Another Excellent Example Of Why We Must Vote YES

This has just come to light although the amendment was passed before Christmas.

According to Mike Weir’s response Amendment 54 was introduced at the last minute and voted upon by the House of Unelected Representatives.

As much as I disagree in part with the Scottish Government’s renewables policy, I find it astonishing that Westminster can remove powers with such audacity and without appeal.

A similar tactic was used by Tony Blair when he moved the line of Scottish waters to level with Carnoustie, although his cloak and dagger behaviour happened in the House of Commons.

Who would want to be part of the UK when the current Big Brother government acts in such a manner?  

If the answer to the referendum is No, then Westminster politicians will have a field day asset stripping Scotland and leaving the Scottish Parliament little more that a parish council.  Thus making Tony Blair’s dream come true.

Tweet

Upper And Lower House Stupidity

As the SNP Scottish government continue to run the country efficiently and reasonably effectively, the unionist parties are preoccupied with the forthcoming independence referendum. Nick Clegg graced us with his presence the other day and amusingly labelled any supporter of independence an 'extremist' - or to place another interpretation on his comment, anyone who didn't agree with him was an extremist.

Rather a foolish word to use in today's political climate, but poor Mr Clegg must have been feeling the weight of the unionist anti-independence banner, which I understand is delicately embroidered 'extremis malis extrema remedia'. His outburst was another own goal in the independence cause and, I'm reliably informed, he tootled off back to London with cries of "Ye cannae mak us feart," ringing in his ears.

To quickly cover his deputy's humiliation, the Prime Minister decided he would provoke a fight with Alex Salmond by announcing a referendum cannot be held without permission from Westminster.  Ouch!  A bad move Mr Cameron, from a unionist viewpoint, because dictatorship doesn't go down well with the Scots. Good news for the Yes camp though.

The antics of Nick Clegg and David Cameron don't seem to have been silly enough to unionists, so they called upon the noble Lord Foulkes of Cumnock to dig their campaign deeper into the mud.

Former Labour chief whip Baroness Taylor of Bolton - Ann to those in the know - has proposed an amendment to the Scotland Bill, currently passing through the Lords. Her amendment has been drafted so that it would extend the voting franchise for the independence referendum to include those born in Scotland but now living in other parts of the UK.  Some may call that gerrymandering but I prefer to call it stupid.

According to Lord Foulkes the Baroness was born in Motherwell and still supports Motherwell, so that entitles her to lay down her amendment. (A wee tip to George - suggest to your friend Ann that her Wikipedia page requires alteration as it states she was born in London).

The Scotsman suggests that nationalists are likely to interpret her move as an attempt to skew the result, but I do not. I think a large number of the Scots diaspora - both within and outwith the UK - would vote Yes if asked.

But why limit the extension to just the UK?  Surely this insults those born and bred Scots who live throughout the globe and makes them lesser mortals?  Not a good move by the Motherwell/London born Baroness and one which will no doubt infuriate some rather better informed unionists who reside in Scotland.

Of course Lord Foulkes has his own gerrymandering ideas regarding the timing of the referendum. Surely the England born Lord hasn't forgotten the anger of the Scots when a previous referendum was scuppered?

All this unionist stupidity is playing right into the hands of Alex Salmond and the SNP. If he's thinking 'why have a dog and bark myself' is appropriate at present, he would be well within his rights. Kevin McKenna - the unionist of 'I don't mince my words' fame - agrees.

There's a long way to go and the fun has hardly started, but someone, somewhere in the unionist camps must realise that Scots don't want Westminster interfering in their affairs - and that includes the Scottish government's plans to hold an independence referendum in the second half of this parliament.

Tweet

M'Lords And The Scotland Bill

Today should be an interesting one for the supporters of Scottish independence because this afternoon Jim Wallace - Lord Wallace of Tankerness to his pals - will be introducing the second reading of the Scotland Bill in the House of Lords.

Slowly but surely support for independence is growing and the unionist parties are like fish out of water, gasping their last breaths with their same old mantras about how Scotland would be incapable of making her own decisions without the help of the Westminster government.

The feeble attempts in the last week, by the London-based Scottish secretary Michael Moore and Treasury secretary Danny Alexander, to attack the Scottish government have backfired badly and at one point, when watching Danny Alexander's speech, I very nearly felt sorry for him. I've heard better speeches from a first year debating group.

Today the former MSP George Foulkes, will put forward an amendment to the Scotland Bill to make the UK government call a referendum on Scottish independence by 2013, while Jack McConnell will call for unionist parties and businesses to come together to make the positive case for Scotland to remain in the UK.

Kick-off is 2.30pm and the fun can be watched on the BBC's Democracy Live. It may be worth recording it if you can't watch it live.

Tweet

It's Time Dave Sorted This Out

Lord Taylor, a Birmingham born former barrister, was jailed for fraud this week.  He lied under oath about his expenses and a jury decided he was guilty.  Another Tory peer was found to be fiddling the taxpayer to the tune of £14,000 this week and will be sentenced shortly.

As a lass, in my naivety, I respected members of the House of Lords. They appeared as distant pillars of society who would do nothing but good for the masses.  I felt safe in their hands because they silently conveyed they knew what was good for me before I did and passively I accepted their words as the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

How some things change in a couple of decades. No longer is the Lords full of hereditary peers who consider it their duty to give some of their time to public service, but it's now overstuffed with not only the great and good but the not so good and the bad.

Life peerages are not technically an 'honour under the Crown' and cannot be withdrawn once granted, with the exception of treason covered in the Titles Deprivation Act (1917).

Surely it's long past time that new legislation was introduced to disrobe any life peer who has been found guilty of a criminal offence and given a jail term. I understand other titles can be removed by Royal consent and this would appear to be a reasonable deterrent.

It's time Dave sorted this out.

Tweet

Taxpayers' Theatre

Yesterday morning I woke early - around 5.30am I think - and noticed a tweet from Mike Smithson about filibustering.  Curious to see the current situation I linked to Democracy Live to find a Labour baroness repeatedly telling her disinterested audience she had visited her old constituency every weekend yet nobody knew she was there, followed by a Scottish Baroness giving the few people present a history lesson about previous incumbents in her constituency, interspersed with a tale about cannibals and other more than strange anecdotes.

None of this was related to their discussion of the voting reform legislation of course, but an attempt to talk out the Bill.

The first record of filibustering was when Cato the Younger at least twice tried to frustrate the political objectives of Julius Caesar.  Watching this briefly in the early morning made me think politics hasn't much changed.

Surely there must be a more democratic and modern method that this expensive theatre. In some ways I sympathise with Labour's desire for the Bill to be split into a Parliamentary Voting System Bill and a Constituencies Bill, but when you discover that hired beds were made available, the Bishops' Bar was open all night and entertainment was accessible and all paid for by us, it's insulting to the general electorate. By all accounts it was more like an all night party than a serious political debate.

The constituencies part of the Bill suggests reducing the number of MPs. Surely it can't be the consequential redrawing of boundaries which upsets them?

A reduction in MPs is long past time and next on the cards should be a Bill proposing a similar reduction in the House of Lords.  Both houses in Westminster require modernised with these affectatious titles top of the list.  The Scottish Parliament has etiquette towards colleagues about right.

source

Tweet

Is This True?

ALL UK LEGISLATION PASSED SINCE 2000 IS NULL AND VOID

Can this be so? I have no knowledge of law, constitutional or otherwise, but the MSM are ignoring this analysis by Christopher Story.

When the MSM ignores such a clear declaration by such a well respected journalist I wonder why.

Read it yourself and decide.

Tweet

The Definition of a Main Address

I'm sure most of the interested population were raging yesterday when they heard Baroness Uddin was not to be prosecuted for defrauding the public of £100,000.

Keir Starmer, the Director of Public Prosecutions, denounced the change in the law made last month. It allows peers to designate as their main home a property they visit no more than once a month. The Lords' House Committee believed a 'main residence' might only need to be visited by a peer once a month.

The Labour peer and donor Lord Paul revealed this week that he would not be prosecuted either. He was investigated by police after he admitted that he never slept in the property outside London he called his main home.

A law rushed through the Lords to protect their own who steal from the taxpayer. A 'main address' requires only one visit a month. A woman, who is in the top 2% of earners in the UK, lives in social housing with a subsidised rent and yet no questions are asked. More 'lords and ladies' submit fraudulent claims and will face no further police investigation. Lords and ladies they are not; they are thieves.

The electorate are being treated as fools and unless we demand more of our MPs then we are fools. For starters, isn't it time we demanded self-regulation anywhere in government was ceased?

Tweet

More Peer Pranks

The above cottage, situated near Cardigan, west Wales, has cost us £140,000 so far.

Baroness Morgan of Drefelin, the children's minister, was born in London and lived in the capital for the first 42 years of her life before becoming a peer five years ago.

A few months after entering the Lords she and her husband bought the above small cottage for £147,000, then designated it as her 'main residence' even though she continued to live in her London home and the cottage is a five-hour journey from her place of work.

This has allowed her to claim the night subsistence for ministers living outside London. The sum is now £38,280 a year and is paid automatically by her department along with her £73,600 salary because she said she lived outside London.

Baroness Morgan is the person responsible for the proposals to introduce criminal record checks for parents who ferry children to sports or social events.

Lsst week Morgan's sister-in-law was staying at the cottage and neighbours said it was often used by Morgan's family and friends. The next door neighbour said: "It's a holiday home ... I haven't seen Delyth for around, oh, a couple of weeks ... I think she lives up near London somewhere."

Yesterday, Morgan issued a statement saying she had "always adhered to the rules on allowances." She said her work had been predominantly in London but she divided her time between the capital and Wales. She said she considered herself Welsh and had relatives there. She initially stated : "I have had a family home in west Wales since 1986." However, she later clarified she was referring to a home owned by her parents. She added: " I moved back with my parents to Wales in 1986 where I have spent much of the last 23 years. I bought a property in Wales at the first opportunity in 2004."

A wee bit more investigative journalism would surely show when she bought her London property. Then we would know if she had been living in west Wales during the ten years she was the CEO of Breakthrough Breast Cancer before she became involved full-time in politics and paid by the taxpayers.

Baroness Scotland last week, Baroness Morgan this week - who will it be next week I wonder.

Source: Sunday Times

Tweet

The Private Peer

Michael Martin will receive his peerage in private after fresh public outcry about his elevation to the House of Lords.

The disgraced former Speaker, who prides himself on his working class roots, will not have to join the ordinary recipients of honours at a public ceremony. Instead Royal sources have confirmed he is expected to get the honour behind closed doors to avoid the public spectacle.

This is a man who insists he represented the hard-working classes but he's accepting more trappings of power and he's aided and abetted by his friend Gordon Brown. For the government to arrange a private ceremony is offensive to many I expect and it shows Gordon Brown knows full well that this appointment is wrong and completely against public opinion.

I shouldn't think what the public thinks will worry Mr Martin. His main concern will be ensuring a further generous pension from the House of Lords. Makes a mockery of our so called democracy doesn't it?

Tweet