Dumfries in Fearful Factionalist Farrago

Dear readers, your humble correspondent has distressing news from the Socialist peoples republic of Dumfropolis. Poisonous words have reached your official party newspaper with startling news for the beloved followers of the dear party. Treacherous zealots, only interested in personal gain and self aggrandisement, are reluctant to follow edicts from the supreme overlord, the honourable and divine, James Murphy, Member of Parliament for the peoples constituency of East Renfrewshire. 

These traitorous dogs have dared to complain in shadowy corners, that the leaderships desire that they hand over a paltry five percent of their publicly funded council salary to the party is unfair! 

This dissent from these cowardly parasites, has brought eternal shame to this humble correspondent. It is my fearful duty to report that of the twenty-one Labour party candidates for the forthcoming Local Council Election, which will return Scotland to the safe and comforting hands of the mother party, many have refused to sign, in blood, their contract agreeing to hand over this piffling amount of money. That such a petit-bourgeois concern should hinder those who were chosen by the peoples selection panels to throw off the yoke of capitalist exploitation has angered this correspondent to a state of incandescent luminosity. 

One of these inveterate scoundrels speaking to your sickened correspondent in a darkened multi-storey car park behind the Loreburn shopping centre said:

"Some of theses conditions are completely unreasonable and very controlling." 

Unfortunately due to the poor mobile signal coverage in the car park, your correspondent was unable to raise assistance from burly party volunteers, who were waiting nearby to arrest this dissenting mad dog. He went on to say...I know he was a he, because we have no sisterly comrades representing us on the council:   

 "Here you have the Labour Party forcing people to hand over a percentage of their wages and threatening action if they don't.

"A lot of candidates are unhappy with this contract but there doesn't seem to be a lot they can do if they want to stand."

At these disgusting words, I vainly and heroically tried to effect a citizen journalists arrest. Sadly as I vigorously launched myself at this dishevelled and probably drunken miscreant, I slipped on an empty bottle of Buckfast secreted on the darkened floor. I awoke a few moments later with a sore head and a blinding rage to have been in the company of one so disloyal to the party, albeit temporarily.

I beseech you dear reader, to ignore the complaints from these degenerate careerists, who take offence at being reminded to "follow the group whip at all times and attend all Labour group and council meetings". How can these opportunist curs flinch at the prospect of embracing "at least 150-200 voter ID contacts- who vow to give commitment to backing the people party- every week."?

It shames your correspondent, to consider that these utterly unscrupulous factionalists would be concerned that local party officials will "receive reports based on the candidate's performance, backed up by monitoring conducted by the Scottish Labour Party."  Do these saboteurs not realise that, "if problems persist the...Scottish Executive Committee will review what further action is required up to and including rescinding the endorsement of any candidate." is solely of a beneficial nature to the misguided individual and betterment of the party? 

What harm is there, in these lumpen proletariat being asked to sign a contract that asks candidates to accept that failing to comply with the rules,"may result in me being removed from the list of approved candidates"? 

Dear reader, we can only hope that the wisdom of our venerable party leaders affords us an opportunity to conduct a root and branch pogrom of these undeserving traitors who would question the parties wisdom.

Brave thwarts the Unionists...

More flummery from that verecund Montague Burton on yatube...

What lies within?

Ok my political anorak chums, here's a question to get the synapses charged on a driech monday morning. 

Name the Castle Douglas born politician who produced the White Paper on Freedom of Information, which led to the Freedom of Information Act 2000?

The very same Act which Dominic Grieve the Attorney General, has thwarted by vetoing a request for the disclosure of minutes from the Cabinet Committee on Devolution to Scotland, Wales and the English Region.

It's a tricky one isn't it? To be honest I'd never heard of this chap, despite the fact that he was a regular front bench spokesperson for Labour during the 18 years of Tory government. At various times he held portfolios in Agriculture Food & Fisheries, Defence, Food, Agriculture and Rural Affairs and was even Shadow defence Secretary 1992-97, a period which included wars in Rwanda, Croatia, Slovenia, Sierra Leone, Bosnia, Georgia et al.

Now I'm normally a clued up chap on these sort of global manifestations of unpleasantness, but I racked my brains and I have absolutely no recollection of Labour's then shadow defence secretary pouring forth with an opinion during this period. His name is David Clark, and since 2001 he's been known as Baron Clark of Windermere. Ring any bells? Nope me neither.

His wiki page is a fascinating insight into a life in Labour. I don't know who wrote it, but I suspect old scores are being settled in a quiet little corner of the internet. I was unaware, for example, that David Clark MP was forced to apologise to the commons after meeting with Bosnian war criminal Radovan Karadžić in 1993 and not declaring it in the Register of Members Interests.

I was also unaware that when Labour were returned to power, Blair felt obliged, due to his long but mostly anonymous service, to give him a ministerial prize as a sort of New Labour gold watch, he was given the post of Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. This is at best a one day a week job, where the bulk of the work is done by an actual deputy, thus freeing up the MP to loaf around pretending to be a politician. The incumbent Chancellor is one Nick Clegg MP.

I did not know that David Clark, also stood for election to Speaker of the House of Commons and was defeated by the only Speaker ever to resign his post in an expenses ridden scandal, one Michael Martin, now Baron Martin of salubrious Springburn.

By far the most interesting thing I did not know about David Clark, is that his South Shields seat was one of the safest Labour seats in the UK. It was much coveted by those bright young things in the New Labour Party, particularly the then head of the Number 10 Policy Unit, one David Miliband, who had absolutely no connection to the constituency, other than the attraction that they weigh the Labour vote there rather than count it. Clark's constituency branch caught wind of this and fought his reselection in 2001, for fear of Clark rolling over on his belly for a seat in the House of Lords, thus allowing the National Executive Committee to parachute in their own candidate, who would have little interest in the actual constituency.

Clark, fought these unsubstantiated claims, declared his willingness to fight for his constituents for a full term, garnered the support from local trade union barons, won the day and immediately rolled over to allow the NEC to err parachute in David Miliband and for himself to undergo that transformational role and ascend from trade unionist to a comfy green seat in the House of Lords.

What a fascinating life and great insight to the merits of public life. Keep your head down, don't rock the boat and one day you'll be clad in ermine. Obviously to claim a bit of gravitas for posterity, Clark claimed he was shunted from his role writing the White Paper on Freedom of Information, because he shunned the London cocktail circuit for the heady delights of South Shields.

His legacy, however, remains what eventually became the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

From this Act we now know some of these salacious details that were never intended for public consumption:

» The Thatcher Government concocted a plan to search for the Loch Ness monster using a team of dolphins

» Foreign diplomats – who have diplomatic immunity – were accused of rapes, sexual assaults, child abuse and murders while working in Britain

» Ted Heath was once offered concert work by Idi Amin of Uganda. The eccentric dictator made his offer in a 1977 telegram

» Weapons used by paratroopers on Bloody Sunday have ended up in the hands of the army in Sierra Leone, paramilitary police in Beirut and even in an Arkansas gun shop

» A clandestine British torture programme existed in postwar Germany, “reminiscent of the concentration camps”

» Britain helped Israel to obtain its nuclear bomb 40 years ago, by selling it 20 tonnes of heavy water

» Then Prime Minister Blair took trips costing more than £1.2m over four years from 2002 on RAF jets allocated to the Royal Family and government VIPs, including those for holidays abroad

» Britain has extradited four times as many people to the US as have been sent in return since the introduction of fast-track extradition

» More than 1,000 girls aged 14 and under had abortions in a single year

» 1980s school dinners could be the cause of three young Welsh people’s deaths from the human form of mad cow disease

» The Elgin Marbles were damaged by two schoolboys fighting in the British Museum in 1961. One of the boys fell and knocked off part of a centaur's leg

All items at once variously surreal; amusing, terrifying, to be expected and quite concerning. Yet, Dominic Grieve has decided that the contents of the cabinet meeting on devolution are so serious that they are not to be open to the public.

What outrageous slurs about Scotland, Scottish politicians and Scotland’s destiny could these minutes contain? 

The odd thing in this whole mess, other than the fact that it's been little reported in the Scottish media, apart from of all people, the Hootsman, is that the original FOI was done by one of those UKIP chappies. Here's his correspondence and rather unique response to the refusal to release the minutes.

Where are the pro-Independence thinkers and doers who have the legal ability and tenacity to set about FOI cases with the same relish that the ignoble Baron Foulkes used to when he was being subsidised by the Scottish Parliament? Is there not one SNP intern, staffer or assistant willing to roll their sleeves up and get stuck into this veil of secrecy? 

This veto has only been used twice in the past, once on questions regarding the Iraq War, the other on questions of Devolution. Iraq, you can understand from the perspective of 'national security', but to refuse publication on matters pertaining to Devolution, not once, but twice...that's something worth prising open. 

Scotland Said Yes!

Amazing what you can find on these here interwebs. The above, as you can see are pamphlets produced by the Labour Party in Scotland from 1976 to the eve of the 1979 Devolution Referendum. 

The flyers veer from a strong NO to Devolution, a graphic decapitation regarding Independence (or to use their pejorative term - Separation) to the 5 pence bargain telling us the whole Labour movement supported Devolution bill for a Scottish Assembly. Odd really given the role of Messrs Wilson, Cook and Cunningham and their role in thwarting the rights of limited Scottish self determination. 

As we all know, 32.9% of the Scottish electorate turned out and voted. The YES vote edging it 51.6% to the NO camps 48.4% Thanks to the MP for Finsbury's amendment requiring 40% of the electorate turn out, a feat I've never heard of anywhere else in the history of the universal  franchise. If I'm wrong please illuminate in the comments below...

So 36 years on, the most stringent anti-devolutionist's are now vehemently opposed to Independence. The language they use hasn't changed much. Independence supporters are still separatists who supposedly hate everyone born on the wrong side of the River Sark...

This is how the anti-devolutionist's  played it in 1979. 

Obviously their arguments haven't changed much, although the fear of the scarily titled 'Assembleymen' is delightfully reminiscent of a time when the ladies were expected to sport purple bracelets with pride and have their man's tea ready at whatever time he strolled in from the pub at...

Surprisingly the TGWU ( remember them proper Unions) were all for Devolution. Interesting map of proposed devolved matters. We were to be given full control of shop opening hours! No mention of industry, energy or Antarctica...

Unfortunately the treachery of the Labour party conspired to stop Devolution and delay the right to self determination by another 18 years, yes that's right treachery, a horrible word to use about someone, a collective or even a political party, but yes treachery, is all I can think of describe the career of the likes of Baron Foulkes. Imagine it describing political opponents as traitors, horrible eh? A few short months after the referendum and these Labour politicians attached themselves firmly to the public teat and haven't let go since...

Here's some err vintage footage culled from the interweb to illuminate MLords Foulkes and Forsyth''s take on Scotland and how her aspirations can be thwarted...Naturally any association between myself and former visitor to this blog, Montague Burton is err purely coincidental.

Scotland in pole position...

The list of some of the more, shall we say, minor powers, exclusively reserved to Westminster under the Scotland Act 1998 have long tickled my ulnar nerve... aka funny bone.

Amongst those ever so tangibly close powers, we have the following:

• Control of film classification 

• Weights and measures 

• Regulation of the professions

• Betting, gaming and lotteries 

• Health and safety

• Public lending right

• Judicial salaries

• Equal opportunities

• Control of weapons of mass destruction

• The ordnance survey 

• Time 

and finally the most bemusing of all reserved powers - Outer Space...

It is odd this belief in Westminster that we cannot be trusted with Outer Space. Are we universally incapable of drawing up a risk assessment with regard to Alien invasion? Would we forbid Richard Branson from blasting off into the bright blue yonder? A look at the other reserved powers suggests there's a fear that we'd go mad and reduce judges salaries to Job seekers Allowance and expenses? Would we classify 'Debbie Does Dollar' as PG? Would we start charging for lending library books? Aargh, the sheer complexity of it all.

Given our particular uselessness I was hard pushed to stifle a snort of derision this week, upon discovering the news that the Westminster had forgotten to include control of the continent of Antarctica among the big list entitled 'Whatever-You-Do-Don't-Let-Jock-Touch-This'. Aka The Scotland Act 1998

It simply beggars belief that the British government which until a mere 90 years ago held sway over almost a quarter of the Earth's total land area, simply forgot about everything below 60 degrees South, you know, the 660,000 square miles of cold icy bit at the bottom of the planet, South Pole, intrepid chaps going for short walks in the snow etcetera.

Naturally, the parliament of whores, are up in arms about this outrageous oversight. Venerable Lords are shrieking like petulant children blaming incompetent ministers of the previous Labour administration, yeah, that never gets old. They're demanding that this piece of geopolitically important tundra be returned to the control of Blighty so that it may be plundered and pillaged of whatever natural resources lie beneath its increasingly slushy surfaces. I'd advise the Scottish Government to ca canny over this particular frozen dilemma. I mean, what an ace card to hold...'you want us to take how much of your debt into an Independent Scotland?'

Just this morning, that delightful internet repository for all things dribbling and  Tory, Conservative Home addressed the issue. The author, JP Floru an interesting young chap from Belgium, a former Taxpayers Alliance bod and now Westminster Councillor and Head of Programmes at the Adam Smith Institute set out his views on the lost continent. This handsome young migrant who cites Reagan, Thatcher and err Boris Johnson as his inspirations, blithely ignores the dubious question of who owns what within the UK set up and sails an icebreaker through the Antarctic Treaty System. The Treaty (ATS) regulates all International relations with regard to Antarctica. Tintin junior sets forth a rallying call to defend the right of Blighty to kick Johnny Foreigners what happen to live closer to Antarctica, particularly Chile and the English bete noir, Argentina, out of the frozen tundra. Odd really given that the Antarctic Treaty Secretariat are housed in err Buenos Aires. 

Monsieur Floru appears to have little in the way of qualms about easing back on the boring old scientific experiments of the biologists, geologists, oceanographers, physicists, astronomers, glaciologists, and meteorologists who while their hours away playing tig with penguins and cracking seal jokes, but fair salivates at the prospect of getting at some of those "vast mineral deposits under its icy carpet and its continental shelf". In a passage that reeks of 19th century venture capitalism on viagara he roars:

"While I do not dispute that some parts should be kept for environmental reasons, keeping a continent which is 55 times the size of the UK is excessive. I can see no justification to restrict so vast a territory to the sole enjoyment of a handful of privileged scientists and about 50,000 tourists annually. Neither do I see how the whole of mankind is served by closing the door to Antarctic exploitation."

Hmmm mmm, them's some mighty good minerals under that there icy carpet just a waiting for exploitation.

Fortunately Article 7 of the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic treaty (1991) prohibits, "Any activity relating to mineral resources, other than scientific research."  Sadly Article 7 runs out in 2041, by which time rapacious mineral hungry whores will have probably spread enough largesse around to open up the legs of some of the more coy politicians around the world, and much like the virgin territories of Alaska, they'll soon be poking their diamond tipped hard-ons into the ground in search for more carbon based product. 
The latest thinking from the scientists who have been running about with test tubes wearing fur lined lab coats in Antarctica is that the hole in the Ozone layer, directly above them is due to close over in 2065. How stupid would humanity be, to have supposedly solved a problem by cutting back on the wholesale spewing out of chlorofluorocarbons, only to expose ourselves to more risk by opening 'the door to Antarctic exploitation'?

 

All of which brings me neatly back to those silly billies at Westminster and their remiss lapse in concentration in devolving control of all UK Antarctica rights to Auld Scotia. A progressive, caring, greener, fairer, more sharing Scotland, whether Independent or not, could quite simply declare that the section that we supposedly own/control is to have no mineral extraction on it for a thousand years or whenever Scotland wins the world cup, whichever comes first. That might firm the resolve of those poor overstressed Unionist politicians hungrily gobbling at the teat of big carbon energy companies...

Of a' the airts the wind can blaw

Despite Distorting Scotland ignoring/relegating the £100 million investment by Samsung Heavy Industries in Scotland, to the fluffy window filler somewhere between a really important story about a safety hat wearing Polar bear and views of a former banker having his ceremonial sword shoulder tapping withdrawn. I'm a thinking this is excellent news for the future of an Independent Scotland. Naturally our superiors at the beeb thought a story decrying Scotland's world leading climate targets was more important...

However, those clever coves at Kyushu University in Japan have come up with a design that is simplistic, genius and potentially up to three times more effective than conventional wind turbines. It's uniquely suited to Scotland and something I hope Samsung are exploring in their new European offshore wind project.

 

As the article below points out building the turbines in the hexagonal base style leaves them suitable for aqua culture. Imagine a few of these anchored off the west coast providing clean energy and tasty salmon...

Scotland at the heart of the world.

Loving it, one of mine is in there...

Scotland the world over. 1507 entries, 715 photos, 32 countries, 2 months between St Andrews Night 2011 and Burns Night 2012

'Time to Get Rid of English Spongers!' Rab puts the boot in...

I've been awfy busy lately and missed much of the cut and thrust of the Indy Referendum.

Of the few hours I've managed to get online and peruse the various thoughts of the pro-Independence versus anti-Independence viewpoints, the following from the illustrious Rab McNeill writing for the Belfast Telegraph as the antithetical Daily Mail/Telegraph/Express/Scotsman anti-Independence mouthpieces AKA the toadish and repellent Quentin Letts/Cochran/Maddox triumvirate.

Come on Rab with 2014 approaching like a Union Jack wrapped half brick lobbed with great gusto, it's time we your devoted readers had a chance to read you in a more permanent setting. Get yersel a blog man, it's easy peasy.

Rejoice!

Reflections on a folly.

As a feller with too much times on his hands and a zealous desire to smite porkies and fibs promulgated by those delectable anti-Independence coves in the British media, I was somewhat struck in the awe, when I happened upon an article in the FT t'other day there. The happy journalist one, Kiran Stacey, appeared to be suggesting that not only should Scotland give up all our claims on North Sea oil revenue, but also that we should also assume the debts of all banks and agree to allow the Chancellor of the Exchequer Droit de seigneur with all Scottish women in possession of child bearing thighs, in addition any future offspring born in Auld Scotia from this coupling would be christened Gideon. 

A look at the comments section beneath the article, was akin to wading through a fetid swamp of daily mail gibberish whilst wearing only in a tight fitting mini kilt and a frayed string vest. I was however, struck by some chap going by the appellation 'Bonzo' who seemed to infer that the very notion of Scottish Independence was sheer folly, and cited the National Monument of Scotland as evidence for our genetic propensity to suck, in the old arena of achievement. Now, to be perfectly honest, I'd never given the folly atop Calton Hill in Embra much thought, I'd see it the odd times whilst looking out of an office window in the parliament, or whilst trudging up the hill from Waverley station to the High Street. Being a typical denizen of weegieland it never impinged on my consciousness, other than the thought that Edinburgh isnae very good at finishing things, like err trams and parliament buildings...

So, despite being in possession of a history degree from one of our other ancient seats of learning, I realised this gap in my knowledge and embarked on a wee cyber road of discovery about our National Monument of Scotland.

Francis Watt writing in 1912 in his hugely extensive and pertinent record of 'Edinburgh and The Lothians' describes it thus:

'There are two pretentious and costly structures on the Calton about which it is hard, honestly, to make up one’s mind or purge the soul from prejudice. The first is the National Monument. When, after Waterloo, the minds of men were uplifted, it was determined to commemorate the victory by a great monument—nothing less than to reproduce the Parthenon. The pillars cost £1000 each, but only twelve were completed. Funds failed and the thing stuck. It has ever since been a laughing - stock. "Scotland’s pride and poverty" it was called, but it was not a mere question of money. The great war was too much connected in people’s minds with a system of government and dissolute and selfish rulers to excite real national enthusiasm. It were easy today for many a wealthy Scotsman to complete it; perhaps it will be, and re-dedicated to something else; but then is it not better as it is? Is not the look of ruin a distinct advantage? Ah, but the sham of it all! and that is what imagination boggles at.' 

Hysterical Scotland record its genesis as follows:

'The idea of a National Monument to honour the dead of the Napoleonic Wars was first suggested by the Highland Society of Scotland in 1816. The decision to have a separate monument for Scotland was highly significant culturally and politically. Some argued that the function of commemoration would be more appropriately fulfilled by a single British monument in London. However, following Edinburgh's more overtly pro-Union stance in the later eighteenth century, it was felt by many that Edinburgh, and Scotland in general, although part of the Empire, should be able to express their individuality and national identity. The situation was likened to that of Athens under Roman rule, subsumed into a wider empire, but seen as stronger in terms of intellect and culture. Edinburgh was therefore beginning to be seen as Athens to London's Rome, a claim which was strengthened by Scots achievements during the Enlightenment, and the extensive adoption of the Greek Revival style of the architecture of Edinburgh in the early nineteenth century. '
   
It strikes me as somewhat incongruous that it was the Highland Society who first suggested this hubristic homage to the fallen soldiers, a Parthenon to the cannon fodder who laid down there life for King and Country. I say incongruous, as I'm reminded of the many accounts of near limbless or partially sighted Highland soldiers returning to their ancestral homes from the killing fields of Waterloo to discover the timbers of their house pulled down by the factors of aristocratic estate owners and their families sitting by the quayside waiting on the boat to Canada. Hindsight allows me to suggest that a public subscription to provide homes for Highlanders cleared from their ancestral land, may have been more popular than an attempt to glorify Empire and Union.

The laying of the foundation stone was rushed forward to coincide with Sir Walter Scott's Disneyesque PR exercise in parading the wee fat German Lairdie's great grandson, King George IV, around Edinburgh for a fortnight in August 1822. Jing's it'll be the 190th anniversary later this year! The visit of George IV was reported as a great success, with Scots allowed to wear a somewhat alien form of the tartan again and the tailoring industry coining it in by inventing tartans for lowland aristocracy, determined not to be left out of the Heraldic beano.  Highland clan chieftains determined to show off the pomp and pageantry by having their troops parade through the city and quash rumours of the beastly rumours of a campaign of land clearances. Unfortunately, as the clan chiefs returned from their Southern estates, they were somewhat dismayed to discover that their personal troop numbers were somewhat depleted by the ... err, highland clearances.

This may sound a wee bit familiar, but in 1825-6 a banking crisis hit the financial institutions of both London and Edinburgh. Pleas for additional funding to be made to this vainglorious monument fell on deaf ears. It appears that in 'Regency England' we were indeed all in it together. By 1829 the decision was taken to abandon the project. And there it has sat ever since as a testament to the folly of aristocratic mortals aping the classics.

It has been described throughout the ages variously as 'Edinburgh's Shame', 'Scotland's Disgrace' and rather eloquently as 'The Pride and Poverty of Scotland'. I get what Mr Bonzo of the FT was saying, allusions of the organisation difficulties of combining piss ups and breweries spring to mind about Scotland's compelling ability to shoot ourselves in the collective feet. Naturally there have been many plans to resurrect and complete the Monument atop Calton hill over the last 190 years. They've ranged from the rather touching and humanistic Tibetan peace poles, to further Empire polishing as a tribute to Queen Victoria and even, yes, even, in 1907, further funding was called for to create a lasting monument to the then 200 year old 1707 Act of Union. Oddly enough even 105 years ago at the height of Empire and Union strength, the good burghers of Edinburgh and the citizens of Scotland thought that was stretching credulity too far, and so, there it sits the haunt of tourists, firedancers and the demi monde of Auld Reekie. 

Naturally I doubt Mr Bonzo's slur on Scotland's inability to complete and carry through grand schemes. If anything history teaches us that true achievements come about not through artifice and throwing money at an idea, instead genuine achievement comes from the people, from a movement, who (if you'll excuse me purloining the word) 'unite' behind an idea whose time has come. 

Perhaps if Walter Scott and his noble chums had chosen a different builder to complete the monument it may have been completed and Scotland would have no desire to end the Union and this inate desire for Independence would dwell among the swivel eyed and many tongued. The builder they chose? His company was called 'William Wallace and Sons.'   

 

 

 

 

Genius animation of Salmond v Cameron.

Cameron tries the softly softly approach.

Poll this!

I'm liking the breakdown from Reform Scotland's poll that's all over the news today. 

According to question one.

"If there was a Scottish independence referendum tomorrow where you could only vote either yes or no to independence, how would you vote?"
97.5% of SNP supporters naturally voted yes. Oddly enough 28.0% of Labour supporters, 9.2% Tories and 25.0% Lib Dems all selected Independence as their preferred option. Now the numbers are small, and those identifying with the SNP were in the majority, but still 28% of Labour and 25% of Lib Dems support Independence. If anything it shows that there are people in those parties who are bound to party/family loyalty but hopefully have the strength of their convictions when it comes to doing something for the greater good.


The other question I found interesting was the timing of the proposed referendum. Only the Tories favoured an immediate referendum with a whopping 47.7% of their supporters wanting it right NOW! Perhaps they're afraid that any more years of this pathetic coalition will simply play into pro-Independence hands. Interestingly the majority of Labour supporters want it like the SNP supporters, in 2014, with 25.6% Labour supporters and 59.7% SNP supporters willing to wait until the latter part of this parliamentary period.
Perhaps, like Gordon Brown's lack of desire to go to the country in a general election, many of the Labour supporters want to delay the inevitable. 

What is noticeable is the 8.5% Labour supporters and 16.3% Tories who never want to see the day Scotland has a referendum... That's your core Unionist support, the diehards who will resist change no matter the cost.

Devo Plus and Opinion Poll Bulletin

It's a long,long while from May to December.

Impressed by the hagiographic column inches devoted to the finally departing Leader of the Labour Party in the Scottish Parliament (LOTLPAISP) Iain Gray, I'm left pondering over whether this is the longest swansong in Labours Scottish political history.

When Henry McLeish replaced Donald Dewar as First Minister, the process took place within the 28 days as stipulated by the Scotland Act. The vote was taken by a "selectorate" of 80 Labour MSPs and members of the party's Scottish executive...yes count them 80!

Poor Henry survived the long knives of internal back biting for just a little over a year before resigning over 'Officegate'. A resignation that had more to do with one man's ambitious stoking of internal party strife than a powerful opposition.

Wee Jack replaced Henry, unopposed in a hasty 18 days. Yet when Jack fell on his sword after losing the May 2007 election to the SNP by one pesky seat, it took all of 30 days and a girls night out involving a Chinese takeaway for TheWendy to replace him. Even Iain Gray's installation as LOLITSP took all of two and a half months, despite an actual leadership battle, where the brave Iain saw off the formidable Cathy doll and former Murray Primary school boy Andy Kerr.

So fast forward three years, three months and two days and finally we come to the end of Iain Gray's reign as the Parliaments perennial Mr Angry.

Mr Gray announced his resignation on the 6th of May 2011, that'll be 7 months and 11 days ago, or 31 weeks if you prefer. During this time, he has gone about his business with a complete lack of grace, honesty and basic manners. His final conference speech was given over not to identifying the mistakes Labour had made and what plans he had to solve them, instead he launched a tirade about the rise of the Cybernat. It wasn't the cybernats who followed him into a sandwich shop or walked with him through the Killing fields of Renfield Street. It wasn't the cybernats who ran a campaign built on negativity, scaremongering and fear that has probably killed Labour for a generation. It was Iain Gray, his deputy and replacement Johann Lamont and control from London. Did Ed really get Scotland?

His final farewell today sees him using the very last of his headline grabbers to yet again attack the leader of the SNP. No fond remembrances for Iain Gray. Probably no ermine clad pension in the other place. Instead a pew at the back of the Holyrood benches where he can fulminate and nurse his wrath at the SNP backbenchers.

So farewell Iain Gray, you've given a lot of pro-Independence folk a lot of laughs. In a tenure bereft of dignity or humanity you've managed to traduce the once mighty Labour party to a minority voice in a changing Scotland, quite an achievement, especially considering the overwhelming backing of the UK and Scottish media that you've had.

Here's a final memento for you.

Skwerr Go...

George Square in Glasgow has been in the news quite a lot recently, particularly with the news of the #Occupy movement taking up tented residence, the subsequent rape of a young woman and the campaign rather meekly assenting to Glasgow City Council's request that they move to Kelvingrove, so as not to interfere with the impending rampant consumerist madness, called Christmas that they're supposed to be opposed to in the first place...

  

I've always had a soft spot for the square. As kids we were dragged in to 'ooh' and 'aaah' at the Christmas lights after shopping in John Lewis's, whilst the parentals lubricated themselves for the drive home via the Horseshoe bar. My wife and I would meet there as teenagers, indulging in post cinema Kia-ora and chips, joined by street philosophers from the nearby soup kitchen, who were willing to share their life experiences for the price of a cup of tea or a bus fare to a forever lost home. Later on we'd play dead as part of campaigns against nuclear weapons, (nein danke) or as students against the move from grants to 'loans'. Other times found us sitting/sleeping on the benches cooling down after a night of musical frenzy up the hill at Strathclyde Uni. Hogmanay was always special, long before TV discovered that filming a few washed up bands and comedians saved them the cost of producing an October Hogmanay. A pre-midnight stroll into town from whichever southside or westend bedsit we were living in, would find a similarly disparate group of folk out for an impromptu ceilidh as the bells rang out. Magical times, Asian tourists, African students and Clydeside Eldorado soaked mendicants all belting out Auld Lang Syne, arms linked. There was always an air of safety and bonhomie about the square, long before the arrival of CCTV.

I only really began to notice the built environment of the square in the late eighties, when for a short time half price cocktails in the Copthorne Hotel became part of Friday evening life. Looking out to the City Chambers, I could mock a distant relative who had became mired in Labour's brown envelope politics. In return for a massive contract to sandblast the municipal buildings he offered to gold leaf the spire atop the city chamber dome. He came unstuck when a trainee surveyor miscalculated the height, and cost him tens of thousands in brown envelope liquidity. Sitting in the Copthorne Hotel half way through a Tequilla Sunrise, we had a great view of the life in the square, as its inhabitants, waited, checked watches, preened themselves for a night of raucousness or as happened too often, young men with bad perms and catalogue jackets looked around forlornly, sighed, shrugged shoulders and jumped on a bus home. It took me a while and a few drinks, but gradually I began to notice that the overall look of the square with its statue of Queen Victoria astride a horse, her German consort Albert on his gee gee and the cenotaph to the dead of world war one was really no more than a pantheon dedicated to commercial Glasgow and its willing expression of the ideas of war and conquest of imperial dynasty.

I was aware of the modern history of the square, accounts of the 1919 Battle of George Square, when Bolshevism was roaring through Europe, that Scottish troops were confined to barracks, whilst troops were brought up by train from the north of England to suppress the protests for fear that Glaswegian troops might join the dissent, the stories of tanks and Churchill were still relevant in the dying days of Thatcherism amid poll tax protests. My  abiding memory of the square is of an impromptu party in George Square, with, amongst others, a future leader of SLAB, on the day Thatcher demitted office. I suspect there'll be a few folk in the square on the day she shuffles off her demementor cloak.

The genesis of the square is interesting, the city fathers inspired/envious of Edinburgh's new town, purchased the land which was part of a croft called Rameshorn. The Square was marked out in 1781. By 1801 it was described as  a “hove” or “hollow, filled with green-water, and a favourite resort for drowning puppies and cats and dogs, while the banks of this suburban pool were the slaughtering place of horses.”

General Sir John Moore. Not so popular with the weans.

As the merchant classes grew wealthier through the trade in slavery, tobacco and cotton, so mansion houses began to spring up around the square and a veneer of opulent respectability was slathered on. Glasgow,firmly embracing the mantle of being the second city of Empire and  the fourth most populous city in Europe after London, Paris and Berlin was struck with monarchist patriotic fever, hence the plethora of royally named streets George Street, Duke Street (after the Duke of York), Frederick Street, Hanover Street, and Regent Street culminating in George Square after the mad King George III.

A look at the 12 statues that adorn the square, shows that they are mostly devoid of artistic value, particularly the 88 foot high memorial to Walter Scott.

Then again they are subject to the fashions of their time. The Scott monument was erected in 1837 and prompted Edinburgh to try and outdo Glasgow by building a gothic spaceship in 1840 to honour the novelist and poet.

This has been quite a circuitous route I've taken to get to the point I really want to make. George Square is symbolic of an Imperial past that modern Scotland is finally moving away from, the easy bucks route from partnering up with a bigger bullying neighbour no longer work, they no longer appeal and are finally realised as damaging to those you wish to exploit, as they are to yourself. Yet George Square remains chock full of these symbols of Empire, there are 12 statues in the square. I can see that Burns and Scott have to be there as their work is immortal. James Watt, absolutely. Thomas Graham, how many of us know about him and his work that led to the dialysis machine? However, we have to ask of what relevance in contemporary Scotland are the equine statues of Queen Victoria and her husband looking down on the people of Glasgow? Do we still celebrate Field Marshall Lord Clyde for his sterling work in suppressing the Indian mutiny? Or General Sir John Moore and his brave work in the Peninsular wars? What about the Liberal and Conservative Prime Ministers Gladstone and Peel do we still praise them or their contemporaries Clegg and Cameron today? Or Glasgow MP James Oswald, who's been standing in the square for 135 years? Is poet Thomas Campbell more worthy of his place than an Edwin Morgan, Hugh McDiarmid Muriel Stark or Joanna Baillie?

Where are the statues to celebrate the Scottish men and women who lived, died and achieved in this century and the last one?

Not that statues and sculptural work are all about people and past glories...Look at the shoddy way sculptor George Wyllie's work has been treated. Revered by curators in Europe and America, George now living in a care home, is mostly ignored by Scotland's art establishment, too long a whimsical thorn in the side of their small 'c' conservatism. His exclusion from the Sculpture Show, a survey of the history of modern sculpture from 1900 is to be held at the Scottish National Gallery of Modern Art in Edinburgh next month, has no place for a Wyllie. As a fan and a friend of the man, I'm dismayed that the Scottish art establishment is too outward looking, and incapable of looking around it's own wee patch just once in a while...

There are council elections in May 2012. The SNP have set their sights on taking control of the City Chambers. Prior to May's Holyrood elections, you would have been accused of living on cloud cuckoo land if you had said the SNP could take the city. Yet, we hear tales of panic, of Labour culling the old  guard in a desperate attempt to shore up the last bastion of Unionism in Scotland. Glasgow has become a city in state in paralysis, led by leaders wary of adopting positive change that has emanated from the Scottish Government, lest they show them in a good light.  The Evening Times,'Ripped Off Glasgow' campaign, driven by Labour politicians came to naught. Everything is up for grabs. Perhaps one of the first things that a new SNP city council might look at is a slight rearrangement of their front door garden, George Square. Remove a few of the old Empire adoring statues and replace them with work that best represents Scotland's place in the contemporary world.