Why Corbynmania is an independence killer

I and some NO-voter friends gathered to watch live the Labour leadership result. What struck me most was the sudden wave of joy that convulsed one of my NO-voter friends. He explained:

"All during the independence referendum, there was this whole atmosphere of joy and optimism but I couldn't get involved in that because I saw myself as British. Now I've got something I can join in, something happy that I can be a part of!"

He then thumped the air, waving his beer about (yes, it was early but any excuse to hold a party - and it was a Saturday), a look of such happy excitement on his face it was as if he'd just ate a bucket of magic mushrooms and was now out-happying the YES movement at its referendum height.

And this is the biggest danger Corbyn represents to the SNP - he offers a message of hope to those who see themselves as British but hate the Tories. If they just hold on, Corbyn will become Prime Minister and fix all that's wrong with Britain.

If we were hoping that five more years of Tory rule would be enough to convince NO voters to back independence, that hope has gone. Even if Trident is not being debated at the Labour party conference, even if some of his policies are being modified, the wave of hope he's generated is not going away.

I like to tell my NO-voting friends that they voted for the Westminster system and that, since that system includes periods of Tory rule, then their NO vote was a vote for periods of Tory rule. They get rather angry when I point that out to them.

Now, it has less impact. Corbyn is going to save them, thus justifying their NO vote. Unless Corbyn gets defeated - either by party coup or at a general election - we'll have little chance of moving NO voters to the YES side.

Sadly, Corbynmania is an independence killer.

Why a vote for the Union is a vote for the Tories

There are some strangely-informed NO voters that claim they did not vote for the Tories to be in power. Of course, they couldn't be more wrong.

During the referendum, we were asked to choose between two systems: the new Scottish independence system or the existing Union system. We weren't asked to pick and choose from the various components that make up each system. Even if there were bits of the system you didn't like, you still only had the option of choosing one system or the other.

That is, a vote for the system is a vote for each component of the system.

For me, I'd have preferred independence to mean Scotland would have its own currency and an elected head of state. But I didn't have the option of choosing what components went into the system - all I could do was choose the entire system, warts and all.

So too for the Unionists. Some Unionists might hate the Tories but the Union system is that Westminster alternates between periods of Tory and Labour rule and has done so since 1924. If you voted NO, then you voted for every single part of the Union system to continue. That is, you voted for the Union, warts and all.

For many, the Tories are the warts of the Union. But for the NO-voting Unionists, they must have come to the conclusion that even Tory rule within the Union was better than becoming bankrupt under independence.

By voting for the Union system, you voted for all of the system. That is, you voted for periods of Tory rule at Westminster.

If you voted NO, you really did vote for the Tories.

Why is the BBC manufacturing computers?

I pay my licence fee and I expect to get broadcast television - that is what the licence fee is for. It's a bit like going to a cafe and paying for a bacon roll & coffee and receiving exactly that.

But the BBC is not like a cafe. Ask for a breakfast and they'd likely come back with a breakfast plus a doctor to give you free nutritional advice then manufacture their own vegan sausages.

This may sound daft but that is, in essence, what the BBC does. As part of the BBC's Make It Digital initiative for all of 2015, every Year 7 schoolchild in the UK is to receive a free Micro Bit computer. That is, about one million 11- and 12-year olds will get this programmable kit (which can be connected to a PC and programmed to operate its LED lights or magnetometer, for example).

Although the BBC's aim is laudable, and they are doing it in conjunction with a large number of partners so are not bearing the full cost by themselves, I do have concerns.

I pay my taxes so that the government, whether at Westminster or Holyrood, can use the money to pay for vital public services like the NHS and education. If we need to encourage children to take up computer programming, that should be done via the respective Education Departments. That's what I pay my taxes for.

I don't expect that when I pay to receive broadcast TV that I am now also funding school education. With the recent announcement that the BBC will now fund the cost of providing over-75s with a free TV licence, the BBC is now also part of the respective Welfare Departments.

So I welcome UK Culture Secretary John Whittingdale's announcement of a 'root and branch' review of what the BBC is for.

I'm pretty clear about why I pay my TV licence and why I pay my tax. I don't pay my TV licence to top-up the welfare and education budgets. How many great programs are never going to get made because of these decisions?

And that's me only scratching the surface. Just what else is the BBC doing that has got absolutely nothing to do with satisfying the reason I pay my TV licence?

Sturgeon China visit 'over-shadowed' by BBC reporting

According to tonight's BBC Reporting Scotland program, First Minister of Scotland Nicola Sturgeon's visit to China was 'over-shadowed' by Alex Salmond's comment yesterday that a second independence referendum was 'inevitable'.

However, the China Daily article describing her visit doesn't mention this at all but instead concentrates on the trade deals struck.

So just where is this 'over-shadowing' taking place?

That's right: it's taking place within the BBC and then greedily snapped up by the Unionist press within the UK. As far as I can tell, China isn't the least bit interested in whether Scotland has another referendum or not. In China, Sturgeon's trade visit is 'over-shadowed' by China's love of Scottish produce and the trade deals done.

Whatever strange prism the BBC are using to view the world, they should throw it away now...

New Book Launched!

I have just self-published a new book called Sci Fives. It is a collection of five science articles that I have written, all at the popular-science level.

Below are the details of the five articles. Please also visit the book's Amazon page. 

Thanks,

Greg.

1. Has NASA Photographed the Face of God?

IF YOU BELIEVED the moon landing were fake, how would you react when a lunar satellite photographed Neil Armstrong’s footprints in the lunar dust and thus proved them to be true?

A humorous look at our need for conspiracy theories, the space race, space tourism and the incredible images of the Apollo landing sites from the LRO (Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter).

2. Extraordinary Connections: Our Ancient Immune System

HOW DOES THE body recognise invading pathogens like HIV or TB? That answer won its discoverers the 2011 Nobel Prize in Physiology and Medicine.

But even the winning scientists weren’t expecting it to reveal ancient molecules that connect all life on Earth. You’ll never eat a BLT (bacon-lettuce-tomato) sandwich in the same way again!

3. The History of the Dinosaur

DINOSAURS WERE WIPED out 65 million years ago. Or were they? Crocodiles are their distant cousins. But they are not the only survivors of Archosauria still alive on planet Earth today…

4. Space Money

WHAT IS THE point of spending money on space when poverty exists on Earth? When the world spends more on art and antiques than it does on space, that is the wrong question.

There are important economic, scientific and humanitarian reasons for spending money on space. Crucially, these lead to the real question we should be asking…

5. Words for Pluto

Astronomy books used to say “not enough is known” about Pluto and, as a child, that deeply annoyed me. Did we really have so little words for Pluto? Finally, the New Horizons probe was launched to study the planet Pluto – but just six months later, Pluto was demoted to dwarf planet.

However, astronomers had not been idle during that time. With help from the Hubble Space Telescope and revolutions in ground-based telescope design and computer processing, a surprising amount was found out about our favourite dwarf planet.

So just what kind of world is Pluto?

The Rise of the Cyberbuts!

Have been thinking up words to act as the Unionist equivalent of cybernat - here are some previous suggestions.

I'm not sure they're the best of terms. However, I've now come up with a new one: cyberbut!

The 'but' on the end stands for British Unionist Troll.

So what do you think - is cyberbut the Unionist equivalent of cybernat?

(Though I'm sure some of you would prefer something more provocative like cybertraitor but the Unionist side could use that against the ScotNats too.)

Scottish Labour prefer Tory rule from Westminster than Labour rule in Holyrood

This week saw Osborne deliver a Tory budget, which contained the expected attack on the poor and the gift of further benefits to the rich.

Surprisingly, Scottish Labour are complaining about this budget.

Ian Murray, the last Labour MP in Scotland and thus the Shadow Scottish Secretary, has written to David Mundell, the actual Scottish Secretary, to ask for the Scotland Office (which is a Westminster department) to assess just how badly Scottish families will suffer as a result of this budget.

Then - and this is unbelievable - Ian Murray demands that

the powers over welfare promised in the Smith Commission are passed, in full, to the Scottish Parliament. 

and embarrasses himself even further by arguing that the Westminster

Government’s continued insistence to retain the veto power over welfare changes and the reservation of housing benefit must be addressed in amendments to the Scotland Bill

But he and his Labour party colleagues were the ones who argued for Scotland to remain within the Union. That is, Ian Murray preferred to see Scotland ruled by the Tories at Westminster than to see Scotland ruled by his own party at Holyrood.

So whenever you hear Scottish Labour complain about the Tory budget, please respond with "still, better than Labour ruling an independent Scotland, eh?"

Because that is their belief.

And then they wonder why they don't do well in elections...

Is this a useful word for a Unionist cybernat?

Been trying to rack my brains for a good Unionist equivalent to the term cybernat.

In an earlier post, I came up with BritNatBirdie - BritNat for Unionist, obviously, and Birdie for the Twitter symbol. Not sure it's the best word ever.

Then I thought of cyberyoon, the phonetic spelling of cyberun (from cyber + un from unionist). Not sure it's that great either but does have the advantage of sounding a bit like cyberloon.

Finally, I came up with cyberjack - from cyber + jack from the Union Jack flag, which is the Unionist's symbol.

So...

...is cyberjack a useful equivalent to cybernat?

Or does cyberyoon work better because it sounds a bit more sinister?

Any thoughts?

Was Doctor Who aired early last year to influence Scotland's indyref outcome?

The BBC have announced that the new series of Doctor Who will return to our TV screens on 19th Sep 2015. But during the year of the Scottish Independence Referendum ("indyref"), it aired on the 23 Aug 2014. That now stands as the earliest autumn airing of Doctor Who in 45 years.

Coincidence?

Before you think I'm a mad conspiracy theorist, let's remind ourselves of how Doctor Who was used during indyref. Here is what Scottish Conservative leader Ruth Davidson said in Nov 2013 (reported in this Scotsman article):

“The SNP simply cannot guarantee that we’d still get Dr Who after independence.”

This was followed in above article by this:

A Scotland Office spokesman said yesterday: “Contrary to what the Scottish Government assert, a vote to leave the UK is a vote to leave its institutions, including the BBC.”

To counter this, Blair Jenkins - who was chief executive of Yes Scotland during indyref and had previously been Director of Broadcasting at STV, and Head of News and Current Affairs at both STV and BBC Scotland, said:

 "That the No campaign is using Doctor Who to try to further their campaign of fear and negativity is laughable. If they are prepared to offer this kind of nonsense, why should we believe anything else they say?"

Wings over Scotland nicely took the Unionist's claims apart at the time.

You thus have to accept that the Tories decided to bring Doctor Who into the indyref argument. Why did they do that? Of all the things the Establishment could have used to try and convince Scotland to vote No and thus stay in the Union, they chose Doctor Who. Remember that when you are reading this. The Establishment chose Doctor Who as a weapon to fight the SNP with.

Now with that thought in your head, what is my complaint? Doctor Who aired on 23 Aug in 2014, just a month before Scotland went to the polls to answer the question "Should Scotland be an independent country?" This is unusually early for any new BBC programme - the Autumn Schedule doesn't normally start in the last month of Summer; instead, it is normal to start the Autumn Schedule in the first month of Autumn (i.e. September).

So why aren't the BBC doing what they did last year and airing it in mid-August? What has changed so much between this year and last? Is the change of broadcast date because there isn't a Scottish Independence Referendum this year?

Here is a list of first-aired dates - in col. 4 - for New Who, taken from a Wiki page:

This shows that, since the reboot of Doctor Who, it has never been aired that early in their autumn program.

It has been aired in August in Classic Who twice - once, in 1968 (airing 10th Aug) when Patrick Troughton played him but he had 44 episodes to fit in and it ran until June, and second, in 1975 (airing 30th Aug) when Tom Baker was the star but he had 26 episodes to fit in and it ran until March - but given the huge number of episodes back then, that is understandable.

Thus, airing it on 23 Aug in 2014 was the earliest airing of Doctor Who in 45 years - not since Patrick Troughton and his companions Jamie and Zoe met the Dominators has it been shown that early.

For me, this is proof that the BBC used the airing of Doctor Who as a political tool to try and influence the outcome of the referendum. Last year's series was also the first full series to feature Scottish actor Peter Capaldi as the Doctor. It may have been thought that airing a Scottish Doctor - who would be speaking with his Scottish accent, unlike Scottish actor David Tennant, who faked an English accent for the role - in the run up to the referendum would have helped convince Scots that they were a valued part of the Union.

It was already known at the time that younger voters were more likely to vote Yes while older voters, especially pensioners, were more nervous of change and therefore more likely to vote No. It may have been thought that airing a Scottish Doctor early would have helped convince young Yes voters. (This recent survey details some interesting indyref voting stats.)

However, I don't believe for one second that this early airing had anything to do with the actors or writers or producers of Doctor Who. They would have been as powerless as the rest of us over that decision, i.e. Peter Capaldi is blameless, as is Jenna Coleman and Steven Moffat.

Given that the Establishment was simply throwing everything at the referendum, including the Tories telling us that if we voted No we wouldn't get to watch Doctor Who, one can only imagine the BBC received political pressure to air Doctor Who just that little bit earlier than usual. If this is not the case, then the BBC has to explain why last year's airing was the earliest in 45 years and why they are not airing it so early again this year.

Answers on a postcard, please...

Some Evel highlights

Some highlights from Monday's debate, with some comments from me.

Alistair Carmichael:

"That was how we built the consensus in Scotland that then led to the creation of a Scottish Parliament. Ultimately, that is what the people of England are going to have to do. They are not entitled to use the United Kingdom Parliament as a proxy for an English Parliament."

i.e. England - from churches to trades unions - needs to debate the issue of English devolution, not have it done thru the back door of English Votes for English Laws

"In Scotland last year we went through a painful process that ultimately led to the people of Scotland deciding to remain part of this United Kingdom. We did it on the basis that we are all equal participants in this Union. I made those arguments in good faith and I believed at the time that the Conservatives did so, too. It is difficult for them to sustain that proposition if they insist on proceeding in this way."

i.e. if the Union parliament is basically no more, what was the point of arguing for it?



Chris Grayling:
"My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We have all lived with this situation for 20 years. The difference now is that we are legislating again: first for Scotland, to give significantly more powers to the Scottish Parliament, and later in this Session we shall legislate for Wales, to give significant additional powers to the Welsh Assembly. It is surely therefore right that, as part of our desire to protect our Union, we make sure that any resentment in England about the fact that those powers are not replicated there is addressed to the maximum degree."

I note the lack of legislation for England!


Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP):
"Last night we discussed Scottish laws and whether they and Scottish powers should preside at Westminster or Holyrood. Ninety five per cent. of Scottish MPs in the House of Commons, as well as the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament, want those powers to be moved to Scotland, but 500 Labour and Tory MPs who are not from Scotland walked through the Lobby and applied a veto. Why does Scotland not have a veto when the Leader of the House wants an English veto?"

Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab):
"I have the document with the proposed changes to the Standing Orders, which were suddenly presented last week. There are 22 pages of new Standing Orders. ...introducing a range of very complex things..."

i.e. a bit of a cheek to rush thru such a big document!

Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con):
"The problem with changing Standing Orders is that, as we know from experience, Governments can just suspend them on the day, without any recourse; if the changes were made in primary legislation, Governments would have to repeal the Act."

Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP):
"The Leader of the House seems to be making a perfectly good pitch for an English Parliament, which is a perfectly legitimate pitch to make. Why will he not make the case for that, rather than for this constitutional fudge?"

I agree - we need an English devolved parliament. Time for a federal UK!

Chris Grayling:
"Because I value the strength that this Chamber brings. To take away its remit over English matters would be to devalue it. We need to ensure that there is fairness in this Parliament; we do not need to dismantle our constitution to the point where we have an English Parliament as well."

What?? It doesn't "devalue" Westminster to remove Scotland from it but it will "devalue" it if we create an English parliament? In that case, if it doesn't "devalue" Westminster, we'll have independence please!

Ed Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab):
"I want to ask the Leader of the House a very simple question. As I understand it from his proposals, the Speaker will have to adjudicate on what is an English-only Bill. Where is the definition of an English-only Bill set down? The right hon. Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond) raised the issue of tuition fees and its Barnett consequentials. Where in the proposals is the definition set out?"

Chris Grayling:
"The test that will be used is very simple: is it a devolved matter or not? Health and education are devolved. If it is a devolved matter, it will be covered by the proposals"

Alex Salmond:
"To pursue the point that was made by the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Ed Miliband), the former leader of the Labour party, the Leader of the House indicated to me earlier that tuition fees would be a matter reserved for English MPs, but under the proposals, it is for the Speaker to certify which matters are reserved. How does the Leader of the House know, before the Speaker’s certification, that that matter will be certified, despite the Barnett consequentials that affect my constituents and many others?"

Chris Grayling:
"Of course it is a matter for the Speaker, but the test that will be applied in the Standing Orders—against which the Speaker will make his decision—will be whether or not a matter is devolved."

i.e. the Tories want a devolved English parliament inside Westminster but won't change the fact that Scotland's budget is not set independently from England's but will still exclude Scottish MPs from those decisions that affect Scotland's budget.

Sir Gerald Howarth:
"The Labour party was desperate to appease Scottish nationalism in 1999 and failed to address the West Lothian question posed by her former hon. Friend, Tam Dalyell, the one-time Member for West Lothian. Had Labour addressed the issue at the time, we would not be in this position today. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is proposing a simple remedy that addresses a long-standing sense of grievance in England."

i.e. the Tories are now the party of grievance. Instead of moaning about what powers they don't have, they should just shut up and use they powers they do have!


I'm only about halfway through watching this debate. I'll post more highlights over next few days.

Is Osborne's budget pure anti-Catholic?

If you have more than two kids, there'll be no money from the tax-payer for kids 3 onwards. Given that Catholics are opposed to contraception, then this probably affects Catholics more than Protestants.

It is impossible to be celibate - which is why Priests then abused whoever was within their reach. Sex will out, no matter what. I'm not sure how many other religions practiced within the UK fully ban contraception but most seem to allow birth control.

Does this accidentally penalise Catholics more than any other group?

Who's long-term plan is it anyway?

Osborne and Cameron go on and on and on about their "long-term economic plan."

But who's long-term economic plan is it anyway?

Back in 2010, Ed Balls was advocating that it was wrong to try and remove the deficit over one parliamentary term (i.e. over 5 years) but instead to do it over two terms (i.e. over ten years). And what has Osborne done? He's followed Balls' advice!

Then earlier this year, as Osborne threatened even more swingeing cuts in the first two years of the new parliament, Nicola Sturgeon advocated that it was better to increase spending and thus take a bit longer to reduce the deficit. And what's Osborne done? He's followed Sturgeon's advice!

So it sounds to me as if it's the Balls-Sturgeon long-term economic plan that Cameron-Osborne are following!

What do you think?

Is Osborne forcing younger workers to pay for older workers?

Osborne's budget today revealed a lot and will take some time to study the detail. However, one thing stands out.

He's increased the minimum wage to a so-called living wage BUT he's not asking the employers to pay for this because he's reducing their corporation tax from 20% to 19% and then down to 18% a year later.

So it's the tax-paying public that's paying for this so-called living wage - which is really an increase in the minimum wage. And it's only over-25s that get this increase - under-25s will still be on the original minimum wage.

Tax credits are also being brutally cut, which will thus disproportionately affect the under 25s. I could be wrong but it looks to me like younger workers are being used to pay for an increase in the wages of older workers.

What do you think?

The BritNatBirdies on Sturgeon

You've heard of cybernats? Well, here's the Unionist equivalent - the BritNatBirdies. Lovely things they tweet about our First Minister...

Only one man can save the Union - but who???

The Greek OXI vote in their referendum has pushed the European Union into dangerous territory. Will there be a Grexit? Will the Euro plummet, causing another world recession? Will the European Union collapse?

Who can save us from this catastrophe?

We need someone who has saved the world before!

We need someone who has saved a Union before!

Only one man fits the bill!

Dum-dum-duuum!!!

It's Gordon Brown to the rescue!!

Image taken from here.

"This is not Germany's flag, France's country, ECB's culture, IMF's streets. This is Europe's flag, Europe's country, Europe's culture and Europe's streets!"

Go, Gordon, go!!!

Is this the best Greek placard ever?

Seen on the BBC News live coverage of the Greek celebrations at a NO vote in their bailout referendum.

For its directness and conciseness, this is possibly the best placard in the world ever.

Thankfully, the individual holding it is untraceable on Twitter and thus will remain off Blair McDougall's #clypegate list!

Slim Watch No. 007

The goings-on of the world-famous The Valorie-Restricted Three: Crash-diet Carmichael, Low-cal Mundell and Binger Murray.

For a quick definition of what a valorie is, see here.


Binger Murray's guilt at gobbling up all the valories of his Scottish Labour MP colleagues has obviously faded. On Monday, he stood up in the House of Commons and demanded that he be allowed to eat up all the valories of everyone in the Holyrood parliament!

"Why should they get to run things up there," Binger demanded, "when I can run Holyrood from down here?" Despite the belly rumbles of Labour supporters across Scotland, he ploughed on, demanding that Holyrood set up a commission to examine how stupid it would be for Scots to hold their own purse strings and for a Scottish OBR to be set up to examine how stupid they currently are with the pocket money Westminster gives them.

This greedy little glutton's desire for more and more of the belly-filling good stuff knows no bounds. And his demands came after he lunched on a whole roast baby camel in the Exotic-Meats Wing of the Commons' Canteen. And we thought whole curried goats were his thing - they're obviously just not large enough for this all-consuming valories glutton. Perhaps he felt jealous of Boris Johnson, who happily tucked into a plate of camel and was so happy, he even took photos of it.

Image of a roast camel, taken from here

On the opposite side of the green benches was Low-cal Mundell, sadistically starving himself of any valories at all. In fact, he declared, if he was having nothing then the rest of Scotland should have nothing either. So he vetoed every amendment put forward during the Scotland Bill debates. Yes, there's most definitely vetoes in the House of Commons if not in the Bill.

Afterwards, he went to the Beggars Wing of the Commons Canteen and sat out on Beggars' Balcony which was designed to be just out of reach of the poor beggars who congregate there looking for a rich Tory to toss them some scraps. Cunningly, Low-cal had ordered the rounding up of the beggars of Ferguslie Park in Paisley and for them to be dumped there for the occasion.

Feasting alone on a banquet of calamari, parma ham, goji berries, Thai-curried yoghurt, grilled starfish with a Chivas Regal jus, salt-baked sea bream on a bed of saffron-infused rice, sautéed hop shoots with chives and garlic (reputedly, hop shoots are the world's most expensive vegetable), bbq'd white-horse steaks, dishes of chorizo in cider, fried oyster and shiitake mushrooms, buffalo wings and delicately spiced frogs legs, Low-cal Mundell put aside his diet and enjoyed himself. With each aromatic forkful, he leaned over the balcony and waved it teasingly at the Paisley beggars. They pleaded and begged him for some, their outstretched hands reaching pityingly towards the food-adorned balcony. Low-cal smiled in that nasty way Tories do. "You're getting nothing from me!" he shouted at them before stuffing the rich forkful in his gold-plated gob.

"That's the way to treat demanding Scots," he boasted to the Canteen staff who nervously tried to hide their embarrassment at the humiliatingly derisory way he was treating the poor Scots with such obvious joy and keeping everything in the banquet for himself. Readers need not worry about the plight of the Paisley beggars though - Low-cal had them re-rounded up and stuffed in the empty vault that once held the McRone Report. No doubt they'll be released in 30 years time.

Speaking of hiding, Crash-diet Carmichael tumbled into the Commons to demand all indefinite articles in the Scotland Bill be changed to their definite form. Here's an example from Hansard:

With insights like that, the residents of Orkney & Shetland will surely keep him regardless of the outcome of the legal challenge against him. You never know when you'll need an A changed to a The, so better safe than sorry.

So that's my VR3 round-up of the week and without a doubt, the runaway chart-topper is Low-cal Mundell who inflicted an Oliver Twist-style single-bowl diet upon the Scots, joyously denying them everything when they asked if they could have some more.

Will Low-cal hold on to the top spot or will Crash-diet's grammar frenzy help him claim the VR3 crown? Only time will tell...

Tune in next week for more unbearable goings-on of the most famous diet-group in the world, The Valorie-Restricted Three!

Last week's update: Slim Watch No. 006

In politics, what is a valorie?

What is a valorie? It is an acronym for the unit of parliamentary majority within a constituency. It is defined thus:

Valorie: votes above largest other recipient in election 

For example, say there are two candidates standing in an election within a constituency. Let's call them Mr A and Mr B. When results are announced, Mr A gets 10,800 votes and poor Mr B only gets 7,500 votes. Mr A's majority is thus 3,300 valories (formed by subtracting Mr B's votes from Mr A's).

Of course, you could define it as votes above the half-way mark. Half-way in this example would be (10,800 + 7,500)/2 = 9,150. Then Mr A would have a majority of 10,800 - 9,150 = 1,650. But that's not the way it's done. (In any case, that would be the vahoots - votes above half of overall total.)

In a competitive, winner-takes-all approach, what you really want to know is by how much did the winner thrash his closest rival? So you take the winner's votes and subtract from them the runner-up's votes and what you are left with is the valories.

It really is that simple.

Of course, the thing you want to avoid is reducing your valories or being forced by your voters to go on a valorie-restricted diet. Sadly, that is not always possible - just look at The Valorie-Restricted Three!

The new abuse in Scottish Politics

To solve a problem, you first have to define it. Calling nasty tweets 'online abuse' is about as useful as the term 'crime' - it's just too broad to be useful. Sub-categories of crime - like assaults, theft, murder etc - allow for a meaningful analysis that can lead to policies that tackle specific identified problems.

Online abuse, like physical abuse, can be motivated by different causes: racial, homophobic, misogynistic etc. The Scottish Independence Referendum has given rise to the need for a new one: natism.

In yesterday's post, I defined it thus:

Natism: discrimination or devaluation based on a person's civic national identity.

Although politicians and others used every dirty trick in the book to ensure the NO vote was victorious, these people are not traitors. They have no more betrayed their country than being gay is a betrayal of heterosexuality. Being a BritNat is not a betrayal of being a ScotNat and vice versa.

Like gay or straight, some people feel they are British and others feel they are Scottish. Some are bisexual, feeling both identities. They are not betraying anyone. Civic national identity is just another part of who we are.

Therefore, natism is wrong and all engaging in it should stop. Natism is not debate but abuse. Stopping natism is not stopping debate. Unlike gay or straight, civic national identity can change and I will continue to argue the merits of independence.

Just I won't be engaging in natism.

Don't let Blair McDougall redefine Unionistism as misogynism

Blair McDougall is now mostly famous for his #clypegate dossier, revealing abusive tweets from some SNP members.

Admittedly, some of the tweets are a bit pathetic. But in my post yesterday, I revealed how McDougall was trying to infer that use of the word "bitch" implied you were a misogynist, i.e. a hater of women.

But the same people sending this abuse to the likes of Margaret Curran or JK Rowling are also the same people who love Nicola Sturgeon to bits. That doesn't sound like a misogynist to me.

Instead, it sounds like someone who hates people that put the Union before Scotland. That is, their first loyalty is to Westminster, then their second loyalty is to Holyrood. In the SNP, first loyalty is to Holyrood, then Westminster.

What term can we use for people who hate those who are Unionists? The simplist solution is to add the suffix -ism and thus we get Unionistism. The opposite would be Nationalistism - or Natism for short. This parallels misogyny (hatred of women) and misandry (hatred of men), i.e. we have two separate words.

However, we could parallel sexism/sexist and have the one word to mean both Unionistism and Natism. All I can think of  is constitutionism and constitutionistism, which are far too large.

But I prefer the word Natism for this - it's nice and short like sexism. Given the argument we're having in the UK over the constitution is really one over what nation you prefer, UK or Scotland, then both sides of the debate are nationalists - ScotNats or BritNats.

So my word for this kind of hatred is natism, with a lower-case n. I'd define natism as "discrimination or devaluation based on a person's civic national identity." That is, it is not racism or ethnicityism (if that's even a word) because twins could split over such an issue, one choosing Scotland as his/her nation and the other the UK as his/her nation. Obviously, both twins would be of the same parentage so ethnicity would be irrelevant.

Now the big question - should natism be a crime? Should we pass anti-natism laws in the same way we pass anti-racism and anti-bigotry laws?

That may be the way forward in tackling online abuse from all sides in this constitutional debate. But let's call it what it is. It is not sexism but natism.

What is proportionate action for using the word "bitch" or "traitor"?

It's easy to go from zero to mad and be that angry forever. Much harder to analyse what has happened and then decide to be slightly angry or just angry or mega angry and to be that way for 1 hour or 3 days or 7 weeks.

Blair McDougall is still calling for the SNP to take action on those alleged SNP members in his #clypegate dossier for using bad language on Twitter.

Some are using the word "bitch" against female politicians; some use the word "bastard" against the male ones. Is "bitch" misogynistic? If so, should "bastard" be considered misandrist (i.e. hatred of males).

For me, I see those words as either side of the same coin. If you have an emotional outburst against someone, it's common to use a derogatory term that describes their gender. "Cunt" is one I think of as unisex, used against both men and women.

Of course, men are also called "bitches" and women are also called "bastards" but I think they're generally seen as gender-specific.

I don't think use of the word "bitch" is enough to make you a misogynist. I think other corroborating evidence is required. But for Blair McDougall, "bitch" is enough:

But what action should the SNP take against people who use these words? Blair McDougall isn't clear what he expects to happen. Should all such people be thrown out of the party? Is that an over-reaction, the equivalent of being super mad forever?

Or should the SNP ask those it finds to have been abusive to apologise on Twitter to the person(s) they abused and ask them to better behave themselves in future?

Or should there be the equivalent of a swear-box - an SNP Twitter-abuse box? There could be a menu of fines, depending on exactly what you said.

Of course, other parties would have to do something similar. Becoming over emotional and then ranting online is not the preserve of just some in the Nationalist camp - there's those in the Unionist ranks too.

To be clear, abuse is wrong. Bad language is usually seen as being abuse and I guess if I was on the receiving end of it, I'd view it that way too. But proportionate action is difficult to judge. Just what does Blair McDougall want the SNP to do?

Ian Murray wants to run Holyrood from Westminster!

During the Scotland Bill debates in the House of Commons on Mon & Tue, Ian Murray (the only Labour MP in Scotland and thus the Shadow Secretary of State for Scotland) put forward two amendments that showed Scottish Labour still haven't learned from their past mistakes.

He, a Westminster MP, wants Westminster to tell the Scottish Parliament at Holyrood what to do. First up was his proposal to order Holyrood to set up an independent commission to study the impact of Scotland taking control of its own finances (i.e. FFA, full fiscal autonomy). Second up was his proposal to order Holyrood to set up a Scottish version of the OBR (Office for Budget Responsibility) that will closely monitor Scotland's finances.

This beggars belief (and that's ignoring the implied massive insult that Holyrood is too stupid to manage its own finances and thus must be told by Westminster how to do it).

The whole point of Holyrood is that it runs itself with its own elected MSPs (Members of the Scottish Parliament). It is these people that decide how their own parliament should operate, what departments they should have and what departments they can afford to have. This is called devolution and the purpose of it is to allow that parliament to run its own affairs.

Scottish Labour were pilloried last week by themselves in frank admission after frank admission by senior figures - from former leaders to former First Ministers - that they just did not understand devolution when they were in power in Holyrood. They also complained that Westminster kept interfering in what they were doing.

Did Ian Murray watch that programme? If he didn't, he can read my write-up of it and my further analysis of it. Of course, he was probably too happy watching Blair McDougal's diversionary tactic of #clypegate unfold to learn any lessons from the program. If he'd watched it and thought about it, he'd have never suggested that a Bill whose function is to transfer power to Holyrood should be amended to include direct orders about how they must then use those powers.

They say that those who don't know history, repeat the mistakes of history. Ian Murray either doesn't know the history of his own party or just doesn't understand what devolution is. Instead of helping his party recover, he's just helped consign it to the dustbin of Scottish political history.

The West Lothian problem finally solved - by a £1.50 bag of sweets.

At the Scotland Bill reading in the House of Commons yesterday, there were debates over a number of issues. One was income tax. There were some Tory members who raised the issue that only devolving some aspects of income tax and not all of it, will lead to problems.

Chief amongst those was Sir Edward Leigh, who got cheers from the crowded SNP benches for his comments.

He said that, for example, not devolving the income threshold (i.e. the personal allowance) at which workers pay income tax would mean that Westminster can change the rule overnight with a consequent effect on Scotland's finances. The effect is to not make Holyrood a responsible parliament, denying it the full tax-varying powers that Westminster so dearly values. Far better to have FFA (Full Fiscal Autonomy, i.e. Home Rule).

He also quoted the finance figures that really puts the whole devolution debate into perspective:

"Scottish Parliament spends £37 billion and raises £30 billion - quite responsible, actually. The UK spends £732 billion and raises £648 billion."

Thus, he argued, giving Scotland full fiscal responsibility is unlikely to upset the UK's fiscal responsibility because Scotland's budget is so small by comparison.

Indeed, £37 billion divided by £732 billion is just 5%. Scotland's budget is 5% of the UK's. This, one notes, is below  Scotland's population share. But if the numbers are so small, one wonders why English MPs make such a fuss over them. Simply give Scotland Home Rule and make a promise that if we fall short of a billion or two, the UK will bail us out.

If I was the Tory Prime Minister, it's what I'd do to solve the "Scottish problem." It would highlight whether Scotland could go it alone or not. If it survives, then UK finances benefit; if it fails, then UK bails it out and Unionists win their case.

Even if Scotland needed a bailout of £10 billion, this is only £10/£648 = 1.5% of what the UK raises, the equivalent of a parent earning £100 per week tossing their favourite child an extra £1.50 to go buy that extra bag of sweets in the shops.

A cheap, quick solution for us all.

Why are we even debating this? What on Earth is the problem? Simply give Scotland Home Rule now and the West Lothian problem is put to bed forever.

Was Clypegate a planned response to the BBC's The Fall of Labour?

Last Monday, the BBC aired a program called The Fall of Labour, though a better name would have been The Continuing Fall of Scottish Labour. In the documentary, senior Scottish Labour figures aired their dirty laundry in public (read my write-up of it here).

One of the moments that haunts me from that program is when Jackie Bird interviews Johann Lamont, the leader of Scottish Labour during the independence referendum but who was forced to quit afterwards, and asks: "But isn't that an indictment of a Labour party which has been accused down the decades of backstabbing and infighting?"

Lamont's response is legendary: "That's only on the good days."

If you have access to the documentary, such as on iPlayer here, the section of Lamont quitting begins at around 47 minutes. Watch it. She smiles after delivering that line but she can't hold it. It quickly disappears and we see the look of hurt and trauma in her eyes.

Whatever you think of Lamont's politics, she's as human as the rest of us and has the same human rights as Nicola Sturgeon. No one needs to be treated so badly as it would appear the Labour party have treated her.

What else she confided in Jackie Bird but was never aired, we'll probably never know. But given many in the Labour party were appalled at her attack on Labour as she quit, I imagine Scottish Labour would be deeply worried about this program and Johann Lamont's contribution to it.

The very next scene in that documentary is David Whitton, a special advisor and former MSP, stating that the way she went was very damaging to the party and still damaging it today. So I can imagine Scottish Labour getting their heads together to try and come up with a strategy to mitigate the devastating impact of that documentary.

And their solution was to rope in the Scottish Daily Mail to help them whip up a storm about vile cybernats, the supposed mass ranks of independence supporters who like to send abuse via Twitter and Facebook.

First up was a front-page piece ("First Minister's links with vile cybernat trolls") about Nicola Sturgeon's supposed links with a vile cybernat, followed by more hideous details inside and accompanied by former Labour Shadow Scottish Secretary Margaret Curran's piece about a "cesspit of ugly vicious, sexist abuse" from the cybernats. Wings over Scotland details them well. (I'll assume that not even Scottish Labour can pull the strings of the Royal household and that the false rumour that Scotland would not continue to financially support the monarchy was pure coincidence and not part of the plan.)

Then on Thursday, the Scottish Daily Mail had another front-page piece ("Sturgeon: I'll purge party of cybernats"), courtesy of a piece written by Nicola Sturgeon herself. Quite how they roped her into this, I don't know. Perhaps the intervention by Harry Potter author JK Rowling a few days before the BBC programme aired was part of the plan too? Given she's a Labour supporter and donated to Better Together, perhaps she was asked to complain about Twitter abuse. Labour must have loved it when Iain Macwhirter gave them the perfect opportunity when he wrote that there was no anti-English sentiment in the SNP - but I guess anything would have done for them. Again, Wings details them well (here and here).

Then came the final cherry on the Scottish Labour damage-limitation cake: Clypegate, with the release of a 51 page dossier containing a list of all the abusive tweets SNP members had posted on Twitter. It contained the tweets of 45 people. As Wings pointed out, 20 of those users were in the dossier for using the words "quisling" or "traitor" - not exactly the vile swear word-filled abuse we'd been led to expect.

Hardly surprisingly, the press mostly ignored this collection of evidence that completely destroyed the whole vile cybernat campaign they'd been running for years. Anyone looking at the list will see that the evidence - compiled by Scottish Labour themselves - shows the press for the spin masters they are.

Even so, it has been an effective strategy by Scottish Labour. Given that the PDF of the abuse dossier contains Blair McDougall's name as author in its metadata, one can assume he was behind the whole, week-long campaign.

But the real story should have been The Fall of Labour. We finally have Scottish Labour admitting just how badly they've handled devolution and how they came to expect to be voted into power in Scotland no matter what. And the press concentrated on cybernats. They should have been concentrating on what Scottish Labour were saying.

There are deeply distressing things revealed in that show, such as:

1. an old trades union man saying "New Labour left me. I didn't leave Labour"
2. former Labour MP saying Labour's local government was "cronyism" and "near corruption"
3. former Labour First Minister saying Labour in Westminster would not publicly celebrate the achievements of Holyrood
4. former Labour MSP and Health Minister saying that when they were in power at Holyrood, they had no long-term aims and it was all about "how you'd win the vote that week, what the headline would be, how we'd be seen to be getting one over on the Nats."
5. former Scottish Labour party leader saying "the core of our problem... is the inability of the party to really come to terms with the new political context created by devolution."

I gave a brief analysis of what this meant in my post Devolution is to Labour as Europe is to the Tories. A free press in Scotland would have ran with something similar. But they didn't.

Then there were the things the programme didn't say but only hinted at. Just how much control did Gordon Brown have over Holyrood when he was Chancellor down in Westminster under Tony Blair? This isn't investigated in the documentary at all. This takes us back to Johann Lamont. She claimed Scottish Labour was being treated as a branch office and, in that documentary, former Labour First Minister Jack McConnell confirms that by stating the Scottish Labour party "did not have control over the Scottish Labour party headquarters and the tendency in the Scottish Labour party headquarters was to turn towards the Westminster leadership and Westminster elected representatives rather than Holyrood."

The BBC's programme The Fall of Labour and the airing of some of Scottish Labour's dirty laundry, with the not-too-subtle hints that there's a lot more they are keeping secret, is the story of the week. In fact, I'd say that second only to the general election result, it's the story of the year. 

Will Gordon Brown and other cabinet members from New Labour's time at Downing Street now come out and contribute to a similar programme, looking at how Westminster Labour viewed Scottish Labour and how Westminster worked to pull Scottish Labour's strings at every turn?

We know the stories are there. If Labour want to recover, they need to lance this boil. With Labour decimated in Scotland, they have nothing to lose. The party can't be damaged any further. A full and frank admission of how essentially Labour hated devolution and controlled the Scottish Parliament from Westminster could be the start of their healing process. 

If nothing else, it would at least help to remove the troubled, traumatic look from the eyes of Johann Lamont.

Slim Watch No. 006

The goings-on of the world-famous Valorie-Restricted Three: Crash-diet Carmichael, Low-cal Mundell and Binger Murray.

On Monday night, the BBC aired a programme called The Fall of Labour which chronicled just how rubbish Scottish Labour have been. Of course, Binger Murray would obviously be keen to comment on that programme. In fact, being the last Labour MP in Scotland, you'd imagine he'd be begging to be part of the documentary.

Instead, he was nowhere in sight. He wasn't included in the documentary and never made any comment about it after it aired. But he did crawl out of hiding to praise former MP and Shadow Scottish Secretary Margaret Curran's piece in the Daily Mail about vile, nasty cybernattery - even though most of the piece was made up.

Just like this blog post. It's only meant to be a little bit of fun - an attempt at a little bit of humour to make politics seem less like academics fighting a war. Who's got the time to read every report and every dossier on every subject? Not Binger. He's too busy swallowing whole curried goats and eyeing up what's on his neighbour's plate.

The restaurants at Fort Kinnaird retail park are his favourite. He probably goes there with Low-cal Mundell when he's sneakily taking a break from his valorie-restriction diet. This retail park, on the outskirts of Edinburgh, is to become an island of Britishness in an otherwise sea of Scottishness. Despite the Crown Estate being devolved to Scotland, Low-cal confirmed that properties like the Fort Kinnaird are just making too much cash for the British Treasury to let it go. It's the equivalent of an inland oil rig and they won't devolve it until they suck it dry.

But all this passed poor Crash-diet Carmichael by. He was too busy trying to re-fight the referendum, accusing David Cameron of "almost psychopathic ruthlessness" for daring to talk about England and his half-baked attempt to give it a form of devolution via English votes for English laws. But he's months out of date. The referendum is over and shouting about it won't rally the union flag wavers of Orkney & Shetland to help him keep his post. His diet is about to become enforced starvation.

So who should top the charts of this weeks VR3 news? It has to be Low-cal Mundell. Who else has the nerve to appear in Holyrood and claim that Westminster keeping the good bits of Scotland for itself and giving Scotland the rubbish bits was a great deal for Scotland? I guess he thinks if he's on a diet, then the rest of Scotland should be too. Especially an economic diet. Who in their right mind would want uppity jocks to have access to their own wealth?


Will Low-cal hold on to the top spot or will Binger surprise us all by publicly admitting Scottish Labour's past failures? Only time will tell...

Tune in next week for more unbearable goings-on of the most famous diet-group in the world, the Valorie-Restricted Three!

Last week's update: Slim Watch No. 005

It was my social-media posts wot won it for the Tories!

I just got a personal thank you from David Cameron for all my Facebook posts in support of independence and in support of voting for the SNP in the General Election - this turned England against Labour, because England hung on my every word.

He also thanked me for my cybernattery and the absolute tsunami of Twitter abuse I personally threw at Unionists because that single-handedly destroyed Labour in Scotland, clearing the way for the Tories to romp home (though he did chastise me for not first hooking up Edinburgh South to the internet and thus allowing those residents to escape my keyboard brainwashing, but he's not to worry because I'll get them next time).

Policies and personalities don't matter in politics any more, said Cameron - which is why absolutely no one watched the televised leaders' debates during the election campaign. Everyone was too busy waiting for me to abuse them online. For my efforts, he's putting me forward for a knighthood.

Yes, it was all my social-media posts wot won it for the Tories.

Honestly! Unionists will believe anything...

Is it disgusting to arrest someone in a wheelchair?

At Wednesday's Prime Ministers Questions, a group of disabled and able-bodied people tried to break in to the House of Commons to protest at Cameron's proposal to end the independent living fund. This has caused a complaint of police being heavy-handed in how they dealt with them.

As far as I can tell, the police blocked their path into the House of Commons and wheeled some of them away. They didn't arrest or beat or cause the death of anyone, which makes a nice change to their approach when dealing with non-disabled protesters.

According to the Channel 4 report (linked to above), demonstrator Mary Johnson said:

she witnessed one protester being "dragged away by police" claiming officers' behaviour was "disgusting" and that they had been "pushing wheelchairs around".

I'm no fan of the police but, to be honest, in this instance I think they acted properly. Instead of discriminating against them because they were disabled and thus just standing about wondering what to do as they broke into the House of Commons, they treated them like any other citizen and stopped them from breaching the necessary security of the House of Commons.

Mary Johnson rather ruins the idea of the poor disabled wheelchair user being picked on by the police when she also adds:

"Over 30 people, disabled activists, independent living fund users and Dpac members, have gone in, they made a rush for the House of Commons doors... A lot of these guys have very severe impairments, wheelchairs with their equipment, who are facing down police officers....they are not going to run from the government, from a fight. They are prepared to fight for their rights with everything they have." 

It's hardly the image of police picking on the disabled when the disabled make a rush for the doors, face down police officers and defiantly say they will not run from a fight!

However, I do support the disabled in their efforts. Cameron's Tories worship Thatcher's statement "there is no such thing as society" and are now trying to bring that into reality. For Scotland, the quicker we become independent - and thus mostly Tory-free - the better.

Call that abuse? Luxury!

There have been comments and tweets suggesting that JK is missing the spotlight since Harry Potter ended. If she's missing the media attention so much that it's driving her to jump on an easy bandwagon, namely SNP bashing, then it's certainly a strategy that's worked - the media have lapped it up.

However, if JK Rowling thinks she's going to win the crown for the most abused Unionist in Scotland then I'm afraid she's a million light years behind the front runners.

I imagine a scene just like the Monty Python sketch where Yorkshiremen argue about who was the most poor - you know the one, usually (wrongly) paraphrased as "Lived in crack in road? Luxury!"

So here's my brief take on that, followed at the end by a call to arms for us all to rewrite that sketch!

JK ROWLING

"I've been called an English luvvie on Twitter - now that's abuse."

JIM MURPHY

"Call that abuse? Luxury! I'd give all me fundily mundilies to be called an English luvvie on Twitter. I've been pelted with eggs, shouted at through mega phones, had Star Wars' theme tune played to me with shouts of 'bow to your imperial masters', been forced to run off the street with my favourite cross-dressing comedian - even been compared to Ridley Scott's alien. Oh my poor fundily mundilies but that's abuse."

JOHANN LAMONT 

"Call that abuse? Luxury! I've been told I was too incompetent to lead the branch office up here and then was genetically programmed to fall on my own sword. Now that's abuse."

NICOLA STURGEON 

"Call that abuse? Luxury! I've been called Britain's most dangerous woman. There were no swear words involved but the best abuse never uses them. Now that's real abuse."

Of course, I wish now I'd recorded all the insults that had been thrown around during the referendum and since. Perhaps this would be a good community effort? Could we all collectively write a similar comedy sketch, listing all the insults that have been hurled around over the past few years? What politicians and others would we have in such a sketch?

Nicola Sturgeon writes today about the abuse she's received on Twitter and calls on SNP members to be more careful with their language on social media or they'll be disciplined. All sides have hurled insults - today, Alistair Carmichael has accused David Cameron of having an "almost psychopathic ruthlessness."

A sketch 'celebrating' the best insults might just help to make us all laugh and thus diffuse the situation. Are you up for helping?

Devolution is to Labour as Europe is to the Tories

In yesterday's post, I discussed the BBC programme The Fall of Labour. I thought I'd give some thoughts on what the programme's senior Labour figures said.

My understanding is that Labour wanted to see off the rise of the SNP. To do that, they came up with the idea of devolution. Once a Scottish Parliament was created, they argued, there'd be no reason for the SNP to continue.

However once the Scottish Parliament was created, Labour didn't know what to do with it. There appears to have been a reluctance by Westminster to let go of the powers they'd given to Holyrood. Claims are made that Gordon Brown had a rather unhealthy influence over what Scottish Labour did in the Holyrood chamber; much friction between MSPs and MPs resulted.

This division is still plaguing Labour today. Although the split in the Tory party over Europe is well known, it appears that the split within the Labour party over Scottish devolution is only now beginning to be noticed. As my title says, it would appear that Devolution is to Labour as Europe is to the Tories.

This split could tear the Labour party apart. Senior voices are calling for greater autonomy for SLAB within UK Lab, others for an independent SLAB, and still others for maintaining the Westminster-led system.

If it is true that Labour only created the Scottish Parliament to kill off the SNP, then this is perhaps the biggest political blunder of our generation. Instead of killing them, it gave the SNP exactly the platform they needed and the SNP have flourished; Labour, on the other hand, have suffered.

The conclusion then is this: the threat of the SNP in the decades prior to devolution is what ultimately decimated Scottish Labour. If Labour hadn't created the Scottish Parliament, would the SNP be the force they are today?

Finally, the BBC admit that SLAB are crap

It was a long time coming. But even the BBC couldn't ignore the almost complete annihilation of Scottish Labour (SLAB) at the recent general election.

So last night, they finally gritted their teeth and aired a programme called The Fall of Labour (viewers in the UK can see it on the iPlayer here).

Presenter Jackie Bird's opening remarks highlighted the changed nature of Labour - its only Westminster seat in Scotland was in the affluent Edinburgh South constituency of million-pound homes. Affluence was now its new heartland in Scotland. Later, in a piece about the demise of the Ravenscraig steel plant under Thatcher, a former trade union man at the plant, Tommy Brennan, confirmed that picture. Asked by Jackie Bird if the failure of politicians to build the promised new town on the site of Ravenscraig was why he left Labour, he said what many former Labour members have been saying for years:

"No - New Labour left me. I didn't leave Labour - I'm still a socialist and I always will be till the day I die. Labour left me, as it did with many, many people like myself - many, many activists in the trade union movement, people who gave their life. I gave 39 and a half years to the Labour party.You don't do that and walk away from that lightly.

His pain and anger was palpable, literally spitting at the end.

The programme looked into the history of Labour, from its formation by a Lanarkshire miner to today's woes. One issue it highlighted was that the Labour party was originally in favour of Home Rule for Scotland. However, the issue has torn the Labour party apart. Jackie Bird commented:

"This was a big problem for Labour. The idea of Scotland being governed from Scotland was championed by its founding father Keir Hardie and was a key pillar of its existence. But over the decades, division within the party over devolution meant its relationship with this crucial policy was, at the very least, an uneasy one."

Speaking about the 1979 referendum on devolution, which was voted for by a majority of those who voted but was lost due to a Labour wrecking motion that 40% of the entire electorate had to vote for it, Jackie Bird commented:

"The effects of that referendum are profound. It was seen as a blow to Scotland's self confidence. But did it damage the Labour party? Well, it did see the emergence of Tam Dalyell's West Lothian Question: how could Scottish MPs, after devolution, vote on matters affecting English seats? And that question has reverberated down the years. And Labour has yet to come up with an answer."

Labour's heyday in Scotland was undoubtedly when Thatcher came to power. Having a clear enemy boosted their profile. In the first two years of Thatcher's government, Scotland lost one-fifth of its heavy industry. Scottish Labour membership surged but they were powerless against Thatcher and could not stop her destructive forces, perhaps most iconically summarised by Ravenscraig's demise.

Even though Tony Blair and Gordon Brown had to change the party to appeal to centre-right 'middle England,' and thus won a landslide in 1997, the anti-Thatcher image kept Scots voting for them. This led to complacency within SLAB.

Ian Davidson:

"There were of course some parts of local government where it was done on Buggins's turn, it was cronyism - in many cases it was near corruption. There was a degeneration of Labour in local government because they were there because they were there because they were there. They weren't really there with any particular burning purpose."

Gerry Hassan:

"It's not an accident that some of the greatest scandals of British post-war local government have happened in Scotland. One of the most significant was in Monklands. In 1993/4 this comes out and is brought to attention. And what it turned out was a Labour group that was predominantly Catholic was dispensing public funds to the predominantly Catholic area of the council. And Labour were prepared to just let that fester. It was also partly John Smith's constituency and it only came to light really when Tory English MPs continued to make it an issue in the House of Commons when Smith had become leader post-1992. And eventually the party has to act on it, to do an enquiry into it, clean up Monklands and then when John Smith tragically dies in 1994 there's then a very difficult by-election for the Labour party which Helen Liddel just very narrowly manages to win for the Labour party."

Tribalism was a real problem for Labour. Instead of representing all of the people, they simply represented their own interests.

Under Blair and Brown, who stormed to victory in 1997, devolution was brought in, championed by the new Secretary of State for Scotland Donald Dewar. The BBC obviously has a sense of humour, showing a 1995's George Robertson's statement on the idea of devolution:

"A Scottish Parliament inside and strengthening the United Kingdom would kill the SNP because the majority of people in Scotland want control over their own lives, over domestic affairs, but they don't want to wrench Scotland out of the United Kingdom."

If devolution was only a political tactic to weaken the SNP, it failed badly.

The rest of the program really concentrated on the impact on politics that the Scottish Parliament had. First up was the SLAB selection process for MSPs, with accusations that the process was controlled from Westminster via Donald Dewar. As a result, some of the best talent in SLAB was denied a seat within Holyrood. When Dewar died within a year of becoming the inaugural First Minster of Scotland, it left SLAB headless. No one in SLAB knew what to do with the SP it had created.

SLAB's problems were made worse because they had a tradition of looking to Westminster for guidance. This created friction between the MSPs and the MPs. This was worsened when Holyrood wanted to go in a different policy direction from Westminster. If Scotland gave its residents something for free, England would only want it as well.

However, Ian Davidson blames McLeish, who followed Dewar as First Minister, and then his successor McConnel, for being too weak and not doing enough - their failings were nothing to do with Westminster friction.

But there was also the accusation that Gordon Brown influenced every decision made by Scottish Labour. Did this discord between Holyrood and Westminster damage the Labour party? Jack McConnell commented on the lack of Westminster praise for Holyrood's achievements:

"You will find rarely, over the last decade, a leadership figure in the Labour party in Westminster - Scottish or from elsewhere in the UK - who has made a speech celebrating those achievements. And there was something, something somewhere, deep-rooted, that stopped those achievements being celebrated. And people in Scotland noticed that."

Former Holyrood Health Minster Susan Deacon suggested that Labour's achievements were less than stellar:

"Week on week, discussions about policy and so on were driven not by kind of long-term aims but rather about how you'd win the vote that week, what the headline would be, how we'd be seen to be getting one over on the Nats. And I know that many of my erstwhile colleagues will despise me for saying that, but I'm sorry, that's what it felt like to me, and that's what I disliked, and I firmly believe it's what an awful lot of the Scottish public disliked too." 

With the rise of the SNP as a credible Holyrood opposition, they eventually won power in 2007. McConnell comments that from then on, Labour were driven by "defensive anger" at their defeat. Iain Gray took over as SLAB leader. He comments:

"I think if you do any kind of job like that, the dangerous thing, but the thing which nobody can avoid, is you look back and think about things that you could've done differently. My view of the core of our problem - this is not the only problem but I think it's at the heart of it - is the inability of the party to really come to terms with the new political context created by devolution. I think I maybe half understood that when I was a leader. I think I understand that much better now."

With the SNP Holyrood landslide in 2011, Johann Lamont became the new SLAB leader. She describes the period then as SLAB being in "intensive care." As Jackie Bird noted, there was also a brand problem - big Scottish Labour names like Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling were all at Westminster, not Holyrood.

Then, of course, came the Scottish Independence Referendum. Various commentators on the program all bemoaned the fact that Labour had to go into bed with the Tories and that the Better Together campaign was created in London and then dumped on the Scots to run. Labour had no way of putting forward their vision of progressive politics because they were chained to the Tories, so the campaign became a negative one - which Scotland didn't like.

After the indyref, Johann Lamont quit, accusing Labour in London of treating SLAB as a "branch office." Discussing the internal party fight over whether Lamont should go or not, Jackie Bird asked her "But isn't that an indictment of a Labour party which has been accused down the decades of backstabbing and infighting?" Lamont's response is legendary:

"That's only on the good days."

Jack McConnell sums up Labour's problems since the creation of the Scottish Parliament:

 "Well, I think there were two really significant problems that faced any leader of the Scottish Labour party over the last fifteen years. One was that they did not have control over the Scottish Labour party headquarters and the tendency in the Scottish Labour party headquarters was to turn towards the Westminster leadership and Westminster elected representatives rather than Holyrood."

Jackie Bird intervened to ask "Why did they not have control? Explain that to me." McConnell continued:

"Well, the party's staff are all employed by the Labour party as a whole but also in terms of the personalities - and to some extent the tradition - the tendency was to turn towards the Westminster end of the party rather than the Holyrood or the Scottish end."

Jim Murphy, a Westminster MP, then became the new leader of Scottish Labour. Iain Gray summed up their Westminster defeat in the 2015 general election:

"I think that we failed really to understand the difference that devolution had made and I think that's carried through all the way really until 2015 and the effect of that has gradually eroded our position in Scotland and in 2015 eroded it disastrously - just disastrously."

Jim Murphy resigned as leader and a leadership contest is now under way. Predictably, the programme ended with a bit of Labour's song: "We'll keep the red flag flying here."

However, for this blogger, the flag looks to be stained blue and is lying tarnished on the ground. Still, at least the BBC now have no excuse for stuffing their TV studios with Scottish Labour MPs or MSPs. Given there is now only one MP and it looks as though the 2016 Holyrood elections will significantly reduce the Labour MSPs, it is likely the BBC will struggle to find enough Labour faces to grace their studios.

I predict the BBC will instead have lots of historical programmes about the past successes of Labour. It's interesting to note that many of the quotes from the senior Labour figures that I use here are missing from the BBC News website's quote collection in The fall of Labour in Scotland - in their own words article. Perhaps some of it was just too painful to write down.

But the message of the programme is clear: the Labour party did not understand devolution and it probably still doesn't. By insisting on remaining tied to UK Labour, SLAB look to be perpetuating that exact same mistake. Will they ever learn?

JK Rowling: the SNP are not bad wizards trying to turn the English into frogs

I disagree totally with JK Rowling's stance that the SNP contains anti-English sentiments. As Twitter users pointed out to her, the movement is pro-self-determination not anti-other-countries.

It's also fair game to point out that Scotland entered into a partnership with England (the "Union") and now feel that we're not getting a good deal from that partnership. But that's an anti-Westminster feeling because it's them that call the shots, not the everyday folks of England.

During the indyref, there was also the English Scots for YES group:

They were welcomed with open arms by the wider YES movement. Their inclusion summed up perfectly what was happening in the minds of Yessers - it was all about Scotland and what was best for Scotland.

Yet there are still people who feel that the movement was really about hating England. I'm not entirely sure if JK falls into this group or not. She claims she has good friends who are SNP members but she is becoming as famous for her stories about anti-English sentiment within the SNP as for her stories about wizards.

I've never met JK and wish her all the best. But perhaps she should consider if it's her own attitude that is inviting negative comments and not her English background. It's easy to say your are being mistreated purely as a result of being black or of being a woman or of being gay or of being ginger or of being disabled or of being this or of being that and so we could all go on.

But sometimes you get treated in a less than respectful way because of your own personality. It's much more difficult to accept people don't like you because they don't like the way you conduct yourself and the views you express. That would mean you'd have to reflect on what you've been doing and why you've been doing it. Much easier to believe you're perfect and blame others for not liking you because there is something wrong with them - like being racist.

Again, I don't know JK and have never met her.

But sticking your head above the parapet to smear a movement with claims that it is racist is going to provoke a response from even the most saintliest of people.

I encourage JK to analyse her own attitudes to the independence movement and consider whether it's time she changed them. The SNP are not bad wizards trying to turn the English into frogs - they are good people doing their best to make their country prosper. Shouting racist at them doesn't really help.


If you want an alternative to boy wizard books, try my politics-science fiction one. It's only 25,000 words so could be read in an afternoon. It's main focus is really a man in his 50s who goes back in time to meet himself in his 20s to try and convince him to change his ways but without revealing he's himself. Of course, it all goes horribly wrong...

The Record Count of Westminster