The Supreme Court should not interfere north of the border

As a founding principle of the act of union, 1707, Scotland and her judicial system was to remain entirely independent of London interference. Yet, poorly worded New Labour reforms has opened the door for the Supreme Court to do just that.
.
Correcting the mistake
.
The Scottish executive has announced that it will be "taking action" to remedy the curious situation where the Supreme Court can rule on human rights related cases in Scotland. Naturally this defeats the historic status quo, where our distinct, and many admit superior, legal system north of the border is independent and free from English interfering. 
.
But it is more important than moving to restore a constitutionally historic status quo. This move; to restore Scottish legal independence; is vital to the future of our current legal system. Major legal experts in Edinburgh including Paul McBride QC admit that the situation following Cadder ruling, there is an urgent requirement for Holyrood politicians to act. He told the BBC:
.
"Others such as Elish Anglioni have all expressed concern about the Supreme Court's role."
.
And he would be correct to express concerns. After all, when the Supreme Court was set up, to replace the House of Lords as the highest court of appeal in the land, it was never geared towards interacting with Scots Law. Here lies the rub, the Cadder ruling has therefore created a Scots Law crisis (though, I see nobody mentioned this during the Holyrood election - shame on them all). At the moment, while the Supremes' cannot adjudicate on a Scots Law case; they are able to overrule the Scottish Court of Criminal Appeals - so long as the complaint is human rights associated. 
.
This is clearly intolerable given that Scots Law has many different legal influences on its development into the contemporary network we see before us. Canon law, feudal law, civil law, customary law, native Scots statutes and of course indirect elements of Roman Law via civil and canon law. The point surely to take is that it is technically impossible, and legally disastrous to have what is effectively and English law court (with all of its entirely different legal elements) presiding over a Scots case. The neuances to be respected and upheld are all different for one thing; it becomes impossible for Scots Law to find itself subject to clear, fair justice in an English law court.
.
So it is good to hear that this situation is one of the chief areas of the SNP legislative action post-election. I wish they may have said what the planned to do about this during the election; but so long as they act to restore our independent judicial system - I can't say I care too much about that. Usually there is too much politics, and often times it gets lost during elections. To quote George Orwell, "you are less likely to see it when you are within sound of the guns". In this case, the guns are not revolutionary but electoral. The point remains, we cannot really get too hot under the collar at the Nats, if they never gave time to policy during the election - it often gets lost in the sound of the rats race. 
.
But what the SNP plan remains a mystery (perhaps they aren't sure themselves yet). All Kenny 'Megrahi liberator' MacAskil would say (via a spokesperson) was:
.
"Scotland's distinct legal system, including our criminal law, has served our country well for centuries, ensuring justice for victims while also protecting the rights of those accused of a crime.
.
We believe the UK Supreme Court should have no role in matters of Scots criminal law - a view supported by Scotland's leading legal figures"
.
Wait and see time now folks. 

No, the USA isn't "just more right-wing"!!

The USA isn't just "too right-wing" for progressive politics. The Democrats can win on a leftist manifesto program, and no, the blue-collar voter isn't actually besotted with Reganism. All you need is Democrats with balls...
.
Absent change
.
People always say that the USA is just like that. To understand its politics, you just have to take a step to the right. Well that is what they say, and it is total rubbish. Sweeping statement? Perhaps, but bare with me as I explain (or at least try to).

Since the rise of Regan, and his miraculous conversion of the US working classes to the Republican creed's brand of low taxes, absent state and anti-Federalism, we have seen a curious thing. Curious, and oh-so-typical of 'social democrats'. They see a populist force on the centre-right and they begin a process often called 'selling out'. This is true for what the Democrats have been doing ever since Regan beat Carter. They saw the rise of a populist force of the democratic right, and have avoided actually challenging it.

Oh yes, they have challenged it in so far as arguing that the right-wing brand needs 'a human face'. But where has the strong, ideological alternative of the centre-left gone in the USA? You want to know why the USA votes Republican, and why the right-wing dominates as it does? Just take a good, long, hard look at the Democrats. Since the early 80s they have run from their actual narrative.
No one has stood up and offered a powerful, liberal, overarching argument calling for active statism, progressive taxation etc. Instead they opted for the Clintonian politics of sellout. Why challenge something you believe is too strong, enshrined in the electorates minds, when you can simply propose a watered-down (and slightly more left-wing) alternative of basically the same themes?

What I am saying - putting it bluntly - is that the Democrats have failed to challenge the core ideological presumptions of US Republicans. Thus, the US is right-wing in 'appearance', but in reality it isn't. Voter apathy has never been higher. Independents have never had less loyalty to this supposedly unchallengeable 'Reganite' political brand-legacy. What the Democrats need to do is stop running from their perfectly legitimate alternative: higher taxes on the wealthy, progressive state intervention, Keynesian economics, 'affirmative action' (otherwise known here in the UK as 'positive discrimination). All the Democrats have done is try and discretely sneak these core values into their manifestos. But lo-and-behold if you accuse them of doing this they obfuscate. It really is pointless; if you don't have the courage to stand up for your overarching vision of the 'good life', 'good society' and state role - why be surprised when you don't win all that often?

This is insistently where Obama has utterly failed. Moving beyond the obviously delightful symbolism of a Black family living in the White House that slaves built; he has just continued this tradition.

Obama wants to utilise a Keynesian-type macro-economic proscription for the national economy. BUT, typical of post-Regan Democrats, he lacks the balls to argue the case for higher taxes on the wealthy. The result? A Democrat president who seems to lack intellectual-policy coherence. More state spending, but no higher taxes? It sounds unrealistic, and it is. But then, why not do what we all know needs to be done? MORE STATE SPENDING TO RESTORE GROWTH, AND MORE TAXATION ON THE USA TOP-100 EARNERS!!

Why doesn't he do this? Ah ... 'cos the USA is just too right-wing ... the blue-collar workers are either too mislead by Reganism, or are too stupid to understand where their interests lay. I reject this, and so should the USA & Democrats too!

Blog on hiatus for next couple of days

Dear all,

Due to severe weather conditions up here in Stirling, I've had to suspend my regular blog updates; but only for a few days. Since there have been winds of up to 80pmh round my neck of the woods, a tree has fallen through my challet roof. Naturally this leaves me with some important 'other' things to be getting on with.

Please bare with me, as it should all be sorted out tomorrow evening some point.

Until then, enjoy yourselves. And keep safe!

Deanthetory

Stealing Iranian rain? Really?

The latest outburst by Galloway's fav regime

In the latest outburst by the chronically unstable 'president' of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has accused European leaders of plotting to cause drought in Iran ... 
.
Concerning personality
.
The region is ablaze with the 'youth', a new generation it seems has frankly had enough with the petty dictatorships and western complacency. In Eqypt, Yemen, Tunis, Libya, Syria we see ancient dynastical despots fall before the sheer power of the mob. And now we can see just how worried Tehran has got, as they apparently seek to blame us Europeans for their drought. Is this a regime in trouble?

In his latest address to the nation, the mentally unstable Ahadinejad; famous for such statements as calling for "Israel to be wiped of the face of the map", and calling 'Green revolutionaries' last year "western spies" ... now he brings you the latest krack-pot conspiracy theory. He is finished with his holocaust denial conferences, now it is the evil European scheme to steal their rain.

"Western countries have designed plans to cause drought in certain areas of the world, including Iran,"

Yes, he actually said this.

But moving past the obvious remarks about his obvious loss of touch with reality, this presents more than one worry. A president like Ahadinejad has been seen before, as is the regime-type he leads. These men are ruthless, will stop and nothing, will blame everyone else, and shall never relinquish power. Ahmadinejad shares more in common with Libya's Gaddafi than a loony-tunes cartoon bad-guy.

Yet more deeply, this can also be seen as the latest part in an internal struggle-drama ongoing within Iran. Recently the President refused to obey orders from the Ayatolla, whom he previously depended upon when he stole the election result from the Green Movement's Mousavi. Imagine the potential chaos which could spark, the human lives lost, and the regional instability resultant from an Iran on the verge of internal political fragmentation.

While this maybe a tad premature, divisions like these ones tend to hang about, not disapear. After all the Ayatolla and Amadinejad aren't likely to talk their differences over...these men are nutters.

The SNP separatist stall is set out

Scotland Bill will be held to ransom, and a referendum delayed till the last minute - is this what most people really care about?

He started by avoiding the words "separatist" and "break-up" like the plague, and he barely even mentioned "independence" (only came up in his address twice). Yet for anyone who thought for a second that Salmond was moving toward 'indie-lite' have egg all over their faces. 

But what proved much more interesting was some of the (frankly stupid) claims he made. Most obviously, Salmond suggested, hinted pretty strongly, that Scotland currently is subordinated to England. Now this is clearly untrue. Let me cite Alan Cochrane, as his recent comments are grand-eloquent:

"I'm bound to say that I don't know many people – other than the dyed-in-the wool separatists in Mr Salmond's party – who feel themselves to be in any way subordinate to the English, nor who feel any resentment towards them. If there is any of the latter emotion around it is more often exhibited at the perpetual girning of the Nats."

 "Girning Nats" was a particularly nice touch I am bound to say :)

However Mr Cochrane's substantive point is fair enough and one that separatists are bound to struggle to answer. Mr Salmond says that he wants Scotland and England to stand as "equals". But is this not already the case? Can anyone really claim that Scotland and England is a relationship of master and servant? Am I the only one to think this is an absurd claim to be making?

It is time for Unionist Parties to pre-empt this roguish agenda of misinformation, half-baked claims and separatism by compelling these Nats to hold their much-sanctified separatist referendum now. We Unionists need to stop running and hiding, time to pony up and call the referendum, from Westminster if the Nats continue to evade and avoid.

p.s. any cyber-nats commenting, please keep it clean and swear-free :P

Shadows hanging over UK recovery

With recent financial figures out recently for last quarter showing sluggish UK growth, many on the left claim (with all too much delight) that it is evidence that the cuts are to blame. But what about the real facts? Isn't it more likely due to higher UK debt exposure than eurozone powerhouse-economies like Germany, and the Labour-delayed debt-reduction program?

Cuts not deep enough?

The figures from last quarterly figures for Germany stood at a solid 1.5%, while France managed an above-prediction 1.0%. The Eurozone average makes comforting reading too with a respectable 0.8% - more than predictions and might help offset fears that Portugal risks destroying the single market. But then we see the UK figures. A meak 0.5%, Time to ask why it is that as we begin this year, last quarter figures suggest that investors and consumers are more comfortable spending inside the eurozone than in the UK.

A good place to start would be with the debt. No, not the structural debt - I shall come to that later. What I mean is the shockingly high levels of domestic UK personal indebtedness. UK consumers are spending less than the majority in eurozone powerhouses like Germany mainly because they have already burgeoning levels of private debt. While German families were encouraged by their government to pay back their personal debts during the boom-years; here in the UK Gordo Broon told us all to carry on spending. He cooed in the ears of millions of British families, and individuals "no more boom and bust". Spend today, pay later...and later apparently to Labour would never come. Well here we are - in 'later'. 

So this represents the first important point to note, UK growth is slower partly due to the fact that our service economy is starved of spending consumers. This in turn is down to the personal indebtedness in the UK, which far exceeds any western world contemporary.

But it isn't just a matter of high personal debts. There is more to the UK economy than the service sector. We come to the financial sector - arguably the largest single piece of our economy inherited from Labour.

Harder hit

The UK banking sector was harder hit than key eurozone economies like France, Germany, Netherlands. Indeed, the UK seems to find more natural comparison-counterparts in 'club med', than in northern Europe. The next explanatory item to highlight is the impact of the financial collapse had on the UK, compared to others.

Whereas German banks didn't by-and-large wholesale collapse like in Greece, Ireland, UK, Portugal; this has allowed Germany to start reducing its national borrowing sooner, and begin cutting harder earlier. This option was unavailable here in the UK partly because the then-Labour government refused to begin cutting any debts (despite the fact that nation and structural debt is a key element in slowing our recovery). The UK bailed out the banks; and then demanded that they continue lending. Not that that was enough, the UK government then focused under Labour on borrowing even more debts, to pay middle managers to stay in their jobs. Compare that to what happened in Germany.

Germany borrowing did shoot up in the immediate aftermath of the financial collapse, but their borrowing also shot down long before the UK even begun its deficit reduction program. This manifested by March this year in Germany holding ambitious plans to take its borrowing and debt down to all-time lows since the crisis and even reunification.  But not in Britain, Labour's blatant electioneering with our economy resulted in delayed action.

To cite the Financial Times, "Germany was able to grow so strongly because it had already taken the tough measures to reduce borrowing and now had a deficit much smaller than Britain's"

Isn't it time to realise that we need to copy the successful eurozone leaders and start cutting harder, faster. Our future growth may just depend on the bold, tough, creative decisions we undertake now. Does the coalition have the courage to stand up to the economic-illiteracy of the populist left? 

Should Cameron be offering anything to Clegg?

Time to let Cameron be Cameron again

Once there were three little pigs, and each of them sought to build a 'house' that would stand up against the tides and winds of election bay. The first one, called 'red' built his house on a sandy beech called 'populism', the next little pig; called 'yellow' built his house on the same beech and the next little pig called 'blue' didn't. Blue's house stayed up after strong winds from 'electors bay' showered down upon them all. Which deserves one deserves credit and which ones less so?
.
Strange times
.
I am confused. Last time I checked, the clear winner from the UK-wide elections (of all their different types and forms) was David Cameron. It was he who not only prevented the opposition making any significant inroads at all across England - but also managed to increase his share of the vote. He also oversaw an increase in Tory representation inside Wales. And his northern counterparts in Scotland succeeded in having the best night out of any unionist Party at Holyrood 2011.

At what point does this Prime Minister have to start offering concessionary policies to his deputy PM? Whatever happened to the popular mandate and the will of the electors? Last time I checked the voters voted for more of the same from the Conservatives at Westminster (at least so far as England & Wales is concerned) and for less LibDem nonsense. Thus again, on a purely democratic point of principle, why am I now reading that Cameron is launching operation 'appease the LibDem's?

The people have spoken, and the didn't ask for more LibDem representation or influence in this coalition relationship. If anything the Conservative grass-roots requires more evidence of distinctively Conservative policy. Following the local elections, and Welsh Assembly results - there is every reason to assume that what these voters really want is more Tory policy; not Red Eds empty populism and opportunism or Clegg's two-faced dancing.

What I want to see


During the General Election in 2010 I was constantly screaming at the silly Party strategists to just let Cameron be Cameron. The first live television debate proved me right, when all of those spin doctors caught hold of his ear, he looked stilted; jaded even. But look what then happened, Cameron stopped listening to thousands of white, shadowy 'advisor's' and instead followed his political head, and his idealistic heart. In short he behaved how he thought he should have. This may sound simple stuff, but all too often our politicians are frankly unable to be themselves - instead they become gray programmed machines.

Therefore, what the people voted for, and what I believe the Tory leadership needs to do is equally direct and simple. We need to see no appeasing of the LibDems, they have not only received no mandate for their views, attitudes, policies but they are also the junior (not equal) partner in this relationship.

But more than this, let us bring back those distinctively Cameron election policies which we took off the table due to Cleggs coalition negotiating positions. This means, return to family tax credits, more focus on tax cuts for married couples. And for God's sakes let us confront the idea of lowering the abortion cut-off to the European average perhaps. These policies are uniquely Cameronian, they are different from the evolutionary educational and health agendas which we inherited from New Labour; and it isn't the LibDem income-tax fairness policies. All good and well as those things are (and I do happen to strongly like them); we must NOT forget to allow Cameron to make his own policy imprint on British politics. And what policy field is more in need of some Conservative policy than the often ignored social agenda?

Even if you do not agree with any/some/all of those social policies I've mentioned - by God doesn't UK politics need our major parties to start being themselves again? How dull things can be when Labour pretend not to be socialist or even social democratic, how silly the LibDems look promising the blue skies and sunshine, and how dodgy when a Conservative pretends to back-off from our proud socially conservative ideals. If for nothing else, let us see more Conservative; Cameronian policy. It is democratic, it is what the people want and by God it is what I want as a dyed in the wool Scottish Conservative activist.

After all ... who actually VOTED for the coalition agreement? Not the joe-public like you or me, that is for sure.

Whatever happened to human decency?

Refugees from Tunisia and Libya to Italy

When you read press reports of the humanitarian crisis engulfing Italy as Tunisian and Libyan refugees make their way across the Mediterranean, you need to ask 'where is Europe'? Or maybe more precisely, 'is this why we need a stronger Europe'?
.
The wild west
.
According to yesterday's Guardian frontpage  NATO left 61 migrants to die of thirst and hunger as they made their way to the southern boot of Italy. Placing aside the obvious irony in pursuing a humanitarian mission, while ignoring the destitute, there is a wider dynamic to all of this.

Italy on its own cannot - and should not - be expected to pick up the entire humanitarian tab for all of the fighting engulfing the north of African due to what has been labelled the 'Arab Spring'. And the French response of shutting down their Savoyard border is frankly pushing the boundaries of legal treaty law and the decency of a real response. It is no solution at all to hem thousands of desperate people into 'human camps' in the south of Italy; and see the rest of Europe close down borders to avoid any spread. These people are not an oil spill or the avian flu, we do not need to react with fear and blatant hostility to desperate people in an awful plight.

But you would be forgiven for thinking that Sarkozy was standing at the front of Thermopylae with his Greek brothers as he held back an invading horde of Xerxes. But no, this isn't ancient Greece, and no these people aren't soldiers pressed into service of some lofty demi-God. These are plain fathers, mothers, sons and daughters. They deserve better than a closed border and an ostrich mentality of 'if I don't see it, it doesn't exist'.

So solutions? There is a clear need for the EU to step up and start supranational organizing in this area. Europe is at its moral and decent best when it cooperates with one another. And the EU institutions, civil servants and legal apparatus enable us to do just this on an effective, and continental scale.

The reason it hasn't been happening is because we have committed the cardinal sin. The despicable sin of allowing the EU to become engulfed in problems which we have as Europeans failed to step up and solve. Brussels is overloaded with our collective nation-state failures, whether it be economic crises across the south, or the need to balance big-state rivalries and blatant self-interests vis-a-vis French agricultural subsidy or British rebates. And rather than working toward a solution we just were happy to let our politicians leave it all to Brussels to resolve. Guess what the EU isn't Joan D'Arc, it isn't a mythical creature able to rescue us all from the plight of crisis and disaster. Nope, it is a natural and self developing organism which requires constant care. It has been ignored and now when we need it so badly, to held coordinate our responses to the humanitarian crisis; when we need to to step in and slap Sarkozy down - it is unable.

So as I posed at the outset, the question perhaps isn't so much 'where is Europe' but 'is this why we need a stronger union of Europe?'

Personally I see a stronger EU, less dependent the great member-states as something urgently required; and this current humanitarian crisis-in-the-making in Italy demonstrates this brilliantly. We need a stronger EU so that it can resolve the challenges that we presume all too readily to leave at its door. If we want the EU to do the things we ask of it, nay, expect of it in these situations, do not be surprised when Brussels asks for the powers to enable it to do it. 

# anyone who reads George Orwell will understand why I constantly refer to human 'decency', it is a major theme of leftist thought; and one all too often overlooked nowadays as leftists drift into woeful elitism (too much Bernard Shaw if you ask me) 

Time to ask: what does Independence even mean?

With the SNP fundamentalists on the march, proclaiming the election result a vote for separatism, the time has come for all good unionists to take the fight to the insurgency.
.
What do the separatists even want?
.
Iain MacWhirter in an excellent Sunday Herald piece asks the very valid question, "what does independence even mean?" If one listens to the SNP, you would be forgiven for assuming that even they are unsure.

Therefore it is time to highlight the fundamental irrelevance, stupidity and flawed nature of the separatist agenda.
.

So let us run through some of the basics surrounding the issue:

• Would an independent Scotland have its own currency

No, it has been made clear that the SNP would either continue to let the Bank of England control Scottish interest rates, or hand those powers to Brussels ... some independence.

• Would an independent Scotland take control of its fisheries policy? 

No, because the SNP would keep us in the EU.

• Would an independent Scotland establish border controls? 

No, the SNP have refused to establish border checks with the rest of the UK.

• Would the SNP establish Scottish embassies abroad? 

No, the SNP have made this clear in Salmond's "civic union" speech. The SNP would maintain free movement as currently set down with the British Union.

• Would an independent Scotland get rid of the Queen?

No, the SNP would keep the British monarchy.

• Would an independent Scotland remove the British army bases?

No, the SNP have stated that they would want the British army to remain in Scotland ...

At this point surely it comes time to ask the SNP, what even they mean by this 'independence'. Tris, from Munguins Republic responded that "it is a mindset". Well that may be all good and well, a romantic mindset, but in practice what does this costly, historic and turbulent upheaval even mean?

Isn't it a reality that 'independence' would change virtually nothing in practice, except open the door to a fundamental loss of Scottish sovereignty in a globalist world, and in an EU where only the larger member-states are listened to? On each point of debate, on free movement, on the position of the queen, of the continuation of joint embassies, of membership of the EU ... the SNP have given way to the unionist position which argues that we are better off cooperating with the other parts of Britain.

So, perhaps it is time to hold this referendum now, win it for the union, and put an end to this silly; irrelevant and costly side-issue which only separatists obsess about?

What needs to be done

Murdo Frazer is the best man to lead

If 2007 was a bad night for Scottish Conservatism, 2011 must be viewed as catastrophic
.
A slow decline

Under the current leadership the Scottish Conservative movement can be said to be suffering from a "slow death", one where there is no change of direction, and little internal reform. Following our vote collapse from a notional 20 MSPs to just 15 MSPs, there can be little doubt that heads  must role and new energy injected. Fast.

When one realises that in one election your leader oversees the loss of 25% of your vote, the time comes to demand fresh direction and new leadership.

Annabel Goldie herself has indicated that she intends to stay on, but this cannot be allowed to happen. Honestly the truth is that she has done precious little to enhance our party fortunes at the polls. And as much as voters refer warmly to her, or like her, this personal respect has never translated into fresh support for the party. Thus I see precious little use in having a respected leader who is unable to garnish wider support; or indeed even successfully appeal to our own core vote. Time for change.

So who can take over, and what can they offer?

To my mind there is only one leader with the charisma, strength of principle and clear vision who is in line for the job. Murdo Fraser is a known entity in Scottish politics, and someone with a widely articulated belief in reforming the party policy platform. He at Perth conference outlined the need to adopt a radical platform of fiscal autonomy, and has always been known to be a strategist and popular figure inside the party.

Murdo, as deputy leader, is already odds on favourite for the job, and given the new direction he offers there is hope that he can deepen party support in core constituencies where Goldie has continued to see us fall far short.
.
Going forward
.
To quote a number of key party backers and prominent fundraiser, Goldie must do the "decent thing" and immediately resign. Once this takes place there must be a debate held inside the party, not in the fringes but in the actual conference hall itself discussing fiscal autonomy, taking the Scottish Conservatives back into independence from the English Tories. These are the paramount issues of the day, and under Goldie these issues shall continued to be ducked.

In what can only be described as an Ostrich tactic, Goldie and the current party leaders and office holders seem hell-bent on a mantra of "no change", despite the clear crisis the party is facing.

Do we survive and grow in Scottish politics? Or are we destined to be merely shadows and dust, the sad  remanence of the Party of MacMillan, Alec Douglas-Holme and Benjamin Disraeli? If the former is to be achieved then Goldie must go, the party must have the honest debates and we must settle on a new generation of party leadership.

Results and breakdown

All of the results are in from Scotland, Wales, England and Northern Ireland and to be honest, they make bad reading for Labour and LibDem; but not for Conservative or SNP ...
.
In England
.
In the breakdown you can see that far from suffering from a major by-election kicking, England saw Conservative controlled-councils and councillors increase net total, despite Labour's charge
.
PARTY   COUNCILS+/-   COUNCILLORS+/-
CON     157+ 4               4820 + 81LAB      57+ 26               2392 + 800LD        10 - 9                1056  - 695OTH      55-2                  1761 - 199
.
What these numbers show is that yes Labour have been making inroads, but not against the Conservatives. Those Labour numbers show that their gain in Councillors happened in Manchester, Sheffield, Liverpool against the LibDems; but critically and problematically not against Tories in key marginals around Birmingham, Portsmouth or indeed East Anglia (which in Westminster terms is now a Labour free part of England, with 94% voting Tory).
.
So the numbers aren't good for Labour. They failed in England to make those inroads against the Conservatives. Every Tory councillor they did take, we saw our numbers made up on the net total with LibDem gains; and in many cases Labour simply failed to rout Tory local government control. 
.
In Wales
.
Wales is a bit more interesting, because yes, Labour did have a good night - but not at Conservative expense. We see again a potential Labour celebration being dampened by the reality that they have failed to beat the Tories, almost all gains for Labour arriving at Welsh Nationalist and LibDem squeezes. 
.

PARTY	CONST	REGN	TOTAL	+/-
LAB	28	2	30	+4
CON	6	8	14	+2
PC	5	6	11	-4
LD	1	4	5	-1
OTH	0	0	0	-1

.
When reading these numbers it is clear that the Conservatives, far from being given an electoral kicking by the voters have been validated. Wales voted for the Conservatives actions in government, it is just that the naturally anti-tory leftwingers from PC or LibDem gravitated to Labour. Hardly something for a Tory to worry about: 'quick, write home! anti-tory voters don't vote Tory!' I do not mean to be flippant, but reinforce a critical underlying message here: Labour could only win when their opponent was not a Conservative. That surely does not make comfortable reading for Red Ed and his Labour cohorts in London.
.
Northern Ireland
.
As the results are still ongoing, as soon as I get hold of them, so shall you. Until then, my N.I friends from university inform me that it is a battle between the DUP and Sin Fienn, and it is apparently a tight one. I look forward to those numbers.
.
Scotland
.
And finally, but certainly not least, Scotland. The results here are extremely seismic (as this blog predicted before hand). As I had predicted Labour would have a bad night at SNP hands, I predicted they would end up with 31 seats but Labour did do slightly better than my prediction and got 37 ... damn, I was only slightly off!
.

PARTY	CONST	REGN	TOTAL	+/-
SNP	53	16	69	+23
LAB	15	22	37	-7
CON	3	12	15	-5
LD	2	3	5	-12
OTH	0	3	3	+1

.
From these results we can see the SNP taking gains from everyone. Not just Labour. One of their +23 was Edinburgh Pentlands; with a majority of 1,500 (rounded to nearest 500); much to my personal surprise. But the story really is two-fold.
.
On the one hand the Scottish Conservatives dropped from 17MSPs to 15 MSPs, but due to boundary changes on the notionals that represents a 5 MSPs drop. So not good for Goldie. However today we face a LibDem wipe-out. As of this afternoon the Scottish LibDems are right back where they were in the 1950s, with 2 odd MSPs. If it weren't for that list they would have just 2 MSPs. They have no constituencies on the mainland either. 
But let us talk Labour! What a night! So many of their highest profile figures gone! (By high profile, I obviously mean high profile for their B-team). Of the major Labour figures to leave are:
.
1. Tom McCabe (sported as a potential leadership candidate, no more)
2. Karen Gillion (she thought her seat safe, having held in FPTP since 1999, and refused to be put on the list)
3. Karen Whitefield (another arrogant bitch who thought her seat so safe that she refused to be put on the list)
4. Andy Kerr, the man who lost East Kilbride!! Some potential leader him!!!
.
But let us not forget the others like Tom MacAveety among others. All of these constituencies have been lost in a sea-change to the SNP. Glasgow is now in Holyrood a majority-SNP city, and Labour could only see Chisolm cling on in Edinburgh, their lone representative. And personally, while I detest Chisolm's communist views, he was a decent Labour MSPs last four years (one of the few), so I am happy to see him re-elected
.
Much to my personal delight however, the Scottish Conservatives performed the best out of all three of the unionist Parties. And the fact that we managed to hold comfortably our regional representation in West Scotland, Glasgow and Central Scotland; areas typically terrified of Thatcher's ghost; it shows how the voters respected our honest, realistic campaign. But let us not pretend our night was a victory. In places where I campaigned, was a polling agent for, and was at the counts for, Stirling our Tory vote halved - going straight to the SNP and in Clackmannanshire & Dunblane we dropped a much less 4%. So questions now need to be asked of Goldie, her leadership and the failure of our Party to embrace full fiscal autonomy and push for independence from the English Tories. The party needs to become Scottish again, BUT continue to take a Tory whip down in Westminster (like the SDLP do with Labour at Westminster). Goldie must go, the party must hit the nuclear option. 
.
Finally let us finish up with one simple claim by me: this was NOT a vote for seperatism. The reverse is true, BUT since I can only claim to know this I call for a referendum NOW on Scottish Independence - let us end this now. One way or the other. Not in 5 years, NOW. Or are the SNP too scared? 

Voting Day

Voting day has arrived and here are some reasons to vote Scottish Conservative & Unionist and No2AV

A record of delivery

The Scottish Conservatives have a proven record of delivery and policy achievement, and have easily wrestled more in the way of policy concessions from the minority SNP executive than any other opposition party.

We have:

• secured 1,000 extra police on the street; Labour didn't want any, and the SNP originally wanted a paltry 500
• 4 year council tax freeze; our votes made it happen and whereas the SNP wanted it to be temporary - we wanted it for the full 4 year parliament
• Lower business rate taxes; we ensured that the burden of tax is lower for the employers so we can tackle Labours economic recession
• £26m boost to the construction industry; easily a critical element of the Scottish economy- we delivered a critical boost to it
• A new national drugs strategy; because the original 1999 consensus had failed our young people
• £60m town centre regeneration fund; because the inner cities urgently need investment and not more of Labours complacency

For more of policies like this, you need to vote Scottish Conservative & Unionist today. It is critical that we have the presence in Holyrood to continue to force the SNP executive into making these concessions. More on less, honesty not empty rhetoric and broken promises.

NO2AV

The referendum will prove expensive and deadly. The consequences of a 'yes' vote could very well undermine, alter our democratic rights forever. 

If the 'yes' wins then:

• There is an end to one person one vote, as under AV redistribution means some voters views are more influential than others
• There will be NO change to the lives of the 15m people living in 'safe seats', they will still be safe seats
• It will boost minority and extremist parties at the expense of the democratic centre ground
• Millions of pounds will have to be invested into electronic counting machines, at the cost of the taxpayer

But a 'no' vote means:

• A continuation of FPTP - a system the British voters know and intimately understand
• The preservation of one person one vote principle - it was good enough for the suffragettes, it is good enough for me
• Maintaining the basic principle that the winner is the candidate who out polled any other individual
• Telling Nick Clegg to take a run and jump

At the end of the day, Nick Clegg called the AV system a "pathetic little compromise" - but it is his compromise. DO NOT LET IT BE YOURS. Vote 'NO' to AV - and take part in protecting Britain from a failed and discredited democratic system.

Seismic changes in Scottish politics?

Go for Goldie on Thursday!

The latest opinion poll is shocking not just for heralding a projected 18% SNP lead, but also indicating Labour to Conservative switching too, it all begs the question: has Scottish Labour lost touch with the people? And more than this, are we seeing seismic changes to the political geography hitherto now considered fixed. 
.
Kelvin & Cathcart
.
To take a perfect example of just how dramatic this Holyrood may be for altering the Scottish political geography, the latest polls all show Glasgow Cathcart and Glasgow Kelvin leaving Labour for the SNP. If this can happen in Glasgow; it begs some questions. Most obviously, who will replace Iain 'who?' Gray for their leadership.

One friend of mine, Labour students committee officer here in Stirling Uni that MacIntosh may stand up for leadership ... except he will be lucky to survive in an Eastwood seat where Barrhead no longer forms apart of it. So who else? Andy Kerr or Cathy Jamieson ... maybe big Jackie Baillie? Is this the best Scottish Labour can summon up?
.
The wider trends
.
But let us take a wider lens here. One poll doesn't equate to a trend, that is true. Yet across all of the Holyrood polls, it has shown a consistant double-digit SNP lead over Labour. So this really is a matter of how badly the Labour lot do. In short, this is now all about damage limitation.

After Holyrood 2007 the SNP have found themselves in the curious position where they see falling support for Independence across the electorate; but are being seen increasingly as the new 'working man's party'. The SNP are at risk of permanently replacing Labour as the primary centre-left party in Scottish politics. I am sure they can live with this, not lose sleep at the prospect!

And this stuff isn't all that dramatic, because the latest poll has shown a huge 9% Labour to SNP straight switch, and given the legendary 1997 destruction for my Tory lot was on a smaller 6% swing...even half that 9% could be seriously destructive for Labour.
.
Media shifts
.
On top of all these number crunches we see the practical evidence of a serious centre-left realignment behind SNP at Labour's expense. The Scotsman today carries the headline "Salmond deserves a second term ... and Goldie has a role to play". Then the Herald came out earlier last week for the SNP...and the Scottish Sun is behind the SNP too. It all indicates that the papers realise their readers aren't going to vote Labour anymore and are thus changing their editorial line. After all, the papers increasingly follow public opinion rather than set it.

Traditionally Labour could rely in opposition or government for an easy ride with the press. This has to a large part been instrumental in avoiding the public exposure of their internal tensions, factions. They cannot count on such a comfortable and approachable Scottish media anymore. Suddenly, they need to actually stand up as a competent opposition party. But without competent leadership, quality MSPs as candidates and a tendency for core-vote strategies and petty opportunism.
.
Vote on Thursday, and vote tactically to keep zanuliebore out. No matter who or what it takes, we need a statesman for FM, not some kid called Iain.

Mission Accomplished: Bin Laden dead

The death of Bin Laden, a leading terrorist and war criminal reinforces the message that the international community, led by the land of the free, shall not tolerate criminality or mass-murder & terror.


Following four years of heavy intel and courier shadowing the USA tracked Bin Laden down to his layer; and promptly ended the man's terror and madness.

In what proved to be a miraculous turn of events, not a single US life was lost in the firefight at the Bin Laden compound inside Pakistan. But he was dispatched, along with his aide-in-terror of a son. While everyone would have liked to see the worm stand trial for his unquestioned role in spreading the creed of global terror; his end must be welcomed.

Here lies the man who murdered 4000 in the twin towers atrocity, here is the man who was responsible during the 1990s for the US embassy bombings in Africa. And with his dead here, this is the almighty hand of righteous justice. The sword of justice, international law and civil and political decorum have prevailed. Let his death stand as a warning to any other would be terrorist: we will hunt you down for your crimes, and we shall ensure you pay the ultimate price for your actions.

George Bush hailed the news as "tremendously encouraging", and this, finally and extremely belatedly is 'mission accomplished'

Meet the NHS top earners: at your expense

Ever get that feeling that we need NHS reform?

Named: 660 NHS managers who think they have the right to earn more than the PM, earning £200,000 or more.
.
Meet the fat-cats
.

1. David Bennett £282,500

Was interim chief executive of Monitor, independent regulator of NHS foundation trusts, from March 2010 to February 2011

2. Neil Lloyd £282,500

Chief executive, NHS Professionals

3. Ruth Carnall £277,500

Chief executive, London Strategic Health Authority

4. Sir Ron Kerr £274,500

Chief executive, Guy’s and St Thomas’s NHS Foundation Trust

5. Sir Robert Naylor £262,500

Chief executive, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust

6. Peter Morris £262, 000

Chief executive, Barts and The London trust

7. Clare Chapman £252,500

Director general of workforce, Department of Health

8. Sir Andrew Cash £243,100

Chief executive, Sheffield Teaching Hospitals Foundation Trust

9. Dr Mark Goldman £242, 500

Chief executive, Heart of England Foundation Trust until July 2010

10. David Dalton £232 600

Chief executive, Salford Royal NHS Foundation trust

11. Sir Neil mckay £232, 500

Chief executive, East of England

12 Sir Leonard Fenwick £232 500

Chief executive, The Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals Trust

13. Dame Barbara Hakin, £227,500

Chief executive, East Midlands strategic health authority

14. Tim Smart £227 500

Chief executive, Kings College Hospital Foundation Trust

15. Ken Bremner £225 000

Chief executive, City Hospitals Sunderland Foundation Trust

16 Alan Foster, £223 400

Chief executive, North Tees and Hartlepool foundation trust

17. Maggie Boyle

Chief executive, The Leeds Teaching Hospitals trust 222 500

18. Robert Dolan, £220 000

Chief executive, East London Foundation Trust

19. Dr Gareth Goodier £217 500

Chief executive, Cambridge University Hospitals Foundation trust

20. Prof Ann Sheen £217 500

Chief executive, Royal Berkshire Foundation Trust (until March 2010)

21. Cally Palmer £217 500

Chief executive, Royal Marsden Foundation trust

22. Sir Ian carruthers £217,500,

Chief executive, South West Strategic Health Authority

23. Malcolm Stamp £217 500

Chief executive, University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire

24. Dr Frank Harsent £213 800

Chief executive, Gloucestershire Hospitals Foundation Trust

25. Mike Deegan £212 500

Chief executive, Central Manchester University Hospitals Foundation trust

26. Paul Baumann £212,500

Director of finance, London strategic health authority

27. Justin McCracken £212,500

Chief executive, Health Protection Agency

28.Julie Moore, £212 500

Chief executive University Hospitals Birmingham Foundation Trust

29. Sir David Nicholson £212,500

NHS chief executive

30. Malcolm Lowe-Lauri £212,500

Chief executive, University Hospitals of Leicester trust

31. Jim Mackey, £212 700

Chief executive, Northumbria Healthcare Foundation trust

32. Mike Cooke £210 600

Chief executive, Nottinghamshire healthcare trust

33. Caroline Shaw, £207 500

Chief executive, Christie Foundation trust

34. Prof Sir Liam Donaldson £207,500

Chief Medical Officer for England until May 2010

35. Dr Peter Lees, £207,500

Medical Director and Director of Leadership, NHS South Central

36. Simon Pleydell, £205 000

Chief executive, South Tees Hospitals Foundation trust

37. Anthony Marsh, £203 150

Chief executive, West midlands ambulance trust

38. Cynthia Bower £203,500

Chief executive, Care Quality Commision

39. Stephen Eames £202 700

Chief executive, County Durham and Darlington NHS Foundation Trust

40. Christine Connolly £202,500

Chief information officer for health, Department of Health

41. Mike Farrar £202,500

Chief executive, NHS North West Strategic Health Authority

42. Rob Clarke £202,500

Finance director, NHS Professionals

43. Glenn Douglas £200 200

Chief executive, Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells trust

44. Nick Moberly £200 000

Chief executive Royal surrey County Hospital Foundation trust

45. Mark Hackett, £200 000

Chief executive, Southampton University Hospitals trust

46. Dr Patrick Geoghegan £200 000

South Essex Partnership University Foundation trust

Is this why we pay our tax? And here was me thinking it was all about the sick ...


#My thanks to the Telegraph for continuing its rock-solid defence of the freedom of information, and letting us all know about this stuff#