ITV Debate; debate?

Many angry column and blog inches have been written about the affront to Scotland over the ITV "Debate" only featuring two of the weakest Labour and Tory Party Leaders in my life time, Worzel Gummage Corbyn  and Bawjaws Johnson.

The British (English, Anglo/Scot) Establishment is feeling the heat. Their chosen man, Bawjaws, has too many skeletons in his closet, so many the door keeps bursting open as another one escapes to reveal another sexual escapade, corruption, buying of politicians and political favours (home and abroad) or sheer incompetence - wasting millions of tax payers cash, the serial failure to help folk in Yorkshire effected by flooding.

The last thing the British Establishment could deal with is either Ian Blackford or Nicola Sturgeon pointing up the serial failures of the Westminster Government's handling of health and welfare in England. So Bawjaws and Worzel it must be while those watching it will be entertained or not, by the sight of two dead sheep savaging each other with all the usual lies and bullshit they know they do not believe will ever be allowed to happen if they even become Prime Minister.

The other angle is this: Labour and the Conservatives have given up on Scotland.

Their tacticians know that in Scotland both are minority parties, their Scottish polling figures are most likely showing their Unionist vote is melting away in the hot blast of Brexit and one too many insults. Both of their branches in Scotland are diseased and wilting away, their Branch Managers increasingly out of touch to the extent they are embarrassing in their constant "SNP Baaad" bleating, the "crying wolf" the average Scots punter no longer listens to.

Take Carlaw's "SNP Health Baad" over 18% of cancer patients not being seen with in six weeks.  Forget for a moment the reality that an amazing 82% were and ask why could this be?

As a Quality Assurance consultant who worked in health care where would I look to see how this 18% figure is derived?

Here's a wee list of potential causes:

• Patients not showing for their appointment (usually around 10% of appointments)
• Staff sickness or unavailability; hospital / pathology departments / radiology
• Equipment breakdowns

Based on my own knowledge of health care; 8% will be from factors other than patients, so in terms of ability to meet patients expectation and needs the figure is 92% effective, a level of delivery most service based organisations would be more than happy to run at.

A very different comparison if you are Yoplait and ditching 8% of all the yogurt being produced across Europe, that is not good for your bottom line, but the point is Quality Assurance looks at sector norms and expectations. NHS Scotland's figures of staff sickness (5.4%) are slightly lower than the UK Civil Service (5.6%) and around the UK national average across all sectors.

Basically Carlaw is talking total crap yelling about NHS targets, targets are to be aimed for, politicians always forget this in their desire to have a rant.

So down in Londonstan the Tory and Labour Parties voter algorithms are telling them to forget Scotland where their support is simply a declining rump. This being the case, a debate only between Bawjaws and Gummage makes perfect sense to them because the English swing vote is the only one that counts.

This leaves only one answer, Labour and the Conservatives have given up on Scotland in expectation of SNP dominance in Scotland after December 12th. It is tantamount to them accepting Scottish independence is now inevitable.

The message from the Tories and Labour over the ITV Debate is "Scotland is not worth the effort, it is already gone" while they focus on the confused little Englander vote, spinning the usual crap in the hopes it will buy them some time.

Walking the Dug

Sunny, sharp afternoon in SW Scotland, the wee dug and I set off along the Dee Estuary heading for Tongland Bridge, take in the peace, fresh air, sun glittering on the water, pintails settling in for the winter, widgeon doing their thing, wondering why the redstarts and redwings have not been along to clean off the hawthorns along the dyke.

The wee dug sees a pheasant and like most old men (he is 12 next year) still thinks he is a puppy and scarpers off after her. The pheasant takes flight with a squawk when he is still 10 metres away. He looks round at me in satisfaction, a job well done - as far as he is concerned. Ten years ago it would have been 1 metre but fair's fair I can no longer do 100 metres in under 12 seconds, anymore, either.

I chat to others walking along the dyke, some we know with their dugs, others are strangers but with a friendly wee dug everybody wants to stop a while and give him a bit o' a clap. I wish he could teach me his way with the ladies, at 11 he is still a babe magnet.

Then we get a stretch where there is no one, just the silence of nature, a dropping tide and a wee old dug happily sniffing shrew, vole and field mice tracks in the hopes one will be stupid enough to give itself away whilst checking which of his dug pals have pee'd where, how they are keeping then leavin a wee message aa his ane.

So. I have a wee ponder about my own wee world.

Whit I cannae understand, inside o ma heid, is jist why fowk prefer believing oot richt fibs thir telt by Unionist politicians?

Lets stert wi' the ane aboot Scotland's deficit.

Ah ken, its wan if fowks thocht a wee bitty aboot it they'd ken its oot richt skelly. We send aa oor Scots tax pennies tae thon UK Treasury. They gie us a wee bitty back which oor fowks in Holyrood spreddit aroon tae dae the best fir us they can. Thon being what is, hoo can wee hae a multi-million pund defeecit?

Its utter pish, bit fowk swally it whole cos thir telt it by the BBC.

I cud rant oan a bitty aboot aa sorts lies, fibs an itter skitters the Unionist gang oan aboot bit aa fund it scours ma guts an pits ma heid intae a coal hole aa nicht. Whit I cannae thole is fowk swally them wi nae thocht tae whit thir hearin.

Mayhaps its jist if they thocht aboot it, they'd hae tae deal wi the stramash o wakin tae ha'en been leed tae aa thir lives an thons naw guid tae thole. So pittin the fingers in thir lugs an going "LA,LA,LA" is better thin dealing with aa thon Unionist keech they've swallaed aa thir livin days.

The wee dug looks up at me as I chunter tae masel' and gies me a look only a wee dug can, the ane thit says "Are ye gangin' skelly pal? Are we fir hame?"

So we saunter back niether o us much the wiser.

How Green is your Valley?

There is a lot of argy-bargy about whether Greens should stand candidates for the general election in Scotland.

"Me? Well, I am indifferent".

"How so?", you may or may not ask.

It is the Green Party's right under the democracy and sovereignty of the Scottish people, we independista's claim to wish to preserve, to enter lots or no candidates at all. There can be no issue there.

The real argument is not whether the Greens should stand candidates (see above) but whether the Scottish electorate will dwell the important marching pace and ask themselves whether by giving their vote to the Greens in Scotland they will damage the real chance to gain Scottish independence reducing a maximum return of SNP MPs to Westminster.

This is not a normal election for Scotland, it is not a General Election where the degree of your "green" credentials actually matters one jot. The only issue which matters, for independistas of what ever political persuasion, is to reduce the current cadre of Unionist MPs in Scotland returned to Westminster to the smallest possible number where zero will be optimal.

The real argument is if Green voters really wish to see 'Green Policies" coming to the fore in Scotland, if they really wish to see Scotland do its bit to "save the world from itself", then voting Green and risking returning a Unionist MP in their Scottish constituency is not the way to go about it.

The only way Scotland will see a future for minimal carbon output, maximal use of renewable energy resources, energy efficient homes and offices is as an independent Scottish nation. Westminster is "owned" by fossil fuel and associated financial vested interests who continue to lobby for fracking to be allowed. INEOS, in its many guises, has not gone away. INEOS has invested millions in UK fracking licenses for which it expects a return from, having put money in the coffers of Westminster Unionist Parties, especially the Tory Party.

Now whether the Scottish Greens would fare any better in an independent Scottish Parliament, than at present, is of course moot but their voice has a better chance of being heard in a future independent Holyrood Parliament, of being an influence in a future Scottish Parliament's decision making than as even one MP at Westminster.

Maybe, for all of us, it is time not to think about narrow party issues, membership of the EU / EFTA, who you can or can not stand as an individual but what will be best for the Scots as a nation.

I have only one answer:

If you want independence for Scotland there is only one vote which will count, one for the SNP, no matter how much it may stick in your craw to do so.