WHERE ON EARTH DID THEY FIND HIM II?

Oh please, please, put him back!

WHERE ON EARTH DID THEY FIND HIM?

Wherever it was, they should put him back, don't you think?

IDENTIFY THE IDIOT © John Brownlie

We identified a few eejits last week. There was Braden Davy, who thought that the UK would be able to identify and target military personnel only with a nuclear bomb. 

Then there was the Tory party who announced that they would give you a MUG if you gave them £25, becasue people in kitchens and living rooms all over the country wanted the Tories. (People anywhere else don't!) Or something!

Before that there was the Labour party, who have been promising more autonomy to SLAB for as long as there have been ravens in the Tower of London, telling us that Scottish Labour was to get more autonomy. Yawn! Who knows, one day Kez might get to choose whether she wants tea or coffee with her rich Tunnocks tea cake, but don't hold your breath Kez!

At that point John suggested the posts might be named "Identify the Idiot". Munguin liked the idea and approved it at the weekly board meeting (more work for Tris providing the board with champagne, oysters  and petits fours).

Without further ado then, I present to you today's example in what will probably be a long series of such articles under John's heading. It still qualifies although it was clearly sent some weeks ago. 

Rather obviously removing one of the superfluous sources of the world's nuclear weaponry is unlikely to make the bombing and destruction of another city more likely. Au contraire, I would have thought.  

But surely Kezia remembers that  her own party members wanted to get rid of Trident and voted for that to be Scottish Labour policy at their conference. Therefore, whether she likes it or not, it is Scottish Labour Party policy (if there is such a thing). Bit silly, but almost believable that she thinks that it's bad that the SNP has that policy, but good that Labour has it.

Possibly of course, she's just grateful that English Labour voted to retain the nukes, and she's just grateful that idiot Scots don't get to call the shots.

Additionally, it might have occurred to her that her boss is also in favour of ditching the beast.

So, you really have to wonder at the stupidity of this tweet:

Please note, John, that the board recommended that there be a small remuneration for this and I'm happy to inform you that the Czech is in the post, or rather on his bike, and on his way to you. Not sure how he'll get across the water as Munguin provided no travel expenses.

WHEN WILL THEY EVER LEARN?

SCOTTISH LABOUR TO BE GIVEN GREATER AUTONOMY, AGAIN!

Sorry, Scottish Labour, just how many times have we heard that?

I seem to remember Iain Gray being slapped down for assuming that he had some authority in Scotland. Indeed I recall that he had the temerity to suggest that he was the leader of Labour in Scotland. Gordon Brown was having none of that. HE was the leader of Labour in Scotland, and Mr Gray was the leader of the party in the Scottish parliament. Only the geographical distance between the two saved poor hapless Gray for a Nokia round the lughole!

Then Johann Lamont was to be given real power to steer Scottish Labour in a direction more in line with Scottish sentiment, only to resign after the referendum, complaining that she was kept out of the loop by London, that her staff were sacked without her knowledge, and that she sometimes had to wait weeks for a decision from London on the stance she should take on given situations (by which time they had passed). She said, in short, that it was impossible to run the organisation as a branch office.

Next came the short-lived Jim Murphy, who told anyone who would listen (the BBC probably) that he was his own man and nobody would tell him what to do. Except that they did, and very publicly too! And then Jim lost all but one of Scotland's 41 Labour seats in the UK parliament, most of which had been in their hands for near on 100 years.

Now Kezia Dugdale is to have much more autonomy. Heavens, if each of these leaders got progressively more autonomy, surely Kez must, by now, have more power than the President of China. And Hillary Clinton thinks she's going to be the most powerful woman in the world? Think again, sweetie!

You know, back in the early days of Holyrood there were those who simply assumed that Labour would always form the major part of the government of Scotland. Then over the past few years, that they would always form the main opposition to the government of Scotland. 

Now the notion that they will always manage to be the third party is beginning to be in doubt. 

I've been known to disagree with the views of Henry McLeish, but on this one why on Earth don't they listen to him. It's the only way forward.

Thanks to Oor Jim on Twitter for the artwork!

LABOUR DOWNSIZING ...

WELL, IN THESE HARD ECONOMIC TIMES "WE ARE ALL IN IT TOGETHER..."

There has been a slight delay with Abu's article, which is entirely down to my incompetence, I might add! (Munguin has cancelled my holiday!)

In the meantime I thought you (even Niko) might enjoy seeing SLab's new Battle Bus. And the fact that they've had to ask their ex-ex-leader to lend a hand. 

But why are they are not asking Jimbo? After all, his record on not loosing one seat to the SNP is unmatched, ever, in all history.

I guess he must be off conflict solving! A splendid job for someone who could cause a rammy in an empty room and was part of a government that helped cause conflict all over the world. 

While we are on the subject of Labour chapping doors, can I just stress that it is NOT ILLEGAL (as some canvassers have allegedly been suggesting) to give your constituency and list votes to the same party.

POOOOOOR ELAINE. HOW WILL SHE COPE?

I can't remember how much MSPs get as a wage, but I'm sure that Ms Smith would have been able to find money for bagpipe tuition had it not been provided by the state.

But aside of that, Ms Smith raises a good point. And to be fair Labour has been consistent in their complaining about this sort of thing over a concerted period. They have pointed out over and over that there are fewer courses being run by colleges or funded by the Scottish government at school. 

Possibly bagpipe tuition is among those to go. I understand that there are fewer courses on home crafts and flower arranging, basket weaving, conversational Portuguese, Latin for beginners, and other such things. .

No one wants to see these courses go. But year on year since the 2007 election when Labour ceased to be the senior party in a coalition that ran Scotland but remained in charge of finances in London, there has been a reduction in the Scottish budget. The Scottish government has received less and less money to provide services

And we've been lumbered with an assortment of costs trying to alleviate the worst effects of Mr Osborne's crazy drive to save money that should be spent on ordinary people. 

Not that Scotland has particularly been earmarked for punishment. It hasn't. All of Britain is broke. We are all in this together. Everyone is suffering...well, when I say everyone, I don't exactly mean EVERYONE.

At the time of the crash Britain's economy was in a catastrophic state. Of course it wasn't alone. The USA, Iceland, Ireland and to a lesser extent continental Europe, all suffered, with knock on problems for others. 

The banks were broke and, having made massive profits as privatised companies, were now seeking to socialise their monumental losses (and were allowed to by Brown and Darling).

Personal credit had been allowed to run riot and people owed astounding amounts on a variety of credit and charge cards, paying exorbitant interest rates into the black hole of bank insolvency. 

The price of houses had reached the stage where only prince Charles could afford to buy one (despite him living in subsidised state housing), so mortgages were a gigantic debt, made all the worse that they had been a spate of remortgaging so that people could live the high life on borrowed money, with the sure and certain knowledge that house prices would continue to rise until a one-roomed flat cost a cool billion!!!

Then CRASH. It all fell down. What a surprise! And although, as I say, it wasn't all Britain's fault, and it wasn't all Labour's fault, some of it, a fair bit, was.

That was when, if I remember rightly, that it was decided by the powers that be, that we were all in it together. We all had to show Dunkirk spirit and fight to save our country. Well, some of us did anyway. 

Bankers of course did not lose out in this Dunkirkian effort. Nor did the politicians or officials who had overseen (or rather failed to oversee) the chaos.
And royals and lords continued to live just as they had done before. Indeed over the period from then till now MPs have received a massive pay increase. The Queen and her heir have had large rises in their various sources of income. The prime minister has got himself a private jet and prince William now has a helicopter. All in it together, Aye!!

But the ones who ARE all in it together have found that there is less money for social security, police, schools, courts, health, roads, transport, colleges, universities, etc, etc. And of course for the smaller countries of "our united kingdom", as Cameron keeps on irritatingly referring to it, we get less money in block grant from Big Brother.

Erm.... what?

For all we are a broke little country, however, there has been no dismantling of that status symbol of big rich countries, the independent nuclear deterrent, which of course, as we have discussed before, is neither independent nor a deterrent. (Well the USA didn't find it much of a deterrent when the Twin Towers and the Pentagon were bombed; France didn't find it much help back in November, and 7/7 came and went despite the presence of nukes only 500 miles away. And it's not independent because the idea that the UK would [even if it could] use it without permission from America, is completely laughable.)

Nope, it's sole purpose as far as most of us (except Jackie Baillie) can see, is it makes the British government look very big and important in the world. Jackie seems to think that it provides thousands and thousands of jobs for her constituents, but she lives in a fantasy world.

Austerity isn't for rich people.  It doesn't become them. Elaine Smith might have to pay for her son's bagpipe tuition, but she'll cope.  Austerity is for people on the dole; on low wages; on zero hour contracts. 

And austerity hasn't worked, no matter what Osborne tells you. All it's done is smack the already disadvantaged in the face... We know because you can hardly help but know, that there are people who have had their benefits stopped because it was reckoned they were skivers... just as their lives were ending in a hospital bed. And people with too many rooms in their council flat becasue someone went to uni, or died have had to fork out (although not in Scotland) or be evicted despite there being nowhere else to go. People have committed suicide becasue of the misery and shame of living as part of Cameron's underclass.

The stories are too many to retell here. But we can find them all on the net.

And Labour's answer is to this austerity isn't to stop interfering in wars in the Middle East; it isn't to get rid of the WMDs; it's not to demand that companies like Google pay some taxes or that royals live in ONE palace instead of six.

It is rather, that the poor and 'just getting by' pay extra tax, and that the very well off pay 5p extra on earnings over £150,000. It comes with the promise that they will arrange a possibly illegal, and in any case horrifically expensive and complex, system of repayments to the very poor, for which, I add, they will have to fill in forms and present confirmation that they are indeed poor, then lose tax credit and pay tax on their tax rebate (that isn't a tax rebate, honest Mr O)

As Stuart has pointed out, this tax rise won't even cover the costs of the improvements they wish to make to education (which I thought they were going to fund by not reducing airport tax [and thereby creating 2000 jobs]). 

What WOULD cover the costs of the education improvements, however, including Ms Smith's laddies' bagpipe lessons, would be scrapping bloody Trident.

Finally, could someone close to her please  see if they can talk Baillie into realising that really there are very few jobs in Trident. 

I don't know about you, but I'd rather not live next to weapons that Portsmouth thought too dangerous to site in their back yard, and if we got rid of it, I'm sure that in the millions we would save every year there would be sufficient to revitalise the area!

SEEN ON TWITTER...*

Question 1:

Why, if Scottish Labour is so independent from English Labour, does the letter expelling a Scottish Labour member come on a letterhead indicating an address in either London or Newcastle, or both? I thought Jim had sorted that out. He and he alone, ran Scottish Labour.

Question 2:

Why, on the same basis, does a person have to re-apply (always assuming that they want to) to a London address? Is no one in Scotland entitled to make a decision on such an important matter as readmitting a person who has been expelled?

From Labour's Rules

Point 1:

If I were a member of a party and had breached rules and then received a letter like this, I would most assuredly not want to rejoin. There is no inquiry as to why the now ex-member decided to vote for the SNP. No one seems interesting in knowing what the problem with Labour policy was that drove this person to leave a party he had previously supported? If I were Labour in their current position I'd want to know that more than anything else.

Point 2:

The name of the party that the person said they were going to support is the Scottish National Party, ie the party of the Scottish Nation. Not the Scottish Nationalist Party.

It may be fun to insult the SNP by calling it by a name you think sounds unsavoury, but the truth is that it's not the actual name of the party, and makes the writer look either ignorant (I appreciate that they are not Scottish, but surely a complaints officer, even in England, knows the correct name of the party), or just plain petty.

* As the title says, this was seen on Twitter. Thanks to Jamie Ross. I cannot guarantee its authenticity. However, this rule does appear in Labour's Rule Book and Jane Shaw is indeed their compliance officer.

DEAR LABOUR

From the office of the proprietor

Munguin Towers,

Munguin Rise,

Munguinstown,

SCOTLAND

Dear the Labour Party of Great Britain,

I was just reading a Wings over Scotland story about your voting today on the issue of Trident Renewal, of which, incidentally, I feel you should be heartily ashamed.

I noticed that, with his usual aplomb, Stuart was able to provide a link to  the 2010 Labour manifesto "A future fair for all"  in which you said that you were committed to maintaining Britain's independent nuclear deterrent.

I was wondering if any of you could explain to me in what way a weapons system which is joined at the hip to America's system and which cannot be used with a) permission, and b) the physical passing of the firing codes from the Pentagon to the submarine commander, could be called "independent".

You might also like to comment upon the fact that the Scottish Conference, according to Neil Findlay, voted against the retention of the weapons of mass destruction. Given the alleged ''independent (not a branch office at all) nature'' of the Scottish party, (according to what you said when Iain Gray was leader, again when Johann Lamont was leader and now that Jim Murphy is leader), is it not strange that this resolution has been discarded. Particularly given that the weapons are based not 20 miles from the centre of Labour's heartlands...Glasgow.


Kind regards

Munguin
Proprietor: Munguin's Republic.

PS: Take my advice and tell that dimwit Donohoe, if he can't say anything that isn't completely and laughably ridiculous, or that doesn't even remotely make sense, then he'd be better to shut up and just take the money. 

He really made a fool of himself tonight.

(Dictated by Munguin, signed in his absence by TPW.)

ANYTHING YOU CAN DO....

Following on from the Tory's "Road to... (erm, well probably the road to Weimar actually)" fiasco of a poster to kick off their general election campaign, I was saying to a friend this afternoon that I was surprised that it had been selected for use. 

When reviewing this kind of campaign surely one of the first things that the campaign manager would do was ask "What could go wrong?" 

Well, having to admit to not being able to find one road in all of Britain that stretched into a glorious and happy future... or portrayed the concept... seems to me to be something that could be described as "going wrong". Someone was sure to ask..."where is the road?"...and answering ... "it's a composite of various roads" would have been bad enough if they had at least all been in Britain. 

That the road in question was in Germany was nothing short of hilarious mind blowing incompetence.

We reflected that this was not the first time that a recent political campaign had been found rather naive. We'd all be incredulous when Better Together came up with the "cereal" lady.  Did no one stop to wonder how it would play in the 21st century to make a woman look as if she, a mindless adjunct to her husband, was not to worry her pretty little head about politics... but instead to concentrate on the bairns, the cereal, and the nice cup of coffee in the kitchen... 1950s or what?

So this afternoon when we were talking we hadn't seen Labour's first poster of the campaign. 

Now we have. We'll we've seen "Scottish" Labour's poster, despite there being no such party. James Kelly parodies it rather nicely here, and for once the Rev Stuart is left speechless (which we suspect doesn't happen that often).

And so for the second time in a few days we are left wondering why did no one ask... "what could go wrong?"

Really, did no one at Jim's HQ ask why they were spending their limited resources proposing a "policy" (he flattered it) on a service over which they would have no control whatsoever in the parliament into which they were hoping to be elected? 

This is a campaign for a general election in London, Westminster, the UK, call it what you will. The Scottish Health Service is funded and overseen from Holyrood by an entirely separate parliament and government which will be come up for election in 16 months' time. (Heaven help us if it's Jim whose the FM then. He'll be assuming it's being taken care of from London!)

So, for the purpose of this election campaign, the one that is going on here and now, surely the SNP will be making no promises whatsoever about funding nurses in NHS Scotland. Being in government in Scotland they know perfectly well where NHS Scotland is run from.

But even if it were a matter for the UK parliament, it appears to be the most ridiculous statement of intent. What they seem to be promising is that whatever the SNP proposes, they will add 1000 to it.

So, if the SNP, having researched it with NHS Scotland's management, promises the optimum number of nurses, regardless that an extra 1000 would just really be in the way, Labour will supply them anyway.  

I wonder if they intend to spend the entire campaign promising whatever the SNP says, plus 1000.

Schools: (also not under consideration in the UK election)... whatever the SNP say + 1000. Trains (also Holyrood): whatever the SNP promises, + 1000. Nuclear warheads (ah, Westminster): Whatever the SNP promises +1000. Oh, that'll be 1000 exactly then.

It brings back memories of days when my brother and I would argue about something, by proposing, each in his turn, an ever bigger number, until of course one of us remember infinity.. and then we did infinity plus 1!

We were aged 8 and 4 at the time though, so we had an excuse.

Sorry guys... must try to do better than under 10s! 

Serious suggestions:

1) Find out what Westminster is responsible for (you should be good at that, Jim, being as you are supposed to be working there) and propose policies for which that parliament has responsibility. There are plenty, unfortunately.

2) Try to come up with policies which aren't the same as, but bigger than, those of the SNP. It might make people think that you had given it some intellectual consideration, and that's always a reassuring thing for a potential government (flatters them again). 

3) Before you put out your next poster, ask yourself... what will the public be laughing at tonight? If the answer is "us"... ditch it and start again.

WHAT HAPPENED TO LABOUR?

THE EXCITEMENT IS OVER...IT'S JIM AND KEZ... SURPRISE, SUPRPRISE

Congratulations to Jim Murphy and to Kezia Dugdale on winning the election to be leader and depute leader of the Labour Party's Scottish office.
It's not what I would have wished for... nor, from the poll that we ran over the last two days, what the majority of readers of Munguin's Republic wanted. I don't think it's really what Scotland wanted. However, it was what London wanted and what the BBC wanted. And apparently 56% of the Labour Party in Scotland wanted it, so it happened. And Hell mend them!

Sarah Boyack	38 (20%)
Neil Findlay	119 (63%)
Jim Murphy	39 (20%)
Kezia Dugdale	27 (14%)
Katy Clark	70 (37%)

Jim Murphy got 20% of the Munguin poll votes, compared with 56% in the real poll. Neil Findlay in reality got 35% of the electoral college's votes, compared with a whopping 63% of Munguin's readers' votes.

Such is life. 

Anyway, thanks to all of you who took time to vote and to comment on the last thread.

So, with a speech about how he had a driving purpose to stamp out poverty, and how angry he was about the difference in life expectancy between rich and poor and his concerns about the difficulties of of the poor in getting a good education, he launched what he called a new era for Scottish Labour. 

But the path ahead will not be an easy one for Jim and his running mate.

His big problems seem to me to be:

He's in London and his job is in Edinburgh. He will be obliged to deputise his main duties to Dugdale while he continues to earn his salary as an MP. I know little of her, except that she, like Murphy, has never had a real job, and she spent her political life before getting into parliament, 3 years ago, as an assistant to a right of centre member of the House of Lords. What little I saw of her on tv during the referendum campaign, failed to impress me. She came over as full of hatred for the SNP ...and pretty much nothing else. 

He has to find a seat in Scotland. He has to either to persuade someone in a "safe" seat to stand down (perhaps with Ed recommending him/her for a seat in the House of Lords... it's been done before as Irene Expenses Adams can testify!!) and then he has to win that safe seat. That's not going to be easy. Those who resign a seat in mid term lose out on a generous resettlement payment, and any elevations to the House of Aristos will be noticed and used by political opponents. And it will have to be a rock solid seat... (imagine losing)... And what IS a rock solid seat at this time?

If he doesn't manage that, he has to make up his mind about standing for Westminster in May 2015. And he must say what he will if he retains that seat and goes on to win a seat in Holyrood.

He has somehow to lose his reputation as a hard right wing Blairite. He is at odds with his branch of the party on many issues, not least the removal of Trident from the Clyde. Blair, and what he did to Labour, is roundly loathed in Scotland, even by those who support the Labour Party and the union. London Labour has agreed to replace Trident with at least £100,000,000,000 worth of new nuclear subs. 

He stands for much that the Labour Party in Scotland is uncomfortable with. He was a supporter of the Iraq War and he voted against there being an investigation into it. He will have to make up where he stands on the report into CIA activities, including their involvement with torture... and the fact that all the intelligence that was gained from that torture was shared with the UK, while he was a minister. 

He says that he is concerned for the poor and that if he were first minister he would raise the taxes on the rich. Although he also said that he wouldn't tax the middle classes. So I'm assuming that his tax raising would be reserved for the super-rich. I seem to recall that Stuart Campbell calculated that that would bring in around £8 million a year, if the rich didn't all suddenly feel the urge to buy property (and pay tax) in England. 

So he'll need to find another way, because I can assure Mr Murphy that £8 million won't go far shared between all the poor in Scotland!

Pointy finger

His conviction is doubtful... His voting record on measures like social security hardly indicate strong support for the poor. Labour in London are going to be harder than the Tories on Welfare. Rachel Reeves has said so. How will he square that circle?

Labour head office has also committed to keeping to George Osborne's spending plans. How many people in Scotland are up for that? And what will that do for the poor?

Scotland is looking for a Labour Party that IS a Labour Party, not the metropolitan pinkish watered down vision of Mandelson's and Blair's, which agrees with almost everything that the Eton Boys say and pleases the rich 'socialists' at the BBC. 

And it's going to be hard for him to convince anyone that he really cares about the poor when he has the baggage of being Blair's most loyal lieutenant.

It will be hard for him to espouse socialist policies in Scotland, while the London party is busily aping Cameron. Miliband will be scared that he will frighten off the kind of voters and donors that they want to encourage.

This may seem a little personal ... and a bit cruel, but it seems to me that I have never met anyone who actually "likes" Jim. OK, you can say that I don't meet enough Labour supporters to make a sound judgement on that and that's fair comment. But it seems to me that he's just not a popular man despite the support he has just had from the party. 

He needs to work on getting the public to like him... and to trust him.

I doubt that will be easy. He's not the kind of bloke you like. He's hasn't got the easy manner that appeals to other men. You can't imagine going for a pint with him. I've never heard of women swooning over him. People like Blair picked up a lot of votes on his good looks (well it was nearly 20 years ago!!) Jim will never be accused of that. And he's hardly an intellectual giant who simply wows you with his wit or clarity of thought.

I wish him luck becoming appealing...

So he's not idea either from the Labour Party's point of view, or from Scotland's point of view.

I image there will be some pretty happy SNP people today though.

THE GIFT THAT KEEPS GIVING...

DON'T WATCH THIS UNLESS YOU HAVE A BUCKET HANDY

It reminds me of John Major in the car driving past his old home, just like he was a normal person, only we all know he rehearsed seeing it four of five times before he got it right.

Seriously, I have rarely heard so much rubbish in my life. The Labour Party may well have been most of or all of what Murphy talks about once upon a time, until Mandelson, Brown and Blair got their evil Tory hands on it.

But a long time ago it ceased to bear any resemblance to what Jim is talking about here, particularly with reference to the poor... and all over the world, if you please. 

What, Jim, about the poor in Afghanistan and Iraq, who had their legs blown off in the wars you supported? What about the inquiry into these wars that you so strongly resisted? What about the poor in Palestine, the unarmed kids being shot by Israeli soldiers? 

And what about the poor in Scotland Jim, denied their desperately needed sickness benefits or on poverty wages on zero hour contracts, with you backing so many of IDS's vile policies? (And yes, I know Labour's stated policy is to get rid of zero hour contracts, but you you blow off about that you should probably tell all the Labour Councils that employ these contracts about that policy, becasue talking the talk is hardly enough when people are starving...)

If anyone believes any of this crap, then I suspect that they also believe in Professors McGonnigal and Snape and I'll look forward to seeing them on platform 9 3/4 where we can watch the cow jump over the moon together.
++++++++++

It's going to be printed for 5 days to judge its viability.
We should grab it ... or we will lose it
++++++++++

Ha ha ha...

PS: This is what we call a political meeting in Scotland

NOT SO SCOTTISH LABOUR FROM BUCKINGHAM GATE, SW1

Labour has been obliged by law to register for participation in the Scottish Independence Referendum.

Although we forever hear about 'Scottish Labour' and the 'Scottish Labour' leader, and how much power and authority she has (at least in theory), and how they are all very Scottish (just equally British, which may suggests that they can only be half Scottish), the truth of the matter (as DougtheDug or Dubbieside have pointed out on many occasions) is that Labour is a London organisation. It doesn't exist.  

They just don't want you to know that so they continue with the myth that they do.

However, when faced with registering for something like this, they are, as everyone is, obliged to do so by the letter of the law.

The result is that 'Scottish' Labour doesn't actually have the word 'Scottish' in its title and its address is in London SW1.

Saor Alba agus Albanach gu bràth agus thig ar latha.

WINGS OVER SCOTLAND NAILS IT

A few weeks ago I published a copied post detailing ten advantages of being independent. 


One of the most startling points made in this post was the fact that we would be much richer as an independent nation (according to OECD figures the 6th richest nation on Earth).


Whilst that is pretty important (I'd like to live like a Norwegian), probably the most important aspect of independence for me is that we would no longer be tied down to a choice of government by one of two political parties, pitching much the same policies to people who live at the other end of the UK. 


I didn't include the Liberal Democrats in the "parties of government" because, under the voting system that we have, there is no chance of them being in government, except as, at present, the junior partner in a coalition.  If Mr Clegg had held out for a referendum on Proportional Representation instead of the silly fudge that he accepted and almost no one wanted, this might have been a thing of the past. Now it will not happen for a very long time, even if the Liberals survive their time with the Tories.

I've suggested to unionists who read this blog that they might want to come up with a list of advantages for Scotland in staying in the union. No one, to date, has ventured a single one advantage.


The leader of "Scottish Labour" has said that we are better off and stronger together. I don't know what she means by that. It sounds like a cliché to me. Stronger in what way? Economically? Militarily? Physically? Better off in what way? Economically? The figures suggest otherwise.


Certainly she may be agreeing with Cameron that Britain packs a punch in Europe...although that's a someone dubious notion. 


Perhaps Ms Lamont agrees with the prime minister that Britain's fighting force (one of the largest in the world) is an advantage of our union. He remarked that the UK was either respected or feared because of that. 


I think he forgot to mention "ridiculed". I'm not talking about the quality of the men. I'm sure most of them are fine, but the situation is a bit fur coat and no knickers.  Britain can fight wars but it has poor equipment and kit, and the men's rations are pathetic in comparison to American or French soldiers. 


It's also a source of amusement to some that although our troops are out there with the Americans, standing shoulder to shoulder, we have 1960s railways/hospitals/roads/bus service/education...etc. 

Mrs Lamont may think that being a permanent member of the security council is important. I suspect it's another of these things that we are supposed to swallow without analysing in what way it is good for you and me.


Cameron got misty eyed at his speech in Edinburgh when he talked of the history that our two countries shared, as if on independence we would no longer share that history (which incidentally has been that of independent nations for far more of the time than it has been as a union). But then  education at Eton ain't what it used to be...certainly not if that is what they turn out.


Having failed to hear any sensible arguments for staying together, I was interested to read this Wings over Scotland post today. It lays out very clearly the disadvantages in staying in the union, by describing what the current set up is; how little we are offered; how undemocratic our country is. As I said earlier, two (he says three) parties pitching the same policies to the South East of England.


I think that every Scot should read this post, and certainly anyone campaigning for an independent Scotland should know it off by heart.


My heartiest congratulations and thanks to the Rev Stu. It's just a superb post.

WHERE IS LAMONT WHEN DAVID STARKEY IS MOUTHING OFF ABOUT SCOTLAND?

That David Starkey has once again  made a fool of himself by going off on an immature rant, this time about Alex Salmond and his likeness to Adolf Hitler, is no real surprise. 


A few years ago I used to enjoy "The Moral Maze" radio programme (discussions on questions of moral philosophy, where 'witnesses' were invited to answer questions on issues of the day, and panellists summed up their views in light of the expert witness testimony they had heard).


It was always stimulating listening, but was invariably spoiled by Starkey (one of the panellists, who had far too much to say for himself, and insisted on insulting the opinions of anyone who disagreed with him in the brashest of terms. In the end I had to stop listening because I found him an embarrassment, out of place on a programme of this nature.


Since then he has popped up from time to time being unpleasant about a variety of people from the Queen (who apparently failed to show sufficient interest in an exhibition he had curated, thus earning his derision as an intellectual lightweight; I suspect she may just have found him a boring old git) downwards. He has frequently been unpleasant about Scotland and Scots such as here: In 2009, then the Scottish Government minister for culture and external affairs Mike Russell, called on him to apologise for his declaration on the programme that Scotland, Ireland and Wales are "feeble little countries".He replied 'It was a joke! The question was did I think the English should treat St George's Day the same way the Scots and all the rest of them treat their saints' days - St Andrew, St Patrick and my answer was no. That would mean we would become a feeble little nation like them and we're showing every sign of doing just that. H.G. Wells has this wonderful phrase - "the English are the only nation without national dress". It is a glory that wedon't have such a thing.'


A strange little man from a working class northern English background who by dint of brains and effort made it to Cambridge on a scholarship, Starkey has always seemed to me to be bitter about almost everything. So there is no great surprise that he is bitter about Scotland, and Alex Salmond.


What is interesting is this,  from the Press Association. It outlines the opinions of Starkey's outburst by a spokesman for Alex, and other people in the leadership of the Scottish Conservatives, Scottish Greens and Scottish Liberal Democrats. It appears that no one from the Scottish Labour party was available for, or wished to, comment. Where on earth is Lamontable hiding these days?

WHY?

Full list of 32 Scottish Labour MPs who voted for further privatisation of the NHS in England On Monday January 16, 2012. No wonder people ask the "West Lothian question". (Apposite picture Mrs Lamont, wouldn't you say?)

Sarwar, Anas - Deputy Leader of Scottish Labour
Curran, Margaret - Shadow Scottish Secretary
Alexander, Douglas
Bain, William
Banks, Gordon
Begg, Anne
Brown, Russell
Clark, Katy
Clarke, Tom
Docherty, Thomas
Donohoe, Brian H.
Doran, Frank
Doyle, Gemma
Gilmore, Sheila
Greatrex, Tom
Harris, Tom
Jamieson, Cathy
Joyce, Eric
McGovern, Jim
McKechin, Ann
McKenzie, Iain
Morrice, Graeme
Murphy, Jim
Murray, Ian
Nash, Pamela
O'Donnell, Fiona
Osborne, Sandra
Robertson, John
Roy, Frank
Roy, Lindsay
Sheridan, Jim

Teller - David Hamilton

Can someone from Scottish Labour please explain


why they saw fit to do this? Who ordered them to?


Was it Miliband, Curren, Lamont? And who IS in 


charge of Labour's Scottish MPs?

Grateful thanks to Dubbieside from bringing this list of Labour, Tories, oh dear, Laries maybe...to my attention.  I wonder if they would dare vote for this kind of private health system in Scotland?

February 08, 2012 8:43 PM

LETTER TO LAMONT

This is a letter to Johann Lamont from Patrick Small. It was first published in Product Magazine, but I saw it in, and lifted from, Labour Hame, where it was contributed by Duncan Macniven


I think it encapsulates the issues that Ms Lamont needs to address over the next few months, but will, unfortunately, almost certainly not. 


The most important of them, I think, is the constant whining and criticising. Not everything the government does is good, no one would pretend that. But not everything it does is bad either. So stop the automatic sniping. No one takes you seriously if all you can do is whine. Start constructive opposition and you will gain respect. And tell that to Maggie Curran too!

Dear Johann
Congratulations on your victory. If you’re to dispel the notion that Scottish Labour leaders have steadily diminished since Donald Dewar, each one seeming progressively less capable and less attuned to the country they seek to lead, you’re going to need to take advice from across the board. For what it’s worth, here’s mine:

1. Get Humble

Labour didn’t just lose the election in May, you got horsed. You are where you are because the Scottish electorate put you there. Your victory speech suggested you you may understand this. So shut down the old duffers. Whenever Brian Wilson or John McTernan take to the airwaves you can almost feel thousands of voters turning away. The Wilson/McTernan message is one of simple entitlement: Labour dominance is the natural order, the election results of 2007 and 2011 were some kind of aberration, instead of the democratic choice of the Scottish people.

2. Endless Naysaying is a No No

The art of opposition requires that you choose carefully when to be positive about your opponents. A constant stream of negativity will just put people off. So commend and support the SNP government where it does things well. You will look like a bigger politician, and a potential first minister, instead of a slightly nippy loser. Iain Gray didn’t get this, and look what happened to him.

3. Apologise

Your party decided to oppose the Scottish government’s attempts to introduce a “Tesco tax” on the supermarkets, a modest proposal which would have brought in revenue from the very rich. You opposed this -either because you’re funded by Sainsbury’s or due to basic political lunacy. If you’re committed to being the Supermarket Owners’ Party, don’t expect to be taken seriously on social justice. And without a commitment to social justice, Labour can really pack up and go home. Just apologise. People will respect you for it, and it will mark you out as different from your predecessor.

4. Develop policies for a difficult age

Your victory speech also intimated a desire to develop real policies that might
work for Scotland. If they could be new, original, practical and costed that would be good. Top of these should be social and economic justice, taming feral banks and corporate excess, tackling drugs and homelessness and developing a climate change strategy. You might think these are intractable problems but if you have nothing new to say about them, don’t stand for high office. And don’t say you can only articulate policy in line with the powers devolved in the Scotland Act, that’s just going to make you look like a pygmy. Build links with community and campaign groups and talk honestly about poverty in Scotland. No-one else does.

5. Ditch Trident

We relentlessly hear about the age of austerity, the dark days ahead, the lack of cash and the “logic” of cuts. On Saturday you said we were “no longer living in an age of plenty”. But Trident, and its £75 billion price tag is to be left untouched. This has been shut down as a subject of serious debate in mainstream British politics. Except that last May the Scottish people elected two Greens and 69 SNP MSPs. Both parties’ manifestos explicitly reject nuclear warheads on the Clyde. You have previously suggested you may be against Trident, but have now gone quiet on the issue. If you really want to look people in the eye and say we must carry on closing schools and nurseries but keep blindly paying through the nose for a Cold War relic, you’re going to project both dishonesty and contempt for mainstream Scottish opinion.

Scotland needs an articulate, imaginative opposition to function as a healthy democracy. If Labour can’t provide this, something else will fill the vacuum quicker than you think.

First published in PRODUCT magazine.