DAVE MAKES BIG INROADS IN DUNDEE'S NO VOTE

To round off the visit of the Eton Toff prime minister to Scotland, the people in Dundee’s Stobswell cast their votes on Friday at the Courier’s Referendum Roadshow. Given that it is a true blue Conservative supporting paper, this is quite something. This is how they reported it. (Thanks to my mum for bringing this to my attention.)

The large turnout delivered a majority for the Yes vote with 56% while there were 44% votes for No.

Yes voter Robert Milne, 70 said he had been a No voter when the campaign began but had since changed his mind.

He said: “I have listened to so much tripe from the Better Together campaign I changed my vote. There has been a lot of negativity and scaremongering about building a new Hadrian’s Wall with no valid arguments.

“They sound worried about it so there must be something to gain.”

Local business owner Graham Angus, 55, said he was against independence for Scotland but would like to have a referendum on Europe as he felt the global political system was getting a bit like George Orwell’s 1984.

The former young Conservative said he was disillusioned with politics and has since changed his vote to UKIP.

He said: “The wee man has no say on what’s going on in his life. I am totally disillusioned by it all. Alex Salmond has not put a strong enough case for it and has been a bit fluffy on the issues.

“What I don’t understand is why he wants to get rid of the UK government, but I think better the devil you know.”

Retired taxi driver, John Gibson, 73, of Whitfield said he would also be voting No.

He said: “I’m a Labour man and I think Labour will get in again – probably at the next election.”

Mavis Kerr, 76, said she would be voting Yes as she was sick of the political slagging matches taking place at Westminster and wanted to make a chance for the younger generation.

She said: “I’ve got grand-children and great-grandchildren and I think we’ve got to have a better country for the young people. I don’t see the Conservatives doing it.

“We never should have gone to war in Iraq.

“I think we need a change and that’s why I’m voting Yes. Life is uncertain but sometimes change is for the better.

Retired teacher Edith Constable, 71, said she will also be voting Yes because she is against the current government’s policies.

She said: “The one main reason I am voting is is because I am sick to death with Westminster policies, the expenses scandal, the Iraq War, plans to renew Trident at a huge cost to the taxpayer.

“The No campaign have been very negative and seem to use the fear factor a lot in their campaign. I have got every confidence Scotland will cope economically.” 

The Hilltown's vote, it seems, was even more in favour of independence.

Looks like Dave failed to persuade many people in Dundee.

Come back again soon Dave, we're missing you already...

SHOULD MPS BE GIVEN A PAY RISE NOW?

I’m at something of a loss to understand the plaintive cry of David Cameron that he cannot do anything about the pay rise proposed for MPs.

The sovereign government of the UK can do something about most things that happens in the union, simply by legislating for or against it. Why not so on this issue.

If Danny Alexander and Gideon Osborne can decree that public sector workers may only receive a 1% rise in salaries, never mind that they work for as diverse organisations as Birmingham City Council and The Highlands Health Board, then it beats the hell out of me that all they can do about MPs getting an award of 11% is to beat their breast and wail uncontrollably.

But moving on… should they be getting a pay rise?

There are those who would say that good MPs are worth more that the £66.5 k that they currently receive. Some of them, highly qualified people, quite rightly point out that they could earn ten times that in industry (or fifty times in banking).  

But that’s not a valid argument. After all, there are many who aren’t worth anything like three times the average national wage. But it the job which dictates the salary, not the person. In short you get paid the rate for the job you do, not the job you think you might be able to do.

The job has a flat rate salary; unlike many other jobs it demands no qualifications, and it has no salary scale; you start at £66,500 and you will finish up there, unless you get to be a committee chairman or a minister.

It seems that the job consists of 3 or 4 parts.

MPs are first and foremost constituency members, there to help out and advise their constituents with their travails. But it is a sort of Citizen’s Advice Bureau/social work/facilitator kind of job, often the last resort when officialdom just won’t listen. MPs’ letters go straight to the decision makers, not to junior clerks that deal with mail from the public! In truth much of this work is often done by their administrative staff.

 

Busy, right?

MPs also take part in debates in the chamber, although a look at the chamber for anything other than showpiece debates, suggests that is not a full time job. And because of pairing they can travel the world with never a care for turning up for votes, witness Anas Sarwar undertaking speaking engagements in Pakistan while important votes were taking place at home, and Gordon Brown virtually never showing up at all.

Of course some MPs take part in committee work where they hold ministers or officials to account often to hilarious effect. Sometimes they seem to hold other members of the committee to account; ask Eilidh Whiteford!

 

Princess Alexandra opens something,
but it could easily be the local MP

And finally, they get invited to places to play the role of minor royalty, opening community centres and hospital wings and the like and saying a few words.

Some MPs have time to take on a variety of other jobs, from those who sit on a number of boards of directors to some who work part time as dentists, barristers, public speakers, quiz show panellists, etc. There are even the ridiculous ones who take themselves off for extended periods to eat spiders or wear cat suits in reality tv.

So the questions are: is £66,500 around right for the job, or should it be more? Would we get a better standard of MP if we offered more money? If they should get more, is now, when everyone else is restricted to tiny pay rises or none at all, the right time for an increase?

And given that by law the MSPs and AMs in London, Cardiff and Belfast are paid a proportion of Westminster’s members’ salary, should the First Ministers or Mayor try to do something to stop that happening.

What do you think? There is a poll on the right side bar. It was supposed to have an option, 'YES, but not at the moment', which disappeared into the half-world that is Blogger. Apologies. That's why there is a multiple answer option.

 

York MP Hugh Bayley makes a donation

Finally, I note that the BBC was having difficulty finding an MP who was in favour of the pay rise to appear on the radio this morning. I wonder if anyone has put his head above the parapet.

I hope that those MPs who have been vociferous in decrying the rise will be giving the extra money to charity. Maybe the local food bank would be a good place to start.

THIS IS A OFFENSIVE IDEA; LET'S STOP IT HAPPENING

I think we have all been agreed for some time that, faced with the fact that Scotland was likely to leave the United Kingdom, the UK government was equally likely to be looking for means, fair or foul, to put independence back in its box.

I am willing to bet that we, as UK taxpayers, have been forking out for members of the security services to rifle through every tiny detail of the lives of anyone in Scottish government, or the YES campaign, to see if they can find anything discrediting about any of them.

Following the success of the year of Jubolympics,  it was always on the cards that they would want another big-money, flag waving exercise to take place during 2014.

In fairness, I would say that it is not likely to be a coincidence that the year of the referendum, chosen by Alex Salmond, will see a grand sporting event in Scotland, one in which our athletes will compete under the Saltire and not the union flag, and that the Ryder Cup will be held at Gleneagles, the first time in Scotland since 1973, and a great showcase for the country, around the world and at home.

So Cameron and his men must have been looking around for something that would allow for a sense of Britishness, like the Jubilee, that would pull people out together to sing 'Rule Britannia' and 'Jerusalem', and wave union flags, hold street parties, etc.

Of course we can still reasonably expect that Harry's wedding will take place that year, but in terms of the English aristocracy, the younger son has never quite the same importance as the heir. It is also not beyond the bounds of possibility that William and his wife might well be expected to be producing children by that time and it would be naive to imagine that this possibility has not been discussed. 

But Cameron needs more than one event of Britishness... indeed the more the merrier.

So, like many of the other ideas he has grasped at in his amateurish governance, he has come up with a bizarre notion that we should commemorate the START of the Great War, the war to end all wars.

Normally, one commemorates the END of a war. In that way the commemoration can be mixed with a celebration that the terribleness is over and a joy that life can return to normal. But 1918 would be too late for Cameron.  Scotland will have voted; the deed will have been done. And in any case, it's unlikely that he will still be prime minister.

We already commemorate the END of the First World War every year at the exact time that hostilities ceased, ie the 11th hour on the 11th day of the 11th month (or the nearest Sunday to that time). We shall do so again in less than a month's time. The Queen, members of the royal family, politicians from all chambers and old soldiers are watched in respect by the nation as they lay wreaths at the Cenotaph in London, in capitals over the UK, and in towns over the world. Politics are forgotten as people pay their respects. 

I have no issues with the various UK governments suggesting that children do special history projects, and if they can afford the money from the education budget, I have no problem this year, or any other, with visits being made to the graveyards and fields of slaughter.

But it seems to me to be open opportunism to exploit a war in which millions were killed and millions more lives ruined, in order to whip up some Britishness.

Cynical Highlander brought to my attention a petition asking the government to reject the plans. You might like to sign it, if you agree with me that this is a distasteful idea.

Here is the link again.

**********

The result of our poll for the least popular politician can be found on the comments of this post. For those who care enough to know who won, but not enough to go to the post, It was Tony B£air in runaway lead, followed at a distance by Mrs Thatcher, with Cameron in a respectable third place.

FRANKLY MY DEAR I DONT GIVE A DAMN PARKER-BOWLES

IT’S A LONG TITLE BUT IT'S THE ONE YOU, THE PEOPLE, CHOSE

Mungin's Republic's poll on the future title and status of Mrs Parker-Bowles has now closed.

I’d like to thank everyone who took part. It wasn’t open for long, but I hate these polls that go on and on, and by the time they close everyone has forgotten what they were about, or indeed how they voted...well particularly when it's on such a daft and trivial subject as this.

It goes without saying the results are hardly representative of anything.. other than the views of the 45 people who voted on royal matters on a blog with the word “Republic” in its title! But it was all a bit of fun and Mr Yougov need not worry that Munguin’s Republic will be taking over from him anytime soon.

The outcome, given the parameters, was predictable, although I was surprised that 11% of voters (all of 5!) favoured Mrs P-B being called Queen. (Did you vote 5 times Dean?)

The full result was:

Queen: 5 votes, 11%
Princess Consort: 5 votes, 11%
Duchess of Rothsay: 1 vote, 2%
Duchess of Kernow: 2 votes, 4%
FMDIDGAD: 32 votes, 71%

There you go Charlie. According to the readers of Munguin’s Republic, you can call her what the hell you want.

So he should be happy. Just one small drawback. I remember reading that Charlie’s dad once said that the moment that people lose interest in the royals is the moment that they might as well pack up and go.

If they cease to provide entertainment for the people, the people may start wondering why they cost almost as much as a banker to keep!

So, maybe we should have a poll on where they should set up home?

If you do have any ideas for polls that you fancy would work on the blog, let me know. (Sensible ones please, Niko!)

Pic: Joking aside, what in the name of all that's right is Chic wearing. I mean was he on a fancy dress party the night before, got blootered and stayed over at a mate's place and had to put his fancy dress back on. I mean not a thing matches. I'm no snappy dresser, but I wouldn't change a tyre looking like that. And as for that pheasant, I know they are stupid birds, but that's about the last place it would be sensible to build a nest.

THE PEOPLE HAVE SPOKEN: A REPUBLIC IT IS

First of all, I’d like to thank everyone who took part in the poll on the head of state for an independent Scotland.

It was an interesting result. Let’s be honest though, we’re not causing Yougov any sleepless nights here. With a sample of 43 on a blog with the word “republic” in its title we’re not going to change the world and I haven’t had the Palace of Holyrood House or Bute House on the phone.... yet!

So, here’s the way our 43 readers voted.....:

Republic the non executive President 30 (69%);

Republic with an executive President 3 (6%);

Monarchy with Elizabeth I as head of state 4 (9%);

Monarchy with another member of the House of Windsor as King/Queen 2 (4%);

Monarchy with invited King/Queen from another royal house 4 (9%).

There were 33 votes (75%) for a republic, and 10 votes (22%) for a monarchy. (Yes, I know, these things never add up properly; that’s only 97 %. It’s the rounding up/down.)

Was I surprised? No. Not much. I think I expected a few fewer votes for the Republic, and a few more for Elizabeth, but the percentages are not far off what I expected. Now, should this feeling be mirrored over the country, I wonder how we would elect, or appoint our President?

Given that (s)he is, according to our poll, to be non-executive and therefore more of an ambassador for our country on state visits, and as a host to other leaders in Edinburgh, does anyone have any ideas about who he or she might be?

Thanks again for taking part.

A CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION AND A POLL

Seat of the Scottish Head of State

Isn’t it about time we began talking about what a future independent Scotland should be like? Math Campbell made the point well in his excellent article:

http://voxpopulivoxscoti.blogspot.com/2009/11/little-chat.html

There are many vexed questions that will need to be considered. Will we use the pound? Will we be in NATO? What voting system will we use? And so on. Perhaps in future polls we will ask some of these questions and others as Math suggests. I thought that, as the name of the blog suggests a republican agenda, it might be an idea to start with the question of whether an independent Scotland should be a republic or a monarchy.

The choices in the poll are:

A republic with a non executive president along the style of India, Ireland, Germany or Iceland, where the incumbent has no political power and acts only in a ceremonial role;

A republic along the French, American, South African, Pakistani, style where the president has executive power;

A monarchy shared with the UK, where Elizabeth I, is head of state, followed by her successors, ie Prince Charles, then William, etc as in other Commonwealth countries;

A monarchy where the King/Queen invited to take the throne is a current member of the UK royal family...eg, Princess Anne, Princess Alexandra, Prince William, etc;

A monarchy with an invited King/Queen from another source, eg, another royal house in Europe or elsewhere, or from amongst the population of Scotland.

Of course there are other possibilities, but not ones likely to be of interest in a modern western society.

So, I’m asking the readers of the blog to give some mature reflection to the question (it is one that we will have to face at some time in the future), and to vote!

(This article, and the accompanying poll is a collaboration between Munguin and Tris.)