Monday, 30 January 2012

Miliband was he right when ...

... he said today in Glasgow :

... achievements like the Equal Pay Act and the minimum wage "do not belong to one nation of the UK", he says. "They are British achievements."

... and continued with :

The story of the Scotsman, the Englishman, and the Welshman is not just the start of a good joke. It is the history of social justice in this country. 

It was a Scotsman, Keir Hardie, who founded the Labour party a hundred and twelve years ago. An Englishman, Clement Attlee, who led the most successful Labour government in history. And a Welshman, Nye Bevan, who pioneered that Government's greatest legacy, our National Health Service. 
My father would have related to every word, and I guess I couldn't have disagreed, if he carries on like this he can backfoot Salmond and Co .............

Kevin Maher of the Times ...

... Monday 30 Jan 2012, wrote ...
...... the realisation of an independent Scottish nation (What about the North Sea oil revenues? The military bases? The political transition? etc.) is actually a quasi-bureaucratic smokescreen. The fundamental truth, unpalatable to some, and certainly to Alex Salmond, is that nationalism is a meaningless ideological crutch that has little relevance to our age and to the modern global village that we inhabit. It is, in short, so yesterday’s pizza.
... he also quoted Victor Gollancz, the British publisher of George Orwell who ...
... when he wrote to his grandson in the 1950s warning him, "Nationalism — national egoism, thinking in terms of one’s nation rather than in terms of humanity — is evil because it concentrates on comparative inessentials (where a man lives, what sort of language he speaks, the type of his culture, the character of his ‘blood’) and ignores the essential, which is simply that he is a man."
When you compare current nationalist politics both north of the border, and here in Wales, with the sentiments of Gollancz, politics is full of shit ........

Sunday, 29 January 2012

Salmond defends the indefensible ...

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

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

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

Asked if that meant Scotland could still be regarded as being in the UK after independence, Mr Salmond said:
"I don't think it's a very good idea to confuse the issue by talking about united kingdoms when what we're talking about is political independence."
There is no difference between his "political independence" and "separation", it is a clean break, no picking and choosing.  I think the clown prince is very confused, he seems to think the constitutional future of Britain rest with him and the remainder of the SNP circus, there is much more to Britain than this particular jock in a frock.

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

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

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

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

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

“I am so passionate for Scotland but I have to say that if we do become independent, I will move. I will move my business and I will move personally . . . I love Scotland but, under independence, I would have no choice.”
She added: “I don’t think we can survive on our own and I think it would be really bad for business.”

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

“Would you trust them to run Scotland as a business? No, is the answer . . . Why would you trust these guys, all they do is fight in parliament with their big egos. I would never trust any of them. It’s too much of a gamble,” she said. 
Danny Alexander, chief secretary to the Treasury, warns the public, English and Welsh taxpayers would have to bail out an independent Scotland if it went bust. He said that if Scotland maintained monetary union with the rest of Britain, the Bank of England could end up acting as its lender of last resort.

Sunday Times 29 Jan 2012.

Wednesday, 25 January 2012

Wee, sleekit, cowrin, tim'rous beastie,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

... this Burns night.

Tuesday, 24 January 2012

Welfare, the reality that the ...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A welfare state that works is one that encourages independence. That was Beveridge’s insight and a test that the welfare state now fails.
 The Times 24th January 2012.

Monday, 23 January 2012

Plaid Cymru, whither or wither, ...

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

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

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

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

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

Sunday, 22 January 2012

Salmond needs to understand that we ...

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

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

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

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

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

As INDIA KNIGHT ( wrote, quoting Burns Tam o' Shanter ...

Where sits our sulky sullen dame.
Gathering her brows like gathering storm
Nursing her wrath to keep it warm 

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

I guess Vodafone is amongst the robber ...

... baron companies of the world that steal taxes from countries in which they operate.

Nicholas Shaxson in his "Treasure Islands" (£8.99 from Amazon), subtitled "Tax Havens and the Men Who Stole the World", explains what is wrong with global finance  ...
... he write, while many might dismiss tax havens as offshore homes for spivs, money-launderers and the odd celebrity, in fact they help big companies and the super-rich to avoid paying tax, tax that totals "$1000 billion" each year.

... that's a trillion dollars, a trillion dollars unspent in the countries that the wealth is created, a trillion dollars that should be underpinning the health and welfare of the little people who have no voice in this unjust world.

Update on my entry for yesterday ...
The dispute has severely dented India’s reputation as a safe place for foreign companies to do business. Many are facing similar tax cases that could be affected by the judgment, including Cadbury, GE, Vedanta, AT&T, Sanofi-Aventis and SABMiller. The companies declined to comment on the decision, although one representative said: "Clearly, it does provide some encouragement."
... recognise the household names that are siphoning off the taxes from India through the use of offshore tax havens or countries that give advantage to business.

Time to create a level playing field that includes "justice" in the rules of the game.

Saturday, 21 January 2012

The bullshit that is both India and Vodafone, and ...

... throughout the world.

The narrative, courtesy The Times 21 Jan 2012, there is more if you pay the tariff £ .....
It has taken four years of fighting but last night Vodafone was celebrating a landmark legal victory after the Indian Supreme Court ruled that it would not have to pay a £3.1 billion tax bill.

The ruling centred on Vodafone’s £7.1 billion acquisition of Hutchison Whampoa’s majority stake in Hutchison Essar in 2007 and was declared a “thumping judgment” by Harish Salve, the company’s lawyer. It is expected to open up the region to more foreign investment.

The Indian Government had claimed that it was owed tax because the assets bought had been bought in India. Vodafone argued that both the buyer and seller were based overseas and the deal had been conducted via offshore holding companies. It also said that, since it was the buyer of the asset, it should not be liable for a tax on the profits from the sale.

The Supreme Court ruled yesterday that “Indian tax authorities had no jurisdiction to tax Vodafone”.

The Supreme Court of India is of course a Logical Ass.

My reasoning relates not to ownership, but to location, if a business is located in Delhi, then the business as an asset should be taxed in Delhi, without exception.

This type of nonsense occurs in the UK, an offshore company owns assets and pays little or no tax because of domicile.  If politicians were not spineless creatures, there would be an alternative Davos where such practices would be by common agreement outlawed throughout the world, there is no logic in failing to tax a process other than where the process happens.  If you sell it here you pay the taxes here ...... simple.

If companies are able to avoid paying taxes to the country it creates its wealth, then the politics of that country is probably corrupt, if the politics is suspect might not its Supreme Court be also suspect, there is an enormous smell wafting from the East.  But it is not just from the East that smells waft, our very own tax collectors let the very same Vodafone off the hook to the tune of a £6bn tax bill, we need to remember the efforts our very own HMRC are using to claw back taxes from the little people of Britain.

Friday, 20 January 2012

Update ........ Britain’s balance is shifting towards ....

... the South and East. The City now gets what it wants, or Stay or go, Scotland’s power is on the wane ... thus wrote William Rees-mogg (The Times 20 Jan 2012), read it in full here £.

For those without a subscription, the former Editor of The Times (1967 to 1981) sums up by writing :
Power in Britain is moving south and east, not north and west. The independence of Scotland is a secondary element in a shift that is already under way. One should not mention it, but the embarrassing fact is that Boris, rather than Alex, is the future. As far as the English are concerned, Scotland is a country that is completely free to make its own choice between independence or sticking with the good old UK. Power is going to London, which makes the money, not to Scotland, which spends it.
........... no doubt he thinks the same of Wales, should we be telling our children to follow Dick Whittington and go east to London town in search of a future ?

Update Groundskeeper Willie wrote in response to a Scottish blog conversation ...
January 2012 19:28 EyeEdinburgh said ... 'a referendum that has a clear democratic mandate.' The turnout was 50%. Of that 45% voted SNP. The SNP manifesto didn't mention a two question referendu. It didn't mention changing the voting rules to include 16 and 17 year olds. The SNP's mandate, such as it is, is to have a one question referendum, for adults. No one would object to that. No one other than the SNP. They know they would lose such a referendum and Salmond knows he'll be left high and dry, like a beached whale, with no hope of seeing independence in his lifetime.
Interesting times we live in ............

Salmond 1 - Democracy Zero, and all ...

... because ...

Salmond, aka Scotland's Governor General, "has said the SNP government in Edinburgh does not need legal authority to proceed", proceed with a referendum.

Is he right ?

Of course not, no national or regional government is above the law, even where it makes the law, and the law says "constitutional matters" are reserved to Westminster.  But being wrong is trumped each time in Salmonds' game of chance when he plays the "Scotland the Brave" wildcard.

The answer to our Scottish poltroon is difficult yet simple, it is to give the Scots no alternative, Westminster should announce "severance talks this summer following the Olympic Games in London", bypass the referendum, explain to the Scots that there are far more important issues than the politics of "Nationalist Scotland".

And the logic, if Salmond fails to get his perverse way he will continue to trump the politics of the Union with "Scotland the Brave", but without the rule of law Democracy has lost, Westminster must let its partner go, there is no logical answer to a trump card.  Britain, get used to the name, cannot afford the distraction that Salmond and Co. brings to the table.

Wednesday, 18 January 2012

Shadow Secretary of State for Scotland ...

.... Margaret Curran, said she believed it was not right to create "second-class MPs" based on "which part of the UK they come from, or because they come from Scotland".

She added: "To understand this issue properly, we need to understand the nature of devolution"

"Every person elected to the House of Commons has a responsibility not just to their constituents, but to the UK as a whole"

"That is a fundamental principle of devolution that decisions are taken in the right places to reflect our different nations that make up the UK, but that our House of Commons operates together as a country. It strengthens Scotland and I think it strengthens the whole UK."

Would the SoS expect the SNP to do anything other than exclude the UK from its thoughts, I don't ...

Tuesday, 17 January 2012

Monday, 16 January 2012

If ... I don't think so Carwyn, it is ...

... a done deal. The "if", well it is the if in ...
".... if Scotland became independent, the relationship between Wales and the rest of the UK would have to change ..."

... where he was speaking on the Sunday Politics programme.

The done deal is of course the "referendum", the outcome is particularly irrelevant, the very fact that "Politics Scotland" has begun the process of divorce, makes it imperative the other partners in this seemingly unhappy marriage begin an urgent process to rearrange the marriage (constitution) to produce a fair world that everyone can sit at ease with each other.

Assume the worse, a reconciliation shouldn't effect the need for change, if Scotland decided not not move on their legacy should be a fair constitution for the majority.

If Carwyn is the statesman he likes to project, he might call a constitutional convention with the other parties, not as an antagonist, but as a bridge builder, and top of his list of objectives would be to gain a sense of worth for the element without a devolved administration, England is as important as the other parts of our Britain.

Myself, I will still keep the party hats ready for the big day .............

Sunday, 15 January 2012

Mad Max or Devo Max, both ...

... as ridiculous as the other,  Mad Max depicts a post-apocalyptic world, whilst Devo Max is the preferred method to sunder Britain (difficult to use the term UK) into its component parts.

Whist I sit comfortably with the 61% who support a referendum for separation, ...

... I certainly do not support giving the separatists a win-win referendum.

"Devo Max" is in fact separation without the pain of responsibility, it ...
... would spare Scotland the constitutional wrangling and guarantee it British protection, yet give it the right to tax and spend as it saw fit. Although much would be down to negotiation, a practical guide issued by the SNP almost presents Devo Max as a feast where Scotland gets all the treats, leaving England and Co. with the leftovers.
The referendum in itself, whether the Scots drift off or remain, will cause a re-writing of Britain and its constitution, no longer will any section of society be prepared for treatment as anything other than equal, whether Bradford, Belfast, Bridgend  (or Bishopbriggs possibly)  Salmond has, unwittingly or otherwise, opened a constitutional Pandora's box from which there can be no going back.

I doubt if the electorate will tolerate in the future, one section of society having a larger share of the cake (on average) than anyone else.  Mutterings of the unequal treatment of students across mystical boundaries is a recent manifestation of discontent, (not so) free prescriptions are another bone of contention, and both cases are relevant and in urgent need of redressing, these are the indicators of a stressed society.

Now is the time to cut across sensibilities and cut the devolved budgets to equality, there is little to lose, Scots are on their way, next year or in a decade is not overly important, Wales and NI need to wake up and put their houses in order, now is the time to slash Barnett and replace it with the reality of equality rather than the mythical needs of political spending, there is little to lose, and to everything to gain.

As Hemingway wrote, "It takes more cojones, to be a sportsman where death is a closer party to the game." Here we stand on the threshold of the death of country, are there representatives with the metaphorical cojones at Westminster to finish the game so eloquently started by Salmond ..............

Tory boost when Salmond takes the high road ...

...  to the promised land, we hope that like Moses (Moshe Rabbeinu) he has divine assistance;  unlike the Pharaoh who was beset by plagues.

Giving Scotland its independence and scrapping the 59 MPS it currently sends to Westminster would transform the present government from a coalition to a Tory one.

In the 2010 election the Conservatives won 306 seats, including one in Scotland. The other parties combined won 344 seats, including 58 in Scotland. So without Scotland, the Tories would have had 305 seats and all other parties 286 — giving the Tories an outright majority of 19, according to Anthony Wells of Yougov, the polling firm.
In numbers of votes, the Tories dominate in England, while Labour dominates in Scotland. So independence ought to benefit the Tories, as will boundary changes. However, thanks to the constituency system, Labour could still win in England.

In the 2005 election Labour won 356 seats, with 41 in Scotland (including the then Speaker). The other parties combined won 290 seats, including 18 in Scotland. So without Scotland, Labour would have had 315 seats and all other parties 272 — still leaving Labour with a majority of 43.

Labour would also have won outright in 2001, 1997, 1950 and 1945, even if Scotland had been independent.

Sunday Times 15 Jan 2012
If only they had gone earlier, would we have been beset by our very own plague of Scots politicians, politicians who caused so much mayhem this past decade.

The views of the peoples of Britain are interesting ...

... is this the Salmond effect .... by Salmond design.

Maybe it is time that Salmond explained in simple terms exactly what would be achieved through "separation", and the status quo might explain in similar terms what exactly are the benefits to remaining "as is", other than hot air from both sides there has been little of consequence made public.

Saturday, 14 January 2012

Is independence for Scotland a question just for Scotland, or ...

... should the question be put first to all the peoples of the UK, thus asked Matthew Parris in today's Times.
"Scottish independence would create two new countries. The whole of the UK must be consulted before it happens."
... he continued:

Iam a citizen of a country called the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, whose borders and territorial waters answer that geographical description. This United Kingdom — not England, but the Union of which England is a part — is where I vote. This United Kingdom’s Armed Forces are recruited from all parts of the Union and defend all its borders. This United Kingdom decides and raises taxes across the whole country, and disburses them for all parts of the country. I vote in elections for the administration that determines all these policies — the British Government at Westminster.
It’s our country. In an important sense, we run it.
And now some people are proposing that the union that created it should end, and our country split.
... and more:
“Split” is the word. This is not an amputation: lopping off an extremity and tossing it into the North Sea. Scotland wouldn’t be “going” — going anywhere — but staying put, reconstituted as a new state. England, Wales and Northern Ireland will no more be divesting themselves of Scotland than Scotland would be divesting itself of England, Wales and Northern Ireland. This would be a proper divorce, not an offspring leaving home. There would have to be a tussle about possessions.
For we — the other parts of the UK — would become a new state too. With Scotland gone, the phrase “United Kingdom”, the whole concept, takes on a new meaning: not just for England but for Wales and Northern Ireland
This idea of Matthew is important, because it signals to everyone in the UK that the time has come for a conversation that determines where we will be when our children become adults.  It is not a question that would deny the Scots an opportunity to create a separate state, we are democratic after-all, not some single party state that suppresses freedom of expression.  Such a conversation is in danger of suppression by the proponents of separation who label it "scaremongering tactics".  I for one want to know exactly what will be the effect of separation, as I am sure, do many others in these sceptred isles.  Amongst the constituent parts of the UK there is only a very small minority that look constantly for the greener grass of post independence, today the door is opening for a realistic view of this in a way that everyone can understand.  The four areas I am interested in gaining an insight are ......
  • Currency, how can Scotland consider remaining with Sterling with policy affecting it being set by others.
  • Armed forces, would we extend the policy that allows certain foreign people serving in our various arms, how soon before we relocate southwards our submarine forces.
  • Our BBC, much despised by nationalist commentators north of the border would be divided, but how is talent divided.
  • The EU, might take the opportunity to divest itself of these turbulent isles, forcing the new countries to re-apply, an opportunity the French might relish.
In conclusion Matthew wrote ...
So ask us all and, if we all agree, then ask Scotland. And before Scotland is asked, take time to give the Scots clarity on what is being proposed. Saltires and bagpipes, Union Flags and British bulldogs, are not enough.
A comment left at the Times ...

Michael in France

January 14, 2012 12:51 PM
Excellent summary Matthew. Of course we are all part of that Union and anyone's departure clearly affects us all. We should all have a voice
As for San Toi's egotistical "on behalf of the Scots - "It's not yours - it's us." How then would he respond if the rest of the UK (90 odd percent) were indeed to hold such a referendum and decided we wanted no more of Scotland?
As an Irishman, who has spent most of his life in England, now in France, I have always found the English tolerant, civilised and welcoming.
But I and most of the people I know are fed up to the back teeth with this perpetual Scottish whinging
 Interesting times, interesting ideas ........ myself, I'm planning the farewell party !

Sunday, 8 January 2012

NHS will pay for ...

... implant removal, but not an appointment by a diabetic to gain much needed advice from a dietician.

And the reason given, budgetary constraints, not a word of a lie !

And the single most important life skill for a diabetic .................... diet.

A Wales NHS decision, thanks Carwyn and chums ............

I feel a little like the man who went to market ............

.......... he took a cow to return home with a chicken.

The word Carwyn Jones is cheated, but you have your priorities !

Friday, 6 January 2012

Thank the Lord for Blaidd, who ...

... wrote at WalesHome :

Of course Welsh speakers are more culturally Welsh than non-Welsh speakers. Most people have a mental map of unique ‘Welshness’ that goes something like this…
Welsh-speaking > Valleys > Swansea > Cardiff/Barry/Newport > Marches
His is a view skewed ......... to read the Plaid-centric (Adam Price) debate leap here ........

Myself I wonder how "culturally Welsh" should be defined, in fact, in the 21st century is there a "culturally Welsh" identity that stands out and above those other cultural definitions, myself I doubt it, in the grey homogeneous world we live in culture can spiral between Holywood, the ubiquitous X-Box and Albert square, it is probably the reason why Plaid have failed miserably in political Wales, cultural nationalism in our green and pleasant land would need to be a multi-faceted gem, with one facet for each person on the electoral role ...........

Sunday, 1 January 2012

A resolution, when a knock ...

... on the door reveals a Plaid type asking for your vote, ask the question ...
If you were successful in your quest for an independent Wales, what would be your manifesto at the post independence election for the future of Wales.

... you will be still waiting, I am following last years elections.