Saturday, 29 September 2012


There’s an interesting and thought provoking post from Andrew Page at Scottish Liberal. It is his analysis of Nick Clegg’s speech to what they somewhat strangely call the Federal Conference.

When it comes to matter Libdem, I think Andrew presents the most balanced views, praising what is praiseworthy, and debunking that which is not (although I also have huge admiration for George Potter and his uphill struggle to make sure that the Liberals, as a party, do the right thing by the sick and disabled, so big shout out to George here too).  Anyway, if you want to know what ACTUALLY happened in Brighton, this is the article for the  leader’s speech and there is another one on the SOS's and Willie Rennie's.

Coming back to this post, I was a bit concerned about Andrew’s observation that:

"Clegg hopes to convince voters that, with slow but sure signs of improvement, it would be wrong to trust Labour with the economy in 2015."

Because, from what I can see at the moment, that would probably mean a Tory government in 2015, and for all my criticism of what the Liberals have contributed to the current Westminster set up, I have to say that, rather like the Labour-Liberal coalitions of the Scottish parliament, the best stuff has been Liberal sourced (excepting Danny Alexander’s scheme to tax North Sea exploration).

But I cannot help but think that the Liberals will emerge as a very much reduced force in 2015, (unless Clegg can pull a rabbit out of his hat) and even if they were needed to provide a coalition partner for the Tories, whether under Cameron or Boris, their influence could only be very slight, much less than today.

The only thing that could possibly reverse the Liberals' fortune would be a real turn around in economic conditions and a consequent real and measurable improvement in people's standards of living. (Even at that I’m sure that Osborne would try to take any credit going for that to re-launch his campaign to replace Cameron.)

I don't see that happening in the next two years, and in any case, Cameron has made it clear that even when(if) things get better there will be no return to higher levels of public spending (suggesting that the cuts are more ideologically than economically driven). So, although things may get better, the likes of you and I won’t feel it.

Of course, my response to all of this is that with some luck and a lot of hard work, none of this will be our problem, and what we should be thinking about is which one(s) of the party leaders would be best to deal with when it comes to negotiations with the Scottish government.

If it is a Tory only government I suspect that they might not even have one MP here, and I’m not sure who will be left from the Liberals, but perhaps they would not feel it necessary in these cases to have a Scottish Secretary.

I guess Boris, just because he’s a prickly sort of person, would be the most difficult to negotiate with (although, given that he has told people often enough that Scotland is such a drain on the UK, he would surely be pleased to see the back of us).

Anyone else any thoughts on that? 

Friday, 28 September 2012


There are times when I have to admit to shaking myself in wonderment at some of the ancient laws still on statute books or rights and customs observed in Westminster in the law making process that still holds sway over Scotland.

I suppose we are reminded of this periodically when something bizarre happens... Tony B£air, instead of resigning from his seat, takes the Chiltern Hundreds, or an MP wishing to stop a debate dons a top hat and cries “I spy stangers”.

I was reminded again of this when the topic of Magna Carta, signed in Latin in 1215 was raised on the David Letterman show on tv. (You’d have thought an English public school boy would have been able to translate Magna Carta into English, but apparently Cameron couldn’t. Eton, it seems, just isn’t what it used to be.) Anyway Magna Carta is what it used to be, as its 1297 version, with the title (originally in Latin) "The Great Charter of the Liberties of England, and of the Liberties of the Forest," is still on the statute book of England and Wales.

Most of these things are a lightly amusing, a bit time wasting, but don't really do any great harm. 

However, another anachronism is the little known powers remaining to the Queen and the Duke of Cornwall, to scrutinise laws that may affect them personally, to have proposed laws altered, and for this to be kept secret from the public. That is slightly more serious, and yet another chip in the veneer of the so called democracy that we live in.

Now the Cabinet Office has been ordered, by the DeputyCommissioner for Information, to release details of how this system works as laid out in a government manual “The Crown and the Duchy of Cornwall”.

This is no ancient and no longer used right and privilege. In the last two years Charles has been asked to consent to at least 12 draft bills on everything from wreck removals to co-operative societies. Between 2007 and 2009 he was consulted on bills relating to coroners, economic development and construction, marine and coastal access, housing and regeneration, energy and planning. The Queen has had changes made to law concerning the employment of apprentices, on the basis that it would affect her as an employer.

The government has yet to decide whether to appeal the decision of the Information Commission. If it does, it is likely that the matter will go to the High Court.

Can it possibly be right that two individuals should have powers to alter Bills that may impact on millions of others every bit as much as it impacts on them, just because of an accident of birth?

When I was sorting out the link for this article, I noticed the following comment on the Guardian story:

Good news. Hopefully this will shed light on the nonsense in the Scottish Parliament whereby no Bill can be debated at Stage 3 unless the Queen has consented to place her prerogative and interests at disposal of Parliament. As, for example, in relation to the Alcohol (Minimum Pricing) Scotland Bill.

Any ideas what this is about?

Thursday, 27 September 2012


I was amused to read over at Political Scrapbook, that Mr Cameron was “too busy” playing tennis, at Chequers, to take a call from Mr Obama

If I’m not mistaken, routine calls between people at head of government level are usually booked in advance.

I also suspect that if there had been a call from Mr Obama, Dave the Dick would have been sitting at his desk panting, waiting for the phone to ring. The notion that he would have refused to take an unbooked call (indicating that it was vitally important) is ridiculous.

"But there’s a nuclear war starting."

"I’m sorry Mr President; the prime minister sends his compliments and says that he’s too busy chilaxing to bother with you at the moment."

But I see that this information came from none other than Charlie Brooks, husband of Rebekah (LOL) Brookes, the ginger femme fatale of News International fame. It appears that the Brooks enjoyed our hospitality on at least three occasions at Chequers.

Cameron’s office has been forced to deny, of course, that anything of the kind took place, and a check of the telephone logs for the weekends when Charlie was there appears to confirm this.

Imagine being stupid enough to tell a lie that was bound to be denied, just before his trial for perverting the course of justice.

Charlie is a bit of a Charlie methinks, and a very dim one too.


Strong stuff here from Ruth Wishart; it's all true too. 

Tuesday, 25 September 2012


Johann Lamont has, at long last, broken her silence perhaps as a result of the constant criticism she has received from bloggers and others for appearing for only 30 minutes in parliament on a Thursday and reading a London-written script.
So following last week's clear out in Glasgow headquarters, Johann appeared today to announce a commission on cuts. Some things never change, eh! I suspect this may have been commission king Gordon Brown's idea, if he has time to think about North Britain these days
Lamont is wondering why there should be a Council Tax freeze for the rich, a  position that Labour has held since the SNP brought in the freeze, except of course, in the run up to the election, when it they decided that in fact it was such a good idea that they adopted it themselves.
Mrs Lamont goes on to wonder about other things that the Scottish government provides free of charge like tertiary education and prescriptions.
She asks why a judge on £100,000+ should benefit from free tertiary tuition for his or her child. It's good question. But why not also ask why should they benefit from free secondary education, or primary education? 
One might also ask why someone who has earned large amounts in their working life is entitled to a winter fuel allowance, or even a retirement pension (although of course this is a reserved matter and outwith Mrs Lamont's commission's remit). 
One answer to these questions is: because they have paid their taxes, [and, incidentally, unless they have been fiddling (which it is the work of the Treasury and Inland Revenue to sort out) they have been paying a damned site more in taxes than I have].

Another is that the process of means testing is so expensive that it frequently costs more to operate than it saves, or it is easily fiddled.
Of course some benefits can be means tested on a sliding scale (council tax relief is one), and although it is extremely expensive to operate it is a fairer system. But other benefits cannot be calculated in this way. You can't have half a bus pass, for example.
A further argument against means testing is that once a benefit becomes means tested, the bulk of the population, or groups of the population, has no interest in its continued existence. It is then much more likely to be scrapped or reduced, because the political fall out will be far less.
We can see, for example, how the government in London is getting away with treating sick and disabled people. If this treatment affected us all there would be an uproar.
There is no doubt that Johann has opened up an interesting and hopefully stimulating debate, because at its heart is the kind of society we wish to have in Scotland.
I would have preferred for her to look at expenditure in a more all encompassing way. So, for example, if we weren't paying for our share of a 10 year plus war in Afghanistan, if we weren't paying for nuclear deterrents, if we used the North Sea gas to supply our nation with gas ...then what?
In light of the upcoming referendum, it would be interesting to bring these and other issues into the debate.
The Government's response from the Deputy First minister is as follows:
“Almost one year on from her election as leader and Labour still have no policies of their own to bring to the table. Establishing a Commission for Cuts but hiding the final conclusions until after the referendum is simply pushing Labour’s policy problems into the long grass.
“What Johann Lamont fails to realise is that the Social Wage put in place by this SNP Government delivers protection to households and families across Scotland from the impact of the UK Government’s attack on living standards and economic growth.
“Tory cuts to spending are happening now and it is by taking the difficult decisions that this SNP Government has been able to protect support for households.
“At a time when people are facing serious wage restraint and rising living costs the council tax freeze, the abolition of charges for prescriptions, support for higher education, apprenticeships and the elderly are all part of the support we in society give to each other.
"To destroy those shared social bonds, that we all pay for through our taxes, is a disastrous approach for Labour and one that will only increase support for an independent Scotland.
“All Johann Lamont has achieved with this morning’s hastily-arranged press conference is to highlight the successes of the SNP in Government.
“If Johann Lamont thinks that mimicking the Tories on police, prescriptions and tuition fees is the way ahead, she really has lost touch with the people of Scotland.

Sunday, 23 September 2012


Alan performed this on Saturday. I think a few people were chattering through the beginning parts but they soon stopped and listened... and well worth it it was too. There's a recorded version on Youtube, as he says, but the live one is better in my opinion.

Friday, 21 September 2012


There are times when you wonder at the sheer incompetence of members of Cameron's government.

The English police have come in for some well deserved stick recently. (I only mention that they are English, because in fact the are, and the Scottish police are an entirely separate organisation, who have not had any more bad press than usual.)

They Met, in particular has lost several senior officers over its close relationship with the press; over brutality of its officers at student protests and the G8 protests where a totally uninvolved member of the public was killed, and of course the Yorkshire police cover up over Hillsborough.

But, earlier this week, two police officers in Manchester were shot and there was a considerable outpouring of sympathy for them and their families and colleagues. Noticeably more coverage was given than is ever allowed for members of the armed forces who are killed in the line of duty.

Clearly it is of vital importance to the government that the public has confidence in the police. The alternative is unthinkable, and Cameron will surely have been concerned that all the bad publicity will have eroded that. He, after all, may need the police to be onside at some stage in the next 2 1/2 years.

And so, out he came to make a solemn speech about two brave officers killed by a ruthless criminal, with all the expected "fine body of men" type quotes.

It must have been somewhat of a blow to him then when a man he has just promoted from a very junior cabinet position to be his chief whip in an increasingly fractious Tory Party, decided to have a rant at the police in Downing Street, in front of members of the public and the press.

Andrew Mitchell (Rugby and Cambridge) managed to say (or allegedly say) just about everything that reinforces the stereotype image that we all have of a Tory Cabinet Minister.
Having been stopped at the gate of Downing Street and directed to use the pedestrian gate at the side, the immediately unlike-able Mitchell launched into a rant, in which he allegedly (although he denies this) called the police "f*king plebs", and told then that they should "learn your place", and pointed out that they did not run the government (erm, neither does he)... although I'm sure that even the most arrogant of the police would not claim to do so.

Iain Martin, a Daily Telegraph political correspondent thinks he will be unlikely to be in his job by the end of the weekend.  

But these people have more front than Rothsay, so I reckon he will hold out in the hopes that the press will find something more significant to report than a posh privileged muppet abusing someone who has a little bit of authority over him. 

Isn't it, though, quite scary that the governance of the country is in the hands of people who have such poor judgement. 


According to the Mail (dubious) Mitchell threatened to have the officer's job for this.  ‘I’ll have your ****ing job for this.’ along with...‘I’m the chief whip. I’m telling you open this gate. I’m the chief whip and I’m coming through these gates. Best you learn your ****ing place. You don’t run this ****ing government. You’re ****ing plebs.’

Oops, if it's true, it's worse than I thought and he's toast by Sunday!

But there's the dilemma. You have:

1. The Met ...

2. A Westminster Tory Cabinet Minister

3. The Press, in particular the Daily Mail.

So who is telling the truth. Probably none of them, I suspect!

Thursday, 20 September 2012


Mr Iain Duncan Smith deigned to come all they way from London to explain his new welfare system which will cut billions off the welfare budget, throw hundreds of thousands of people out on to the street and generally make Britain a much better place for...erm..well nobody.

(I say this because I've been to countries where there is inadequate welfare protection, and everyone, even the rich, suffer as they pick their way to the shops, theatres and night clubs, through the poor who have nowhere else but the streets to live.)

Anyway while he was here in Scotland he couldn't help but put his ill-informed two penny worth in to the independence debate.

An independent Scotland won't be able to afford to pay benefits, he informed us. North Sea Oil won't cover the cost, said the failed Tory leader.

In reply the First Minister pointed out that Scotland contributes 9.6% of the UK's taxation in return for 9.3% of the spending, on 8% of the population. That in fact was a surplus of £2.7 billion, or £500 for every man woman and child in Scotland.
I thought that Mr Duncan Smith might like to consider that without the need to pay from nuclear weapons and the "punching above our weight" that David Cameron is so pleased about, in terms of military strength and foreign aid,  we would have considerably less in the way of expenses.

Also welfare is not paid out of North Sea Revenue. Rather it is paid for from general taxation, which would be likely to rise in terms of the fact that much money currently spent in Scotland is taxed as English (because it is spent in organisations with their head office England ...supermarkets, for example. I buy stuff in Morrison's. Morrison's head office is in Bradford, to which comes all the money spent in Morrison's in the UK and from whence Mr Osborne takes his share in corporation tax: English corporation tax!).

These organisations operating in Scotland, would pay tax to Edinburgh, not London.

The First Minister's rebuttal was backed up by the Centre for Public Policy for Regions.

Mind you, as we have already seen the UK itself is unable to afford the welfare budget it currently has, which is why 88% of people who are sick are now going to have to find work, no matter how ill they are; why the Cameron government removed the right to 6 months on 'contribution based' benefits for people out of work, why they are now proposing to freeze benefits for 2 years and increase them thereafter at a lower rate...

And they say WE can't afford welfare... Oh physician heal thyself.

But please feel free to come back to Scotland and make an idiot of yourself by telling porkies again Mr Duncan Smith. You know you are always more than welcome!

Bravo of the week goes to privately-educated Oxford man, Damian Collins, Conservative, Folkestone, who has said that young unemployed people should busk for money if they can't get a job. Does he, I wonder, have any suggestions for those who are tone deaf?

Aren't you glad we will be shot of cretins like this in the near future? 

PS: Yes, he spells his name with an "a". Must be the posh way.

Wednesday, 19 September 2012


Richard Desmond, owner of 'The Daily Star' is also part owner of 'The Irish Daily Star', whose editor has been suspended over the publication of pictures of Kate Middleton in a less than fully dressed situation.

Mr Desmond has said angrily, that had he been the outright owner and had had full control of editorial policy, the paper would never have published the pictures.

Now you might have concluded from this that our Mr Desmond has a deep 'respect' for William and Kate. But if you did, you would have been wrong.

You see, as well as owning 'The Daily Star', 'The Daily Express and Channel 5 Television  Richard also owns a number of tv stations whose programmes, or rather delectations are not listed in in 'Radio Times'.

After a great deal of publicity in the aforementioned 'Daily Star', two of these channels chose to celebrate last year's royal wedding by showing "A Royal Romp".

You could be forgiven for assuming that this was an appropriate mark of respect on a day of celebrations all over England. You may imagine that the programme was an account of members of the family on a horseback, galloping across their vast estates. But if you did, once again you would be wrong.

"A Royal Romp" actually featured a character called Kate Fiddleton in the business of consummating of her marriage with lookalikes of Wills and Harry, while lookalikes of the Queen and Charles looked on. Tasteful, huh?

And just to make sure that no-one missed the show, it was repeated the next day...
However, Dirty Dicky Desmond is not the only tabloid proprietor to be caught displaying double standards.

Mr Murdoch's 'Sun' commented on the 'Irish Daily Star's' decision to print the pictures, saying: "Prince William's wife is entitled to feel fury and disgust at these low life rags printing pictures of her topless".

A wee bit odd that they should have forgotten that only two weeks before they felt within their rights, indeed justified, to show pictures of Prince Harry's arse, saying that it was "a crucial test of the freedom of the press" and that it was absurd that in the days of the internet that 'Sun' readers with no access to a computer should de denied the opportunity to engage in the 'national conversation'... (so the sub heading on the above pic is not entirely accurate or truthful, is it?). 

Yep, that's the what the national conversation was about... Harry's bum, or at least so reckons the Sun, oddly around the time that Hillsborough was about to explode in their faces.

Monday, 17 September 2012


I have lifted this article directly from Newsnet Scotland. (If that causes NNS any problems I will gladly remove it, if they email me.) 
I did so because I think it is important to clarify this point on the future of Scotland in the EU that the unionist campaign has latched on to. The more we can show that they simply make things up, the clearer the direction of their campaign will be.
There are of course those, who would be happy to see Scotland outside the EU in 2014/15, and others who see that as dangerous. My hope is that discussion on this article will be on the dangerous misinformation campaign of Better Together, as opposed to the merits or otherwise of EU membership, which have been rehearsed over and again on the blog...
I've highlighted a couple of things which some of the commentators on this matter should definitely have known when they were backing Better Together's claims.
By Bob Duncan
Claims that an independent Scotland would be expelled from the EU have been dealt a blow after weekend reports revealed that the other EU members consider Scotland to be “an asset”.

The Mail on Sunday quotes an EU insider as saying: “People often forget the EU is an incredibly expansionist organisation - there is little doubt that an independent Scotland would be seen as an asset to the EU.”
The report follows AFP journalist Roddy Thompson's comments in the BBC's Good Morning Scotland when he confirmed that there are no provisions in any of the EU Treaties for expelling a nation or part of a nation.  Mr Thompson revealed that senior EU legal officials are currently examining ways to secure Scotland's position as an independent member of the EU.
Replying to a question on whether there exist any provisions in any of the EU Treaty's for expelling a nation or part of a nation state, he replied: “Not to my knowledge.  They tell me that the head of the legal justice of the council is now in the process of doing a detailed study of the Treaty and how that would be interpreted.
“This would be legal advice that would be given to the council - not the advice that would be given to London or Edinburgh or anyone else.
“This would be, if it ever got to the stage where they needed to brief leaders on what the legal position would be before the leaders ever took the vote.
“They don't have any provisions on if a country or if part of a country leaving.  What they do have is provisions for citizenship and rights.”
Both the Mail article and the interview follow clarification from the EU over recent days that the resultant component parts of the former UK would be treated equally following a Yes vote for Scottish independence.
The clarification was in response to Unionist politicians in the UK who had 'misinterpreted' remarks made by European Commission spokesman Olivier Bailly concerning the possible secession of Catalunya from Spain.
The EC spokesman said that comments made last week had been misinterpreted by many and that they wished to make it clear that they would not interfere in the internal affairs of Member States – including on Scottish independence.
Responding, SNP European and External Relations Committee member Aileen McLeod MSP said:
“This high level confirmation that the nations of Europe are ready to welcome Scotland as an equal and independent country confirms what the SNP has long argued and what Scots already know.
“The reality is that an independent Scotland will remain within the European Union, accepting all the treaties and obligations that currently apply to us as part of the UK.”
In a further blow to the anti-independence camp, it emerged that such a situation has already occurred.
In 2003 the tiny Caribbean islands of St Martin and Saint Barthélemy voted to secede from Guadeloupe, which is an overseas region of France and therefor part of the EU.  Crucially the newly independent islanders remained EU citizens and the territories inherited all the treaty rights and opt-outs of France and did not have to re-apply for EU membership.
Ms McLeod added: “The fact of the matter is that the people of Scotland are already citizens of the European Union, Scotland has been part of the EU for 40 years, and we will continue our membership as an independent and equal country after a Yes vote - with a voice and votes at the top table to protect and promote our national interests
“This is another blow to the negativity of the anti-independence campaign.  Their scaremongering simply doesn't stack up.
“I believe that the people of Scotland will vote to take charge of their own future, and they will not be fooled by the relentless negativity of the No campaign."
(Thanks to Arbroath 1320 for bringing this to my attention.)

Sunday, 16 September 2012

Diomhair / Secrets, The McCrone Report, The Truth of Scottish Independence /Oil

I know this is a long video, but it is so much worth watching. It's important that people should see it before 2014. So, I guess I'm just going my bit to get it more widely seen. (I think it will only play in Scotland, maybe the UK because of BBC restrictions, so apologies to overseas readers.)


It has been brought to Munguin's Republic's attention that we have been tardy about mentioning Alex Salmond being booed at the Olympics Parade in Glasgow. 

So, in order to right that wrong, here we are. You can hear it on this video, just:


I can also point out that the Scotsman reports the story, calling it a George Osborne moment (although they might easily have called it a David Cameron moment, or a Teresa May moment or a Jeremy Hunt moment... but not by anyone called James Naughtie.)

The first minister was, however, later cheered when he said that although London has set a high bar, Glasgow would be even better. Fortunately Mr Davidson will not be getting his way, stopping the Scottish government having any part in the organising of the games (with the consequential inevitable result of the removal of 80% of the funding, which the Scottish government is supplying ...the rest being found by Glasgow Council).

Now, moving on, can we please stop the fuss about Kate Middleton's boobs.

There are simply more important things going on in the world than some rich woman being photographed with her top off. And as she is not really royal, we still have no way of knowing whether having blue blood makes you differently put together.

If you are in the public eye, and if in fact you need to stay in the public eye to justify your very existence (as Philip once admitted the royals did), then you make sure that you don't get naked in public (note to Harry too), even if it's in a château in France, owned by your husband's uncle (or a hotel room in Las Vegas with your posh mates and some local tottie with an eye to the main chance).


Now for some people that's going to be a hard one to take, but on the other hand, she's a girl who only a short time ago was called Kate Middleton, and now suddenly she's HRH Princess William, Countess of Strathearn, Duchess of Cambridge and probably a whole pile of other things too. She has an endless supply of money, she only has to snap her fingers for a legion of servants, dressers, footmen, butlers, flower arrangers, chauffeurs, page boys, under parlour maids and tweenies to come running. 

And one day she will be Her Majesty the Queen. Nice work if you can get it.

It was her choice. So covering up when she's on holiday (like most people who don't have access to châteaux are obliged to do by law) is a small sacrifice by comparison.

Much amusing stuff has been said about this, but Richard Desmond (of Channel 5, porn tv, Hello and Daily Star/Express fame...'Dirty Des' as he is unaffectionately called by Private Eye) jumping up and down about it is beyond funny. 

And the fact that the royals are calling the woman who took  and sold the pictures "greedy" is a bit of a joke too. No greed in that family... eh? Princess Michael, Prince Michael, Prince Andrew, Princess Wessex, and of course the Queen applying for funding set aside for the very poor to provide central heating.

If there is one royal story that should be told it is that putting Harry back in Afghanistan appears to have cost several people their lives, several more their good health, and the destruction of 5 fighter aircraft at an enormous cost. Smart move! 

Why, on earth does he not just stick to going around the country helping kids, at which he excels?

Thursday, 13 September 2012


Council chief who took £420,000 pay-out gets new six-figure government job...cutting waste in Whitehall.

No...Honest! You couldn't make it wouldn't dare.


I listened only a few short days ago to the Noble Lord, the Rt Hon., the Baron Coe tell us Brits how the Olympics, just like everything else made in Britain, was marked by quality. 

I've heard recently any number of people from the UK government telling us how proud we should be of our country, after a summer of the diamond jubilee of the Queen and the joint triumphs of the Olympics and Paralympics.

By contrast I also listened with growing disbelief to the list of misdeeds perpetrated by the football authorities, Yorkshire Police, the Coroner, the tabloid press (most especially the Sun and its evil editor Kelvin MacKenzie) the then government of the UK, and subsequent governments (for maintaining the secrecy) in relation to the disaster at Hillsborough 23 years ago.

I can't begin to understand how it is that our "leaders" can conceivably talk about British values (which they tell us we share with our closest ally, the United States of America), when the facts fly in the face of that at every turn.

We can't trust the banks, the newspapers, the police, politicians, the royals, the House of Lords... and Coroners appear to bring forward verdicts that are suitable to the government of the day...not just this one, but the one which looked into the death of Jean Charles De Menezes.

Pride, my butt.

Yesterday we heard that the Hillsborough ground was a death trap about which the management, despite being warned, did nothing, presumably the better to make more money. (Next time you feel tempted to sneer at "Elf and Safety", just remember what can happen when there are few regulations and no one MAKES companies adhere to them.) 

We heard that police were so incompetent and badly trained that they had no idea what they were doing, and when they got it wrong (and opened the gate allowing hundreds of people through) they lied through their rotten teeth and said that the "football hooligans" broke through. They changed witness statements; they searched criminal records files to see if they could pin something on the fans, the victims. The said that fans had been stealing from dead bodies, and urinating on them. In fact fans had been the ones who actually helped, while the police messed about. Proud of that? 

They are a set of evil bastards. They should all be in prison.
Evil personified
The tabloid press took up the police's lies and printed them, disgracing the fans. What happened to investigative journalism Kelvin? Proud of that?

The Coroner refused to accept any evidence that related to events after 3.15, by which time he said everyone was dead. He lied and he used his position to make a final and unarguable decision. Proud of that?

And worst of all, the lying scum ministers at the Home Office and Number 10 Downing Street, including Mrs Thatcher, were compliant in the deceit and in hushing the whole thing up and keeping the "secret" papers hidden from grieving family and friends, and the rest of the country, for 23 years.

These people went on to have titles thrown at them, and the prime minister of the day, who was warned that the police had been deceitful (and did nothing), was recorded in Cabinet Papers as having been concerned about how the original report made the police look bad, had a statue raised to her in Westminster.

These titles should be taken away and the statue should be removed and placed somewhere at the bottom of the North Sea with all the respect it deserves.

Mr Cameron apologised to the victims' families who have fought long and hard to clear the names of the dead. These people should be saluted. Without them this would have remained a secret.

But the prime minister apologised on behalf of the House of Commons, the government and of the people of this country.

I'm not sure why he did that. The people of this country didn't lie and cheat; the people of this country did not hide the evidence away as if it were a matter of national security, it was the government that did that.

Cameron should have apologised to the families AND TO the people of this country. The people of this country were lied to.

Cameron, to his credit, has indicated that investigations will be made to see if the inquest verdict can be overturned. (Likewise the Sun has made a profound and grovelling apology.)

I trust that he will ensure that anyone who lied over this, no matter how grand they are, faces justice. And if that means right at the top so be it. Of course the people who really made the decisions are all old and will doubtless manage to wangle their way out of it on the basis of age, infirmity, and unfitness to stand trial. It was ever thus in these matters. 

Values? Proud to be British? Don't make me laugh.

Wednesday, 12 September 2012


What is your preferred question for the independence referendum in 2014?

You can take part in the proper poll and read an amusing spoof piece on Andy Murray here

Tuesday, 11 September 2012


The UK government launched, in April 2011, a £1.4 billion growth fund for  unemployment black spots, particularly those which were left heavily reliant on public service employment by Mrs Thatcher's mass destruction of industry (and jobs) in the 1980s.

So far the scheme has created £2,400 jobs and maintained a further 2,762. 

And the Public Accounts Committee heard yesterday that it has cost a total of £200,000 to create a job under the scheme.

What the hell are they doing? If they'd given that money to me I could have had half of unemployed Scotland working, regenerating the run down infrastructural, creating wealth by paying people, and therefore creating demand for other people's services and products...

But no, the money has been left in banks' and in local councils'  accounts, doing nothing, except I'm sure, earning interest for these organisations.

Clegg predicted that the private sector would stump up £6 for every £1 provided from the Regional Growth Fund from the public purse. He estimated that more than 325,000 jobs would be created or protected.

But the scheme has got off to a sluggish start with just £60m reaching the front line so far and another £470m "parked" in other bodies. Only one-third of offers of funding have been finalised.

Why is it, when the rest of us have targets for every damned thing we do, that Michael Heseltine can fall so short of HIS targets and still be in a job, paid or not?