Take Your Pick

Alive And Thriving

The Tories who think retreat the best form of defence

Auld Hootsmon Headlines

Proven Wind Power - Blown to Bits

Everyone's an expert

Independence for England?

A prickly subject

What only others can say

Stirling University - Drone factory

What has happened to us?

Tweet

Olympic Madness

My opinion of trade unions is regularly met with derision by my friends who know I take their exclamations of 'how could you?' with a calm dignity only conveyed by those who sincerely believe they know the truth.  Now, I'm quite sure few of you believe I accept derision with dignity, and calmness is not an emotion I could ever associate with mention of trade unions, having seen so many colleagues let down by those who profess to be there to support them.

Yesterday I was with one of my most politically minded friends who originally hailed from London, although she came to Scotland over 50 years ago to work, fell in love with a Scotsman and has been here ever since.  She was a loyal trade union member all her working life and contributed towards her own union's success in no small way.

'What did I think about the latest nonsense - I'm paraphrasing - to do with the London Olympics?' I was asked. 'Could I see more tourists coming to Scotland next year?'  My answers were 'very little' and 'no', yet I was interested in knowing why she had asked and she wasn't slow in giving her response.

It appears the good people of London and other UK taxpayers are paying London underground drivers bonuses not to go on strike during the Olympics.

A spokesman for Transport for London said: “London Underground (LU) has reached agreement with train drivers’ unions over temporary changes to working arrangements and payments during the London 2012 Olympics and Paralympics Games.

"The agreement follows six months of constructive discussions with union representatives, and will allow LU to meet the demands of extended services in the most efficient way.

“In return for agreeing to these temporary changes to existing working arrangements during the Games, all train drivers employed by LU on July 26 2012 will receive a one-off payment of £500.

"In addition, shifts of a certain duration or which finish after 01:30hrs will attract extra payments.” (source)

Having read the above I understood my friend's outrage, particularly when the £500 is a basic bribe bonus and many could receive up to £1800 in addition to their basic annual salary of £42,750.

The consequences of this largess from Transport for London may be far reaching and other workers associated with the Games may feel they too should benefit for working normally during the jamboree.  Who could blame them and who would blame their unions if they too jumped on the bonus bandwagon?

Not me.  For once I would support such union action.

Tweet

Stand By Me

Sit back, relax and listen to this marvellous video of street singers and instrumentalists from around the world being recorded, overlayed and mixed with one another while singing 'Stand By Me'.

Tweet

A Sickening Performance From the Prime Minister

Another British solder was killed On Wednesday in the Afghan war. The serviceman, from the 1st Battalion The Rifles, was killed by a gunshot wound sustained in the village of Haji Khodin Nazar, in the Nahr-e Saraj district of Helmand province.

His death takes the number of British troops who have died since the war in Afghanistan began to 381.

But the death of another soldier means nothing to politicians, especially when they can pose on the world stage as 'saviours'.

David Cameron, along with Sarkozy, rushed to Libya to claim credit for the ousting of Gaddafi.  Unfortunately, Gaddafi's still hanging around in some invisible abode, but that's of little concern to the two leaders who, according to the Spiegel, revelled in their one day appearance in the war torn country as the saviours of the Libyans.

Cameron went as far as to offer to bring the worst medical cases to British hospitals if Libya paid the transport.  My knowledge of Libya is limited, but I am aware the standards of their education and medical care under Gaddafi was very possibly far superior to what we can attain these days in the UK.  Wouldn't it have been far more sensible for the Prime Minister to offer medical equipment which would assist in the Libyans once again achieving their excellent standards of medical care rather than bringing a few seriously injured here for PR reasons?

The MoD has estimated the cost of the first six months of British involvement in Libya was £260 million (much under-estimated in my view) and France estimated their operations had cost €1 million a day (much more realisitic).

For all Cameron's sickening fawning over the new Libyan officials, it was Sarkozy who was regarded as 'the best man in the world' by the rebels.  Our chief salesman, from the little I saw on television, over-egged his determination to be first in line for any lucrative oil deals.

It very easily could have been so different if Gaddafi had played a different hand and Cameron's relief at deciding to take action against Gaddafi is evident.  It could have gone so wrong.  Like Afghanistan.

Tweet

It's A Developer's World

The very mention of developers building on green field sites can stir the most placid of us into rowdy protesters; that is if the green field borders your own property.

Researchers at the independent House of Commons library have discovered the UK government has no intention of preserving England's green belt from 'sustainable development' even though ministers have insisted that the framework provides clear protections for the 13% of land which is officially designated as green belt.

The report notes that the section of the framework setting out the legal presumption makes no mention of the green belt and contains only a narrow exception for sites protected by the Birds and Habitats directives.

The Daily Telegraph has launched the Hands Off Our Land campaign to urge ministers to think again.

I would like to think the campaign would have some success but it's extremely doubtful. Of course the usual 'consultations' and public meetings will be held to satisfy the legal aspects of new developments, but they are purely PR and mean nothing. Councils will bend over backwards to please developers if it means they will reach their targets for 'social housing'.

For the past couple of years I've been involved in trying to save a local field which, only 20 years ago, was again refused planning permission because it was home to one of Scotland's biggest red squirrel populations and also a large community of bats. Enter a property developer and, before we noticed, they had received planning consent for a large estate of 80+ homes.  The first of these homes is now wind and water-tight and will cost an average of £270,000.

If there was a necessity for expensive homes in this rural area I doubt if many of us would have complained or fought so long and hard to keep the field, but there are two other large developments less than half a mile away and five years later they are still nowhere near completion. The prices of the properties are well above what local people can afford.

Why therefore are developers being allowed to build on green field sites when it's well known that there is no local demand for their product in the short to medium term?  Theories abound here with most involving the word 'money' - speaking of which the Herald reports changes to the council planning system have left a multimillion pound black hole in council finances. What a mess.

Tweet

Take A Bow

Yesterday I had a few emails from readers informing me I've 'made it'. To be mentioned in the top ten of Iain Dale's Total Politics (Scottish blogs) is due to you all and much less to do with my efforts.

May I thank each and every one of you for making this blog such a success and I must give a particular mention to my guest posters, the author Eoin Taylor and the many of you who are kind enough to send me ideas for posts.  Particular thanks to my 'daily provider' - you know who you are.

So it's not really a case of I've made it but you made and I'm most grateful.

Now where's that piece of paper with my acceptance speech... 

Tweet

Go For It Dundee!

The photograph is of the Dundee Highland Games; Dundee New York State that is not Dundee, Scotland where the games were abandoned in 1998 because the local burghers decided a turnout of 1,500 showed a lack of public interest.

Dundee USA has a population of 1,700 and 1,200 of them turned out to support their first games and many more were expected to attend this year.  What lesson can Bonnie Dundee learn from their US namesakes?

The obvious one is that Scottish culture is appreciated worldwide and those of us who live here have forgotten we must continue our traditions or they will be lost. That's what happened in Dundee in 1998.

However, Dundee's Lord Provost, John Letford, wants to resurrect Dundee's Highland Games and would be interested to hear from people involved with pipe bands, sports clubs and organising beauty pageants (I jest).

Participants don't need to live in Dundee to take part in the fun.  The Braemar Gathering attracts participants and many thousands of spectators from all over the world and Braemar's situated in the middle of the Grampians.  So if you think you can wield a caber, bang a drum or have a dog which hasn't quite made the grade at Crufts but could aspire to greatness at the 'Best In Show' event, give Mr Letford your support.  He has mine.

source

Tweet

It's A Class Thing...

Contributed by tedioustantrums

The new “Free Schools” are up and running then and the next batch being discussed. That sounds like progress although only time will tell. There’s likely to be some fall-out and bad experiences but that happens with any new initiative. Just as long as no children are harmed during the making of the “Free Schools” programme.

To some however, children are going to be harmed regardless. They don’t see the “Free Schools” project positively at all. You may have heard them on TV, the radio or in newspapers? I’ve heard a few comments. “Divisive” seems to be a word that’s popular for the Local Authority Education backers. They also claim the new schools will be “elitist”. They are even trying to go on the offensive to make sure parents don’t send their children to “Free Schools”.

It’s to be expected.

We already have different types of education available for our children. There are lots of different Independent Schools and it’s “you pays your money and your makes your choice”. Why not?

Maybe some people have forgotten or perhaps choose to forget that we are still fairly free. We are still allowed to hold opinions and we can think for ourselves. We still have a reasonable amount of self-determination. People can decide, within certain limits, where their children go to school.

Perhaps those who favour Local Authority governed education should spend time trying to improve those schools performances? After all there’s always room for improvement. Onwards and upwards and all that. In an ideal world schools should be sharing best practice anyway, regardless of which sector, religion, fee paying etc. etc. that would be fine if this was just about what’s best for children.

Our children are our greatest asset and we owe them the opportunity to be the best they can be. Education is their best chance to start moving in the right direction. That won’t suit them all but the school system should be able to cater for all manner of differing abilities and have differing teaching techniques to cope with that.

Politics should have no place in schools. It’s such a pity that education has become such a hot potato for politicians.

Tweet

Scottish Tory Leadership Race

L-R  Jackson Carlaw, Ruth Davidson, Murdo Fraser

Political party leadership races can be fairly murky affairs and the campaign for the top job in the Scottish tories is no exception.

If political pundits are to be believed the race is between Ruth Davidson and Murdo Fraser, although Jackson Carlaw's support is said to be 'small but exceptionally loyal'.

For the benefit of those not acquainted with the Scottish electoral system none of the candidates was elected to office by the Scottish electorate.  They all achieved their positions as MSPs through the party list system, which I consider to be undemocratic.

Ruth Davidson's campaign has achieved a mention at Guido's place where few - if any - politicians receive gracious compliments.  Will the Herald's exposure damage her chances which, if the views of the local grassroot Tories are to be believed, are slim enough already?  Several have mentioned it would be foolish to vote for a leader who only entered the Scottish Parliament in May, although a few aren't too keen on Murdo Fraser's proposals.

I've placed a poll in the sidebar for those who like a say.

Tweet

The Favourite Is Usurped

Spare a thought - or maybe not - for Stephen House, the head of Strathclyde Police who was repeatedly reported to be the favourite in the search for the new head of Britain's biggest police force. He must have fancied his chances when so much of the MSM was doing its best to promote him so surely we can sympathise when he drowns his sorrows in coffee rather than Cristal tonight. I like champagne although I've only once ever tasted Cristal, the champagne of choice for the British elite I believe, and therefore try hard not to associate it only with happy occasions, but I doubt if I'll be able to substantiate a couple of bottles a year once the Scottish government has passed its proposal for a fixed unit price for alcohol.  That's another story.

Mr House has been usurped by Bernard Hogan Howe.

Mr Hogan-Howe  - I have a dislike of double barreled names in business as I find it slightly pretentious - is the former Merseyside chief constable. Boris Johnson and Theresa May supposedly agreed that his performance was outstanding.

What now for Mr House?  He certainly has good connections and he covered his back by saying, when he applied for the Met job:

"I have always been committed to Strathclyde Police and to keeping people safe in our communities.  That commitment has not wavered.  I look forward to continuing to lead this outstanding organisation and to being fully engaged in the process of establishing the new Scottish Police Service."

When I was a child a neighbour was the chief constable of what was then known as Dundee and Angus.  He put the fear of God into us children with just a look or by a parent saying 'I'll have a word with Mr X'. That same man was extremely kind and when I returned to Scotland, I often visited him in the home he shared with his daughter who is a dear childhood friend.  Mr X by then was virtually stone deaf and it was difficult to communicate at times but I could see the fairness in his views when he insisted upon discussing Scottish politics.  As he explained he'd had to be impartial for his career years but, knowing I had an interest in politics, he was always intent upon hear my opinions my .  Perhaps he was more patient with my attempts at shouting or maybe he was able to read my lips as he'd learned to do that over the years.  I was very fond of Mr X and his determination to ensure youngsters were put back on the straight and narrow instead of being labelled criminals for the rest of their lives.

Mr X was honest.  He didn't permit his staff to waste time pursuing issues which barely count as crimes.  He intended to keep the people of Dundee safe from criminality and he did. Henot to persecute the person who innocently committed a breach of legislation.  Ah, those were the old days.

So what for Stephen House now?  I wouldn't place a bet against him being the leader of the new Scottish Police Service.  Would you?

Mr X died four years ago at the age of 89 and continued to collect his favourite car, the Morris Minor, right to the end.  He was regularly seen round and about the area in one of his vintage cars and abhorred travelling in his daughter's 4 X 4.

Tweet

The Battle For Glasgow

The Labour party's review of their Scottish branch has been made public with its staunchest supporter, the Daily Record, calling it the 'biggest shake-up in a century'.

As with any shake-up though, once the agitation stops, the elements will return to their natural position.  The Murphy/Boyack review contains little substance but it does alter the administration of the party in Scotland with the intention of giving more powers to the new leader, changing their constituency network and, according to the Record, 'a move to cut ties with the UK party'.

If the idea is to break away from the UK party - although the review does not propose a separate federal party in Scotland - surely Labour in England, Wales and N Ireland need to be renamed.  Of course that won't happen because Labour in Scotland will continue to be an integral part of UK Labour.  It's inconceivable that London Labour will cast off Scotland because without its support from north of the border the party would be unelectable in Westminster. Rather amusingly, the proposed changes have to be approved by the UK party at their conference in Liverpool in a few weeks time. Will Ed Miliband sign his own death warrant? Of course not.

Labour's reason for tinkering with their Scottish branch's constitution is not for the sake of Scots, but a desperate attempt to hold onto their fiefdom - Glasgow.  Without their 50 year stranglehold on Glaswegian politics they would become as insignificant as the Tories and the Libdems.  Give Murdo Fraser his due, he sees the Tories problem as one involving the whole of Scotland, whereas Jim Murphy and Sarah Boyack have concentrated only on the west.

I've no experience of west coast politics and rely upon other sources for information, but 'dirty tricks' and 'murky dealings' within the City Chambers (pictured) are often mentioned.

 The battle between Labour and the SNP for Glasgow will be arduous and it won't be easy for the SNP to break Labour's monopoly, particularly when they have a prominent member such as Ari Mack publicly accusing his fellow local party members of 'paranoia, conspiracy theories, mental illness and downright stupidity'. The use of such language is unforgivable and Mr Mack should be shown a red card.

Tweet

Why We Need A New 9/11 Investigation - Guest Post

A guest post by Stewart Cowan

Why We Need A New 9/11 Investigation

I was out and about on September 11th 2001 and the first inkling I had that the attacks had taken place was on seeing a picture of one of the Twin Towers on fire on a newspaper stand in the centre of Glasgow while changing buses. When I reached my friends’ house around dinner time, the telly was on and I was finally able to catch up with what had happened: the jets hitting the Towers and pulverising them, the attack on the Pentagon and the other plane that never reached its intended target but crashed in a Pennsylvanian field. Building 7 was still standing at this point (more on that later).

Naturally, I was gobsmacked with what I saw, but at the same time, I just could not believe that the authorities in the US could not have known that something this big was going to happen. I told a few people what I thought, but I pretty much kept quiet about it for the next couple of years – until I came across the “9/11 Truth Movement” and realised that millions of people had the same suspicions I had. I found out that not only did some people think that the government let it happen, but that they made it happen.

Further investigation was called for on my part.

I quickly learned that there were a great many inconsistencies and unbelievable coincidences in the official 9/11 story. For example, no steel framed skyscraper had ever completely collapsed due to fire before. Even those which had been ablaze for many hours never fell to the ground. Yet three of the World Trade Centre buildings fell completely – even the 47-story Salomon Brothers Building (WTC7) which was not hit by a plane.

For many, Building 7 is the biggest ‘smoking gun’ of all because it resembles a classic controlled demolition. 1,500 architects and engineers agree and want a new investigation. So many people in New York City have never seen footage of Building 7’s collapse, that a poster and TV ad campaign is underway this week.

And Building 7 wasn’t even mentioned in the 9/11 Commission Report. But then, the chairman and vice chairman wrote in their book that the Commission was “set up to fail”.

When George W Bush gave his evidence to the Commission it was not under oath and he was chaperoned by Dick Cheney, the man responsible for making NORAD stand down, according to “conspiracy theorists”. Former Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta testified that the Vice President had ordered the plane heading for the Pentagon NOT to be shot down. This testimony was omitted from the Commission’s final report.

9/11 Commissioner Max Cleland resigned from the Commission, stating that restrictions on information from the Presidential Daily Briefs meant that the investigation was “deliberately compromised by the president of the United States”. Another Commissioner, Timothy Roemer said, "To paraphrase Churchill, never have so few commissioners reviewed such important documents with so many restrictions. The 10 commissioners should either have access to this or not at all."

In Cheney’s new book , which seems to have been released to coincide with the tenth anniversary, he claims that he did order that Flight 77 could be shot down when it was eighty miles out then again when it was sixty miles out, but it was allowed to hit the Pentagon. He also claims that Flight 93 crashed near Shanksville, Pennsylvania because passengers stormed the cockpit, aware of what had already happened that morning, however, the large area across which the wreckage extends suggests that the plane exploded in mid-air, and pictures from the alleged crash site leave us wondering where the actual plane is, if it crashed without being blown out of the sky first.

It is also difficult to see how a large passenger jet could have made such little initial damage to the outside of the Pentagon, before the walls collapsed.

Osama bin Laden was NOT wanted by the FBI for 9/11 (he had actually been a CIA 'asset' in Bosnia) and ‘al Qaeda’ was a name made up by Western intelligence to give the impression that disparate groups of Islamic terrorists had a united front. After the end of the Cold War, a new enemy was needed to try to frighten us into giving up our rights.

And 9/11 was the excuse the US Government needed to invade Afghanistan.

Many people find it impossible to believe that there could have been any government involvement, but history provides many examples of “false flag” terrorism where state-sponsored attacks were carried out and blamed on political enemies. Operation Gladio was the name given to the clandestine NATO "stay-behind" operations in Europe after World War II to keep communism in check, and many civilian deaths can be attributed to Gladio over decades which were to discredit the likes of the Red Brigades.

And a secret US Government document from 1962 called Operation Northwoods, now declassified, actually suggests hijacking planes then blowing them out of the sky and blaming it on Cuba as a pretext to invade the now Communist island.

I cannot possibly mention all the inconsistencies in a blog post where it has taken others whole books to set out their arguments, but I join the calls for a proper investigation into 9/11 because it just doesn’t add up.

Dr Paul Craig Roberts (father of Reaganomics and the former head of policy at the Department of Treasury) wrote last month, “Even if there were definite proof of government complicity, it is uncertain that Americans could accept it. Architects, engineers, and scientists live in a fact-based community, but for most people facts are no match for emotions”.

I can appreciate that this is what keeps a great many people from questioning the official story. This weekend emotions will be high as we relive those desperate events of a decade ago, but many people who lost family members on 9/11 don’t believe the government’s version of events and have become activists for truth.

They aren't afraid to face the truth because they want justice for their loved ones. 

Tweet