Oliver Clegg - a synopsis for a musical

The opening scene sees Oliver Clegg and his Libdems looking forlornly down from the Strangers Gallery in the House of Commons watching their elders and betters getting fat on the gravy train of privilege. They trudge glumly out onto Westminster Bridge singing:

"We'll not get a shilling nor a groat nor a penny nor a pound of our expenses"

As they reach the middle of the bridge they all climb on the parapet facing Westminster Palace and sing:

"Votes, glorious votes, that's all that we care for.."

Then jump into the Thames to end it all forgetting it is high water, slack. Some swim to the banks having blown yet another photo opportunity. Oliver Clegg is too weak to swim to shore and clings onto a buoy marked Palace of Westminster sewer outlet - do not obstruct. Intermittently swallowing more crap from the Palace of Westminster outfall, he sings the heart rending:

"Where is Gove? What have I been thinking of?"

Eventually Oliver Clegg can no longer hold onto the buoy and gets swept downstream by the ebbing tide where he eventually is caught by the rubbish gathering net near Tower Pier. The local charge hand, Mr Cameron, fishes him out, dries him off and straightway sees a commercial opportunity and hawks him round the City of London to the cry of:

"Libdem, Libdem for sale, going very cheap, only seven guineas that or there abouts."

After a bit of haggling Oliver Clegg finds himself sold onto Fred the Shred, a man who likes to think he is a bit of a wheeler dealer, but his shabby second hand suit which has a large patch on the backside of his trousers suggests otherwise. Fred introduces Oliver to the rest of his workforce with the humourous:

"In this life one thing counts, in the bank, large amounts, I'm afraid these don't grow on trees, you have to pocket an MP or two boys, you have to pocket an MP or two."

He then shouts at them to get to work sanctioning as many paupers, sick and OAPs as they can or they will not get any supper and be out on the streets themselves. There is an interruption to all this hard work when Esther Makeshay and her lover-boy Duncan Sykes come into encourage Fred's operations, Duncan Sykes mumbles his way through:

"Strong men tremble when they hear it, sick folk die in fear of it, Kiddies cry cos they can't bear it: Nobody mentions - my name!"

Esther seeks to lighten the mood with the sing along:

"I'd do anything for 10p, anything for 10p, that's all I'm worth, you see."

Those seeking a happy ending for Oliver Clegg better look else where - this is about as good as it gets as - at the end - the underpaid, under fed, demoralised Oliver Clegg is carried out in a cheap cardboard coffin, having hung himself, by his security pass, from a filing cabinet in the Crapita - DWP office, and is turfed unceremoniously into an unmarked paupers grave as the chorus sings:

"Who will buy this Westminster Parliament, stinks so high I fear it could fly.."

'English Greens', vote yer 'English Greens' ....

I was over on the Huffington Post's 'Miliband is an electoral liability' thread and did a thought experiment as a result of reading what was written in the articles and the content as follows:

According to Prof Curtice the recent poll of polls could see Labour only holding just two seats in Scotland after the 8th May. Ashcroft's most recent Scottish constituency poll review is suggesting a Labour wipe out - apparently both unionist parties are losing vote share to the SNP in constituencies which voted 'No' in September 2014.

The current thinking is Labour will be lucky to have more MPs than Pandas in Edinburgh Zoo and 'Fluffy' Mundell will not hold onto the Tory's last seat in Scotland, even if they nail him to his perch and put 40,000 volts through him. The Libdems will just hold onto the Northern Isles but are otherwise dead on the Scottish mainland.

The electoral calculation appears simple: if Miliband does not do a deal with the SNP he lets the Tories back in for another term, proving further to the Scottish electorate the truth of,  Vote Labour; get Tories anyway.

The problem in the woodpile in England is; 'What if all the 40+% disenfranchised voters, who are not going to be bothered to vote, because nothing will change, no matter how they vote, vote Green?'

40+% of the English electorate could create a massive change if the Greens can get them to the polling booths.

My friends in England are angry, not with the Scots, the SNP nor Barnett but because there is no real choice to the LABCON binary system of politics. UKIP are seen as just a Tory satellite group for their militant wing and the Libdems are finished. Many wish a left of centre party was standing in England reflecting the SNP's culture and policies. If the Green's have any political nonce they will drift rapidly more towards the centre, kicking some of their more ideological driven, Marxist policies into the long grass, policies which are not that appealing even to left leaning Scots, let alone the bulk of just right of centre, conservative England.

Six weeks could see a more pragmatic 'English Green Party' with less left wing and a more left of centre, social democrat set of policies, move from a minority voice of protest in England, into a serious electoral problem for the main parties in Westminster and Miliband's 'Blairite' Labour in particular.

The model for the English Greens is to take a lift out of the Yes campaign's on-line community and start Facebooking and tweeting, organise public rallies via dedicated pages, like old fashioned politics used to do, hold hands with the 'Save NHS England' and other single social issue electoral campaigns across England like the 'Black Triangle' movement and 'Keith Ordinary Guy' web site and followers. Crowd fund, as many SNP CPs are currently doing, taking inspiration from web sites such as Wings over Scotland.

After all 'English Greens' have nothing to lose but their deposits and everything to win as part of an anti-Trident, anti nuclear, pro-reusable power grouping, along with Plaid Cymru and the SNP at Westminster. If the British Establishment is kecking in their pants over 50 SNP MPs at Westminster, just what turmoil would the 50 SNP plus 50 or so Greens and Plaid cause them?

If the SNP membership believes in meritocrcacy then ...

Day off from laughing at Labour or poking holes in their strategy and claims to consider a key motion at this weekend's SNP Spring Conference. The 'contentious issue threatening to break SNP unity' (as our London media pals like to put it) on all women short lists for a percentage of SNP CPs, to reduce the current gender imbalance.

The logic for such lists is they are the only way to address the issue of female under-representation in politics and in the SNP in particular. Yet, as the experience of both Labour and Conservative parties show, these 'women only' listings do not go down well with CPs on which they are imposed and are seen as 'top down' or 'parachuting in' of head office's preferred choice. 

The question to be asked is: While most SNP CPs see merit in the idea, how happy would they be to have an all woman list forced on them by SNP HQ?

The SNP is, after all a membership party which has a strong meritocratic soul so will 'all women lists' actually be received well in practice? Where will the dissenters, 'Aye beeners' and party misogynists go?

Let me be very clear; I agree there has to be increased female representation at all levels of the SNP and I agree with the aim of at least 50% of our MSPs, councillors and MPs should be female, I simply do not see this top down approach is the best way and how rancour is going to be avoided, no matter the motion should sweep conference at the weekend, largely uncontested.

Here is my suggestion and if some feel it has merit, they could put it forward as a late amendment on the motion because, as I read it, Ms Sturgeon's proposal has polarised opinion:

All CP lists for councilor, MP and MSP constituency candidates must have one out of three of the opposite gender. Provision is made to encourage at least 50% of constituencies parties to weigh their selection list in favour of women candidates.

The aim remains to have 50% of CP lists weighted in favour of women but it does do away with the sense of CP lists being imposed by SNP HQ - while giving more women the chance of being selected, not just in the weighted CP lists. If we are the meritocratic party we claim to be it should not matter if there is only one woman in three, if the female candidate is the best then they should be confirmed as candidate.

I understand in the old SNP, with its cadre of 'aye beens' and its sense that 'Buggins' should get their turn, would have created difficulty in delivering the aims of our leader for 50% female representation on the basis of my proposal. I would suggest from my own experience, in my own local SNP Branch, this is no longer the case and many of the old 'aye beens' and 'it's only fair, its Jimmy's turn' are now left chuntering into their beer glasses as branches move in a new direction. I doubt my own branch is the only one changed in this way, our branch elder statesmen are respected but their word is no longer 'law'.

So that's my tuppence worth, I will not be there at the conference for what could be the most enervating debate since NATO at conference in October 2012. What I do know, as happened in the aftermath of the NATO debate, is both sides, who ever wins, will shake hands, the 'losers' will chunter on for a bit in the pubs and restaurants, that night, and then get on with the important task of securing as many SNP MPs as possible for Scotland on the 8th of May.

After all the delegates of the branches will have spoken, through them the branch membership will have spoken, in this last truly membership driven political party in the UK; a democratic and meritocratic party I am proud to be a member of.

Mixed messages ...

I made the mistake of trying to follow Miliband's once a week appearance in Scotland to pretend his Labour party is not heading for a complete gubbing in Scotland - anyone understand a word he said or the point he was trying to make?

Today's Mirror carries the editorial line that Ed will be the next PM because he has the support of the SNP and other 'minority parties' to form the next UK Government, yet Ed said the SNP will not influence the budget or economic policies of a minority Labour Government in a 'pat ball' answer to a nice chap from the ITN.

Over at the The National, in the meantime, Mr Kernevan is raising the profile of the Queen's political fixer, an establishment man to his Glenalmond Old Boys tie who, Mr Kernevan suggests will ensure the UK Parliamentary result the British Establishment wants, his role in MI6 and past role dealing with genocidal Serbian leaders and generals amongst others who you would be happy to introduce to your old Nan - and I do not mean Peshwari.

My basic understanding of politics has me thinking if Labour form a minority government, reliant on 'minority parties', with out being flexible on such key areas of policy such as Labour's lemming like rush towards the austerity abyss then they will be powerless because with out the support of the Conservatives they will be unable to pass legislation in the Houses of Parliament.

It can not be beyond, though it probably is, the wit of Miliband's advisers to see how the reliance on the Conservative vote to pass legislation if the 'minority parties' are to have no influence on Labour policy and how this will look to the UK electorate: the ultimate vote Labour get Conservative policies. London's media may well cheer Miliband's cunning plan to the rafters but I do not see the UK electorate west of Bristol or north of the Watford Gap being at all impressed. The message coming from UK opinion polls is Labour needs to move away from its openly right wing politic of Blairism and 50+ SNP MPs will demonstrate to the UK electorate if Miliband is at all interested in swinging Labour back to at least the centre right of UK politics.

By stating he is not going to be swayed by the main block of 'minority MPs' he needs to get into power suggests Labour have learned nothing from the mess Brown made of his attempted coalition in 2010 and the visceral hatred of the SNP which still blinds Labour from the wishes of its core electorate in Scotland. Brown's series of poor decision making with regards to Scotland, blinded by his own fear and hatred of all things SNP, since 2007 have brought Labour to the edge of the electoral abyss where they teeter on the brink, hoping the gale which has blown them there may yet abate. Miliband could well do the same in England if he carries on with his stamped, petted foot tirades as he did in Scotland today.

The London media and the 'City' may applaud Miliband for 'putting Alex Salmond in his place' while under estimating Mr Salmond's actual role which is to keep the heat away from Ms Sturgeon while playing 'bad SNP' to Ms Sturgeon's 'good SNP' and keeping the Old Boy's Club and their media pals at Westminster, he knows well how to manipulate, running around like headless chickens, putting out the political fires they set going.

The current 'Jockistan tirades' - fanned by Lynton Crosby (for the Tories) and John McTernan (for Labour) - across the London media are a case in point, are on the verge of running out of control which, if they do, will hasten the end of the UK Union as rapidly as a Yes vote in September 2014 would have.

We Scots understand the British Establishment is 'kecking in its breeks' but it is time for them to address the reality, the UK Union is on borrowed time and sending out an evermore hysterical 'sweaty, lazy, drunken, susbsidy Jock' message is not the most sensible of policies in most circumstances but especially when the UK Union only held by a swing of 5% of the Scottish electorate. Hardly Cameron's 'smashing victory' for the UK Union, he predicted in 2012.

Scottish Labour's Lost Deposit

(with apologies to the late Matt McGinn, his estate and his numerous fans)

Oh the streets o' the toon were aa covert aroon'
Wi stuff that's jist soft an' all gouden an' broon.
It wis pit thir, o' course, by a New Labour horse
An' its name it wis ca'd; manura manya.

Chorus:
Oh manura manya,
Oh manura manya,
Oh manura, manura,
Manura manya.

Well the stink got aroon tae the fowk o' the toon
Tho' gouden, it wisnae yat much o' a boon.
So Jim Murphy came doon wi' a shovel an broom
To clear awa aa the manura manya.

Chorus:

Wi much bluster an' fuss he tak'd up his brush
Tae clear his way hame sae he'd na miss his bus.
The mair he did sweep, the bigger the heap
An' soon he wis lost in manura manya

Chorus:

The mair he did shovel, the mair did he grovel
As endless amounts were still doon in the bowels.
As his heid disappeared his last wurds wir then heard,
"I'm up tae ma neck in manura manya"

Chorus:

The moral of course is watch oot fir thon horse
Which spreads oot its load as a matter of course.
It is sad to relate that Jim Murphy's dire fate
Is tae Labour richt deep in manura manya.

Chorus:

Original lyrics: Manura Manya , Matt McGinn

Youtube Performance of Manura Manya.

What the British Establishment thinks of Scotland ...

At the end of yesterday's piece I pondered what the response of the British Establishment and its media would be to Ms Sturgeon's speech. As Tuesday rushes towards its close we know the answer.

The Sun's Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde editorial sums up the corner the British Establishment has now painted itself into:

In Scotland the Sun says:

"At least one thing is a certainty. Whatever happens on the 7th of May Scotland will be centre stage the day after and that can be good news for this country and Britain."

In England the Sun says:

"No party bent on destroying the UK, as the SNP is, can play any part in the UK's Government, even by propping up a minority government. It would be madness."

On Newsnight, on Monday, we had Mr Murphy continuing with the lie that to form the UK Government you have to be the biggest party. This being the same Mr Murphy who in 2010 stated even though Labour had fewer seats than the Conservatives they could still form the Government in coalition with other parties. The Libdems were ready to join with Labour until Gordon Brown took the huff and torpedoed the deal. A clear case of vote Labour get a Tory Government. 

It does not seem to have registered with Labour's falling legion in Scotland that once they pick up their P45's and redundancy package they will have no say in Labour's dealings with the SNP. Incredulously one Labour MP in Scotland has stated that he is only fighting the election to ensure he gets his redundancy package, he has already accepted the SNP will take his seat. Murphy will be finished given his claim but a few weeks ago the Labour's Scotch region, now under his command, would hold all their seats in Scotland, that is if he survives the electoral night of the long knives looming over Labour in Scotland. How can Murphy remain authoritative within Labour after such a disaster, let alone in the House of Commons? Miliband will then have his revenge on Murphy, reducing him to a nowhere man; Murphy - the man who lost Scotland for Labour.

Over in the Mail Mac, the cartoonist, has Miliband stuck in Ms Sturgeon's cleavage uttering some chauvinistic banality, we can live in hope that Wednesday's Mac cartoon will have Mr Clegg peering out of the cheeks of Cameron's arse saying - "I'm still in the shit, aren't I."

In the meantime Massie in the New Stateman and Torrance in the Gruniad carry on their hyperbole over the SNP's intentions for Westminster just stopping short of, but hinting at, the SNP's intention to spit English babies on their "Claighmhor agus sgian dhu" while making their parents suffer endless torture via wall to wall 'Pebrochaid' bagpipe music.

So we are left with one of many elephants in the Westminster room which is if Miliband does not come to an agreement with the SNP soon after May the 9th, he lets another five years of Tory Government come to pass. Will Miliband make the same mistake as Brown and see the English end of the Labour Party go the same way as their Scottish end?

Will the British Establishment force the wrong call which will end the UK Parliamentary Union on another five years of a Conservative Government or will Miliband be told to form an alliance with the SNP? An alliance which will kick the supposed EU exit referendum into the long grass for another five years, to the detriment to the Conservative Party as UKIPism takes hold and the party rips itself in two. UKIP, as a party of protest in 'proper' England, does not seem to be working that well, after all.

Which ever decision it is, the British Establishment is now stuck between a rock and a hard place, a situation which can only get worse as evidence of the same establishment's cover up of peadophillia, within its membership and hangers on, comes inexorably into the light.

Maybe, with that thought in mind, an accommodation with the SNP will be the lesser of two evils.

What will the SNP do for us?

There is currently a thought experiment being lead by the LSE on what a UK Written Constitution should look like, via public input. I was involved with the exercise but have removed myself from the activity simply because by the end of last week I realised that the majority of English contributors could not see past the political myth of 'Magna Carta' and when combined with the political and media campaign against Scotland over the last 14 days, plus the comments under the articles in the Guardian and Telegraph running how dare the 'Sweaty Jocks'  have a say in running England (Oops we meant the UK, honest) editorial lines,there is no real interest in understanding where we are as a UK Parliamentary Union, the constitutional and legal nature of that Union or why it is at breaking point.

The question becomes how will the Union hold together while the necessary change away from a London centric system of governance, designed to protect the City of London and other corporate vested interests, to the exclusion of the majority of the UK electorate, is negotiated?

The political awareness cycle between Scotland and England is asymmetrical, the Scots are two years or more ahead of the English electorate in thinking about what Scotland should be like and how to achieve this aim, courtesy of Commonweal, National Collective, politically orientated blogs and a high level of discussion in the pubs and on the street. My experience of the LSE projects leaves me with the sense those politically active in England are still thinking about what they do not want (more austerity, a collapsing NHS, increasing poverty) and not about what they want from a future UK political system.

Under the present Union settlement the UK Parliament can not bring forward legislation to create a federal or confederal UK because it is outwith the legal and constitutional powers of the UK Union Parliament. Any solution will have to be a fudge unless the two recalled sovereign parliaments of England and Scotland can agree a federation settlement. The most realistic solution will be to create a devolved English Parliament with all the same powers as Holyrood.

The problem then arises - just what is the point of a UK Parliament in this situation? All the remaining functions of a UK Parliament would be just as effectively dealt with by a 'Council of the British Isles' to look after issues of 'common purpose' such as the defence of the British Isles.

So if we send 50 SNP MPs to Westminster on the 9th of May we will expect them to fight Scotland's corner, reaffirm our wish for more progressive politics: yet are we also sending them to renegotiate the Union settlement in an environment where the two main parties are seeking to cling onto what they hold at all costs?

Is it right to place this expectation of negotiating a new Union on their shoulders, as a result of September's 'NO' vote in an environment which is fraught with a fevered, near hysterical anti-Scottish message?

The 'NO' win in September was in the expectation that there would be a new devolution settlement for Scotland and that settlement would be full fiscal autonomy. Cameron torpedoed that on the 15th of September with his utterances on EVEL. Labour put another hole in this particular boat with their behaviour over the Smith Report recommendations.

The expectation is for the SNP to seek to hold, which ever party forms the government, the UK Parliament to its promise whether it ever meant the 'Vow' or not. If it is clear the UK Government is not bringing forward legislation to to meet the 'Vow' in full, the Scottish people will be asked what they want to do; stick or move on.

Ms Sturgeon has offered an olive branch to the progressives in Labour, the Greens and Plaid in today's London speech. She made clear on national television the SNP at Westminster will seek alliances to stop and reverse the current austerity mayhem which is hurting the poorest and most vulnerable in society.

Tuesday's frothing at the mouth or otherwise headlines in the London media and on the BBC will indicate just what the British Establishment's view is of the SNP's offer. The initial rumbles are already indicating within Labour, the feeling is Miliband has sold the Scottish Labour MPs down the river to shore up the vote share in England and get him into Downing Street. The real question then becomes has he done this with the intent that losing the SNP hating Labour neanderthals in Scotland will make it easier to cut deals with the SNP on a confidence and supply basis?

Murphy did not want this statement on 'no coalition deal with the SNP', Miliband has put Murphy firmly in his box killing any remaining illusion that Murphy was his own 'boss' in Scotland, free from London's interference and control.

Is it too hard to suggest that Labour have waved the white flag in Scotland?

Questionable Time .....

I have not watched the BBC program for at least a decade simply because it failed long ago in its primary purpose to get politicians to answer the general public's 'question of the day' in an open and honest manner.

Last night, around eleven pm, my Facebook page started lighting up with comments about whether Charles Kennedy was pished and did he even know what date it was. Then lady posters in outrage at the treatment of the lady from the Green Party followed by outright anger at an unsolicited attack on the potential landslide vote for the SNP in Scotland, how Scots electing their MPs by the FPTP system was now deemed undemocratic and unfair on England because they are not the MPs England thinks we should be voting for.

The Daily Telegraph and Daily Mail picked up on the potential of Mr Kennedy being less than sober, the Gruniad had a piece on political misogyny within the British State but having trawled the news streams I can find not one single comment on the panel's attack on the people of Scotland's right to elect their representatives to Westminster as they see fit.

I do not know about you but I find this situation rather enlightening for what it is not saying and that is the entrenched view that Scotland has been subsumed by England so does not really matter except when the Scots will not do what the UK (aka English) Government tells the Scots to do. In this case vote Labour.

It is also notable that while the SNP is talking about policy which is not only of benefit to Scotland but the UK as a whole, the Unionist Parties have fallen back into Better Together mode and are increasingly re-fighting the referendum which, though you would not know it by their actions, they have already scraped a 'win'. Their only argument appears to be variations of, "You can not vote SNP because the SNP 'lost' in September 2014" while producing the same, now jaded, misinformation they have used for the two previous years as 'Better Together'.

In the background of the Unionist Parties' campaigning is a constant irritating whine generated by their 'Its just not fair, this was not meant to happen!' white noise engine. Meanwhile in England the same parties are in an deepening state of denial, as they are increasingly looking likely to be hoist on the petard of their beloved FPTP, and are resorting to shouting to an ever more empty echo:

"The Scots can not vote for the SNP and maybe send as many as 50 of these uncouth, bubonic plague carrying, 'See you Jimmy', ginger wig wearing heathens to the UK (aka English) Parliament, its undemocratic and unfair to England!"

Sadly the London centric media and Unionist Parties can not see the self defeating irony of their Op-Ed pieces and targeted 'leaks'.

Fear and Loathing in Westminster ...

The last seven days have revealed exactly what the British Establishment actually thinks about Scotland and it is not pretty.

Like many Scots I can not understand how a nation which was acclaimed as being so vital to the British State that it had to stay in the failed parliamentary union at Westminster in September 2014 is now viewed as a pariah state and painted in terms by the London media more akin to 'ISIS' than an equal, partner nation of the United Kingdom Parliamentary Union.

At the bottom of the media shit heap you have the tabloids describing the potential large number of SNP MP's as 'an invasion of ginger rats' in the Daily Star. The Sun is running a particularly ranting piece on Scotland's 'Barmy Army' with an accompanying sexist and misogynistic photo-shopped picture of Nicola Sturgeon. The Daily Mail, the Tory Ladies' paper, is foaming at the mouth with headlines referring to Enoch Powell's infamous 'Rivers of Blood' speech if the Scots are so churlish as to send a majority of SNP MPs to Westminster in May. The Daily Telegraph is shouting from the heights that it is undemocratic for the Scots to elect MPs who are not Tories or Labour and inflicting them on the English with out any self awareness of just how stupid, crass and undemocratic their editorial position is. You may have expected more sanity from the Guardian or Independent on the issue of democratically elected SNP MPs heading south in May after the UK general election but you will be severely disappointed.

Scots are long used to the BBC's Orwellian approach to Scottish politics and the Scottish people which can be summed up as four feet good (Westminster Unionist Parties), two feet bad (SNP) and have come to expect the daily rubbishing of SNP ministers and the SNP Scottish Government in its news and current affairs broadcasts. The BBC is now seen by many Scots as a 'State' rather than 'Public' broadcaster operating in much the same way as the Soviet era 'Pravda' seeking to shape the debate in favour of the 'big bosses in London'.

Contrary to the folk belief in many parts of England, Scots - as a whole - are not ginger, angry, violent, mean, short arsed, kilt wearing, humourless Celts. We have a great ability to laugh at ourselves and routinely respond with humour to aggressive and down right unpleasant attacks on our culture and politics. The current example is the number of SNP supporters and activists posting photographs of them wearing 'tin hats' in response to a misogynistic speech made by a Labour MP at their 'Scotch' conference in Edinburgh about the First Minister. In fact it is clear SNP supporters, in the vast majority, prefer using humour to deal with the incessant media assault on their integrity, as seen in the rapid number of 'politician in a pocket' memes which have erupted across Facebook and Twitter in response to the Tory Party's poster showing Ed Miliband in Alex Salmond's pocket.

This leaves one question - Why is there fear and loathing in Westminster for the Scots exerting their democratic right to choose who represents them at Westminster?

The answer most likely lies in what the SNP will inevitably uncover with respect to devolution, the activities of the Scottish Office since 1998 seeking to keep Scotland 'in check', rather than its core job of ensuring Scotland's best interests within the UK Government, and evidence to back the growing sense in Scotland there was electoral malfeasance practiced by the Better Together Campaign in the run up to the Referendum Vote. All this before the questions which will inevitably be asked by the SNP MPs regarding the UK Government's continuing cover up of peadophillic activities amongst MPs, Lords and Westminster Officials dating from Mrs Thatcher's premiership in the 1980's. Then there is the UK Government's failure to pursue tax avoiders - especially those they have then gone on to offer UK Government posts and sinecures to or handed out peerages to as a 'thank you' for a big fat donation to party funds. Finally there is the City of London banking subsidy, in the form of QE, which has done little for the UK economy but funded nice fat returns for bank shareholders and large bonuses for the 'management' which took them to the edge of the fiscal abyss in the first place.

Is this the main reason for the tide of excrement being poured over the SNP and its supporters by the London media at the behest of their political masters and their vested interest supporters as, after all, 50 SNP MPs out of 650 should not really be any threat to the British Establishment's superior position - should they?

Pravda

The BBC can be openly accused of peddling misinformation in this James Cook article.

The SNP have always stated any approach to enter a coalition with Labour at Westminster would be rebuffed, the SNP position has always been support of a minority Labour Government on the basis of confidence and supply. There has been no change, there is no ‘now appears’ as Mr Cook seeks to insinuate.

Mr Cook also pursues the fallacy, contained in the badly spun Guardian interview with Nicola Surgeon, that there maybe a softening of the SNP line on Trident. Ms Sturgeon has requested that the Guardian correct this insinuation, she never said this, the SNP position on Trident has not changed, the party and its membership are opposed to any renewal.

The constitutional issue becomes more interesting as a majority of SNP MPs after May 2015 means they will now represent the ‘considered will of the people of Scotland’ at Westminster. This means that for any UK Bill effecting Scotland to succeed, whether Tory or Labour, will need the agreement of the SNP under the terms of Article 19 of the Treaty of Union. 

Lord Cooper made clear in 1953 that Scotland had not been subsumed by England by the Treaty of Union and that the purely English constitutional concept of ‘the crown in parliament’ had no equivalence in Scotland, as under the Claim of Right (1689) entrenched by the Treaty of Union, the people of Scotland are sovereign by nature of their considered will being paramount. 

Lord Cooper’s legal point regarding ‘the considered will of the people of Scotland being paramount’ was tested in AXA et al vs the Lord Advocate in 2011 and, contrary to the BBC view, at the time, that the Scottish Parliament was facing humiliation, the UK Supreme Court found against AXA et al because the bill of the Scottish Parliament reflected the ‘considered will of the people of Scotland’ which is paramount.

I know I will have just spent a wasted 20 minutes typing this because the BBC is not an impartial news organisation, it is no longer interested in the integrity of its offerings and is now the British State Broadcaster, beholden to the British Establishment and the status quo, so Mr Cook's erroneous interpretation will remain unchanged and uncorrected.

The BBC is now no better than the old Soviet State Pravda.

A dose of the Squitters ...

They really have an acute dose of SNP induced squitters at the Telegraph and the Daily Mail.

The SNP as the majority party from Scotland, after May, puts a massive spanner into their London centric world because neither of the two 'main' parties will be able to claim they represent the 'considered will of the people of Scotland' at Westminster, basically handing the SNP a veto on any bill that has an impact on Scotland or the ability to delay the bill until such time as it conforms to the people of Scotland's wishes.

It is not so much Scotland running England but Scotland (via the SNP) having the control over the powers the 1707 Treaty of Union designated to Scotland as a partner nation in the UK Parliamentary Union. This includes the power to hold in abeyance bills of the UK Parliament becoming law which are detrimental to Scotland or are opposed by the 'considered will of the people of Scotland'. This ability to veto or delay bills, prior to the 1998 Scotland Act, was a power of the Secretary of State for Scotland as it was their responsibility to ensure UK Bills were not contrary to the 'considered will of the people of Scotland', Scots Law or constitutional practice. It was this entitlement to 'speak for Scotland at Westminster', amongst other executive powers held by the old Secretary of State for Scotland, which lead Micheal Forsyth, Baron Forsyth of Drumlean as now is, to declare the Secretary of State for Scotland position was akin to being 'Scottish Viceroy' in all but name.

An interesting constitutional argument to consider:

No matter whether the Tories or Labour form the UK Government after May 2015, Trident Mk2 could be on the rocks unless they move the weapons, missiles and submarines out of Scotland simply because it is the 'considered will of the people of Scotland' not to have Trident Mk 2 in Scotland. A majority SNP cadre at Westminster would potentially hold a legitimate veto on any deployment of Trident Mk2, the new MIRV's and the new ballistic submarines to Scotland under the current constitutional settlement.

The increasing panic coming from Westminster is probably due to, somewhere in its bowels, some parliamentary researcher looking into the constitutional impact of a majority SNP cadre from Scotland, pointing this, potential negative impact on Westminster's current ability to side line and ignore Scotland, out.

This also makes more sense of the increasing kite flying of the idea of a 'grand coalition' between Labour and the Tories. It sounds like a beezer idea but this 'grand coalition' will still not resolve the potential constitutional problem of the SNP, as the majority party from Scotland, representing the 'considered will of the people of Scotland' at Westminster and the potential to veto or delay UK Bills which goes with it.

With a SNP majority the post of Secretary of State for Scotland is rendered redundant in all respects when coupled with the impact of the 1998 Scotland Act returning most of the post's powers to Holyrood. Just who could a future Labour Government put up as 'Secretary of State for Scotland?

Willie Bain or Jim Murphy .... as these are Labour's most likely surviving duo on current voting trends as Labour nears panda like levels of presence in Scotland. The Conservatives would be reduced to promoting a Scot in an English seat to the position, even if 'Fluffy' manages to hold on in Scotland, or persuading Libdem Carmichael, the bumbler from the Northern Isles, to stay on. None of these seat fillers would hold much respect in Scotland and if Miliband is really that cheesed of with Murphy can anyone really consider Willie Bain as a suitable candidate?

All in all - a majority SNP cadre at Westminster could see the wheels coming off the current cozy arrangements at Westminster between Labour and the Conservatives with their 'Buggins turns' in and out of 10 Downing Street, to the benefit of UK democracy as a whole.

Whether John 'Grey' Major or Mad Max Hastings likes it, a SNP majority in Westminster changes the UK Game of Politics, turning the current perceived norms of the UK's unwritten constitution on their heads. No wonder the pair of them are suffering from severe cases of 'Malaise Ecossaise' which presents as a load of anti-Scottish, verbal diarrhea (aka 'the squitters') which sadly appears endemic in English politics and the London media.

There comes a point where even the reasonable man has to take a stand against the corruption of democracy by those who seek to control power for its own sake, their personal benefit and the benefit of their friends and 'paid up' vested interests. I have seen the impact of armed conflict in the Falklands during May / June 1982 and would not wish to see such scenes within these islands but when the democratic will of the people is perverted, ignored and they are left without hope, just what response is left?

It is not just the continuing 'Better Together Campaign' being run in Scotland to keep the SNP out of Westminster, this approach refers to, it is the fundamental problem with a London centric Westminster politic who cannot see and will not look outside the M25. Their electorate has shrunk to be the bankers and money manipulators in the City of London, Wall Street and those who throw large wads of cash into the party coffers. The UK is back to what is in effect the 'rotten borough' system where the electorates' votes do not actually count for squat and the Liblabcon, three ugly sisters' manifestos are 'Humpty Dumpty' like in their verbosity with words meaning what ever the politicians want them to mean.

The problem for the current set up at Westminster is if things come to such a pass it will not just be in Scotland but across the that UK people will start taking direct action against the politics of Westminster. This crass and ignorant behaviour has implications for UK politics beyond Scotland's borders. There are a lot of angry people in England and Wales, as well, and a grand coalition of Labour and Tories could well be the tipping point.

The Falklands left me a pacifist and a follower of Buddhist philosophy but I am not stupid to the feelings and resentment of others. Cameron and Miliband might not realise it but they are sitting on top of a tinder box of resentment against the ruling classes and London, in all England's cities. This latest kite flying of a 'grand coalition' between the Tories and Labour could well be the spark that will start the conflagration.

The only way to prevent Scotland being sucked into the ensuing violence will be an immediate declaration of independence which may well be followed by the North of England wishing to secede to the newly independent Scotland - the potential then for catastrophe and civil war, across the British Isles, if that happened, is beyond imagination.

We are talking about facing down people who for over 700 years believe they have the sole right to rule England and the British Isles, the 'British Establishment'.

Do you think they will relish the 'considered will of the people of Scotland' being represented by a majority of SNP MPs at Westminster?

Do you think they will go gentle into that good night?
 

Do not go gentle into that good night

Dylan Thomas, 1914 - 1953

 

Do not go gentle into that good night,
Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Though wise men at their end know dark is right,
Because their words had forked no lightning they
Do not go gentle into that good night.

Good men, the last wave by, crying how bright
Their frail deeds might have danced in a green bay,
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Wild men who caught and sang the sun in flight,
And learn, too late, they grieved it on its way,
Do not go gentle into that good night.

Grave men, near death, who see with blinding sight
Blind eyes could blaze like meteors and be gay,
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

And you, my father, there on the sad height,
Curse, bless, me now with your fierce tears, I pray.
Do not go gentle into that good night.
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

From The Poems of Dylan Thomas, published by New Directions. Copyright © 1952, 1953 Dylan Thomas. Copyright © 1937, 1945, 1955, 1962, 1966, 1967 the Trustees for the Copyrights of Dylan Thomas. Copyright © 1938, 1939, 1943, 1946, 1971 New Directions Publishing Corp.