Archaic drivel

"open up in the name of Her Maj: tea and Hobnobs for everyone"

Yes, I'm talking about Westminster, the imperial palace, the deathstar, London the Moribund. That's no way to run a Parliament!

I refer, of course, to the Queen's speech. "Wassat?" I hear you say (you really must try to improve your diction). Apparently, those in Westminster need to be told every year what they're going to be doing for the next 12 months. Why they don't just get on with it is anyone's guess - they could learn from the Scottish Parliament (again).

So, when she parades from her wee but 'n' ben to the Palace of Westminster, a wee fella (who gets called Black Rod for some reason) goes and tells those commoner people to come and stand in supplication while those aristocratic people get a wee seat and Her Maj reads out what was written originally by some of the commoner people. Hang on, you say, who got elected here? Quite, but some of them paid quite a bit for their bit of ermine, and they might have reserved a seat at the same time - like getting a train ticket.

Anyway - stop distracting me - she reads out what's going to be brought forward in the next wee while (always with wee qualifiers like "My Government will continue to do this, that and the other", and "Other measures will be laid before you") then the commoners get sent scurrying back to their own hovel while the aristocrats get the place fumigated and settle down for another year separated from the scruff.

Back in the House of Commons the commoners get their toys back out and begin flinging them from the pram. There's a guy in tights (part of the job, not a predilection) who reads out the speech again in case anybody sat humphing republicanism and ignored the wifie with the big jewels, then there's an argument.

Usually the debate has an old fogey and some young upstart (no-one knows why, it's just tradition), and this time the fogey was Richard Caborn. He began his speech in the traditional way - on his metaphorical knees begging permission to say thanks (actually went like this:

I beg to move,

That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, as follows:

Most Gracious Sovereign,

We, Your Majesty’s most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom and Great Britain and Northern Ireland, in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the Gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament

Spiffing, what? He then went on to do the Oscars:

There are many reasons why it is a privilege and a pleasure to move the Queen’s Speech, and I should like to refer to a couple of them. First, I must mention my family, and particularly my mum. She is 91

Good to see that the UK is in safe hands.

Anyway, all this stuff and nonsense goes on for ages until he's replaced by the cheeky young scamp - in this case going by the name of Dawn Butler - I haven't heard of her, but that's apparently the point (it's Westminster, don't try to understand 'em, just rope, tie and brand 'em).

She pointed to a welcome innovation in the London Parliament of producing a pre-legislative draft of a Bill (they'll catch up eventually - it'll be pre-legislative scrutiny next). She also said

The strength of self-belief, the dignity of truth and the engagement of politics
can turn slaves into free people.

Well said that woman!

Then the beasts were released upon an unsuspecting populace; David Cameron (leader, Tory types) came snarling off the bench and swatted aside the opposition, leaving Gordon Brown shaking.

Watching the exchanges, I couldn't help feeling that Cameron was the most statesmanlike. He acted like he was the Prime Minister and Brown acted like he was the raw challenger.

Brown has to change tack if he wants to have any chance of winning the next election. He has to bring forward policies that don't look as if they fell off the back of a lorry leaving the Conservative conference. That might even mean the horror of taking Labour back towards looking like it's a Party that believes in something. He could signal that nuclear weapons are to be removed from Scotland's waters, for example, or bring forward alternative funding models to undercut PFI/PPP - but he has to do something if he wants to stave off the Conservative revival, and an ideological battle might be just the thing.

He's knackered in Scotland, of course, the SNP's winning here.

Labour admits need for Scottish Six

Well, OK, I've stretched the truth a bit, but Kezia Dugdale makes a case for better Scottish newscasting in her blog so I'll be expecting her to support repatriation of broadcasting powers to Scotland.

Martin Bell - the man who would be pure

I was directed to an article in the Daily Mail written by one Martin Bell in which this man who liked to paint himself as being the purest purist ever to enter any Parliament claims to have seen an MP trade his vote for a peerage. That was a criminal act, Mr Bell, shouldn't it be reported?

The entire article follows a similar line - it's a mess, but it's someone else's job to tidy it up. The man in the white suit without the courage of his convictions? Surely he'll be naming and shaming soon?

Keynes - a capitalist with a dangerous attitude

Paul Krugman's introduction to a fairly recent edition (a year ago I think) of The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money, by John Maynard Keynes is an interesting wee read.

Apart from re-establishing Keynes as a capitalist, Krugman takes the trouble to point out where he thinks Keynes went wrong and where interpretations of Keynes have gone wrong as well. One particular point caught my attention, Krugman's line that "Keynes made it clear that his skepticism about the effectiveness of monetary policy was a contingent proposition, not a statement of a general principle". Almost enought to make me think about reading Keynes.

Almost.

Spectre's after me

There's a perfectly reasonable National Conversation going on, but that doesn't seem to be good enough for some people, oh no!


The Lib Dems (those firebrands!), Labour, and the Conservative and Unionist Party got together today to continue their wheeze-making on devolution. Well done those punters! (Actually, it was just Nicol Stephen, Wendy Alexander, and Annabel Goldie, but they were there 'representing' all their people).


This time they brought in their big brothers from down south, Des Browne, Alastair Carmichael, and David Mundell. Stop being cruel - they are more to be pitied than scolded, I can assure you.


So anyway, there's a National Conversation with over 200,000 people engaging - or there's these six in a room. 200,000 + or 6 ... A fifth of a million or half a dozen ...


These six agreed between them that they reflected the views of mainstream Scottish public opinion (honestly, they did - you can read it on the Lib Dem website although neither of the other parties has anything up yet).


So now, having secured the mainstream viewpoint between the six of them, they're going to London to agree the remit, procedure and when future announcements will be made about their decision to review devolution. (Is it just me or do they really not understand devolution?)


As Brian Taylor says in his blog they appear to be confused about what they want and it looks more like John Major's 'Taking Stock' than a constitutional convention. In other words, they've nae idea what they're doing, they're just flailing around and hoping they can grab something to hold onto.

Where were they then?

They marched through Edinburgh to the Ross Bandstand in Princes Street Gardens to demand an end to the UK nuclear weapons programme - no Son of Trident in Scottish waters, thank you!

Thousands of people were there, but posted missing were those whose consciences hurt so much through remaining in the Labour Party while it renews the weapons of mass destruction on the Clyde.

Where were you Malcolm Chisholm, Mark Lazarowicz, Sarah Boyack, Nigel Griffiths?

The truth is the same as it is for so many Labour Party members - each of these politicians lacks any conviction that might threaten their careers. They'll posture for the sake of a press release and keeping some people sweet but they'll still run back to hide behind the skirts of the Labour Party at the first indication that they might be asked to stand up and actually follow through on the big words.

I have more respect for those who try to make a case for nuclear weapons - unjustified as it may be - than for those who would pretend to be in favour of getting rid of them while remaining part of the party which is intent on replacing them.

A wee thing here

I've noticed that Labour MSPs get terribly exercised when SNP Cabinet Secretaries and Ministers talk about negotiating with councils to deliver on manifesto promises as if discussions were a bad idea.

It's almost like Labour politicians think Ministers should just demand that councils deliver on Ministers' promises without any input from the councils or, indeed, any discussion about how the changes will be resourced.

Is this why the country's in such a mess - because we've been governed that way for too long?

Just as well we have an SNP Government now then, isn't it?