Alex Salmond's Position Is Secure

Somehow I have an overwhelming desire to throw something at the television whenever Danny Alexander appears.

Often I've pondered on my dislike of the Libdem MP and only today I realised what irritates me.  Apart from his immaturity - which can be excused perhaps - it's his inability to express himself without avoiding a direct question and his obvious effort to stick to his pre-prepared script regardless of any question.

Johann Lamont has a similar style although I couldn't possibly accuse her of being immature, except in verbal debate.

Both are poor speakers but that deficiency doesn't make a poor politician.  Not all politicians are orators and the public understand for some it's a struggle to look comfortable in front of television cameras. Some take lessons, at taxpayers expense, yet improvement isn't always noticeable.  Iain Gray springs to mind and the Labour politician David Miliband who spent £7,000 on 'speech' lessons.

What does make a poor politician is one who pointedly insists on ensuring those who disagree with them are ridiculed.  The truth doesn't matter as long as they manage to get their insults recorded.

This past week, along with Danny Alexander, the leaders of the unionist parties have all criticised the character of the First Minister.  Their efforts were feeble and they only resulted in displaying how professional and competent Alex Salmond is when in the scrutinising eyes of cameras.

Yesterday I had a telephone conversation with a tory-voting friend and it was a more pleasant occasion than usual because for the past four weeks I had lost my voice (no sniggering please) but the third course of antibiotics seem to be solving the problem.

During our chat I asked what she thought of Ruth Davidson's performance at FMQs last week. 'Horrendous' was the reply. We discussed the 'legal advice' issue and both agreed it wouldn't cause Alex Salmond any long-term damage. "The public really aren't interested in politicians' petty squabblings and childish insults," she insisted.  I agree, although I don't think Jackie Baillie's latest nonsense should go unchallenged by the Scottish Government.  Telling the public that the removal of Trident would cost 11,000 jobs, when a Freedom of Information request by the Scottish SND revealed only 520 jobs at the Clyde Naval Base were directly dependent on Trident is lying. Surely?

We both said details of how an independent Scotland would survive enough to have the social policies and economy Alex Salmond desires were far more important.  Let Danny Alexander and his ilk continue to fill our screens with their soundbites, but none will produce a knockout blow on the First Minister - unless his economic proposals for an independent Scotland leave room for ambiguity.  We need clear details backed by international economists and figures which can be understood and verified by the voter.

I'm not a gambling woman but I would bet that, at present, Alex Salmond's position is safe in the hands of an opposition who are third rate by comparison.

Tweet

The Word on the Street

Well, perhaps not on the street, but certainly in the corridors of Westminster, the coalition government's well-oiled PR machine is spinning away. In the past couple of days every news bulletin has suggested that the Winter Fuel Allowance is to be withdrawn/reduced/means tested (take your pick). All this to help reduce the deficit and because everyone must contribute to the cause you see. 'We're all in it together'. Dave and Nick can count me out. I'm not in 'it'. I'm not responsible for the country's financial state. It's government and big business that brought us to our knees, not me.

As many of you know I'm a 'young' pensioner so I've only received this handout for a few years. Nevertheless it has come in handy at a time of year when the heating is on full pelt most of the day and night and many people, not only pensioners, worry about fuel bills. If it was to be means tested then I'd qualify as one of those in fuel poverty as, in the winter months, I spend over 10% of my income on keeping my home warm. Would I be prepared to submit myself to means testing? If the procedure is anything like the Pension Credit system then the answer is a resounding no. Having never applied for any benefit in my life, I decided to see if I was eligible for pension credit a while ago and it was such a humiliating experience I decided never again.

If the Winter Fuel Allowance was scrapped I would manage to survive, but I know quite a few who would find great hardship in its withdrawal and possibly go without food and heating in order to pay bills. One suggestion would be to revise the Cold Weather Payment. Currently only benefit claimants can claim this, but if it was revised to cover all pensioners and the seven days qualification was reduced to two, that may be a cheaper way of ensuring the elderly can afford to heat their homes when the outside temperature is freezing.

But why are the coalition tinkering with benefits like the WFA? Why won't David Cameron confront the issues which would save money - and lots of it. He could start with the Afghanistan war which was in excess of £12 billion in 2009, then have a proper debate about the promise to renew Trident. Of course there's the vast sum poured into 'green' issues such as climate change and some dubious renewable energy projects (wind farms spring to mind); they need a little scrutiny and in particular the carbon footprint scam.

If he did tackle the big spending issues, without upsetting too many of his business pals along the way, then the public may be more understanding about national benefits reductions. Just maybe.

Tweet

The Libdems and Trident

I should have written about this last week and apologise for the delay but it is important that it's recorded because there was little in the MSM about it.

One of the Libdem's manifesto promises was the rejection of the renewal of the Trident nuclear deterrent. Nick Clegg said: "The world has changed, the facts have changed, you've got to change with them. So like for like replacement for Trident is just not right."

To be accurate Mr Clegg was not against nuclear weapons per se but wished for analternative to Trident and he wanted the incoming government to include Trident in the forthcoming Strategic Defence Review (SDR). In his words the question of Trident was 'non-negotiable'.

The Scottish and Welsh nationalists want rid of Trident altogether because they consider it a complete waste of money and well out of date.

Last Tuesday in the House of Commons, there was a vote on the proposal that government include Trident within the terms of the SDR. As Eric Joyce pointed out in a blog post, prior to the vote, Nick Harvey MP, now Minister of State for Defence, states on his website: 'It would be ridiculous not to consider Trident in the Defence Review."

However, just after the vote Eric Joyce posted again with the title: 'Er, so the Libdems just voted for Trident'.

Giving consideration to the abject state of our economy, it's a disgrace Trident is not even going to be discussed in any depth and our politicians are quite happy to spend around £130 billion on a weapons system which will be controlled, like the current one, by another country.

I suspect many Libdem supporters may have been feeling a little upset last week knowing that one of their leader's non-negotiable policies bit the dust so easily.

Tweet

Finally The Truth About Britain's Nuclear Weapons

Finally the Ministry of Defence have admitted what many of us already know, 'our' neutron generators - a vital component of the Trident warheads stationed on the Clyde, are imported from the United States. The Sunday Herald confronted the MoD with undeniable evidence.

In making this admission the Westminster government is now under a barrage of criticism from assorted experts, politicians and campaigners, who now claim that Britain is not in full independent control of its own nuclear deterrent.

“This is another deceit of the British public by Westminster,” declared Dan Plesch, director of the Centre for International Studies and Diplomacy at the University of London.

“It’s another smoking gun in the arsenal of evidence that shows that there is no such thing as a British bomb. The weapon will become unusable should the Americans withdraw their support,” he said.

“We can’t use it if they don’t want us to. The Westminster village’s delusions about Britain’s importance in the world prevents them from accommodating this reality.”

Neutron generators are vital because they initiate nuclear explosions by bombarding plutonium or uranium with neutrons at a precise time and they have to be regularly replaced. The neutrons are generated by fusing together two radioactive isotopes of hydrogen, tritium and deuterium.

The SNP's Westminster leader and defence spokesman Angus Robertson, has twice asked ministers to say where the neutron generators for Britain's nuclear weapons are made, first in July 2004 and again in April 2005. On both occasions ministers withheld the information citing 'defence, security and international relations'.

A detailed report just released under FOI law by the US Government's National Nuclear Security Administration has blown away British secrecy. It says that 14 neutron generators made at the Sandia National Laboratory in Albuquerque, New Mexico, were delivered to the UK in three batches in 2008.

More lies, more secrecy, more cover-ups. As MP Jo Swinson of the LibDems says: "This news further undermines the idea of an independent British nuclear deterrent and demonstrates that it is increasingly reliant on the US.

"If Trident does not serve as an independent deterrent then there is little point in spending so much money on replacing it in its current form."

Hear, hear!

Source

Tweet

The Real David Cameron Speaks to Scots

BBC One Scotland are to broadcast 'The Search for Scotland's Soul' tonight at 10.20pm to mark the tenth anniversary of the Scottish Parliament.

By accounts in today's papers it appears David Cameron is warning Alex Salmond not to interfere in Westminster plans for Britain's Scottish-based nuclear deterrent should he become Prime Minister. He points out that defence is a matter for the UK Government, not Holyrood.

Not exactly a comment which will gain friends and influence people for Mr Cameron and I doubt it will gain many votes in Scotland.

Alex Salmond intends to use environmental powers available to Holyrood to prevent the regular shipment of Trident warheads and components by road north of the border. He said it was "perfectly legitimate for the parliament to try to exert these powers to influence what happens in Scotland".

This could be a interesting programme tonight. After all the friendly talk about how he wants to work closer with the Scottish government, we may now see the real David Cameron. Little difference from those presently in government in Westminster by the sound of it.

Tweet