Some Musings

Apologies for not posting last week but a wee retina problem caused me to take the sensible decision of reducing time on the Mac.  Hopefully it will be sorted after a visit to the eye clinic in Ninewells later today.

Even if you’re not fan of golf, surely all Scots must have felt insulted when Alex Salmond was loudly booed while being introduced at the Ryder Cup presentation ceremony.  He was present in his capacity of First Minister of Scotland, to present the trophy to the winner’s captain - GB won if you haven’t been following it. I had no choice but hear it in every corner of a house full of ardent golf lovers.  Praise to the Sky camera crews though because they swiftly moved their cameras from the clowns to a part of the crowd where saltires were waving madly.

There’s an old saying ‘Once is chance, twice is coincidence but three times is enemy action’. David Cameron has lost another of his party to UKIP. Two in a week coincidence?  I suggest it’s bordering on enemy action.  He’s not a happy man. The Tory and Labour party infighting is becoming serious as less time is spent on running the UK.  My suggestion to him is to buckle down and stick to the schedule for more powers for Scotland; promised pre-election by Gordon Brown on behalf of Westminster MPs.  The Scots are watching. Carefully.

Last week I said a little prayer when I heard the UK has entered into battle once again. The prayer was a thank you because, earlier this month, my close family member became a civilian.  After 17 years, much of which spent in ‘worry’ mode, it’s a relief to be free. That doesn’t mean I have no empathy for the parents and close family of those troops who will be involved directly with this new war.  I do.  Yesterday I listened very carefully to various opinions and the same old phrases were churned out - ‘We must protect Britain', ‘We must help the US', ‘We must help the civilians’ etc.  Then last night on Sky News there are images of bombs being dropped on civilians according to the report.

The UK and US were instrumental in encouraging this very serious situation in the middle east, but they still want to provide more arms to the Iraqi army which, we were told some years ago, was now a powerful fighting force trained by America and Britain. It would seem courage and discipline can’t be taught.

Where are we going in this?  Who knows.  There’s talk of our involvement being long term; ten years or more.  If politicians are saying ten years were can triple that then add some.  Without doubt there will be more British casualties as our forces are not equipped for more front line duties.

If politicians want ‘to protect Britain’ there are solutions much closer to home.  We know what they are, the politicians know what they are, but they refuse to introduce stricter policies in case they offend our minority communities.  Perhaps it’s time these minority communities spoke out and said stricter measures were absolutely necessary.  All I hear is silence.

Tweet

Oily Politicians

It was a funny old day yesterday in the north east of Scotland.  While David Cameron, looking extremely uncomfortable during a visit to a North Sea oil installation, posed for his obligatory photography prior to the UK Cabinet meeting in the granite city, Alex Salmond and his cabinet colleagues met just a few miles down the A90 in Portlethen.

The meetings of the ‘great and good’ were all about oil, hence the rush to the oil capital of Europe.  Strangely, for the past decade or so, UK politicians have been constantly reminding us beleaguered Scots that the oil is running out so fast there would be nothing left by 2020, yet with only seven years to go, yesterday David Cameron insisted the UK government is best placed to manage our oil and gas industries.

Of course the UK government wants to hang on to the union’s greatest asset, who wouldn’t?  Yesterday Cameron pledged a ‘revolution in North Sea oil and gas extraction worth up to £200 billion over two decades, but this will only be affordable if the union stays together.’  Ouch!  Telling us Scots that we can’t manage our own oil and gas industries wasn’t a smart move. It was a bit late in the day for Ed Davey, the UK energy secretary, to announce ‘... a world first: making sure that we can capture the carbon emissions from gas plants in Peterheid in Aberdeenshire and those carbon emissions will be stored safely and securely under the North Sea.’ On radio Alex Salmond stated, ‘We can dae that tae nae bother’ - deflating Mr Davey’s grand gesture with his few simple words.

More and more I wonder if David Cameron silently supports independence.  It would solve some difficulties for the Uk government, not least the disappearance of 50 Scottish MPs.  The Barnet consequential would also, as if by magic, no longer be a thorn in the sides of middle England.  His Hug-A-Jock visit yesterday did little to endear the undecideds.

If there was a winner in yesterday’s Battle of the Cabinets, Alex Salmond and his henchmen and women won hands down. I’m sure there was a collective sigh of relief when David Cameron and his cohorts crossed the border later and it could be that some then realised why the last UK Tory cabinet meeting in Scotland was in 1921.

However, not all was rosy in Alex Salmond’s world yesterday.  Chris Deerin wrote a scathing piece in the Mail about Scotland’s ‘self-preserving politicians who choose the easy option and status quo, rather than the hard graft, confrontation and unpopularity that comes with real leadership’.  He asks where is our outrage. I’d like to assure him that not all Scots are happy with the dictatorial manner in which the Scottish government is pushing through bad legislation and paying no heed to public opinion. I have no doubt whatsoever that the SNP will pay for their behaviour at the ballot box though.

Tweet

Ian Bell’s Letter To David Cameron

I’ve been asked to post the full transcript of Ian Bell’s article in Saturday’s Herald as some readers are having problems accessing the paper.

Forget the postcard Dave, it’s time to pay us a visit

Dear Dave,

I can call you Dave? It turns out we're friends, after all. From what you say, we could even be family. This alone is exciting news. We've never had a Tory in the family before, least of all one even slightly worried about what we might think or do. But I digress.

That was quite a speech you gave there, Dave. I'm sorry I couldn't attend, but you know how it is. Paying a visit is next to impossible if you're on a busy schedule. In any case, the border is all but impassable, by all accounts. These days even a Prime Minister can't find his way north to deliver an affectionate speech, or refresh himself with an invigorating debate.

It's a pity. A lot of us would really - I mean really - like to see you. We could catch up. You could tell us all your news and your plans for next year and beyond. It would be a lot more fun, I promise, than fighting your way to the Olympic Park through that hellish London traffic. As ever, you can be assured of a warm welcome.

Still, we read your postcard with the speech on it very carefully. (The kisses at the end were much appreciated.) Parts of it seemed a little familiar, like one of those chain letters, but our French Canadian friends assure us this is nonsense. Your completely original thoughts bore no resemblance to the slogans of the 1995 Unity scheme cooked up when Quebec looked like voting for independence. Pure coincidence.

True, the stuff about getting people to show how much they care did the trick in Canada. They also told Quebec at the last minute how much it was appreciated, needed and wanted. There was even talk - quite a bit of talk, actually - of Canadians being better off together than apart. But really: who would cynically copy someone else's campaign tactics when there are deeply personal emotions needing to be expressed? Spontaneously, of course.

We're a bit confused, though, Dave. If we read your Wish You Weren't Thinking of Not Being Here card right, we can expect a lot of phone calls on those friends and family tariffs. Thanks to you, we're about to be up to our armpits in endearments. But it's not as if we really need introductions to these folk, or reminded of what they think. They were not strangers last year and they won't be strangers next year.

And what's this "We want you to stay?" We're not actually going anywhere. If you would just tell your Chancellor and your other ministers to stop messing about, visitors in a couple of years will hardly notice the difference. What we might notice will be - as you are kind enough to remember - our affair. But you'll still be able to go around the world "banging the drum" for whisky. If you value your balance of payments, that is.

We hope you had fun at the Olympic Park, Dave. Clearly, that was some of our money - well, freightloads, to be accurate - well spent. You're obviously attached to the place. A less imaginative politician might have decided the games have been over for a bit. He might have wondered if the symbolism wasn't a tiny bit overused, or asked himself what sport can really tell you about countries. A less brilliant politician might have said it was all getting a bit tacky.

Don't let us put you off. You were born to wear red, white and blue. That is, of course, your privilege, but it's not a look we can all carry off. You won't mind, in the meantime, if your line about "the summer that patriotism came out of the shadows and into the sun" pops up again in a few months? No-one can teach you anything about nationalism and optimism, Dave, and you surely wouldn't object to a bit of plagiat, as they say in Quebec.

Here's the thing, though, that's giving us a few problems over your invitation to join you on the sunlit uplands. You tell us we're at the heart of "a vision". You reckon the United Kingdom will be "deeply diminished" without Scotland. You paint the rosiest of pictures of worth, esteem and partnership. But be honest, Dave: that's not exactly what we hear from those who speak on your behalf, is it? Your reports don't quite match what we hear day in and day out from your personal Team GB.

Perhaps they didn't get the memo. These things happen. But while you talk about shared values, about freedom, solidarity and compassion, some of your friends don't do positive. Instead, they tell a story you didn't manage to mention.

That's the one about chaos, ruin and economic degradation, worthless currencies, bankers fleeing to the border to claim new passports, pensions unpaid, jobs lost, food unaffordable, and international ties severed. Lately, they've been taking the veils off the threats, Dave, and it's all getting a bit tiresome. If more of us believed the tale we could use it to frighten children. Still, it's a shame you forgot to say in your speech that the nonsense has to stop. Did you lose a page?

By the sounds of things, it might have been more than one. You said a bit through your Olympic Park loud-hailer about the kind of country you want to see, the sort of UK that you and your government have in store for us if we follow your advice on September 18. But then there were a couple of tiny gaps in that inspiring narrative.

We weren't taken aback to notice that you didn't go into details about social security, bedroom taxes and the like. You didn't find time to explain why your Chancellor's austerity programme rolls ever onwards when things are going so swimmingly: that was understandable, even predictable. But, no offence, your enthralling vision didn't include the answer to a question that has bothered a lot of us: what happens when the society you mean to create is not one we would consent to inhabit?

We get the news up here. We can see what you intend for the welfare state. We've a pretty good grasp now of how you regard the NHS, education, or the rights of working people. A lot of us don't find it congenial. When we see how things are going, many of us don't believe that the partial protections of devolution are enough.

It's hard to know how to put this nicely, so I'll just say it: exactly how did you become our Prime Minister in the first place, Dave? Your speech was addressed to us among the peoples of these islands. You do remember how the vote went here last time, and you know how it will go next time if we follow your guidance on September 18?

One last thing. That stuff about "the brand", Dave? Drop it, there's a good lad. It's embarrassing. As to the rest, if this is what we can expect should you visit over the next seven months, the best of British.

Regards.

Tweet

The Best Laid Plans ...

As I said a couple of weeks ago I intended to return to blogging but on a reduced scale. Since then my friend who was waiting for an appointment with the breast clinic has had her operation and the surgeon was unable to give her good news.  The next part of the 'process' is 5-day radiotherapy for several weeks and because her family live many miles away, another close friend of hers and myself have offered to help her husband with the hospital attendances which vary from an hour and a half to four hours so far.

Two days before her operation she became a grandmother for the first time and she has been unable to see her beautiful new grandson because she is too ill at present. Every day she sees him on Skype though - another blessing for the internet.

Now to the point of this post. I was furious to hear on the news last night that senior MPs have been pressing David Cameron to hold another vote on invention into Syria if definitive evidence merges linking the Assad regime to the chemical weapons attack.

Sir Malcolm Rifkind led the calls for options to be kept open and of course Paddy Ashdown was close behind.  Last week he stated, in his rounds of the media studios, that : "I've never felt so depressed or ashamed".  I'm sure many of us can remember at least one occasion when he ought to have felt worse.

The PR from the US has been abysmal with Kerry insisting the US has evidence that sarin was used in the attack. Obviously the US has little regard for UN inspectors as he stated his evidence comes from other sources.  Haven't we been down this road before not so long ago?

Critics insist that David Cameron's position is on a shoogly peg but, if he sticks to his promise of respecting last Thursday's vote, then he should be commended rather than pilloried.

The crucial question is: Was it Assad or the 'rebel' forces who used the sarin? That will be more or less impossible to answer and with so many factions - each with their own motive - is it right that we go to war again?  I think not. The consequences would be disastrous for the UK.

It's so easy to make the case on moral grounds but far more difficult to find an intervention that will make things better rather than worse.

The best development, at this point, would be for the Russians to reduce support for Assad and join the effort to find a way to begin to reduce the violence. A diplomatic, political solution is the way forward towards peace.

Let's not forget Vince Cable's department has been found to have permitted companies to sell chemicals, capable of being used to produce nerve gas, to Syria. The government has yet to produce details of any sale.

Tweet

Enough Political Platitudes, Time For Action

The horrors of Wednesday afternoon in Woolwich will stay in the minds of many for years.  It will be perpetually in the thoughts of the family of Drummer Lee Rigby for the rest of their lives and I can't even begin to imagine the pain and torment they must be going through today and for many future years.  None would have given a thought that their son/husband/father/brother/uncle would not have been safe while serving in his own country.

Drummer Lee Rigby leaves behind a wife and a two year old son. His murder was a hellish tragedy.

But how many of you felt the media were goulish in their reporting?  The repeated pictures of the murderers were disgusting and must have been extremely upsetting for Drummer Rigby's family.

The wall-to-wall reporting on the BBC and Sky only fuelled the murderers' desire for publicity and they've certainly had that.  Every detail of their lives is being reported and too much information being divulged; all in is an attempt to instil more fear into the public's minds.

Our politicians' and media's reaction to this horrific crime has been to over-react and it's this image which has been whirling round the world. Why did the PM need to call a COBRA meeting twice and create more fear?  Terrorism gets its momentum from such fearful responses. From the PM trying his best - and failing miserably - to appear statesman-like on the street outside No 10, to the knee-jerk suggestion that soldiers openly wear their uniforms outside barracks, was an insult to the intelligence of our military. In the 80s our service personnel were instructed not to wear uniform outside military areas unless absolutely necessary as they were targets for terrorists. The same ruling should stand today.  To suggest otherwise is asking far too much from our military and politicians are shunting the responsibility of their poor decisions in the past on to the shoulders of today's HM Forces.

One of the murderers was born in England, but surely we shouldn't be surprised that a couple of young, converted radical Islamists decided they would do what the Islamic extremist Parviz Khan attempted to do in 2008; kidnap and behead a British soldier. This terrorist was sentenced and shut away for life only this month and perhaps the publicity from that motivated these individuals, who knows? Richard Littlejohn has his opinion and you don't need to be a Daily Mail reader to agree with much of his article.

The BBC had two interviews yesterday which caught my attention, Apart from the continual 'It's nothing to do with Muslims' and 'Muslims have been betrayed', the two interviewees gave an insight into Britain's Muslim world. Both men were Muslims themselves and were interviewed at different times of day.  One was from the Quilliam Foundation and the other from Centri; two organisations  involved in counter-extremism and they supplied a similar message: much more needs to be done to rid the country of Muslims who preach extreme Islam and both admitted there are still mosques and imams who do this openly, without protest from their Muslim community or the wider population.

The Centi speaker said our politicians are afraid or refusing to really tackle the groups and organisations that call for actions like this horrible crime. He was passionate in his plea for politicians to stop pandering to the Muslim leaders who insist that all is well within their communities and recognise that past attempts to bring radicalisation to a halt has failed. We need different tactics and more honest communication between the parties.  If one side insists there are no problems yet the other side has the evidence there is, then surely it's the responsibility of the other side to ensure their evidence is accepted by the other party? We adhere to a Human Rights Act which protects criminals and will, eventually, be the straw that breaks society in these islands. Other countries deport villains yet we spend millions every year going through the court system, only to have another judge say no to the deportation of many whose aim is to pit one section of society against another.

None of this will be of help to the family of Drummer Lee Rigby.  He wasn't even wearing uniform but a Help for Heroes T-shirt. His killers had a plan and it worked.
His family and himself would also have had plans. These have now been torn apart because our political leaders refuse to acknowledge there are on-going problems within the Muslim community. We pride ourselves on being a tolerant society, but there's responsible tolerance and ignorant tolerance. We need to see much more responsible tolerance in this country. There is no place in this country for preachers of hate and murder, yet they walk the streets. The British style of toleration is not responsible and an incorrect ideology.

RIP Drummer Lee Rigby.  I do hope your murder results in serious action instead of wall-to-wall talk. You deserve nothing less and a whole lot more.

Tweet

The EU Behemoth

I dislike the EU as many of you know.  The original plan of a trading organisation was fine, but over the years it's spiralled into an economic and political monstrosity, clawing the democracy from its member states into its greedy fold.

At the weekend I heard an MP say that Britain needs the EU because 90% of British business is done within Europe, but what he omitted to mention was that Europe sells more to us than we sell to them.

David Cameron and his pro-EU cohorts insist that EU law is good for all, yet it doesn't seem good enough for the EU itself.  Scotland's policing services have recently become one massive service which, in time, will be shown to be an administrative nightmare. Public services are well known for their inability to join the dots regarding information sharing and the bigger they become the worse it gets.  The NHS is a perfect example of how millions have been spent on useless IT programmes.

Since 1979 the UK has paid in about £228 billion to the EU.  It has received back in benefits just £143 billion.  Thus Britain's subsidy to the European project has been £85 billion.  We currently pay £13 million per day to the behemoth, yet it's reported more and more food banks are popping up all over the country.

Richard North gave a talk to the Campaign for an Independent Britain at the weekend. Along with many others he distrusts David Cameron's latest promise of an EU referendum after the 2015 election.  'An exit plan is needed' in Richard's opinion and of course he's correct.  

In order to muddy the waters Barroso is quoted as saying ' Political science fiction to become reality'. He also remarked 'Europe will be open and democratic or it will fail.'  Note the use of the future tense.  It seems the EC will set out its views on EU treaty change by early next year in order for them to be debated before the European elections next May.

David Cameron has ample time to organise a referendum before the 2015 Westminster elections and a promise of one before the European elections could save his political skin. Will he be brave enough?  Naw.

Tweet

Tommy

Edward emailed the following and I thought today would be an appropriate time to publish it. After listening to David Cameron's weasel words yesterday I would not advise anyone to join the British military, because it's now blatantly obvious our politicians have no regard for any in our forces.  They're just political pawns in the greater scheme of things. It's always been thus.

A guest post from Edward Spalton

Pubs in Exeter have been refusing to serve Royal Marines.  The 'gay' Labour MP Ben Bradshaw declined to take an interest. 

I went into a public 'ouse to get a
pint o' beer,
The publican 'e up an' sez, " We
serve no red-coats here."
The girls be'ind the bar they
laughed an' giggled fit to die,
I outs into the street again an' to
myself sez I:
O it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that,
an' " Tommy, go away " ;
But it's " Thank you, Mister
Atkins," when the band begins to
play
The band begins to play, my boys,
the band begins to play,
O it's " Thank you, Mister Atkins,"
when the band begins to play.

I went into a theatre as sober as
could be,
They gave a drunk civilian room,
but 'adn't none for me;
They sent me to the gallery or
round the music-'alls,
But when it comes to fightin',
Lord! they'll shove me in the
stalls!
For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy
that, an' " Tommy, wait outside ";
But it's " Special train for Atkins"
when the trooper's on the tide
The troopship's on the tide, my
boys, the troopship's on the tide,
O it's " Special train for Atkins "
when the trooper's on the tide.

Yes, makin' mock o' uniforms that
guard you while you sleep
Is cheaper than them uniforms, an'
they're starvation cheap.
An' hustlin' drunken soldiers when
they're goin' large a bit
Is five times better business than
paradin' in full kit.
Then it's Tommy this, an' Tommy
that, an` Tommy, 'ow's yer soul? "
But it's " Thin red line of 'eroes
" when the drums begin to roll
The drums begin to roll, my boys,
the drums begin to roll,
O it's " Thin red line of 'eroes, "
when the drums begin to roll.

We aren't no thin red 'eroes, nor
we aren't no blackguards too,
But single men in barricks, most
remarkable like you;
An' if sometimes our conduck isn't
all your fancy paints,
Why, single men in barricks don't
grow into plaster saints;
While it's Tommy this, an' Tommy
that, an` Tommy, fall be'ind,"
But it's " Please to walk in front,
sir," when there's trouble in the
wind
There's trouble in the wind, my
boys, there's trouble in the wind,
O it's " Please to walk in front,
sir," when there's trouble in the
wind.

You talk o' better food for us, an'
schools, an' fires, an' all:
We'll wait for extry rations if you
treat us rational.
Don't mess about the cook-room
slops, but prove it to our face
The Widow's Uniform is not the
soldier-man's disgrace.
For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy
that, an` Chuck him out, the brute!
"
But it's " Saviour of 'is country "
when the guns begin to shoot;
An' it's Tommy this, an' Tommy
that, an' anything you please;
An 'Tommy ain't a bloomin' fool -
you bet that Tommy sees!

Tweet

What A Difference Two Days Make

French troops boarding transport to Mali

On Saturday it was reported that David Cameron had offered to send aircraft to Mali to assist the French fight against the rebels. His offer involved the transportation of foreign troops and equipment, but Downing Street said British troops would not join the French military mission to help recapture the north of Mali from al-Qaida linked rebels acting against the country's government.

Yesterday David Cameron ordered 330 troops to the troubled West African state on the pretext 'training purposes' and the Defence Secretary Philip Hammond confirmed there was 'no intention' of UK units being involved in combat.

From 2 aircraft to 2 aircraft and 300 soldiers shows the difference two days make in politics.

Some military and other commentators suspect that UK forces could be sucked deeper into another open-ended conflict in a Muslim country. I suspect that too.

The latest deployment comes as Westminster continues withdrawing troops from Afghanistan - a war which has left 440 British servicemen and women dead and thousands more wounded in 12 years of fighting.  Although the MoD insist they are reducing the number of troops, they continue to send troops to Afghanistan.

Mr Hammond told the Commons: 'We are very clear about the risks of mission creep and we have defined very carefully the support that we are willing to provide to the French and Mailian authorities.'  Perhaps he's unaware that the American catastrophe in Vietnam started off with a deployment of troops in a training capacity.

Why is Britain always the first to offer our troops to help others? Mali's neighbours Burkina Faso and Niger have offered 500 troops each and Senegal and Nigeria have also agreed to send soldiers but no numbers have been announced.

Mali is unfortunate insofar as it has no clear leader at the head of the country and its military simply gave up when the rebels arrived. Who are our troops going to train if all the troops are in retreat hundreds of miles to the south?

The rebels hace occupied Mali's northern half, an area larger than Afghanistan, amid the chaos after a coup in Mali's capital last March. They have used their nine-month siege of the north to dig in, create elaborate defences, including tunnels and ramparts using construction equipment abandoned by felling construction crews.

I foresee Mali as another Afghanistan, do you?

Tweet

Another Britishness Project From Cameron

My apologies for not mentioning this before now, but I make no apology for this being a continuation of yesterday's post.

David Cameron wants to spend more that £50 million on nationally commemorating the Great War under plans to mark its centenary starting in August 2014 and finishing on Armistice Day 2018.

I'm not going to discuss  the history of WW1 because it's too lengthy a subject and most of us have some idea of its origins, but I wonder at David Cameron's idea to involve children in events such as football matches to mark the 1914 Christmas Day Truce or sowing commemorative poppies, the best use of money?  Schools have the use of modern technology nowadays and there are plenty films and video documentaries which convey the horrors and history of WW1.

If teachers are unable to convey the history of WW! to pupils in the classroom a better method of educating children about war, including WW1, would be to take them round the streets and let them talk to the veterans who can't get homes once they leave the armed forces or take them to their local BLESMA home to talk to war veterans or contact the local SSAFA office and they would put the school in touch with local organisations which cater for veterans.

Sadly the last WW1 veteran died not so long ago but there are still plenty suffering the consequences of wars which involved our armed forces in more recent times. Children would learn much more from speaking to a veteran rather than being taken out of school on a trip to the battle fields.

Of course this event is planned to coincide with Scotland's independence referendum and Cameron blatantly describes it as "a commemoration that captures our national spirit in every corner of the country". At the end of the brief article the MP likens the commemoration events to those of the Diamond Jubilee.

Certainly the centenary of WW! needs to be commemorated, but does it have to turn into a sordid kind of circus rather than a dignified, solemn occasion?

The clock doesn't need to be wound too far back to the days when such a commemoration would mainly involve a day of quiet prayer and contemplation.  We now live in a country which has lost our spiritual core and therefore has yet to find a replacement.

For a little satire regarding Cameron's plans read here.

Tweet

A Historic Day For Scotland

Salmond and Cameron at Wimbledon Final

Today is being described as 'historic' in some of the media, however one reason I would describe it in that way is because David Cameron has been forced into another 'must keep it as brief as possible because I don't like the place' visit. Another reason is because the signing of the deal signals the start of a 100 week battle over the UK's constitutional future.

The drawn out process of the ballot question has turned many away from the independence debate.  Few voters are interested in the political detail and really want to start discussing how Scotland would manage without the support of the rest of the UK.

David Cameron's decision to give Alex Salmond most of what he requested has upset some of his critics. Why is it newspapers tend to quote Michael Forsyth when one is needed in connection with the independence referendum?  Maybe he's the only one who answers the telephone to journalists.

Later this week the SNP hold their conference and I'm sure, away from television cameras, some good discussion will take place. One which must be resolved is the matter of campaign spending limits and the Yes campaign must insist the decision is made in Scotland not London. Alex Salmond wants to limit spending by each of the parties to £250,000 in the last four months of the campaign, with the official Yes and No campaigns limited to £750,000 each.

The Electoral Commission propose to allow registered parties to spend up to £1.5m during the last 16 weeks of the campaign, in addition to separate spending by each official referendum campaign based on their vote at the last Scottish elections.  This will give the three pro-UK parties of Labour, the Tories and LibDems a significant advantage because they are all London based and have much bigger coffers than any Scotland-only party.

Perhaps Mr Salmond will manage to discuss this unfairness with Mr Cameron today, but if not, then the bias towards the No campaigns has to be seriously questioned.

We now have 100 weeks to discuss Scotland's future.  One point I do mention to friends is that it's not up to Alex Salmond or the SNP to state the policies of an independent Scotland.  That must be done once the referendum is won and it should be undertaken with consultation with the public.

The past couple of years has seen the SNP provide public consultations to a few of their proposals in the form of online registrations.  That style should be included, but I would like to see an independent Scotland return to the face-to-face hustings style as well.

The countdown begins.

Tweet

Nearing The End Of The Beginning - Alex Salmond - 1, David Cameron - 0

Most Sunday papers this weekend suggested David Cameron must be feeling rather smug because, in the final stages of the more than tedious negotiations for the independence referendum, he denied Alex Salmond the right to have a second question on the ballot paper.

The media consensus appears to be Westminster has won the battle of the legal aspects.

I disagree.  Alex Salmond has played the game with superior skill in the past months.  He had a specific check list and has achieved it all, with the exception of a second question.  Some say his determination to include a second question was purely a bargaining tool and one he would be happy to concede if his other requests were granted.

Now Mr Salmond has had the date approved.  Mr Cameron is about to hand over the legal power for the referendum and he can introduce legislation for 16 and 17-year-olds to vote.  The wording on the ballot paper will be the SNP's preferred wording with amendments made by the Electoral Commission and no interference from Westminster.

The battle over independence has a long way to go but it appears Alex Salmond is winning all the important early contests.

One message anyone who supports independence must broadcast loud and clear is that should result be in the No campaign's favour there will be no changes to the status quo.  In fact Westminster could rescind some of the powers already granted to the Scottish Parliament. How do we know that no further powers will be given?  Alistair Darling, the heid bummer of the No campaign, told us so last week.  If the polls are to be believed, two thirds of people in Scotland will be unhappy with his prediction.

Tweet

Referendum Question Solved

The media is still preoccupied with Julian Assange's latest self-preservation tactic and none, apart from the Scotsman, has reported David Cameron's latest remarks regarding independence for Scotland.

The MP's message was relayed courtesy of 'sources close to the Prime Minister' who warned a substantial increase in financial powers for Holyrood is not an option if Scotland wants to remain within the UK.

The warning, according to Eddie Barnes, appears to rule out both devo-max and other forms of fiscal autonomy.

Only six months ago Mr Cameron, during an infrequent visit to Scotland, assured the electorate that if they voted No in the referendum he 'would look at what further powers could be devolved'.  It seems he's now looked and decided none. Few independence supporters will be surprised by this development.

There doesn't seem much point discussing a second question on the ballot paper if the PM is not prepared to offer further devolution rights to Scotland and I suspect this is his way of ensuring the ballot paper holds one question - Yes/No with no alternatives. This may well come back to bite him.

The SNP insist civic Scotland has a desire for further fiscal powers but if the Westminster government now declares it will refuse to acknowledge these wishes, then there is no point in putting the question before the people in 2014.

I've never been comfortable with a 'devo-max' question being included.  It's too much of a halfway house which leaves Westminster with majority control over my country.

The Yes campaign must use this latest 'message' from No 10 to achieve a successful Yes vote for independence and make clear to voters how fickle the Westminster government will be if we vote anything else but Yes.

That's the referendum question solved.  Let's move on to the financial aspect of independence.  The result will depend upon people's belief that they will be better off in an independent Scotland.  It's the responsibility of politicians to put the facts on the table.

The moral of this post is: Don't trust Westminster politicians.

Tweet

Mummy Bear

click to enlarge

Tweet

Did Cameron Succeed In Changing Minds?

Peter Brookes (The Times)

click to enlarge

He came, he saw and he did his best to appeal to the emotions of the Scots.  Did he succeed?

He pointed out that when Glasgow airport came under attack the UK was able to pursue those responsible using the reach and influence of a major power. Surely, if Scotland were independent, the other countries in the UK would offer assistance if there was a terrorist attack in Scotland? I'd also expect Scotland to help the remainder of the UK should a similar incident happened there.

How would we support our banks? How would an independent Scotland police its borders? How will Scotland pay for its share of the defence of the British Isles, including its nuclear deterrent and where would that deterrent be based? As the Prime Minister I would have thought he knew the answer to the last question.

He played on the fact that if Scots had family living elsewhere in the UK they would become foreigners. That is the most pathetic nonsense I've heard in the debate so far, but the unionists continue to wheel it out with frightening regularity. Ask any Englishman if he thinks Scotland is his home and he'll say no. We are separate nations and cultures and my cultural home is Scotland.

Nevertheless, he then tried the bribery angle with "vote NO and I'll give you more powers". In fact he did not say that, he said he wanted to look at "what further powers could be devolved" but those powers could be considered only if and when independence was rejected by voters.  We've been here before in 1979 and, although Alex Salmond insisted last night that David Cameron's new offer needed meat on the bones, I wouldn't be considering buying any of it.

Yesterday was about positioning and I would say Alex Salmond won the day. If he hadn't - particularly when he was on home ground - there would have been many more questions asked.  Will he give serious consideration to a tory PM's offer to look at further powers if the electorate vote NO?  I hae ma doots.

If I were a unionist I would have felt some pity for David Cameron yesterday. He stood alone pleading the case for the Union while other unionist parties stay silent.

click to enlarge

Did he succeed in changing minds?  Perhaps for a few tory voters yes, but to the majority in Scotland a Tory PM's visit is a non-event, no matter how hard the MSM try to display it as a grand occasion.

Many thanks to @Weegiewarbler for the picture.

Tweet

The Gloves Are Off!

David Cameron's outburst on the Marr Show yesterday has the unionists thinking they have the upper hand, or so today's MSM would have us believe, now the No 10 media hacks have had time to spring into action by distributing their press releases anywhere and everywhere. Ms Lamont, leader of Labour in Scotland, has been conspicuous by her absence in the past 24 hours. Labour's response will be interesting - if there is one.

The Scottish government's Referendum Bill may contain legal issues which may only be resolved by the UK Supreme Court, but is Cameron sensible to intrude in such a heavy-handed manner?  Opinions abound in this morning's papers which persist in quoting from the Tory peer Lord Forsyth - because he is said to be leading the campaign to keep Scotland in the UK.

"The idea that we should decide the fate of the UK on the basis of the date of a medieval battle when we are in the middle of a financial crisis and youth unemployment of one in four would be laughable if it wasn't so serious."


How can Lord Forsyth expect the majority of Scots to take remarks like the above seriously, when the very mention of his name takes me back to St Andrew's Day 1996, when he was Scottish Secretary of State. The headlines on the BBC that night included pictures of a solemn Michael Forsyth walking, from Holyrood Palace to Edinburgh Castle, behind an armoured glass vehicle which displayed a lump of stone on a plinth. This oddest of occasions marked the return of the Stone of Destiny to Scotland. Perhaps I should say it marked the loan of the Stone to Scotland because the Westminster government, to this day, insist it belongs in Westminster Abbey.

Along with others far more elite than myself, I have doubts about the authenticity of the boulder and felt bemused when I saw it sitting, absurdly, on a few feet of material in a glass case in Edinburgh Castle. It sybolised the Westminster's control of Scotland and nothing more.

However, now David Cameron has decided to become involved personally, the stakes are higher. Unlike Michael Forsyth's long diminished influence on Scottish life, Cameron has the power to take control of Scotland's future.

The people are no longer impressed by the same old spin such as the Scottish government's timeline for the referendum is adversely affecting Scottish businesses, but many will be slightly irked by the Westminster government 'source' who said:

"We are not going to allow this issue to be decided on the basis of a rigged debate organised by Salmond. It is going to be a fair debate.

"I think it's very unfair on the Scottish people themselves, who don't really know when this question is going to be asked, what the question is going to be, who's responsible for asking it. And I think we owe the Scottish people something that is fair, legal and decisive.

To imply Alex Salmon and his government would rig the debate is invidious.

Will it be a clean fight?  Of course not, but I can hope that supporters of independence keep their opinions free of derisory remarks and remember the idiom 'sticks and stone may break my bones, but words will never hurt me'.

The gloves are off!

Tweet

Russian Ships, Sheep And The EU

The Scottish government has caused me some concern this week, apart from the passing of the sectarian legislation.

Not only was Angus Robertson doing his utmost to create an international incident about a Russian ship showing bad manners by disposing of their waste overboard, while they were sheltering from bad weather off the Moray Coast, but Alex Salmond was over dramatic in his response to Cameron's decision to refuse the EU access to the UK's finances.

If Mr Robertson had omitted the point about the rubbish and concentrated on the fact that Scotland's seas are no longer reasonably policed, then his protest would have been seen as genuine. But instead his mention of waste conveyed a slight petty attitude. Unfortunately, the media emphasised that point rather than the scrapping of the Nimrod fleet, which has led to a massive gap in the security of these islands. Mr Robertson is well versed in military matters and a skilled politician. Such a shame he sounded like a whinger this week.  Yes, it may be the media decided to convey that attitude, but I would have expected Mr Robertson to know their wiles and realise the London press will do their utmost to convey the SNP government in a bad light.

By now you may be wondering why this post is carrying a photograph of sheep.  All will be revealed shortly.

Mr Salmond, in his letter to David Cameron this week, accused the PM of 'changing the UK's entire relationship with the EU - without even discussing it with his own Libdem colleagues, never mind the devolved administrations in Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast'. Fair enough, he has a good point but it would appear his reaction was a little speedy. It's unlike the First Minister to be less than very calculated in response to Westminster.

However, he accused the PM of 'blundering' and suggested that Cameron's decision would affect key Scottish industries because they were 'being represented by a UK government that is excluded from important decision making meetings'. source  The following story shows it could be more a case of 'who you know' rather than the seat you sit on at meetings.

The area in which I live is well known for livestock farming and sheep farming is important to the economy.  In December 2007 the European Parliament's Agricultural Committee passed legislation which made electronic identification (EID) mandatory for sheep and goats. Farmers here were up in arms about this and have been protesting loudly.  It could well constitute the last nail in the coffin for sheep farmers, few of whom can afford to fit every animal with expensive microchips or deal with the complex cross-compliance issues involved.

It seems Cameron's non-veto has made no difference to Scotland's access to the EU heath commissioner John Dalli. He has (finally) agreed to look at the EID system to see if it can be simplified. Local farmers here are delighted but there have been casualities. In the intervening years, two have decided enough is enough and sold their stock.

As the Perthshire sheep sector declines, once again the EU will increasingly have to rely on imported lamb from countries outwith the EU, who pay no attention whatsoever to the rigorous regulations and controls imposed upon our own farmers.

Why has it taken four years for poor legislation to be re-examined? Mr Salmond thinks full membership of the EU will be important to an independent Scotland. Although a reduction in the UK sheep stock may be of little importance at present, EU legislation which is unnecessarily complicated and expensive, will drive more and more farmers out of business.

Is that good for Scotland?

Tweet

Satire - But Will The Leader of France Understand it?

As matters continue to develop in Europe, with Angela Merkel behaving in a much more statesman-like manner than her colleague Nick Sarkozy, I thought the above may be one appropriate response to the Frenchman's diatribes regarding the Prime Minister.

His Grace does it so much better though.

Tweet

Farage On Cameron's Actions

Tweet

Our Next War?

It shouldn't come as a surprise that the British military are preparing for potential military action against Iran.

Only a year ago The Truthseeker had an interesting article which is so ridiculous it could be true. However, Libya interrupted the plans, although our presence there was officially halted this week.

"Where next?" thought Obama and phoned his lapdog Cameron. "Next is Iran and I want to bring the schedule forward.  Must keep the momentum of war going or the people will begin to notice the money we waste on such foolish adventures."

"Right behind you," said Cameron.

According to the Guardian, the US may want to take action before next November's US election.  Obama can't afford to lose because of unjustified US military intervention in other countries and he knows Americans will think a military operation now is purely political because Tehran's nuclear enrichment programme has been public knowledge for some years now. According to 'sources' there is 'new' intelligence which has declared Tehran is moving some new, more efficient centrifuges into the heavily fortified military base dug beneath a mountain at the city of Qom.

A British source:

"Beyond [12 months], we couldn't be sure our missiles could reach them," the source said. "So the window is closing, and the UK needs to do some sensible forward planning. The US could do this on their own but they won't. So we need to anticipate being asked to contribute. We had thought this would wait until after the US election next year, but now we are not so sure. President Obama has a big decision to make in the coming months because he won't want to do anything just before an election."

Yes, I have little doubt our warmongering leaders will take us to war with Iran -  and soon.

 source

Tweet

English Independence

Tedious Trantrums' Wednesday morning post. (His latest blog post is excellent.)

Quite an diverse debate occurred on this blog after the post relating to the SNP and the likely timing of the referendum on independence. It’s a hot topic for sure and one which is already steeped in too much politicking by the Westminster gang. There is only one gang down in Westminster, the lie has them being three separate parties standing for different things. We all know they stand for the same things with the slightest of shades different. Number one of which is, of course, to get elected at any cost, saying anything at all which will make them electable then junk it as soon as they get in.

Whilst we are on the subject of being electable let’s be very clear on a very important issue. The Labour Party is a Unionist Party and has no interest at all in Scotland as a separate entity. Scotland is important to the Labour Party because it used to bring in a reliable and significant vote, which realised more seats in Westminster. For that reason alone the English should be complaining.

It is an on going mystery to me to try to understand why English people do not assert their Englishness, out with sport anyway. Why are the English not pressurising Call me Dave to stop kow towing to the EU, for goodness sake man! Stand up and do what most of the rest of the EU countries do. Do the bits that are acceptable and ignore the rest. What can they do? Sue you? You don’t have any money. No one has any money apart from the Chinese, Russians… complete the list with all the countries who used to be our enemies.

You English people owned the world or at least the bits which were worth

owning. You exploited what you discovered which, at the time, was the way things were done and now we see Call me Dave apologising for it now? Is Call me Dave English? Does he talk up England?

Mr Huhne, now there’s a man who knows nothing about being English. His intention is to see your beautiful landscape and gorgeous wee villages covered with pylons and windmills, whilst at the same time freezing your pensioners to death.

I am a huge fan of the English. I’ve worked all over England and have always enjoyed myself and enjoyed the areas I’ve worked in. I’m a big fan of London and have spent endless hours wandering around just enjoying the Englishness of it even although immigration has been huge. It’s not as good as Edinburgh though. Obviously.

It’s less of a thing for Scotland to want independence and also inevitable that it will happen. It’s more of a thing for England to gain independence. To get the confidence back that made England great. It should be Great England not Great Britain. I doubt you’d find many people in Scotland, Ireland and Wales who would describe themselves as British.

The tide is turning and events are overtaking the politicians. The latest polls show a majority of people in England supporting independence for Scotland. Why not? We cost you money. We are not the same people. We share a similar language as we do with Americans and Australians but we are all foreign to each other at the end of the day.

Stride forward England. Believe in yourselves. Have the confidence to be who you need to be. Ditch the doubters and whingers. Recognise being English as being at the pinnacle of the world, but you’ll have to shove us Scots off first and we fight dirty.

Tweet