Kevin Maher of the Times ...

... Monday 30 Jan 2012, wrote ...

...... the realisation of an independent Scottish nation (What about the North Sea oil revenues? The military bases? The political transition? etc.) is actually a quasi-bureaucratic smokescreen. The fundamental truth, unpalatable to some, and certainly to Alex Salmond, is that nationalism is a meaningless ideological crutch that has little relevance to our age and to the modern global village that we inhabit. It is, in short, so yesterday’s pizza.

... he also quoted Victor Gollancz, the British publisher of George Orwell who ...

... when he wrote to his grandson in the 1950s warning him, "Nationalism — national egoism, thinking in terms of one’s nation rather than in terms of humanity — is evil because it concentrates on comparative inessentials (where a man lives, what sort of language he speaks, the type of his culture, the character of his ‘blood’) and ignores the essential, which is simply that he is a man."

When you compare current nationalist politics both north of the border, and here in Wales, with the sentiments of Gollancz, politics is full of shit ........

Salmond defends the indefensible ...

... when he suggests the UK would be maintained "after a fashion" .... "after separation".

The clown prince of politics said ...

"It is SNP policy to have the Queen as our head of state. That union, that United Kingdom if you like, would be maintained after Scottish political independence. I think that's a real stumbling block about putting forward a question of the United Kingdom."

There is no stumbling block, the Queen might chose to go with Scotland, there is no way this political poltroon can drag the Queen into his nightmarish world, she belongs elsewhere.

Asked if that meant Scotland could still be regarded as being in the UK after independence, Mr Salmond said:

"I don't think it's a very good idea to confuse the issue by talking about united kingdoms when what we're talking about is political independence."

There is no difference between his "political independence" and "separation", it is a clean break, no picking and choosing.  I think the clown prince is very confused, he seems to think the constitutional future of Britain rest with him and the remainder of the SNP circus, there is much more to Britain than this particular jock in a frock.

She's moving if the SNP win the ...

... referendum, the first of many !!!!!!!

MICHELLE MONE, one of Britain’s most successful women entrepreneurs, says she will move her lingerie empire from Scotland to England if the Scottish National party wins a referendum on independence.

The creator of the Ultimo underwear range is the first prominent Scottish business figure to announce plans to leave an independent Scotland which, she believes, would be unable to sustain itself without higher business taxes and a rising cost of living.

Mone, whose Glasgow-based company, MJM International, had a turnover of £42m last year, said independence would make her the “saddest woman ever” and claimed to know of several other high-profile entrepreneurs who would follow her lead if Scotland broke away.

“I am so passionate for Scotland but I have to say that if we do become independent, I will move. I will move my business and I will move personally . . . I love Scotland but, under independence, I would have no choice.”

She added: “I don’t think we can survive on our own and I think it would be really bad for business.”

Mone, 40 — whose push-up bras were worn by Julia Roberts in the film Erin Brockovich and who has modelled her own lingerie — also took a swipe at members of the Scottish parliament.

“Would you trust them to run Scotland as a business? No, is the answer . . . Why would you trust these guys, all they do is fight in parliament with their big egos. I would never trust any of them. It’s too much of a gamble,” she said. 

Danny Alexander, chief secretary to the Treasury, warns the public, English and Welsh taxpayers would have to bail out an independent Scotland if it went bust. He said that if Scotland maintained monetary union with the rest of Britain, the Bank of England could end up acting as its lender of last resort.

Sunday Times 29 Jan 2012.

Wee, sleekit, cowrin, tim'rous beastie,

  

O, what a panic's in thy breastie!
Thou need na start awa sae hasty,
Wi' bickering brattle!
I wad be laith to rin an' chase thee
Wi' murd'ring pattle!

I'm truly sorry man's dominion,
Has broken nature's social union,
An' justifies that ill opinion,
What makes thee startle
At me, thy poor, earth-born companion,
An' fellow-mortal!

I doubt na, whiles, but thou may thieve;
What then? poor beastie, thou maun live!
A daimen icker in a thrave
'S a sma' request;
I'll get a blessin wi' the lave,
An' never miss't!

Thy wee bit housie, too, in ruin!
It's silly wa's the win's are strewin!
An' naething, now, to big a new ane,
O' foggage green!
An' bleak December's winds ensuin,
Baith snell an' keen!

Thou saw the fields laid bare an' waste,
An' weary winter comin fast,
An' cozie here, beneath the blast,
Thou thought to dwell -
Till crash! the cruel coulter past
Out thro' thy cell.

That wee bit heap o' leaves an' stibble,
Has cost thee mony a weary nibble!
Now thou's turn'd out, for a' thy trouble,
But house or hald,
To thole the winter's sleety dribble,
An' cranreuch cauld!

But Mousie, thou art no thy lane,
In proving foresight may be vain;
The best-laid schemes o' mice an' men
Gang aft agley,
An' lea'e us nought but grief an' pain,
For promis'd joy!

Still thou art blest, compar'd wi' me;
The present only toucheth thee:
But och! I backward cast my e'e,
On prospects dreaer!
An' forward, tho' I canna see,
I guess an' fear!

... this Burns night.

Welfare, the reality that the ...

...  Bishop's of the 21^st century seem to be out of step with.

Placing a cap on benefits is not a repudiation of the founding principles of the
welfare state. The purpose of support is to foster independence

When William Beveridge wrote his famous report of 1942 that set the blueprint for what later became known as the welfare state, his founding idea was helping people back towards independence. The safety that public assistance would provide was a reward for contribution and Beveridge always envisaged welfare payments as a way of smoothing income through difficult times.

Some of the Liberal Beveridge’s modern successors, led in the House of Lords by Lord Ashdown of Norton-sub-hamdon and Lord Avebury, are opposing the proposal by Iain Duncan Smith, the Work and Pensions Secretary, to place an annual cap of £26,000 on the receipt of benefit payments. There were two important principles embedded into the Beveridge settlement: that there should be some link between what you put in and what you get out; and that welfare assistance should be a temporary expedient, actively designed to help people back into work, which ought to pay better than unemployment.

It is surely no part of the original prospectus for welfare that some families should be able to draw a household income that amounts to a salary of £35,000 before tax. To declare a limit at or about this level is an important statement of intent and an important marker about the virtue that this society values, namely work. Mr Duncan Smith has conceded that some families may have to move into smaller houses and that some children may have to share bedrooms as a result. But, at an annual income of £26,000, these families are not among the poor and local authorities will retain the obligation to house those people who struggle to find accommodation in the rental market.

None of which is to say that there are no issues that need to be addressed. A coherent system would punish feckless parents but not their unfortunate children. There will be cases of people who lose their jobs and find that the commitments entered into in more prosperous times suddenly take them over the benefit limit. Effective transition arrangements will be necessary.

There is no doubt that, in the absence of a serious strategy for regional pay, this will be more difficult to implement in London and the South East. The majority of the 67,000 unemployed families who will be affected by the imposition of a cap at £26,000 live in this region, where property prices are high. There is an issue here that is bigger than just the excessive payment of benefits. There will always be a problem with the welfare bill climbing — especially the bill for housing benefit — when the cost of housing is so high.

This structural cause needs to be addressed alongside the consequences. Unless and until the Government finds a coherent strategy to allow all regions of the country to grow — which includes pressing on with the liberalisation of the planning laws to allow the building of more houses — the cost of housing will continue to be visited on taxpayers in the form of higher welfare payments.

If the opponents of the cap were making these arguments about how the failures of the nation turn up in the welfare bill then they might carry more weight. As it is, they are simply a plea to retain a welfare system which has long since slipped clear of the intentions of its founders.

The Church of England bishops, in particular, have managed to avoid both economic reality and popular opinion at the same time. When they call on the Treasury to make a moral call they might reflect that it is also incumbent on them to make a serious economic argument. At a time of severe pressure on the public finances, the country is not engaged in a morality play but, even if it were, the bishops have got the morality call wrong.

A welfare state that works is one that encourages independence. That was Beveridge’s insight and a test that the welfare state now fails.

 The Times 24^th January 2012.

Plaid Cymru, whither or wither, ...

... Whither will they wander with Wood far to the socialist left, or Wither with Lord Dafydd Elis-Thomas much as a grape becomes shriveled, shrunken, or faded from loss of moisture, a sultana, an important ingredient; the choice for the members who will vote very soon for Plaid's leadership.

To understand the "Left of Lenin" support for Wood you need go no further than the blog of MH, his is the fertile ground for the disaffected of Wales, those unable to understand how the real world works, to whom the grass is always greener, should that be redder, on the other side of the British fence.

Flipping the coin produces the day of night and day, a person who sits firmly in the centre of political Wales, unfortunately his is at the time of life that produces the withered look, but fortunately for the membership of Plaid he offers a certain hope for the future, the cake yet to be baked despite the time it has been in the mixing bowl.

Add a little brandy, let it mature just a little while longer, Plaid not the person, this is where the future of Plaid the Party of Wales rests, not the far left lunacy of the young turks who have no memories of Socialist Europe, but as part of ............ dare I say Britain.

I considered using the expression "fruit cake" when describing the sultana and Dafydd, but the alternative meaning belongs with the supporters of Wood, the MH brigade ............ mad, strange, insane, or very silly.

Salmond needs to understand that we ...

... want British democracy to catch up with Scotland, so Devo-Max is not on the cards, all his bluster should be seen as it is, the nationalist bully boy tactics reminiscent of the playground that is his Holyrood.

Salmond is taking his campaign to end the 300-year-old union with England to London. When he delivers the Hugo Young lecture, Salmond will seek to build support for separation by claiming it would end the dispute over whether England subsidises Scotland and would also solve the West Lothian question, in which Scottish MPS at Westminster can vote on laws that apply only to England but not vice-versa. (Sunday Times 22 January 2012)

... he will argue that ending those squabbles would see England "lose a surly lodger and gain a friendly neighbour", he is wrong on two counts, it is Britain not just England, and we would lose the distraction that Scots generate and gain a bonus of £1600 per Scot that is given by Westminster annually.


The Salmond and company consultation paper will make clear that he intends to include the “devo max” option in the forthcoming referendum, giving the Scottish parliament more power were the Scots to not vote for separation, unfortunately its not his to give, it is for everyone in Britain to agree, "devo max" is for Westminster and the whole British electorate not Holyrood in pugnacious isolation.

Of course he will return to Scotland whining that the "English" are opposing "the will of the Scots people", not so Salmond, it is the will of the British peoples;  we really have had enough SNP tripe, Salmond can take his galloping self-importance back to Holyrood, I'm sure he has sufficient fans to stoke or stroke his ego.

As INDIA KNIGHT (india.knight@sunday-times.co.uk) wrote, quoting Burns Tam o' Shanter ...

...

Where sits our sulky sullen dame.

Gathering her brows like gathering storm

Nursing her wrath to keep it warm 

... which in turn reminds me of Alex Salmond, but let’s not go there, It’s a chronic social disadvantage.