DON'T MENTION THE TORIES...

In an article today in the paper edition of the Herald (apparently unavailable on-line), Michael Forsyth, one of Scotland's least liked Tories (in fact the man who led the Tories in Scotland to utter oblivion in 1997), writes that he thinks that the coalition parties should take a back seat in the referendum debate.


He seems to appreciate that the London government's involvement in the lead up to 2014's poll is bound to have a negative effect for their cause. He is probably aware that since Mr Cameron upped the stakes on the independence question last week, the SNP membership has soared. At one point 9 people per minute were joining, according to the Courier and Advertiser, Dundee's Tory-leaning morning paper.

He says that he knows that Scotland is a left of centre country with a tendency to vote Labour. He proposes therefore, that Alistair Darling, Labour's ex chancellor, should be involved in leading London's campaign for Scotland's dependence.


It is a shrewd choice. Particularly since Darling launched his attack on Brown in his memoires, he has become a relatively respected figure in Scottish politics in the elder statesman category. If I had to chose someone to present the status quo argument, he would certainly be on my short list.


But wait a minute. Forsyth, an arch Thatcherite Tory, thinks that the UK government (Tory and Liberal alike), which the status quo vote that he craves would force upon Scotland, possibly for the next 10 years or more, is so unpopular that it should keep away from the debate about that future?


Does Mr Forsyth really not see any irony in his argument?

PERHAPS THEY SHOULD JUST MERGE AND SAVE ON THE ADMINISTRATION COSTS?

There are rumours that Ed Miliband is on the way out. The bookies have cut the odds on his not leading Labour into the next election. Gossip from Simon Carr of the Indy, suggest he may be gone by Easter.  

 

So who have they got to replace him? Surely his brother wouldn’t consider being second hand Rose? In any case would he be any better? So, would it be Ed Balls, close bosom friend of the retired chef de cuisine of the stew that the country is in, Gordon End to Boom and Bust Brown?

Ed’s wife Mrs Balls, knowing how her husband covets the job, would surely never take it from him. And the rest? Burnham, Murphy, Alexander? They’d all be just as bad.

Labour are lost. Tony Blair made them Tory Light in order to make them electable in the south of England, where half the UK population lives. It was a good move politically. They got 13 years of government out of it, and Blair himself became a multi millionaire on the back of his war crimes. But ideologically they have never really got over this, because they don't now know that they are for.

They used to be about the "working man": the factory worker, the miner, the foundryman, the ship builder, the agricultural worker, but Thatcher got rid of most of them, put them on the dole, or on the "sick", and sold the rest shares and houses.

It wasn’t enough to be for the workers anymore; there weren't enough workers.

So they elected themselves a complete loser. A man who oozes indifference; who seems even when he is telling you how passionate he is about something, lacks any kind of sincerity. A man who, from day one, has been a dead loss weight round their collective neck.

Cameron is not clever. He’s cunning and devious, but he’s not good with facts, lacks depth and gets easily flustered if people push him. The Flashman tendencies are never far from the surface, which makes him incredibly vulnerable. He’s already been forced to apologise for wisecracks, and biting sarcasm delivered in barely controlled temper.

And yet this second rater can't begin to unseat him. Just imagine if there was a prime minister who was clever and knowledgeable!

Look at some of the things the government is doing will completely change the character of English life: eg, introducing a two tier health service where the rich will pay for better treatment IN NATIONAL HEALTH HOSPITALS, and where, because of the shortage of facilities, the poor will wait till their betters are seen to, scanned, exrayed, operated upon, looked after in ICU, de-fibrillated...  for their turn, if all the staff haven't gone home by that time.

And then there are measures that will cause hardship in the whole of the UK. Cameron once said that it made him physically sick to think of a guy who had stolen, say a couple of bottles of water, being allowed to vote. (I imagine because he fondly imagines that most of them would vote Labour; the people who count usually being able to call in the odd favour to avoid such indignity.)  Well, it makes me physically sick to think that I belong to a society that sends patients with life threatening illness to a job readiness interview, or denies severely disabled children benefits when they come to 18, and thereby denies them any independence, because they’ve never paid any National Insurance.

And still this Labour can’t get get the upper hand, because they can’t really argue with most of what Cameron says. Even tonight Balls was saying that it's unlikely that they would reverse any of the Tories cuts.

It doesn’t matter much whether it’s Miliband Maximus or Minimus, Balls male or female, Andy Birnham or anyone else for that matter. Labour hasn't got any soul left. Once their raison d’être was lost, they were lost. In the south of England they compete for the same votes now as the Tories do. Nowhere else matters that much, for that is where the elections are won and lost. 

That's why the Tories too were useless in opposition. They don’t seriously OPPOSE each other any more.

This should have been the Liberal’s opportunity to make a massive comeback, and they blew it, which is, I think, unfortunate for everyone in the UK.

Pics: Ed, David and Andy, all apparently describing things of varying sizes

YOU SHOULD HAVE MARRIED AIR MILES, RICHARD

The extradition request from Turkey for Sarah Ferguson (right) has been turned down. 


Well, I never! I suppose that the judge will be  looking for a seat on the red benches.


The reason given was that what she did is not an offence in the UK. (I suppose they mean England, but they probably don't know,or care that there is a separate legal code in Scotland.)


So, in England you can go around filming orphans in orphanages without telling anyone you are doing it, can you? You can film children without their guardians' approval? That's OK? Funny, I thought it was banned to stop paedophiles storing up jolly memories. 


(And before I get lambasted, I know that the conditions in the orphanage were appalling, just as I know that some of the ones run by nuns in Scotland were appalling, and it makes me weep to think of kids suffering like that, wherever it happens, and that Sarah should be commended for bringing this to out attention. But surely the reason given for excusing her extradition is nothing more than a fiction.)


Embarrassing though Ferguson may be to the Widsors, it would be unthinkable that someone who was once married to the Dipso Duke (above, making a fool of himself), friend of Gaddafi and other strange exotic dictators, and is the mother of two royal highnesses, Princesses Goofy and Podgy, no less, would be thrown into a Turkish prison.


(I'd add here that I quite like Fergie, even if she did produce these ghastly free-loaders. I particularly admire her for sticking it to the Windsors and managing to spend a lifetime getting money out of them...something which is extremely hard to do, given that they are as tight as drums with our money and ever tighter with their own.)

In other news Richard O'Dwyer (right, with his mum) will be extradited to America on charges of hosting a web directory, or search engine, for pirated films. Probably a bit like Google or Ask Jeeves. I'm not entirely sure that pointing out where pirated stuff can be purchased, as opposed to actually providing it, is, or should be, a crime in England, but it doesn't much matter. Despite both Cameron and Clegg promising to sort out the unbalanced extradition arrangement made with American by arch creep Tony Blair, they have, as we might have expected, done sod all.


Bad luck on Mr O'Dwyer, who probably should have had the foresight to marry Fatty York to ensure safe criminal activity almost anywhere in the world. Still some things are even worse than 10 years in an American prison, and close contact with Fatboy is probably one of them.

THE ANSWER ISN'T BLOWING IN THE WIND; IT'S IN THE QUESTION

I haven't yet had time to look at FMQs from yesterday, but I had to laugh at the clip of Ruth Davidson on the STV (Grampian) News. Every poll ever published (in the whole wide world in the history of mankind) agrees with me? What? It's a wonder then Ruth that you're not First Minister, or the Queen, or something. And of course, as James points out, clearly the poll of September last year, and umpteen others showing a lead for independence over dependence, were figments of our febrile imaginations.

Lamont was just as bad. "He has the majority, he has the mandate...." (well, thanks for admitting that Johann) ...so why, she wondered, didn't he call the referendum now. 

Well, you see Johann, the clue to the answer is in the question. It works like this:-

He has the majority to decide whether or not, and when, to call the referendum. This is a majority given by us, we, the Scottish electorate. And although by Westminster standards it is a tiny majority, it is, in fact, the majority that should never have been: a majority that was never envisaged: a majority that the system was set up to avoid ever happening (because Blair  wanted 'parish councils' rather than strong government in 'the provinces'). 

And (and this is important), it's not a majority based on the voters being sick of the last lot, as so often happens, but instead a majority based on their being SATISFIED with the last lot, because as you may remember, the SNP was the last lot.

And as Johann says, the mandate is there; there's no escaping that. The referendum was in the manifesto. And, just in case someone who didn't know what the SNP was all about, and who didn't read the manifesto, was in some doubt, it was hammered home by none other than Tavish Scott in the Leaders' Debates when he pointed out that "a vote for the SNP is a vote for independence".

 And when pressed on the timing of that referendum, Johann, you may remember, Alex Salmond said, on national television, in front of the then leaders of the now opposition parties, a hand picked studio audience, and anyone who was interested enough to be watching, that if the SNP won the election, the referendum would be called in the second half of the parliament.

So, to answer Mrs Lamont question, he is calling a referendum, and he is calling it in the second half of the parliament because he has the majority, he has the mandate, and that’s when he promised the Scottish people he would do it.

And why, anyway, is Mrs Lamont in such an all-fired hurry now to have a referendum that only a few months ago her party, in an opposition coalition with the Tories and the Liberals, made clear would be defeated were proposals to “bring it on”  brought before parliament?

Unless, as part of Labour’s “Bring it on: Don’t Bring it on” referendum policy, we're in the 'Bring it on' cycle. 

Pics: Ruth Davidson, Conservative leader, and Johann Lamont, Labour leader, providing her own caption and advertising campaign.

"IF YOU SCOTCH PEOPLE INSIST ON TEARING MY COUNTRY APART, I WANT MY CURRENCY BACK AND YOU CAN'T PLAY WITH IT, SO THERE. NA NA NA"

The scare tactics have begun. The respect agenda gone out the window. And we're only on day two!


A "spokesman" for Mr Cameron has said that Scotland could be "forced" to join the Euro if it insists on independence.


What does he think Alex Salmond is going to do? "Oh well, that's it lads. That Eton and Oxford education was too much for me. Call me has outwitted us. We'll just have to scrap any idea of independence"?


Yeah, that's likely!


In more civilized times, with far more civilized and intelligent leaders, Ireland was granted independence from the United Kingdom (although it took a war to make it happen) and carried on within the sterling area. There was no rush to throw Ireland  out of the sterling area and the Irish Pound stayed pegged to the English pound until the advent of the ERM. 


Here is a part of the Wikipedia page on the subject. 

"Despite increasing political independence from each other from 1922 and complete political independence since the new constitution of 1937, the union left the two countries intertwined with each other in many respects. Ireland used the Irish pound from 1928 until 2001 when the euro replaced it. Until it joined the ERM in 1979, the Irish pound was directly linked to the pound sterling. Decimalisation of both currencies occurred simultaneously on Decimal Day in 1971. Coins of equivalent value had the same dimensions and size until the introduction of the British twenty pence coin in 1982,.

"Irish citizens in the UK have a status almost equivalent to British citizens. They can vote in all elections and even stand for Parliament. As well as this, some people born in the Republic of Ireland before 1949, but after 3 March 1922, are British subjects. British citizens have similar rights to Irish citizens in the Republic of Ireland and can vote in all elections apart from presidential elections and referendums. Under the Irish nationality law anyone born on the island of Ireland to a British or Irish parent can have Irish citizenship and so most children born in Northern Ireland can have a British or an Irish passport (or both). Before 2002, there was no requirement for one parent to be a British or Irish citizen and so all persons born on the island of Ireland before then are entitled to be Irish citizens."

So why does Cameron insist on behaving like a spoilt child? There is absolutely no need, nor is there a precedent, for Scotland to leave the sterling area immediately. 

Can Cameron possibly think that threatening to force Scotland into a currency that is wobbling dangerously on the edge of extinction and which might not even exist by the time the referendum has come and gone, is a clever move on his part? Frankly I think it's a dumb as a stump.

But John Swinney will already have contingency plans in place for this eventuality, whether that is starting out own currency or working with another country like Norway.

Message to Cameron: If you want to behave like an 8 year old who isn't getting his own way, take your bloody ball and sod off home. We'll get our own ball.

AND SO IT BEGINS...

Mr Cameron's announcement to the press that he was going to take the fight on the independence referendum to the Nats and set standards and rules so that any referendum would be "fair legal and decisive", instead, presumably of "unfair, illegal and indecisive", were it left to the Scottish parliament to decide have kicked off, rather earlier than we might have expected, the campaign for Scottish Independence.


The Scotland Office has launched a consultative document and solicited responses from those who are interested. James Kelly at Scot Goes Pop drew this to my attention this morning in this post.


He points out that the consultation is a waste of time (well he actually calls it a "farce"). I largely agree. We all know what they think: they don't want Scotland to leave the UK. But over the few days since Cameron's rather sudden first mention of the UK government's intervention, made in the wake of his deputy apparent assertion that those who wanted either independence or the status quo were extremists, there have been a number of changes in tone. 


And as James points out, there is obvious difficulty from a PR point of view, in holding a consultation and then ignoring the results of it. 


Who knows if, or how, the UK government will persuade its supporters to complete the consultation giving the Westminster side, but it is certainly important that those of us who feel differently from the way Cameron would wish us to, do our best to balance the exercise by putting our point of view.


In his post James has generously offered first drafts of his responses to the consultation's questions. (They may be "first drafts" to him; they seemed like carefully honed responses to me.) And he has invited comments from readers.


I think that those of us who want independence for Scotland should take the time to take part in this exercise and the one that the Scottish government will launch. I hope that those of you who have blogs will consider linking to the Scotland Office site.


James has definitely come up with good stuff (far better than I'd have done) and my responses will certainly be influenced by his.


****

For those who are interested and who missed the broadcast. Mr Salmond was interviewed by James Naughtie  for the Today Programme this morning (Thursday, January 12) at approximately 7.50.


In the interview, which, as ever, he handled in the Alex Salmond way, courteously and intelligently, putting his point of view and never being flustered by Naughtie, he pointed out again that the SNP were campaigning for independence, but that he realised (as do we all) that there is a strong level of support for 'devo max' among the Scottish people. 


He said that the referendum would contain a yes or no option on independence, as has always been promised and as is demanded by Westminster, but did not rule out the possibility that it might contain another question relating to 'devo-max', if that was shown, by the Scottish Government's consultation, and in parliament, to have strong support.


****
I'd also like to draw you attention to an article at Lalland's Peat Worrier, and most particularly to a response from Peter Thomson, part of which reads:

".....In international law (which trumps Westminster) the sovereign people of Scotland have the legal right guaranteed by UN Charters, Helsinki Accords and the Treaty of Vienna to hold a referendum on the issue of independence. 

Further the UN legislation states the power from which the other is seceding can have no role in the organisation of or campaigning in the said referendum....."


I wonder if anyone has any thoughts on the legal legitimacy of this point of view? I can imagine condition's like these being put in place to protect citizens in a union where dirty tricks could reasonably be expected to be the order of the day. But if they do exist, they must surely be equally binding on a liberal democracy such as the UK...

THIS IS THE AGE.....OF THE TRAIN

England's high speed railway link between London and Birmingham is to go ahead, according to the Telegraph, with tunnels through the most highly disputed areas of the countryside between London and Birmingham. Parliament still has to vote on the matter, but as Labour is also committed to  the high speed link, it is likely to leap that hurdle with little problem.


Cheryl Gillan, SoS for Wales, who, for some unknown reason has her constituency in that Buckinghamshire, has previously, somewhat rashly, threatened to resign if the scheme went ahead. It remains to be seen whether the tunnels, (at an estimated £190,000 extra a yard) are long enough and deep enough to appease her and save her job, her face and her ministerial Mondeo!


Anyone who has travelled on the Continent, through Spain, France, Italy and Germany, the high speed trains are, if you're used to UK trains, simply amazing. You can get on a train in the North of Sweden and get off in the South of Portugal, Greece, Italy, having enjoyed a smooth and comfortable ride, with good service, in hours and having travelled through 3 or 4 countries on the way. And you can travel up to England from Brussels or Paris in the same comfort... but there it ends.


Anywhere north of London and you are back to dirty bone shakers running over Victorian track with antiquated signalling and the inevitable delays. And north of Edinburgh, even on intercity routes, you are relegated to diesel trains!

Back in the 1970s, Europe realised that there was a need for fast efficient rail connection between major cities. The UK preferred to develop a road system. And in the '80, the network developed across the Continent. But Mrs Thatcher didn't like trains, as you can see from the map.


I support the UK government's decision to go ahead. Britain has to catch up with the rest of the world at some point and the English Transport Secretary Justine Greening has said that the £38 billion line is just the foundation for a high speed network Britain wide. 


The English transport department MUST take notice of the National Audit Office's findings on how the Civil Service negotiates contracts with private companies. 


The £38 million could easily double or triple over the time scale set for building this railway, the first stage of which is set to be completed in 2026. 


Oh, by the way, does anyone know why is it going to take 14 years to build this little bit of railway? 

WHY IT'S NOT THE END OF THE WORLD--CHARLIE

Oh well, that's all right then. A bit of light relief from Charlie McDonnell on why the world won't end this year, and why there's something wrong with Justin Bieber's new calendar.

THANKS OLD CHAP, BUT WE CAN READ AND WRITE UP HERE

There are two main reasons, well official reasons anyway, why Mr Cameron has rushed, with what seems like indecent haste, to force a referendum on Scotland in 2013. 


Firstly he says he is doing it because he wants any referendum to be "fair, legal and decisive", because, bless his cotton Vicuña  socks, he thinks they "owe it to the Scottish people" to ensure that. 

That would bring a tear to a glass eye, would it not? 

Fine, and it's sweet of him to be concerned, but did it ever cross his mind  that we have people in Scotland who are trained in law.We have our own law officers, they understand the terms of the Scotland act, and it's more than a little patronising of him to assume that we don't. No one in the Scottish government was going to take liberties with something as important as this. No one has now, or has ever, had any intention of trying to hold a referendum that was unfair, illegal or indecisive. 

We have known since devolution, that any referendum we held would be consultative. The only person who can grant independence is the Queen, on the  advice of her London first minister. Indeed David McLetchie, a Scottish lawyer, and currently the Scottish Conservative's Chief Whip, Business Manager and Constitutional Affairs Spokesman pointed out several years ago that the only question that the Scottish government can put, must ask the voter if (s)he wants the Scottish government to commence negotiations with the UK government... I'm not sure what Mr Cameron was doing to miss that. Maybe it was before he was interested in politics. 

So to use Mr Cameron's own words: calm down dear, nothing to worry about. We weren't planning UDI. 

The second official reason was that the question of whether Scotland, in a few years' time, would be a part of the UK or an independent country, was causing uncertainty for business and for the markets.


We all know, of course, that Cameron doesn't want the referendum  held in the 700th anniversary year of  the Battle of Bannockburn, the year of Scotland holding the Commonwealth Games in Glasgow, and the Ryder Cup at Gleneagles, presumably things which he imagines will stir some pride in the nationalist soul. 


Instead he wants it to be held in the period just after Her Majesty's Diamond Jubilee and the Olympic Games in London, events which doubtless he imagines will stir the spirit of the British Bulldog and good Old Blighty war time spirit, of Keep Clam and Carry On. He may even be planning get Vera Lynn out of retirement to give us her White Cliffs of Dover just to reinforce the image.

But to get back to the pretence.  If Mr Cameron thinks that business or the markets are so worried about uncertainty caused by whether on not a certain union will be in place in a few years' time, would it not be sensible for them also to be sure of the UK's position relative to the European Union. Maybe he could do this by holding a referendum on the same day? We might even trust him to do it fairly, legally and decisively (despite the fact that he really didn't stick to his word over the last one).

Oh, and while he is doing that, he might like to find out how the Deputy Prime Minister feels about his vetoing treaties. The uncertainty caused by the Prime Minister reading not just from different hymn sheets, but reading them in different languages must be far more damaging to the interests of business and the markets than little old Scotlandshire's issues.

  

LESSON: WHEN YOU ARE A BIG CHEESE, CHOOSE YOU WORDS CAREFULLY

I commend to you an interesting and well written article by Liberal blogger Andrew Page. I enjoy reading Andrew's stuff. I certainly don't always agree with what he's saying, but he has an easy style of writing and a moderate and thought-out approach to his subject. He is as likely to criticise his own party, as he is another. In short he thinks for himself, makes his arguments accordingly and is nobody's yes man.


This article stems from a speech made by Nick Clegg, or rather a part of that speech where he seems to call nationalists (and those who favour total unionism [presumably Forsyth supporters]), "extremists".


What it appears Clegg actually said, although I have not heard the speech myself, was that both the above categories of Scots are at the extreme ends of opinion. Well, that's a bit obvious, if overstated, isn't it? The middle is the status quo, the other two are at the extremes, or ends...


But it's not a word I would have used, and I don't have years of political training, nor am I the leader of a UK party, much less the Britain's deputy prime minister. So maybe it wasn't the brightest thing for a person who has, and is, all that to have said, but The Scotsman, well known for being a chip wrapper first and journal second, appears to have made of it something which it was not.


So of course nationalists are on one side of the argument but I'm not in the least an extremist. That takes far too much fire and passion. 


I want Scotland to be independent not because I think our mountains are nicer than their hills, our burns nicer than their brooks, our lochs more lovely than their lakes, or indeed our fowk nicer than their people. 


Some people do have that misty eyed, bagpipeish, Brigadoonian vignette notion of what Scotland is. Not me. For scenery, beautiful though Scotland is, there are plenty of other places just as lovely, and for the folk, I've found that they are much the same the world over, good and bad.

I'm a nationalist because I believe we are badly served being ruled from London, and frequently by a political party for which we didn't vote. 


I doubt our people are any nicer than the English, but we do seem to have some sort of "common weel" as Alex Salmond would have it. Maybe the English have that too under another name (Noblesse Oblige??), and maybe it's because we have always been poorer than the English, and have felt the need to band together for protection, that we have preferred a more centre left government. When we say our government is based on 'society', we don't mean Royal Ascot and Wimbledon


And there's financial motivation for me too. I look across the sea to Norway unencumbered by a large "world power" status, with all the spending commitment that that incurs. 


I see what they have done with their share of North Sea Oil, and I despair of poverty of our lives here, and of a British future, while our soldiers put the world to rights, according to the needs of American Presidents to whom all UK prime ministers seem in thrall.


I don't blame the English for our plight. The greatest needs of the UK are where the bulk of the population lives. And that is in the South East of England. I blame the Scots. It is in our hands to do something about our plight.

Even the devolution that was wished upon us by Labour was so very badly done: 'a parish council', said Tony Blair, before it had starter plotting how to control, at least the mainland countries. 'A wee pretendy parliament', said Billy Connelly sneeringly. Leaving the Westminster parliament to serve as English and UK parliament, simply reinforced the fact (previously demonstrated by the Celtic secretaries of state), that England was central and the small nations, mere satellites, or counties.


But for all that I don't want to "rip up" or "tear apart" up anything. And opposition parties' use of emotive language is not helpful to a grown up debate. Separation is inaccurate. Independence instead of dependence is what we seek.


Scotland could easily have good neighbourly relations with the rest of the UK and share many facilities and friendly co-operative relations. and even at the heights of the troubles there were no border guards in Ireland, so why would we want them now? 

That's more or less that. There's nothing in the least extreme about any of it, is there? 

DON'T WASTE TOO MUCH OF OUR MONEY OUT THERE MR H!

Well, did you ever?


Following Mrs Clinton's visit to Burma, or more properly according to the UN, Republic of the Union of Myanmar, guess who's trailing out there on a jaunt to tell them all about how we will support them in democracy?

Yep, Wee Willie, from the ex-colonial power; the one which gave them such good examples of democracy, equality and respect for human rights when they were in charge of things.


The Burmese much resented their treatment at the hands of the British and  there were violent riots from early on up to the 1930s. Some of the discontent was caused by a disrespect for local culture and traditions, such as the British refusal to remove shoes when they entered pagodas. 


George Orwell wrote of his disgust at his role in the empire machine and at the way that the British treated the Burmese, when he was stationed there as a policeman in the Indian Police Service.


Buddhist monks became the vanguards of the independence movement as they have been against the military rule that has been in place since 1962. 



So Willie will flyt out there like the great while hope, and lecture them about human rights and about democracy. Maybe he will advise them be like us and get a non elected head of state. In the old days he might even  have offered a minor Brit royal for the job. Prince Edward or some other nonentity.


He cannot in conscience call for free and fair elections, given how unfair elections are in the UK, and he will have to ensure that the Burmese do not try to copy in any way, our parliamentary systems.


He will be expected to lecture them on prisoner release, human rights, and to ask what Britain can do to help.

Why should Britain do anything? What does it have to offer?


Is Mr Hague well versed in the running of  countries on the other side of the world? Does he have experience of tropical rain forest agriculture, or housing, road building, education, health or job creation to offer? Probably not.


Does he then have money to offer so that expertise can be paid for? Nope. Not a bean.


So why exactly is he going? 


No idea? Nah, me neither.


Still it's probably nice and warm out there this time of the year, and he'll get to play at being important.

MPs GETTING ABOVE THEMSELVES AGAIN WITH FIRST CLASS TRAVEL

Click to enlarge

I understood that, following the scandal of MPs thieving from the public by putting virtually their entire expenditure on expenses, various things were to change.


One of these was that they were supposed to travel cattle class like the rest of us on what passes in the UK for a train network, instead of luxuriating in first class at the most expensive fares in the world.


Well, that is what was agreed, but of course, in practice (if you believe the Daily Mail) the thieving tossers have been on the fiddle again.


According to figures released by the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA), MPs claimed for a total of 1334 first class train journeys at a cost of £136,800 in June and July 2011. This is a staggering increase of 155% over the same period in 2010.


It seems that as the memory of the expenses scandal uncovered by the Daily Telegraph recedes from memory, these self important public servants are back to enjoying the comforts that most of the rest of us are denied.


But it doesn't stop at first class rail travel. Oh no. While the public squeeze in to third class seats in aircraft, our representatives in parliament have been winging it hither and thither in business class. 115 flights were made in June and July last year, at a cost of £35,722 (including one to Athens costing £844.20!!!


Upper class air and train fares, say the Mail, are on target to reach £1 million this year.

They are supposed to go second class, or tourist class, like the people they have the great honour to represent, and of whom they are employees!


They were also supposed to take buses instead of taxis, except in exceptional circumstances. Of course, you'll have guessed that these exceptional circumstances have occurred more and more often. Indeed in June and July last year, they doubled from the previous year, to over £13,000 worth.


Message to MPs. Don't push us too far. We're getting poorer and poorer; you're taking more and more...and we're getting angrier and angrier.

COULD THIS BE PART OF THE ANSWER

A police initiative in North Lanarkshire has cut serious violent crime by 20% by identifying and tackling problem families and working with agencies to help find work for young people in trouble using a mix of persuasion and compulsion..

Statistics from the police division show there have been 90 fewer victims of serious assault in the past year – with estimated savings of £2 million for the police and NHS: dramatic results by anyone’s standards.

Like everywhere else there are a small number of people responsible for most of the crime. By concentrating on them, the results have been astounding:

Youth disorder reduced by 43% in the last two years;

serious assaults reduced by 20% last year and down a further 14% so far this financial year;

overall violence cut by 22%, including murder and attempted murder.

Having been identified as been on the verge of crime, the kids are taken on Outward Bound weekends after initially working with the police for a few months, They get to know the police and the police get to know them and barriers are broken down. Following from that the kids may go into training or employment, through contacts with other agencies.

Some kids come from families with maybe three generations of worklessness. They are people who are alienated from normal society and breaking  that mould requires proactive work.

It seems that the police almost act like surrogate parents, role models which the kids have never had. And it may seem like it’s hardly the cops’ jobs, but whatever anyone says, if it works, it works. It costs £40,000 to keep a person in prison for a year; and when they come out, they are virtually unemployable. This is vastly cheaper, and kids without prison records are much easier to get into work.

I hope Kenny MacAskill will look very carefully at this scheme and its cost effectiveness with a view to suggesting spreading it over a wider area, and then maybe over all of Scotland.  

A saving of that size over the entire country would make a huge difference financially, but think how much safer the streets would be.

Let’s also hope that the police can work too with Shona Robison, the sports minister, with a view to getting one of the hub sports facilities that come as part of the Commonwealth games. Although I’m no sportsman myself, I’m convinced that in sport lies the answer to many of our youths’ problems.

SO WHAT IS THE ANSWER?

The other day I was talking to the guy who looks after the changing rooms at my gym. I guess he's in his early 50s, and working in what must be a reasonably low pay job.


I mention this because, in the way you do, without  being particularly interested in the answer, I asked him what he was doing on Hogmanay. 


'Oh nothing much', he replied. 'Time was that you couldn't afford a drink that often, so you splashed out and bought a bottle or two at the New Year, but now that it's a cheap as chips at the supermarket, you can have it all the time. 


'Mind you', he added, 'in these days you could always afford heating. The treat nowadays is to be able to afford to have the whole house warm'.


I thought he was joking, until I got to thinking about it. But it's true that home heating prices are now exorbitant, and the cost of a warm house all winter is one that many working people can no longer afford. At the same time drink has become cheaper.


Someone is bound to have done one of those cost comparisons. You know the kind of thing. It sounds like an arithmetic problem from school: "A man on average wages in 1970 would have had to work 6 hours to be able to buy a bottle of Johnny Walker;  now the same man on the an average wage would only have to work 2 hours. What is the percentage reduction in price, relative to income."


I'd be interested if anyone knows where I could find it.


There has been a lot of criticism of the government's plans to increase the minimum price of a unit of alcohol, and I have been among their critics. I think that no matter what it costs, the compulsive drinker will buy drink. (S)he will find the money somehow. As with any increase in price, it will hit the poorest hardest. The rich are never really hurt by anything. Another £10, £20, £30 on their weekly drink bill will mean nothing. And the teenager out on the batter? A night out is expensive: adding another five or six pounds to it isn't going to stop them.

So, is this the answer? 


The chief medical officers of the UK countries seem to think so, and the Scottish government has already acted to bring in a raft of over 40 measures to tackle a problem that is reckoned to cost around £900 per adult in the country: A total of £3.56 million, around 10% of Scotland's total budget. England looks likely to be following our example.


If Britain has a sever problem with alcohol abuse, Scotland's is much worse. In fact alcohol sales in our country are 23% higher than in England and Wales.


We're not alone in having an alcohol problem, which as well as costing us so much of what we have to run Scotland, also makes our town centres no go areas on Friday and Saturday nights. Greenland, Iceland, Scandinavia, the Baltic states and Russia, all have the same issues. Is it the cold, the dark, the short summer? 


There has always been a macho culture about drink in Scotland. 'You're not a man if you can't drink 8 pints', sort of thing. You're a wimp if after a few pints you have an orange juice. And guys have always bragged about how drunk they got and how they had no idea of what they were doing. 


And in the recent past one of the less attractive aspects of sexual equality, has been the sight of teenage girls vomiting in shop doorways or lying drunk in the gutter.


We hear a lot of complaints from bloggers, newspaper columnists, and all, but rarely do we ever hear any really practical solutions put forward.

An effect of cirrhosis of the liver

I for one am sick to death of paying such a large proportion of the block grant to pump stomachs, deal with domestic violence, treat liver cirrhosis and cancer, patch up glassed faces, clean up vomit  etc., ad infinitum.


Has anyone got any constructive suggestions to offer?

It's not the time for politics... maybe tomorrow! In the meantime, some jokes...

Two neighbours are talking to each other. 

First neighbour: Do you know that my dog is so smart, he waits for the newspaper to drop at the doorstep and then delivers it to me?
Second neighbour: Of course, I know that very well.
First neighbour: Really, well then, how?
Second neighbour: My dog came and told me.

A guy is sitting at home when he hears a knock at the door. He opens the door and sees a snail on the porch. He picks up the snail and throws it as far as he can.
Three years later, there is a knock on the door. He opens it and sees the same snail. The snail says, "What the hell was that all about?"

A precious little girl walks into a Pets Mart Shop and asks, in the sweetest little lisp, between two missing teeth, "Excuthe me, mithter, do you keep widdle wabbits?"
As the shopkeeper's heart melts, he gets down on his knees so that he's on her level and asks, "Do you want a widdle white wabbit, or a thoft and fuwwy, bwack wabbit, or maybe one like that cute widdle bwown wabbit over there?"
She, in turn, blushes, rocks on her heels, puts her hands on her knees, leans forward and says, in a tiny quiet voice,
"I don't think my python weally gives a thit !!"

Q: Why do seagulls fly over the sea?
A: Because if they flew over the bay they'd be bagels!

I was out for a drink with the wife last night and I said, "I love you".
She asked me, "Is that you or the beer talking"
I said, "It's me........I'm talking to the beer"!

A man was drinking at a bar and the bartender came over to tell him he had a visitor waiting for him outside the bar.
He had just bought another large beer and he didn"t want anyone to drink it.
So, he wrote a little sign on a piece of paper and left it by his beer that said: "I spit in my beer."
When he returned to his bar stool there was another note beside his beer: "I spit in your beer too!"

A boy and a blonde a stranded, in a blazing hot desert. They walk for miles and come across a shop. The boy buys food and water for the journey whilst the blonde bought a car door. "What will you do with a car door?" asked the boy and the blonde replies, "So that I can roll down the window for fresh hair when it gets too hot"

A blond walks into a library. 

"PLEASE CAN I HAVE A CHEESEBURGER?!" he shouts at the top of his lungs.
"Sir, this is a library," the librarian says.
"Oh, sorry," he whispers. "Please can I have a cheeseburger?"