Justified Spinner

Labour Tak Tent

2009-12-06T14:08:00.003Z

Or a Marquee, for that matter.
Following the Politics Show today, it turns out that for several years now, the Prestonpans Labour Club has been getting free use of the Council's marquee, for the princely sum of precisely zip.

Two problems with this;
1. It's agin the rules.
2. The profit (as I indicated earlier) seems to have slithered its way into election funds, notably those of Iain Gray.

Simple answer here; repay the profits to the Council - goodness knows it needs the cash following Alistair Darling's cuts.
That's the easy bit.
The toughie here is how East Lothian Labour can rebuild what remains of their reputation.

Cash Snaffling in East Lothian

2009-12-06T10:05:00.005Z

Sulum diligo a sceptrum effrego,
or, 'everyone loves a baddie'.

This must be the principal that East Lothian Labour Party mistakenly take as their credo.
How else can we view the latest news that the Council has been milked by the Labour Party, over the past few years.

This has been used to help fund Prestonpans Labour Party's annual barbecue, profits from which have gone to Iain Gray's election funds.

I understand that a former Labour Councillor claims that it's ok for Labour to use council resources because Labour is (and I quote) the 'people's party'.
What on earth are these guys on?

Gray's Theorem, or, The Identification of a Need Creates the Finance to Meet It.

2009-11-02T13:56:00.007Z

A few years ago, Wendy Alexander marched into a meeting of telecomms providers in Scotland, and stated that they should be able to cable the Highlands for £5m.

Given that the cost per metre for cabling broadband links was in the region of £130, there was a lengthy pause in the proceedings, whilst everyone tried to find a way of explaining to Wendy that her decimal points were in the wrong place.

Now Wendy meant well; her heart was indeed in the Hielans, it's just a pity her head was otherwise engaged.

Now, in the middle of a financial bollocks which was overseen in large part by his own Labour chums in Westminster, we get Iain Gray demanding that everyone in Scotland gets a broadband service delivery guarantee.
No mention, you'll note, of cost.

Indeed, Iain seems to have an imperfect grasp of the constitutional situation.
He indicates that telecomms should be viewed as a necessary utility, along with gas and electricity.
Both of the latter are reserved to London, Iain.
Where the money is.
Broadband is devolved to Scotland, where the money isn't.
In fact, the money isn't here to the tune of £1bn over the next two years.

I hope the sunsets are pretty on the planet that Iain is currently inhabiting, but maybe he could indicate what services should be chopped to make way for his latest piece of rhetoric.

The Anaconda Principle

2009-11-01T13:56:00.003Z

Fans of that glorious piece of cinematographic hokum "Anaconda" will be familiar with the legendary scene in which the titular hero, having devoured Jon Voight whole, regurgitates him to make room for a more toothsome ScoobySnack, namely Jennifer Lopez. (see right for the ins and outs of the process).
And who could possibly blame it.
Now, Anacondas do not, in real life, have the ability to choose between meals on the basis of the victim's acting abilities or sartorial attractiveness; rather, they regurgitate nosh when they are in danger, and need to scarper sharpish.

So it is (thanks for bearing with me on this by the way) with the Lloyds Banking Group.

Following the incredible carve up of the HBOS group when it was sold on the cheap to Lloyds, the EU competition watchdog has cried "enough, Lloyds. Ye have now got your mitts on way too many Scottish high street outlets, it's time to flog a few of them".
So, ironically, Lloyds is being forced to sell off its TSB branches.

You remember the Trustee Savings Bank, of course.
It was a Scottish bank, ostensibly in the control of its' members, until that is it merged with Lloyds in 1995, following a high court decision that the members didn't really count that much after all.

The EU decision is indeed a handy one for Lloyds, as, having bought HBOS for £12bn in the recent fire sale, they got themselves deep in the gumbo due to the Halifax's debt mountain.

Hence the forced sale, and the regurgitation of the previously immolated TSB, followed by the sight of Lloyds wriggling disconsolately off into the undergrowth.

Sometimes nature's ways are the best, after all.

Al-Megrahi Fails to Croak - "Scotsman" Demands Explanation.

2009-10-24T09:49:00.003+01:00

One of the greatest hostages to fortune that a human can utter is;
"they can't sink lower than this, can they?"

Unfortunately, the 'Scotsman' newspaper(!) seems determined to explore strange new boundaries of bad taste with alarming frequency.

And so it is, today, with Tom Peterkin's article on al-Megrahi, who it seems has had the temerity, nay the sheer damned insolence and lousy breeding, not to die according to some timetable which Peterkin has previously arranged.

I hope that al-Megrahi, through the mist of pain killing drugs which he is probably full of at the moment, experiences a sense of real shame in this regard, and promises never to offend the 'Scotsman' again by failing to meet a deadline (definitely no pun intended).

It's Time.... For Negative Campaigning...... Is It?

2009-10-20T15:06:00.003+01:00

At the Donaldson Lecture at National Conference, Gordon Wilson urged that negative campaigning is an option to be considered by the SNP in the forthcoming campaign.

This resonates with a chat I had after a fringe meeting with no less an august beastie than Prof John Curtice of the Yoonie of Strathclyde, on the topic of what defined negativity in political argument.

The prof and I performed a less than elegant quadrille around each other until we managed to agree on a definition of terms.

My contention, which had originally escaped him, was that personal abuse is wrong; that it is quite acceptable to criticise an opponent's policies and voting record, as long as you put forward your alternative; but that the best way to campaign was to punch your message, your achievements, hard, to offset negativity from your opponents.
His view was that negative campaigning began with criticism of an opponent's policies.
Quite wrong, in my view; to refute an opponent's point, you first acknowledge it, then you rebut; then you provide an alternative. That's not negative; it's positive, but it seems that rebuttal, for Professor Curtice, is negative, and therefore taints the dialectic; world without end, amen.

In 2007, I lost count of the number of people who said that they were sick of politicians slinging mud at each other (mud wasn't generally speaking the word they used, but you get the drift).
So, we went 'positive', increased our vote by 90%, came from 4th to second, and turned Iain Gray's seat into a marginal.
Now, you could argue that if I'd been wholly negative, we might have done better, but all the evidence I have points to the converse.

So, I won't be following Gordon Wilson's advice; Number 10 is indeed unscrupulous, but Labour's tactics in Glenrothes are not worthy of duplication.

SU No More

2009-10-18T21:27:00.000+01:00

Well, he's aff, it seems.
Now, given that I've had a well documented spat with the lad in the past, in which I didn't perform at all well, you might expect that I'd be, well, pleased, that such a committed unionist blogger is no more.

Well, not exactly.
You see, whilst I viewed his ability to quote selectively and argue in an intelligent if virulent manner as being occasionally repellent, I can sympathise with his desire to expand his horizons.

Let's face it, one and all, the blogosphere is a weird place, and it can get very unpleasant indeed if you decide to adopt an aggressive and provocative tone.
So, I suppose it wears you down eventually, and when that happens it's good to take a break.

The one thing I have to say I really objected to about SU was his anonymity.
If you're going to be so contentious as to provoke threats from the loonier bloggers, then you should perhaps review whether it's really bright to deliberately provoke these reactions.

For me, his anonymity undermined the effects of his often intelligent (if infuriating) posts.
It isn't admirable in my view to insult people, whilst hiding from accountability.

A bit more openness and a bit less hatred (yes, yes, I know there are some strange creatures on the Nationalist fringes as well) would have done him no harm, and improved his credibility beyond belief.

Still and all, I wish him and his family all the best, and we should all remember this;
When you lose the ability to laugh in politics, it's time to get out of Dodge.

Wrong Reason, David.

2009-10-13T08:28:00.004+01:00

David Miliband has come out to state that "British interests would have been harmed, perhaps badly" if Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi had been allowed to die in a Scottish jail.
Of course we know that it's a nasty old world, but this is pretty cynical even by Westminster's elevated standards.
Nothing, you'll note, of humanity; just hard cash.
Nice.

Then of course in the Commons, the tame trolls were let loose.
It was still, evidently, the SNP's fault that he was released, and it was still, evidently the wrong decision.
Go figure that piece of double standards.

Pride of place goes to Malcolm Rifkind, a man of intellect and humanity, which is now tarnished by his statement that as al-Megrahi had served only 7 years of a 27 year sentence, and that the Scottish government was culpable for this.
This laddie misses the point; al-Megrahi is dying, so will not serve much more time on this planet, let alone in jail or Libya.

What was the Scottish government meant to do?
Keep Megrahi's corpse in its' cell for the full term?
Perhaps to placate the nuttier fringe we could have his body enclosed in a steel cage and left above the doors of Edinburgh Castle to rot?

But I happen to think that this gives Iain Gray a rather red face.

After all, he wanted al-Megrahi to stay in jail.
Easy to say when you don't have to take the responsibility of actually making it happen, but how many people really think al-Megrahi would have been released had he been First Minister, and subject to the influence (to be polite) of his political bosses in London?

The Scottish Government made the right decision, for the right reasons.
Strong stuff.

Vote SNP, Get .....

2009-10-12T14:35:00.004+01:00

Labour's latest marketing masterplan.
It's a slogan, which really gets to the nub of the their mentality.
After 12 years of government they're reduced to the standard Labour issue strain of dialectic.
No achievements, no great pronouncements, just the usual negative stuff.
Now, no one wants (well, I don't, anyway) a Tory government, purely on gut instinct grounds, but really couldn't Labour have done better than this tripe.

Not, I think, that this credo will have much mileage in good old East Lothian.
Given that our Tory amigos are flatlining here, the propositions are simple:

Vote SNP, get me! - Actually that sounds a little camp, maybe I should rephrase that one.
Vote Tory, Get Labour.
Vote LibDem, Get Labour.
Vote Labour, Get Anne Moffat.

Now, as an alternative, how about...
Vote Labour, get an NHS ..... no, for some reason that didn't get the vote.
Vote Labour, get a peaceful and moral foreign policy.... heh heh, stop it, it tickles!
Vot Labour, get a strong pension system....... I think I've just sprung a rib, stop! Ooops nope, I've just lost my retirement fund to Gordy's raid on pensions.
Vote Labour, get a strong econom...... uh huh, right.

Perhaps, "Vote Labour, Because We're Desperate and Clueless" should be considered; it at least has the ring of truth about it.

It's Getting Weird.....

2009-10-09T13:07:00.017+01:00

in East Lothian.
But hey, what's new?
Memorably described once as the 'Twin Peaks' of Scottish politics, my stamping ground is starting to ramp up for the General Election.
But, in a very East Lothian Labour sort of way.

Ex Labour Councillor Robert McNeill, and son of current Labour Councillor Jim Gillies, have suggested to me, via the local 'letters' pages, that I should stop attacking local MSP Iain Gray.
Fine, but they also suggest that I should focus more on the Westminster debate.

Now, firstly, they're speaking tosh.
I'll have a pop at any Labour elected representative, without bias, fear or favour.
Because I, at heart, am a democrat, and I treat all opponents equally .
So, I've been examining in some detail the record of our MP, ane Anne Moffat.
And not in a very supportive way, because she's been getting a fair amount of things wrong.

Secondly, and I've put some thought into this:
"WHIT?"
Since when did Labour support an MP by sicking the nasty Nat on her?

Now, this ties back to some interesting history.
As we know, Anne had a slight trial getting renominated for East Lothian.
Half the branches didn't want her, but the unions did.
So here she sits.

But there's a fair amount of activist opposition, and not a few weeks ago, one of the above correspondents bewailed the lack of an 'independent' candidate for the seat.
He didnae mention Anne in this regard, by the way.
Oh no.

But now, he and a currently available ex Labour Cooncillurrr are singing in close harmony about the need for the SNP to attack Anne.

Hmmmm.
Now, cynical old me, but..... are we seeing the next instalment of a nasty wee local war here?

I swear, it's enough to drive a PPC mad.
What's a boy to do?
Well, nothing actually. Labour seem to be doing it for me pretty well at the moment.

In the interests of fraternal and sororial (I think that's the word) harmony, maybe Iain Gray and Anne should get together to discuss this unfortunate misunderstanding, and Iain can assure Anne that in no way is he trying to get rid.... of .... ooooh .......... hmmmmmm.

Anyway, moving along.

They're also getting a bit p**sed off at me because I have this unpleasant habit of referring to opinion polls and Euro election results (we won, by the by) which show that we can win the seat here.
(Whoops, there I go again)>>>>>>>>>>>>

and again.

It's gonna get ugly, I think.

Alive and Kicking

2009-09-16T15:29:00.004+01:00

Right, back again.

But perhaps not for too long; we'll see.
Now, explanations.

I got scunnered with blogging for a while - it has this tendency to take over your life a little, and if the events of the past few months have proved anything, life is far too short to fart about on a blog.
So, after I stopped blogging, work took it's course, and then things went to hell in a handbasket.

Into hospital for a keyhole op; artery got damaged, and i came within a few minutes of bleeding to death (it's true, by the way, when you're on the way out with blood loss you just feel amazingly warm, comfy and drowsy). So, a nurse happened along, hit the crash team alert, and next thing I'm surrounded by nurses (nice) and rather serious looking doctors (uh-oh) who are resuscitating me and getting me down to the OR sharpish.
Last time i looked (when they were putting a 6 inch tube down my jugular - fun, you should try it, heh!) BP was 57 over 35 and pulse at 162.
Impressive, but not good.

......... anyway, they saved me, which was good.
In fact, the docs and nurses in SRI were just amazing, and the level of care was truly moving.
And 11 days later i got the staples out of my tum and was left with a most dashing 15" scar.
Quite proud of that, I was.
Then I had 3 months to recuperate, and here we are.

So, what's the agenda going to be?
Well, in the last few weeks I've been eyeing the blog scene.
It's either not very nice, or a bit flat, so in the first instance I'm going to confine myself to very occasional posts.

Bear with me, and we'll see how it goes.

Best as ever

andy

Time, Gentlemen, Please!

2009-05-22T14:29:00.002+01:00

Well, I think I'll be calling a halt to the blog.
Haven't been able to find time to update at all for a couple of months, and East Lothian's taking up all of my time at the moment.
So, at least for the foreseeable future, it's hail and farewell.
Thanks to all of you who've commented (both nice and nasty), and for all who've spent a few seconds mulling over my (at times very) random thoughts.

All the best, ladies and gents, and happy blogging.

Andy

Credit Driven Recession – No Probs, Let’s Spend More on the Never Never

2009-03-16T08:37:00.003Z

According to government figures, we’re soon going to be repaying a total of £30bn on PFI payments to private industry.

This equates to around £1bn a year for the next 30 years.

By that time, many of the schools, hospitals, built under PFI will be starting to crumble, if they aren’t out of date; needing expansion, law driven alterations, etc..

And in the midst of this, we have the opposition parties (specifically Labour) demanding more expenditure.

How much more, is the question.

Following the first failed budget vote, David Whitton, in a fine fury, berated the government for not taking on board Labour’s 15 point plan for recovery.

When asked what Labour plans would cost, he replied (on Radio Scotland) “dunno, but the SNP government should do it anyway”.

Well, according to one source not so long ago, Labour demands equated to around £4.5bn per annum.

Given that the Scottish budget is wound so tight that if it farted, the sound would be audible only to dogs, you’ve got to suspect that Labour’s demands are simply untenable.

We even had Iain Gray claiming that the government had accepted and adopted Labour’s economic plan, and that they’d accepted Labour’s plans for apprenticeships. (Wrong, they’d done nothing of the sort).

What Labour quite deliberately ignores here is that, if the chancellor, whose bags Iain Gray used to carry in Whitehall, is cutting our block grant, then these demands will be impossible to countenance.

Attendances Plummet as Quality Declines

2009-03-16T08:26:00.007Z

Nope, not the SPL, but the recent Labour and Liberal Conferences, in Dundee and Perth respectively.

In the Caird Hall, with a capacity of 3000 (optimism? Look under Scottish Labour), the black curtains were out in force halfway up the hall to disguise the fact that at most 400-500 souls turned up for the big speeches.

Even at that, around 20% of the seats were empty to listen to Iain’s sermon on the iniquities of the SNP.

(In case you’re interested – approximate figures during the speech were;

new policies – Zero.

Mentions of Labour – 22

Mentions of SNP - 21

Gordon Brown – 2

Salmond - 14)

And as usual the whole thing turned into an Orwellian “two days of hate” event in which successive keynote speakers vied with each other to slag off the government.

Not very different, in fact, to the LibDems, who kicked off with mad Ming the Mollickator in full Rule Britannia patrician mode, as, with serene and noble brow, he put in his plagiarised and unoriginal ha’pence worth.

But back to attendances.

Observing the clusters of activists in Perth, I was reminded of a pastiche of a ‘red nose day’ event on ‘Dropping the Dead Donkey’ where a shot of a reported surrounded by a crowd of happy party freaks, pulled back to reveal that there were only ten people in the room.

Perth Concert Hall was as empty as a Bernard Manning Concert at Edinburgh Uny Gay Soc, with only the very front stalls inhabited, and probably only a third to half full at that.

What do these attendances tell us?

Well, it looks like the MPs, MSPs, MEPs are on a three line whip to turn up at these things, as usual.

More importantly, as conference is meant to be a policy forum, why did so few Labour and LibDem members and activists simply deem it unnecessary to turn up?

Are they truly so committed to saving the environment that a collective decision to minimise transport driven carbon emissions persuaded them all to stay at home and watch Randolph Scott westerns on BBC 2?

This is unlikely.

I wonder if it’s not the case that many of them are simply so familiar with the script – namely “don’t bother about policy, let’s slag off the Nats” that they just got bored at the prospect.

I had to grin at Tavish on a couple of occasions, though.

Evidently the SNP government has accepted the LibDems economic policies in full.

Unfortunately, Iain Gray thinks the same thing about Labour policies, and neither of them appear right.

And, of course, the reference to the ‘chaotic transport policy’ of the government was worth the admission fee alone.

Can it be that he Tavish referring to the cut of 50% in Forth Bridge costs, when the Libbys wanted to pay full whack?

Chaos indeed.

Or maybe, he’s talking about the Edinburgh Trams Scheme, the brainchild of one Tavish Scott, when he was a minister, and which is now in chaos, and is gridlocking Edinburgh streets daily, and destroying businesses throughout the centre of the city.

Now, to be fair, conferences are NOT the places to go if you want to hear detailed and forensic analysis from opposition parties.

It just seems a shame that both Labour and the Libbys have made negativism such a shibboleth that they’re even starting to drive away their own supporters.

Alcohol Abuse Legislation 0, Political Posturing 1.

2009-03-11T07:52:00.003Z

This is the pits.
It really is.

Comes the news in the 'NorthBriton' today that the opposition parties in the Holyrood business bureau have insisted that the plan for minimum pricing on alcohol is to be put back one year.

Evidently, the government's plan to push this through as part of the 2005 Licensing Act has miffed the oppo parties, who had relished the opportunity for a bit of showboating.

So, they are forcing that this measure go through as primary legislation, which delays the whole shebang and they get to say their piece.

In the meantime, the boozing, the drink fuelled violence, the abuse, the drunkenness in the streets - why, that goes on as before.

Mike Rumbles lets the cat well and truly out of the bag with his fatuous remarks, which show exactly where his priorities lie.
"It is ironic that it is Scottish Nationalists that are wilfully disregarding our national parliament and a key national industry".

At least Labour's Michael McMahon seems to approve of the planned measures, but still cannot bring himself to support the SNP.

The Tories have little to say, but at least the CBI, the Wine and Trade Association, Scottish Retail Consortium, and the Scottish Whisky Association have got exactly what they wanted from the unionist group at Holyrood.

Last weekend Iain Gray was prattling about his vision for a 'better Scotland'.
What's the betting that, having blocked this measure, he starts ranting about the lack of legislation on alcohol in a few weeks.

If you get the impression that I'm a bit irritated by this, you'd be right.
It really and truly defies belief that this pathetic dog in the manger posturing by the opposition parties will result in more disrupted and chaotic lives in Scotland.

Again, as many times before, these charmers are putting their political egos ahead of the security, and health, of members of the public.

Iain's Speech

2009-03-07T15:54:00.002Z

Watched Iain Gray's speech today.

Ah, me.

Extra Lanes Needed on Road to Damascus

2009-03-07T11:09:00.002Z

Wonderful stuff this week, as Labour's Iain Gray flips elegantly into a posture of supporting more powers for Holyrood.
So does Gordon Brown, amazingly enough. (and really, what a contrast with his views of just a few months ago).
Recently, the Liberals have come up with the same scheme, only more so.
The only bunch amongst the opposition parties who seem to be sticking to their guns, is the Tories.

The Calman Commission, having come out initially against any increase in powers for Holyrood, is now probably going to be manoeuvred into supporting the Labour line.

Why the change?
Why are the two largest opposition parties in Holyrood now supporting more powers, and fiscal ones at that, for the Scottish government?

Reason 1. It's a crude attempt to nick the breeks from the SNP, who they are making absolutely no impression on at the moment.
Reason 2. It's a way to get rid of Barnett, and placate the neanderthal fringe in the London media and politcal circus.
Reason 3. It's panic stations, and they're buying time through concessions.

The end result is that it's looking more and more likely that Scotland is on it's way to de facto autonomy.

Keep it up, my wee Unionist chums.
You're doing just fine.

If You've QUITE finished, Can We Now Get Back to Governing, Mr Scott?

2009-03-07T10:38:00.006Z

It's not surprising that some people get cynical about politicians and their hangers on, when we look at a couple of recent events in the Scottish Parly.

A few months ago, we had the stushie over the Trump golf resort. The opposition parties, led by the LibDems, had it that there had been nasty work at the crossroads over the planning approvals.

In the event, it was a non-event, and the government was cleared. And a £1bn resort was approved.

Now, we have yet another waste of time and money, gratis the Liberals, following a report by Messrs Reid and Steel that totally cleared Alex Salmond, who did not, in fact, mislead parliament over funding for the Scottish Inter Faith Council.

In fact, the enquiry found that the ex convener of SIFC, Major Alan Dixon, had in fact been given, and had accepted, assurances from the government prior to the parliamentary question being asked.

So when the Eckmeister got on his pins and confirmed that the funding issue for SIFC had been resolved, he was telling no more than the truth.

This has been accepted, with the grace and wit we have come to expect, by Tavish Scott, who made the accusation in the first place.

But I have to ask - what was the SIFC up to, when (and I quote) "Some members of the Executive Committee chose to issue comments and briefings to people outside the decision-making process that were completely at odds with the understanding of the Scottish Government and the indications the SIFC had given to both the minister and government officials."

The upshot of this truly dumb waste of time, is that Tavish has yet again been pinned on trying to score unsubstantiated and ill founded political points scoring, and that Alan Dixon and the executive of the SIFC should have serious questions to answer.
Which of course they won't.

If this was the SIFC's idea of skilfull brinkmanship, I can only say that I would welcome a game of poker with them at a time of their choosing.

Gall and Bile No More

2009-03-02T16:45:00.002Z

Been out of commission for a week, unavoidably, having enjoyed a 3am ride to hospital courtesy of our ambulance service.
The diagnosis matched the ride.

It's gallbladder removal time in about three months, chaps.

It seems that all those years of typical Scottish dieting have have their effect, in turning my previously svelte form into a rather more rotund version, culminating in the painful discovery of gallstones in the body Sharp.

After a week in Stirling Royal Infirmary (wards 24 and 25, and thanks to all staff, who were outstanding), I'm now on a low fat diet which chops out pretty much every foodstuff which makes life worth living.
Jesus, it's hellish.
No cheese, chocolate, curry, anything with fat, eggs, salami, garlic sausage - you name it, it's gone.

And the sodding antibiotics mean that I'm a beer free zone for the foreseeable.

Still, it's preferable to a re-run of last Monday night, which was foul in the extreme, and which I would wish not even upon Fred the Shred.

Maybe.

Still, enough of my hypochondiasis.
This is to tell you that I'll be blogging again soon, so see you then.

Yours,
Smiling thru' the tears
andy

The Consequences of Political Grandstanding

2009-02-22T13:32:00.003Z

Ah me, the triumphalist crowing of the opposition parties last year, as they forced through the Edinburgh trams project, was something to hear.

Tavish Scott, now leader of the LibDems, was in full pants wetting mode, and the other parties were similarly excited as they forced the first parliamentary defeat on the Scottish government.

Damage limitation ensued from the government, on a project which had not been fully planned or costed, and the budget was set at just over £500m.

Now of course we have the main contractor for this phase, namely Bilfinger Berger, turning around two days before work is due to begin, and demanding up to £80m more funding.

This is curiously close to the sum they lost recently on a Norwegian project, but the really important aspect of this is the sheer immorality of their actions.

To turn around and try to force additional payment for services, when the customer is already committed to expensive preparatory work, is unsupportable.

I watched the Politics Show today, and was horrified to see the numbers of people shopping in Princes St on Saturday, following the road closures.
The place was deserted, and if the road is to be closed until November, well, God help the businesses in Scotland's prime shopping street.
It would spell financial catastrophe for the area, to say nothing for the livelihood of the capital's pickpockets (see right)

One point which always struck me as strange was that, despite the great claims for utility being made for the route, there would be only one stop in Princes Street, putatively at the foot of the mound.
OK, there will be stops in Shandwick Place and St Andrews Square... but one stop seems just a little miserly, no?
Especially when compared to the numbers of bus stops already there.

This project has been ill conceived from the start.
Expensive, pandering to political points scoring, and delivering questionable value for money to the area.

And now, Bilfinger Berger appear to be trying to take TIE for a ride.
In the process, they are also making the opposition parties look like prize mugs.

My own view on this is simple.
Fill in the holes, resurface the roads, and tell these chancers to hop it sharpish.

Oh yes, and whenever the LibDems start dreaming up notions for their pet projects, send them off to the sandpit to play with their toy trains.

The Cyclical Nature of Scaremongering.

2009-02-15T21:19:00.004Z

A few years ago, Unionist hysterics were happy to advise us that an independent Scotland would erect border posts between an independent Scotland and England - a bad thing.

Now, thanks to the Sunday Times we are fed the latest Labour line that, come 2014, an independent UK government would evidently do the same to an independent Scotland.

That's right, the English government of the time would erect border posts between England and Scotland.
Evidently this is no longer something to condemn, as it would have been if initiated by the SNP, but simply a threat which will be imposed should Scotland vote for independence.
In short, a naked and cynical piece of scaremongering.

This is the latest piece of nonsensical puff to emanate from Paranoia Central, aka Labour Party HQ.
Apparently, this policy would result from "the open doors policy that the SNP would have for asylum seekers".

John Curtice, who should know better than to get involved in this tripe, states that “Just as in the case of Ireland, it seems we can no longer presume that the government in London would be willing to dispense with passport controls. The stakes in the independence debate have been significantly raised".
I wonder what he means.
I have travelled between Northern Ireland and the Republic many times, and have never been stopped for passport checks once, possibly because there are no passport controls.

This garbage is just another re-hash of the old, vacuous scare story we've been fed over the past three decades, but this time, it's London which is threatening to impose border guards.

If London is going to impose passport controls, does it not say everything about the narrow and petty parochialism which they would espouse, rather than the open frontiers policy which an independent Scotland, as part of the EU would follow.

Folding Under Pressure - A Guide for the Labour Leader

2009-02-15T10:51:00.004Z

The evidence of last week's FMQs indicates that Iain Gray may well have a fascination with working with paper.

However, his first efforts at Origami were less than successful, possibly because he failed to grasp the salient fact that Origami is in fact about paper folding, rather than just ripping it up and hoping for the best.

So, not ideal, and I would caution him against confusing the easily won and rather obsequious applause of the foolish Rhona Brankin, with a true evaluation of his talents in this regard.

So, to help him fully engage with what may be prove to be a fruitful and enjoyable pastime, I attach a link to the site of an expert in the art, hoping that it will fulfill a certain need in the Labour leader.
To get him started, here's how to do a hummingbird, from a chap called Colin Webber.

Sympathy for the Devil?

2009-02-14T10:35:00.002Z

When will these guys ever learn?

RBOS was brought to its knees by an overbearing clown who bullied his board into paying massively over the odds for ABN Amro, a bank so stuffed with bad debt that it was almost guaranteed to bring down any buyer.

Then we get this;

Lloyds TSB finds that even ‘bargains of the century’ can turn bad, as the debt of HBOS spirals to £10bn.

The upshot is that Lloyds, having lost one third of their share value in one day, is now primed for nationalisation.

It should be clear by now, in the current financial crisis, brought largely on themselves, that there is no such thing as a good deal in banking.

Alistair Darling was on TV last night.

He looked like a man on the cusp of panic, hanging on by a thread.

Brown, appearing before committee at Westminster, looked exhausted, shattered.

Or could it have been guilt?

Looking back, was it wise of Brown to give Victor Blank of Lloyds the nod to go for an HBOS takeover, as it was clear that the Halifax debt was dragging the group down, and would jeopardise the Lloyds share values.

The Lloyds shareholders certainly didn’t like it.

Was it wise to over-ride the competition rules, and allow Lloyds to snaffle HBOS?

Was it particularly bright to actively discourage other white knights such as the Bank of China, who would have at least saved most branch jobs at HBOS, unlike Lloyds who already have a high street network of branches.

Was it really smart for the government and Lloyds to lay themselves open to charges of asset stripping HBOS for the personal gain of Lloyds and the political gain of Labour?

Maybe Lloyds felt they were big enough to exploit the market, and buy up weakened competitors.

They were utterly wrong, and Victor Blank should now, as the architect of this, be considering his position.

So, for that matter, should Brown and Darling, who, as the gatekeepers of this deal, are culpable.

The only people I have sympathy for in this are Lloyds shareholders, and HBOS and Lloyds employees.

As usual, it’s the ordinary people who pay when the mandarins screw up.

Shredding Paper - Labour's Guide to Government

2009-02-12T22:17:00.004Z

Today, at FMQs, Iain Gray decided on the grand gesture, and .... tore up the SNP manifesto.

Iain's credentials to political maturity were not best served by this rather infantile piece of grandstanding.

But, nothing new there, as Calum Cashley indicated earlier.
Iain did precisely the same with the manifesto that lost Labour the last Scottish election, although presumably he intends to replace the Labour manifesto with something or other in the future.

Possibly a policy or two, who knows, although we'll have to wait two years to get their alternative plan for the Council Tax.
A test of faith indeed for the Labour back benches.

I can't help wondering who's going to come out better from this.
Is it:
1. A Labour opposition which delights in prevention of government policy, even if it costs money for most people in our society.

Or:
2. Swinney's tough, painful, and politically difficult decision, taken for reasons of pragmatism in the face of obduracy from Iain Gray's lords and masters in London.

OK, I'm biased.
It's what comes with the territory when you're a candidate; but is this really what Holyrood's Labour elite is all about?

Waiting for their lords and masters in London to sabotage (£1bn of cuts over the next 2 years, thanks in large part to the incompetence of Brown and Darling) the Scottish block grant, then gloating about it, with not a thought for those in our society who will suffer as a result.

They followed a similar destructive course over the budget, before their self interest circuits activated, and they realised their folly, and backed off sharpish.

And now, it's a puerile display which might get their tame researchers jumping up and down, but which will have little effect on public opinion.

Will this bite?
Unlikely; the Council Tax freeze remains.
People will be not one penny worse off.

So, it's yet another example of Labour mistaking Holyrood for everyday reality.

In the interim, the Scottish government is just going to get on with the job.
By the by, notice how cash for the NHS went up the other day?

Labour wouldn't have put in a single penny of that, had they been re-elected.
It was in the manifesto that Iain tore up - the Labour one, that is.

Interesting priorities indeed.

LIT Chilled, Council Tax Frozen, Labour Overheated.

2009-02-11T21:16:00.003Z

So the Local Income Tax is postponed.

And up to 2011, Council Tax will be frozen, for a total of 4 years in all.

To no one's surprise, this has got the opposition parties very excited, none more so than the normally calm (at least when he hasn't got the scent of a no confidence motion and the First Minister's job in his nostrils) Iain Gray.

Let's summarise, shall we?

Yep, LIT was a core aim in our manifesto.
No argument there.

We're a minority government, so we'd have needed support to get it through.
Again, no argument.

And now we've dropped it.
True.

So you can see why the more obtuse of the opposition parties might get a little aerated about this.
But in doing so, they miss several salient points.

The plan to get the LIT properly funded was based on the Treasury's handing over £400m of tax credits.
The Labour Chancellor said naw.

Again, with £500bn of cuts in the block grant next year and the year after, it's going to be very tight, and our hands will be quite full enough trying to mitigate the incompetence of Brown and Darling.

Finally, could the SNP have got the requisite support in the Parly to push this through.
It seems that the answer to this might well have been 'no'.

So, the responsible and painful thing has been done.
Further, no one's going to be any worse off than they are at the moment, because the Council Tax will be frozen.
So, no problem there, except for the standard political points scoring, of which we will doubtless have an ample sufficiency in the near future.

It would be illuminating, however, to look at Labour's position on this.

Iain Gray accuses Salmond as having lost credibility.
(I think that, coming from a supporter of the Prime Minister, he might want to cast an eye over the broken promise of an EU referendum before going any further down that route.)

How, because as a minority government, suffering cuts due to the incompetence of Labour's UK government, we have to postpone a measure?

This is indicative of the fact that Iain is still living in some archaic past when proportional representation was nothing more than a gleam in the eye of the body politic.

The fact of the matter is, that if a minority government can't get the support of the wildly varying interests in the opposition parties, then these parties may well take the negative way out (as we saw in the first budget vote) and vote the measure down.
As it stands, Labour and the Tories are opposed to the LIT.
They don't know what they want, but they know what they don't want.
The Greens don't like it, and neither does Margo.
The SNP and the Libs are for it, but it isn't enough to carry the day, so would it really be a mature thing to put it to debate and the vote if it was a sure loser?

Iain stated tonight that Labour has a group 'working' on their alternative to the Council Tax.
But that we're going to have to wait until 2011 to hear what it is.
That's two years of meetings and doing nothing, whilst we're at least freezing the Tax.
I wonder if Iain really thinks that this is a responsible approach from his party.

Finally, I understand that Labour has come out tonight and advised without a hint of irony, that this is "no time for amateurs."
A pity they didn't take their own advice two weeks ago when they voted down a £33bn budget to prove a point, then turned chicken at the last moment.

If the comments from Labour tonight prove one thing, it is that, at an almost molecular level, they are incapable of escaping their negative and adversarial approach.

If the announcement by John Swinney proves anything, it is that we have a government of pragmatic realists who don't let dogma get in the way of the common good.