Scottish referendum: Gordon Brown vows 'powers will be delivered' - BBC News

The BBC report that:

'Gordon Brown has said the promises made ahead of the Scottish independence referendum on change and further devolution will be delivered.

The former prime minister said it was time to move from the "battleground to the common ground" after a majority in Scotland voted "No" to leaving the UK.

He added: "We will lock in today the promises that we have made".'

No we won't. The English are sick and tired of paying the Scots to keep them quiet, especially as they moan anyway. Why should they get the Barnett Formula bribe, especially as the architect of that scheme has admitted that it is out of date?

Why should the English, and in reality I mean those from London and the South East of England, subsidise a load of ungrateful Scots? Not just because Gordon Brown has said so, and the Labour Party needs the votes of Scottish Labour MPs. The West Lothian Question needs answering, the English need freedom.

Scottish independence: Cameron, Miliband and Clegg sign 'No' vote pledge - BBC News

The BBC report that:

'The leaders of the three main parties at Westminster have signed a pledge to devolve more powers to Scotland, if Scots reject independence.The pledge, which appears on the front of the Daily Record newspaper, has been signed by David Cameron, Ed Miliband and Nick Clegg.It has three parts and also commits to preserving the Barnett funding formula.'

More here http://www.bbc.cowww/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-29213418

Not without the explicit support of the English who'll have to pay for it. Not without answering the West Lothian Question.

Scottish independence: Pro-Union parties to back Scotland powers timetable - BBC News

The news http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-29113547 that British politicians from all Westminster parties are desperately promising to give Scotland even more preferential treatment so as to keep themthe in the Union does not please me. 

Maybe the English taxpayers, mostly from London and the South East of England, who will have to pay for this extra subsidy without having much, if any, of a say in how it is spent are tired of being told what to do by a load of Scottish MPs who vote on English and Welsh legislation without English MPs being able to vote on entirely Scottish legislation.

So that's it settled, Scotland will vote for independence on September 18th

I had always believed that, unfortunately, Scotland would vote 'No' in the independence referendum on September 18th. But today I learn from The Times that:

'Gordon Brown is to become more heavily involved in the campaign against Scottish independence after being identified as a "star striker" to persuade undecided voters to back the Union in the September referendum.'

I understand why Labour are desperate for a No vote, they need those Scottish Labour MPs to ensure a Labour majority in future general elections, but they have just signed the 'No' vote death warrant.

The one hundred and sixty sixth weekly "No shit, Sherlock" award

This week's winner is Eric Pickles for this insight:
'I recognise that my own party would probably be, its election prospects would be, better off if Scotland left'

"No shit, Sherlock"

I for one am fed-up with the way that England, no let's be honest, the way that mostly London and the South East of England support the Scots via the Barnett Formula. In return what do we get? Scots voting on English legislation when the same does not apply in reverse - the West Lothian Question, Scots taking English money whilst moaning about being 'ruled by the English' - since the last three Prime Ministers have been either Scottish, Scottish educated or have Scottish roots I'll take that claim with more than a pinch of salt.

Scottish independence: Leak reveals SNP fears over finances - UK Politics - UK - The Independent

The Independent reveals that:

'The Scottish government was accused of "covering up" its private fears that it would struggle to pay its bills if next year's referendum produces a vote in favour of breaking away from the United Kingdom.

Fresh acrimony was injected into the independence campaign after the leak of a paper by John Swinney, the SNP finance minister, which warned colleagues that the nation's finances – and its ability to afford pensions and public services - would be imperilled by fluctuating oil prices and the cost of an ageing population.

He said the cost of collecting taxes would soar and defence spending would have to be trimmed if Scotland went it alone.

Mr Swinney said: "Demographic pressures will increase the demand for existing public services, particularly but not exclusively in health. Spending on state pensions and public sector pensions is also driven by demographics and is set to rise."'

The relationship between Scotland & the UK versus the UK & the EU

'DJ
It's very simple: if you want Scotland to withdraw from union with the rest of the UK, you're a plucky McPatriot, but if you want the UK to withdraw from union with the Continent, you're a xenophobic nutcase.'

Comment of the day on Biased BBC.

Scottish independence - A proposal from 'Alex'

Alex Masterley thinks that Scotland have responsibilities as well as opportunities:

'If we could have a word, Mr Salmond. A small matter of the bill, or to be more precise, the National Debt.  I believe it is customary in such arrangements for the parties to an independence agreement to share the debts incurred.  Nobody gets to walk away Scot free (if you'll excuse the pun), and as Scotland represents 1/12th of the population, perhaps you would like to take on 1/12th of the debt.

Although it wouldn't be fair on the lenders to hand over responsibility to Scotland for 1/12th of the currently outstanding gilts.  The gilt holders expect the full faith and credit of the UK Treasury, not some standalone entity that hasn't functioned independently since the 18th century and with no revenue authority to speak of at present.  The only equitable solution would be for the Scottish executive to raise around £60 billion against its own credit to buy out £60 billion of gilts, which we will cancel.

When you have the cash, perhaps we can sit down and have a chat about where we go from there.'

Well said, we hear too much about 'Scotland's Oil' and not enough about their responsibilities.

Is nothing sacred? What will they ban next?

The Daily Record Scotland's paper of record comes the news that:

'GOVERNMENT officials... have caused a stink after controversially tabling a law to ban FARTING

In order to promote "public decency" the... nation is straining to outlaw the passing of wind in public.

A new bill set to be introduced next week says: "Any person who vitiates the atmosphere in any place so as to make it noxious to the public to the health of persons in general dwelling or carrying on business in the neighbourhood or passing along a public way shall be guilty of a misdemeanour."

The directive has put the wind up some elements of society who have called the measure "unenforceable" but members of the government have advised it be prosecuted along the lines of public urination.

Some have dismissed the ban as hot air but they may find themselves with a mark on their criminal record if the ban passes.'

Before you panic, the country in question is Malawi, not Scotland. 

Viewing figures?

BBC Alba is the BBC's Scottish Gaelic service and tonight is showing Scotland vs Denmark in the FIFA Women's World Cup Qualifier. I wonder what their viewing figures are and how much each viewer is being subsidised to the tune of.

Legitimate government?

Gordon Brown resigns so that the Lib Dems will have the cover they need in order to support a minority Labour government rather than a Conservative one. A Labour/Lib Dem government would still be a minority government but crucially in matters financial they could almost certainly rely on the SNP and PC for support in not making any cuts to welfare, any departments full of their supporters or to projects centred on the North and those parts of 'the Union' favoured with devolved government.

Some questions:
Will the Lib Dems really want to be associated with keeping Gordon Brown in power as Prime Minister until a successor is chosen? This might be a step too far even for the most power hungry Lib Dem; so maybe Labour will look at Gordon Brown leaving office sooner than he has so far intimated and being replaced by someone more palatable to the Lib Dems as a caretaker Prime Minister until a new Labour leader is elected - Alan Johnson would be the obvious figure. The trouble with that scenario is that the Labour party will then have had two or maybe three 'unelected' Prime Ministers on the trot; is that acceptable to anyone but the Labour party? I am sure the BBC will find a way to justify it, well they will just parrot Peter Mandelson's line .

Is it right that the UK country will then be governed by the two parties that lost seats and votes in the general election? Does the UK really want to governed by a coalition of all the losers?

Can it be right that England voted Conservative - of the 532 seats so far contested in England the Conservatives won an absolute majority with 61 seats more than all other parties combined - but will have a government of Labour and others in part because of Scottish votes. What legitimacy can a government of this make-up have to govern England? Will this add spice to the question as to why Scottish (and Welsh MPs) can vote on legislation that affects only England, but that English MPs have no such role in voting on policy in Scotland? Why should the English have to suffer lower levels of per capita spending on health and education than the Scots but pay more per capita in taxation?

The time may have arrived for the Conservative party to accept that the Scottish and (to a lesser degree) the Welsh hate the English and only tolerate us because we subsidise their better services and state funded lifestyles. Once the Conservative party accept that then they can look at dropping the '& Unionist' part from the party title and look at home rule for the English. Yes the BBC will trot out the 'Little Englander' tag and yes it means going back on all those 'for the sake of the Union' speeches, but why should English taxpayers pay to be ruled by Celts. The Scottish electorate complained about illegitimate Conservative rule of Scotland during the last Conservative government, well 'the times they are a'changing' and the English will not be happy. This could be very fertile ground for the Conservatives, they lose one Scottish seat and eight seats in Wales but how many more might they gain from English voters sick of foreign rule?

Discrimination in the UK - against the English of course

"University Tuition Fees in Scotland are free ... if ...

... you are classed as being ordinarily resident in Scotland or another European Union (EU) country outside the UK, and are going to be studying full-time in Scotland, you will not be required to pay tuition fees. All tuition fees will be paid on your behalf by the Scottish Government through the Student Awards Agency for Scotland (SAAS). Students must apply for this funding every year.

It would appear that only the Non-Scottish Brits have to pay to attend university in Scotland. It would be hard to see how this selective pricing would be permitted anywhere else within the EU - but here in Britain this academic apartheid goes unchallenged and unscrutinised by the equality watchers."

That's what 12 years of Labour government have brought to this Country; inequality definitely, apartheid maybe.

Thanks to Mrs Rigsby for the spot.

It's a good job I am not suspicious

It's a good job I am not suspicious because if I was then this story would have me in a feverish state. Apparently:

"The SNP has called for an inquiry after it emerged marked electoral registers for the Glenrothes by-election were lost by the courts.

The registers, which are the only record of who voted in the Westminster election, must be kept for a year.

Tricia Marwick, Nationalist MSP for Central Fife, said the blunder was "beyond belief".

Labour comfortably saw off an SNP challenge to hold the Glenrothes seat, in Fife.

Fife Council said it had a receipt proving that the authority handed the electoral registers over to the sheriff clerk at Kirkcaldy.

Labour's Lindsay Roy held on to the seat with a majority of more than 6,000 in the by-election, which was held following the death of sitting MP John MacDougall.

Ms Marwick has now raised concerns that there are no records to show who voted in an election which had a much higher turnout than anticipated.

Ms Marwick called for an independent inquiry, adding: "It is almost beyond belief that a by-election which attracted media coverage throughout the UK, which delivered such a surprise result and had a much higher turnout than anticipated, now has no records to show who actually voted."

A spokesman for the Scottish Court Service said the incident was being investigated and described it as "deeply regrettable".

"Despite comprehensive searches for this document we have been unable to locate the marked register requested within Kirkcaldy Sheriff Court," said the spokesman.

"We can confirm that the sheriff clerk at Kirkcaldy Sheriff Court took receipt of these items following the Glenrothes by-election in November and that the voting papers for this election, which were deposited at the same time, are available."

Higher than expected turnout, surprise result, victory for Labour and the marked electoral registers go missing... I wonder if the high turnout was a result of postal ballots, I am sure you remember how postal ballots have been used in the past to boost votes for certain parties.

In 2007 the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe reported that:

"It is clear that the electoral system in Great Britain is open to electoral fraud. This vulnerability is mainly the result of the, rather arcane, system of voter registration without personal identifiers. It was exacerbated by the introduction of postal voting on demand [in 2001] "

Unreal

The West Lothian question has been garnering more importance as the UK becomes ever more fragmented following devolution and at the same time more and more Scots fill the Labour cabinet. So a debate hosted by the Hansard Society entitled "Is the West Lothian Question unanswerable?" seems timely. The event will be held next February but the speakers are oddly chosen :

Sir Malcolm Rifkind MP - born in Edinburgh and educated at George Watson's College and Edinburgh University

Lord Falconer of Thoroton - Educated at the Edinburgh Academy, Trinity College, Glenalmond, and Queens' College, Cambridge

In the Chair - Sheena McDonald - born in Dunfermline, Fife; graduated from the University of Edinburgh in 1976


Could an English speaker not have been found? Just as in Westminster the question is put and answered by Scots.



Thanks Waking Hereward for the tip.

Even a six year old could have got this right

How difficult do you think it is to pick four numbered balls out of a container and read the number off the ball? Not too tricky, would you let a six year old do it? Maybe even a bright three year old? How about a senior politician? No, this isn't an attack on Gordon "I did maths at school and for one year at university but I don’t think I was ever very good at it" Brown, although the person incapable of carrying out this simple task is another Scottish politician. In this case it was the Scottish Parliament presiding officer, Alex Fergusson. Apparently last week Alex Fergusson "mixed up the numbers, and miscalled the ties when the four balls were drawn. "This was a genuine error and I can only apologise for the confusion caused," said Mr Fergusson."

This story gets even more peculiar when you read that "First Minister Alex Salmond helped make the draw, televised live at lunchtime on BBC Scotland". Maybe the much vaunted Scottish education system is not all that it is cracked up to be.

The fight against Scots ruling England takes a small step forward

This Labour government has pushed legislation through the House of Commons that only affects those living in English constituencies, the matters concerned having been devolved to the Scottish Parliament (and sometimes the Welsh Assembly too), by using the large Labour majority in Scottish MPs. New proposals that have been put forward by Sir Malcolm Rifkind in a paper submitted to Ken Clarke's Democracy Taskforce would create an English Grand Committee at Westminster, open only to English MPs, where votes would be held on issues relating solely to England. This Grand Committee would sit on the floor of the House of Commons. The proposal will now be discussed by David Cameron and his advisers. I understand that the some in the Conservative and Unionist Party would see this as not very Unionist but for two reasons I believe the proposal should be accepted and formally proposed; first that if you believe the Union is important then the Union is currently at risk from the English resenting Scottish rule and this proposal should dilute that feeling, second if you believe the Union is falling apart then the electoral arithmetic is biased enough against the Conservative Party in England without them having to overcome the Scottish seat arithmetic.

The proposal is reported in today's Observer, but I still believe it to be true. In that Observer article David Cairns, the Scotland Office minister panics for (fearing the effect on Labour power) and rather ridiculously warns "the plan would have dangerous consequences. He told The Observer: 'This proposal is utterly unworkable. Taken to its logical extent it would create multiple categories of MPs. Where does it end? Do the Tories think only London MPs should vote on Crossrail, only countryside MPs vote on fox hunting, only coastal MPs vote on fishing? It is utterly impracticable.'" That is not the logical extent, that is typical Labour using ridicule when you cannot use proper argument.

One rule for Scotland, another rule for England

Free University education, free care for the elderly and now free prescriptions in Scotland. Not bad policies but when they are paid for by the UK taxpayer, which means mainly the English, well really the London and South East of England taxpayer, then I think I am allowed to feel somewhat aggrieved.