defeated were proposals to “bring it on”  brought before parliament?

Unless, as part of Labour’s “Bring it on: Don’t Bring it on” referendum policy, we're in the 'Bring it on' cycle. 

Pics: Ruth Davidson, Conservative leader, and Johann Lamont, Labour leader, providing her own caption and advertising campaign.

DEAFNESS AFFLICTS RETIRING PARTY LEADERS

Anyone watching the early parts of First Minister's Questions this week would have been entitled to wonder that it wasn't some spoof cleverly recreating the weekly opportunity to question Alex Salmond, dreamed up and executed by Rory Bremner in a series of guises.

Iain Gray, the outgoing, or maybe not outgoing leader of the Labour group was at his comedy best. (I say may not be outgoing because he may have to stay on. You see, the only 2 people who appear to want the poison chalice of leading this group are (a) someone who can't really have it, on the basis that you can't be leader of the Labour group IN the Scottish parliament if you are, erm, not actually a member of, and therefore IN the Scottish parliament, and (b) Johann Lamont... who erm.. is ...erm, Johann Lamont!

Anyway, Iain, bless him, decided to go on the referendum on independence. He'd probably have done better sticking to the subject of the first question: What are the FM's engagements for the rest of the day?

But no, independence referendum it was. So Alex explained to him three or was it four times... I lost the will to live after the first couple of times... The manifesto said that it would take place sometime in the second half of a five year parliament. This is the first year, or put another way, year 1. There is year 2 to go, and half of year 3 before we will be into the second part of the parliament. From then on it might be reasonable to ask. Right now it is not. More seriously he pointed out that jobs were the priority for the moment.

Now all of that was just pathetic Iain Gray stuff, pretty much par for the course, but for his last question; the pièce de resistance if you will, Iain produced a photograph of a lady he announced was "Gypsy Amalia" in conversation with the First Minister. Maybe we should ask her about the date for the referendum... quipped the funny man. And, as her prices for a reading range from £5 - £30 wasn't she a bit like the plan for "separation" [sic]. You didn't know the cost till the deed was done. How we laughed!

Looking pleased with himself (as well he might) Iain Gray sat down, secure in the knowledge that this one must have, at long last, hit home.

Silly Iain. Alex said he remembered the occasion. The lady always had a stall at the Turrif show in Alex's constituency, and on that occasion she had read his palm and predicted that the SNP would win the election, and it hadn't cost a bean. Maybe, suggested the FM, we could ask her who would be the next Labour leader. Ouch!

Strangely my friend Annabel seemed stricken with the same inability to understand the answer at the first answering. She asked what currency Scotland would use after independence. (Why not borrow a Liberal question, Annabel; after all your mate Cameron is in hock to them according to the fragrant Nadine.) Alex referred her to the answer in a written report dated some time ago, including the page and paragraph numbers. She said he hadn't answered the question, so he read out the aforementioned paragraphs. Annabel still hadn't understood so she must have requested and been granted a further question. All in good humour, mixed with jokes about the forthcoming demise of the Tory party in Scotland, Alex told her that, in the period after the granting of independence, the pound sterling would continue to be the currency until the Scottish people had the chance to decide for themselves which currency they would use.

At long last, Bella seemed to grasp "THE POUND".

Although the second part of FMQs got under way, with sensible questions from MSPs about such matters as blood donations from gay men and the NHS, and Libya, Lockerby and Al Megrahi, it was a relief when the wretched thing was over.

Pic: Johann Lamont. What is it about Labour that they always need to bring in props. It's like "show and tell" that we had at primary school.

IN WHICH TRIS PASSES TIME WITH TWO CHARMING PARLIAMENTARY LADIES

I was at parliament in Edinburgh today. As this was the last day of term for MSPs, when the First Minister rose to answer Annabel Goldie’s first question, which related to the FM and PM meeting, he spoke warmly of her contribution to politics in Scotland, and about how much he had enjoyed her good humoured upbraiding over the last four years. (Annabel is standing down as leader later in the year.) Mind you, although she thanked him warmly, it didn’t stop her getting stuck into him over health and education questions, nor him hitting back in a humorous manner.

Now I’m politically opposed to much that she stands for (although I was behind her drive to double the number of extra police that the last government put on the streets, among a few other things), but she is a clever woman who, somewhat adeptly, took to the idea of multi political party chambers far better than Labour leaders ever did. When a minority government came along, one that couldn’t operate at all without the co-operation of other parties, Annabel rose to the challenge and worked with the SNP to get Conservative priorities included in the legislative programme, in return for voting for the budget and the continuance of government. Personally I think that on the whole that co-operation has been to the advantage of Scotland.

Shortly after lunch I met her and had the opportunity to chat for a short while. Face to face she is charming. Quietly spoken, and with beautiful manners, she is far prettier and younger than she appears either on television or in her photographs.

I put it to her that, as polls show that she is more popular than the party she leads, was it not a mistake for her to stand down as leader. She expressed herself, modestly, somewhat doubtful that she was indeed more popular that the Tory party, but explained that she had to be thinking of the future of the party over the next 5 or 6 years and felt that the time was right for her to make way for a younger person. She spoke warmly of Alex as a dominant force in Scottish politics and was glad to have been able to take him to task over the last 4 -5 years. It was clear that on a personal level there is a deal of mutual respect and affection between them.

I’m sure she’s an avid reader of Munguin’s Republic, so I’ll thank her for the time she spent with me. I know she was busy, and I appreciated that she made the time for me.

I should say too that I become more and more proud of my own MSP, Shona Robison, who made a short speech of welcome to a group of visitors to parliament, and fielded an impromptu question and answer session. Her professionalism and her warm sense of humour, together with a down-to earth attitude, makes everyone feel at ease and enjoy sessions like these, where she speaks so knowledgeably, and with such enthusiasm, of our parliament and our country.

So thank you too, to Shona. I know that the 60 people who visited today enjoyed every moment of their trip.

Pics: Annabel Goldie and Shona Robison

FMQ: IN WHICH SUBROSA DOES THE HONOURS

http://subrosa-blonde.blogspot.com/2011/03/fmqs-10-march-2011.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+blogspot%2FbUee+%28SUBROSA%29

Subrosa has this week's account of what happened at First Minister's Questions.

FMQ: IN WHICH ELMER LOOKS EVEN STUPIDER THAN USUAL AND ANNABEL GETS A PRIVATE MEETING WITH YOU KNOW WHO

The First Minister announced that he would be having meetings about the *dualling of the A9 during the afternoon. He knew that the whole chamber would be delighted! He was wrong. No one much, except the SNP members, even smiled.

Elmer, aptly nicknamed “the snarl” by blogger James Kelly at Scot Goes Pop, was suddenly very worried about redundancies in Aberdeen Council: 900 of them, including teachers, who, even in Thatcher’s day, snarled Elmer, had been safe from cuts (something to do with fewer children, you half wit?). He was, apparently, concerned that Aberdeen had been let down by the SNP.

Of course as usual he had only half the facts. Eck pointed out that under a local government funding formula initiated by the Labour/Liberal “Executive” Aberdeen had received only an average of 84% of the funding per capita of Glasgow. When the SNP had tried to correct this, one Glasgow politician (a certain Steven Purnell), had publically called it a bribe! Seems you can’t please Labour.

The encounter took 11 minutes, and somewhat unfairly I thought, before the last answer, the Presiding Officer asked the FM to be brief, although he had neglected to ask Snarly Fudd to be brief in his question.

And so to Annabel, and although I may disagree with her politics I have to say she is a professional politician. She asked about the lack of availability of cancer drugs in Scotland, which are available in England. The issue, as Alex pointed out, is incredibly sensitive. Decisions are made independently by the SMC... doctors, who have to balance effectiveness against limited resources, despite the NHS budget being maintained. You could see that she listened carefully while Alex gave the answer, and then asked if he would meet with her to discuss the matter further. Alex agreed.

That’s the way to handle FMQs Gray, you idiot.

Poor wee Tavish asked about bonuses in the public sector and got an answer to his last week’s question about salary increases... It seems that the Liberals thought they had found a £50 million saving that could be made, but Alex was able to point out that to achieve this they would have to sack 450 consultants. It was a bit weird if you hadn’t seen last week’s questions. The FM pointed out that on bonuses, they were obliged to honour contracts which had been instigated by the Lib/Lab Executive, but that teh Health Secretary had asked for voluntary restraint from bosses.

Joe Fitzpatrick asked the FM about the Digital Network report, and whether it brought a “Scottish Six” closer. (A question close to my own heart as I tire of seeing English regional news on the BBC’s main news, and then a magazine programme of insultingly puerile nonsense which is offered as the BBC’s best efforts on Scottish news.

Alex agreed with Joe that it indeed did bring a Scottish 6 closer, and pointed out that it was a cross party desire to see a proper news programme on a channel funded by the licence fee in Scotland. He also paid tribute to Ted Brocklebank, the Tory Broadcasting spokesman (who used to be a tv presenter), for his assistance and expertise. In response to concern from Labour’s Pauline McNeill that money for existing BBC Scotland could be reduced, Alex suggested that BBC’s spend on Scotland ran short of the per capita equivalent in the UK.

Richard Baker (Labour), Robert Brown, who the FM acknowledged had been helpful in assisting the government to pass laws helping reduce crime to a 30 year low, and Sandra White, asked about domestic violence. The FM told them that it was totally unacceptable and that there had been a 40% increase in the budget to tackle it, with more help going to a wide range of agencies.

And so to lunch.

Pics:

Alex, who agreed to meet Annabel behind the bike sheds. Snarky Elmer, who nobody wants to meet. Annabel, who could show him how to make friends and influence people. Joe, who represents Dundee West as a superb constituency MSP. Richard who doesn’t know the difference between the EU and the Council of Europe...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00xzm59/Politics_Scotland_27_01_2011/


* Greatful thanks to my proof reader (on minumum wage) for pointing out the difference between dualling and duelling... Touché!!

WHY CAN'T THE TORIES SEE THAT THE SCOTTISH PARTY MUST NOT BE RUN FROM ENGLAND

I was interested in the analysis that Alan Cochrane made of the Tory Party in Scotland in his column in last Friday’s Daily Telegraph.

Cochrane analyses the chances of the party in Scotland and concludes that the signs are not good. He is critical of Ms Goldie and, in particular, of her very poor performance at FMQ on Thursday. He suggests that it is time for a major rethink on where the party is going, how it is led in Scotland and the tactics it is adopting.

Of Goldie, he correctly points out that she had her worst day ever at FMQs. She chose the wrong subject, was rebuked twice by the presiding officer and got a history lesson from Alex Salmond. All true, but perhaps unfair, as she has been the only opposition leader worthy of the title in the last 2 years. He points out that it is no secret that Miss Goldie does not have the support of her entire parliamentary team. But then, Margo is probably the only party leader that does!

He sais: “There are also signs that the pressures of leadership, which includes increasingly insistent instructions from a London head office that appears to know nothing and care less about a different set of circumstances north of the border, are having a detrimental effect on her performances”.

Ms Goldie tackles Salmond on how his government will cope with Labour’s recession, because that is what matters in England. She asks repeatedly what Salmond plans to do with the reduction in taxpayers’ cash that will be the inevitable result of the Treasury’s squeeze. However well this may work in England, it simply gives Salmond a stick to whack Labour’s planned spending cuts. Why is she trying to hold the English government to account?

Cochrane's answer to that is that she is being directed by Central Office in London. Michael Crow, political editor of STV, the Scottish Tories’ Press Officer reports not to Miss Goldie but to London. And it is from London that the tactics of the Scottish party are being dictated because Cameron is deparate for more than one Scottish MP in June. Given the Tories’ history in Scotland you couldn’t make that level of stupidity up.

So Ms Goldie is asking all the wrong questions, attacking the wrong government, because she is being directed by people who may never have actually been to Scotland! Instead of tackling the FM on the “right to buy” that was being abolished as she spoke on Thursday, Ms Goldie asked Mr Salmond what measures he would take to tackle the cost of Parliament, which is nothing to do with him. She made it worse by messing up her history and receiving a lesson on the English King Canute from Alex Salmond. Cringe!

Mr Cochrane concluded correctly that it was a “dreadful performance which caused a great deal of head shaking and angry muttering among Tory MSPs”.


I have a huge amount of respect for Annabel Goldie. Her solid common sense mixed with sometimes coquettish wit has livened many a FMQ for me. But if the Tories want to run their campaign from England and exclude her from the process, then they will fail. They must be a Scottish Party, run in Scotland, by Scots and FOR Scots. Otherwise Mr Mundell may not be the lone Tory from Scotland... there may be none!

SHAPE UP OR SHIP OUT

I think that sometimes MSPs, MPs, MEPs, Lords, Councillors and other public servants forget, as do we, that they work for us. They are our employees.

Like most employers we have the right to expect that we get the best from our workers, value for money, a fair day’s work for a fair day’s pay.

Having read the excellent report, and comments on FMQ’s on Subrosa’s blog, and then watching the BBC’s iplayer coverage, it occurred to me that that is NOT what we are getting. Quite seriously, and party politics aside, questions were asked which were poorly researched and smartly batted out of court by the First Minister. For example the Labour Education spokesperson, whose name escapes me for the minute, wasted the First Minister’s time (and our money) by asking a question on a matter regarding student bursaries and the late payment thereof, which had been mentioned in the “Herald”. He was able to reply to her, giving her the correct and up to date information that in fact the bursaries had been paid, pointing out that the “Herald had printed a retraction, and suggesting that she rely on more accurate sources for any future questions she might want to ask.

The Labour leader, whose name also, for some reason, escapes me, showed what a fine politician he was by making aggressive fisty cuffs gesture to the First Minister, having been rebuffed soundly on each one of the badly researched questions he had asked.

Throughout the session, whether they came from backbench MSPs or front bench spokesmen, the First Minister answered the serious question (the ones we don’t mind paying for being answered) and rebuffed the idiotic point scoring questions by humiliating the questioner for their lack of knowledge.

There are some MSPs, from all parties, that I consider earn their money, but too many should be mindful of the fact that, in any other job, especially one that pays over twice the average wage, they would be toast after their first couple of appraisals.

Sorry for the inappropriate picture. I was looking for FMQ pics and this funny little man came up. Not sure who he is, but I felt a bit sorry for him, so I gave him a wee outing on a blog!