The SNP: timely as ever

One might almost believe that the SNP were eagerly monitoring the Kitchen, alert for any sign of the guidance that your humble Devil (as a former resident) might offer these benighted politicians.

Just a few hours ago, I pointed out that the Scottish Parliament had the opportunity to test the Scots' social conscience by means of access to their wallets...

The supposed driver for this is that Scotland is a "more socialist" country, willing to pay more tax in order to stave off the tyranny of austerity. This narrative is, of course, bollocks: were it not, the SNP (also the dominant party in Holyrood) would already have used the tax-raising powers that the Parliament has—up to 3p in the pound extra in income tax, if I recall correctly.

And now, in the face of further cuts from Westminster, it seems that the SNP—now dominant in both Westminster and Holyrood—are flinging up their kilts and showing everyone what big balls they have.

John Swinney has admitted he is “considering” increasing income tax in Scotland next year to fill the gap in public spending from cuts by the Tory UK government.
...

ollowing a summit in Whitehall with Chancellor George Osborne, the deputy first minister said that he could be prepared to use powers handed to Holyrood from the 2012 Scotland Bill to set a Scottish income tax rate above that of the rest of the UK.

An increase of 1p in income tax north of the Border would, according to the Scotland Office, raise £330 million for the Scottish Government.

How exciting—let us see how keen the Scots are, indeed, to show how they are different to the UK. Oh, wait...

The move has echoes of the SNP’s “penny for Scotland” in the first Holyrood election in 1999, where they lost heavily to Labour after proposing to raise income tax.

Not so keen then.

But, given their earlier failure, what has driven the SNP to contemplate this dreadful message (apart from the fact that, politically, they have the people of Scotland in a double headlock)?

[Swinney] went on: “The cut of £107m is substantially lower than the UK government’s original estimate but is still too bitter a pill to swallow.

“This comes on top of an overall budget cut of 9 per cent since 2010, including a 25 per cent cut to the capital budget.

“It is completely unacceptable for reductions to be imposed in this financial year to the budget that has already been agreed by the Scottish Parliament.”

Ah, no: this is what happens when you have relied on an overly generous relative for many years—and that relative runs out of money. It doesn't matter what plans you may have made: said relative simply cannot pay for them.

So, unless you are going to get off your fat arse and fund those plans yourself, you must alter said plans.

Mr Swinney also made it clear he told Mr Osborne that he “does not have a mandate in Scotland”, with the Conservatives winning just one seat and suffering the lowest proportion of votes since 1865.

Yes, Mr Swinney: but, equally, that means that Mr Osborne has precisely nothing to lose by slashing Scotland's budget to ribbons, and sending the savings to places where the Tories might actually win more voters, e.g. almost anywhere in England (or even Wales or Ireland).

But the threat of an increase in tax was condemned by the Scottish Conservatives, whose leader Ruth Davidson has made a pledge that her party would try to block tax rises in the next parliament after the Holyrood elections.

A spokesman for Ms Davidson said: “The new tax powers for the Scottish Parliament should not mean higher taxes for the Scottish people.

Why not? If the Scots want increased public services and less austerity, why should they not pay for it?

“The Scottish Conservatives have pledged to ensure that taxes will not be higher as a result of the devolution of these powers.

“There is no reason why John Swinney should not be able to issue the same assurance to families and businesses in Scotland.”

Well, apart from him actually being in power—and having to make some derisory effort to balance the books. Apart from that, Ruth.

But what about the oil, eh? Well, as chokkablog points out, this is not really going to help that much.

Three times in the last 15 years the oil tide has risen high enough to submerge the underlying £1,700 per capita deficit difference and give Scotland a lower deficit than the rest of the UK. When the oil tide flows out we can see more of that underlying £1,700/person deficit difference, we see more of the £9.1bn.

So let's take a closer look at the oil figures.

For Scotland to cover the underlying £9.1bn deficit gap we need total North Sea oil revenues of £10.1bn (because c.90% of North Sea oil revenues are attributable to Scotland).

And the projections for the next few years are nothing like £10.1bn: in fact, for 2015–16 oil is likely to raise just £600 million—short by £9.5 billion. That's rather more than 10% of Scotland's GDP.
John Swinney must be pretty desperate to even consider increasing income tax in Scotland.

If the SNP do get full fiscal economy, the man will probably shit himself.

And with good reason...

FFA or and bust

Following their remarkable win, the SNP is now pushing for Full Fiscal Autonomy (FFA) for Scotland. Broadly speaking, this means that Scotland runs its own economy—being able to spend cash and raise money as they please.

The supposed driver for this is that Scotland is a "more socialist" country, willing to pay more tax in order to stave off the tyranny of austerity. This narrative is, of course, bollocks: were it not, the SNP (also the dominant party in Holyrood) would already have used the tax-raising powers that the Parliament has—up to 3p in the pound extra in income tax, if I recall correctly.

Instead, when these powers were granted at devolution, the proposal to use them was attacked as "a Tartan tax". Indeed it may be but one that, if the SNP and other Scottish commentators are to be believed, one that would be welcomed by the austerity-loathing Scottish people.

The fact that the extra tax has not, actually, ever been levied leads one to re-examine that old economics truth of "revealed preferences", i.e. watch what people do, not what they say.

Of course, raising income tax by an extra 3% probably would do little to help the Scottish budget—the projected deficit under FFA is nearly £8 billion (around 10% of Scotland's GDP). In fact, most commentators think that Scotland's Full Fiscal Autonomy would be as disastrous as HP's adoption of Autonomy (yeah—that was a tech world joke (if an old one)).

So, why on earth are the SNP lobbying for FFA—a policy that will, as Alex Massie points out, surely lead to cuts in Scottish public spending that make "austerity" look like the most extravagant fiscal splurges of the more insane Roman emperors?

A clue to what the SNP might be thinking comes from SNP MP George Kerevan, in an article for The National [Emphasis mine—DK].

It is now inconceivable that David Cameron can reject Scottish demands for greater home rule, given that all three mainstream Westminster parties – Tory, Labour and Lib Dem alike – have minimal legitimate authority in Scotland in the wake of May 7. The general election was not a mandate for a second referendum – a point reiterated time after time by Nicola Sturgeon, whatever contrary hares are set running by the battered and bruised Westminster establishment. Nevertheless, the SNP’s electoral success is undoubtedly a mandate for going far beyond the hastily conceived ragbag of new powers contained in the Smith Commission documents.

The SNP maintains that the Smith Commission does not actually give Scotland enough powers (although many English people might argue that the Smith Commission gives the Scottish Parliament a great many powers, with very little responsibility). The Grauniad has summed up the main points, which I reproduce below.

• The Scottish parliament will have complete power to set income tax rates and bands.
• Holyrood will receive a proportion of the VAT raised in Scotland, amounting to the first 10 percentage points of the standard rate (ie with the current standard VAT rate of 20%, Scotland will 50% of the receipts), but cannot influence the UK’s overall UK rate.
• It will have increased borrowing powers, to be agreed with the UK government, to support capital investment and ensure budgetary stability.
• UK legislation will state that the Scottish parliament and Scottish government are permanent institutions. The parliament will also be given powers over how it is elected and run.
• Holyrood will have power to extend the vote to 16- and 17-year-olds, allowing them to vote in the 2016 Scottish parliamentary election.
• It will have control over a number of benefits including disability living allowance, the personal independence payment, winter fuel payments and the housing elements of universal credit, including the under-occupancy charge (bedroom tax).
• The Scottish parliament will also have new powers to make discretionary payments in any area of welfare without the need to obtain prior permission from department for work and pensions.
• It will have all powers of support for unemployed people through employment programmes, mainly delivered at present through the Work Programme.
• It will have control over air passenger duty charged on people flying from Scottish airports.
• Responsibility for the management of the crown estate’s economic assets in Scotland, including the crown estates’s seabed and mineral and fishing rights, and the revenue generated from these assets, will be transferred to the Scottish parliament.
• The licensing of onshore oil and gas extraction underlying Scotland will be devolved to the Scottish parliament.
• The Scottish government will have power to allow public sector operators to bid for rail franchises funded and specified by Scottish ministers.
• The block grant from the UK government to Scotland will continue to be determined via the operation of the Barnett formula. New rules to define how it will be adjusted at the point when powers are transferred and thereafter will be agreed by the Scottish and UK governments and put in place prior to the powers coming into force. These rules will ensure that neither the Scottish nor UK governments will lose or gain financially from the act of transferring a power.
• MPs representing constituencies across the whole of the UK will continue to decide the UK’s budget, including income tax.
• The Scottish and UK governments will draw up and agree a memorandum of understanding to ensure that devolution is not detrimental to UK-wide critical national infrastructure in relation to matters such as defence and security, oil and gas and energy.

Your humble Devil submits that this is very close to FFA, whilst admitting that there are some constraints on how the Scottish Parliament may act. One might argue that a great many of these constraints are there to stop the Scottish Parliament bankrupting its country. Your mileage may vary.

However, the SNP is arguing for Full Fiscal Autonomy. That means that Scotland is entirely responsible for its own economy, right?

Well, you might think that: and now we'll return to George Kerevan's comment [Emphasis mine, again—DK]...

The constitutional ball is well and truly in David Cameron’s end of the field. Cameron’s opening gambit may well be to offer Scotland fiscal autonomy, in return for termination of the Barnett Formula (a mechanism that matches per capita spending changes across the UK constituent nations). We all know that in present UK economic circumstances a fiscally autonomous Scotland would face a significant budget deficit.

For Scotland to accept fiscal autonomy without inbuilt UK-wide fiscal balancing would be tantamount to economic suicide. However, all federal systems have mechanisms for cross subsidising regions in economic need by regions in surplus. To deny that to Scotland suggests a disingenuous Mr Cameron is hoping to derail any move to Scottish Hole Rule within the UK.

Wow. Yes, that's right: George Kerevan—and, we must assume, he is a proxy for the SNP—is seriously suggesting that Scotland be given Full Fiscal Autonomy except when it doesn't have the money to afford it.

Just sit back and admire the chutzpah—George is saying that the Scottish Parliament should be given free rein to run things as it likes. Except that when the Scots overspend, rack up debts, or just go batshit wild with the cheque book, the rest of England should have to bail them out. Kerevan is proposing that English taxpayers chuck another £7 billion a year at the Scots before they've even started turning on the spending taps (because who, genuinely, thinks that they won't?).

What the SNP are holding up—as an expectation—is a total lack of any responsibility. Kerevan is proposing is that no matter how much the Scottish government screws up—no matter how fecklessly Holyrood runs the national finances, or shamelessly its parties bribe their voters—the people of England should be expected to bail out the Scottish nation regardless.

There really is only one answer to this, and its very simple: fuck off.

David Cameron, in concert with Miliband and Clegg, has already betrayed England by his shameless capitulation—a.ka. "the promise"—to the Scots after the Independence Referendum: it is entirely possible that this spineless Buttered New Potato will sell us down the river by agreeing to this shit too.

If he does, we might finally see the anger of the English people burn hot enough to march down Whitehall—parading Cameron's massive, shiny head on a fucking stick.

And not before time, frankly.

UPDATE: have the SNP been monitoring the Kitchen for suggestions...?

It would be the next Eurozone

The idea that Scotland could possibly be independent and yet retain the British sterling is insane.

The former Chancellor said it was “surreal” that the First Minister can claim the remainder of the UK would willingly share control over the pound and interest rates without checking first.

In reality, he said it was difficult to imagine English politicians managing to “sell” this to their constituents. Mr Darling concluded an independent Scotland would be more like “serfdom than freedom” if monetary policy was set by a different country.

The Treasury confirmed that Mr Salmond has had no discussions with the Bank of England about a “currency union” after separation and an independent Scotland would have no influence over sterling.

And why would this be such a bad idea? Because, of course, currency union without fiscal union is precisely what has the current disaster in the Eurozone so inevitable.

To do the same between the UK and an independent Scotland would be the purest folly.

Scotland is not, of course, Greece or Portugal or Spain—it contributes about 9.4% of UK taxes but receives some 9.3% of government spending.

The UK has a 2012 GDP of an estimated $1,557 billion: Scotland contributed a mere £139 billion (or about 8.9%), but then it has only about 9% of the population too.*

Having said that, however, Scotland has the potential to become as bad as the PIIGs: a few years ago, some 56% of people in the country derived their primary salary from the state (I don't know what the figure is right now).

* UK figure converted from nominal US dollars derived from Wikipedia (and corrected—I know GDP is not 2,500 trillion!), at current rate of $1 = 63.5p.

Scottish figure from Wikipedia, in nominal pounds sterling.

Scottish Water is unique*

Over at EUReferendum, Richard points out that Scottish Water's bosses have decided to award themselves massive bonuses.

For sure, the latest dose of corporate greed doesn't help, when you see five directors of the publicly owned Scottish Water sharing in a one-off bonus pay-out of more than £450,000 for "meeting performance targets".

Chief executive Richard Ackroyd was handed £78,900 as part of the deal, meaning he took home £420,000 in total last year. Finance chief Douglas Millican and "asset management director" Geoff Aitkenhead both got bonuses of £103,000 to top up their total pay of £230,000.

Yet a spokeswoman for Scottish Water insists that the business is "unique" and that the salaries were below those of directors at water firms south of the Border. So that's alright then?

Actually, Scottish Water is unique, so far as I know.

Why?

Well, in most places in the UK, one pays a fixed bill for one's water and sewerage (mine is currently about £320 per year)—unless, of course, you are metered. It's very true that one doesn't have an awful lot of choice in one's supplier, but at least the bill is there in front of you.

In Scotland, however, the only supplier is, of course, Scottish Water but, more egregiously, the water rates are included in your Council Tax bill. That's right, Scottish Power not only have the entire power of government behind their bill collection, but they do not even have to make the effort to collect their payment from the consumers themselves.

This leads of course, to a particular loathing of students in large university towns (and most towns or cities in Scotland have a hefty student to resident ratio) because, of course, students do not pay Council Tax.

Edinburgh, for instance, has a population of 477,660: the University of Edinburgh alone has 28,394 students, or about 6%. If you add in Heriot Watt (10,225) and Napier (17,605) then you are at some getting on for 12% of the population using water but not paying for it (and I haven't included the one or two smaller institutions).

As long-time readers will know, your humble Devil lived in Edinburgh for ten years, and it almost goes without saying that the water part of my Council tax went up extremely rapidly: indeed, I remember one year in which the water precept went up by 18%!

So, yes, Scottish Water are pretty unique: but only in that they are able to rape the Scottish taxpayer in a way not open to their brethren south of the border...

* So far as I know, this payment system does not exist elsewhere in the UK.

A message to the voters of Scotland...

... from Scottish National Party MP Pete Wishart and can be summed up thusly.

Dear people of Scotland,

Fuck you: fuck you very much. You are of absolutely no account, you cunts.

Love,

Pete.

The relevant quote was brought my attention by my colleague, The Filthy Smoker, in his recent excellent rant: it struck me as being so stark, so obviously a great, big "Fuck You" to the people of Scotland that I thought it was worth highlighting.

Let me clarify: everybody in Scotland is for minimum pricing, whether they are health professionals, chief police officers and the licensing authorities. The only people against minimum pricing in Scotland are the Labour party in the Scottish Parliament, the Liberals in the Scottish Parliament and of course the Conservatives, as we would expect.

That's right. The people of Scotland—you know, the ones who aren't health professionals, chief police officers, the licensing authorities or other state agents—are absolutely supportive of more expensive alcohol. In fact, they can't wait.

Having lived in Scotland for ten years, I find it very hard to believe that Pete Wishart's assertion is even vaguely true. In fact, I would say that his assertion that "everybody in Scotland is for minimum pricing" as a massive fucking lie.

Thus, I can say for a fact that Pete Wishart MP is a liar.

Quod erat demonstrandum.

UPDATE: to interpret Pete Wishart's motivations, one has, as always, to follow the money. And, under the minimum pricing suggestion, the increase in cash would go to the producer of the booze. And, sure enough...

I represent three fantastic whisky distilleries in my constituency, two of which support minimum pricing.

Well, ain't that a surprise, eh?

Interesting Factoid of the Day: Pete Wishart used to be a member of Runrig, thus continuing the tradition of popular music stars who should shut the fuck up about politics.

Minimum pricing—absolutely illegal

(nb. I am not the Devil's Kitchen)

So. Three cheers for the EU, then?

Cigarette price-fixing infringes EU law

The Court of Justice of the European Union has ruled that Irish legislation fixing a minimum retail price for cigarettes infringes EU law.

The legislation here breaches Directive 95/59 which has rules on excise duty affecting the consumption of tobacco products.

Which goes to prove what many, many people have long been saying—minimum pricing is illegal under EU law. That applies to alcohol just as much as cigarettes, so why does Don Shenker, Nicola Sturgeon and Janet-fucking-Street-fucking-Porter keep flogging this dead horse?

It falls to the evil drinks industry to state the obvious:

Gavin Hewitt, chief executive of the Scotch Whisky Association, said: “Given this latest evidence, the Scottish government must now recognise the legal realities. It cannot introduce a trade barrier in breach of the UK’s European obligations by imposing minimum pricing on alcohol in Scotland.”

And it falls to the evil tobacco industry to point out that the real effect of raising cigarette prices is that cheaper tabs become more widely available:

In a statement, cigarette manufacturer PJ Carroll welcomed the ruling saying: "The reality is the set minimum price for cigarettes has become irrelevant. Packs of cigarettes are being purchased up and down the country for as little as €3.50 on the black market. This is under half the current minimum price of €7.75."

Don't believe him? Check here, here and here.

The reaction from anti-smoking campaigners is classic fingers-in-the-ears stuff:

Anti-smoking group ASH also said it was concerned with the ruling.

Dr Angie Brown, ASH, said: "We will be in contact with the government on this vitally important matter."

Lucky old government. I bet they can't wait for you swivel-eyed lunatics to start bitching about the price of cigarettes again. Between me and you, Angie, the government's getting a bit tired of your bare-faced lies, which might explain why they told you to fuck off last time you came a-calling. Besides which, it should now be obvious that the Irish government has its hands tied on this matter. 

The Irish Cancer Society said the Government must take steps to guard against below-cost selling on cigarettes.

Do try to keep up, Irish Cancer Society. That is exactly what the EU says you cannot do. 

“First, they must continue to maintain high prices by increasing tax on cigarettes and loose tobacco,” head of advocacy with the society Kathleen O’Meara said. “Second, they must bring in legislation immediately to prohibit tobacco manufacturers from selling tobacco products at a loss.”

Are you lot simple or something? Even if cigarettes are being sold at a loss—which they're not—national governments have been explicitly forbidden from doing anything about it. It's EU law. You remember the EU, don't you? You inflicted its Constitution on us recently, so suck it up.

Now that the EU has made its position clear (again), can we drop the idea of minimum pricing for booze? Apparently not...

A Scottish government spokeswoman said: “We have already made clear that this long-running case concerns tobacco and a specific directive on tobacco. It does not relate to minimum pricing for alcohol. We consider that the introduction of minimum pricing for alcohol is capable of complying with European law.”

I think you're missing the point of the EU here, petal. It's not that they want people to smoke and drink—far from it—it's just that they view independent action by member states in the same way as the Scottish government views independent action by individuals, ie. with utter contempt. And while alcohol does not fall under Directive 95/59, it certainly falls under Article 28...

... which states that restrictions on imports and all measures having equivalent effect shall be prohibited between member states.

And the European Commission has made it pretty clear that it will not tolerate minimum pricing for alcohol:

The Court of Justice of the European Communities (“the Court”) has ruled that national rules fixing retail prices for alcoholic beverages could constitute measures having an equivalent effect to quantitative restrictions on imports contrary to Article 28 EC. This would be the case if, for example, prices were set at such a level that imported products were placed at a disadvantage in relation to identical domestic products.

Which, by definition, they would be. So please can we stop all this now?

More booze bollocks

Yes, the Scottish Parliament is continuing with its insane policies regarding drink.

The Scottish government wants to end cut-price alcohol deals in supermarkets in an attempt to tackle the country’s booze culture.

The alcohol Bill is expected to set out a minimum price of 40p per unit — a controversial proposal that has drawn protests from the drinks industry.

The Scottish Conservatives are opposed to minimum pricing, but Labour has softened its position in recent months and is now expected to back the idea.

A spokesman for the SNP administration said: “The UK’s four Chief Medical Officers all back minimum pricing, and the BMA, Royal College of Nursing, the police, the British Liver Trust, and indeed the licensed trade association, all support the Scottish government’s proposals — which would stop high-strength beers and ciders being sold for pocket-money prices, while not affecting premium and quality products such as Scotch whisky.”

Look, it doesn't really matter how many scum civil servants or filthy fake charities back this idea: it is illegal under EU law—as Timmy points out.

Having a minimum price per alcohol unit goes against the Single Market rules. For it could potentially discriminate against low cost alcohol from outside Scotland in favour of high priced from within.

In fact, both The Times and The Grauniad reported that this was the case back in March.

So, given that this is common knowledge, how much taxpayers' money has the SNP deliberately poured down the fucking pan-hole in researching (poorly) and drafting (no doubt even more poorly) this piece of crap legislation?

And, as Nigel Farage points out in The Groan, just how can so-called "progressive" parties possibly support this shit?

Minimum sales prices for alcohol are a startlingly bad idea. As with excise duties, the effects are regressive. The poor would be forced to pay more for one of life's simple pleasures while the rich would not notice: they are already imbibing the good stuff that costs far more per unit than these suggested 40 or 50 pence per unit minimums.

It's difficult to see that this idea passes any sort of test for being progressive: or even fair come to that. As to the suggestion that alcohol costs the NHS £3bn a year, given that excise duties on the stuff already raise far more than that I think we've got that covered as well.

If one is a subscriber to the economic idea of "revealed preferences" then I think that we can most definitely say that the SNP, LibDems and Labour hate the poor, don't you?

You stupid fucking cunts: it is none of your business how much I fucking drink, OK? If you are worried about people getting punchy when drunk, arrest those people—do some proper fucking policing. And stop punishing the innocent for the crimes of the guilty, you disgusting totalitarians: just stop it.

The only good bit of this debacle is that the whole incident might highlight the power of EU law to ordinary people; the downside to this, of course, is that the silly sods might embrace the EU as being a good thing.

In fact, if I credited the SNP with that much intelligence, I might think that this was the entire point of this ridiculous exercise...

Define democracy...

I really do think that it's about time that this bunch of clowns changed their name.

Scottish Liberal Democrat leader Tavish Scott is to demand the Scottish Government ditches its planned independence referendum.

Mr Scott will tell his party's conference that Holyrood ministers should focus on tackling the recession.

He will say debating the minority SNP government's Referendum Bill is a waste of taxpayers' cash.

It has been said many, many times: the Liberal Democrats are fans of neither liberalism nor democracy—surely we can sue them under Trading Standards laws?

Me? I hope that Scotland has their referendum, and I hope that the Scots vote for independence. And then we can ditch the first fucking millstone—these five million looters—from around our necks and get on with being productive.

Because it is instructive to remember that we have been bailing out Scotland for as long as the Union has been in place; we have been bailing that country out ever since its bankruptcy—as a result of the ill-fated Darien scheme—and it is time to fucking stop.

Don't get me wrong: I believe that the Union has served us well, and there is no doubt that Britain benefited from, for instance, the Scottish Enlightenment. But that is long gone, and the Scots are nothing now but looters and parasites upon the productive. Furthermore, their arrogance and intractable stupidity—and, having lived in Edinburgh for a decade, I know of what I speak—ensures that all too many Scots are utterly unaware of just how much they owe to England.

Fine. Cut them loose and then, when they are bankrupt (again) and come crawling to England for a bailout (again), we can decide whether or not we wish to take them on (again). Although I cannot imagine why, in all sanity, we would do so.

Scotland is a busted flush: it produces nothing of any value—even its banks are shit and have been bailed out by the English (again).

It's time to stop.

Time to return?

As long-time readers of The Kitchen will be aware, your humble Devil lived in Auld Reekie for ten years before moving to the Big Smoke. Perhaps it is time to return to the city that I still think of as home...

The Scottish Government has told Westminster it remains "completely opposed" to its plans to roll out identity cards across the UK.

In a letter to the Home Office, Community Safety Minister Fergus Ewing said the cards posed an "unacceptable threat" to civil liberties.
...

He said: "Given the current financial climate, the UK Government should have better uses for the vast sums of money being spent on this scheme, which presents an unacceptable threat to citizens' privacy and civil liberties, with little tangible evidence to suggest it will do anything to safeguard against crime and terrorism."

Naturally, Fergus still thinks that the money should be spent, just that it should be spent on other things.

Still, it's a start...

A Scottish joke

An absolutely hilarious observation from the Justified Spinner here...

Consider the situation Crawford Beveridge now finds himself in.

Having headed up Scottish Enterprise for 9 years, quite successfully, he then made the Great Error which disqualifies him from holding any public position again.

He donated £10,000 to the SNP.

In political terms, this is a minor sum.

Beveridge has a track record of success.

Oh really?

As regular readers of The Kitchen will know, your humble Devil lived in Edinburgh for just over a decade and so, for those who are unfamiliar with the thrilling Scottish set-up, I shall explain: Scottish Enterprise are the QUANGO responsible for dishing out grants to Scottish businesses. Part of their remit is giving advice and training on how Scottish entrepreneurs should run their businesses—and needless to say that any grants and loans depend on those businesses ticking the correct Scottish Enterprise boxes.

OK, well, that's pretty much what one would expect, eh?

What one wouldn't necessarily expect is that the QUANGO responsible for telling businessmen how to succeed should find itself effectively bankrupt—and needing to be bailed out by the taxpayer—at the end of the 2005/06 financial year. [Alas, The Scotsman has reorganised its site since I first blogged the article, and so I have to link to my original post.]

THE Scottish Executive is set to agree a multi-million-pound rescue package for Scotland's troubled economic development agency.

Nicol Stephen, the enterprise minister, yesterday revealed that ministers were looking at a complicated accounting device to wipe out overspending at Scottish Enterprise.

He told Holyrood's enterprise committee that the agency had spent £25 million from last year's budget on economic development projects, but the money should have been set aside to cover "other costs" such as depreciation and property expenses.

David [at Freedom & Whisky] explains why this is a load of old rubbish, by amplifying what depreciation actually is (because obviously the Scottish Executive haven't got a fucking Scooby.

That £50 million total over the two years , combined with an overspend on its budget of £9 million for last year, has left the agency with a total funding gap of about £60 million and jeopardised some projects it supports.

That's right, ladies and gentlemen, the public-sector agency which is supposed, essentially, to help people to run, develop and keep their businesses going is, in essence, bust. Now that, Alanis, is irony. But how did it get to this parlous state?

The overspend was set to be repeated this year by Scottish Enterprise chiefs, who claimed they needed to use the cash to cover the cost of projects, even if that left them with an accounting shortfall.

Right, so basically SE said, "look, we don't have any money, but we'll just keep spending it anyway."

What the fuck? What kind of example does that set for businesses? "Yeah, go ahead, spend money. Nah, don't worry if you haven't got it, something'll turn up."

In SE's case, what turned up was the sodding taxpayer, as per fucking usual. Unfortunately, most businesses aren't nearly so fortunate.

Now, to be fair to Scottish Enterprise, they didn't overspend by quite so much (or at least as far as I know) because, by September 2006, they were only looking at a £6 million overspend.

Now, I may have slightly different standards to some, but I wouldn't describe that as "a track record of success", nor would I describe it Crawford Beveridge as having run it "quite successfully".

I may be being pretty sodding harsh here, but I tend to think that anyone running an agency which aims to tell businessmen how to succeed and which then goes effectively bust should be touted as a prime example of a total fucking failure, not a success in any way whatsoever.

Jack McConnell: a retrospective

Jack McConnell: lest we forget. Jack is a fucking massive tool: he was a massive tool when he was First Minister and he is still a massive fucking tool.

Yes, yes: I know that retrospectives are lazy, but I do think that they have some use in putting certain events and people into context. After all, once these politicians leave office, they may be out of the public eye but they haven't stopped being utter cunts.

So, here is a couple of my comments on Jack McConnell, and a limerick too.

There's currently a talentless Jock
Called McConnell; he's easy to mock.
He bleeds Scotland dry,
Without telling us why;
He deserves to be kicked in the cock.

All of this is by way of introducing the poor little Greek boy's admirably pithy summing up of McConnell's past and current prospects in the midst of his excellent post comprising the lengths to which Brown will go to avoid a by-election.

Special representative on conflict resolution"? Jack Mcfucking Connell? What kind of butterballs do they take us for? The only real "conflict" oor Jack's ever experienced was the long-running battle between his straining zipper and his engorged cock - and he resolved that, you may recall, by banging his press officer and then - so it is alleged - sending a begging letter round fellow Labour MPs when party funds ran short, asking them to stump up for part of her wages to keep her from getting the chop, and thereby saving him a taxi fare every time he wanted his balls drained. High Commissioner to Malawi? Uganda would have been more appropriate.

Which is appropriate, I guess, since, as Scotland's First Minister, Jack McConnell presided for a while over the Scottish sex education policy which your humble Devil described as the "Fucking Stupid Initiative".

One of my friends is a teacher in the upper ends of a primary school, and she told me something that made me repeatedly bang my head off the table in frustration and frenziedly clench and unclench my fists in impotent rage. Now, as we all know, for bookdrunk has spelt it out numerous times (and god knows it is obvious enough), that if you wish to curb STDs and unwanted teenage pregnancies, then you need to educate the kiddies.

The government and the Scottish Executive have made much of their improved sex education, and obviously they are to be lauded for these efforts. Unfortunately, some of it is completely pointless, as my friend explained.

She is not allowed to teach her kids about contraception.

Yes, you did read that right. She is allowed to teach them about sex, but not contraception. She can teach them about how babies are made, but not how you can have sex without getting pregnant. She can teach them about Sexually Transmitted Diseases, but not how they might protect against them. She is supposed to get them to talk to their parents; she can, indeed, direct them to their parents, but she, herself, is not allowed to tell them about contraception.

So, if any of her kids are sexually active (not beyond the realms of possibility, apparently), what are the chances that they are going to bring up the topic with their parents, do you think? So, you teach the kids about sex...

... and then don't teach them about not getting pregnant* and not getting STDs. Fucking brilliant.

Health is a devolved matter, so this is no Westminster stupidity; one might look rather more in the direction of the strong Catholic influences still rampant in Scotland. This is, without doubt, a fucking stupid policy, worthy indeed of the second-rate fuckwits who run Scotland, i.e. the Executive and the Church.

Truly, Jack was a worthy inheritor of that mantle. The man was a massive prick and, as I decided in my limerick, the only decent thing to do is to kick him in the cock.

Although, of course, in order to maintain the bounds of chivalry, you may need to wait until he's withdrawn it from whichever witless employee he's dipping his wick into these days...

Chivalry? That'll be £100, mate

Tim Almond has picked up a particularly stupid and worrying judgement from some idiot Sheriff in Scotland.

A man who took a photograph of an ill woman outside an Edinburgh bar has been fined £100 after being branded “unchivalrous” by a sheriff.

Unchivalrous? We’re going to bring chivalry into the law, are we? Can we also start rounding up cads and bounders, too?

Well, I look forward to our entire government being fined too, then...

This is a terrible decision, and an abuse of the purpose of the law of breach of the peace. The law has always been that taking photographs in a public space is legal, that in public, you don’t have any right to privacy. That includes whether someone is distressed or otherwise.

Quite so. What this Sheriff has effectively done is to simply make up the law on the spot, as determined by his own personal morality. And, as we can tell from the Sheriff's comments, his own personal morality leaves a lot to be desired.

But Sheriff Kenneth Hogg said the matter “could be best described as exceptionally unchivalrous”.

“The lady concerned was entitled to her privacy and not to have a passing stranger take a photograph,” said the sheriff. “I’m going to impose a fine to remind him chivalry is not dead and when somebody is in distress you leave them to it.”

No, you don't, you fuckwit. If someone is in distress, the chivalrous thing to do is to go and see if you can help them out, you rude Scots twat.

You are an unchivalrous cunt, Kenneth Hogg, and I claim my £100.

"An earthquake..."

A recount of the votes in the Glasgow East by-election has been required, apparently.

The result of the Glasgow East Westminster by-election has been delayed after a re-count was ordered, following a request from Labour.

It is believed the initial count gave the SNP a lead of less than 500.

Labour had a majority of 13,507 in Glasgow East over the SNP in the seat in the 2005 general election.

Voter turnout was confirmed as 42.25%, only slightly down on the 48% figure at the last election, with 26,219 votes cast.

That's pretty fucking impressive and especially if, as the Herald is claiming, Labour have conceded defeat.

Labour was last night conceding defeat in the Glasgow East by-election.

The official line from the SNP and Labour, the main rivals for the former Labour stronghold, was that the vote was too close to call but with all the ballot boxes in and officials confirming the turn out at 42.25%, Labour politicians looked grim-faced as the votes were counted in the Tollcross Leisure centre.
...

SNP candidate John Mason was one of the first to cast a vote, a little after 7.30am. The serving Glasgow councillor echoed his party leader's earlier warning shot to the Prime Minister Gordon Brown, saying: "If we win this seat, it's an earthquake."

I am going to retire to bed the now, but I sincerely hope that Labour have been beaten. Part of any satisfaction would derive from the fact that the voters of Glasgow East might actually have taken on board my comment...

Far be it for me to point out that if you live in shit and continue to elect the people who keep you in shit simply because, historically, your family has always voted for shit, then possibly all you are going to get is... well... shit.

... and thus have, for the first time in many years, rejected the red-rosed cunts.* I think that this shows that there is, in fact, hope for humanity, even those in Glasgow East. After all, if they can change their MP, who cannot?

However, by far the greater part of my jubilation would derive from seeing Gordon Brown's face; wouldn't it be wonderful if someone ousted the fat monocular cunt in the most ignominious way possible?

UPDATE: well, fuck me ragged! Labour lost. Aaaaaaahahahahahahaha!

* Not that the SNP are an awful lot less socialist than Labour, mind...

Getting what you deserve

Via The Englishman, The Times has an article about what an utterly fucking shit place Glasgow East is.

Glasgow East is a hard place to live, and a grotesquely easy place to die. In parts of the constituency, male life expectancy is 54, lower than The Gambia, nearly a decade lower than Bangladesh, and about 24 years below the national average. Move just a few miles to leafy Bearsden and you will live, on average, 30 years longer. Despite this, people here do not and cannot leave. For all Ms Livingston's lament, her kids are stuck in a ghetto ringed by some of the saddest statistics in Britain. Glasgow East has the highest proportion of voters on incapacity benefit or disability allowance and the fewest qualifications in higher education; nearly half the constituency's homes are social housing; and, in parts, unemployment has reached 50 per cent.

Pretty grim, eh? What do the voters think?

“I've always voted Labour. Always will. Just like my father did,” said Douglas Connor, heading to the shops in Easterhouse. “None of youse is going to tell me how to vote.”

Far be it for me to point out that if you live in shit and continue to elect the people who keep you in shit simply because, historically, your family has always voted for shit, then possibly all you are going to get is... well... shit.

Wendy finally fucks off

Newsflash: trout-faced, stinkingly corrupt old whore found officially guilty of being a trout-faced, stinkingly corrupt old whore.

Praise be! It seems, as Guido briefly reported on Wednesday, that Wendy Alexander was found guilty of fiddling donations to her leadership campaign. Both Guido and your humble Devil happily published this letter in December, which appeared to screw the stupid cow's denials completely...


Your humble Devil also reported that The Sunday Herald had obtained a highly damning MS Word document that listed her donors and flagged one of the impermissable donations.

However, the Sunday Herald has obtained a printed copy of Alexander's full list of secret donors, which names each contributor, how much was given, as well as the campaign member from whom it was solicited.

According to the "properties" tab in the Microsoft Word document, "Brian Ashcroft", Alexander's husband, is named as the "author". This means the document was created on a computer registered in his name.

The secret list, which has never been published before, states under the "donor" heading that [Channel Islands resident] Paul Green had made a donation of £950. No mention of CPS. The column marked "Name/ address for Elect Comm purpose" contained Green's Jersey address.

Crucially, the list also drew attention to the donation's illegality by stating at the end: "Permissible?" According to the word file on which it was saved, the document's date is November 5.

Now it seems that, having been found guilty of being a unprincipled, corrupt hypocrite and shameless liar, Wendy has fallen on her sword (though not, alas, literally).

Scottish Labour leader Wendy Alexander has resigned "with deep regret" after breaking rules on declaring donations.

There's no regret at this end, love, I can assure you. Fuck off into mediocre obscurity, you bitch.

It came as she faced a one-day ban from Holyrood after failing to register donations to her leadership campaign.

Ms Alexander said she had acted in "good faith" and on the written advice of the parliamentary authorities.

Yes, yes, we saw this argument when your fat friend, Jackie Baillie, attempted to defend your honour on Newsnight. Not only is breaking the law unintentionally not a defence, but the evidence made quite plain that you knew—or, at the very least, strongly suspected—that what you were doing was illegal.

She accused the SNP of waging a "vexatious" campaign against her, without regard for the damage it was doing to the Scottish Parliament.

Oh, fuck off, you stupid little bitch; the person who was doing damage to the Scottish Parliament was you.

You broke the law.

You acted corruptly.

You kept putting up piss-poor defences.

You continued to lie.

And—I shall say it again—the only person that is responsible for damaging the Scottish Parliament, in this case, is you, Wendy.

There will only be one person who will be upset to see you finally fucking off, especially since he thought that this scandal was all over...


Yes, I have just had the poor little Greek boy on the 'phone, sobbing his little eyes out*; not only has Wendy had to resign but he himself is not in the country to comfort her (and maybe get a little comfort himself, if you get my drift. Nudge, nudge, wink, wink...).

Mind you, even my impecunious Athenian friend admitted that Wendy was treading on thin ice when she advanced the idea of an independence referendum.

The capacity of this government and its acolytes in the North for serially screwing things up is hilarious to watch. Already on its knees, it's an open question how many more of these self-inflicted wounds it can take before it expires altogether. But this is the break-up of the United Kingdom we're talking about; these pathetic internecine squabbles have consequences that will reverberate long after Brown and Alexander have returned to a richly deserved obscurity.

The fragrant Wendy has made a right balls-up of this entire affair, and politicians and columnists are now openly calling for her head. We may be very close to a tipping point for her "leadership", such as it is, and once that is reached, not even her biggest fan in the blogosphere will be able to save her.

Still, never mind, Mr E; I'm sure that Wendy will now have the odd empty hour to spend with her minge: maybe you could help her fill it...


* This may not be entirely true. Although I did send him a gleeful text and his reply was somewhat incredulous.**

** I may still be misrepresenting the situation. Or not. You decide...

Buying alcohol at 21

We have all seen those signs in supermarkets that sanctimoniously inform us that, if we are purchasing alcohol, the cashier may ask us to produce ID if we look "under 21".

These signs have consistently pissed me off: the legal age for the purchase of alcohol in thos country is 18, not 21. If I look under 18, then I fully expect to be asked to prove my age; but I should not have to prove that I am 21, only 18. Now, there may be utterly reasonable reasons for IDing people who look under 21—it might be easier to tell those who are 21 than 18, for instance (although not in my case)—but it is still pretty fucking insulting.

This "under 21" scheme is not a retailer-organised scheme as far as I can tell; the labels and signage are all the same, so I assume that it is a government initiative imposed "voluntarily" on retailers. These signs have been gently conditioning the population to believe that they need to be 21 in order to buy alcohol.

So, you can imagine the total lack of surprise with which I greeted this story.

The age for buying alcohol from supermarkets and off-licences in Scotland could rise from 18 to 21.

Scottish ministers said it was time for radical action in the fight against Scotland's binge drinking culture.

But retailers and student leaders said the plan, which would see 18-year-olds still being served in pubs, was "confusing" and a "blunt instrument".

And so the infantilisation of the population continues.

Look, you Jock fuckwits, listen to what you are saying: you maintain that Scotland has a "binge-drinking culture". It's a cultural thing, you fucking numb-nuts; making alcohol harder to purchase has not actually stopped the number of kids getting pissed—in fact, the numbers have risen consistently. Telling people that it is illegal to do this or that does not make it any less desirable.

Second, as far as I am concerned, if you are allowed to get a job at 16, to join the Army at 16, get married at 16, you should be able to buy booze and cigarettes at 16 too. And, as The Englishman points out, the SNP now want to give 16 year olds the vote.

Parliament minister Bruce Crawford said yesterday: "It is the responsibility of us all to get young people interested in the democratic process.

"We cannot on the one hand say we are interested in the views of young people while on the other refusing them access to the ballot box until they are 18.

"While 16-year-olds can pay taxes, get married or serve in the armed forces, they effectively have to bite their lip when it comes to decisions that will affect them.

"At the very point that society expects young people to assume many of the responsibilities that come with adulthood, it is only right they also get the right to vote.

"That is why I am happy to announce the Scottish government's support for reducing the voting age to 16."

So, 16 year olds are old enough to "pay taxes, get married or serve in the armed forces" and, apparently, decide for whom to vote, but they are not old enough to make a mature decision about cigarettes and alcohol.

Can we get a bit of consistency here, please?

UPDATE: Chris Dillow treats this alcohol proposal with the contempt it deserves.

In this, we see four aspects of the modern managerialist ideology of the law:

1. Paternalism. The function of the state is no longer to protect people from each other, but rather to protect people from themselves. Indeed, it’s to enforce an “ideal” of what people should be - self-controlled, upright prigs. This represents a flat contradiction - which, ideologically, is rarely made explicit - of centuries of political theory. Needless to say, the Tories share this ideology.


2. “Tough on the causes of crime.” Binge drinking, say defenders of this move, causes crime - and the causes of crime should themselves be crimes.
   
   This is an ideological claim in two senses. First, because it presumes that disorderly behaviour can be eliminated at source by straightening the crooked timber of humanity. It does not recognize that we’ll always misbehave, and that the response to this should be to uphold ancient laws against being drunk and disorderly; the idea that the police should do their job has long been abandoned.
   
   Second, it takes a selective view of the causes of crime. One big cause is poverty; only economic illiterates deny this. And yet the soft-headed left is notably lax about eliminating poverty.


3. It delegates fighting crime to business. It’s retailers who will have to police this law, just as businesses are expected to police anti-immigration laws. The distinction between private and public sector functions is thus blurred.


4. Selective enforcement. Picture the scene. A lairy gang wanting to get even more tanked up go into a shop to buy a few cases of Stella. Does the store manager really risk a fight and a big loss of sales by stopping them?
   
   No. He‘s far more likely to pick on the solitary 20-year old wanting to buy a bottle of wine for his mum.
   
   Decent people are thus victimized by a collaboration between two cowardly bullies—the state and business—whilst potential criminals go free.

Do go and read the whole thing. In his measured way, Chris bitch-slaps this proposal quite comprehensively but then comes to an odd conclusion.

Personally, I'd just like to add the following: "fuck off, you illiberal, paternalist wankers."

Silly Bishop!

It's enthusiasm a-go-go over in the Scottish Executive, as they trumpet their latest education initiative!

Parents have a crucial role to play in supporting children's learning and the successful implementation of Curriculum for Excellence, Cabinet Secretary for Education Fiona Hyslop said today.

Naughty Mister Bishop Hill is more than a little sceptical of the efforts, as he sees them—even going to far as to call it "turgid bilge".

I've written before about the refusal of my children's school to allow parents to see the curriculum that's being taught, so Ms Hyslop's turgid meanderings ring pretty hollow in these 'ere parts. Having refused me, the school informed the school council (that's the board of governors to you) that a summary of the curriculum would be prepared and released to parents. This was just after Christmas. Now, they have "changed their minds" and we are told to wait until the new term starts in the autumn.

And if you believe that you'll believe anything.

So if you'll excuse me, Ms Hyslop, I think you're not actually telling the truth. I think you don't want parents playing any role in their children's education at all.

Oh, silly Mister Hill; you haven't go the message, have you?

It isn't about you being able to influence what your children learn at school, but what the government can force you to teach your children at home. Silly boy!

Much though they may deny it, the government has noticed that our education standards aren't up to much. Even they might apply the word "shit" to the quality of British state education (although not in public, obviously).

However, the last thing that they are going to do is to let you insignificant parents influence learning: you might teach your children naughty things like "the state is not your friend" and "government always does things badly". You may even teach them that the British Empire wasn't all bad or—if you are extra specially naughty—you might even teach them some science that pooh-poohs global warming. Or you may teach them some actual history with hard facts. Like the body count in Communist Russia, or Communist China, or something.

So, what will happen is that the school, a.k.a. the goverment, will set the agenda. You will then be given tasks, of the government's devising, that are "crucial" in "supporting children's learning" and, if you don't do them, you will be reprimanded and then fined.

It's really very simple, Mister Hill; you have confused the idea that you have a "crucial role to play in supporting children's learning" with the notion that you may be able to influence what it is that your children learn.

Silly Bishop!

Answer the fucking question!

I was previously unaware of the fucking egregious Jackie Baillie, and I am not going to thank The Daily Brute for introducing me to the fat, obfuscating bitch. However, I defy you to watch this video without screaming, "answer the fucking question!"


Jackie Baillie is answering questions on the illegal donations given to the poor little Greek boy's paramour and seems to believe the following erroneous ideas:

• If you have broken the law unintentionally, then it's not really law-breaking,


• information given to the Electoral Commission should be considered as being sub judice,


• that Jackie Baillie is, in some way, the most important person in the room,


• that simply praising Wendy is some substitute for answering pertinent questions,


• that because Jackie doesn't know anyone who thinks that Wendy is dishonest (I do, Jackie), then she cannot possibly be dishonest.

Ugh. What a repulsive woman. I believe that the best treatment for her would be that which the Faerie Queen threatened to mete out to Tamlyn.

31. Then the Queen of the Elvens, now she cursed yon Tam-a-Lyn
    Oh, well she cursed him good
    She said, "I should have torn out your eyes young Tam-a-Lyn
    I should have put in two eyes of wood, of wood
    I should have put in two eyes of wood."



32. "And it's curses on you, Tam-a-Lyn," she says
    "You once was my very own.
    And when you was, I should have torn out your heart
    And put in a heart of stone, cold stone
    I should have put in a heart of stone."

Although, looking at Jackie, I suspect that the direst threat that I could issue her with would be to enroll her in Weightwatchers...

Proportionately stupid

James Cleverly points out that the LibDims don't seem to know what the hell they want. No changes there, then.

Annabel Goldie, leader of the Scottish Conservatives, has won a number of major consessions in return for supporting the SNP's budget.
...

The thing which strikes me is the Lib Dem reaction to these negotiations. They are calling it "back room dealings" and seem genuinely upset that a minority party (us) are negotiating with the government (SNP).

Well that is how PR government works! If you don't like it, stop calling for it.

I'm not sure why this should come as a surprise.

LibDim policy is made on one principle and one principle alone: what will gain us any measure of power? This attitude is well-known in campaigning circles, where the LibDim candidates will switch policies depending on what they think their audience wants to hear. This is why the other parties loathe LibDim campaigners.

The LibDims are simply irritated that it is the Scottish Conservatives who the SNP have decided to treat with, and not the LibDims.

New Year Roundups

This week, your humble Devil makes an appearance in both the Britblog Roundup #151 and the Scottish Blog Roundup.

The latter is interesting since I am neither particularly Scottish nor do I live there anymore; however, as I was remarking to an aquaintance last night, I must confess that—after a decade of living there—hearing a Scottish accent still sounds like Home.

Anyway, do pop off and peruse some of the fine writing at both places...