AND WHAT IS IT THAT YOU DO? OH YES, YOU KILL PEOPLE.

Well queen Elizabeth embarrassed us all by welcoming at several odious tyrants to Windsor Castle, England,  today for lunch.


She apparently invited all the monarchs of the world to have luncheon. Hopefully she was paying personally for the food, but the rest...ie the accommodation, staff and the security was down to you and me.


And it seems that her majesty thought it would be bad manners not to invite, for example, the king of Bahrain, despite the fact that he is a murdering b*****d who only holds on to power by subjecting his people to torture.


Of course the king is very close to the Sau'di royals, and they spend billions on British arms, so that makes the him welcome in the UK. When selling weapons there is no time for sentiment about poor people who have no rights, and who are routinely subjected to violence. We don't seem to bother much either about the imprisonment of medics who treat them, except maybe for Hague stuttering something about it would be very nice if they didn't do that, and could we persuade them to buy more tanks!


In other jubilee news the queen of Spain was stopped from attending the luncheon by the Spanish Government, who are less than happy with the insult of Liz sending prince Edward and his grasping bitch of a wife to visit Gibraltar. What I'd say to the Spaniards is they should think themselves lucky Fat Eddy is only going to Gibraltar. The UK could have wished him on Spain too. Then they really would have had something to moan about.

The king of Cambodia was, as usual, too busy getting on with his job to bother with all the froth and bubbles of yet another Windsor occasion. So at least someone has some sense. Or maybe it is just that as a Buddhist, he would find being in the same room as ملك البحرين, the Swazis and the Kuwaitis.  I know I wouldn't much fancy eating with them.

Still the queen should be happy that, despite the company she keeps, she is more popular than at any time in the past 20 years. This can be attributed to amount of favourable coverage she is getting in the tabloid press and the indecent amount of money this broke country is forking out to congratulate her on the fact that she actually HAS a job, and is setting an example to everyone by working on at it until she dies. Also of course everyone seems to be in love with prince Willie and Kate Middleton. Lovely.


And the even better news is that royal jubilee whisky went on sale today at only £120,000 a bottle.


Life just gets better and better in the UK.

SOME OF MY

ON THE UK GOVERNMENT AND CAMERON'S STATE VISIT TO EDINBURGH

A few weeks ago the UK government warned that if Scotland were to break away from the UK, Spain would veto its membership of the European Union.  It provoked a furious rebuttal from the Spanish foreign ministry. (The argument about whether Scotland would want to join the EU, or indeed would NEED to join the EU aside.)


And now the UK government has managed to leave Cardinal Keith O'Brien, head of the Roman Catholic Church in Scotland, off the list of invitees to be part of a delegation to the Vatican, whilst inviting the senior Cardinal in England, Vincent Nichols. 


When asked about what was a slight, both to Cardinal O'Brien and Scotland, the response of the UK government was to blame the Vatican, which was, they said, responsible for the invitations. 


The response from the Vatican was that this was untrue; it was the UK responsibility to decide upon the members of their delegation. Sayeeda Warsi who led the British, English group clearly forgot to tell Michael Moore, our man in England, that it was a British delegation. 


Warsi might not have known that there was a separate management structure for the Church  in Scotland, but the FCO, under whose auspices the trip to a foreign state comes, should have known.


Why do they lie about these things?


So much for all that sob story sentimental twaddle from the prime minister about Scotland being sooooo important to the UK.

Talking of which, Cameron came up to Edinburgh, and after his visit to a porridge factory... (I mean, talk about patronising. You can just see his English audience in the Home Counties laughing at that one; "It's all they make, darling, that and whisky. It's their staple diet, don't you know"...) he went to  a room with a view of the Castle... which was also a bit twee, and made a speech, during which he stood behind a lectern (presumably his), which sported the coat of arms of the Queen: The Queen of England that is. The Queen of Scots maybe the same person, but the coat of arms is different, as it would have to be, and as a PM or as an ex-PR, he should have known.


Sloppy, innit?


There are some great articles analysing the visit of his prime ministerness to our shores. If you want a cleverer analysis that you can hope to get from me, can I suggest James's article at Scot Goes Pop, Stephens's at SNmr, and for a good laugh and some serious stuff, Auldaquaintance.

WE'RE ALL BACKING BRITAIN, EXCEPT ME, OF COURSE...

In August of last year David Cameron urged everyone to help rebuild the economy by taking our holidays in the United Kingdom. He said that the £115 billion tourist industry was fundamental to rebuilding the country.

That’s not an unreasonable request to make. Not only would this support the British hotel industry, it would also reduce the amount of UK money going abroad.

There is some excellent accommodation available in Britain and there are some interesting sites to see. The downside is that it is pretty expensive, but if you don’t mind splashing out on yourself it can be worth it.

I’ve always found holidaying in the UK to be too expensive. I can have a week in Paris for about half the price of a week in London. It is better suited, probably, to the likes of Cameron, who won’t have to count the pennies.

So Mr Cameron duly took a summer holiday in Kernow, where his child was born. Perhaps, mind, he was persuaded in his decision by the fact that it might have been unwise for Mrs C to fly when she was close to giving birth.

There was further proof that Mr Cameron was heeding his own advice when he cancelled his plans to spend his Christmas holiday with an old school friend, the prime minister of Thailand, on, it is believed, the advice of Mr Coulson, who thought it might look a bit elitist. The advice didn’t get as far as Mr Osborne next door, who took his break at Davos!

However, it seems that Mr Cameron has decided that, after all the English tourist trade can do without him for just now, because twice this year, although there were, I have no doubt, perfectly good accommodations in his native land, Mr Cameron has decided to fly out to Spain. Maybe their tourist industry is in an even worse state than England’s and in the spirit of generosity which Cameron clearly has (see the UK’s commitment to give a bigger proportion of GDP than any other country in the whole wide world), he has decided to support it instead of the home-grown one.

It could also be that the food is better and the weather better.

As a footnote to this, I’d also like to say that trying to look as if he is in sympathy with the “squeezed middle”, by taking the most uncomfortable and unpleasant flights with Easyjet or Ryanair, he just looks just plain silly. It’s good that he is not flashy about his wealth, but it is daft him trying to hide that he has it.

He reminds me of a guy who talks terribly posh, getting all guttural because he is in the company of common people. It’s false. And no one buys it.

We all know both the Camerons are rolling in money and that they could hire a Lear jet to take them on holiday and never notice the bill. And it’s not even that they don’t like luxury; they just spent £30,000 of ours doing up the Downing Street flat. My advice to him would be to take a mid range flight, business class. Or maybe even to be true to his word and take his holidays at Bognor!

Pics: David and Mrs C on a yacht off Turkey; George in Davos with a scarf that cost more than my whole holiday; and David with a saggy tummy and man boobs, ouch!

ARE WE TO BE PUNISHED FOR NOT VOTING TORY?

We didn’t vote Tory and we barely voted Liberal Democrat, so the government probably feels within its can dump the worst of its miserable policies on us, with no political fallout. And to prove it, they are to launch a pilot scheme to remove people from Incapacity Benefit and put them on to Employment Support in Aberdeen (another one will be trialled in Northern England). It’s strange that the Tories didn’t want to do anything like that in their heartlands of the south, where half the population lives and where there are plenty Incapacity benefit claimants.

With targets to reach the medics (for they are not necessarily doctors) of a private (for profit) company, will examine IB claimants and try to get them off the more expensive benefits, which are paid in recognition of long term illness and inability to work. Perhaps Camerclegg think that the resultant rise in unemployment in Scotland can be blamed on the Scottish Government? Labour had the same idea and had to admit that, although the medics were happy to deprive ill people of their money, the courts were not. On tribunal appeal more than half the cases were overturned by judges and doctors appointed by the English Ministry of Justice.

Now it has emerged, thanks to a parliamentary question in the London parliament, that some Scottish rail services may have to be reduced because the new rolling stock may not be able to run on lines North of Edinburgh.

Mike Weir, asked the English Transport Secretary about something that those of us north of Edinburgh are concerned about: the future of direct train services between London, Aberdeen and Inverness.

The reply from Theresa Villliers was that the future of these railways services would depend on decision, yet to be made, about the type of rolling stock. Clearly this is a question of electrification. Lines from England to Edinburgh and Glasgow are electric, but no one bothered to electrify the lines north of Edinburgh. If then the new trains are electric, then there can be no direct service.

So, it seems that if you have to make the long (well, it is in the UK) journey between Aberdeen and London, or Inverness and London, then you will have to rely on local trains to get you to Edinburgh, where you will be obliged to change for London and the south (including the continent).

Labour had proposed purchasing duel fuel trains for the Scottish lines, but the Coalition has put that on hold. I presume that this means that despite the railway companies being private, making profits and giving their directors huge bonuses, the government, or the public if you like, still has to pay for the trains. Nice business.

Long distance travel in the UK is already a misery in comparison to travel in France, Spain, Italy or Germany, and the cross border trains that ply the continent at half the price and twice the speed of UK ones. Scotland's railways are, even by comparison with Englands, a travesty. Is it necessary for us to be subjected to further inconveniences and train journeys be made longer?
.