TWO SMALL VICTORIES FOR OPENNESS...AND WILLIE GOES OUT ON A FAILURE!

I'm no fan of John Bercow and I never have been. 

He's always come over as a pompous, trumped up little pipsqueak.

(That said, I've always had the deepest sympathy for the man being lumbered with the embarrassing Mrs Bercow.)

I understand from the likes of Pete Wishart though, that, pomposity aside, Bercow has, in fact, been a fair and decent Speaker and has tried to modernise at least some of the tomfoolery that passes for procedure in the House of Commons.

But he used to be a Tory and because he doesn't automatically take their side, he is much hated by most but not all, of them.

So it seems that, as a parting shot, their last piece of legislation in this parliament was designed to make the election of a Speaker a secret affair. Instead of going through lobbies to choose a Speaker, the Eton Boys wanted to have a secret ballot, which they felt would be more likely to result in Bercow being dumped.

Brought forward by the leader of the House, Mr Hague, as his last action in elected politics (I'm sure he will shortly re-appear as an aristocrat), the motion failed.

Good

With Auntie

Britain is reputed to be one of the most secretive countries in the Western world. We should be working to make less and less of what happens in that mausoleum secret. Only a set of conniving, vindictive, nasty, over privileged Tories would have come up with a scheme to enshrine MORE secrecy into the way that they operate.

It comes, of course, on the same day that the Supreme Court ruled that Charlie Sax-Coburg-Gotha's black spider quill penned letters wasting ministers' time with his pet policy demands, should also be made public, despite the government ruling that he could have an exemption from the Freedom of Information Act, because he was... well, HIM.

Prime Minister Eton Boy obviously disapproved and called the ruling "disappointing". He said the government would now consider how best to release the documents. I'd suggest he just releases them like he's been told to. It was the Guardian newspaper that asked for them. The Supreme Court has agreed with them that they are public. Or maybe he'd like to go to Appeal at the European Court before he takes England out of the Human Rights legislation?

Cameron said: "This is about the principle that senior members of the royal family are able to express their views to government confidentially. I think most people would agree this is fair enough."

Charlie pretending to be Nigel Farage

Not sure about that actually. I, for one, don't agree on the basis that we pay MPs' wages; we pay ministers' wages; we pay for the royals. We are their bosses, their employers. We want to know what they waste our money on.

I know that some governmental discussions must remain secret. Those relating to wars, weapons and international intrigue perhaps, but the letter that Charlie sends to ministers demanding his views be taken into consideration? Absolutely not. He's a paid employee like the rest of them, and should have no special privileges of secrecy. He is NOT the head of state. 

Mr Cameron hinted, in typical Tory style, that the legislation could need tightening in the wake of the ruling. Just like when the courts ruled against the employment law relating to enforced work experience, and they introduced retrospective legislation to get round it?

In one day we have two blows for liberty against the obnoxious Tory and Liberal government (and yes, Clegg was against the publication of the letters too). We should redouble or efforts to ensure that we keep them out of power until such time as we can get the hell out of this union.

The cheering thought for the day though is ... what a way for Hague to bow out of front line politics... at least until the next time.

Pete Wishart: Chilcot

IT'S OK: FIFA HAS PROMISED; WE HAVE FIFA'S WORD!!!

The British Olympics Committee (BOC) has come to agreement with FIFA with regard to a “Team GB” football team playing in the London Olympic Games.

It had been a major worry that if a British Team were to play in the Olympics then FIFA might force all future World and European Cup teams to be British, thus ending the extremely generous settlement that the UK state got to have four separate national football teams.

FIFA has, however, said that the countries’ separate teams will be able to continue to play international matches separately.

There are, of course, worries about this. There are several countries which would like to put forward football teams but are not allowed to because they are seen to be integral parts of other states (Greenland comes immediately to mind, although it is much less integral to Denmark than Scotland is to the UK). Pressure may be put upon FIFA to amend the ruling. Of course the other problem about anything coming from FIFA is, how much can you trust it? As an organisation it’s not exactly a shining example of probity.

The BOC in a joint statement with the FA (that’s the English FA) said that an “historic agreement” had been reached between the governing bodies of the four home nations, paving the way for Team GB to take part. BOA chief executive and Team GB boss Andy Hunt said: “Seeing Team GB take to the pitch in 2012 will be one of the defining moments of the London Olympic Games.”

The BOA said Scots-born players would, he said, be able to take part after consulting with their clubs and the SFA. However, former SFA president George Peat said: “I am absolutely astounded they have put out this statement. I know nothing about any such agreement and we want nothing to do with this tournament.”

Stewart Reagan, the Chief Executive of the SFA said that he and his opposite numbers at the WFA and NIFA are against this and knew of no such agreement. This leads me to suppose that the Olympics Committee and the English FA must have agreed all this without any consultation with Scotland, or Wales. (As Northern Ireland is not in Great Britain, I am at a loss to know why they have been included in this.)

He said: “No discussions took place with any of us, far less has an historic agreement been reached. The associations are committed to supporting the individual home nations playing all representative football under their respective flags as independent members of FIFA and UEFA.”
Politicians have also condemned the announcement. Pete Wishart (SNP) said it was appalling and Jim Murphy (Labour) warned that any agreement coming from FIFA should be studied carefully.

Of course the players are individuals and they can, if they wish, take part in this event. There are certainly no legal restraints available to the Celtic associations. However, if they do take part, players may well find that they will from here on in play for a GB team, which, of course, given the imbalance in the size of the populations of the countries, means that, unless they are brilliant, they are most unlikely to play international football ever again!”

One thing that should be remembered is that this is Gordon Brown’s doing. He wanted a GB team and he set out to use his position to get it. If he loses Scotland its right to play as a nation, hell mend him ... and his legacy.

Pics: Stewart Reagan (SFA Chairman) and Gordon Brown (an author and semi-retired politician of dubious repute) looking a lot better than usual.