No Apology for Joan... 2 Dec 2015 7:56 AM (9 years ago)

Joan McAlpine had a bit of silliness in today’s Daily Record demanding an apology from someone about the SNP’s failed oil predictions. Bizarre nonsense IMO. I was challenged on twitter to respond and refute it, but Twitter is too limited to give it the treatment it deserves so I have given it a proper fisking.

I have put “what she said” in normal type with my answers on what she really meant (as far as it had any meaning whatsoever) in bold.

I have absolutely no hope that it will persuade dedicated Nationalists, but the general public must some day wake up to the misinformation and outright lies that the SNP routinely uses to make its “case”.

Anyway, here goes...

What Joan McAlpine said in her Daily Record Article:

“Triumphant Tories guffawed on the Westminster green benches as George Osborne made cheap jibes about the falling oil price and its effect on Scotland.”

And what she really meant ;

The SNP lied about a constant and predictable high-level price of oil (as Ms McAlpine admits later in the article). She was mortified to be reminded of the lie.

“Aberdonians watching the speech asked what was so funny. Economic activity in the city is down and folk are fearful for their future.”

Indeed they are, but economic activity is down because NS Oil is at around $43/barrel instead of the $113 the SNP predicted and needed for their so-called “economic case for independence” to make any sense. Perhaps Joan McAlpine could tell what she, and the SNP, are doing to help the people in Aberdeen, apart from trying to use the fact for cheap politics.

“But Tory MPs saw only saw a chance to attack the SNP and mock Scotland.”

She equates attacking SNP lies and incompetence as “mocking Scotland”. Or pretends she does so she can vent false emotion and deflect attention on to the “insult” to "Scotland". But it is not the same thing and she knows it.

“Then Labour followed suit. At First Minister’s Questions on Thursday, Scottish Labour leader Kezia Dugdale focused entirely on oil, appearing to blame the SNP for its falling price.”

More lies. Kez didn’t blame Sturgeon for falling oil prices. She blamed the SNP for its faulty predictions which every independent economic commentator got right but the SNP got wrong. And also for not admitting that the oil price is volatile** (as Joan McAlpine admits later in this article).

“Sorry Kez, but we’re not in OPEC in case you hadn’t noticed. It was a bizarre line of questioning. Where are Labour’s priorities?”

The usual diversionary "oh look a squirrel" and “don’t ask us too many hard questions” and point the finger at Labour. Typical SNP.

“Scotland has been dealt a six per cent budget cut by Osborne. That cut – and its implications for our public services – should be the top concern for Scottish politicians.”

This is really interesting because the statement as it stands is essentially true: the Tories have cut public spending with knock effects on the Barnett allocation. But Local Government, on whom most of the public services delivery is placed, has been cut even more deeply in Scotland – by the SNP – than in England by the Tories. So the tears for cuts in public services are crocodile tears*.

And that’s before the effects of the Council Tax Freeze (which has cut a potential £2bn from LA budgets) on our ability to deliver these services is considered.

“In the decade up to 2020, we will have lost £3.9billion under the Tories.”

Yes, but there are many and complex reasons for that and it has nothing to do with the SNP’s lies over the oil price. Very much in the “Oh look, a squirrel!” category.

“Why do Kezia and Scottish Labour have so little to say about that vindictive attack on our people? Kezia prefers the familiar ground she tramped with the Tories in the Better Together campaign, blaming the SNP.”

Kez and Labour have plenty to say about the Tories and austerity, but it was FMQs so she asked a question relevant to the occasion and the FM’s responsibilities. If Joan McAlpine doesn’t understand that she’s an even bigger idiot than previously advertised.

“The unionist parties seem thrilled by the oil slump. Some don’t even try to hide their delight.”

Not thrilled, sober. But glad we dodged the SNP’s bullet and also now have real proof that we were right during the referendum campaign and Joan McAlpine and the SNP were wrong. And continue to be wrong.

“They claim it makes independence impossible”

Nobody claims "independence" is impossible.

Economically unwise. Impractical. Stupid even. Daft. If Joan McAlpine is really concerned about performance of Scotland's economy and the financing of public services as she says in this article, she would see that making Scotland poorer isn’t the way to improve either.

“But the Yes campaign always said oil was just a bonus.”

Yes…but ….I didn’t hear much of that until AFTER the oil price collapsed.

And the SNP’s own White Paper (Nov 2013) put oil revenues at the heart of follishly optimistic forecasts of total revenues. If independent we would be £9bn down on their forecasts. What price then the crocodile tears* over Tory austerity and public service cuts?

“Wealth per head in Scotland is similar to the UK without including oil.”

Another squirrel (but as an aside: if we are so well off now what would “independence” have delivered, even if the SNP had been right…which they are not)

“Standard and Poor credit ratings agency, who calculate how safe individual governments are for lenders, confirmed this before the referendum. They said: “Even excluding North Sea output Scotland would qualify for our highest economic assessment.

It’s raining squirrels!!

“Nobody predicted how sharply the oil price would fall.”

Sturgeon was told by the oil industry and by Sir Ian Wood and by every oil expert that the price would fall to around $60/barrel by end 2014 and that the reserves were less than they claimed. Can’t see how falling to $43/barrel helps the SNP case. Just makes it worse.

“The UK’s own Department of Energy and Climate Change had more optimistic projections for oil prospects than the Scottish Government last year.”

This untrue but it is a complex matter with an answer too long for this blog. Kevin Hague explains it best here http://chokkablog.blogspot.co.uk/

“The shock fall has come as a result of the Saudis over-producing – with geopolitics playing its part. But it won’t last. The oil price is volatile and will rise again. The price per barrel was lower in the late 1980s than today. It remained sluggish in the 1990s before shooting skywards.
But the North Sea is vulnerable because of past mismanagement at UK level as Westminster have the entire responsibility for energy.”

The fall was not a shock to anyone who knew what was likely. It was worse than many people thought it would be but everyone who was in the know predicted a large and imminent fall. Except the SNP (I suspect they actually did but couldn’t face the consequences for the so-called “economic case for independence”).

“The oil price is volatile and will rise again**.”

This is the heart of the matter. Whether the oil price falls or rises over the short term is one thing and, in this case, the fall has destroyed the SNP’s case very quickly and very completely.

But the real argument against basing your economic projections on a single dominant commodity is that it WILL ALWAYS be volatile. Predicting when and where is always difficult, but there will certainly be booms and busts. To say blithely that the price would be £113/barrel for the foreseeable future (and we could therefore base our economic future on that forecast) was always the SNP’s biggest mistake (lie if you like).

That the oil price fell this year is a matter of the prevailing conditions. But the truth is: the price would have fallen at some time. And the SNP pretended that would never happen.

BTW, if the price had doubled or tripled instead of falling by 2/3ds that would have been another problem…….

“Labour and Tory governments squandered Scotland’s vast oil wealth from the 1970s onwards – by failing to set up a rainy day fund with the revenue. Such a fund helps cushion national economies in the bad times. Every oil-producing country has one – except the UK and Iraq.”

Another squirrel. If UK Govts got stuff wrong in the past (and that’s debatable and a separate argument) it is no excuse for the SNP getting their predictions so catastrophically wrong now.

“Norway has built up a massive £560billion nest egg. It’s being used to help pay for public services there to ensure the country continues to have no deficit.”

This statement is an argument for staying within the UK. Norway is now eating into this cash because, unlike Scotland, as a small economy with no larger economic shelter, it has been left exposed in the current economic situation as an independent Scotland would have been, sovereign fund or not.

“Compare this with Britain where successive Labour and Tory chancellors have accumulated a national debt of £1.5trillion.”

It’s a full-blown squirrel-storm!!! The UK deficit has many and complicated origins. But it has nothing to do with the SNP getting their understanding of economics – and oil economics in particular – so badly wrong.

“For decades, unionist parties presided over a massive transfer of wealth from Scotland to the south.”

Nonsense on stilts! Any facts to show this?

“For 30 years, whether the price of oil was high or low, Scotland paid more tax per head than the UK – because of oil.”

More nonsense. Bigger stilts.

“The UK would have gone bust without North Sea oil during the financial crisis.”

Completely self-deluding, self-pitying, self-justifying foolishness. Where is the evidence for this bizarre statement. Where is the proof ?

BTW “in Joan McAlpine’s heated imagination” doesn’t count.

“It’s not mockery they should be dishing out to Scots. It’s an apology.”

I’ve no problem mocking the SNP’s economic illiteracy and I would welcome their much delayed apology.

Who Governs? 28 Oct 2013 8:24 AM (11 years ago)

We have all become used to multi-nationals demanding subsidies to open (or keep operational) local manufacturing or service centres and if the government does not or cannot meet their demands they're off to bully and bribe someone else and place their business with someone else regardless of the impact on their workers or the communities they operate in.

About eight or nine years ago, in a flight of fancy, I dreamt up an imaginary scenario in response to what I saw as the growing power of giant multi-national companies and the influence they have over nation-states in this and other regards.

It seemed to me, even then, that such organisations had developed power to such a degree that, in terms of the tax they paid or the laws they observed, they were effectively volunteers. Most of them had tax avoidance departments to ensure that elected governments got a bare minimum, if anything, from the desired local taxation regime and even so, they would close plants, sack workers and generally hold to ransom any tax jurisdiction that dared to ask for anything they thought "unreasonable". And that's not to consider those organisations which were intent on outright and illegal tax evasion.

The financial collapse of 2008 showed that many of the large banks were "too big to fail". Governments, desperate to avoid meltdown in the banking system, poured taxpayers cash into keeping the economy and the banks "liquid". It seemed that, no matter how badly they behaved and how dysfunctional they were, large multi-nationals were above and beyond the power of the modern nation state to deal with.

The recent instances of multi-nationals with huge UK turnovers somehow paying peanuts in UK tax just extends the numbers of examples from which we can choose.

The scenario I invented envisaged the possibility of a shooting war by nations states on multi-nationals. The specific case I outlined was the French President kidnapping and holding hostage the CEO and Chief Financial Officer of an oil company to stop the company taking actions (as the President saw it) contrary to French economic interests. Probably due to my inherent lack of imagination and skill, I didn't develop the idea any further, but I did discuss it in the pub with my mates, who all thought it a bit extreme.... they were right of course, but it was supposed to be art not politics or science.

Anyway, that's just a long winded way of approaching the recent Grangemouth debacle. It had all the ingredients: a previously British owned manufacturing plant whose outputs and services are vital to Scotland and the UK's economy, a Swiss base multi-national (Ineos) with an obscure financial regime whose master plan includes cutting the wages and benefits of the workforce, a trade union bent on resisting these cuts, the need for long-term investment, a decision on who stump up for that investment and threats of closure if the company did not get its way.

We all know the outcome; the representatives of the Scottish and UK Governments stood hand wringingly by while the employers humiliated their workers and the governments and got every bit of the cash and cooperation they craved. The workers and the governments got shafted, and seemed grateful for it. The interests of the company were paramount. The interests of the employees, the Scottish Government, the UK Government were swept aside. As for the interests of the people and community of Scotland or Falkirk or the UK, they get a horse laugh.

All my adult life I have been fed a narrative of unions=strikes=bad for the country. The irony is that this was a strike, not by the union but by the company, and the government showed no desire to do anything effective about it, even if it could.

Now, all of a sudden, it seems that everyone thinks the big companies are getting just too big and too powerful. In this Scotsman article Alf Young examines the "hedge fund like" structure of Ineos and warns that companies with this approach are impossible to deal with. They put the interests of their shareholders first, last and always (and the shareholders all probably know each other). Jim Ratcliffe, the effective owner of Ineos, is British. Did he consider patriotism, the needs of the country or fellow feeling with his fellow Brits in making his decisions? NFL. The senior managers of the plant are Scottish. Did they betray any solidarity with their compatriots when "negotiating" over the deal? NFL.

These companies, and there are more and more of them, have no loyalty to anyone, no attachment to anywhere and no spark of humanity in their decisions and actions. They have the heart of stone of a 19th century mill owner in a Victorian penny dreadful or melodrama. The company logo could be a disembodied hand twirling a luxurious black moustache with a scroll of cackling laughter beneath.

Owen Jones in the Independent states it clearly "A Swiss-based private company has held to ransom not just hundreds of workers and their families, not just their community, but an entire nation".

The problem is: what to do? Do we continue to echo Eck, smile and wring our hands while pretending we did our best in a difficult situation? Or do we find a way for the nation state to stand up to, to match and defeat these companies or at least bring them into line?

This is more of a problem for Labour than for the Tories or the Orange Book so-called Liberal Democrats - they both believe with a religious fervour in the power of the markets, and therefore companies, to be the mechanism for delivering the needs of the populace without interference from governments. Labour, on the other hand, believes in the need for at least some state intervention and support. If Labour's vision is to be enabled, we need the ability for democratically elected governments to engage with multi-national corporations on the basis of, at least, parity if not superiority.

But it's also an opportunity. It seems to me that the power of large companies with budgets bigger than states and tactics more ruthless than any iron-man dictator, cannot continue unchecked. It's not just jobs that are at stake. The history of the 20th century shows that it is state power that creaks when governments cannot control and deliver to their populations what those populations need for a decent life. This is especially so in democratic states. And whatever the big organisations may wish in terms of operational freedom to make their decisions to suit their own ends, chaos doesn't suit them either. With the weakening of the state comes instability and corruption and out goes any enforceable framework of law and order and any system within which they can make money and expect to be able to keep it safe from banditry.

Whatever happens I'm sure that no-one will be dusting down the all-out-war scenario of state-to-industry relations. Just what they will do is a fascinating question.

The Return of the Tartan Tories 5 Oct 2013 2:03 AM (11 years ago)

I've been away, seduced by the speed and ease of Twitter..... Twitter is great for immediacy and sloganising, but some things need a bit longer and more space to expand into, so I have returned for a one-off gig*.....so.....if there's anyone still out there...

I found this informative little flowchart which seems to show the contradictions in the SNP position on tax, and it does it quite humorously IMO.

But it seems to me that the chart also reflects the Yes campaign as a whole: we'll give the facts where we think they help US, we're much more open to dealing with big business than any piddling idea of letting YOU know what we think might happen and, BTW, any questioning of what we say is "negative".

In addition, Fergus Ewing's siding with the energy company and the Tories on the Labour proposal for an energy price freeze is straight from the Torie-love-big-business-Daily-Mail-stock-editorial-fallback , along the lines of "if you don't like big business you must hate Britain". Fergus obviously loves big business: does that mean he also love Britain?

Anyway, it all signals the distant echo of an old song..... The Tartan Tories Resurrected. Question is: how will the SNP snuggling up to the Tories go down with the Scottish public and in the upcoming referendum?

Not very well is my judgement. What's yours?

*Not promising to stay away forever....

Wonderland Two: the benefits of the union 17 Oct 2012 9:06 AM (12 years ago)

A couple of days ago I came across the image below on the Better Together website, showing that Scotland gets more back from the UK than it contributes in taxation.

Scotland gets a full £10 billion a year more from Westminster than we delivere in taxation.

The SNP has just published what it apparently thinks is a refutation:

So: Scotland gets 20% more in spending than we pay in tax..... and that's a reason to break up the union which delivers this result?

As the immortal philosopher Homer Simpson is wont to cry in moments of vexation: Duh!!

I mean...

What would they prefer? 10% more? 20% less?What can it mean when the No To the Union Campaign advertises this great benefit that befalls us by our membership of the very union they despise?

Is there a mole in their rapid rebuttal department?

We used to hear a lot about "Alex in Wonderland Economics".

Is this the return?

"Wonderland Two: the benefits of the union"

See the great 20% gift. ...Luxuiriate in the spectacular generosity of the benificient Union!

Learn to love your fellow islanders!

Nationalists, the EU Membership and hidden advice, No. 99 16 Oct 2012 7:31 AM (12 years ago)

There has been much controversy about the Nationalists and the advice they have bought, with our money, on the status of an "independent" Scotland vis-a-vis membership of the EU and the Euro.

Broadly speaking those who oppose the break up of the UK have been suggesting that EU membership would not be automatic for a newly independent Scotland and we would be forced to join the Euro, while the Nats have been claiming that it's a foregone conclusion that the EU would welcome us with open arms and we could still be part of a "Sterling zone".

There has been legal opinion sought on these matters by the Nationalists, but they seem reluctant to publish it.

So, thanks to the Better Together website for this little image.....

http://m.uploadedit.com/b003/1350345693590.gif

....which gives a simple precis of all the public advice from the top experts.... ....all of which contradict the Nationalist politicians.

Whether it contradicts their legal advice, who knows?

Maybe they will let us, their constituents and paymasters, see it some day....

A "promise them anything" coalition cannot prevail

Last month Jim Sillars branded the SNP the most totalitarian party... his contention being that the lack of any challenge, dissent or protest from its active politicians, particularly MSPs, and their kowtowing to the Party leadership, was a sign of weakness in the party and a sort of cowardice by its members.

He has reurned to the theme in Holyrood Magazine, and is again attacking the lack of backbone evident in SNP MSPs

Jim Sillars berates SNP MSPs for failing to address openly the many policy questions that will require answers in an "independent" Scotland.

The problem for Mr Sillars and others who may be exasperated by the SNP's lack of opennes and challenge on policy is that the SNP has promised so many things to so many disparate groups that any honest discussion of policy would be poisonous to party unity and alienating of the various tranches of voters they have managed to attract by promising them whatever they wish.

It's all very well telling Nat MSPs to break ranks, but every time they do they reveal, not just that they have promised one constituency a particular thing, but that they have promised other constituencies conflicting even opposing, things.

So business friendly tax cutting to North East Tories, tax raising left-wing service deliverers to Central Belt working class voters, anti-nuclear to CNDers, pro-Nato to pragmatic defence realists, conservative Christans to the Archbishop's flock, supporters of gay marriage to liberal sentiment...right-wng in Tory constituencies, left wing elsewher. It's a balancing act that can only be maintained by never acknowledging that you are on the high wire in the first place. Even glance down once and you topple into the abbyss.

Any honest challenge or critical discussion of any of these positions and you alienate at least two groups and lose their votes. What's more you show the splits and dishonesty at the heart of the SNP project the more discredited the party becomes and the more tarnished its only real policy looks.

Sillars is right that SNP MSPs are supine. But how could they be anything else given the contradictions inherent in their pro-independence coalition and the penalties in revealing those contradictions?

500,000, 50,000, 5,000...whut!? 24 Sep 2012 4:52 AM (12 years ago)

Masses fail to appear at Nationalist rally.

I was in Edinburgh on Saturday. I had organised a day visiting a few art galleries and a special evening meal for a family celebration. I had not realised that a huge Nationalist gathering, march and rally was planned for the same day, so it was with some trepidation that I approached the weekend: would our special day be compromised by gangs of woad encrusted warriors and boisterous tartan army refugees clogging up the streets and bars and restaurants of our fine capital city?

The problem was compounded by the fact that our chosen hotel was only a few hundred yards from the Meadows, where the invading army was scheduled to bivouac before taking over the town centre. And the route of the march was close to the walk we hoped to take to one of our planned exhibitions.

Around midday we set off to town, prepared to be beset or accosted and delayed by the occupying army on the march. As we walked our view of the Meadows showed no hordes a-gathering and no blocked streets, no hubbub, no hum, no skirl of the pipes, no drums and fifes, no music of any description, in fact nothing....

Edinburgh old town is a tightly formatted swirl of narrow street and connecting closes. Any celebrations or stramash of any size or volume would be seen and heard around the town. It would seem impossible to hide a march or expedition of any size, in this enclosed and echoing space, from detection.

But we saw nothing and we heard nothing.

I can't say I was disappointed at the non-appearance of the Nationalist convoy. Just a bit puzzled.

Anyway. We crossed the Royal Mile and headed for the City Arts Centre and an exhibition of the work of the Scottish Colourist Leslie Hunter. It was great.

Two hours later we emerged and headed past Waverley Station where we glimpsed a single face-painted Nat clumping along the pavement. We then walked through the eastern end of Princes Street Gardens. It was a beautiful autumn day and there were - at least - hundreds sitting, strolling, playing and even picnicking along the gardens.

At the National Gallery there were even more people sitting out having coffee and cake.

We made our way to the Van Gogh to Kandinsky exhibition. Another fabulous two hours passed in a flash and we emerged blinking in the late afternoon sunshine onto the foot of the Mound.

By this time the march had passed and the rally was going on across the street, in the western end of the Gardens. I saw one man with a Saltire draped, football-fan-wise over his kilt-and-vest garb and another with a red and orange flag of Catalonia. An amplified voice carried from the rally, but no press or throng assaulted the streets. From what I could see, a not-very-large crowd were facing a stage. The space available was not taken up and, while respectable, the attendance was very obviously nowhere near the spectacular numbers (even pro rata) reported from Barcelona last week.

We walked up the mound and back to our hotel and saw no more of the Nationalist spectacular.

Truth to tell, Edinburgh was mobbed on Saturday, but not by political activists or galvanised voters intent on showing the strength of support for their chosen path. Edinburgh's throngs were tourists and shoppers and locals going about their business.

Sunday dawned and the papers reported 5,000 people at the rally. So few. No wonder they made no impression.

There were about a thousand people strolling and picnicking in the Gardens. There were tens of thousands mobbing Princes Street, the Royal Mile and the other main thoroughfares.

The problem for the Nationalists must be: why were these people, or even a small proportion of them, not on the march? What does it say for the attractiveness of the pro-independence message and the momentum behind the Yes Campaign that they couldn't even attract a crowd any bigger than either of the local SFL teams gets regularly, every Saturday, to watch their games?

Minister for the Referendum, Nicola Sturgeon,

looking puzzled as to why nobody turned up at her party.

We enjoyed our weekend and it wasn't spoilt by the pressing mass of Nationalist marchers. Because, rather to my surprise and I suspect the chagrin of the organisers, there was no pressing mass.

Good news, IMO. What Eck and his Minister for the Referendum make of it, I would really like to know.

Why not publish the advice? 12 Sep 2012 2:24 PM (12 years ago)

The SNP claims that an "independent" Scotland would automatically accede to membership of the EU.

You would think that they would have taken legal advice on the possibility of this being so, any legal or constitutional problems or obstacles in the way of immediate accession identified by this advice and any arguments for or against that they have thought of, heard of, or have been advised might apply.

If you had a difficulty, perhaps unprecedented situation or problem that you were wrestling with, wouldn't you take advice? Legal advice if approriate?

Maybe they have taken advice, but they refuse to tell us if they have. And if they have sought such advice at public cost, they will not tell us what advice they got.

So it's not clear to the voters whether the Nats are telling the truth or not: would an "independent" Scotland have to/not have to apply for EU membership.

But we don't have to speculate any more. This week Manuel Barroso, President of the EU Commission, commenting on the situation in Catalunya, said that any secessionist region (Catalunya, Scotland) would have to re-apply for membership of the EU. They would not automatically accede to the Union, they would have to apply and meet any pre-conditions that would allow EU membership.

So there's the answer. An "independent" Scotland would not automatically be an EU member. It would have to apply and meet membership criteria. This would, of course, take time, maybe years.

So much for for Eck's "Och it'll be all right. Nae bother. No need to worry".

When will the Scottish Government tell us if it has any legal advice? And will it let us know what that advice tells them ..and us?

In the meantime...?? http://www.leftfootforward.org/2012/09/jose-manuel-durao-barroso-alex-salmond-scotland-eu-membership/

Nat lack of ambition. No 99 and counting... 29 Aug 2012 2:59 AM (12 years ago)

I've had a wee summer break.

Last week, after Alex Salmond's speech on the brave new world of Tartan TV, in which the bold First Minister made this vaulting claim...

"The First Minister said in a speech at the Edinburgh International Television Festival that a new public sector broadcaster would be modelled on Ireland's RTE station if his Government wins the 2014 referendum.

The new Scottish broadcaster would still take popular BBC programmes such as EastEnders but have a more distinctive voice through nationally focused shows, added Mr Salmond, citing the success of the Gaelic-language channel BBC Alba."

I tweeted this;

"So Eck wants to replace BBC with "Scottish RTE". Doesn't this just go to show the pathetic lack of ambition the Nats have for my country?"

So I have no hesitation in pointing you to this analysis by Brian Wilson, ex-MP and Government Minister, successful businessman in many spheres, and above all supreme journalist and scourge of all things dismal and Nationalist.

Wilson's a man who always gets to the heart of the matter and an excellent writer on top. Almost every time I read him I think; "Dead right. I wish I had thought of that first". So often he gets to the nub of the response while people like me are still mulling over the the question.

So, for once, it's nice to see I beat him to the punch on this single occassion (although he no doubt had to wait for his weekly deadline while I could shoot off as soon as Eck's "thoughts" were public).

But we're both right. To replace the BBC with an RTE clone with BBC Alba as the programming model.... it's just nuts. And it says so much about the parochialism of Nationalist thinking and the total lack of ambition they have for Scotland and its people.

Who in their right mind would substitute RTE (no offence to my Irish relatives) with its small budgets and small borders and small vision for the broad reach and rich depth of the BBC?

And who, wishing to do so, would dare to call it progress?

How the London Olympics show we are better together 6 Aug 2012 2:56 PM (12 years ago)

Today's Herald has a great cartoon by Stephen Camley. It shows a radiant sun made of GB gold medals over a sunny meadow with, in one corner, a glum Alex Salmond soaking under his own personal rain cloud. It neatly encapsulates the Nationalists' problem with the Olympics: it represents a great UK achievement, with Scots, English, Irish and Welsh competitors playing for team GB. And the Scots are doing well, winning medals and even singing God Save the Queen. But how do the Nationalists react to this obviously good news story?

In contrast, the letters page is full of Nationalists claiming that it's all fine by them, there's no sour grapes and anyway it's not that important. The letter by Ruth Marr, a veteran Nat, is representative. She says;

".... would appear to have a touch of Olympicitis if he seriously believes the frenzy over London 2012 being whipped up by the media on a daily basis will seriously impact on the independence debate and result.......I cannot believe many voters will be lulled into the belief that the biggest factor in deciding whether or not Scotland should regain her independence is Team GB's performance at the Olympic games."

For me the cartoon is nearer the mark: the Games are giving the Nationalists a headache. If they ignore them or are dismissive it looks mulish and adolescent. If they endorse the spirit of the games they risk admitting that the Scots are part and parcel of the whole team, and team GB is doing great things. Since it's a foundation of Nationalist dogma that nothing good can come from anything UK, this is a real problem for them. Seeing the likes of Andy Murray and Chris Hoy, the pre-eminent Scottish sportsmen, fighting and winning and giving their all for team GB, bursting as gut and showing evident pride and emotion in their own and their team's achievements, must be galling for the party that thinks if you're not a Nat you can't be Scottish.

As for Ruth Marr: she's right that voters will not vote on sporting success or failure, but she's wrong to dismiss the Games, because the results are just part of their significance. Andy Murray winning a tournament isn't really news. Andy Murray winning the Olympic Tennis Singles, draping himself in the Union Flag and even singing (or mumbling) the words of God Save the Queen are another thing altogether. It says: I'm the champ, I'm Scottish and British and I'm perfectly happy with that, thankyouverymuch.

And, crucially, the games are providing a narrative and reasons to be British with added emotional content.

In the context of the "independence" referendum the emotion, the feel-good factor, is vital. It's generally acknowledged that the Nats (like the Devil) have all the best tunes. Emotion rules their case. For them history = Braveheart, with nasty Englishmen in britches cheating and flogging honest Scots in kilts. Every Nationalist broadcast has skirling bagpipes and swirling kilts and people climbing Scottish hills to cry from the topmost point: Freedum! For Nationalists the facts are subsidiary to the conviction, and the conviction is cemented by the raw emotion. "I love my country, therefore I'm right and the majority is wrong".

The case for the UK tends to be more reasonable, less emotion-based. The logic is with the better together camp, now the Olympics are adding emotion to the case for the UK, making it the full package: head and heart.

Which can only be a good thing, IMHO.

SNP trains Civil Service to keep secrets (from you!) 30 Jul 2012 11:00 AM (12 years ago)

Two weeks ago I published this article, decrying the Nationalists' propensity to hide vital public information from the voters and their tactic using our own money to keep us in the dark about some key facts and information which Alex Salmond doesn't want us to know.

Today we find out in the Telegraph that Civil Servants at Holyrood are being schooled in maintaining that veil of secrecy, particularly over the "constitution" aka "independence", and information vital to an open debate in the run up to the referendum.

According to the report;

"Ministers are expecting a flurry of requests from journalists and members of the public about their preparations for a separate country on such issues as defence, state benefits and currency."

In an effort to reveal as little as possible, the taxpayer-funded workshops;

".....will teach civil servants, who are supposed to be politically neutral, how to deal with such questions."

So, not content with obstructing the Information Commissioner at every turn, and spending your money to keep you in the dark, the SNP now wants to openly guide civil servants in the art of not answering the questions we might want the answers to in order to judge the vitally important issues that surround the SNP's own referendum!

If there was ever a practical definition of undemocratic, un-transperent, obstructive and obfuscatory behaviour by a Scottish Government, this is surely it.

Three Cheers for the SNP! 25 Jul 2012 2:23 AM (12 years ago)

Not a headline I expected to write....and, I have to say, slightly qualified even as I do so.

The Scotsman reports that SNP Ministers came under pressure at a meeting in Skye to hold a referendum on same-sex marriage. They refused, which is admirable, and it seems that they are still determined to go ahead with the legislation they promised on the matter.

My only slight concern is the indeterminate nature of the language, as reported, in which that determination is couched. The Scotsman says;

"Mr Salmond dismissed the calls for a referendum and repeated his pledge to allow a free vote among SNP MSPs if the issue comes before the Scottish Parliament........“We’re very clear that if we decided to go down this road, that it will be done on the basis of protection offered to not only churches, but also individual celebrants,
“Any decision to proceed will be accompanied by protection. This is not a meaningless commitment and has been part of the consultation.”

I have highlighted in bold the potentially weasel words.....

So the SNP is determined, if it goes ahead with legislation, that there will not be a referendum. Which is fine.

It's just that it would be a lot better if the statements left absolutely no doubt at all that the legislation will go ahead.

Even more so in the light of the remarks of new Archbishopof Glasgow, Phillip Tartaglia, on the unfortunate early death of David Cairns MP, which can be seen in this video at about 1hr and 4mins in.

It seems to me that any equivocation in the face of the AB's medieval mindset is wrong, even cowardly, for any modern and forward thinking person or organisation.

So maybe the Nats don't deserve the whole Hurrah!, the full Three Cheers. Perhaps, in the absence of absolute clarity and conviction from Nationalist ministers in the face of organised religious opposition, I should change the headline to "Two cheers for the SNP!" or maybe "Two-and-a-wee-bit Cheers for the SNP!".

My friends and political opponents would say even that would be something to note....

HOLD THE PRESSES! Ten minutes after posting.... This has just come in.... The SNP Government is to bring in legislation to legalise same-sex marriage. Good for them.

Three Cheers indeed!

More Nationalist Suppression and Secrecy.... 21 Jul 2012 1:29 AM (12 years ago)

A few days ago I published this.... detailing how Nationalist ministers are ignoring Freedom of Information Requests (FOIs) and using public money to suppress the publication of information that they have, and that you have paid for, but which they don't want you to know.

The two specific cases in point are the suppression of the costs of implementing the SNP's ill-fated Local Income Tax and the question of what legal advice our rulers have sought on the status of an "independent" Scotland within/outwith the EU.

Nationalist ministers didn't want you to know any of the details on these matters and they had no qualms about spending your money to keep you in the dark.

Today comes more evidence of Nationalist cover-up of information the public has paid for and is entitled to know, but Nationalist ministers, in this case Nicola Sturgeon, want to keep to themselves.

This time it's the results of internal NHS audits that the Health Minister doesn't want you to learn the results of. Ministers were found to have withheld 18 Health and Social Care Directorate internal audit reports from publication, despite "strongly worded advice" from Information Commissioner Rosemary Agnew to reconsider.

Yet again the Information Commissioner has to intervene, and to twist the arm of a Nationalist politician, to ensure the results of these audits, conducted under publicly enacted legislation for the purpose of providing clarity on the performance of public bodies and paid for out of the public purse, actually reaches the public domain.

In the past the Nats have held out as long as they can against the requirement for openness on a range of matters. I wonder what Nicola will do this time. Will she publish? Will the public get to see the data we paid for? Or will we to see more attempts at suppression and secrecy and avoidance from the most secretive Scottish Government ever?

The SNP, Secrecy, Your Money 14 Jul 2012 3:16 PM (12 years ago)

What is it with the SNP, secrecy and public money? Last year they spent £100,000 keeping secret the internal Civil Service documents relating to the costs of implementing their ill-fated Local Income Tax. Labour had claimed that the tax would cost in the region of £350-£400 million to implement. The SNP denied this, but refused to release their own calculations. Labour asked for the information under Freedom of Information (FOI) legislation. FOI Commissioner Kevin Dunnion ruled that the informationshould be revealed but still the Nats refused, preferring to go to appeal at the High Court in Edinburgh and spend £100,000 of public money to delay the publication of the facts until after the 2011 election. In July 2011, after the Scottish elections, the figures were conveniently “leaked” and were confirmed at £380million.

This week, another FOI followed by another SNP refusal to submit to a decision by the Commissioner.

Labour MEP Catherine Stihler asked Scottish Ministers what advice they have received on Scottish membership of the EU (supposing a “yes” vote in a referendum to break up the UK). The SNP insists that Scottish membership of the Union (European) would be a shoo-in, a mere formality with no possible barriers or delays to taking immediate membership of the EU, but they refused to answer Stihler’s direct question, so she put in an FOI request asking if they had received advice on the matter, and what the advice was. The Information Commissioner said that the Nationalists should at least reveal if they had sought and been given legal advice on EU membership. The SNP Government immediately appealed the Commissioner’s decision..... More delay, more cost to the public purse, more obfuscation and less information from the Nationalist Goverment which must be setting a record as the least transparent administration ever to sit in Holyrood.

The Nationalist refusal to be open with the Scottish people is even more striking in this case as the UK Government has released its own legal advice. It says that the legal advice it received was that Scotland is only part of the EU by virtue of the UK's membership and could not automatically assume membership of the EU. There are other conditions including adopting the Euro as the currency of the new member state. This last is a real headache for the Nats as they gave up their attachment to the Euro due to the current problems of the Euro-zone and switched back to being in the “pound zone”*. In their defence Nationalists quote Westminster convention that legal advice is never disclosed – as if the SNP has ever taken a minutes notice of “Westminster convention”! And if the UK Government can release its legal advice, why can the Nationalists not release theirs?

The strong suspicion is that the Nationalists have never sought any legal advice on the position vis-a-vis the EU post referendum. Which would be very strange of a party which has been in existence for nearly 80 years and has only one real defining policy – that of “independence” from the UK. Especially in light of the Nationalist policy of “independence in Europe”, it is beyond belief that they would not seek legal clarification on such an important issue.

The other suspicion is that the Nationalists did seek legal guidance and the advice they received is at odds with their stated policy and that there would be significant obstacles to immediate EU membership for an “independent” Scotland.

Either way it is absolutely ridiculous that a Nationalist party which has long standing policy positions on Europe and the Euro has not sought any legal advice on the viability of that policy. To use public money to keep this information from Scottish voters is verging on maladministration.

* incidentally they never asked the Bank of England if this was a possibility – are we seeing a pattern here?

Better Together 11 Jul 2012 8:48 AM (12 years ago)

I have no clue of Andy Murray's politics, and I hope he doesn't mind this picture being used here, but he seems quite comfortable being Scottish and British.

Sensible really.

Coastguard lunacy 8 Jul 2012 3:30 AM (12 years ago)

Last week Clyde coastguard attended two emergencies at Largs, one of which involved rescuing a man from the water at the pier. The Marine Rescue services are a vital component of safety on the Clyde and on the West Coast of Scotland.

Last September I attended a meeting in Greenock, hosted by Inverclyde Council, at which it was revealed that the coalition Government had plans to close the Marine Rescue Centre at Greenock and transfer the workload to Belfast and Stornoway. To be honest it sounded daft to me. Greenock handles much more traffic and twice as many calls as these two stations put together. Belfast is smaller, with no plans to increase manpower, and it lacks the vital local knowledge of Clyde and Western waters built up over many years by the Greenock staff. Belfast also operates on the Irish mapping system, which is different from UK mapping and charting standards.

Despite protests from all the affected Councils and the trades unions, it has recently been confirmed that operational control of the service provided at the Greenock site will close in December 2012.

It seems to me that safety on the Clyde is being sacrificed to a hasty and cost-driven decision by UK Ministers, and that this decision must be overturned.

Katy Clark MP has a good article here on the issue and the PCS union has a campaign called Coastguard SOS. Please visit and support this campaign.

SNP ambition (or lack of it) 1 Jul 2012 8:38 AM (12 years ago)

Last autumn I posted this ... about the emerging notion that somehow there should be a second question on a referendum ballot, as suggested by Alex Salmond. It is a warning and a question about so-called Devo Max and why the Nats need it and Scotland does not.

Since then the Nationalists have been pretending that the whole question of Devo Max and extra powers for Holyrood was nothing to do with them, it came from a call from the people for more, if vaguely defined, powers, and the Nats were only thinking about it because they wanted the to respect those calls and wishes.

Everybody else, perhaps cynicaly, has been convinced that Eck wants a second question because he knows he would lose a single, yes/no, in/out referendum, and he wants to hedge his bets. It has certainly been noticeable that the people who keep bringing it up are Nationalists, and no-one else.

Today the FFM moves again. The Scottish people have "a right" to his second question and are calling even louder for that right.

Funny that, I talk to people all the time about politics. The referendum isn't the first thing they mention: that's usually bread and butter issues like jobs, earnings, housing, schools.

And even when the referendum does come up, it's a low priority. So a two-question referendum? High on peoples' agendas? Not in my experience.

The second question is the "saving FM Eck" strategy. A ploy to claim victory even in defeat.

I'm surprised that Nationalist activists buy it: if successful it means no "independence" in anyone's lifetime. It's an admission of defeat and a preparation for the world of neverendums, where the Nats never quite win, but real politics is stymied and neutered by the constitutional question.....

The limit of Alex Salmond's ambition, apparently....

A storm in a canteen tea-cup 30 Jun 2012 2:05 AM (12 years ago)

I was in the audience at a BBC radio question time show last year. The usual ritual of political back and forth ensued, but one member of the audience, a member of the Pensioners Party, made what I thought was an acute observation. He accused the Nationalists of "stealing our flag".

It made me think. Particularly since 1997, the Nats have tried to establish an equivalence between and among the Scottish Government, the Scottish Nationalist Party and the flag of St Andrew, or Saltire as it is sometimes called.

On coming to power they bought, with our tax money, hundreds of thousands of small saltires to hand out at events. They had the saltire put on all official papers and websites etc. at enormous cost (not to themselves). SNP leaflets are covered in the Scottish flag.You can't see a Nationalist minister anywhere near a camera without a Scottish flag somewhere in the background.

So the pensioner was right: the Nationalists have stolen, or at least are attempting to steal, "our flag". It's all part of the not-so-subliminal message: if you're not a Nat you're not Scottish. Wave the flag or be left out, but if you do wave the flag, then you are "one of us".

But is it important?

I have no time for flag waving. It's a substitute for thought, IMO: this is who we are and if you don't join in you're an outcast, a traitor or Quisling.

Football teams do it, and other associations and sodalities. In some ways it's attractive. It shows solidarity and support for common aims, as when countries compete at sports or in Trades Union banners.. we're all in this together. But it is also used to exclude: think of the English Defence League and it's anti-immigrant anti-coloured message wrapped in the flag of England or, in earlier times, the National Front and its appropriation of the Union Flag.

Which leads to this little spat and its significance.

The Holyrood canteen had an Olympic themed lunch, and the staff decorated the tables with red, white and blue balloons and union flags because, presumably, Britain is holding the Olympics this time and the Great Britain team is competing for us all.

But the appearance of a non-saltire on a canteen table was seen as an afront by some Nationalist MSPs. The Evening News and the Sun report on the, one can only say, childish behaviour of these people, named in the Sun as George Adam and Linda Fabiani. The union flags were taken away from the tables and the r balloon display was made multi-coloured.

So how significant? On the one hand it's, almost literally, a storm in a canteen teacup. Some silly people took umbrage at a few rags of decoration and harrumphed the staff into changing it to suit their tastes.

But while it's not as significant as, say, the banking crisis or the economic recession, it is a signifier, and what it signifies the strange mentality of even senior Nationalists that they can be upset so easily and take offence at nothing. It also says that they think the Holyrood Parliament is theirs, not ours, and it shows their arrogant side, bullying the poor canteen staff over such a trifle.

It shows their besetting pettyness. They can steal our flag with impunity, put out leaflets calling themselves "Scotland's Party" (as if all the other parties were not) and call people who don't support them "anti-Scottish", but they can't take the reality that Scotland is part of the UK, most Scots support and agree wth that union and the flag of the union is the symbol of the British Olympic team - a team which includes many proud Scots.

In recent years the anti-English rhetoric of senior Nats has gone underground. The SNP presents itself as relaxed and tolerant about our English neighbours. But this little vignette in the catering department of Holyrod gives the lie to that image.

If senior Nationalists are so alergic to union flags that they get sick just looking at them, what price their "tolerance" and their "Ah luv the English me" just-for-the-media act?

And what size of brain do you need to kick up a stink about your own flag celebrating your own Olympic team in the year the Olympics are hosted in your own country?

Tolerance, my bahookie.

SNP Council rejects help for low paid workers 28 Jun 2012 1:32 AM (12 years ago)

North Ayrshire Council is led by a minority SNP Group with backing from a single Tory and some independents.

At yesterday's Council Meeting, Labour Councillor Joe Cullinane proposed a motion on a measure of relief for low-paid council workers.

This measure, to give workers on less than £21,000 a £250 payment, has already been enacted at Holyrood by the SNP Government, at Westminster and by at least one Scottish local authority.

The SNP opposed it citing various spurious reasons.

Funny how the Nats are always a left wing party until the get some power, then they turn Tory.

Tartan, even.

The Brave George Osborne Sacrifices Chloe Smith 27 Jun 2012 1:14 AM (12 years ago)

Chloe Smith, a Treasury Minister sent out to cover for George Osborne's U-turn on Fuel Duty, gets fillited, twice!

First on Channel 4 News, where she appears to be the least well-briefed UK Government Minister in history and stumbles through the interview like a lame show-jumper, blundering into every jump and clearing no obstacles on her way to a far-from-clear round.

Three hours later, on Newsnight, Paxo's contempt is palpable. Chloe, despite the earlier roasting, has no more answers and is even more embarrassingly inept.

Is it Chloe's fault? I would guess not: she seems a moderately intelligent you woman but she had no defence, no ammunition and no coherent argument to deploy. The fault here is all the Chancellor's, as he twists and turns and shreds his budget commitments one by one, leaving only the tax cuts for the rich.

In all justice and honesty, George Osborne should have been on Channel 4 and Newsnight last night. It's his budget and his long series of flip-flops. But he lacks the backbone to take the flak for his own decisions, so he sends an innocent, unprepared and under briefed young woman to face the music.

Incompetence is one thing in a politician, and who can get everything right after all? But cowardice is another thing altogether, and George Osborne, in sending his underlings to greet the firing squad, has shown his weakness - political, economic and personal, the greatest of which is personal.

Boris's Copper 22 Jun 2012 9:36 AM (12 years ago)

The Tories are the party of lor'norder.... or so they claim.

Boris Johnson has ideas on policing. He elbowed out the previous head of the Met, got his own man in and and appointed one Stephen Greenhalgh to "oversee" the operation of the Metropilitan Force.

This painful video reveals the skills of Boris's choice....oh dear....

If you have seen a more incompetent display from any employee of any organisation at any level you must be very unlucky. The man is astonishingly inept.

Think the worst ever contestant on The Apprentice and square it....

All that's missing is Surallan jumping up and proclaiming "You're fired!".

On the other hand, Mr Greenhalgh is a Tory Councillor and placeman, so sympathy rationed.....

Don't mention the independence.... 17 Jun 2012 1:53 PM (12 years ago)

A hilarious episode of Fawlty Towers had John Cleese as Basil Fawlty, owner of the worst hotel in the world, anxious not to insult some German guests by "not mentioning the war". Of course this leads to the blurting out of dozens of war-fixated insults by the bold Basil.

Today it has been revealed that our Nationalist brethren have been advised: "don't mention independence".

The Nats have endorsed and abandoned the Euro, then the Pound, they have been Republican and then Monarchists, anti-Trident but pro-Nato, proudly Scottish and then whynotBritish?... but .... how the hell can the Nationalist Party, the party which has lived for eighty years on the claim for "independence", not mention "independence"?

If the Scottish Nationalist Party is too timid to argue for "independence", what is the justification for their existence? What do the stand for? What are they working towards? Why do they bother? And why, if they have abandoned the very reason for their existence, should anyone vote for them or their referendum?

The campaign for a vote for "independence" has got off to a rotten start, and it has just got a lot worse....

1001 reasons to support independence... 4 Jun 2012 7:05 AM (12 years ago)

Number 336...

They don't understand us, dae they?

Ah mean the English. Really, they don't understand us Scots.

"This man walks intae a cake shop and points to one o' the items on display.

'Is that a doughnut or a meringue?' he asks?

'Naw ye're right, it's a doughnut' says the woman behind the counter."

Ah mean. Is that funny or no'?

Well, ah telt it tae mah mate fae Liverpool. He didnae get it!!!

They jist don't understand us......

It's nae wunder we want to destroy the UK, is it?

As for that Geordie accent... don't get me startit man!!!

a doughnut

a meringue

........or am I wrong?

Will there now be a referendum in 2014? 28 May 2012 1:20 AM (12 years ago)

The launch of the "Yes to independence" campaign on Friday 25th May was generally seen as lacklustre and a bit of a misfire. The emotional endorsement of American based celebrities and the singing of lachrymose "patriotic" lyrics failed to impress, even less persuade, anyone. Certainly not the press or the undecided. The publication of an opinion poll showing that 57% opposed "independence" and even that 28% of those who voted SNP in 2011 would not vote for "independence" revealed the scale of the mountain the Nationalists have to climb. They countered by setting out a strategy to get a million signatures on a web-petition in support of their position.

Yesterday, 27th May, at lunch time, the BBC Scotland's Economics Editor Douglas Fraser published this critique of the "yes" campaign's known positions on a number of vitally important matters in an "independent" Scotland. It was not at all reassuring for Nationalists: a number of their claims on the economy and on green issues were seen to be flaky or at least under challenge.

Last night the BBC ran one of its occasional series of "Big Debate" programmes on Scotland's Future. The result was revealing. Patrick Harvie and Nicola Sturgeon for the "yes" team disagreed on some fundamentals, with Harvie not enamoured with the SNP's certainty that "it'll be alright on the night", he didn't want to join the Euro (the SNP does) nor was he enamoured of their right-wing micro policies, e.g. low-competitive business rates.

The BBC iplayer only runs for 7 days. I include below YouTube versions Part1 and Part2 of the debate

Part 1

Part 2

Anas Anwar and Ruth Davidson made good clear points but their job was made a lot easier by the contributions from the audience. On the economy Nicola got slaughtered. The continued use of the pound and/or the Euro was dismissed with contempt from many voters. She became more and more defensive and ended up looking peevish and rattled. Ruth Davidson made a very good point when she revealed that the SNP had never even asked the EU for legal opinion on the status of Scotland asking to join the European Union and/or the Euro.

Even on Defence and jobs, Nato membership and Trident, the Nationalist position was not accepted uncritically by the audience. The loss of shipbuilding jobs and the credibility of the Nationalists' military planning were exposed to ridicule. Trident is unpopular, no doubt, but the fact that it could be moved to the north of England was seen as not a real solution to the problem.

On the Monarchy and the retention of the Queen as the head of state, the SNP's hypocrisy was revealed in all its glory. From full "independence" with a republican stance, elected head of state to "let's keep the Queen, it'll retain us a few Tory votes, maybe", it was emblematic of all the other u-turns on the economy, the Arc of Prosperity, joining the Euro, keeping the pound, pretend progressive while adopting neo-liberal policies and all the other contradictions and contortions that mark the Nationalist journey.

All-in-all, the programme, and the events of the last weekend, must be profoundly depressing for the "yes" camp. It seems to me that, after the failed ballyhoo of their launch, with the revelation of the basic and manifold weaknesses in their case, they are in a much worse position now than they were last Thursday.

The other thing that occurred to me during the debate was the dread thought that there is 2.5 years more of this stuff before the referendum is actually conducted.

The final batsqueak of a suspicion was: given the disarray of the "yes" campaign and the evident weakness of their case thus early in their endeavour, maybe we won't get the referendum at all. The SNP has run away from the possibility of a referendum before, when Wendy Alexander challenged Alex Salmond to "bring it on" and he failed to do so.

Maybe the bold Eck will find a reason not to have a referendum in 2014, a referendum which, on current evidence, he will surely lose. And that's the last thing he would want or ever allow to happen.

The Spirit Level, the documentary 21 May 2012 5:42 AM (12 years ago)

On 1st September 2010 I published this post about a new book called The Spirit Level which I thought contained a vital message for society and for politicians.

That message was simply that equality matters. Unequal societies are less cohesive and more miserable than more equal societies, the implications for politics being profound but obvious.

On Jan 21 2011 I followed it up with this .. a link to video and presentation material backing up the message of he book.

Now the authors of the book, Kate Willetts and Richard Wilkinson, are planning a film to spread the message. They are looking for support to get the project moving and their website is here.

It's well worth a read and it's a project well worth supporting in any way you can. If not with cash, then with blogging and tweeting and retweeting and in any way you can.

Braveheart's Blog View RSS