Because the last post was so heavy going...

Below is an email I sent to Facilities where I work some time ago.

I was - as ever - quite bored.

Hi.

Who is it we complain to about the contents of the vending machines, in this instance, namely the ones containing confectionery. This week I have had a KitKat, a Crunchy and a 'Go Ahead' Yogurt Break Bar (Strawberry) all of which seem to have been stamped on before making it into the vending machine.

I'd be grateful if someone could inform the vending machine people that we in XXX (mostly) have teeth which we use to break up food before swallowing, it isn't necessary for them to break sweeties and snacks up in advance of our purchasing them. Also, arguably, if any one in the office did suffer from a dental deficiency; they could themselves or ask a colleague to jump up and down on the snack item before ingurgitation.

They might argue that the damage to vended confection is caused by the plunge it makes from shelf to vending area, this however is invalid since the machine closest to the lifts on the first floor (from which I obtain most of my daily sustenance,) the 'Go Ahead' Yogurt Bars (Strawberry) are already on the lowest-most shelf so only fall a meagre 20 or 30 centimeters hardly enough of an impact to render the product so disassembled it would be more efficient to snort than masticate it.

I'm sure you yourself have had such an item from a vending machine and would agree; the titillation by the array of treats behind the glass, then the gentle frisson of anticipation as you make your selection, only to have dumped unceremoniously in to the vending tray a Crunchy, Kit Kat or Go Ahead Yogurt Bar (Strawberry) that has been driven over by a van at some point; is a heart-felt disappointment after such intense avidity.

In this atmosphere of economic doubt and job insecurity it is the small things that sustain us including the odd harmless treat from a vending machine. Is it to much to expect these small treats to be structurally intact at the point of purchase?

I'd be grateful if you could pass this hope and dream along to whom ever it is that communicates with the people who fill the vending machines in the building.

Many thanks

pa_broon

0131 2xx xxxx

PS: I'll hold the Go Ahead Yogurt Bar (Strawberry) until the end of today for evidential purposes should you require it, after this time, I cannot guarantee I won't snort it or rub it on my gums.

Obviously I've removed any identifying information for fear of being the victim of a stalker, because as you all well know - I am regarded in some circles as something of a catch.*

;-)

* At least I was until they introduced care in the community.

The Scotland Institute

I totally understand why politics turns so many people off, at times it can be so boring it makes you want to indulge in a spot of self-harm. Its also really complicated and multi-layered - not because it actually is - but because there are those who make it that way knowing it'll drive people off allowing them to get away with, well whatever they like.

Here we have an example that both over-complicates and enrages in equal measure, I'll provide links, you can choose to take my word for it or you can go and see for yourself.

So, this Scotland Institute - what is it? Its basically a think tank set up by a man called Dr Azeem Ibrahim. 

This is he and yes, some people are that good looking.

His CV is quite impressive and from that link there, you'll see he has his own website (his biography page is a masterclass in self promotion.) That might count for something until you realise I also have my own website (this one) and I am a bit of an arsehole. So, having debunked the notion that having a website makes one special, we do have to accept that he's been quite successful, (no, I haven't thanks for asking.) IT consultancy, a macro-hedge fund (no, I don't know what that is either,) several successful companies launched, a Cambridge PhD - the list goes on.

The question is then, how can someone so demonstrably competent, so talented and accomplished allow his name to be put to this arse gravy then go on to defend it here? You can click on either link, the first goes to The Scottish Institute's report on what a Scottish Defence Force would look like and how it could be formed. It goes on at some length and was written by Dr Azeem with help from a long list of military and academic luminaries - you might want to click here (or not) and skim over the list of contributors to the report on pages 4 to 7. Do you think these people would - given their various stations in the British apparatus -  give an opinion that would diminish or risk their respective positions?

I mean, page five alone has two sitting lords, a Tory MP, three CBE's, two KCB's and one KBE spread evenly around two army Generals, a lieutenant General, a Lieutenant Colonel, an Air Commodore and no less than four ex-Secretaries of Defence (three Labour and one Tory.) If ever a group of people could be said to have immersed themselves in the British State; this would be it.

These people encapsulate a wide spectrum of knowledge and experience, they are also people with a vested interest, be it financial or emotionally, in the status quo. They've been asked questions about how an independent Scotland would defend itself and how the formation of a Scottish armed services would impact on the remainder of the UK.

The entire report is based on a bizarre tunnel vision, it is a virtuoso example of blinkered analysis. At best you might say the contributors could only ever answer in their own contexts - at worst, they could answer in a way that protects their own position within that context.

The report got a fair bit of attention in the press, it was on the telly and in newspapers but was somewhat lost in the background cacophony of unionist scare & threat that we've become so used to.

Dr Azeem responded to some of the criticisms on Newsnet Scotland here. This is where any respect I had for the good doctor's opinions evaporate:

Q: Scotland would inherit defence assets from the UK - your report makes it sounds like Scotland would have to start from scratch.

A: This argument is based on a simple misconception: that Scotland would automatically inherit any assets from the UK. It would not. This is one of the questions our report looked into at length. All military assets in Scotland legally belong to the UK government and if Scotland were to inherit anything it would only be by virtue of negotiations, not automatic inheritance. With defence cuts and an over stretched military, Westminster is hardly likely to give away its prized assets very easily.

The arrogance, the sheer grasping contempt. In four sentences, he's completely dismissed Scotland's contribution to the union's military over the past 307 years. Not just in cash terms either - Scotland pays more than its fair share as part of the UK's armed services in blood and misery. Yet we as country, a so called valued partner in the UK don't 'own' a share of any UK military assets? We'd expect there to be negotiations, but they would be from a position of a fair share of ownership; not the largesse of a beneficent Westminster Government which when last I checked, Scotland also owned its fair share.

Unfortunately that attitude pervades in the union, on the one hand they tell us they'd be sad to see us go because we are a valued part of the union. The truth of that statement is in what Westminster and the British State mean by 'value'.

This might be really boring stuff, (I've been typing with one hand since paragraph four or five because I had to ask a work colleague to stamp heavily on the other one to wake myself up.) But its also really important because it tells us how we in Scotland are regarded by the union and those who benefit from its continuing existence. Dr Azeem Ibrahim has done well for himself in the context of the union and he's welcome to the fruits of his efforts, but seriously, if he actually believes the shit he's shoveling above, it wasn't a think tank he founded: its a septic tank.

Don't bother looking for any positive reports about what a Scottish defence force might look like or how it would be formed - the wider media as usual doesn't consider it to be newsworthy. 

Mark McNaughton wrote this about The Scotland Institute and its execrable defence report, it's quite scathing and deservedly so, if you want to know more; it's worth a read.

Vince Cable

Its another one of these posts.

So, who is Vince Cable and why is he the subject of this post?

Here he is:

Oh dear. That's not Vince Cable at all, that was Patrick Stewart in his role as Dr Xavier.

This is Vince Cable:

Vince Cable is a Liberal Democrat politician representing that well known Scottish town of Twickenham, he's also the most recent emissary sent by Westminster to tell us all what a crap idea self-government is - its obviously much better having our interests looked after by people who don't actually represent our interests.

Vince Cable - up until the Libdems joined forces with the Tories - used to be quite popular, it was often said his was a lone voice warning of the credit crunch and subsequent economic crash in 2008. While all that may be true, it is a testament to the seemingly endless ability of Westminster politicians, who on the surface seem to be quite decent - to be terrible sell-outs who'll say anything they're told for a sniff of power.

With that in mind, Vince will be up in Scotland, presumably in his capacity as Secretary for Business, Innovation & Skills,  to present yet another Westminster analysis telling us how bad independence would be for Scotland. The ever-fair BBC are reporting with the headline -Scottish referendum: Independence will cost Scotland jobs, says Cable

Apparently breaking up the UK's Single Market will result in barriers springing up and trade-busting red tape crashing down severely restricting commerce between Scotland and the rest of the UK, or the UK and Scotland, or Scotland and the rest of the world... In any case, what ever it is; it'll be bad. Despite trade going on largely unfettered between other countries - many of which have never been in a union with each other - Westminster via the grandfatherly Vince, tells us it'll all become really, really difficult.

There will be new business regulations in place, Scottish firms will have reduced access to the UK single market (although no one explains how) and tax and pension complications would spring up for people who work cross-border (although other workers around Europe manage just fine.) Indeed, countries in Europe manage to have cities which straddle borders, I'm pretty sure the workers in those cities don't keep to their own ends for work - why would it be like that for Scotland and the rest of the UK?

Vince Cable, seen here being kept hard at work by a white robot went on to say:

Shit, that's Frank Langella isn't it? I need to pay more attention to the pictures I'm downloading. I  might say, if that was Vince Cable, the robot might be one of those cybernats we keep hearing about poised to launch a tirade of abuse* while the hapless Vince (or Frank in this instance) innocently beavers away with his tools.

Anyway, I digress. The report also talks about  transport and communication infrastructure - apparently Scottish haulage firms might have to pay extra to drive on English roads, broadband infrastructure in the North would lag behind the rest of the UK and those who like to post pictures of their tea on Facebook via their mobile phones would have to pay roaming charges in the rest of the UK.

Since Scotland is a part of the UK, Hauliers already pay to use UK roads - its a classic example of Westminster double counting - the old fall back position of ignoring the fact that people & business' in Scotland already more than pay their way in the UK. If we vote yes in 2014; we'd be paying directly to a Scottish government. Currently, it goes to Westminster where a good percentage is skimmed off the top and spent by a Tory government we didn't vote for with a paltry sum being sent back up the road. 

Again we're being subjected to this argument from unionists that attempts to persuade us that while we are an essential valued partner in the UK and all its workings -  absolutely none of the money you send to the UK treasury counts for anything. 

Of course, a Scottish Government could raise the rate of excise duty on HGV's - but they could also drop it to stimulate trade -  the point is, it would be our choice.

The report is a real festival of fear but descends into farce with mobile phone roaming charges, according to Westminster, England would become a 'foreign country' on Indy. Scots if visiting could be hit with extra charges - except - all roaming charges are to be scrapped under new EU laws before 2016, well in advance of Scottish Independence day. The irony is, if Westminster Tories do deliver an in/out EU referendum those roaming charges might apply after all - but not because of anything Scottish voters did.

The double-counting deployed in support of Scotland remaining part of the UK ignores what Scottish taxpayers already contribute year on year toward the upkeep of the UK state - they just add the estimated costs (usually highly inflated) of a new Scottish state on top. That they resort to such disingenuous methods to bolster their arguments surely is evidence in itself of a shortage of integrity and honesty in their cause?

If there was any doubt about the fear we should be feeling about Scottish Independence, here is an image of Jo Swinson, Liberal Democrat Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Employment Relations, Consumer & Postal Affairs and Really Long Job Titles hiding behind a curtain in abject terror.

I don't think this is Jo Swinson.

 

* Tirade of abuse = being corrected.