No, surely he CAN'T have said THAT...

Oh yes he did.

"Mr Salmond told the Morning Show on Ireland’s national broadcaster RTE: “I am sure, as many people in Ireland will remember, that sometimes people in leadership positions in big countries find it very difficult not to bully small countries.

“Of course, what we have seen – as everybody knows – over the last week is the most extraordinary attempt to intimidate Scotland by Westminster politicians.”

Later in the interview, he made a similar remark, saying: “As again the people of Ireland will know, bullying and hectoring the Scottish people from London ain’t going to work.”"

What do I feel about it?

Dismay at his stupidity.

Horror at yet another revelation of the ethno-centric, anti-English hatred which underlies the Nat project.

Oh yes, and anger: Salmond ought to be rather careful about drawing parallels between Scotland today and Ireland in the 1920s, just in case those parallels start coming true.

Couldn't have that, could we?

It didn't take long - Nat nastiness on display

So according to Nat MSP and Salmond aide Joan Mcalpine, anyone who doesn't agree with the SNP is "anti-Scottish".

Depressing, disappointing, but hardly unexpected - I always knew that this was what they were like.

It goes to confirm something I have felt all along:

- When I see Salmond strutting, preening and dictating in his decidedly Il Duce-esque manner;

- When I see the serried ranks Nat MSPs behind him, cheering every word and slapping their flippers together like Sammy the Seal;

I hear the tramp of jackboots.

Since she started it, I now feel no constraints about having a go at la Mcalpine. She seems determined to set herself up as the Julie Burchill of Scottish politics.

What do I mean? Well it's not just coming out with outrageous and provocative statements. Those with long memories might recall Private Eye exposing the erstwhile Queen of the Groucho and now Doyenne of Brighton as using the same byline photo for many years and kilograms beyond its original date of validity.

La Mcalpine seems to have the same problem. Here she is in a recent pic:


And here is her blog byline picture:


Is this the same person?

In fact, was this EVER the same person?

I think we should be told.

GOTCHA! Cameron forces Salmond into early Referendum date announcement

I didn't come up with it, the folks over at Tory Hoose did.

Couldn't think of a better way of putting it, so simply decided to nick it.

What is equally amusing is the way the Cybernattosphere is trying to spin this as some sort of win for them. Hilarious.

Rejoice. Just rejoice.

David William Donald Cameron.

Statesman. Hero. Genius.

The Prime Minister who has just begun the process of righting our relationship with Europe, by doing no more than being honest with his European colleagues, his party, his coalition partners and most importantly with us.

And the real brilliance of it is that he has ended, once and for all, any possibility of our being dragged into ill-thought-out European schemes which we don't want, by getting them to decide to leave us. We are still in the EU and have it more or less where we want it; the single-currency mob are going to have to set up their ill-advised mechanisms outside it.

As for being "isolated"? I like Terry Smith's phrase: "if we are isolated, we might be as isolated as somebody who refused to join the Titanic just before it sailed."

And then to make things even better, up pops some Nat MEP (Alyn Smith) saying: "Give it six months and I think you will find the UK sinking a lot faster than the eurozone is. The eurozone is getting its act together. "

Cue uproarious belly-laughter. This guy is beyond lampoon and parody. What a contender, what a prat. A perfect example of the hate-blinded stupidity of the SNP.

Salmond, the liar with a direct connection to God

Ah bless.

I see it hasn't taken long for it to go to his head.

His Immensity the Fat Minister is now claiming a direct connection to the Almighty.

He's also managed to work himself into a lather over several energy-related issues; remember, he is an expert "energy economist" by background, isn't he?

So first of all, he's offended that the UK Government has decided not to award £1bn of subsidy to a privately-owned Spanish company (that would be Scottish Power, sports fans) to make some ruinously expensive mods to Longannet power station to allow it to bury some of its CO2 emissions under the sea bed.

Which would incidentally make the power produced by that part of the station totally uneconomic, requiring yet more ongoing subsidies from US to allow it to operate.

Is he an idiot or a liar? Oh hang on, it's Salmond, he's both.

(By the way, isn't it crude, tawdry and offensive that he decides to declare his faith in a "creator of the universe" who has favoured us with all this renewable bounty at the moment that he's rowing with the Catholic Church over gay marriage? The man really is a sh1t.)

Back to the "renewables bounty". Remember, he gave us a "vision" and a "pledge" that Scotland would be 100% renewable-powered by 2020.

As previously blogged, for these "visions" to become reality will require the completion of 1000 MW of renewable capacity, each and every year, from now until 2020.

Including this year, 2011.

How are we doing?

According to renewableUK, the grand total completed in Scotland in 2011 so far is...












is...











wait for it...











241.15 MW.



Pathetic.

It seems that the Enormous Shyster's direct connection to the Almighty has not resulted in any connection with the facts.

I look forward to the total failure of his referendum and subsequent humiliating defenestration from office with relish.

Further concerning the leadership

I went along to the Edinburgh hustings on Saturday.

Margaret Mitchell was nice but baffling; what exactly is she standing for?

Ruth Davidson was good, Jackson Carlaw excellent. Highlights included his impression of Annabel Goldie and a quote from a non-Tory MSP: "Call yourselves what you like, Jackson, we'll still be calling you the effing Tories."

Murdo Fraser sounded tired. Partly, no doubt, a result of a three-hour car journey from Perth (due to Forth Bridge-related delays). However I suspect also that he has realised that he just doesn't have enough support to get over the top. He may well get the most first-preference votes; but the second- and third-preference votes from the other candidates will not be going to him.

Which I think leaves things between Carlaw and Davidson. On policy matters they are offering similar agendas. I think most would agree Carlaw is the best at public speaking and rousing a Tory audience; but he has the "handicap" of being an archetypal 50-something successful businessman. (Irony intended.)

I have a feeling it's going to be Davidson. That is actually quite something for the Scottish Tories; we are supposed to be conservative, after all.

Oh yes - fashion fans may want to know that instead of the trouser suits she is usually pictured in, she showed up in a skirt suit, red blouse and a pair of killer FMBs. Out-FMBing Yvette Cooper, which is saying something.

(Yes, I know she wouldn't be interested. Nurse! Time for my medication.)

Concerning the leadership

My, doesn't time fly. Nearly half-term already.

Clearly one of the big political issues out there is the question of the Scottish Tory leadership - which has been transformed into a bigger issue by Murdo Fraser's decision to campaign on the basis of dissolving and replacing the party. (Or something like that.)

Where do I stand on this?

I've met Murdo, and he's a smart guy. His thinking seems to be on the lines of the famous quote (which apparently was NOT by Einstein):

"Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result."

He has a point.

The trouble is, he could be falling into another fallacy:

"1 - We must do something.

2 - This is something.

3- We must do this."

I had the opportunity last week to meet the other leading contender, Ruth Davidson, and that's certainly her view.

She also used a fairly powerful analogy:


When VW bought Skoda, conventional wisdom was that they should dump the brand as being irredeemably contaminated, and just use the factories to churn out cheaper VWs and Audis.

They didn't. They kept the name, brand and badge, and improved the product to the point where Skodas get higher satisfaction and reliability ratings than VWs, Audis, and Seats, as well as being cheaper. Edinburgh residents will be aware that just about every taxi / private hire car which isn't a "black cab" is now a Skoda. There's a reason for that - cabbies know their cars.

Ruth also made a good case that she has the background, experience and skills to do a similar job on the Scottish Tories.

I haven't decided which way to vote yet - the first big hustings meeting is next weekend, and I intend to go along and give them all a listen.

But, I have to admit that a few months ago I bought a Skoda...

"Weasel" Russell - some thoughts and a new prediction

Looks like my attempt at edgy humour fell flat. Clearly the readership of this blog is more refined than that of ARRSE (which is where I nicked it from)...

This may be my last post for a while since we are off to our usual bolt-hole in the Cotswolds. There has never been any internet coverage there, although BT are now claiming that their FON shared-hotspot thing should be in range. We'll see.

A while back I looked at the readership stats for this blog, for the first time in ages. There was a bit of a surprise; one page in particular was generating a truly massive spike on the hits chart.

Which one was it, I wondered? One for which I'd spent time developing a detailed argument, or doing lots of research, or generating some nifty charts?

No. It was this one, in which I pointed out the uncanny similarity between Michael "Mike" "Weasel" Russell and a, er, weasel.

Shall we do it again?

Michael "Mike" "Weasel" Russell

A weasel

So why was this so popular? Did someone in the Holyrood bubble pick it up and pass it round? We'll never know.

I've already predicted that "Weasel" is going to have a tough time dealing with the totally ridiculous and unsustainable position he has been left in on university funding. His refusal to contemplate any form of graduate contribution is going to leave Scottish universities with an ever-increasing funding gap relative to their English counterparts, and will have them sliding further and further down the global ratings tables into Euro-mediocrity.

Here's another prediction of an unpleasant and potentially disastrous situation which is about the greet "Weasel": the public realisation of the implications of "Curriculum for Excellence" in our secondary schools. This should hit by Christmas.

(At this point I should declare my involvement / interest. Over the years I have dropped various hints that I've been doing a bit of a career-change thing; this is now complete. I am now a teacher. No, you don't need to know where or which subject!)

Now, the development of "Curriculum for Excellence" (politely shortened to "CfE", or less politely to "Curriculum for Sixty Pence" or "Curriculum for Excrement") has been under way for a while - it goes back to before the Nats' win in 2007. The cohort which started S1 last August are the first to experience it at secondary level.

A lot of CfE looks attractive. More flexible - OK. More engaging - fine. More cross-curricular working across subjects - good. Less formal assessment by examination and more assessment which encourages initiative and creativity - hmm, OK as long as that is crisped up as they get older and approach the inevitability of real exams.

But what is going to cause the rammy is what happens when the kids get to what is now called "the senior phase" and have to start getting qualifications.

Up to now, there has been a pleasing convergence of the qualifications system across the UK. In Scotland, they do 8 or so Standard Grades at 16, 5 Highers at 17 and 3 Advanced Highers at 18. Down south, it's 8 or so GCSE's at 16, 5 AS-levels at 17 and 3 A2-levels at 18. England used to go straight from GCSE to 3 A-levels; the broadening of their curriculum at 17 is, arguably, an endorsement of the historic Scottish approach. It's also the case that the Scottish AH is graded higher (i.e. more UCAS points) by universities than the A-level.

(Admittedly, we have complicated the situation up here with our Intermediate 1s (which sit just below Standard Grade) and Intermediate 2s (which are just above it). In most mainstream state schools, Int 1s are for 16-year olds who couldn't manage S-grade, and Int 2s are for 17-year olds who couldn't manage Higher. But a lot of private schools avoid S-grades and do Int 2s at 16 instead. And there are all sorts of other permutations in the state sector. This is all very flexible for those in the education business, but costs - and is confusing for the outside world.)

CfE is going to change all this. Standard Grade, Int 1 and Int 2 are going to be swept away and replaced by Nationals 4 and 5. So far, so simplified, so good. (Although there are concerns about the fact that the lower-level National 4 will only be assessed internally by schools. Shades of a return to the 1950s, maybe.)

But here comes the kicker. Under the new system, our kids are only going to be taking qualifications in 5 or 6 subjects at 16 - rather than 8 as at present. The brighter ones are likely to be going to start Highers over 2 years from 16, with no dry-run or safety net at 16.

The curricular authorities are at pains to say that they are not forcing this to happen, but it looks in practice that that is exactly what most schools are planning to do.

This is going to cause uproar. Parents who are used to and proud of having 8 S-grades or O-grades are NOT going to accept automatically the idea that their offspring are only going to have 5 or 6 quals at 16 - or possibly none until 17, with no apparent safety net. Particularly in places like Edinburgh, where I know for a fact that the private schools (25% of the system) are looking on this aspect of CfE with utter horror and may well switch over to the IGCSE for their age-16 qualification.

NB I am not saying that the new CfE approach is a bad thing. At this stage of my educational career, I don't know enough to give an opinion. What I am saying is that there is going to be an almighty row.

This can't all be blamed on the SNP. What has happened is that the left-of-centre, consensual, "distinctively" Scottish educational establishment has kept a lot of this to itself and is going to be seen as springing this on the public when it's too late to make any changes.

However, the "Weasel" is going to end up wearing this mess on his face and I can't say I'm sorry.

Elton John to perform at Amy Winehouse funeral

Yes, he is to deliver another customised version of the one he did at Diana's.












It's to be called "Candle under a Spoon".











(Baboom, tish. Hat, coat, taxi!)

Wendi Deng Murdoch

Do.

Not.

Mess.

With.

(Seriously.)

Everything is proceeding as I have foreseen it

Alex Salmond backs down over secret tax memo

SNP faces fresh questions over free tuition as gap hits £263m

(See previous post.)

The Unstoppable Outpouring of Jubilation Following Our Glorious Day of National Awakening and Liberation

I must apologise for an even lighter-than-usual blogging rate recently.

It's been really difficult. My commute to and from work has been massively lengthened by the need to fight my way through the crowds of jubilant citizens celebrating the emphatic SNP victory in the election.

And once I get to work, we hardly get anything done. The water-cooler and coffee-machine chat is all about the electrifying effect the election result has had on the country, plus stuff like "Were you up for Kerr?" and so on.

I jest, of course. It hasn't been anything like that, and I bet it hasn't been like that for you either.

In fact the national reaction to this "momentous" result has mostly been "Meh", with good admixture of "Eh?" and no small amount of "Oops!" either.

As in 1997, the poor state of the losing side has resulted in a result beyond any expectation of the winners, or those who voted for them.

So now we have the Nats claiming a "mandate" for all sorts of things beyond running a devolved, subsidiary administration - which is in fact all that the electorate have given them.

Even more unhappily, we have the prospect of Blubberchops preening and blustering at us every week, with 67 clones of Sammy the Seal slapping their flippers together at his every utterance.

Never mind. Be of good cheer, in fact. Here are a few Reasons to be Cheerful:

1) The Telegraph's court case about the Nats' suppression of the awful financial truth behind their LIT proposal is due soon. They'll probably win. Ooops, Salmond and Swinney exposed as idiots and/or liars.

2) "Weasel" Russell thought he was being oh-so-clever by kicking the review of university funding into the post-election long grass. Ooops - that "whop whop" sound is a £300m boomerang heading directly for the centre of his forehead.

3) There are going to be Eruptions of the Bams. They are already marching up and down at NutNatScotland egging each other on about "powers of assumption" and "unilateral declarations" of this and that. This is bound to spread into the new intake of MSPs.

It's actually even better than that - the high-ups are already getting infected by the Bam virus as well. Witness Salmond himself going off on one over the Times report that Dominic Grieve had asked if he could take any action about the Herald's blowing of the Giggs superinjuction (when he clearly had not read the story), or the Supreme Court's intervention in the Nat Fraser case (handed down by a Scottish judge according to Scottish law). This is going to be entertaining.

4) It is going to become rapidly clear that this new Nat administration has no clue about what it is actually going to do. In terms of legislation, we have minimum alcohol pricing, anti-sectarianism and, er, that's about it. They've already said any resurrected LIT proposal won't be effective until 2016.

Oh, they're going to be "demanding" lots of extra stuff in the Scotland Act. But again, most of that isn't due to become effective until 2015-16 either. So even if Cameron says "yes", not much will happen for years. (And I suspect he won't be saying "yes", more like "Interesting - can you come back with detailed drafts for legislation, regulations, impact assessment and implementation plans. Meanwhile we'll put the Act on hold - can't waste Parliament's time, can we?")

We know they're going to be trying to con us all into a referendum "yes" vote. But, er, they've been doing that for 4 years already. We've had the CyberNat Chatroom, policy papers on this, that and the other, and at least two pre-referendum White Papers with two different versions of a referendum question. All of these documents have been total, mendacious, deceptive garbage, some of which I have deconstructed here. What new lies do they have to try on us?

But the referendum has to happen now - there is no way they can run away from it this time. So we are going to see the delicious spectacle of the Duke of Pork and his 10,000 men marching up to the top of the hill and then throwing themselves off a cliff, in the form of a referendum they are bound to lose.

Grab a snack and a drink, and enjoy the show.

Appalled

Hacker: "Humphrey, I'm appalled."

Sir Humphrey: "You're appalled? I'm appalled."

Bernard: "I'm appalled, too."

Hacker: "There's no doubt about it: it's appalling."

It's obvious why. The old Clinton-Haughey maxim that you CAN successfully lie to an electorate if you do it in a chirpy, cheery, jocular way, looks like it may get another confirmation.

Still, let's see, shall we?

The effort I put into filling in all those postal votes might pay off.

The Nats - more renewable obsession and more lies

So, the new Pack of Lies (er, "manifesto") is with us.

I feel my hostility and derision is fully justified, given what we experienced last time - remember what happened with "Scottish Futures Bonds", LIT, class sizes, abolishing student debt, and so on, on and on?

I'm left wondering how anyone can trust a single word of anything they say this time round. For the moment I'm going to leave the detail for those more expert; I'll just say that in general, given the background of fiscal retrenchment and cuts, a party coming along promising to freeze council tax but keep loads of things "free" - prescriptions, universities, you name it - lacks a certain degree of credibility.

The best example is their "Scottish Futures Fund" - to be funded by, wait for it, "savings" from the new Forth Bridge.

Which hasn't been built yet.

And of course, large engineering projects are FAMOUS for coming in under budget. Um, aren't they?

In any case, for now I'm going to focus on one particularly ludicrous Nat / Salmond "pledge" - the one about Scotland getting 100% of its electricity from renewables by 2020. Conveniently, this lets me finish off the planned pair of posts I started back in January. Huzzah!

So, what did he say back on the 15th?

"The First Minister said Scotland could, by 2020, produce twice the electricity it required for domestic use..."

"Mr Salmond envisages wave and tidal power, which now produce 2.35 megawatts of power, would produce 800 MW by 2020. He also said he expected Scotland to be producing 12,000 MW of wind power by 2020, up from 2,575 MW at present."

Firstly, why on earth does he think that producing and exporting lots of renewable power is a Good Thing? As my first post was meant to - and did - draw out, there are no taxes on power exports. So no government revenues. And since the gadgets aren't made here, so there's not much employment gain either. And the nature of renewables is that they don't need many people to run or maintain them either.

Furthermore, all these technologies are uneconomic and only proceeding because they are getting massive subsidies from the consumer. So any notion of being able to tax exports at some point in the future is also far-fetched - the things have to get to the point of being subsidy-free first!

(The thought also occurs that 90% of the subsidies for Scottish renewables come from consumers in England & Wales. Would this continue, post-"independence"?)

Second, let me give credit where credit is due. Salmond's numbers may be utter tosh, but they are internally consistent tosh. If you run the numbers, assuming 12.8 GW of wind and marine power, roughly flat demand in Scotland and factor in the closures of Hunterston (nuclear) and Cockenzie (coal), then in 2020 Scotland could indeed be exporting as much power as it consumed internally.

Which could, possibly, allow a claim that the country was 100% renewable-powered, with all the nasty nuclear, coal- and gas-fired power being exported. (There's a slight problem there - how would generators in an "independent" Scotland continue to receive subsidy payments from conusmers in England & Wales, if their government was claiming that all the exports were actually the nasty, dirty sort?)

But the operative words here are "assuming 12.8 GW of wind and marine power". We shall return to this.

I see today that the Nats, clearly spooked by the sceptical reaction to El Presidente's ravings, have released a paper intended to back up his position. It's full of suspiciously precise numbers.

The problems aren't too hard to find:

1) no attribution of the numbers to any source

2) they obscure and lie about the current situation for renewables - claiming that "consented" projects equates to projects "about to be built". Oh yes, every major energy project with "consent" always gets built. No, they don't.

3) it is somewhat curious that the Fat Minister was talking about 13.8 GW of renewables on April 15th, while a week later the "supporting" paper is talking 14 GW of wind & marine plus another 0.5 GW of biomass and stuff. Oh dear, are these numbers being made up on the hoof?

But let's cut to the chase. Here is why these "visions" are total, vapid, mendacious nonsense:

The chart shows the actual rate of wind capacity build - readily available from renewableUK. The highest ever rate of completion of wind capacity in Scotland was 536 MW, in 2009. The average annual rate is 310 MW.

In order to hit Salmond's "visionary" "target", the rate of completion would have to go up to almost 1000 MW per year, every year, from now until 2020.

Including 2011. Which we're now almost one-third of the way through, and so far the grand total of completions is...

...er...


15 MW.


And as for the money? Well, wind farms cost roughly a billion pounds per GW. So this extra 10 GW of wind capacity means roughly £10bn being borrowed from some banks, somewhere. Has anyone noticed that banks are bit less ready to lend than they used to be?

The wind farms are only half of the story. The existing transmission lines to England are full - so plans call for a whole lot of reinforcement, including subsea cables down both the east and west coasts, plus new onshore lines in the far north. Pylons.

No construction of any of these projects has begun. The total costs of all the new lines comes to around £4bn. Anyone think they're going to happen on time?

My conclusion is simple. Salmond has form from 2007 on lying about a lot of things, from SFT to LIT to reducing class sizes.

He is lying again. He thinks that he has found a big, popular, compelling image (although why it should be compelling baffles me, since it costs us all money), and he's telling the big lie again.

Scotland - why should you re-elect a proven, compulsive liar?

Nat lies on LIT - CONFIRMED

Ooof, that was a bit of a break in posting.

There I was in the middle of a planned 2-part post, and suddenly it's nearly 3 months later. This new job does that to you.

What has brought me back?

(a) the Easter holiday

(b) the fact that the estimable and formidable Alan Cochrane and his cohorts at the Daily Telegraph have been able to break and confirm one of the best anti-SNP stories for ages.

They've got hold of the document about LIT (Local Income Tax), the release of which the Fat Minister has been spending so much public money trying to block. For some reason, the online edition of the Tele doesn't have an image of the document; never mind, here it is:

This goes back to the Nats' proposal for LIT at the 2007 election. It turns out that after they got into office, the official Chief Economic Adviser told them that their policy was incoherent and unaffordable; the promised 3% rate of LIT would leave a shortfall (compared to the existing Council Tax) of around £400m, even if the Treasury could be persuaded to transfer Council Tax Benefit (claimed by and paid to individuals, on the basis of need) to the Holyrood budget. (The basis for this was, of course, never explained.)

This just goes to prove what some of us have always thought - the Nats' 2007 manifesto was never meant to be implemented. They didn't expect to win, so thought they could just bluff, bluster and lie, thinking they would never have to deliver on the big promises.

The big question for 2011, of course, is whether they are now any different.

If they lied in 2007, what are they lying about now?

Salmond's obsession with "electricity exports"

I see that His Immensity the Fat Minister delivered another Xmas message to his grateful nation in the pages of the Hootsmon on Sunday.

Once again, he wibbled on about renewables and electricity exports as the next Great Big Thing for the Scottish economy. It's clear from this, and other sources, that he regards the prospect of an "independent" Scotland becoming a "green energy exporter" as something very important, in many ways a replacement for dwindling oil.

What I am going to do is look at the realism of this quite slowly and carefully.

First, let's consider the present and historical position. Here's some official data:

Scotland is already a significant exporter of 'leccy. Over the 10 years to 2009, on average 18% (just under 9 TWh) of electricity generated in Scotland was exported, mostly to England but some to NI. In fact Scotland was also a net exporter over the previous 10 years, ever since electricity privatisation in 1990. (It was not an exporter prior to this. Go on, ask me why.)

Now this is clearly good business for the electricity generators in Scotland: Scottish Power (Spanish-owned), British Energy (French-owned), and Scottish & Southern (HQ in Perth, listed in London, most of their business in England & Wales). So it's good for you too if you are an employee and/or shareholder in these concerns. (I need to labour this point because they are a few Nats out there who seem to think that all these power exports happen for free. No idea why.)

Aside from that, what good is it for the rest of us?

I'd like to ask any passing enthusiasts for electricity exports - as Salmond seems to be - the following:

• How do you view the fact that Scotland has been a net exporter of electricity for the last 20 years? Do you see it as some sort of indicator of success?

• What benefit does Scotland in general get from the fact that private companies based here have been exporting electricity?
  

Salmond's "Blood and Bone" Nationalism - an apology

My last post reflected my utter shock and horror at Salmond's use of "Blood and Bone" language to describe Scottish Nationalism.

In my dismay, I thought that this reminded me of the "Blood and Soil" language used by the first Chancellor of the unified German Reich, Otto von Bismarck.

I now realise I am guilty of misquotation and misrepresentation.

Of Bismarck, that is.

The phrase of his I had been misremembering was "blood and iron". Turns out that it was actually "iron and blood", and was simply an 1862 forecast that German unification would require military action to overcome the opposition of its neighbours, not just political resolutions.

No, the "Blood and Soil" phrase got its 20th Century popularisation by Nazi ideologue SS-Oberfgrueppenfuehrer Richard Walther Darre, one of Hitler's cronies.

Now, do I resile from anything I said earlier? No, absolutely not.

“There is no country on earth that we have more family connections with than Northern Ireland,” said Salmond. “They are the blood of our blood, bone of our bone."

As I said earlier at Unionist Lite, this is a classic Nick Ridley moment. A politician relaxes in an interview and gives away a lot more than they really meant to: an insight into their subconscious thoughts.

So, Salmond really thinks that the relationship between "we" Scots and "they" Northern Irish is defined by "blood and bone". This is only possible, of course, if both "we" Scots and "they" Northen Irish are also defined as groups by "blood and bone".

Deep down in his psyche, he is an ethno-nationalist. He may have constructed a rationalist, civic-nationalist superstructure on top of that, but that is the way he thinks and feels in his core.

Yikes. Nasty.

[Edit:

I know he claims in his next sentence "I would have done the same for anyone."

First, too late: he's already let us see how he thinks. Second, I frankly don't believe him. There is absolutely no way he would have used the same language about any part of England. (Oh, I can see him offering to sell some water to one of their water companies, if it had hit trouble...)

I am also aware that he is paraphrasing a poem by Alexander Gray. This makes no difference: the original can indeed be seen as an expression of "civic nationalism", solidarity between all those working in a country, while Salmond's version has been changed in meaning and context to refer to the "family ties" between two "peoples".]

(Now I could go on about the other point - Salmond evidently thinking that it's right and proper for him to treat state-owned companies as playthings which he can tell to do whatever he likes. And the fact that Scottish Water habitually sits on "an emergency stock of 380,000 litres of bottled water, with 500,000 litres on stand-by from suppliers" - this isn't actually their water from their reservoirs, mind, it is bought from privately owned bottling companies. And people keep claiming that SW is tightly run and doesn't have any featherbedding which could be exposed by privatisation... Never mind, another time.)

The mask slips - SNP "civic nationalism" shown to be a lie

I Knew It. I Told You So.

The SNP posture and pretend to be "civic nationalists", blind to race and origin, and also to be business-friendly centrists.

All this shown to be a lie by the Fat Minister's recent explanation of his decision to donate bottled water to Northern Ireland - something which should have been good-hearted and charitable, but which is now shown to be driven by base, repellent motives and a desire for political grandstanding.

From his interview in the Weegie:

“There is no country on earth that we have more family connections with than Northern Ireland,” said Salmond. “They are the blood of our blood, bone of our bone. "

Right, so all of your crap about "civic nationalism" is just that, is it? You're only interested in helping people if they have the same "blood and bone" as "us".

Can I introduce you to Herr von Bismarck?


“These are things we can do because Scottish Water is a public company,” he added. “I can make the decision to send water anywhere and at any time to help our neighbours. A private company would ask: what are we contracted to do? A public company asks what the right thing to do is."

Translation: because Scottish Water is state-owned, I can interfere with its commercial decisions and make it do things which are uneconomic, against the interests of the taxpayers who own it but which allow me to make grandstanding political points. If it were privatised, I couldn't do that.

As I have known and said all along, Salmond is a lying, hypocritical, principle-free shyster who is dangerous to the nation and needs to be ejected from office as soon as possible.

I don't hate him and his lackeys; I merely despise them!

A few days ago I asked in the "Hootsmon" comments pages whether the Nats would have been so keen to send free bottled water to, say, Northumbrian Water plc.

I guess we now know the answer, don't we?

From the past, confidence for the future

I just finished working my way through a hefty set of volumes: Churchill's History of the English-Speaking Peoples.

I read the Steele Commager one-volume abridgement a few years ago; I thought it was OK, but very much biased towards stuff of interest to a US audience. Also, I hadn't really grasped just how much got omitted when it was cut down from four volumes to one.

I also read Andrew Roberts' attempt at continuing the Churchill narrative beyond 1900. I'm afraid I can't recommend this very much. Roberts puzzles me: he is supposedly a doyen of modern right-of-centre history and he did some fantastic original source work for his Masters and Commanders - finding the unpublished (and supposedly destroyed) verbatim War Cabinet minutes from WW2.

However, it is evident from Masters and Commanders that whenever he gets into the military and technical detail of the subject, he commits enormous howlers. I have declined to buy his A Storm of War because all the reviews I've seen say that book is even worse. And there are all sorts of problems in his English-Speaking Peoples: a weak and contorted attempt at explaining the underlying thesis, apparently random choice of topics, repetition - sometimes the thing feels like it was written on a number of plane or train journeys, and no-one's bothered to edit it together.

That said, on reading it I did learn a few things about Australian, Canadian and New Zealand history which I didn't know. However I'm left wondering if the context of this stuff is remotely accurate!

But now I've got round to reading the whole of WSC's opus in full. Found it in a local charity bookshop. (Sadly, my set isn't quite in the condition of the one pictured, and isn't signed. Otherwise it would be worth a substantial sum.)

Now I am fully aware that as a historian, Winnie comes with a few health warnings. Factual accuracy is not always guaranteed, especially when he's dealing with his own actions, his father (Lord Randolph Churchill) or his hero-ancestor John Churchill, 1st Duke of Marlborough.

But the old boy could certainly write. Orotund phrases combined with sharp insight - it's a winning combination.

One thing shone out clearly for me: the fact that this United Kingdom of ours has been down, out and on its uppers quite a few times in the past 300 years, and it has always bounced back.

So there's no reason not to expect that we will do so again. In fact on the basic demographic trends, the UK is forecast to become the most populous EU Member State in the not-too-distant future (unless, of course, Turkey is ever let in). That also means a much more healthy age structure and a better foundation for a growing economy.

It's always been worthwhile being British, and despite everything, it looks like it always will be.

Defence Review and Carriers, II

Further thoughts on the Review. There has been much media whoopin'-an'-hollerin' over the retiral of the Harrier force and HMS Ark Royal, and the supposition that we are now building new aircraft carriers for which we will have no (fixed-wing) aircraft.

I do think some of the initial MOD announcements were cack-handedly worded, since quite a few normally reliable commentators were confused. However, they could and should have gone to the Liam Fox's Commons statement:

"The House and the country must understand that any decisions regarding the carriers must be taken in the context of their extended service life of 50 years. The final captain of a Queen Elizabeth carrier has not even been born yet. When they go out of service, I will be 109 years old and the shadow Defence Secretary a sprightly 103. We are taking decisions now on what will be best for us as a country in the middle of the century. That is why we have taken three decisions. First, we have decided to take a capability gap in carrier strike, because we assess that the risk of not having access to basing and overflight for our fast jet force in the next decade is low. However, the same cannot be said looking further ahead.

Secondly, we have decided to install catapult and arrester gear, which will allow greater interoperability, particularly with US and French carriers and jets, and maximise the through-life utility of our carrier strike capability. Thirdly, we have decided to acquire the carrier variant of the joint strike fighter. Adding the "cats and traps" will allow us to use the carrier variant of the JSF, which has a bigger payload and a longer range than the STOVL variant planned by the previous Government. Overall, the carrier variant will be significantly cheaper, reducing the through-life cost compared with the STOVL version.

Contrary to popular belief, there will not be a new Queen Elizabeth class carrier in service without the planes to go on it, apart from in the period required by law for us to have the carrier properly crewed up and ready to accept the planes. The idea I have come across in some parts of the media-that we can get brand-new carriers and the brand-new planes to fly off them almost on the same day-simply defies the complexity of the operation involved.

When the carrier enters service towards the end of the decade, the JSF will be ready to embark on it. Yes, there will be a delay to the programme as a consequence of the decisions I have mentioned, but unlike the previous Government's delay to the carrier programme in 2008, which added £1.6 billion to the overall cost-more than the whole Foreign and Commonwealth Office budget next year-and gave us nothing in return, our delay will give us a carrier that is best configured for the next 50 years."

As I had hoped and predicted, "Dr Foxy" is shaping up to be a very good SecDef who know both his onions and his history - the points he made are absolutely correct.

In fact, going further back in history, one of the things to remember is that Britain and the RN have been in this place before and got through it quite successfully.

Just after WW2, the economy was in ruins and the currency in the toilet. The RN had more hulls in the water and on the slipways than it could possibly hope to run, or even man.

This was especially true of the carrier force. The roughly 60 escort and merchant carriers were not a real problem, since they could be sent back to the US or converted back to merchant duty. But the RN had 6 Illustrious-class fleet carriers and 6 Colossus-class light fleets in commission, plus another 14 light fleets and 2 large fleet carriers (Eagle and Ark Royal) fitting out or on the stocks.

Apart from the financial problems, this was a time of tremendous technical change: the jet was replacing the prop, and aircraft were becoming much bigger, faster and heavier. It was clear that all the ships in existence and under construction would need expensive and extensive modification to be able to operate the new aircraft; it was uncertain exactly what those modifications would be.

So, everything was slowed down. Some ships were given limited updates to operate the immediate postwar generation of aircraft; others were left half-finished in the shipyards until it became clear what would be needed for the longer term. Ark Royal was laid down in 1943, launched in 1950 and only completed in 1955; Hermes laid down in 1944, launched in 1953 and completed in 1959.

(The picture shows the scene at Harland & Wolff in 1948 - with HMSs Bulwark and Centaur laid up incomplete, and HMS Eagle fitting out in the background.)

The parallels with the current situation of our new carriers - Queen Elizabeth and Prince of Wales - are striking and obvious.

We have new hulls on the way.

We have a financial crisis.

We have technological uncertainty over the aircraft which will fly from these ships - we had previously settled on the "B" version of the F-35 Lightning, which can do "short take-off and vertical landing" (STOVL) like the Harrier, but this is having a troubled birth - costs are going up and it may never actually happen.

With less money to play with, we may never be able to afford to fill our new carriers with the 36 F-35Bs they were designed to accommodate. The new decision to move to the F-35C - the "catapult and arrestor" version which will be used by the US Navy - therefore looks wise. It will have greater range and payload and be cheaper. And it means we can plan (at least initially) on buying fewer of them - 12 per ship is the number currently outlined.

Since the ships are to be modified from "ski-jump" to "catapult and arrestor" configuration, they will be capable of operating the aircraft used by other folks: crucially, US and French F-35s, F-18s, E-2s and Rafales. So in a future joint operation, we would be able to fill up the spare capacity on our carriers with their aircraft.

Also, it looks very likely that the carriers will find themselves doing double duty, also filling the Amphibious Helicopter Carrier role currently performed by HMS Ocean - with fewer F-35s, there will be lots of room for "jungly" Chinooks, Merlins and Apaches. Ideally you wouldn't want to combine the roles, but needs must and so on.

The saga also illustrates the wisdom of some of the decisions taken by the last government and lobbied for by the Navy. The ships were designed and are being built BIG, because "steel is cheap and air is free", and the size allows the flexibility to multi-role and adapt. Although the original decision was to go for F-35B and STOVL, the capability to convert to F-35C and "cat and trap" was deliberately built in from the beginning - a very wise decision, and another by-product of the choice of a decent-sized hull.

So what of the future? I'm optimistic. We are going ahead and building both of the things, which is fantastic. The current doom-and-gloom about "carriers without planes" and mothballing/selling one hull is overblown. The first ship will be ready more or less when the first planes are, and as the economy recovers there will be cash to keep both ships (only one normally operating at a time, but that's what we do now) and to buy more airframes for them.

And the UK will have an incredibly flexible and powerful defence, intervention, disaster relief and deterrence asset which only a handful of other countries will possess.

Britain will bounce back. We always do; that will be the subject of the next post.

Oh yes - the Defence Review

It really is very inconsiderate of HMG to make announcements about things I'm interested in when I'm off on hols. The Strategic Defence & Security Review (SDSR) is clearly a big deal, and one with potentially large implications for the future.

My first reaction was one of relief - there is considerable pain in there, but things could have been much, much, worse. Liam "Dr Foxy" deserves a lot of credit for softening the blow, and if things pan out he may end up being seen as a truly great Defence Secretary - taking some calculated risks and capability gaps because the finances make them unavoidable, but retaining the ability to regenerate capabilities if and when needed and the money allows. But there's a lot of uncertainty.

I actually found a better summary than anything I could write here.

This is from someone whom I have "known" over the net for a few years - both MOD and RNR:

"I’ve been travelling back to HERRICK from R&R over the past few days, so managed to miss the SDSR announcements and initial reactions. However, one comment from a mate of mine at KAF seemed to perhaps sum up a point of view not widely appreciated – when asked how it had gone, his reaction was ‘dig beneath the surface reactions, and it’s not as bad as it seemed, or could have been’.

I think this is an interesting take, so wanted to try and put into words my thinking about how despite the desperate hyperbole out there (yes, I’m looking at you pro CVF brigade!), the actual result isn’t actually as bad as its made out to be.

From my perspective the SDSR seems to be tackling the problem of a huge overspend, dire economic position and much needed update on the UKS strategic direction in one go. This is never a good starting point for a review, as its never clear how much of the end result is actually ‘strategic’ and not ‘budget’ driven. That said, the National Security Strategy (NSS) makes a pretty good stab at setting out the threats that we face, and putting the UKs key weakness areas on display. Any discussion of the end result of SDSR force levels has to be set against the realities of the NSS issues – decrying the UK for losing its sovereign ability to kick the door in, is pointless if the NSS quite rightly recognises that we’re not really doing that anymore.

My assessment then is that if you look at the force levels and the decisions taken to remove elements from service in 2 contexts, some of it isn’t actually that bad. Firstly, lets consider force structures against NSS mandated threats to the UK. Secondly, lets consider the force structure of 2020 as being the point at which the UK is able to operate again – we’re clear that HERRICK ends in 2014/15, and its equally clear that the recuperation, force regeneration and retraining to ‘peacetime’ capability is going to take 4-5 years. In other words, when we talk of a 10 year plan, it makes a lot of sense – HM Forces will not have the physical ability to do much beyond HERRICK anyway until 2015, and then we will be so broken, and the political appetite for intervention will be so weak, that its unlikely that we’ll see any significant ‘imperial adventures’ until this point at the earliest. So in those circumstances, the ‘big 4’ threats (namely Terrorism, Disasters, Cyber, Alliance Warfare) make a compelling argument for future priorities.

One thing that I was most struck by was the lack of emphasis on our wider multi-lateral commitments outside of ISAF. I didn’t spot a single reference to the FPDA for instance. It is clear that the ‘East of Suez’ Mentality which has permeated thinking for years is being de-emphasised in favour of a more ‘hands off’ approach. It will be interesting to see how this sits with our allies in the far east.

Labour would have done the same - This is a key point we need to get about the SDSR. None of the options on display seemed new or innovative. I have no doubt at all that had a labour government done this SDSR, then we’d have seen almost identical results – for all the talk of it being a strategic review, it doesn’t seem to have generated any new or exciting options for the MOD.

CVS & The Escort Fleet
The most significant arguments seem to revolve around the RN and its decision to go to 19 escorts and lose a carrier. To my mind, this hyperbole is somewhat overblown - the RN has always been clear that we would lose the 3 Invincibles in 10,12,15 respectively, and the GR9 OSD was always aligned to coincide with that. Even if the decision not to lose GR9 had been taken, we’d have faced a ‘carrier gap’ in 2014 anyway as the Royal approached OSD. This decision is merely bringing forward the same gap as before.
What impact does losing GR9 actually have on the RN – well its hard to tell. On the one hand there is the natural loss of pride that comes from losing fixed wing aviation. However, as a hard headed realist would note, the RN has been out of the fixed wing carrier business since FA2 went OSD. Since that point we’ve only seen occasional deployments by CVS with a GR9 airwing embarked, usually a maximum of 6 aircraft. In other words, since 2004, the RN has been unable to deploy more than 6 planes to sea anyway, and to all intents and purposes was a non fixed wing deploying nation anyway from 2006 – 2009 when the GR9 was in HERRICK. In other words, we’ve not actually really had a carrier fixed wing capability now for nearly half a decade – we’ve done the odd short deployment, but to all intents and purposes, the RN has been out of the fixed wing game for some time now.

So, while some of the posters here bemoan the loss of CVS as some kind of mortal death blow to the RN, I’m far more sanguine about it. Ultimately GR9 provided us with the ability to put a tiny number of airframes to sea, which when set against the context that the UK isn’t planning on using carrier borne airpower for strike purposes anyway for the next 10 years, makes little sense to retain the GR9 capability beyond seedcorn capability for the CVF.

Now when we talk about regeneration of skills, this is where I do worry – its going to be several years before the RN gets to do fixed wing flying again, and in this time many pilots will leave. I really hope that a clever plan is in place to ensure that we get retain the skills required for CVF, otherwise we’re going to look pretty bloody stupid having a carrier with no planes. This is my big worry – I cant think of a single navy that has ever successfully regenerated carrier capability after such a long gap, so I’d like to know how the RN is going to manage it.

As for the escort fleet, well to be honest I’m fairly relaxed about the cut to 19 hulls. To all intents and purposes the RN has been operating with 19 hulls for years – dig beneath the fleet stats and you’ll see that the residual 42s are barely floating and not deployable. To all intents, the RN has managed to meet its commitments with a lot less than 23 hulls for some time now.

The SDSR seems to make clear that we’ll continue doing the 3 traditional tasks (UK home waters, West Indies and South Atlantic) and then do East of Suez and Piracy as available. To my reckoning a fleet of 19 escorts will give us about 15 available and in the programming cycle at any one time – so 4 deployed, 1 in home waters as FRE, and then 10 spare for work up / work down / surge capacity. Its tight, but not much more so than recent years.

Amphibiosity - The cuts to the Amphib fleet look bad on the face of it, with the loss of an LPD and LSD(A). However, having dug about a bit, it seems we’re looking to retain the ability to dump roughly 2000 troops on hostile soil and recover them. This is a reduction in previous planning assumptions, but one that does make quite a bit of sense – we’ve not had the ability to do a proper amphibious assault for some years now – the RM commitment to HERRICK means our amphib forces have only really worked at roughly 2000 boots ashore now for a few years. Additionally looking back to the strategic context, 2000 troops is a figure commensurate with the much vaunted ‘SSFI’ (Small Scale Focused Intervention) capability, enabling us to put people ashore for a short raid, or recovery of UK persons. Given that we’ve said we’re not seeking to carry out a wider operation till at least 2020, and given that sticking 4-6000 troops ashore (which seems roughly previous levels) is not so much a raid, but a statement of intent to take out a lease on the local property market, then the reduction to the amphib fleet makes strategic sense.

SSN Fleet - Delighted to see that there is a commitment to 7 Astutes – this seems to make sense now that Trident is delayed as it will provide a drumbeat capability for the Barrow yard. My key concern though is what force levels do in the build up to 7 hulls – will we see a dip to 6, or even 5, in the next few years as the older T boats pay off? My concern is that although we aspire to 7, we may end up with a significantly smaller SSN fleet for a prolonged period.

The Strange Death of the Fleet Air Arm - To my mind, one of the most disturbing aspects of the SDSR process has been the way in which the FAA has lost both the fixed wing and commando helicopter force. One of the little noticed paragraphs is that the SK fleet will pay off in 2016, but there appears to be mass confusion over the Merlin. At present it looks like the Merlin Mk 3 will not be transferring from the RAF to the RN, and that the RAF has become the new provider of the CHF. At a stroke the RN has lost its littoral capability, and a 10 year capability gap on the fixed wing community. At the moment its looking increasingly difficult for the RN to justify the continued existence of the FAA – no FW pilots, no CHF assets, merely 30 odd Merlin and 30 odd Lynx. How much longer till the RAF moves to absorb the FAA into its ORBAT?

No news on MARS - One of my main concerns is the complete blackout with regards to the MARS tanker project. This is essential to the future of the RN if we are to remain a blue water navy. We need 5-6 tankers soon as our current ones are rapidly running out of life, so the lack of news on them is a major concern. The RFA is in a dire state for its tankers and replenishment ships, yet all funds seem to have been diverted to feed the hungry behemoth that is CVF – I think this is a major mistake.

MPA Woes - The decision that I am most concerned about is without doubt the removal of the Nimrod from service. While I can see the logic in not proceeding (9 airframes = 3 deployable ones), and accept that the project was doomed from the moment we dropped below 10 airframes, it is still madness that we will be running an SSBN operation without fast on call ASW capability. This is going to place a much heavier burden on the extant ASW forces – could we see a new Merlin det up in Prestwick again to help with the ‘delousing’ process in future?

My expectation is that we’ll see UK coastguard eventually acquire some form of cheap MPA, but that the UK has taken a major capability hit in this area. Of all the decisions in the SDSR, this is the one I disagree with the most. "

But as for the wisdom of the Nimrod cancellation, here's something from someone on the same thread who is a British-born, but now American defence analyst and consultant:

"There's two terrifying words that sum up the problem. Systems integration. That and the fact that every airframe is different and things that fit in one don't in others. There's a lot of other things as well but everybody is keeping very quiet about them. The upshoot of it all is though that Nimrod MRA.4 is about as much an LRMPA as Noddy's tricycle. "

And that is just about that.

[For those who don't know already, here's a potted account of why the Nimrod MRA.4 project has been such a disaster.

Back in the early 1990s, it was decided (correctly) that the existing force of Nimrod MR.2s needed upgrading or replacing. Various options were considered, including buying new US-built replacements or even entirely new-built Nimrods. But the option chosen was an almost total rebuild of the existing aircraft - they would be given new wings, engines, tailplane, fuselage pressure floor, and internal kit. The only original item left would be the fuselage pressure tube itself.

BAE got going with the prototype. The laser micrometers and computers got to work recording the dimensions of the original parts. The replacements were made using CAD/CAM machines to the same specs. They fitted perfectly.

BAE turned to the second airframe. They churned out a second set of new components to the same spec as the first. They were brought together with the second airframe.

Klunk, crunch, screech.

Nothing fitted.

The horrible truth dawned - the original Nimrod airframes had been built in the 60s - a time when "precision manufacturing" meant "build it roughly to spec and then use a hammer to get everything to fit".

On top of which, 30+ years of maintenance and customisation by RAF lineys meant each aircraft had a unique set of drill-holes, conduits and so on.

So, inevitably, the original idea of 21 generic rebuilds fell to 12 customised ones, and then 9, and then cancellation.

Some may be tempted to laugh at this as a uniquely UK problem. It isn't.

Look up the disasters the French have had with their carrier Charles de Gaulle and the Rafale aircraft, or the American procurement catastrophes with the A-12, LCS and Zumwalt-class destroyers.]

NY-LON and other thoughts about cities

I am just back from a week's vacation in New York.

This was my first visit; I've been to lots of other bits of the US (24 states plus DC, I think) but never to the Big Wahoonie itself. (Hat-tip to Sir Terry.)

One of those debates which gets kicked around is which city can claim to be the most cosmopolitan or global, with New York and London usually being the two candidates for the title.

Now, we had a great time, and clearly NY has all sorts of wow! and glitz factors. But after a few days I still found myself thinking "Naah, I prefer London," and then I wondered why.

I felt there was something both empty and ephemeral about New York, in comparison to London. London has been there for 2000 years or so, and has been about being and making history, as well as making money. NY has only been in existence for 400 years, and the making and spending of money is basically all it has done.

This seemed a bit trite and harsh, so I thought a bit more.

For one thing, there is the curious American habit of separating their political centres from their commercial ones. Most of the political symbology and mythologising about America's purpose and contribution to the world - they would say "freedom" and they're not far wrong, although both ourselves and the French would have the right to snort a bit at that - is concentrated in DC, and magnificently done it is too.

But it leaves the "normal" places like NY, Chicago and so on sort of standing as symbols of nothing but themselves.

Thinking about it a bit more, though, this isn't such a bad thing. NY's status as a place where people have been able to come from all over the world and make something of themselves is no bad thing to symbolise (although,, of course, it was a lot easier to do that if you weren't black or Chinese, until fairly recently). And if you go back to the 70s, it looked then as if NY might not even survive, given the riots, chaos and general deindustrialisation that was going on. So simply standing as a monument to itself is no bad thing.

The further thought occurs that it's actually given to very few cities to stand as symbols of anything more than places where lots of people happen to live and work. London is one of the few.

Ed Miliband - separated at birth

No, not from David.

Gromit

Ed Miliband

Uncanny, no?

Uplifting thoughts

Blogging has clearly been light recently. The new occupation is fun, exciting and rewarding, but time- and energy-consuming. (No, I'm not going to say what it is. Some people would start hyperventilating. And with Scotland being such a small place, I'm not dropping any more hints about my real identity.)

Anyway, I just came across these uplifting thoughts in my reading:

"It is to the Union we owe our safety at home, and our consideration and dignity abroad. It is to that Union that we are chiefly indebted for whatever makes us most proud of our country. That Union we reached only by the discipline of our virtues in the severe school of adversity. It had its origin in the necessities of disordered finance, prostrate commerce, and ruined credit. Under its benign influences these great interests immediately awoke, as from the dead, and sprang forth with newness of life. Every year of its duration has teemed with fresh proofs of its utility and its blessings; it has been to us all a copious foundation of national , social and personal happiness.

"I have not allowed myself, Sir, to look beyond the Union, to see what might lie hidden in the dark recess behind. I have not coolly weighed the chances of preserving liberty when the bonds that unite us together shall be broken asunder. I have not accustomed myself to hang over the precipice of disunion to see whether, with my short sight, I can fathom the depth of the abyss below; nor could I regard him as a safe counsellor in the affairs of this Government, whose thoughts should be mainly bent on considering, not how the Union may be best preserved, but how tolerable might be the condition of the people when it should be broken up and destroyed.

While the Union lasts we have high, exciting, gratifying prospects spread out before us, for us and our children. Beyond that I seek not to penetrate the veil. God grant that in my day at lest that curtain may not rise! God grant that on my vision never may be opened what lies behind!

When my eyes shall be turned to behold for the last time the sun in heaven, may I not see him shining on the broken and dishonoured fragments of a once glorious Union; on states dissevered, discordant, belligerent; on a land rent with civil feuds, or drenched, it may be, in fraternal blood!

Let their last feeble and lingering glance rather behold the gorgeous ensign of the Kingdom, now known and honoured throughout the earth, still full high advanced, its arms and trophies streaming in their original lustre, not a cross erased, polluted or obscured, bearing for its motto no such miserable interrogatory as 'What is all this worth?' nor those other words of delusion and folly, 'Liberty from the Union,' but everywhere, spread all over in characters of living light, blazing on all its ample folds, as they float over the sea and over the land, and in every wind under the whole heavens, that other sentiment, dear to every true British heart - Liberty and Union, now and for ever, one and inseparable!"

I've changed a couple of words, but it pretty well sums things up, doesn't it?

A hearty round of applause for naming the original speaker.

Conflict of loyalty?

An intriguing thing arrived in the post this weekend - my first proper Trade Union membership pack.

For the first time in my life I am now "part of the Union" ('til the day I die, etc etc.) (Actually, I think I was technically an AUEW member for about two weeks in around 1989-90, the result of a summer job in a factory which was a closed shop. But that doesn't really count.)

Anyway, I've tucked the membership card in my wallet right next to my Scottish Conservative & Unionist card.

No signs yet of spontaneous combustion or adverse chain reactions, but I'm watching.

Costs of "independence" II - Defence

In my wanderings I came across an interesting set of numbers, and I felt like writing something.

And then, lo! and behold, Christine "Dingbat" Grahame started one of her bonkers fulminations about how terrible it is for the Services to recruit in poorer areas, so I'm even topical!

We all know the Nats face in all directions and none on Defence. Salmond moans about the "folly" of spending "£100bn" on Trident replacement. (That's a Greenpeace number, BTW, and so hardly reliable; also it would be spread over 30 years or so, so is total nonsense.) The Nat lefties like "Dingbat" clearly think Defence as a whole is unnecessary and would like to "do an Ireland", spend virtually nothing on it and free-ride on the UK and NATO.

Meanwhile, others in the party seem to think that that would be a) immoral, b) unwise and c) electoral suicide, and so promise to maintain Defence spending on "nice" conventional weaponry, which would keep bases like Faslane, Kinloss, Lossiemouth and Leuchars, as well as the shipyards at Govan and Rosyth, open.

The designated spokesman, Angus "Fat Head" Robertson, moans about an "underspend" of Defence money in Scotland. Well Angus, it is hardly possible for the MOD to spend money buying tanks, aircraft, helicopters and submarines in Scotland if there aren't any made here - basically what we do are ships and various components. And of course, "independence" would make no difference to any of this, since a "Scottish" MOD would still have to buy its tanks, aircraft, helicopters and submarines from the places where they are made.

But anyway, back to the data source which set me off.

This is the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) database of international defence budgets.

The UK seems to have the 4th largest defence budget in the world, at $58.3bn. [EDIT: since the time of writing, SIPRI have apparently changed this to $69.3bn.] At an 8.5% population share, this costs us in Scotland just under $5bn [EDIT: $5.9bn, on the new number.]. For which we get the services of a full-spectrum Gucci military: Trident, aircraft carriers, SSNs, assault ships, first-class fast jets, AWACS, long-range transport aircraft, attack and transport helicopters, proper tanks, UAVs and so on. Clearly everything isn't rosy in the defence garden (and some things are about to get worse as the cuts hit), but this is still a setup which is the envy of most countries in the world.

Now, let's do a comparison. Hmm, how about Norway, which is always being held up by Nats as our "natural" comparator?

They have exactly the sort of military which the "official" Nats tell us we should have. A handful of frigates, diesel subs and patrol boats, 50 fast jets and a handful of transports and maritime patrol aircraft, 50 tanks and associated other ground stuff adding up to one brigade. Penny-packet stuff, enough to make things difficult for any putative invader of Norway but nothing which can go anywhere in the world doing Necessary Things in Dangerous Places.

And no nukes, although as a member of NATO, Norway is fully signed up to nukes being brandished as a deterrent on its behalf by those members of NATO which do have them. This, of course, is another fundamental problem for the Nats, since even the "official" "pro-defence" line excludes NATO membership, because of those nasty buckets of instant sunshine.

So what does this cost the Norwegians? About $6.1bn, according to SIPRI.

Oops!

So the peaceable, non-nuclear Norwegians, with exactly the sort of defence set-up that the "official" Nats tell us we should have, actually pay a billion dollars a year more [$200m more, on the new figure] for it than we currently do?

Oh dear.

Maybe they get more local spending out of their budget, with less of the "underspend" that "Fat Head" keeps complaining about?

No, not really. The frigates are Spanish, the aircraft are American, the subs, tanks and other army bits & pieces are German.

Sure, they've been able to get some offset spending sent back to Norway, but that's largely because they've been part of the NATO procurement setup. "Independent" Scotland, apparently, wouldn't be.

So the conclusion is simple, and utterly unsurprising. As with the Foreign Office, as with the BBC, all "independence" would leave us with in Defence would be paying more for less. A less safe country, with an infinitesimal capability to contribute to global security.

More bucks, practically no bang.

Yet another cost of "independence".

Mandelson - to buy or not to buy?

So, the memoirs of the Dark Lord of Foy and Hartlepool are out tomorrow, following serialisation and a delightful TV ad campaign by the Times.

I'm tempted to buy. I'm a bit of a fan of political memoirs, albeit only the top-drawer ones which (necessarily) only come out after major changes of leadership or government. So I have on my shelves the memoirs of Lawson, Howe, Heseltine, Heath, Major and of course the Blessed Margaret, but I haven't bothered with any personal memoirs since. (I have picked up a few of Peter Hennessy's excellent books on the workings of government, e.g. The Prime Minister, The Secret State and Cabinets and the Bomb, along with Jim Naughtie's The Rivals).

But the demise of New Labour means that we have a bumper crop of memoirs to look forward to, starting with Mandelson's.

What holds me back is the thought of helping to enrich these folks still further. (BTW I haven't paid a penny so far as the only part of the serialisation I've seen was in a copy of the Times picked up for free in a lounge at LHR.)

I've already decided that Blair is so filthy rich that I'll wait until I can pick up his tome as a cheap paperback. Campbell is clearly trying to milk it - one volume of edited diaries, to be followed up by multiple volumes (one so far) of the unexpurgated version. Sod him, he can wait for any money from me until they're all out in one cheap paperback omnibus edition (and if that never happens, small loss - he was only one of the hired help, after all).

But Mandy's book put me in a bit of a dilemma. However, a bit of thought has led to a decision. All we've seen so far are the salacious bits about who said what to whom. We basically knew all this in outline already, we're just getting confirmation of the details (and I see Campbell is already challenging His Darkness' recollection of events). If this is all that's in the book, I'm not that interested and I'll wait for the paperback.

But if the reviews in the next couple of days show that there is more, I will be much more interested. Was there really a coherent vision that Blair, Brown and Mandelson were pursuing? What were the drivers for Mandelson to go into politics? What, personally, did he want to achieve, and how does he rate his actual achievements? How did his sexuality (and the accidental outing by Matthew Parris) impact things? What has he got to say about the events leading up to his two resignations / sackings?

If Mandelson's book offers some genuine insight into these sorts of questions, I'll happily buy it in hardback and read it over the hols. If not, I'll wait.

The Scottish Nationalist Quisling, revisited

A while (eek! more than year) ago I posted about the wartime travails of leading Nat Arthur Donaldson, who became SNP leader in the 1960s. Apparently he had been the subject of accusations (and MI5 / police investigations) that he had been talking about setting himself up as some kind of Scottish "Quisling", in the event of a Nazi invasion of the UK.

(This had been prompted by a post by the Grumpy Spindoctor, and led to a 2005 Sunday Times article.)

I said then that, when opportunity arose, I would have a look at the file in the Kew PRO and see what it said. I managed to do that last week, while there having a look at some of the naval stuff I normally go there to research.

So, here is a transcript of one of the key documents in HO 45/23801:

"Edinburgh City Police CID – 8 Jan 1941

SNP

I beg to report that our contact with the above Movement and Thomas Maxwell of the Young Nationalist Party, visited Arthur Donaldson at North Halkett, Lugton, Ayrshire on Sunday 5 January1941.During a long conversation, Donaldson gave great praise to Germany saying that England would be completely crushed by the early spring; the Government would leave the country and that England's position would be absolutely hopeless, as poverty and famine would be their only reward for declaring war on Germany. Scotland on the other hand had great possibilities.

We must, he declared, be able to show the German Government that we are organised and that we have a clear cut policy for the betterment of Scotland; that we have tried our best to persuade the English Government that we want Scottish Independence and that we are not in with them in this war. If we can do that you can be sure that Germany will give us every possible assistance in our early struggle. The time is not yet ripe for us to start a virile campaign against England, but when fire and confusion is at its height in England, we can start in earnest. He then went on to tell them that he had an idea in his mind for fixing up a wireless transmitting set in a thickly populated district in Glasgow or Edinburgh, in order to give broadcasts to the public.

At the moment he is working very hard in an endeavour to combine all the Nationalists together as a unit, whereby they can strike out with great force when the time comes. He is naming this combined body “The National Aid Society”. If any questions are asked, he said, you can say it is to help the dependents of young men who have been called to the Services. Actually it is to help members who have refused to fight and are at present in hiding. He mentioned that he had a number of places that could be used as hide-outs."

I think we can work out why MI5 and CID were interested in this bloke, can't we?
Of course, an obvious retort would be that this is all a fit-up, was never stood up in court, and at worse could be "pub chat".

But the file also contained a number of the leaflets and flyers which Donaldson produced and distributed - complete with his name and address. Lots of exhortations to Scots not to "fight for England" and instead dodge the call-up.

One was particularly interesting, because it brought together the two reasons I was there:

"Scottish News and Comment – No.28 - March 1941

NEW ASPECTS OF THE MILITARY SITUATION

The German aerial attack in January on the English Mediterranean Fleet...

The possibilities are enormous as the English admitted losses show...

The German campaign against English shipping..."

Our Arthur is referring to the Luftwaffe Stuka attack on the aircraft-carrier HMS Illustrious, on 10 January 1941. The ship was crippled and had to limp into Malta for emergency repairs, although she later escaped and received full repairs (lasting around a year) in the US. 126 men were killed and 96 men were wounded in the attack, and there were further Maltese casualties in the "Illustrious Blitz" of bombing raids which took place as the Luftwaffe and Regia Aeronautica tried to finish her off. With the Mediterranean Fleet now shorn of air cover, the Luftwaffe were also able to bomb the cruiser HMS Southampton so heavily that she had to be abandoned and sunk, with further loss of life.

Still, it's nice and wholesome to know that Mr Donaldson thought that all these losses to the armed forces attempting to save Europe from Nazism were "English", isn't it?

And that he thought that the "possibilities were enormous"?

So, while I don't know whether the person who wrote these things is also likely to have planned to set himself up as a Scottish Quisling under Nazi occupation, I know what I think.

Make your own mind up.