PATRONISING BASKET CASES

Well, no, actually, as the IFS the Tory think tank pointed out, it doesn't. Scotland would be broke after a few weeks, because you are too wee, too poor, and far too stupid.

We were lying and being patronising, because both of these things are what we do best.

Well, except in the case of Cameron (who does a splendid impression of Flashman), it's more or less the only two things we do.

Still, at the end of the day we'll all be sitting in the House of Peers on £300+ tax free a day, with lovely money earning titles, so why would we actually give a toss?

OVER TO YOU BT...WHY ARE WE BETTER TOGETHER?

In a reply to the video of Ian Brotherhood and his colleagues from the Scottish Socialist Party, Councillor Braveheart wrote the following:

“I was at that meeting. Aiden, the chap with the long blonde hair and the yellow jacket, asked a question claiming to be uncommitted and just looking for information to help his make up his mind.....

“Interesting.”

I started a reply, and got a bit carried away with it, and it rambled on until I realised that it was probably a post in itself, rather than a reply, so here it is.  I'm sorry it's long... and maybe a bit disjointed. 

Braveheart: In my experience, that's the only way BT will engage with people. There is no point  saying to them: “I'm committed YES voter, can you explain why you are a committed NO voter?”.

That was tried in Dundee at a stall BT had at Baxter Park fun day. There was a BT woman there sitting on her own, but obviously there were more people from BT in the background, because, when someone tried to argue with, her two big blokes arrived and made it clear that discussion wasn't on the agenda. Threats were made. And, allegedly, the word “off” preceded by some Anglo Saxon was heard from the lady herself…although to be fair she strongly denies this.

If you turn up at a NO meeting and put your cards on the table you will not be entertained. It is far better to pretend ambivalence and see it they have a decent argument. If they think they have a chance to persuade you, they are likely to make the effort. Intellectual argument is not on the agenda.

So far all I have ever heard is that we are too poor and couldn't afford it. Or that we wouldn't be on the Security Council, and people all over the world wouldn't respect or fear our prime minister. 

Mixing with Kings won't happen much for the Scottish head of government,
but Abdullah wants to buy weapons and we don't sell them

(As even members of his own party can't abide Cameron, I find it hard to believe than anyone anywhere in the world respects him. And despite the 4th largest military spend in the world no one fears him because, since Suez, no British prime minister would dare go to war without America's permission. So, it you want to be scared of someone, probably best make it Mr Obama! I noted the other day that Cameron had the president of Sri Lanka fair trembling in his boots, just like he did with the Chinese when he tried to lecture them. But then like all of his class and upbringing, he still thinks that what the British Prime Minister says carries weight.)

I'm still waiting for an argument from BT that adds up to more that “clout”.

Most Scots truly don't care about being a big shot in world affairs, actually I suspect most Brits don't care about that either...at least not while they queue, or watch people queuing for food bank, and sit in their mufflers in their own homes for 6 months of a cold Scottish winter.

We are realistic. Even Britain is a small and relatively insignificant country: a fur coat and no knickers affair if ever there was one. We have the fourth largest forces in the world but our railways are 3^rd world (particularly in Scotland where there is no electricity north of Edinburgh), our roads, likewise (especially in Scotland where there is practically no REAL motorway, just freeway that pretends to be motorway). Clearly English hospitals are worse than those in the Central African Republic, as people appear to arrive there to be slaughtered in numbers, lying in their own waste or starving to death. Medics assure us that this in not because the staff don’t care; just that there isn't any money.

 

Yes, he actually said that. In English obviously as he is too thick to speak another language,
 and probably too thick to understand the significance of the phrase

Social security has become something akin to almshouses and soup kitchens under both Labour and this government of Eton boys.

Poverty is rife; folk are cold and hungry, stuck in run down towns denuded of hope since Mrs Thatcher concentrated the wealth in a square mile of her capital (doubtless on instructions from Denis, who had much to gain).

These towns have high streets of empty shops and pound stores selling the kind of tat that might just brighten up the inhabitants’ lives for a short time before falling to pieces.

There is no hope of work at anything even approaching a living wage. But people are persecuted by one of life’s big failures, who was lucky enough to bag himself an heiress; Iain Duncan Smith. 

Some live like this...

They beg for enough to top up the inadequate wage so that they can eat. Inflation for the poor is 10%, food, gas and electricity rise a pace while wages go down and benefits are static. And if you are unfortunate enough to need a dialysis machine in your house you are charged another £15 out of your benefits for the spare room it takes up.  Pensions have been decimated and the state pension is the lowest in Europe by wage comparison, and about half what is paid in the Channel Islands leave, OAPs living in a cold hungry misery. How the hell is that Better Together?

  

But goodness me are we feared and respected by…erm… someone, aren’t we?

Scotland knows it will not be important. It will be like Denmark, Norway, Luxembourg, Iceland, Ireland, Finland, Sweden… and so many other small countries. All of which are better off that we are, although no one knows who their presidents, prime ministers or kings are. And they certainly rarely appear next to Obama, Abdullah or Xi. But there will be no deaths from the cold in Iceland or Norway this year, because their politicians are more concerned with that, and less concerned with running Sri Lanka, or Iraq or Afghanistan or Libya or getting a photo opportunity with someone who really does matter, and basking in the reflected glory.

There won’t of course be a house of lords and £300 a day tax free for its freeloaders in Scotland. You’ll remember that Labour always swore they would get rid of this obscenity. Still, if you can’t beat them. ..

...and some like this

And the 'too poor' nonsense that the Tory think tanks pour out, always neglect to take into consideration that not every country, and not Scotland in particular, wants to follow the UK spending plan. OECD seems to think we will be somewhere about 6^th richest country per capita in the world. Why do the Tories think that that equals too poor?

Not having a massive military spend will save a lot of money; not keeping the royals in 5 palaces in or around the capital (they will get one and like it), not taking part in every war that America tells us to (even when they don’t get involved themselves ...what suckers), not putting massive new sewers in London, or Cross Rail or HS2, none of which benefit us one tiny bit, will all make a difference, and yes, burden though Alistair says it is, oil hasn't exactly done Norway any harm..

Warning: Prices can go up as well as down. Yes they can, that’s true. But seriously, what is the trend over the past 40 years? Will it ever go back to 5$ a barrel?

  

Well of course it is better for those people who wish to pursue a career on the international political stage. Tony Blair, a not so proud Scot, would never have shared President Bush’s neo- confidences  down on the good ole ranch in Texas if he’d only be prime minister of Scotland. And Lord Foulkes would only be Mr Foukles if his career had been Scottish. 

...and some get as drunk as lords

I can understand Darling’s dilemma. There he is, working all these years in London and just as he gets old and is expecting ermine and “you rang my lord”, not to mention his £300 a day tax free, it is all snatched away from him. I’d be pissed off too.

I asked you, BH, some time ago to give me some reasons why we were better together. You declined as did everyone else on the blog, except Dean, for whom I have much respect because at least he tried, even if I didn’t agree with his argument.

The other BT supporters on here just walked away.

Perhaps I should start a blog that indicates that I am yet to be persuaded. Then I might get some engagement?

NORTH AYRSHIRE: YES SCOTLAND AND BETTER TOGETHER

You know how ruthless this kind of Tory can be.
 Remember he doesn't see us as being quite human..
at least not in the same way as him and his friends.

Funny, I'd like that too. But it won't happen if London is running the show
for the benefit of the City and the Banksters

And he's hardly on our side, is he?

And the Tory "think" tank that said today that we would all be broke, clearly assumed that we would be adopting exactly the same policies as England,  nuclear weapons, running the world, 4th largest army, 2nd largest assembly of old codgers, empire to control, ambassadors in Rolls in every capital in the  world. And no exports, no manufacturing.
Probably because few of them have been to Scotland or indeed north of  Cambridge.

SLOWLY SLOWLY CATCHY MONKEY

I must admit that I thought that starting the referendum campaign early was a daft move. People have short interest spans and after the 6 weeks of a general election campaign people are usually sick to death of the sight of politicians. What, I wondered, was it going to be like after 2 years?

I had thought that an early referendum while the independence movement was basking in the glow of a massive victory at the polls in 2011 was most likely to bring in the desired result.

And I was spectacularly wrong.

Better Together, with very little to rely on except “clout” and “power” and “superiority of Britain” and “WMDs” and “empire” (none of which is overly impressive to the average man on the street, anywhere in the UK, especially when his income is static and his inflation is 10%), has instead depended on lies and scares.

And at that they seem to have been unable to coordinate them, so they have contradicted themselves over and over again. You won’t get into the EU; you will have to have the Euro! It would make sense to use the pound; you won’t be allowed to use the pound! The oil is running out for Scotland; the oil is a valuable resource for the UK!

Then the scare stories and demands that “Alex Salmond must come clean on…”. The latest of these as the Rev Stuart pointed out, was hilariously inept. What would the rates of income tax, corporation tax and VAT would be in an independent Scotland, they whined, without giving us any idea what these rates would be in the UK!

 

This poverty of argument doesn't affect ‘died in the wool one way or the other’, voters, but as lie after lie has been uncovered as such… over the EU, the amount of oil, the pound, the Euro, passports, border guards, grannies in Carlisle, etc, the thinking, undecided voter surely has begun to distrust everything BT says.

Of course the appearance of the public school boys (and girl…girl? Theresa May?) arriving in Scotland for an afternoon and lecturing us that, alone in the western world we, the Scots, would be unable to defend ourselves, heat ourselves, pay our pensions, protect ourselves from terrorism, etc, ad infinitum, whilst all the time telling us that of course there is no reason why Scotland couldn’t manage alone (lest they be accused of using the “too wee, too poor , too stupid” argument, which they have doubtless been told, we find patronising) hasn’t helped their image.

Probably a bad idea from the NO campaign's point of view.
But I'm happy to welcome Eton Boy here at any time.

And Eton boys standing by golden thrones, reading from speeches resting on golden lecterns, all the while telling us that we will face futures of austerity only add to the general sense that the BT campaign really don’t understand us at all.

Change seems to be afoot though. The Herald and even the Scotsman seem, belatedly, to be producing a slightly more balanced reporting of the campaign.

Recently a Labour ex-First Minister warned the unionists that they should start to think about what policies they would present to an independent Scotland…something they have steadfastly refused to do until now.  Why think about it; it’s not going to happen! 

In the last week two Labour party grandees have said what we have all been saying for a long time: that we have no chance of a socially just Scotland while we are joined at the hip with a country which is pulling away farther to the right, offering services more and more American and consequently less and less European, much less Nordic, which is the chosen desire, it would seem, of Scots. Not only have these Labour senior statesmen said this, but they have indicated that they will be voting with the yes side and against Labour party policy. There are those who think that maybe it won't be too long before the aforementioned ex Labour First Minister joins the ranks of the Labour for Independence movement.

Of course, it hasn’t helped BT that people like Anas Sarwar and Johann Lamont are lamentably inept.   

It actually doesn’t matter whether Sarwar’s absence from the Westminster debate and vote on the Bedroom tax made any difference to the overall result or not.

The crashing incompetence of a man who makes a monumental point, on live tv, of demanding that the Deputy First Minister bring forth a bill defying the London government (illegally), and then fails to turn up for a debate on that very subject in a parliament that does have the legal right to get rid of the morally bankrupt policy; a debate called by his own party, shows a remarkable detachment from reality.

Sarwar seems as distant from real people as his "honourable" friends opposite: Cameron, Osborne, Clegg and the other independent school millionaires. 

The argument that it wouldn’t have made any difference if they had all turned up; the government would have won, was a condemnation of the very system of government that they support. If there is no point in turning up for that vote, because the government will win, why turn up for any vote. A government with a majority will always win.

Maybe the long game is paying off for the Yes campaign. 

As folk like James Kelly and  Stephen Noon have said, the reality on the ground is rather different from the results of opinion polls funded by London based newspapers (which as we all know can to a certain extent be engineered to produce a desired result).

So be of cheerful heart.  Notwithstanding Cameron organising a red white and blue flag waving opportunity, just weeks before the referendum, I think we will win.

I’m glad I was wrong.

SNAPS ON SUNDAY

Johann, Ruth...girls, can I join your club...?
(some daft UKIP MEP wi the taste o an ingin)

...Erm, if we're not busy doing something else...

Yes, honestly, this happened. Manchester I think!

So why is yer mate Balls saying that he won't allow it to happen
(like he's going to have any say)

Cameron and Clegg right at the front. Cannon Fodder.

Bang on, Ted. He's a Liberal Democrat.
They only say what they are told to say by their betters.
Munguin says can he borrow your hoodie?

You'd better write it down. She'll never remember.
It's dark in that bunker. Is that Sarwar I see hiding in the shadows?

This kinda  thing will be the currency. We can tie it to sterling or not.
Your problem guys

You could have Humza, or you could have Wee Wullie Hague...
I know where my money is.

So much misery for so little return
(and that's before you take the cots of evictions into account)
But then, it's only the poor who are miserable, so that's OK, right?

Labour chancellor Dennis Healey

Labour Trade Union Leader

Well that's what London says, and they are never wrong...
...are they?

GEORGE KEREVAN ON THE POUND STERLING

Much has been made of Alistair Darling's warnings that we cannot take for granted the Bank of England (they forgot that it covered other unimportant countries when they named it) allowing us to use "their" currency after independence. 

Apparently Ed Balls has gone so far as to say that (in the unlikely event of him being the chancellor during the negotiations) he will not allow sterling to be used in Scotland.

"You'll have to join the Euro", they say, putting the fear of hell into people who haven't kept abreast of the Euro crisis. 

Of course, when push comes to shove, they will change their mind about this, even Ed Balls. Recently the new, apparently heavyweight (and I'm not talking girth) Alistair Carmichael showed off his lack of economic nous in his first major speech since taking over as Secretary of State "for" (or "against" given his take on shipbuilding) Scotland from Mr Moore.

Here is an economist's take on his pronouncements from ex-Labour councillor and Scotsman journalist, George Kerevan.

Our new Lib Dem Secretary of State for Scotland, Alistair Carmichael, is a solicitor by trade. I have a modest and well-intended piece of advice for Mr Carmichael – stick to the elegance of the law and don’t venture into the treacherous waters of economics.

Mr Carmichael has just given his first major speech on constitutional matters. Readers will remember that he got his new post when the former incumbent, Michael Moore, was summarily fired after being bested in a televised debate by the SNP’s Nicola Sturgeon.

That debate also hinged on economics. Ms Sturgeon waved a negative campaign leaflet published by the No campaign that claimed an independent Scotland would lose it’s triple-A global credit rating – meaning higher interest rates. She reminded a flummoxed Mr Moore that the UK has now lost its triple-A credit rating, as a result of economic policies pursued by the Cabinet in which Mr Moore sat. Game, set and match to Ms Sturgeon.

Enter Alistair Carmichael, who considers himself an Alpha male, politically speaking. Mr Carmichael’s task is not actually to run the Scotland Office (despite a ministerial salary of some £79,000 on top of his MP’s remuneration) but to engage in robust public debate over independence.

This week, in his first big constitutional intervention, Mr Carmichael demanded the SNP Government “stop dodging key questions” and outline its Plan B for a separate currency should the rest of the UK (rUK) not agree to the SNP’s plan to keep the pound post independence.

Here is the answer Mr Carmichael: Scotland will keep sterling anyway, just as Ireland did when it became independent in 1922. We already use sterling, prices and contracts are denominated in sterling, so why mend what isn’t broke? In practical terms, if for some reason the rUK objected, all they could do would be deny Scotland access to newly printed sterling notes from the Bank of England. Even then, sterling notes are available everywhere in the globe. Besides, the Scottish central bank could just print its own new pound notes. Provided it held adequate financial reserves to back them, they would trade one-to-one with Bank of England notes.

But as Alistair Carmichael has decided to enter the economic debate, I have a question for him: what is his government’s Plan B for sterling if independent Scotland did create a separate currency of its own? After all, Mr Carmichael, if (as you argue) a sterling currency union is unworkable, then it’s only fair you tell voters how the rUK Government will handle their side of the situation. As you say yourself: “We cannot be offered a prospectus of ‘it will be all right on the night’.”

Here is the nub of Mr Carmichael’s problem: the present United Kingdom relies heavily on Scottish exports of oil, gas and whisky to generate foreign currency earnings. Even then, the present UK runs a massive current account deficit – importing more than it exports, and borrowing internationally to cover the difference. In fact, this deficit is actually getting worse.

If Scotland retains sterling after independence, its foreign trade earnings will flow into the common pot (as they do at present) helping reduce the current account deficit. But the moment Scotland shifts to a separate currency that changes. Instantly Scotland will start to run a trade surplus, boosting its currency and raising its international credit worthiness. That, all things being equal, will bring interest rates in Scotland down. But just the reverse happens in rUK.

The EU Commission forecasts that the present UK trade deficit will hit 4.4 per cent of GDP next year – the highest of any major industrial country. Take away the circa £50 billion annual export earnings from Scottish oil, gas and whisky and you will near double the trade deficit of rUK. It would climb from 4.4 per cent of GDP to a staggering 10 per cent. That is unsustainable and the financial markets would punish rUK piteously. The rUK’s international credit rating would plunge, sending interest rate upwards, depressing economic growth.

Which is why, after a Yes vote next September, the rUK Treasury (and Alistair Carmichael) will suddenly find advantages in retaining a sterling link with Scotland. Of course, as a quid pro quo Scotland should demand representation on the Bank of England. After all, we don’t want a profligate rUK Labour government running up a Greek-style public sector deficit that it can’t pay back. Another question arises: Why is the present UK suffering a worsening trade deficit? Didn't the coalition, in whose cabinet Mr Carmichael sits, promise to “rebalance” the economy towards exporting?

One reason is the massive contraction in Britain’s industrial base during Gordon Brown’s tenure as chancellor, when he did everything he could to promote those banking wizards in the City of London. This mistake was compounded by the massive economic contraction that followed the 2008 credit crunch. The upshot is that there is not a lot of manufacturing capacity with which to do any exporting. Result: any increase in consumer demand will only boost imports. And that is exactly what is happening today.

 

The Secretary of State and some bloke

Last year, with recovery thwarted by his own daft austerity programme, Chancellor George Osborne cranked up the property market by pumping cash into subsidising house purchases. That has led to a mini boom in property prices and boosted consumer confidence – we all feel richer if the value of our home goes up. Consumer confidence leads to retail therapy. Unfortunately, what we buy in the shops comes from abroad.

The trade deficit and housing boom will end in higher interest rates and dearer mortgages – as the Bank of England warned this week. Stick with the UK next September and that’s what you’re voting for. Personally, I’d like Scotland to stop wasting its export surplus on a perennially mismanaged UK economy. I’d rather use our foreign currency earnings – £50 billion per annum soon adds up – to create a Chinese-style sovereign wealth fund run from Edinburgh.

Yes Mr Carmichael, some day booming Scotland will have its own currency. And the rUK’s B Plan is?

RANDOM THOUGHTS

Thanks a lot to whoever brought asked this lot to look after our sick

'They said it would be a game-changer. And in many ways the government has been proved right about Iain Duncan Smith's Universal Jobmatch scheme, his vehicle for turning skivers into strivers. With all those bogus vacancies and technical eccentricities, no one has seen anything quite like it.

Predictably, the awards follow, and thus the initiative this week picked up a little something from the National Online Recruitment awards, the biggest in the recruitment industry. "The wooden Nora for the worst job board and biggest disappointment goes to Universal Jobmatch from the Dept for Work & Pensions," the announcement says. A "mongrel of a recruitment website" that "commits almost every online recruitment crime, and then some," the citation said.

Recognition from those who know and a prize: a carved block of cedar wood. IDS will be so pleased. A shame he couldn't have been there in person.'

Hugh Muir, Guardian

I saw my heroine Mrs Thatcher do it with the milk from our children's mouths

Dundee will have access to the jewels in the V&A crown in the event of independence — despite UK Government warnings of resource sharing problems if Scotland leaves the UK.

An analysis paper on science and research, launched by ministers on Monday, said negotiation would have to take place over Scottish access to assets situated in England, Wales and Northern Ireland if there is a Yes vote next year.

The document names the Victoria and Albert in London as one of the assets in question.

It said: “In the event of a vote for independence, the terms of access to existing UK-operated research institutions by researchers in a newly independent Scottish state could not be guaranteed, and it is unlikely they would be on the same basis as researchers in the continuing UK.

“In some cases future access to infrastructures would be likely to depend on collaborative relationships with academic partners in the continuing UK.”

But a V&A at Dundee spokesman said those relationships had already been established and the Waterfront project would not be hit by independence.

He added: “There would be no impact on the nature of the relationship with our V&A.

“It would go purely from being part of V&A in London strategy to a V&A international strategy. We already work in partnership with institutions throughout the world.”

Oooops....more lies. And how thick are they? Museums all over the world share material. Just because Westminster is bitter, it doesn't mean that more cerebral organisations need to follow in their path. 

Can you trust Westminster on anything at all?

Oh goodie. Move over, Tubby, there are some starving people
here who'd like some of that high class grub, not to mention the drink

My grandmother used to say that before the age of 30 you got
the face you were born with; after 30 you got the face you deserved.

Well, bless him. He deserves it. He's special.

Well, Wullie, I don't think he's JIST a big erse. He's a few other things too.

Well, don't blame me. You voted for them...Oh no, wait, you didn't.
The country next door voted for them! Tch.

And you deserve it, Anas. None more.

MORE LIES FROM NO

By Gordon MacIntyre-Kemp

The unionist myth that the UK subsidises Scotland is one of the greatest confidence tricks in political history.

In his article yesterday “Yes, intelligent analysis is lacking”, Peter Jones furthers the kidology. In so doing, he is guilty of ignoring the facts.

Business for Scotland’s analysis of Scotland’s financial position is based on official government data and has been verified by one of the country’s leading independent economic brains.

It proves two key things. First, that every year for the past 32 years – the period covered by the Government Expenditure and Revenue Scotland (GERS) report – has included a deduction from Scotland’s block grant equivalent to our population percentage share of UK debt. Over that period, that amounted to £64.1 billion.

Second, during that time, had Scotland been an independent country with its geographic share of oil revenues established under international law (as would be the case under independence) Scotland’s borrowing would have been zero.

Ipso facto, Scotland has paid £64.1bn servicing debts it did not need. Bang goes the great unionist myth. Peter Jones claims that my analysis does not consider the interest on debt prior to 1980, but in the footnote of the study he was critiquing it plainly states that this was factored in.

Hard though many in the pro-union camp may find it to bear, Scotland subsidises the UK – not the other way round. Unfortunately, the myth has been perpetrated for so long that many people have come to believe it and it has damaged the confidence of Scottish people.

Further, if Scotland inherits a population percentage share of UK debt, that would be 8.4 per cent, but if we stay in the UK and continue to generate 9.9 per cent of UK revenues then we effectively overpay for the debt.

The No Campaign does not like this analysis because it is powerful, solid and the data is correct. It is keen to sustain the great financial con trick because it fits very well with its relentless scaremongering and negativity – but it does not stand up to intelligent scrutiny.

There is no positive analysis or even positive message from the No Campaign, which is one reason why David Cameron is refusing to debate with Alex Salmond.

• Gordon MacIntyre-Kemp is CEO of Business for Scotland, a pro-Yes business policy and economics policy think tank

WE REALLY CARE ABOUT THE POOR, EXCEPT WHEN WE'RE BUSY

Click to read the names of the 47 Labour MPs who were too busy
 to vote on the Bedroom Tax yesterday

I heard no mention of it on the BBC news this morning. Move along; nothing to see here. But these poor people had better remember to pay their tv licences along with their bedroom tax, or we'll have them!!!

For even more startling revelations about how much it costs us to keep the people who couldn't be arsed voting, in accommodation in London (including the ridiculously over pricing Mr Sarwar), I refer you here.

Isn't it interesting that they blame pairing for this. First of all, I'd say that I wish I could find someone to pair with for days when I'd rather stay home. Then you have to remember that the 'rules' on pairing (which is informal and facilitate a way of allowing for the fact that senior politicians may have to be out of the country, and their absence on government business should not affect the democratic makeup of the parliament) are only supposed to be used for unimportant matters.

Maybe the well cushioned MPs don't think that bedroom tax is an important matter.

Well, they wouldn't, given that they claim vst amounts for second houses, many of which allow enough space for their families to visit.

Interestingly On the 14th October, Chris Bryant, Labour's welfare shadow said: “It’s time for (Coalition) Ministers to repeal this cruel and unfair policy. If they don’t, Labour will.”

Odd then that Bryant was one of the people who had better things to do when it came to turning up for the vote.

Labour had a chance to overturn this. They couldn't be bothered.

If they get back into government, will they bother then. Or will there be something more important on that day?

If they can be bothered to get out of bed!

SO, WHAT ARE YOU SAYING JOHANN? ARE YOU WITH US?

Oh, and would you like to tell us a bit about what has been going on in YOUR area of responsibility? Falkirk. Because, it seems to be stinking, and if you won't tell us the truth, we are bound to assume the worst.

**********

If you have the time, can I suggest you read this article? 

It appears that in what they now describe as an error, and I would imagine it is, Scotland was, after the 90's referendum on devolution, handed the rights to Antarctica, or the UK's share in it.

As they point out, with the global warming (for whatever reason), Antarctica is melting apace, and something that was once of only scientific interest is now very much of economic interest, so not surprisingly, they want to take it back.

Not unreasonably, the Scottish government is not minded, on the eve of independence, to hand back control of the territory to rUK. After all, it could be a bargaining chip.

Our name's McPingu! And we say McYES to Scotland

Of course, it has to be accepted that the transfer was done in error. (Imagine, the Great British state making that massive an error!), but, let's be honest, if it were the other way round, what would they do?

Of course they have put the reversal into the Scotland Bill, but, of course the Scottish government has to pass the Scotland Bill before it can be forced upon us, as is the case with any legislation involving devolution in the Celtic nations.

I think we should be very careful with this Bill, which gives some very limited tax raising powers (offset by Barnet), to the Scottish Government. No government has ever used the uselessly limited tax raising power it already has

We should be sure that Antarctica is not the only thing they are taking back.

Maybe the penguins should get a referendum?

**********

Surely only an Eton/Oxford/Bullingdon boy could stand in the Guildhall, resting his speech on a gold lectern, surrounded by chairs, and other fixtures of gold, having partaken of a dinner, the cost of which would keep an UK OAP for a month, and talk to us with a straight face about austerity being the future... and all without the slightest sense of irony. 

**********

The opposition in the London parliament has opted for a debate to be held today, on Welfare Cuts and the Bedroom tax. I applaud them for that. But I note that, suddenly, Mr Duncan Smith has discovered that he has a prior engagement in Paris for a meeting about youth unemployment. Now youth unemployment is a very important subject, and one that is close to my heart.

However, given the almighty cock up that Mr Duncan Smith has made of all his Welfare Reforms and the massive amount of OUR money he has wasted, wouldn't you agree that he should be in parliament to try to defend them, instead of leaving a junior minister to take the can? Surely a conference on youth unemployment could have been attended by one of his staff, or a lowly lords minister?

**********

Here's a proper socialist, and with a brilliant wit.
He never misses a day at work, because when he was a miner he would have lost money for being absent.
I don't have heroes, but this is a man I respect hugely.