NICOLA'S STATEMENT ON THE OUTCOME OF THE EU REFERENDUM

Nicola Sturgeon gave a statement on the outcome of the EU referendum. She set out what action the Scottish Government will now take to safeguard our future in Europe, following the unequivocal vote for Scotland to remain in the EU.

Here’s what you need to know.

1. Scotland being taken out of the EU against our will is a significant and material change in the circumstances that prevailed in 2014.

During the 2014 referendum we were told that only a No vote would guarantee that Scotland would remain in the EU - this has proved not to be the case. We believe this is a democratically unacceptable situation.

2. We will take all possible steps and explore all options to secure Scotland’s continuing place in the EU and in the single market in particular.

We are clear that the Scottish Government must be fully involved in all decisions about the next steps the UK Government takes. The Scottish Government will also seek discussions with the EU institutions and its member states, including the earliest possible meeting with the President of the European Commission.

3. The Scottish Government will begin to prepare the required legislation to enable a new independence referendum - if and when Parliament so decides.

When the process for the UK to leave the EU begins in three months time, it is expected to take two years to leave. If the Scottish Parliament decides that a second referendum is the best or only way to protect our place in Europe, it must have the option to hold one within that timescale.

The need to act decisively will be tempered with the need to build consensus. While many people who voted No in 2014 are reassessing their decision, we will not simply assume their support - we will be straight and honest with them.

4. For citizens of other EU countries living here in Scotland - you remain welcome here, Scotland is your home and your contribution is valued.

The Remain vote in Scotland was won by a campaign that was positive about the EU and about the benefits of migration. Scotland has voted to renew its reputation as an outward looking, open and inclusive country.

5. Our business community can be reassured that as of now we remain firmly in the EU.

Trade and business should continue as normal - we are determined that Scotland will continue to be an attractive and stable place to do business.

The survey Nicola referred to is available HERE

THERE WAS ANOTHER COURT RULING TODAY

Much is being made by the tabloids (and that really means all papers in the UK now) of the SNP losing the case against a Christian organisation in the matter of the Named Person legislation. Although it's rather less cut and dried than they have made out, as a glance at Lallands Peat Worrier will tell you, let's not get too cross at the opposition parties for getting all worked up with excitement. It isn't often they have anything to get worked up about, after all.

But for all the bluster, the court only pointed out that the legislation needed refining. Mr Swinney has said they will do that. Barnardos Scotland seems happy with that result.

Update: The BBC has finally changed their story. Maybe some of the Unionists who were making capital out of this would like to apologise.

The Christian Institute, as Lallands point out have won a Pyrrhic Victory.  

Just as an aside you wonder at a Christian organisation being so dead set against legislation so likely to be helpful to kids in danger. Don't you?

Anyway, as I said, there was another court case today. This time not perhaps so grand as the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, but the English High Court, and august enough organisation, has ruled that Mr Corbyn has every right to stand for the leadership of the Labour Party without having to be nominated.

Mr Corbyn replied:

So the fight is on. It's Jeremy versus Own.

I wonder if the people backing Owen Smith have wondered where the funding and support will come from in a Labour Party led by the right winger.  Possibly not from Unite or Unison it seems. Still maybe Barclays, Lloyds and Mr Murdoch will take over as long as he pursues the "right" agenda.

So, this is the kind of man Jeremy is... Just like the SNP he knows he can't rely on the  right wing press to give him a fair hearing.

And he can't be accused, like so many of his contemporaries, of having his head in the sand (as it were) over the Iraq war. He knew what would happen, he predicted it, and he was right.

On the other hand, we have a man who inspires such enthusiasm in his followers that they look either like they have been drugged, hypnotised, or are just plain bored to death!

When are the tea and biscuits? That what we came for!

Not sure we could make enough tea and biscuits for this lot though. Still they don't look like that's what they came for.

NICE TO SEE THE BBC REMAINS AS IMPARTIAL AS EVER

THE BEST SPEECH FROM TRIDENT DEBATE

RANDOM THOUGHTS

You'll love this one (well most of you will).

Suffolk Tories apparently accepted an illegal donation of £3,000 during the last election. There's no question about it. They owned up. The person who donated the money was not on the electoral register at the time the money was given.

The electoral commission ruled that they should be fined the sum of £1,100, but should not be required to return the donation.

If my arithmetic is right, they get a donation of £3,000, they are fined £1,100, so their net gain is £1,900. Not much of a punishment; not much of a disincentive to repeat the crime next time round.

Still, it's the Tories. They appear do whatever they want and walk off laughing.
**********

Erm, has Harriet joined the Tory party? We all know she is aristocratic and it wouldn't be stretching the imagination much to guess that she loathes Mr Corbyn, but what's this about. Don't tell us they just banged into each other.  

Waitrose I might just about swallow, but ASDA? Please!

Dodgy Dave down with people again, innit? Top button undone, not singing God Save the Queen (tut tut, what would your mother say Dodge?), but wearing a suit that cost more that the bloke he's talking to earns in a year. 
**********

A few months ago, the gross old duke of York was unhappy that he couldn't get through the gates at Windsor Great Park, where he has one of his houses...well, one of OUR houses. Apparently the mechanism for automatic opening had failed. So the fat boy decided that, as he had a great big 2.5 tonne, £80,000 Range Rover, he'd just smash the gates down...as you would, if a £5,000 repair to your car were of no interest.

The alternative would have been a 1 mile... yes a whole mile...detour. How utterly ghastly!

Well obviously a royal highness couldn't be expected to put up with that kind of inconvenience, so he broke the gates down. OUR gates that WE paid for.

If you lived in your own home and you decided that you would trash your gates to save yourself a little inconvenience, that would be your business. If you lived in a council house, or one owned by a housing association or the state, then it becomes their business.

Most people would call it criminal damage and charges would be brought.

Needless to say Air Miles is getting off Scot free.
**********

**********

The same goes for tax pounds. 

Every so often David Cameron reminds us we are a Christian country. I can't imagine why he would do that unless he was trying to stir up bad feeling with Muslims or Jews or some other religious groups: Ya know, make them feel ill at ease, not at home?

But the very people who might be considered to know a little bit more about Christian values than Dodgy Dave, that is to say the bishops of the State Church, are rather less than enthusiastic about his policies.

Not that Church of England bishops are the only ones to criticise. The leader of the Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales has also laid into the Tories for their heartlessness in welfare reforms. Odd given what a devout Catholic Iain Duncan Smith is.

And even odder that his replacement is one of these OTT Christians that tells us prayer can cure anything... and apparently people with Parkinson's should just get out there and get a job.

Every year some of us (admittedly a dwindling number) listen to Her Majesty's Christmas message. It's a mixture of her family news, the stuff some folk write in long tedious letters at Christmas, but she gets to put on the BBC (ya know, Andrew losing his rag with a gate; the number of holidays that the blood princesses have taken; how little work William and Kate have done; how much money they screwed out of the people of Cornwall to keep Mrs Parker Bowles in diamond tiaras, etc) together with a religious message. 

She invariably talks about how she has tried to follow the teachings of Christ all of her life in everything she does. Clearly she misses out the bit about the rich man and the eye of the needle, given her immense wealth, and the "suffer the little children" bit of these teachings. 

Probably feeding the 5000 passes her by, as within a few miles of Buckingham Palace some of her loyal subjects are sleeping in cardboard boxes and eating out of soup kitchens. Children subjects of hers have little or noting to eat due to the policies that she reads out from her gold throne with her multi million pound hat on her head, having stepped out of a gold coach.

It's a long time since I was forced, in this Christian country, to read the bible as part of my core curriculum, but I can recall all of those things even if I maybe don't always live up to them. It's strange that the queen has such problems with them, having dedicated her life to following such teachings.

A Yesser's appeal to hard nosed party political 'enlightened self interest'.

GUEST POST BY BRACO

Mr D'Hondt

I am not a member of any political party but I am totally committed to the Yes movement and an Independent Scotland. 

After reading a very interesting and thought provoking post-election article over on Arc of Prosperity  these are some of my own (non party political) thoughts on the issue of d'Hondt and pro-independence majorities. I would really like to thank Tris and the Republic for giving me the opportunity to try and develop that discussion on here as a guest post.

I think, after the heat of party political battle is over, the electoral evidence is now becoming clear for all to see. The voting system, which Scotland currently operates under, is designed (and was selected specifically) in order to try and make the devolved governance of Scotland reliant on the formation of coalition politics (of some sort). This is at the heart of unionist reasoning behind d'Hondt as their voting system of choice for Holyrood back in 97. 

I.e. IF Scottish governance is made dependent on coalitions and the SNP are the only effective Independence party in the country to vote for, then it will never have a coalition partner party to form a majority government with. Therefore the SNP will be unable to pass Independence Referendum legislation while in government, no matter how popular the SNP becomes. This is central and must always be kept in mind when thinking about Scotland's current electoral system.

It also explains the reason behind the Libdem leadership's point blank refusal to enter into coalition with the SNP in 2007 (and, dare I say, Lord Nicol Stephen's shock resignation as Libdem leader and subsequent enoblement in 2008). 

It was this refusal that forced the SNP into forming Holyrood's first, 'shock horror'... minority government. Also, worth noting that even the SNP themselves bought into the accepted political narrative of the time and really didn't want to take (or see the political opportunities) that minority government could bring. 

This refusal of the democratic will of the electorate to form a coalition with the SNP shocked many of the Libdem rank and file, and was the start of Libdem electoral rot in Scotland thereafter. What it did do however, was absolutely ensure that there was no Indy Ref during that first term of enforced SNP minority rule. 

I.e Short term, the system worked exactly as designed. 

As ever, though, unionist long term thinking has been shown to be more tactical than strategic and even in those terms limited and inept, as during the period of exceptional circumstances that followed, we the Scots electorate were able to first experience successful and competent minority SNP governance, and then watch the stars align during the 2011 election as the d'Hondt system was broken (just) through what we now know was a lucky balance being struck between constituencies won and regional list votes cast. All resulting in the SNP winning an incredible (and d'Hondt busting) single party absolute majority. 

The evidence of the extraordinary nature of that result at the time was seen in the total and utter shock of even the SNP's own leadership, as well as the hilarious absolute blind panic and horror that followed from all other sections of the Scottish (and UK) political establishment. This 'breaking of their system' at the root of all the 'Holyrood-as-anti-democratic' psychosis and unionist schtick that still fills their media output to this day.

Yesterday we just saw a return to the normal way that the voting system was actually designed to operate. That is, no matter how popular a single party becomes, in a multiparty d'Hondt system, it will most likely NOT gain a majority. This is again shown to be true by the fact that the SNP voting figures actually went up from 2011 yet their seat count went down.

If all the above is taken into account and properly rationalised, then there is only one relatively simple way to ensure that democratically endorsed pro Independence electoral results in Scotland always have the ability to produce equally strong pro independence majority governance in Holyrood (along with all the democratic abilities that will naturally bring, such as referendums on Independence as often and as regularly as the will of the Scots electorate will allow).  

The answer is simple; don't try and 'game' the system by attempting to form a single super supported (and therefore super powerful) single Independence party that can somehow regularly overwhelm d'Hondt, as this strategy will inevitably risk wasting hundreds of thousands of pro-Indy votes on the list every time that attempted majority fails (750 000 votes in the case of the SNP on Thursday). Far better to simply go with the grain of d'Hondt and purposely set about helping the development and establishing of a good, strong and electorally successful moderate second pro independence party that can be relied upon to form strong and effective pro independence coalition governments with. (After Thursday, this is looking like it could be the Greens).  It's that simple.

As the main creators of our devolved electoral system, SLabour's leadership never truly saw the LibDems as an electoral threat in Holyrood, rather they viewed them as their key to consistently forming (and leading) majority Scottish governments.  Term, after term, after term. This is how the SNP (and the Yes electorate) should start thinking about the Green Party. There are many overlaps between SNP and Green party policy priorities (other than just Independence) within which a sensible and workable, progressive eco friendly programme for government could be formed.

Now that SLAB and the LibDems are up to their necks in the same d'Hondt electoral trap they hoped to lock the SNP into, it's that very same opportunity of consistently leading (though perhaps not totally dictating) the policy agenda of Scotland over many, many terms of majority government that now presents itself as the enormous prize to the SNP (and Greens as junior partners). 

All that is required is that each can somehow see past traditional UK party political tribalism. It's not happy clappy idealism that I am appealing to here but instead simple, hard nosed party political 'enlightened self interest'. This is what d'Hondt is designed to reward and it is through this (along with a powerful and autonomous YES grass-roots movement) that Scotland will quickly win it's independence.   

I think this is the lesson that the Independence movement will learn from yesterday's frustrating experience of the d'Hondt system. Hopefully all this will also be cemented in place during a term of government where the dominant pro indy party (SNP) learns to work effectively and builds strong political relationships with the other, much smaller, pro independence party that was also returned by Yes supporters to sit alongside them in Holyrood (The Greens). 

It's essential that both these parties manage to control, and then throw off, those 'me-only' party political attitudes developed and inherited from the British adversarial 'first past the post' system (essentially two party politics) and begin to adopt the more consensual, coalition based political culture that we all hoped Holyrood would help usher in (and which yesterday proved, will be needed) if timely Independence is to be achieved within the designed limitations and political realities that we the Scots electorate find ourselves having to operate under.

Thanks for a great article, Arc of Prosperity, it was much appreciated, and thanks again to Tris and Munguin's Republic for the opportunity to discuss it further in the Republic :-) 

HAVE YOU HAD ANY ELECTION MATERIAL?

John brought up an interesting point on Munguin's last article, and I thought that it really needed a better airing than at the bottom of a day-old story.

He wrote: You may recall that I mentioned a leaflet from a local Labour candidate which made no mention whatsoever of Labour's proposal of a tax-rise of 1p across all tax bands and I wondered if this was a 'one-off' omission by the local candidate or whether it was wide-spread by all candidates? Perhaps some of your readers might have received similar leaflets? 

I think that it would be an interesting exercise for readers who have received any party literature to share any apparent inaccuracies or glaring omissions in them, so putting up taxes in the case of Labour, or the reduction in public services that will be the inevitable result of reducing taxes in the cases of the Tories... the fact that the Tories have more or less wiped their toxic name off everything and replaced it with Ruth Davidson.

Have the Liberals or UKIP put out something that is economical with the truth... and does anyone care? 

This election, overshadowed as it is by Cameron's ridiculous and undemocratic decision to run an EU referendum campaign concurrently,  is mainly a contest for second place between two partners in the last referendum Better Together or Project Fear coalition, but let's not forget that the Greens and the SNP are sending out leaflets too. Are there errors or omissions in them?

Are  errors down to purely local decisions made by the candidate and his or her agent or are they widespread. In other words is there a "don't talk about the tax rises" type policy from head office, or is candidate Jock McBloggs leaving out things he's not comfortable with? 

(Remember, of course, that in a  doorstep leaflet you can't include the whole party manifesto!)

Oh, and  is anyone getting leaflets from RISE?

So if you get anything through your door (and you are minded to do this), please let us know.

**********

John raised another interesting point. 

When Scottish Labour proposed their tax increase policy across the board, they very reasonably decided that those earning under £20,000 should be given a rebate. 

(The inadequacies of the system currently devolved does not allow for a change in tax free allowance, the bands, nor any kind of rebate. The  questionably legal rebate proposed by SLAB  would have had to be managed by local authorities at considerable cost and a great deal of prying!) 

However, when Labour discovered that the UK tax free allowance was being raised by George Osborne to £11,000, it decided to drop the somewhat clumsy rebate proposals. This means that those earning over £11,000 will not be liable to pay the increase in taxes that Labour wants to introduce.

John,  and now Munguin, wonder why SLAB's website appears to not mention this. 

Any ideas?

************

Niko highlighted another totally separate but every bit as important point in the same Munguin article. This Guardian piece looks at how the DWP are treating people who are dependent on Tax Credits becasue they are not in full time work (including those who are on zero hour contracts, which sometimes are 40 hours or more on occasions). 

The system is operating in trial areas at the moment (something which seems inherently wrong to me in any case. All areas of "our united kingdom", as Dodgy Dave would have it, are, or should be, subject to the same terms and conditions where matters of UK-wide government policy still holds). However, it is, in the future, to be rolled out across these islands.

It's another way of smacking down the people who aren't lucky enough to have a full time solid job. They, in many cases, are the REAL strivers in the UK. The people who often get up at silly o'clock to do horrible unrewarding jobs in bad conditions, and with no security at all.  Compare them to the fat cat bankers, politicians and those who have fallen into cushie numbers because of their connections.

What a wonderful country this is if you got to a good school at £50,000+ a year, and have a daddy who can get you into Oxford no matter how thick you are, then have a word... and get you a nice little number with one of his friends.

If not, not so great!

DODGY DAVE

It's a funny old world, isn't it?

One in which when the SNP clap in Westminster, it is wrong and disrespectful and Mr Speaker gets quite schoolmarmish about it and tells then that while they may have meant well, they haven't yet been in England long enough to understand the different way they do things...properly. 

So whilst it is not considered bad manners to boo and roar and wave papers in the air and behave like a bunch of 6 year olds whose teacher has popped out of the room for a second, it is extremely bad manners, uncouth and beastish to clap...as one might do at, say, the opera.

Then a few weeks later when a some members stick a knife in Willie Hague's back while he is trying to stick one in the back of the Speaker, on Cameron's orders, and the Speaker comes out smiling, while Willie Hague's last act in the House of Commons is to be resoundingly humiliated, it suddenly has become good manners to clap and all is well in the world.

And it seems to stay like that. Because not long after that Blairite Hilary Benn makes a warmongering speech, going against his party leader's stance on war in Syria (one we can neither afford nor win), it's all Tory hands to the clap again. Note, it's the last few minutes of the video that you'll want, containing clapping and the embarrassing praise from Hammond of Benn's speech. The rest is too awful for words.

Now Munguin isn't a betting animal but he reckons a pound to a pinch of snuff that if the SNP try clapping again, it will have reverted to boorishness, and not the behaviour expected of gentlemen of the Hon, Rt Hon, Learned or Gallant persuasion.

So it shouldn't come as any great surprise to any of our readers that when David Cameron insulted Dennis Skinner a few months ago by telling him he could take his pension at any time, and indeed he advised him to do so, rude and ungentlemanly behaviour to a man with more experience than Mr Cameron will ever have, and who is old enough to be Cameron's father, nothing was said about it.

 And he has form. Here he called Mr Skinner a dinosaur.

However, when Mr Skinner said that Dave was dodgy, an understatement of mammoth proportions in anyone's terms (given that he clearly lied all week about his gains from offshore investments), Skinner was told to retract, and when he refused,  to leave the chamber.

Rather like the subject of the business, there seems to be one rule for some, and one rule for the rest.

Does anyone seriously think that Dave isn't dodgy? or the Commons corrupted?

ARBROATH'S BATTLE BUS...

As promised a wee while ago, here's Arbroath's Battle Bus doing the business for Joan McAlpine's campaign in Sunny Dumfries. 

OWEN JONES MEETS MHAIRI BLACK

It’s life, Jim, but not as we know it

By Panda Paws

Alastair Campbell has a new interview out in the Guardian’s Scotland pages from which we quote:

“Campbell suggested that the SNP received uncritical coverage from sections of the media, in stark contrast with SNP supporters who argue that the media – in particular the BBC – displays bias against the party.

"He said: 'I do think the SNP have managed to cast a spell on large parts of the media. They certainly don’t get covered in the same way that we did when we were in government.' "

(Well I had to get an orang-utan in somehow!)

One commentator pondered, rather politically incorrectly, if he was back on the drink. But this is Campbell we are talking about; since when does the truth matter to him when spinning a yarn. The only other explanation is that the common sci-fi trope, beloved of Star Trek in particular, and a pet theory of theoretical physicists everywhere, is true – parallel universes do exist. 

There is one where the MSM is on the SNP’s side, one were Dundee is filled with No-voting, SNP-hating people and the number of failed Labour candidates is so high that the odds against two of them being picked to pose questions isn’t astronomical. 

And then there is the one the rest of us live in. 

What makes his epic 'SNP bad' rant even more odd is that it came during the launch event for his old pal Ken McIntosh’s bid to retain his Holyrood constituency seat, Eastwood.  

Ken has two claims to fame, first Ed Miliband had no idea who he was, and the second, he was beaten by Kezia Dugdale for the SLAB leadership (let that sink in folks).

So it was just a ploy to discredit his pal’s nearest challengers for the seat you ask? 

Well no. The polls suggest that the Tories will win Eastwood. It’s certainly a big target for them. But was a word said against their closest rivals and erstwhile Better Together colleagues? No, a big fat no. 

It was SNP bad all the way. 

Meanwhile, Ruthie the tank commander is making a blatant play for those Labour voters that are staunch Unionists - solidarity not being a big thing in Tory circles. And if Ken does lose his constituency seat there is little comfort on the list.  Three seats predicted for Labour and he is 4th on the list. 

Still there is always his previous occupation as a BBC producer, but would they accept someone with close Labour ties?

A BBC Producer with Labour Ties?

Perhaps he can get a job producing a segment for the Scottish Six called “It’s shite to be Scottish, but even worse to have Icelandic telly”

Hat tip to Wings!

One day I hope SLAB will wake up and realise that their real enemy is the Tory party. I suspect, however, that day won’t occur before the 5th May nor indeed the 24th of June.

Until then it might help their cause if they at least realised just how toxic the Alastair Campbells of the world are and that just because they have a Scottish name that doesn’t mean they know heehaw about Scottish politics or its MSM for that matter.

THE DEAR PEREGRIN LETTERS

It's been a while since the Tories wrote to our alter ego, Peregrin Fotherington-Smythe, and the last letter from Michael Fallon was so deathly dull that we didn't  bother to share it with you.

This one isn't from any particular minister. To be honest Munguin is furious that we received a letter signed "Conservative Campaign Headquarters", and not a single minister, not even a junior one, bothered to take the time to sign it.

However, we though it was worth while for one particular line.

You'll love it!

Dear Peregrin,

On Thursday 5 May, Britain faces a clear but crucial choice: the continued security, stability and opportunity provided by this Government or the insecurity, instability and incompetence of Labour.

Across England and Wales, we can continue to give our communities the safety and security that Conservative Police and Crime Commissioners deliver. In Wales, we can end 17 long years of Labour rule, and bring real change for the Welsh people. In Scotland, we can provide strong opposition to the SNP, holding them to account and saying no to a second referendum.

And in London, we can stop Sadiq Khan, Jeremy Corbyn’s man, from becoming Mayor and using City Hall as a four year experiment for Labour’s radical and divisive policies.

The outcome of each of these elections will affect how Britain is governed over the next four years. That is why it is so important that we act now, to ensure security, stability and opportunity for every person.

Please donate today to help us to deliver for Britain this May.

Thank you for your support,

Conservative Campaign Headquarters

 

Leadership for a better future? Whit?

Of course we laughed like a drain at the idea that anyone could possibly use the words "security, stability and opportunity" when referring to the governance of the UK (unless of course they were talking about Google).

We couldn't suppress our mirth at the mention of Crime Commissioners...jobs for the nobs across England and Wales... which stirred people to rush riotously to the polling stations... well, a few old dears anyway and maybe "shuffle" rather than "rush". Oh what a success they were.

We're not sure what kind of change they are anticipating in Wales. We suspect they aren't either, so that is why they didn't elaborate. But oh the laugh we had when we saw that their ambitions in Scotland are to come second, and the UK governing party has already handed the next government  of OUR country to the SNP.

Needless to say they went on to ask for £20, which we've not sent.

Damned cheek. Why don't they ask Google for money. They've ensured that it has plenty of the stuff, and that we have none.

JIMMY REID ON BLAIR AND BROWN AND THE EU

ALAN BISSETT SAID THIS IN NOVEMBER 2013

Pretty neat, don't you think, except for the last few words. 

We HAD a chance to change this.

2016, the Scottish Government and the Media.

By Panda Paws

We live in turbulent times and it’s difficult to make accurate predictions about the future but I feel safe in saying that in 2016 the SNP will be bad. Peak badness should arrive at end of April/beginning of May to be followed after the Scottish General Election by a period of “one party stateness”. 

The mocking meme of “Snpbad” was denigrated by no less a genius than Magnus Gardham (well Leaksy thinks he’s a genius though he neglected to say at what since it patently isn’t journalism). Apparently we are wrong to criticise journalists’ partiality and to wonder if holding the government to account should consist of more than regurgitating opposition press releases and acting as the media wing of SLAB. As Bertolt Brecht once put it perhaps we should dissolve the people and elect a new one given our lack of appreciation for MSM.

No-one and no party is infallible but MSM’s constant nit-picking and misleading spin on the activities of the Scottish government means that roughly half the population wouldn't believe them if they told us Christmas day was 25 December so often has the SNP been accused, warned and criticised. If I were President of the World, once I’d sorted out inequality and war, I’d have mandatory training for all journalists reporting on Scotland where the first, and quite possibly only needed session, would be on the boy that cried wolf.

They accuse independence supporters of confirmation bias, seeing only what we want and expect to see, but they themselves have a big plank in their eye that leaves the motes in ours even more minuscule. In Saturday’s Herald we have former Labour MP John Robertson’s interesting (aka contradictory) comments that he is not a Unionist but he believes in the Union. His comments about SNP people are particularly noteworthy.

In case you'd never heard of him, this is John Robertson, the guy who didn't know whether or not he voted for war in Iraq and who doesn't like SNP voters.
Not a single one of them. He used to be an MP.

"They are not nice people, the SNP, all of them. I can't say anything nice about them because they certainly did not say anything nice about me. “

Luckily Mr Robertson is an easy-going chap.

"I am not bitter. You live by the sword, you die by the sword. I don't hold any animosity towards anybody or any side”

It’s an interesting kind of non-animosity that thinks ALL of your opponents are not nice people so I guess we are lucky that he’s not bitter!

Like most independence supporter I want a MSM that holds all parties to account without fear or favour where journalists analyse the news and inform us. Unfortunately “I want” isn’t “I get”. We have a situation where the SNP is damned if they do and damned if they don’t. 

The Queensferry bridge was “Salmond’s vanity project” and opposed by all other parties, including the Greens, despite it being known since the time of  John Major’s government that the old Forth Road Bridge would not be able to cope with increasing traffic by 2015 at the latest. But when the bridge needed to be closed, was the SNP congratulated for its foresight in commissioning a new one? Well I don’t need to answer that do I.

The SNP are a competent government and whilst I don’t agree with all of its policies, they are miles ahead of the opposition. As much as I rate Patrick Harvie as a politician (though he was wrong on the new bridge!), the Greens have a way to go before than can be an official opposition. However it insults those who have lived under totalitarian regimes to describe Scotland as a one party state.

A one party state is one where the opposition is suppressed, not one where they are so incompetent that few in their right mind would want to vote for them. The Unionist parties really need to get their act together and come up with intelligent, cohesive policies that are based on something more sensible than the opposite of what the SNP says. As it is we are stuck with an immature democracy with a biased, establishment media that fail in one of their primary roles of holding the government to account.

Until then it’s “SNPbad”.

THE NOBLE LORD AND HIS FEE PAYING FARCE

 

George Foulkes‏@GeorgeFoulkes

As we face further major cuts in Council schools might be worth checking where the SNP Cabinet send their children

Some time ago the Noble Baron Foulkes of Cumnock blocked me from receiving his Tweets...a badge of honour for me. I had pointed out to him that there was something slightly ironic about a Labour Aristocrat. He failed to see the amusing side of that.

Anyway, I'm obliged to Rosanna Cunningham for re-tweeting the above beauty and giving me the opportunity to see what I otherwise would have missed.

Irony doesn't appear to be a word in his Nobleness's dictionary, for not only is he a Peer of the Realm, but the daft old bugger himself went to a fee paying school in Herefordshire, to-wit the independent, fee paying The Haberdashers' Aske's Boys' School in Hertfordshire (Motto: Serve and Obey...well, the ultra loyalist took that to heart.)

Really, people who live in glass houses should try to remember not ever to throw stones. Otherwise we all laugh at them.