DOES ANAS WANT TO BE JOHANN; DOES GORDON WANT TO BE ETON DAVE?

The Labour leadership in Scotland’s branch office appears to be in a bit of disarray after it was suggested that Deputy Leader Anas Sarwar refused to back Johann Lamont to lead the party into the 2016 election.

Apparently when asked by the Sunday Post if Johann Lamont would be Labour’s candidate for First Minister in 2016, Mr Sarwar refused to answer and would only say that Ms Lamont is currently leader of the party. Well, yes, I think at least 25% of the population of Scotland already knows that, Anas.

His refusal to back his leader comes amidst claims that he is being pushed out of the No campaign  with one Labour MP saying “…it’s probably true to say he’s been sidelined” and mocking Mr Sarwar’s new role as amounting to little more than “looking after a big red bus.” 

What does it all mean? Does Sarwar want to be leader himself? Could he be leader from London? Or does he believe there will be no London and he will be standing in an independent Scotland? Is he backing someone else for the job? Have they resigned themselves to the fact that Johann is simply not leader material and is an electoral liability?  Does Johann realise herself that she isn't cutting the mustard? Who else is in the running? Jackie? Margrit? Spud? Wee Doogie?

Labour was already split this week after Gordon Brown’s intervention demanding a Prime Minister to First Minister debate between David Cameron and Alex Salmond only days after Alistair Darling claimed he should be the person to debate with the First Minister. Brown, of course, is probably not best pleased at the idea that his sworn enemy from the Downing Street years is bigging himself up as the man to take David Cameron’s place in the Scotland debate, speaking for the United Kingdom. 

Maybe Gordon feels that as an ex-Prime Minister and a North Briton himself, HE should be the one to take David Cameron’s place. But the truth is that unless Mr Cameron made a public declaration stating that he would stand by whatever answer any of them gave in any live debate with the First Minister, either of these people might as well stay at home. 

It might make for an entertaining evening, but we couldn't trust anything they said... not, of course, that I'd say that you could trust Cameron. It's just much more difficult to go welch on deals when they have you on camera promising them.

DAY OF SHAME

Here he is, your new representative in Brussels. Fit, huh?
If you need to contact him he lives in Kensington, England
Does that make him an immigrant here?
I dunno, damned kippers coming up here taking our jobs.
Anyway the fun thing is that he wants to debate
 immigration with Alex Salmond.
 Bring it on. It will make the dispatching of Carbuncle
look like a Sunday school outing

Well, it's a miserable day for Scotland that far right racists from London
have won a seat to represent us, but every cloud has a silver lining.
This result is likely replicated all over the country.

So this is where the shame can be apportioned

Remember this bloke. He apparently was Scottish,
although he didn't sound or look like it, but he didn't half hate us.

No National Collective. He's a Tory.
He probably is happy to have them on board

Awwww...sweet

The perfect pair

You'll only get .25 of a litre in there Nigel... oh sorry
1/2  pint.

And finally...the two have become one.
I wonder if he'll keep his pint in his handbag!

IMAGINE NOT BEING ABLE TO LISTEN TO RADIO'S "NEWS QUIZ" ON TELEVISION

It appears that Scots with Freeview are being denied the opportunity to listen to radio on their tv sets after 5pm, and all because the BBC has chosen to broadcast the tv channel BBC Alba from that time at in the evening.

Limited band space means that there is not sufficient capacity for the BBC’s 13 radio stations to be broadcast at the same time.

Apparently there have been “numerous” complaints made to Kazia Dugdale MSP, one of Labour’s Lothian list members and she has taken up the cudgels on their behalves.

“I’ve had”, says Ms Dugdale, “people say that they can no longer listen to the News Quiz, or this is how they get their classical music or their sports coverage. And they feel aggrieved because the licence fee is the same as it was 2 months ago” (before the BBC’s decision).

She goes on to say that she believes that the BBC should recognise that times have changed (although I’m not entirely certain what that has to do with the matter of Gaelic broadcasting, or the fact that some people listen to sport on their televisions). She fears, somewhat mystifyingly, that Scotland may be left behind if the population cannot listen to the News Quiz on their television sets. Left behind what or where, she does not say.

Ms Dugdale has written to no less a personage than Chris (now lord) Patten, who replied telling her the BBC Trust has decided that this was the most technically and financially viable way of enabling BBC Alba to be carried on Freeview.

He rather pointedly added that radio stations could still be listened to on radios after 5 pm.

I’m wondering, given that broadcasting is an issue reserved to Westminster, why Ms Dugdale did not direct these “numerous” complainants to their local MPs who represent them in the parliament in England which has power over these matters.

It seems that the BBC is unlikely to back down from its stance, given that Patten suggests that carrying Alba on Freeview will result in an increase of between 70,000 and 111,000 viewers, while only 50,000 radio listeners will be affected. And so, as well as Mr Patten’s advice that radio programmes can still be listened to on radio (purchasable for as little as £2 in Tesco), I can offer some comfort in that these programmes can also be heard at any time on-line, on many cell phones, and as a special sop to those who cannot bear to hear the News Quiz anywhere but on television, the programme, when being broadcast, can be listened to on Saturday at 12.30pm, well before Alba starts, and therefore, on tv.

It seems to me small minded and selfish to object to those among us who speak Gaelic having television in their own language when there is such a plethora of English language broadcasts on such a wide range of stations, receivable on a variety of equipment and available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. But some people have just got to have everything.

I’m surprised that MSPs don’t have more important things to occupy themselves with.

NOW GO HOME AND THINK AGAIN

David Cameron has warned that his patience may be limited with Scotland over the referendum question.

He has told the “Spectator” that, although he wants to continue to observe the “respect” agenda (I thought he’d already U-turned on that) he may pre-empt the government’s independence referendum if, as he says, the next few years become about tussling rather than governing.


I realise, of course, that Cameron is having a rough time with his backbenchers. He looks weak over the News International situation and is trying to look as if he is strong over something else. But it is a bit rich for someone who is making such a pig’s ear of governing within his own remit to be instructing a much more experienced politician who is doing such a good job within HIS remit that he was re- elected with a majority only a few short weeks ago.

There have been, since the election victory that was never supposed to happen, the most amazing series of u-turns over the referendum situation.

Firstly the SNP said in the manifesto, and it was much talked about in leadership debates, that there would be a referendum in the second half of the 5 year government. It was never going to be something about which a great fuss was made during the earlier part of the government when the UK (and as a result Scotland) was in such a mess with unemployment, social exclusion, and poverty.

But even before the result had been confirmed, the opposition parties were bringing it forward, as if it had been the only thing in the manifesto.

The Secretary for Scotland Michael Moore called for two referenda and was slapped down by the prime minister, and others have even said that it would be necessary for the English to vote in their own referendum before Scotland could be free (without thinking about the consequences for England in a future referendum on their EU membership).

Tory MP for North East Somerset Jacob Rees-Mogg tried to introduce an amendment to the Scotland Bill, currently going through the London parliament, demanding a referendum within four months and was slapped down by their Speaker. Whilst Cameron doesn’t agree with that he said he would not play games with Mr Salmond.“I won’t have a situation where it’s not about the health or wellbeing of the people of Scotland but all about a referendum to satisfy his needs”, he said.

How incredibly little he knows about what goes on here. I mean, it’s not all health and wellbeing anyway. It’s crime, prisons, education, local government and many other things, and there are Cabinet Secretaries and Ministers working hard to achieve this.

Mr Cameron should remember that he has no mandate in Scotland. He has one MP out of 59. And in the Scottish General Election an academic study has shown that it was the popularity of Annabel Goldie that gave the Tories the seats that they got...and they are about to lose her! Although there are many more Liberal Democrats, one only needs to look at the rump in parliament and the disastrous Inverclyde by-election result for the London parliament to see how popular they are in our country.

He should also remember that, rather like his illustrious predecessor, his words in Scotland tend to have the opposite effect to that which is intended. Even Malcolm Rifkind realised that the Scots don’t like to be bullied by bossy Englishwomen (or men) and the less Thatcher said, the better.

He would do best to take that on board and say very little.

AND NOW FOR THE EAST LOTHIAN QUESTION...

Is it possible? Could it happen?

Yes, unlikely thought it may seem; yes it could.

Just as across Scotland, the polls have shown a swing to the SNP; there is a suspicion that the mood of voters in East Lothian may have swung the SNP’s way, enough to win a seat for Dave Berry. Not important really, you might think, until you stop and think...East Lothian is the seat of Iain “the snarl” Gray, better known perhaps as Elmer “the snarl” Fudd!

In what Labour thought would be a cast iron safe seat for them, canvass returns, taken over 25% of the voters, suggest that it’s possible that Gray could lose.

Gray has not been seen much in the constituency for months. It’s been suggested that his training for the presidential-style debates with Alex Salmond (and yes Mr Cameron, Ms Goldie took part in them too...la presidentee?) has taken up most of his time, whereas Mr Berry has been working the constituency for months.

Secondly the constituency which delivered Iain Gray a 7.1% lead over the SNP has undergone boundary changes, which would reduce the lead to 6.7%. This means that a "swing" of only 3.4% would be needed to oust him. Polling evidence suggests that the Liberal vote collapse is benefiting the SNP more than Labour, and given that 18.5% of East Lothian voters backed the Liberals in the last election, their vote could make a huge difference.

Add to that the likelihood that, as Gray is roundly disliked, Tory and Liberal voters may vote tactically to remove him, and that he is not on the regional list, we could be saying ‘bye bye’ to the snarly one sooner rather than later.

Imagine a new parliament without Mr Gray, and with Labour, either in opposition or forming a government, without a leader. It makes for interesting thoughts.

We should not get our hopes up of course. There is still all to play for in the constituency, as there is in the country, but a loss would give Iain Gray his only chance to make history by being the first party leader in Scotland to be ousted by the public at an election.

Iain “the snarl” Gray, copied shamelessly from a great blog, http://holyroodhorrors.blogspot.com/ which I just discovered... and our man, trying on his “tails” lest he should get that last minute call to take the place of the Crown Prince of Bahrain, or the King of Cambodia, who appear to have left the Windsors with two extra dinners and a bottle of Chablis.

FMQ: IN WHICH SUBROSA DOES THE HONOURS

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

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

FMQ: IN WHICH ANNABEL PLAYS MATRON AND ALEX SAYS "YES"!

The first question about what the FM was going to do with the rest of his day was answered with some excellent news. Alex Salmond was to make an announcement with executives from Amazon of 950 new full-time Amazon jobs to Scotland. Great news.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00x98fj/First_Ministers_Question_Time_13_01_2011

Policing and Fire Services are hugely important issues, and most people would think it was cheap and unpleasant to make, or try to make political capital out of them, but the sickening idiot Gray did just that. While usually I can laugh at his stupidity, and his cack handedness, today I’m just sickened by him. I can’t even be bothered to call him by his pet name. He’s a buffoon, and an unpleasant one at that and a completely useless opposition leader.

He pressed for the FM to give a response now to the future of policing and fire services and bemoaned the fact that the government is consulting. He wanted action. Just do it. If this is what he would do in government, then it would be as well to keep him out. He complained that Alex’s position on the matter had changed over the last few months. He complained that Alex should show leadership and make a decision and that “this is daft stuff”. Definitely FM material. NOT

All of this of course gave Alex the opportunity to give him a little lesson in what running a country is about. We all know about Labour dictatorship. We had plenty of that from Gray’s friends in London. Alex prefers to govern by consensus. There must be changes. Thanks to cuts in funding from London, partly due to incompetent running of the UK economy by Gordon Brown, the status quo is not an option. But the number of forces cannot be decided without knowing facts, and weighing potential consequences.

It was the most sickening display of stupidity I’ve heard from the idiot yet.

And so to Annabel, who reminded Alex that it was Conservative policies which had put 1000 extra officers on the streets! She made a Party Political Broadcast committing the Tories to a pledge to keep them there for the next 4 years. Would, she asked, the FM meet that commitment?

“Yes”, said he, and sat down to good humoured laughter all round, except presumably Labour who, in her question, had been given a drubbing by Annabel. “They had no plans then and they have no plans now”, she said.

She reminded Alex that she had had to tweak him back into line when he was naughty... (hmmmm, I’m not sure all of you are ready for this kind of stuff, especially, when he replied, saying that he felt a bit like he’d been pulled into line by Matron.) There was an agreement that on Law and Order there had been much co-operation with both the Tories and the Liberals. What a relief that Annabel has a sense of humour and an IQ level above that of Humpty Dummy.

And so to wee Tavish, who was also, quite rightly for this IS important, asking more questions about policing. He really just gave Alex the opportunity to reiterate the importance of consulting widely before taking a decision, rather than going gung ho into it as Iain Gray presumably would were he ever the FM. Tavish pointed out that Labour had tried to make changes in England and had to turn back due to not having thought out, or costed how it would be done. Alex assured him that he would not be using Labour’s blueprint.

And so to supplementaries on company closures, the impact of VAT and fuel duty, flu and legal aid.

Pic 1: “It’s OK Alex, that’s just the starter; the real meal is to follow”. Pic 2: A picture of Iain Gray’s brain embedded in soap. Can’t see anything much there. Pic3: In case the Tories are stupid enough to dump Auntie Annabel, she’s got another job as a train driver... )ic 4: On yer bike Tavish...

FMQ on SVR by SR

The account of today's First Minister's Questions can be found over at Subrosa's place, and a damned good one it is too.

Warning: This post may cause people to wonder about how much time can be wasted on trivia by highly paid public servants.

Someone told Tavish yesterday that his attack on John Swinney had been statesman-like. (I think it may have been Tavish as he was shaving this morning.) So, he resumed this afternoon where he left off yesterday. A forensic examination of that part of FMQ can he found here at Scot Goes Pop.

Warning: This post may cause uncontrollable mirth.

Pics: Alex Salmond's reaction on hearing that Tavish Scott was out to get him...

SALMOND CORRECTS MICHAEL MOORE ON TAX VARYING POWERS

There has been much comment over the apparent failure of the SNP government to renew the facility with HMRC whereby the Scottish Government can vary income tax.

The First Minister has written to the Scottish Secretary laying out the situation, and correcting the mistakes in his letter. As Mr Moore decided to make his letter to the FM public, Alex has done the same thing with his.

I reproduce it in full here for those who are interested.

(Hat tip to Cynical Highlander)




Your letter of 18 November about the Scottish variable rate of income tax (SVR) is a travesty of the position. The reality is as follows:


The then Scottish Executive paid the UK Government £12 million in 2000 to add SVR functionality to Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs (HMRC) tax collection systems. Thereafter, an annual fee of £50,000 was paid.


HMRC said in 2007 that additional work was needed to maintain the readiness of the IT system, and in summer 2008 made clear that they would be installing a new IT platform. Scottish Government officials attempted to elicit information on what this meant for Scotland and the functionality of the 3p tax power.


We were finally asked on 28 July this year to pay over the sum of £7 million to HMRC for this purpose. Why nowhere in your letter did you mention this demand?


Anyone proposing paying this £7 million to HMRC would need to explain where the equivalent cuts would be made in Scottish public spending.


And even if we had paid it - at a time when Scotland is on the receiving end of massive cuts to our budget from your government - the SVR under the new system could not have been implemented until 2012/13: another key point which you failed to mention.


In any case, at that stage it seemed an academic debate because the SVR itelf is set to be replaced under any version of the legislation which you intend to introduce in the next few weeks.


On 20 August, Scottish Government officials offered talks with HMRC on the issue of the SVR - an offer which has not been responded to. The first we have heard from the UK government on the matter since 20 August is your letter of yesterday.


It is clearly unacceptable that Scotland should be asked to pay, again, for something which millions of pounds have previously been paid for. If HMRC choose to replace their IT systems, that is clearly a matter for them. However, anyone would expect them in specifying their new systems to replicate the functionality of the old.


No Scottish administration has used the 3p tax power, none of the main parties in Scotland advocate using it now, and it is intended to be overtaken by the Tory/Lib Dem Calman financial proposals - flawed measures which, had they been established for the start of the current spending review, would have resulted in the Scottish Budget being £900 million lower in 2009/10.


The real issue, therefore, would appear to be about the future.


You stated - as did Danny Alexander in his letter to me of 20 October this year about the Spending Review settlement - that: "it is an established principle that the costs of devolution should be met from the Scottish Budget."


This is not the case - in fact, the opposite is true.


HM Treasury's recently-updated Statement of Funding Policy states at paragraph 3.2.8 that:


"Where decisions of United Kingdom departments or agencies lead to additional costs for any of the devolved administrations, where other arrangements do not exist automatically to adjust for such extra costs, the body whose decision leads to the additional cost will meet that cost."


The clear impression can only be that your letter was not about the cost of financial powers that are going to be superseded, but rather about establishing a precedent for the Scottish Government paying to instal and administer the Calman tax proposals - which unlike the SVR will require to be used every year.


Given the huge pressures on the Scottish public purse because of your government's spending cuts - and the further threat to our budget from the Calman proposals themselves - we need answers to these key questions as a matter of urgency:


How much is the UK Government intending to ask the Scottish Government to pay for the Calman tax powers - measures which could reduce Scotland's budget, as indicated above?


When do you propose asking the Scottish Government, and therefore the Scottish people, to pay?


Exactly when would these financial powers be capable of being implemented?


A copy of this letter goes like yours to Annabel Goldie MSP, Iain Gray MSP, Margo MacDonald MSP, Tavish Scott MSP and Patrick Harvie MSP, and David Gauke MP, and also to the leaders of the Scottish parties at Westminster: Angus Robertson MP, Ann McKechin MP, and David Mundell MP. I am also sending copies to John Swinney and Fiona Hyslop.


Given that you released your letter to the media, I am also releasing this.


ALEX SALMOND