Prorogation Illegal, rule Scottish judges

Scottish appeal court judges have declared that Boris Johnson’s decision to suspend parliament in the run-up to the October Brexit deadline is unlawful. 

The three judges, chaired by Lord Carloway, Scotland’s most senior judge, overturned an earlier ruling that the courts did not have the powers to interfere in the prime minister’s political decision to prorogue parliament.

Here 

Tom Watson will be livid. His latest attempt at undermining Corbyn has been bumped off the front page of the Guardian.

Am I right in thinking that Boris Johnson has ...

• Lost six votes in the House of commons
• Broken the law twice
• Been dumped by his brother
• Lost a cabinet minister
• Lost a couple of dozen MPs as a result of a particularly ill-judged show of political machismo
• Lied to the Queen

... All within his first week in the job?

Did I miss anything?

The brazen uselessness of the Johnson administration beggars belief. I always anticipated that Johnson would be a disaster; but I was also anticipating he would have some sort of a plan and try to disguise his incompetence with shows of bon homie , 'infectious confidence' and general bluster.

I was expecting him to trounce Corbyn at PMQs and deliver lots of well received speeches, as these were the sort of things this 'acclaimed orator' would be good at, even if it was just sound and fury concealing the vacuum of his policy.

So I was expecting useless, but making a good show of being not-useless.

Instead we got useless and obviously useless.

What a difference a week makes, eh?

Nasty little shit

So, Adam Tomkins, a Conservative MSP in Holrood, has brought up the issue of Where Richard Leonard Was Born.  (For those who do not follow Scottish politics with the diligence it deserves, Leonard is the newly elected leader of the Scottish Labour Party.)

Michael White, former deputy political editor of the Guardian promptly bit his e-head off:

Tomkins is insinuating that you can't have an English born person leading the Scottish Labour Party. Of course you can.  We're not all racist arseholes in Scotland, though - alas - we try very hard to create the impression we are.

Obviously his goal is to drum up bit of festering resentment among the Scottish Labour Party members, who he thinks are to dim to have noticed Leonard's Yorkshire accent:

White responded fiercely to a bit of bigoted shit-stirring. As he should have. Ethnic cleansing doesn't always mean herding people into death camps. It can also mean bullying and intimidating those seen as 'tainted.'

Tomkins is the only taint here.

I wonder if Tomkins would have had the guts - evil, nasty guts, but guts none the same - to run the same smear if the winner had been a immigrant, maybe even of a different colour?  I doubt it.

His contempt for Scots, the people he is supposed to represent, is disgusting.

Further musings on the SNP, Scotland and Labour

I recall people who Understood Such Things claiming that Labour would never support Scottish Independence because they had no chance of winning a Westminster election without the Scottish seats.

Scotland returns 59 seats to Westminster. Most of them have been Labour for ... gosh ... a very long time. Crucially, since the 70s, a dwindling number have returned Tory MPs. Currently, the Tories have just one MP in Scotland, to Labour's 41.

Well, it looks the conventional wisdom is going to be challenged in 2015.

According to current polling, the Scottish seats aren't going Labour's way. The SNP are predicted to win 54 of the 59. Nothing like this has been seen before. It seems outlandish and impossible that the SNP might actually pull off this insta-rout of Labour. Yet the polls are consistent.  the total destruction of the Labour party in Scotland - or something very like it - seems like it is really going to happen.

(Personally, I think the final result will be much less emphatic for the SNP for two reasons.  First, a slice of its support may stay at home, and this will swing a few seats Labour's way. Second, some currently saying they will vote SNP may waver; whereas if you're still saying your going to vote Labour in Scotland in 2015, your pretty much definitely mean it.

In spite of those considerations, I still expect it will still be a disaster on an incomprehensible scale for Labour, but with expectations now so low, it may not seem like the catastrophe it actually is - and the SNP may find themselves portrayed as having 'failed' for 'only' winning the majority of seats in Scotland. Such is the berserk nature of the British press.)

And yet, in terms of overall seats at Westminster, Labour still look like finishing a whisker ahead of the Tories.

That's a measure of how crap Cameron's rabble are - they can't even beat a Labour Party that is shorn of Scottish seats and led by Ed Miliband.

It's like Labour are deliberately handicapping themselves, to try and make a fair fight of it.

In spite of all this, however, Nicola Sturgeon and her party are in a precarious position.  their support is drawn from three distinct camps: roughly 1/3 actual pro-independence SNP; 1/3 angry traditional Labour voters; and 1/3 Tories and the weird minority of voters who support Lib Dems a for reasons relating to the arcane nature of Scottish politics (henceforth, the Ragbags).

And whatever Sturgeon does, she risks losing a whole chunk of her support.  I suspect the crunch issue will be Trident, which Sturgeon has said she will not support under any circumstances.

If the SNP refuse to vote for a bill allocating money to Trident, and she brings down a Labour administration, she'll lose her Labour defectors; they want the SNP to force Labour to behave like Labour, not like the bastard demonic spawn of Tony Balir.

If she supports it, she may lose the Ragbag element, who are more vehemently anti-Labour than pro-SNP.  But the loses from this group will probably be fewer in number and may be open to the argument that the SNP is acting in Britain's interest - some of them at least will probably support a nuclear deterrent, for all that they are currently voting for the SNP.

If it comes to a vote on Trident and a Labour government loses, then the administration falls - money bills are always treated as confidence bills.  So by knocking back Trident, the SNP topple a Labour government.

It is possible that the Tories could vote for a trident bill; but this seems unlikely  The Tories would probably prefer to topple a Labour government. If no new administration can be formed, parliament is automatically dissolved and a new election is called. The Tories would almost certainly walk it, as they would be the only ones who could afford another campaign, and they would be able to campaign hard on "Look what happened when you let that useless shower have a shot. We governed for five years, they couldn't even last five minutes."

After all, the Tories are fundamentally uninterested in keeping the Tories out of power.  They can introduce their own Trident bill when they have control of the government benches.

So the SNP get Trident and the rest of us getthe Tories and everyone loses.

Labour could play things smartly and introduce a Trident bill before any further Scottish devolution; because Sturgeon can be fairly certain she won't get much out of the Tories on the devolution front. So she may even end up in the perfect storm of Trident in Scotland, Tories in Westminster, and Devo-Max no-where.

But supporting Trident would be the least damaging option for the SNP. IT would reassure the Labour voters that defecting to the SNP was the right choice; ditto the Ragbags.

The only segment of her voter base she can rely on is the dyed in the wool SNP voters. They haven't got anywhere else to go, realistically, as no other party is offering independence. Trident is a rat she has to swallow, I think.

If she's fenced herself into a position where she can't actually compromise on it, then she's been foolish.

Musings on the SNP and the British General election

After the strange election of 2010, which saw Labour and the Tories realise that they might have to consider sharing power, much thought has been given to the possibility of another hanged parliament emerging after the 2015 election, barely a month away.

There are three big little parties that are likely to play a role in determining the election - though I do not think it is likely the UKIP will have much to do in the actual parliament that is formed from it.

If we accept that the polls are broadly accurate and neither Tories nor Labour will form a majority, then the question is, how will they fnd themselves placed in relation to the Liberal Democrats, UKIP and the SNP?

(There are a gaggle of other parties, many from Northern Ireland, but as their political behaviour is incomprehensible even to themselves, it is best to pretend that they do not exist, unless we really have to.)

The Lib Dems will likely lose a large number of seats, perhaps actually achieving an electoral first for them, with their share of vote matching their share of seats (usually, their share of vote wildly exceeds the number of seats they win -  but, cruel coalition has diminished their support from a robust 25% to a parlous 5%).

The SNP will win an awful lot of seats in Scotland - though not, I suspect as  many as their current share of vote suggests on a universal swing, which suggests they would win virtually every seat in Scotland.  First Past The Post is a funny beast, and Scottish voters funnier still.  It is likely the SNP will win 25 to 30 seats, maybe even 35.  And that would be a truly impressive result, and likely have a decisive impact on the British election.  But - if expectations are not cannily managed  then it will seem like something of a disappointment.

The SNP have ruled out working with the Tories and set all sorts of bottom line issues, notably around the replacement of the Trident nuclear missile system.

I think it is far more likely that the SNP will find it in their hearts to compromise on Trident. In spite of their good running, they are actually in a tricky position. If the Tories are the largest party in in a hanged parliament, and the SNP are in a position to stop them getting into power, but do not, the SNP will be abjured by the Scottish voters.

The Scottish public will not countenance a Tory led government being tacitly supported by the SNP over something the Scottish public aren't quite as vehement about as the SNP are. It is also worth pointing out that many people in Scotland have jobs that depend on military spending. I grew up in Helensburgh, beside the Faslane submarine base. We didn't like having it there, but we didn't like the idea of not having it there either, as it brought in so much money to the town.

It is (slightly) interesting that the SNP boost is not coming entirely at Labour's expense. A lot of it seems to be the anti-Tory, anti-Labour, anti-Nats who have traditionally voted Lib Dem, which is the bloc that has resulted in the Lib Dems always being over-represented in Scotland. The reality is that the SNP will be under immense pressure to support Labour, because a lot of their support is former Labour that will be disgusted if the SNP do not help Milliband into Downing Street and help keep him there.

About 12% of the SNP vote (according to polling analysis) is from Labour, and it is the most volatile. They aren't interested in Independence, but are interested in pushing Labour into power and pushing Milliband to the left - it's a tactic to outflank the still powerful Balirite pseudo-conservative, anti-progressive right wing of the party.

The other 12% of the SNP's new support is largely drawn from the Lib Dems, who have always enjoyed an unusually high degree of support in Scotland. That's largely because of the peculiar nature of Scottish politics. No-one is suggesting, I think, that the Highlands and Islands are havens for those concerned with Gay rights and electoral reform.

But these far flung Scottish constituencies are full of people who won't vote Tory (too English in profoundly conservative rural Scotland), won't vote Labour (too urban in profoundly conservative rural Scotland) and won't vote SNP (too nationalist in profoundly conservative rural Scotland) so they schizophrenically vote for the Lib Dems.  Now that vote seems to have shifted to the SNP - along with a fair chunk of Labour's vote.

It looks like being the most interesting election in aeons, or at least since 1997.

The SNP and the UKIP are wild cards, but of different sorts.  The UKIP may critically injure the Tories in crucial constituencies, allowing Labour or the Lib Dems to win what should have been unwinnable seats. But they (UKIP) won't win many seats at all, just make it harder for the Tories.

The SNP, on the other hand, probably will win a lot of seats, mostly from Labour. But as the only option for the SNP is to work with Labour, formally or informally, that doesn't hurt Labour nearly as much as the UKIP hurts the Tories.

Also, Miliband has shown he's not useless in debates, so he'll be getting lots of good coverage over the next few weeks.  Cameron, on the other hand, is coming across more and more as a loathsome toff turd - A “bunch of hypocritical, holier-than-thou, hopeless, sneering socialists” indeed.

Dave, apart from the last word (which hardly applies to Labour, alas!) you just described your own party. Too a hypocritical, holier-than-thou,, hopeless, sneering tee.

The Big Man

So, Alex Salmond has announced he will step down as First Minister of Scotland.  This is, of course, being presented as throwing his toys and peevish behaviour following the independence referendum and the defeat of the 'Yes' campaign.

Which is an odd reaction, given the blind panic that has been the defining feature of the 'No' campaign for the last fortnight or so, ever since the polls started to narrow and it became to look like 'Yes' might just make it.

Credit where it is due. His goal was to give the people of Scotland a chance to decide if they wanted to be independent or not. He achieved his goal. He could have continued to lord it over the Scottish parliament for years to come, but has decided to step aside. He's shown himself to be what, in Scotland, we'd call a big man.  Not just a tough guy or a hard man, but someone who can take knocks as well as giving them out.  William McIlvaney wrote a book with that title, exploring the strange permutations of Scottish macho.

Salmond's dignity in defeat an example David Cameron might consider following in victory.  Only, it is unlikely Cameron has half an iota of Salmond's principle.

But Cameron, of course, has shown he has neither principle or backbone.  He used to glory in a 'Flashman' reputation.  He tried to play the big man, as a Tory would imagine a big man - acting like a strutting peacock, a loud-mouth bully at PMQs, scoffing at anyone who dared to, you know, ask him a question that wasn't about how fabulous David Cameron and his shabby government was.  it was a disgaceful display of arrogance but it allowed the clueless Cameron to bluster his way out of tight corners the uselessness of the his ministers and his own blinkered inadequacy got himself into, week after week.

(Aided, it must be acknowledged, but the profound uselessness that is commonly referred to as Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition.)

Cameron's Flashman alter-ego dominated the early stages of the referendum debate, trying to rig it by insisting on a Yes / No option because he was feart (good Scots word) of the likely widespread support for enhanced devolution.  But when that seemed to be about to blow up in Flashie's face, the swaggering toff revealed his true colours, magnificently soiled himself, blubbed (while muttering threats) and ignominiously rushed into offering the things he had tried to keep off the negotiating table in the first place, promising at all sorts of new powers for the Scottish parliament and ponies for everyone.

Such unstatesmanlike behaviour might have been worth it - just - if it had bought time for Cameron to lick some wounds and rebuild his shattered reputation and credibility.  But Cameron, having been humiliated in the North, has another arduous electoral ordeal to endure.

He must now face the UKIP in the south, where Douglas Carsewell's defection and resignation (another man of principle, Mr Carsewell) means the UKIP will likely gain their first MP and Cameron will have to deal with a devastating defeat.

Like King Harold of Hastings fame (only less noble and impressive and without that man's legitimate claim to power) Cameron must charge from one end of the kingdom to the other to fight swarming enemies intent on his destruction. Like Harold, he has been fatally weakened by the battle in the North and will meet nemesis in the south.

Unlike Harold, he won't be remembered in history as a bold man brought down by overwhelming odds, but as a fool who engineered his own destruction.

Salmond - a bit of a joke for as long as I can remember - proved himself to be a big man in the end, both in delivering on his promises, fighting a brave campaign, and accepting the dashing of his life's hopes with dignity.  Cameron has been revealed to be very, very small, and the process of reduction of Flashman to Flash-in-the-Pan is not even over.

The Mail - merely mad, or essentially evil?

I think the Mail has actually gone clinically insane over Independence.

It's running a story titled "Salmond's bullies hit a blind man in the face - just for saying NO!" and referring to yes voters as 'separatists' who are likely to use 'menacing tactics' to intimidate and bully loyal unionists.

What a heap of shit it is. I wish I was in Scotland so I could vote Yes just to spite it.

And this visceral reaction makes me suspect think the Mail's relentless negative, personal and disgusting raving is a deliberate tactic to motivate people to vote YES, out of anger and contempt for its poison. After all, the Mail's owners' interests aren't served by having 45 extra Labour MPs in Westminster.

David Cameron - Worst PM ever?

That is the question being asked at the top of the Independent's web site.  It links to a sterling blog post by Jean Paul Fauget, which is worth a read.  Fauget does, however, make one mistake in his ruminations.  He contends:

The colossal mistake, rather, was to not fight that contest himself – to fail to commit his government and the nation to its own self-preservation. By handing the campaign over to his political opponents on the assumption that he could never speak to the Scottish heart, it appeared – and he allowed us all to infer – that he did not care. He was too busy to keep the country together. He had more important things to do.

I think he's wrong there.

Cameron's mistake wasn't keeping out of the argument. That was probably his only smart move, because, well, you can't help but vote against Cameron, can you. Most of the Britons voting in 2010 voted against him, after all, and the Scots would naturally have done the same, because the man simply cries out to be voted against.

His mistake was telling the Scots it had to be a YES / NO referendum, with no option for enhanced devolution. That, understandably, got a lot of people's backs up and as a result is prompting them to vote yes to independence.

After all, who (to use Cameron's favoured marriage metaphor) who would want to stay in a relation with such an arrogant, high handed buffoon?

And while on the topic of marriage, it's very weird that Cameron is tearfully threatening Scotland with a permanent divorce if they vote for independence now.

Why should that be? What's to stop the separate nations reunifying in the future, if both parties are willing? It happened before, after all.

He really is a dick.

Three reasons for Scotland to vote YES! (Warning - content may disturb)

In a last ditch effort to save / destroy the union, Westminster has sent Cameron, Clegg and Milliband - all English -  on a desperate mission to persuade Scots that they are not dominated, patronised and bossed about by the English.

File under Scottish independence, further musings on

If you thought the New Zealand media was biased, you should have a look at the way the Daily Mail is covering the referendum on Scottish independence.

Today, there are EIGHT different stories on the Mail's webiste on the issue. Yesterday, I counted NINE.  They are all anti-Independence, and stridently so.  They are full of apocalyptic warnings and resort to personal attacks on Alex Salmond - and his wife (OMG!  His wife is 17 years older than he is!  Vote for the Union!).

(The Mail has a lot of form for targetting spouses - I'm sure I recall in the run up to the 2010 election, they featured a story in which they compared the attractiveness of the FEET of the partners of the main party leaders.  Yes, you read that right.  Their feet!  Probably, motivated by entirely objective journalism and nothing to do with humiliating Sarah Brown for having a crushed toe.)

I suspect the Powers That Be have realised Cameron will be totally diminished if he becomes the Prime Minister who oversaw the break up of the union.  It ill destroy the credibility of the Conservative party and - contrary to the claim that it will skew the elections south of the border in favour of the Conservatives, they will be out of power for years to come.  Even Ed Milliband will look statesman like compared to the Man Who Lost Scotland.

As independence is looking like a distinct possibility, Mass Panic is resulting in the right wing media. Which, ironically, will probably harden the Independence vote as I don't think many Scots will appreciate being told what to do by the English Mail.

Like all Scots, I'm phlegmatic on the issue.  Given a straight choice between independence and union, I' m probably more in favour of it than I am against it. I'd prefer enhanced devolution, but I don't trust Tories to deliver on vague, panicked promises.

So we might as well get it over with and whatever pain comes, comes. Obviously, the pain is academic for me, but my (staunchly Tory) family live in Scotland and are viewing the referendum as some sort of apocalypse.

If we win we win, if we lose we win

Though I am Scottish, I haven't posted much (anything?) on the Scottish independence referendum because it is a) profoundly not important unless you are British, and b) the whole exercise was effectively rigged from the start, when the option of increased devolution was not included in the referendum options.

I'm possibly more inclined towards independence than the current arrangements.  But like most Scots (I suspect) I'd have preferred the option of maintaining the union but with more powers devolved to the Scottish parliament.

(It cost so much to build the damn thing, after all, that we might as well make the most of it.)

So this story, from the Guardian, is is a bit exciting:

Amid signs of panic and recrimination among unionist ranks about the prospects of a yes vote on 18 September, the Observer has learned that a devolution announcement designed to halt the nationalist bandwagon is due to be made within days by the anti-independence camp.

The plan, in the event of a no vote, is that people from all parts of Scottish society – rather than just politicians – would be invited to take part in a Scottish conference or convention that would decide on further large-scale transfers of power from London to Holyrood.

A poll by YouGov for the Sunday Times sent shockwaves through the political establishment north and south of the border as it showed the yes camp had 51% to 49% for no, excluding the don't knows. Better Together leader Alistair Darling said: "These polls can and must now serve as a wake-up call to anyone who thought the referendum was a foregone conclusion."

Obviously, it is one poll, and it is excluding a substantial number of undecided voters and only shows a knife-edge result which could go either way.  But it is still a landmark, and as the story suggests, even a defeat for the independence camp might deliver a significant victory for Alex Salmond.

I'm impressed by the democratic impact this is having.  Politicians, for the first time in recorded history, may actually be listening and accepting that opposing viewpoints can't simply be ignored forever.

The Unionists originally tried to rig the referendum by excluding the 'Enhanced devolution' option from the referendum, because they knew that would almost inevitably be the preferred choice.

Now they're so frightened by the possibility of losing - or winning marginally - the may be willing to give it away.