When the boat comes in...

...there's not a lot to smile about if you're a UK fisherman.

Another reason why independence, or at least more powers, are essential to the progress of our little Scottish land.

May 12 - Fuel help pledged for fishermen

July 22 - Report rules out fishing fuel aid

One of these is a useful, helpful and realistically thought out policy (with funds) designed solely to help out an industry that is in greater peril than most at the moment.

One is the House of Lords, a society devoid of any understanding of the fishing industry or anything north of Birmingham, screwing over a predominantly Scottish industry.

With the majority of commercial fishing being in Scotland, I am not surprised how little consideration and assistance fishermen will receive through Westminster. Richard Lochhead, Scottish fisheries minister, has worked tirelessly in consulting and working with the industry to hear what the Government can reasonably do to help. Every week he is, amongst his other ministerial duties, talking to fishermen, industry leaders, campaigning, rallying at Westminster for more help and seeing what assistance can be afforded by the Scottish Government. With more than 75% of the UK fishing industry based in Scotland, you would think Scotland would have a similar representation when MEPs are discussing the topic in Europe, whether it be quotas, discards, Common Fisheries Policy or pushing the Seafish 'Responsible Fishing Scheme', which has itself already made agreements with foreign vessels? Nope, in yet another area, Scotland is under represented and there is near enough nothing we can do about it.

Westminster and the House of Lords in particular have just torpedoed the British fishing industry, another big hole in an already leaky ship. They're not asking for free fuel, just a slight decrease in the duty that Gordon 'the Iron Brew' (cos he's an embarrassment to Scotland) Brown siphens off. Fishermen are not behaving like French farmers with the CAP, they're asking for a signal, a tiny inflatable life raft that will give them a better chance of getting to shore.

The 'we should've let Northern Rock go down on it's own' brigade might ask 'Why should fishing get such special treatment, why not bus companies, taxis?' Because fishing is so much more stretched by fuel prices than almost any other industry in the world. This isn't like British Airways who have had years of gross profits flooding out through the years, this is an industry which as a country, we do not want to see disappear...and it will disappear if no help is offered. It would not be in such a precarious position if it weren't for GB's tax on fuel...and it is the whole industry that is at risk, not just a section of.

But thanks to the House of Lords, and in spite of the, impotent but best efforts of the Scottish Government and Richard Lochhead, the slippery slope just got a whole lot slippier.

The sooner we get more or full powers, the better off we'll all be, in many, many ways.

The element of success

And that element is wind.

Alex (he of the space hopper's face) Salmond has announced approval for Europe's biggest windfarm to be built in South Lanarkshire, creating 200 jobs and introducing 152 of these beautiful towers of hippy-hope. The previous biggest windfarm in Europe is already being built, in Glasgow.

I'm not being sarcastic, I love windfarms.

Biofuels? Pah! No more burning trees and crops.

Clean coal (A GB favourite)? That's like saying 'healthy cancer' or 'jolly rape'.

I've always believed we should carpet bomb as much free land as we can afford to do away with, to create this clean, renewable, politically correct (except to the RSPB), big fat money-spinner of moral smugness. Yup, we can become the OPEC of wind. Oil will run out, and with the world being as "live now, plan later" as ever, there is no better time to get ahead of the game, start creating a surplus, bringing on independence, and once the oil runs out, Scotland can sell it by the 'bucket-load' (though you can't put wind in a bucket, so hairdryer-load?).

Well done to the Scottish Ministers. Well done indeed to Scottish and Southern Energy who are creating the wealth/environmentally sensible project............. Well done to wind!

And one final well done (though it's ridiculous that politics has come to this)...well done to Labour and all the other opposition parties for not turning round and criticising for criticism's sake. It's easy on any topic to tooth-comb through and find one tiny negative, pick on that and run with it. Silence in cases such as this are as good as applause from opposition and, for now, there have been no negative jibes from anyone (YET). And if there are no objections from the other parties, why don't they all get together, agree that they all want to follow my carpet-bomb approach, and push on. Consensus on the issue would give me, a voter, an energy user and a future beneficiary, a gloriously, rich feeling.

"Money doesn't grow on trees, it's blowing in the wind" - Bob Dylan Political Dissuasion

The cost of success

Trevor Phillips is a Labourite. Discuss.

This is not a slant on the man, a personal attack, or a shallow attempt to call into question his inegrity as chairman of an independent body, it is a fact. He is a Labour man. So much so, that at one point he stood to be Labour's candidate for London Mayor. So there is the link, not hidden, not tenuous, BIG AND BOLD, right in front of you, Trevor Phillips = Labour.

So how on earth can he be appropriate to head up the Equality and Human Rights Commission (and formerly the Commission for Racial Equality)? How can he make statements such as those he made today on World at One, where he said that he/the organisation wants extra powers to help tackle inequality, when all he has used the statement for is to attack the "wealthy and educated middle class", in a deeply political way?

He claims that the economic slowdown is hitting everyone, but hitting those at the lower end of the financial spectrum harder...which I can't really disagree with, but when he says that
"Everyone is happy to take some of the pain as long as that pain is shared fairly..."

Happy to take the pain? Yes, Trev, I'm just giddy at the prospect. Quick, whip me with a bit of wood, I just love the fucking pain!

What a stupid way to put it. But then, it's what follows that really gets to me.

"People can see the economic slowdown coming. Everyone is happy to take some of the pain as long as that pain is shared fairly and what we want to do is to make sure that the burden doesn't fall unfairly on some groups rather than others.
(It would) mean taking on the wealthy and educated middle class who are adept at playing the system to the advantage of their families."

"Taking on"? That's fighting talk.

I am not rich, I don't have a big ol' house, a car, I earn less than the average annual wage, I went to state school and don't have a hyphenated, double-barrelled surname. I am not "wealthy" or "middle-class" but these measures are just another attack on the Tories politically, and the successful socially.

Or are you just helping out GB, saying something indirectly targetted at the Tories, but designed to pander to the poor/anyone who feels affected by the credit crunch?

This is another Labour motion towards, "Don't bother doing anything with your life, we'll just get the rich to pay for everything".

Yes, the economic climate right now is going to be a problem, to varying degrees, for everyone. But we aren't a socialist country. You aren't entitled to a comfortable living. You have to get out and sometimes scrap really hard to get by in life. You can't just say, if things get a bit worse we can just tax the rich more, windfall tax Tesco or Shell. GB has taken the Tories "work for your benefits" approach, which is grand but after such inverted snobbery being shat out the mouth of the Labour appointed equalities body, we all know it'll end up being a fudge, with GB wimping out at crunch time, and pandering to Labour's poor-man's chew-toy base.

No, if things are tough, then things are tough. Labour needs to tell it's base/Glasgow East to shut the fuck up, get off your arse, go out and work and stop thinking that you're owed a living and blaming your poverty on those better off.

For every pound the average 'poor man' earns, about 4% of it taken as tax.
For every pound the average 'rich man' earns, about 38% of it taken as tax.

Trevor, don't talk to me about equality. Some people more than cover their social burden, whereas some people are their own social burden (while also being mine as well).

Those better off (aka 'educated middle class'), have worked through school, university, jobs, promotions etc to get where they are. They've worked to achieve something, and when you puteffort in, rightly you should expect to reap rewards. Labour's base doesn't get that. These are people who believe that the rich should get taxed 50% of their wages because "it's more than they need".

Jealousy is not a policy. Fact.
Rich people are not bad. Fact.
Being educated is a good thing. Fact.
Trevor Phillips isn't a Labour mouthpiece. False.

Quotes

Read this last night and couldn't stop laughing. It's probably a well known story that most of you will have heard before, but for those of you who haven't...

From The Blair Years - The Alastair Campbell Diaries

"Madrid NATO summit...
...There was a bizarre scene during the break, in the Gents. Several leaders, including Clinton, TB, (Romano) Prodi (Prime Minister of Italy), Kok and Khol, were all having a pee in a row of stand-up urinals. Clinton turned around and said 'Isn't this the greatest picture that was never taken?' TB told him the story of the time Churchill moved away from Attlee while they were peeing together. Attlee looked hurt. Churchill explained: 'Every time you see something big you want to nationalise it.' "

Ah, even greats such as Churchill couldn't hold back on a good 'big nob' gag.

The knives are out ...pt 2

Oh Gordon Brown. Sending those convicted of committing knife crime to see victims in hospital and to meet families of victims is yet another, stupid, ill-thought-out, wafer-thin reactionary piece of PR desparation from Gordon Brown.

They call it "shock tactics".

Haven't Labour learned that shock tactics don't work? Putting health signs on cigarette packets saying "Smoking causes cancer" or "Fumar obstruye las arterias y provoca cardiopatias y accidentes cerebrovasculares" if you get duty-free fags off your step-gran, didn't have any real impact on smoking figures. Real, physically restricting, truly effective measures such as the smoking ban, which unequivocally altered the smoking habits of almost all smokers, has made a difference.

These knife-crime shock tactics are a fudging waste. How will this make any difference 'on the streets'? It won't. Knife Carrier A is in exactly the same position as before when he steps out the door, where he faces a choice WITHIN HIMSELF, "Should I take my blade?" He's seen pictures on tv, he's seen films which wil make it look much more gruesome than in real-life, so bandaged up and blood-free victims are not going to shock this man.

It kills me to agree with the Lib Dems but here it goes...

Chris Huhne described Ms Smith's plans as "half-baked", and said the government had been in denial about the scale of the knife crime problem...........YUP!

It's like a 4 yr old kid traipsing mud through all the carpeted rooms in the house, then when mum notices, she drags him room to room saying "Look at what you've done!" The kid doesn't understand the concept of cleaning or "nice carpets", he understands the concept of playing football in a mucky field. The kid won't be going to bed, riddled with guilt about how difficult it is to get muck out of cream fabric, cos he's a kid. So gang members won't give a hoot about the causes of what they do because they don't relate to it. You can show them what they've done, but at the end of the day, they're just thinking about their next game of football, not how football leads to messy carpets.

Jacqui Smith says that it was "tougher" than imprisonment to make people "face up to the sorts of implications of young people carrying knives on our streets".

Jacqui, you dizzy fucking cow, these are people who have chosen to plunge a knife into someone else's body, I think they know the implications of 'sharp blade into body - body don't work so good'. When they do that, do you really think they'll give a shit if they see someone recovering from such injuries? Hearing sob stories from victims and families won't affect them, not in the heat of the moment. Tories want to lock them up, no matter what, if they carry a knife...........YUP!

I've also been a long-time fan of the idea of curfews, cos if they aren't out, they ain't going to be stabbing people. A proactive policy which will physically influence the sort of situation activity that knife crime thrives in. Jail, as the Tories say, will also put a limit on their stabbing chances.

But taking them round hospitals? So would you take them on their stabby sightseeing tour before or after they go to prison? Or, with Labour being so weak on crime and puff candy on the causes of crime, would this be their "tougher" alternative. Hmmm, doing three to five years in a cell, or a day out to the hospital to see people I don't care about (cos it's me and people like me that put them there)? Er, I think I'll take the day trip please!

What a fucking non-existent solution to a very real problem. Welcome to New Britain, brought to you by New Labour.

Only when seven people are stabbed in three days do we get any sort of reaction from them, and it's an absolute fudge.

How high the numbers to start saving lives, Gordon?

The knives are out

I watched the Schools QuestionTime last week and there were two main topics discussed (I don't include the 15 minutes they dedicated to how many courses Gordon Brown had at the G8 meal).

Firstly, and quite obvious as it was in London, they looked at knife crime, especially regarding young people. The other focus was on Iran and nuclear proliferation. The main argument the grown-ups on the panel used on knife crime, which has been the Government's line for many a year, was, as the child-sized Douglas Alexander said...

"Not only is carrying a knife wrong, but you are more likely to make yourself more vulnerable to a crime of violence if you carry a knife"

But if you speak to someone who carries a knife for self-defence, who doesn't feel safe walking home at night, or knows that there is someone out there who is out to get them, they will carry a knife to feel safer.

I don't agree with it, but in this situation you can understand the thinking...

If someone attacks me with a knife, chances are that knife's going to be used to stab or slash me. In turn, if I get stabbed, I've a good chance of dying and little chance of defending myself, especially if that guy has already decided, no matter what, he is going to stab me. If I have a knife, even though I may have to stab him, which I don't want to, it does mean, in this situation (which is the only reason I'm carrying a knife and the only situation in which I'd use one), I have a better chance of seeing my next birthday.

You can see the logic behind that, right?

Well, it dawned on me, this is probably quite similar to how Iran is feeling:

"They've got the bomb, they've got it in for us, so we want the fucking bomb!"

So does the knives argument not also work, at least from Iran's perspective, on the Nuclear bomb issue? Couldn't Iran just say to Britain, India, America, ISRAEL etc, "Put your nuclear weapons away and I won't need one". This is what the politicians don't get when it comes to knife crime, is that it is a self-assurance thing, defintiely to Iran, and undoubtedly to a large number of knife carriers.

If I get into a fight with someone with a knife and don't have one myself, I will invariably lose the fight.

If Iran gets into a fight with Israel or the US, it has NO WAY TO DEFEND ITSELF, and after Iraq and Afghanistan, we can't expect Iran to bow to pressure from these hypocritical Governments.

I don't like knives, and I don't like nuclear bombs.

But in either of these situations, especially against someone who I know, 100% for sure, is out to get me, you can understand why I'd rather have equal weaponry with which to fight my fights.

The problem isn't that I might carry a knife, its that someone else has got one. I'd have no reason for one if it wasn't for 'the other guy'. Iran wouldn't feel like they needed the bomb if Israel, America didn't have one. So let's have a nuclear bomb amnesty, get rid of them all and the problem will disappear.

Somehow, I don't see the world following my idea.

The big debate - Glasgow East

Politics Scotland hosted the first live debate between the 'main four' candidates in the Glasgow East by-election. Now considering the Times and I are in agreement that Labour are rightly worried about losing a chunk of their votes to Granny Maggy's Socialist namesake, Frances Curran, I would have thought she could have got a place in the studio, but alas not.

Anyway, to the debate. Christ alive what a poor calibre of candidate, from all the parties.

Maragaret Curran (Lab)... just wouldn't shut the fuck up. My God, her voice goes through me at the best of times, but when she interupts everyone else, the whole way through the debate, making ridiculous 'the poverty is at the heart of my politics' speeches, she really is not a shining light candidate. As with the majority of senior Labour MSPs, she has that angry chip on her shoulder about not being in power anymore, and I think that Scotland, Glasgow in particular, doesn't need that sort of bitter Labour politics anymore. It certainly won't help the constituents in Glasgow East. And on the topic of standing down as an MSP should she win, or even now, she did nothing but waffle shite, which took me back to her days as a minister.

Davena Rankin (Con)... a more invisible candidate in a debate I never did see. First of all, when she was involved in the debate, she seemed clueless. It seemed like she had been given seven one-line cue-cards to memorise, and that is strictly what she has done and had nothing else to offer. Now the Tories were never going to do anything worth noting in this by-election, but she certainly failed the party spectacularly, a wee bit of homework might have helped her. But the fact that she was only willing to speak when prompted, made it more like there's a three-way debate and a side-show interview (with a side-show candidate).

Ian Robertson (Lib Dem)... first of all, he's a Lib Dem, so was never going to get a standing ovation from Political Dissuasion. But he rarely spoke on issues relating to Glasgow East. He spent the majority of the debate, bitching, condemning Labour and SNP (cos being invisible, he didn't notice the Tory candidate), and just whinging. He offered nothing to any prospective voters to entice them over. More than once he criticsied Labour's leadership in the Scottish Parliament over the last two terms. Firstly, the by-election is for Westminster, and it irks me when they cross the Parlimentary divide to help them try (and in Ian's case, always fail) to score some points. Secondly, the Lib Dems seem to keep on forgetting that they were Labour's partners in crime, they were in coalition...they were the poop, to Labours scoop, hand in hand.

John Mason (SNP)... is just a little weasel of a candidate. There's no secret that I've been pretty impressed with the SNP and building up to this by-election, would have loved it if Labour got spanked, or just narrowly beaten. But with Mason as the candidate, I can't get on board. When he repeatedly goes on and on about Curran being a part-time MP if she won, he is repeatedly asking us to question Alex Salmond's role, which from the party's perspective, is just plain stupid, and from a campaign perspective, is hypocritical which looks like what it is, cheap, News of the World style political sniping, which does nobody any good and just makes you look like a greasy little shite.

So all in all, if I was one of the twelve residents of Glasgow East who might have watched the Politics Scotland debate, and wasn't one of these masochists who, "live or die - I VOTE LABOUR", then I wouldn't know who to vote for. Nobody seems good enough. None of them seemed to want to represent Glasgow East, and while I'm not an idealist who thinks that the candidates' only desire is to benefit these constituents, even a bit of faking it, a bit of compassion towards them may have gone a long way to securing my non-existent vote.

This is a great advert for "I don't like any of them so I'm just not going to vote".

But seeing as I don't believe in such a mindset, I have to pick someone...er......and the winner is...

Frances Curran, Scottish Socialist Party. She's the only one who'd stand up for the area, kick up a fuss and truly represent the people. By god I hate Socialists, so it kills me to say she'd be best, but invariably, she would be.