RANDOM THOUGHTS

Despite a reduction in our grant the numbers of staff in our NHS has continued to increase.
Hang your head in shame, Rudd.
Most people who go to sleep at work get sacked.

 

We realise that the other day we gave some publicity to the Daily Express. It is only just then, that we give some publicity to other racist newspapers.

Oh, well, if it is God’s will…

What a clever wee soul.

Be warned.
Advertisements

47 thoughts on “RANDOM THOUGHTS”

  1. A tale of two countries.
    One fixated with improving the health and education of it’s electorate and another fixated with it’s perceived self importance and the need to “project” it’s power globally.
    It’s a matter of priorities.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Trouble is, bringiton, there are still far too many Scots who are only too happy to tag along, clutching the coat tails of said other country in the hopes of receiving scraps of goodies and rewards, a bit like the wee hamster above and they’ll play WM’s convoluted games endlessly if need be just to prove they trust said WM to give them a pointless ‘trophy’ at the end, just like the wee hamster.

      Alexander Armstrong: “You don’t go away empty-handed, Roothie and Fluffie. You have won our much-coveted ‘Pointless Trophy’. Big round of applause from the BritNat audience.

      (For sensible people who no longer watch TV, the Pointless Trophy gets awarded on a BBC Quiz Show.)

      Liked by 1 person

        1. I read that Mundell has – yet again – demanded that the First Minister take the idea of a second independence referendum “off the table”. Let’s just think about that for a moment.

          First, why does he say that, and why does he say it now? Surely even Fluffy cannot be so deluded and bewildered as to believe that NS is ever in a month of Sundays going to do such a thing. Similarly, does he really think we independentistas would react to such a statement by the FM with an “Oh well, that’s that then, obviously we all have to give up the idea of independence now”. Maybe he does: the Yooniest among them seem to think that NS has magical powers and can perform brainwashing telepathically to steer all us independentistas into doing exactly what she wants, and quashes any remaining dissent by executing the dissenters by a firing squad composed of SNP zombie drones controlled from Bute House.

          So… if there is any purpose to the lying wee scunner’s mouthings, it can’t be Nicola Sturgeon who’s the intended recipient of his message, unless Fluffy truly is barking. Surely it must be aimed at the core Tory demographic of proud Scots buts, who like to think of us independentistas as silly, silly, weak-minded people under the thumb of Nicola Sturgeon. Or maybe he’s saying it on the instruction of the Leaderene whose hem he kisses, because she evidently believes that we Jockanese and our silly, silly little grievances can safely ignored and it’s only that wee rabble-rouser frae Irvine who’s behind that whole treasonous independence nonsense… She probably has it in for the FM, come to think of it, because she realizes that the FM is a class act and she (Theresa) can never hope to rise to her level.

          On the other hand, with Mundell, you never know – maybe he actually is that dense, maybe he really doesn’t know how to do joined-up thinking, maybe he truly doesn’t have a clue what’s going on in the hearts and mind of his fellow Scots.

          Liked by 3 people

          1. Well, it’s ironic that yesterday Fluffs said, in an interview that Mrs May wold simply keep on bringing her Brilliant plan back to the Commons until she got it past.

            At the same time he is saying that a decision that was made on the basis of false promises to the Scottish population, in 2014 cannot be reversed.

            It seems that Scots, once having made a decision, must stick to it, no matter how terrible the consequences, for many years… which MPs can be given chances over and over again until they do things the way that the Maybot wants them done.

            I don’t think Mundell is very bright, but I do think he’s sleekit.

            Nicola is a very good leader, but she is not irreplaceable.

            Unlike his party, where there are none, there are many potential leaders in the SNP.

            Liked by 1 person

            1. Ah – about keeping on bringing the Brexit vote back to the House again and again until she gets the result she wants? Well – she was wrong. The rules of procedure prevent it – interesting that the PM evidently either didn’t know or didn’t care. Either should be cause for concern. People were reminded several days ago now of this oddly sensible provision among the arcana and trivia of the rules of the Westminster Parliament (can’t remember the exact circumstances, unfortunately), but Mundell evidently still doesn’t know, or doesn’t care. Either should be cause for concern…

              Liked by 1 person

              1. I imagine they must have been advised. So at least the Maybot will know. I doubt anyone even notices Fluffy and who knows what he knows or doesn’t.

                May just flouts rules. I imagine that she will have welcomed Bercow’s decision to break with tradition yesterday. It will give her a precedent.

                Like

              2. T May is playing a time game, “look times up, this shiney shitey bill or the festering pile of shite, let it be on your heads.”
                Eddjas, I thought you were meaning the Parliament Act 1911 and 49 but that is to curb the house of Lord’s power. I then had the thought that, although they call it the “great” repeal/withdrawal bill, they (government) look on it as a negotiated treaty. I’m sure it was this attitude that steered them, earlier, to announce that they would bring the signed and aggreed treaty back to parliament, to see what Davis, May etal had done on their behalf. A done deal, no debate, no amendments, nuthin.

                This would be carried out by using government perogative to negotiate and sign treaties on behalf of parliament. But this plan was stymied by Gina Miller who put the first spanner in their works and the House of Lords put another in with several amendments, giving the commons a chance to debate.

                The furore over the Speaker beats me, just smacks of toys and dummies being spat and tossed out. I don’t have any expertise in legal or political matters but sections 18 and 42 of the Parliamentary scrutiny and approval of the Withdrawal Aggreement, states the aggreement of the Secretary of State that “the motion will be amendable” and that “it will be up to the Speaker to decide what amendments are within scope of the motion and decide which are selected”.
                All a bùrach.

                The above doesn’t shine light on the Parliamentary procedure you have forgotten, eddjas. If you remember could you post it here?

                Liked by 2 people

                1. They are in the huff becasue they thought that with teh Henry VIII powers they gave themselves they wold be home and dry to visit any number of iniquities on us without any scrutiny. Orders in Council on speed.

                  Getting pulled up and put back in the “you are public servants” box is most displeasing to them.

                  Shame.

                  Liked by 1 person

                2. Lawdy lawdy that’s a hard one, Alan… I really have never bothered myself with the arcana and trivia of Westminster’s Ruritanian heritage. Here’s the article in the Independent which I assumed to be accurate – always a dangerous assumption, of course – entitled “Brexit: Parliamentary rules will stop Theresa May staging repeat votes to force her deal through”: http://t1p.de/s426.

                  I’m sure the Westminster regime could invent ways round that if it wanted to, but I can’t see them cutting much ice with most MPs.

                  Liked by 2 people

                  1. Thanks eddjas. Read it now, it’s a convention, commons tradition that bill/motions can only be presented to the commons once, in a session (parliamentary?) If parliamentary it makes the convention very similar to the Parliamentary Act 1911 and 49 which was to get round the House of Lords, if it was thought that house to be thwarting the will of the HoC. If a defeated motion is resubmitted to the HoC it must be substantially changed/amended. This would be why Keir Starmer and others made note in their contributions, “that this set before us is the same motion”.
                    Sewal convention, ring any bells?

                    The Speaker gets it in the neck, why?
                    My reading of the Parliamentary Business; Publication and Records; Parliamentary scrutiny of the Withdrawal Aggreement (sheesh, i really must get out more and take up a proper hobby) states, in section 18 and 42, that he is in the clear he had competancy to carry out the decision he made and the motion was amendable. Who stated this? The Sec. of State for brexit.
                    https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmexeu/1240/124005.htm
                    Am I the only sad person to have read this?
                    It’s ok I can take criticism, of the constructive type.

                    Liked by 2 people

                    1. No criticism from me, Alan! I like your analysis.

                      I reserve my ire and opprobrium for the Tories, for their behaviour in the Westminster Parliament and in Government in particular. Their conduct is not in the slightest founded on any recognisable principle other than short-term gain and personal and political advantage. They are constantly (a) winging it; and (b) reacting in illogical, self-contradictory and self-destructive ways which are some toxic compound of hypocrisy, turncoatery and weathervaning. It’s borderline psychopathic: like the driver of a car having a screaming row with her spouse in the passenger seat while driving on the wrong side of double white lines on a busy road, paying no attention whatsoever to the outside world, even with her own kids sitting in the back… The metaphor of driving off a cliff doesn’t quite flail around and scream enough for what we see going on down in the HoC bear garden.

                      So… the screams of protest against the Speaker for enforcing (for once) the sovereignty of Parliament over the Executive were only to be expected, really, as signs of a much more serious rottenness. It’s not simply dysfunction; we are facing a crisis that is not just political, it is moral and ethical as well?

                      Did I mention economic crisis? Not yet, or has it started already?

                      Liked by 2 people

                    2. 1. Sorry about the proofreading error at the end of my penultimate paragraph. The ? should of course have been a .

                      2. Thanks, Tris, for the compliment about my driver metaphor. It was drawn from life, as it happens.

                      3. Alan, I second Tris’ words – thanks for doing the dirty job of reading through that stuff, for ’tis too much for these old eyes to bear.

                      Liked by 2 people

            2. Talking of Fluffy…has he made any comment on the judgement by the Court of Session? They’re his civil servants, they report to him albeit that their job is to support the devolved Scottish Government in Holyrood. I don’t imagine he sees it as a resignation issue but he is the responsible minister and should make a statement.

              Liked by 2 people

              1. That would be interesting, although, on reflection, it wouldn’t.

                He’d never tell the truth, he’d just waffle about Mrs May’s scheme being the best scheme in the world and Scotland being ‘butter’ together in the House of Lords… I mean, the United Kingdom…and frankly I doubt he’s ever said anything interesting in his life.

                I wonder if he thinks he’ll get into the Lords for being a complete waste of space?

                Like

                1. Starting as he means to go on, maybe.

                  It should probably have struck me before that one of the reasons Labour so loathes the SNP is because the SNP have actually taken action on something which has been in the Labour Party manifesto from the days of Keir Hardie, if I have my facts right: the SNP refuse to take part in the democratic offence which is the House of Lords, which Labour are committed to abolishing, but somehow never do.

                  Liked by 1 person

                  1. Yes. They have no lords as a matter of principle. (They also take no part in the honours system, leaving recommendations to civil servants).

                    If Labour had simply refused to appoint lords, I reckon the house of lords, which is an affront to democracy, would have collapsed by now.

                    But goodness me, how they love the titles and ermine and all that crap.

                    Like

                    1. Yeah. Imagine… vermin in ermine, cohorts of Lords Bogg-Standard of Mediocrity, Lady Moaning Myrtle of Mayfair, and all those other lords spiritual and temporal who make it their business to ensure that as much obnoxious Tory legislation as possible gets passed… All that Ruritanian flummery to cover up the deep dysfunction and rotten heart of the British State.

                      Liked by 1 person

          2. Ed:- Fluffy talks about no Indy ref because he can’t think of anything else to say, and he’s got to say something or people would forget he was there. If this happened then he would just fade away, disappear in a soft explosion of unkempt ginger fluff and cease to exist, like some Terry Pratchetesque irrelevant deity that nobody believes in any more.

            Was there ever a small god of tea and custard creams I wonder?

            Liked by 2 people

                  1. Oh he’s that wee blokey that seemed to rise from being in charge of refreshments (Fluffy’s boss), to being deputy prime minister when Greene resigned over his inappropriate use of government computers, or at least lying his arse off about it.

                    Him, yeah. The epitome of mediocrity.

                    Like

                    1. Yeah – and Loathsome Lidington the Unlikeable was the one who stood up in the House, standing right over Fluffy sitting next him, taking up all the time in 15 minutes or so allotted to “debating” the offending bit of the Brexit legislation – clause 11 or whatever it was – so that not one Scottish MP could speak.

                      I suppose as Deputy PM or suchlike, he does outrank dear old Fluffy, but then most of them do, seeing as how he’s Jockanese among all his other shortcomings.

                      If you remember, Lidington rolled up in Scotland with effectively no advance warning to see oor Nicola, and she blew him off, saying that she (I paraphrase) had better things to do with her time than sit and be talked at by some bumptious blowhard who on past performance never listened to a word she said, and on that particular occasion was discourteous enough to omit the magic word “please” or inform her what the agenda of the intended meeting was supposed to be so that her staff could brief her in advance, and so that she could make up her mind as to whether the request, sorry, demand, for the meeting should be accepted or rejected in the light of her other commitments.

                      All that in addition to Lidinton’s recent outrageous performance in the House, effectively filibustering the Scottish MPs in a clear affront to democracy.

                      Nevertheless, the Usual Suspects came down on the FM like a ton of bricks for refusing to meet with the man. Munguinites will be astonished – nay, gobsmacked – to learn that I think it was a rather nicely calculated rebuke on oor Nicola’s part, and an excellent instantiation of our indepentista philosophy – which is that them dammity BritNats don’t get to boss us around no more, or treat us as their inferiors.

                      Liked by 2 people

                    2. Yes, I remember that Nicola had a constituency surgery to take that day… and if they bothered to ask, her people could have let him know.

                      He’s an unnoticeable wee man who only speaks in soundbites like his idiot boss.

                      Liked by 1 person

                    3. P.S. I suppose I shouldn’t call him “Loathsome Lidington” be less alert readers might confuse him with Loathsome Ledsom.

                      I know it’s disrespectful and discourteous to give people disparaging nicknames – as the Usual Suspects so often do with our people – but I just can’t respect those people in the Westminster regime and their various accompanying toads, lackeys and fellow-travellers. I just can’t. They serve no cause but their own, and the Party to which they have hitched their grubby little wagons – the SelfServatives.

                      Liked by 1 person

  2. JoMac points it out correctly. I’m wondering if Tris put the hamster link in for that impression, we run around doing pointless tasks for peanuts and trinkets, indeed a stylish “link”.
    I’ve spent the afternoon watching the Westminster shenanigans. Great indignation and rage from the government benches as the commons “take back control” and vote in an amendment to the “Great” withdrawal bill. Karma?
    Glad to see Joana Cherry on the case of the Seaborne ferry contract. Hope the link works;
    https://mobile.twitter.com/joannaccherry/status/1082996064179970053?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet
    Have I just given evidence of my pointless tasks?

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Alan: I was just about to put up that excellent video of the superb Joanna Cherry and the pathetic minister of something or other.

      That’s the standard of the UK government.

      Utterly useless.

      Liked by 2 people

        1. LOL It is on the blog, mate… you put it there.

          She is a huge asset, don’t you think. I watch her performances in the chamber in awe… There are many others that are good. too, but Joanna is cutting in the most polite way.

          Even, I noticed, Stuart, who fears no one, said, remind me not to piss her off.

          I sure wouldn’t like to be in court against her.

          Thanks for putting it up.

          Liked by 2 people

    2. Worst is the culture of impunity in which they are embedded: they talk and act as if they do not need to explain themselves to anyone, and they can do whatever they like and never be held accountable to or by anyone.

      In other words, the toxic psychology and attitudes of the Bullingdon Club have become all-pervasive within the Westminster Tory Party.

      Liked by 2 people

  3. Lovely wee hamster. Just for those wot are curious, the Russian title says “The video which saved my life today”.

    For the foodbank things … somewhere inside I’m incandescent with rage, but I can’t bear to think about it. That’s the thing: as Scots, we can do nothing whatsoever to either help or harm England – it all goes the other way. We have to sort ourselves out, and nobody is going to do it for us [is that a chorus of yawns I hear?]. As it is, as a government and a society we are engaged in a damage limitation exercise before we can even begin on actively trying to make things better. Independence cannot help but improve that: we won’t have to deal with the Westminster regime undermining us, sabotaging us, taking away our pocket money, and being as bloody-minded, penny-pinching and obstructive as possible. Among its many other delightful and attractive features that have made it the envy of Europe.

    Liked by 2 people

  4. Was visiting my sister yesterday, she watches tv.
    Isn’t is marvelous that the Scottish tories are so COMMONER, saw Annie Wells driving a car, An Mp called Grant sweeping the streets with a yellow tabard on and wow they found Untruthful speaking from a kitchen, the other one from Currie I didn’t recognise. Untruthie ended up with something like “Get on with the Day Job”.
    Fortunately for me my sister is oldish school, left the tv on but turned the sound OFF so I hear nothing of what was said in a Party Political Broadcast from the Scottish concervative and onionist party.
    Only got the powerpoint page at the end with the quote.
    In the meantime at Westmonster the ruthie block voted against the wishes of themajority of the people, well you see they’re there to support their Party who won a landslide of votes, around 30%, in their constituancy, so giving they the right to vote their own way as they are Mps and not delegated representatives.
    Until next time.
    Democracy rUk style.
    My Mp says he believes in Local democracy for such things as stopping the closure of the Post Office and the rebuilding of the community centre. Both well reported in the local Johnston Press free paper.
    Ah but these big issues like removing your right to freedom of movement mean that your democractic right is better in his hands, you aren’t bright enough to come up with the proper result.
    He voted to leave thhe EU even although his constituancy voted 67% to remain go figure.
    As for Nigel, see he and the rest of the MEPs are due to get a nice signing off fee of up to £8000 a month for 2 years, an upset allowance plus their pension for serving the European Parliament.
    No need to go to the Food Bank there.
    The Maybot says she’ll consider improving worker rights if you vote for her Deal, Aye Right, I gave up on the Promises Not Delivered List, my computer doesn’t have enough storage space.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. The employee rights will never happen.

      If they want to make any kind of success of Brexit (their kind of success), it will have to be that Britain is, despite the tariffs, the go-to place to get things done.

      That means it has to be dirt cheap.

      Incomes will have to go down and conditions will have to be worse than Europe.

      Beware of Tories bearing promises, Brits.

      They break them like it was a sport. We Scots are witness to that.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Ain’t that the truth… Recommendation: if any of our Yoonionist compatriots comes out with the old line that the result of the 2014 referendum must be held sacred until the heat death of the universe, we reply – “Name a single promise that was made to us then that hasn’t been reneged on.”

        Liked by 1 person

    1. An ex-nun friend of mine informs me that believing that the Old Testament God and the New Testament God are not the same is called the Manichæan heresy. Strange… the one is jealous and does a lot of smiting, the other goes in for all that lefty liberal feelgood stuff about loving thy neighbour and turning the other cheek. I’ve never been too sure about that last one, though, because it seems to me that if you are facing someone who’s actively out to kill you, a spot of smiting might well be in order.

      Where was I? Oh yes, loads of people who call themselves Christians use their religion, so called, as an excuse to behave abominably toward other people and as a license to flout the laws in force wherever they are in the name of their God’s law. As they see it. Which is exactly the same thing that they scream about in relation to Islam and Sharia.

      Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s