A moan about useful idiots

Let’s be very clear here, British democracy is a myth. It’s as much an invention as the pseudo-mediaeval pageantry of the state opening of parliament, and in fact both inventions date to the same time. British democracy is the democracy of an establishment which has never been successfully challenged, and which maintains its corpse like grasp on the sclerotic organs of state by co-opting useful idiots and spreading its virus of acquisitive greed and self-interest to those who are selfish and egoistic enough to offer up their veins to the vampires of power. Useful idiots like Michelle the Moan. She’s being rewarded for her epic trolling during the independence campaign and her services to the Caledonian cringe and filling the pages of the Daily Record with photies of a fake tan.

I did try to be fair. I sat down and carefully thought about what Michelle has achieved, and tried to think of reasons why she should be awarded a peerage and given the right to make laws for the rest of us. I really tried. But I failed utterly, just like the UK fails to represent Scotland. I’m sure Michelle will be happy with her new privileges, and will utterly fail to comprehend why the rest of us are unhappy about it.

Michelle the Moan is going to the House of Lords to sit as a Tory peer, where she’ll receive £300 a day for the whingeing and carping she’s previously done in return for free publicity. She’s sitting as a peer because no one in their right minds would ever vote for her. Her tweets prove that she’s semi-literate and has opinions that are normally only seen in the editorial columns of the Daily Mail. Now she’s going to the Lords where she can unveil her new range of support products for the manboobs who dominate that place, she’s gone to join the useless lumps of fat without any purpose or function.

The peerage has been awarded for Michelle’s services to complaining about independence supporters in the pages of the Record. She will at least feel at home in the Lords, she’s spent her working life supporting tits and now the tits have returned the favour. This is a woman who thought it entirely appropriate to bug the office of one of her employees, and now she’s going to get a say on whether the UK Government can snoop on the rest of us. In theory she could even end up with a cabinet post, as minister of state for whingeing.

The Moan is just one of the new peers. Or as I like to call them, David Cameron has decided that there are too many politicians who can be held to account by the voters, so he’s reducing the number of MPs in the Commons. But by way of compensation he’s creating a slew of new lardies. It’s not just Michelle, he’s also giving peerages to a whole bunch of nonentities who just happen to have given the Tory party £23 million in donations. Just one, Michael Farmer, a former Tory treasurer, has personally given £9 million in donations to the Conservative party. British democracy is sold cheaply. It’s whored out for a couple of million, a seat on a board of directors, or an expensively paid consultancy. At least in proper dictatorships they don’t make any pretence that there’s anything honourable in their political appointees.

The new peers are only accountable to Davie and the social pressure of their golf clubs, which makes them a far more efficient means of screwing over the public. Davie’s offering peerages to 50 odd useful idiots, some of whom are very odd indeed. In return they get to invent fancy new names for themselves, and our ridiculously deferent media goes along with the charade and uses the made up self-granted titles awarded to Lord Sook Up of Political Donation and Lady Bra-Strap of Unionist Lift But Don’t Separate. I won’t be using Michelle’s silly new title, and I suggest no one else does either. I won’t use the silly titles that any of those self important useful idiots give to themselves. That’s the job of the useful idiots of the mainstream media.

Let’s be clear here. When we refer to these self-important non-entities by titles awarded by a PM in return for a political donation we are not being polite. We are prostrating ourselves in the dirt and begging to be kicked in the teeth. There are urophiliacs with more self respect. Referring to an adult as Mr or Ms so and so ought to be perfectly polite enough for anyone. We should not collude in our own humiliation by cooperating with a system which demeans democracy.

But they’re not titles, they’re not honours. They are badges of shame. Calling yourself a lord or a lady is to make a public statement that you are a leech, a parasite, an anti-democrat. It’s saying that you owe your position to patronage, that you are, in fact, a bought person, a slave to the system in a gilded ermine lined cage. It’s saying that you sold your principles for £300 per day. It’s saying you’re cheap, and in doing so you’re saying that we are all cheap and worthless and that democracy has no value.

Giving a peerage to a minor businessperson with the opinions of a semi-literate tabloid editorial is the epic trolling of an entire nation, a present to the indy voters of Scotland on JK Rowling’s birthday. This is the sort of respect agenda that’s supposed to make us want to stay British. I’m not proud to be a citizen of this state, it’s an affront to the intelligence of a six year old. The real cringe isn’t the Scottish Cringe, it’s the British one. Look at the antics of the wildlife killing royals and their welfare payments that run into the millions and we’re told to feel proud when we should be feeling angry. From Willnkate down to Michelle the Moan, it’s a system based on patronage, privilege and co-opting useful idiots into gushing praise for ludicrous leeches. And it treats us like idiots who can be disposed of once we are no longer useful.

Being British is an embarrassment and the sooner we escape this ridiculous Ruritanian charade, the better we’ll all be. The likes of Michelle are no bloody use to us.

Donate to the Dug

This blog relies on your support and donations to keep going – I need to make a living, and have bills to pay. Clicking the donate button will allow you to make a payment directly to my Paypal account. You do not need a Paypal account yourself to make a donation. You can donate as little, or as much, as you want. Many thanks.

Donate Button

75 comments on “A moan about useful idiots

  1. Bill Hume says:

    Oh God, you’re lovely when you’re angry. Lords’nLadies……….we don’t want them.

  2. […] A moan about useful idiots […]

  3. Couldn’t agree more.

  4. macart763 says:

    Its sickening, to cut to the chase. People scrabbling to eat or pay the rent. People jumping through bureaucratic hoops only to find themselves sanctioned for missing a bus. People marginalised and discarded because of disability or unfortunate circumstance and this House of unelected Patronage gets to debate and pass laws on our lives because the members greased the right wheels or were born to the right family.

    That’s not democracy, not by any stretch.

    There will be no reform of this house. There will be no reform of Westminster politics period and for the simple reason it doesn’t want to reform. Its kinda happy operating the way it always has and worse, its gearing up to make life intolerable within the UK for those who disagree with their governance.

    Two predictions: 1. EVEL, like the weebil from hell, will rear back up and eventually come into being, minus the creation of an English parliament. 2. The very best Scotland can expect from both chambers will be the grudging passing of the gawd awful Smith proposals and I’m not even confident they’ll make it through both chambers unscathed after the debacle of the first debate and the binning of all twenty amendments.

    We can change this outcome. It doesn’t have to be this way.

    • hektorsmum says:

      Nowadays Mac, they do not even need to be born in the right bed, but as Nell Gwyn found whoring paid well depending on who your client was. We have a right lot in that other place, they sell themselves and the country and we pick up the tab.
      Thought for many a long time we should all call ourselves lord or lady this, that would devalue that particular coin. I think you can call yourself anything in Scotland so long as it is not to be used for fraud, So I am not the Lady Helena, how’s that.

    • The Scottish Play says:

      Tis but vaulting ambition, which o’erleaps itself, and falls on th’other. As usual – this blog keeping us abreast of current developments in the world politic – ultimately very uplifting. Perhaps Lord Sewel can now get some top tips on what is fashionable….
      1. Yes – they have fallen into this trap… the end is nigh….Plague of Boils to come as prophesied by Smith
      2. Agree… and hope SG will ‘reflect’ on this and reject whatever crumbs come back to North Britain.. as unfit for purpose….as in Sep what was on offer was what was wanted and needed… not crumbs ..not whatever paltry offerings may yet emerge from our UK Parliamentary process to a suppos-ed equal member of a Union – …but now ignoring the democratic wishes of the overwhelming elected majority… fully participating members in the Union…….. is not a good idea… (it was however ever thus in a Union with a 10:1 majority and by definition the Union is (and never was) a true Democracy).

      The only means of ever preserving this Union was (if any adequate thought put into this) was to have an equal number of Scottish/English MPs / equivalent representation – this was surprisingly! never offered in the Referendum – only Project Fear ..and now Evel and the Plague of Boils. to come…and in the various legislation in the Scotland Bill voted down ..

      ..wanted and moaned for by the Liberals and others for some time – (but also Federalism … the ‘F word’..cannot work with a 10:1 ration ‘imbalance’.)…was a Constitutional Convention,

      So now no mechanism to ever put the remedy in place .[missed by the MSM and again fallen in the trap of their own making]….. even if this (or any other solution) was genuinely wanted/on offer …. but it wasn’t and never will be… so this leaves only one option …

      Certainly ‘Scotland’ is a Democracy ..and in this sense may be considered one of the most ‘powerful’ in the world (but certainly not with respect to its devolved powers) … it remains still joined at the hip to a large dead weight …of the Union.. established by a system (of self serving interests) created by the same system & of course Lords – the topic of discussion here i.e. not fit for the modern era.

      Dòchas Seach Eagal gu brath.

      • macart763 says:

        I strongly suspect SP that federalism is not and never was on the Westminster ‘to do list’. EVEL is scary as hell. Its a lock out for all members with one member deciding what gets voted upon and who gets to vote on it. Its anti democracy and we need to get the ‘Fudge out of Rodge’ before it gets instituted.

  5. George Quin says:

    Wow and every bit of it is true god i love this site and wings the most you guys are bloody awesome keep it up

  6. whitburnsfinest says:

    Paul, I love you more than ever now. That was….wow, that was an awesome piece of writing.

    Can’t remember if. I’ve had this rant to you but it’s essentially the same as your last paragraphs. I refuse to call anyone lord, lady, baron, whatever. The bunch who sit on the red seats are not lords. They’re people who call themselves lords. the vast majority are only there because they paid for it, or daddy paid for it, or great great great great granny shagged some obscure viscount (speaking of meaningless titles….)

  7. Feckin great spot on rant. Keep it up!

  8. mealer says:

    It needed saying.

  9. hektorsmum says:

    Well said Paul, Pity you cannot tell the woman that face to face.

  10. gavin says:

    Each succeeding government in the UK follows the succeeding terms at Eton
    We prostitude the concept of democracy by having a revising chamber composed of cronies, creeps, cretins and those “in the know”. Using a chamber pot rather than a ballot box.
    And they show their contempt for us by paying for hookers and cocaine with their parliamentary expenses.

  11. Wow Paul… just WOW!! Superb blog mate, can’t think of one word I’d alter.. Get in there, love it!!

  12. Steve Asaneilean says:

    But don’t stop there Paul.

    Our Westminster government is an affront to democracy – carte blanche to do what it likes on only a third of the vote?

    But people in glass Houses shouldn’t throw stones. We have our own affront to democracy right here in Holyrood – a bunch of politicians deciding over our lives that none of us chose or directly voted for because they got there through the list system.

    How can the list system be deemed to be democratic?

    Maybe it’s time we took the plank out of our own eye…

    • Platinum says:

      Before 1707 the auld Scottish Parliament consisted of the Three Estates, bishops, lords and commissioners (elected to a constituency by local barons) in a unicameral chamber.

      The English Parliament before 1707, apart from rejiggings of the numbers of Members and the introduction of universal suffrage, looks very much the same now as it did then, Lords, Ladies, bishops an’ all.

      There is nothing about Westminster that reflects Scotland’s unique parliamentary history and traditions, from the bicameral system, the concept of crown in Parliament, the existence of the speaker, all the ridiculous pomp and ceremonies etc, are all English concepts for an English Parliament.

      The reconvened Scottish Parliament on the other hand has been rather updated from medieval to modern standards, and contains not a single member that hasn’t been elected by voters in the country (and yes, the list members are democratically elected even though they’re not tied to a constituency). The proportional system, while not perfect, means that the whole of popular opinion is expressed in the makeup of Parliament, even the bastard Tories get their places, as is right and proper.

      And if we don’t like them, then we have the right to vote for someone else the next time – the very basic part of democracy, something that can never be achieved with a House of Lords in existence.

      And even if Westminster was the most perfect super-duper-democratic Parliament ever with bells on, we’d still be overruled by the 90% non-Scots membership.

      Now, tell us which of the two parliaments is the real affront to democracy?

      It’s only for the last 16 years out of the 1000 year history of this Kingdom that ordinary people have been allowed such a say over a small part of the running of our country. I want all ordinary people to have a say over ALL the running of the country.

      • Jock Campbell says:

        I’m afraid your comparison of both parliaments is built upon false assumptions, Platinum. The problem is that you are comparing two parliaments with very different remits… one a sovereign state parliament, the other a power-limited regional parliament.

        First of all, the reason Westminster is a state parliament with the authority to govern on our behalf is ONLY because our (Scotland’s) nobles, in conjunction with our elected representatives, attend it. If they resign Westminster, the parliament ceases to have sovereign authority over Scotland. Thus, conversely, the only way Holyrood can possibly have sovereign power, is if those nobles and the elected representatives choose to attend it. So, trying to compare them in their current form is erroneous in the extreme.

        You are quite right to mention the auld Scots parliament, which was also known as the Scottish Convention, and that it consisted of ‘The Three Estates’, it is also notable that for Holyrood to assert sovereignty over the Scottish nation, the Three Estates MUST be re-assembled within its walls. This is because the constitutional laws of Scotland have remained unchanged since the day before the union came into effect. So we have NO ALTERNATIVE but to re-establish the same parliamentary arrangement in order to recommence constitutional processes.

        However, there is an obvious problem apparent with that concept… in that the bishops of the church no longer have authority in Scotland. Church and state were separated a long time ago. Surprisingly though, the constitutional laws as written, do not specify who exactly constitute The Three Estates… they only specify that the Scottish Convention is formed of “The Three Estates of Scotland”. So, we have an interesting scenario whereby there is an opening to create a third estate which the church previously had provided. This third estate already exists… in the MSPs duly elected to Holyrood!

        So, for independence and sovereign authority to be declared by Holyrood, the nation’s nobles, the MPs and the MSPs must assemble in the chamber. Only then can Scotland assert her nation statehood.

        So, in addressing the Ginger Dug’s article, yes indeed they are useful. Whether they are idiots is another matter entirely. But I think it’s important to remember that the only nobles at Westminster are Scotland’s nobles. The rest are Civil Peers… people from all walks of life who have been recognised for their contribution to the nation.

        Therefore, once Scotland re-assembles its convention, Westminster will be free of nobles and will be a bicameral parliament of Commons and Civil Peers. The Peers, attending the second of the two chambers are f course there to provide judicial oversight of the elected representatives’ actions, preventing dodgy legislation from passing their legal scrutiny. This is the nation making good use of the Peers’ collective experience and wisdom to reduce risk of political despotism and also to reduce the load on the head of state, who, regardless of whether that’s a monarch or a president, must ratify every bill before they can be passed into law. The second chamber ensures that only bills which are ready for constitutional scrutiny (the scrutiny the head of state applies to legislative bills) land on the head of state’s desk. Otherwise, the workload on the head of state would be impossible.

        It makes sense… to me anyway… that Scotland will restructure Holyrood after independence. Probably by disbanding the third estate (the MSPs) then placing Scotland’s nobles on distinction notice…. in much the same way that Westminster did with England’s nobles… letting them die off naturally while replacing them with a Scottish Civil peerage. This Peerage I would imagine will then be ensconsed in a second chamber, probably the Old High School.

        Whether you believe in a second chamber of Peers boils down to whether you believe all politicians (today and forever) can be trusted never to attempt to pass dodgy legislation. if you see politicians through rose-tinted glasses, you might favour not having a second chamber of oversight. I’m a wee bit longer in the tooth… so I think it’s the preferred option.

        • Guga says:

          Camoron, and the rest of the English parliament, claim to have total sovereignty over the so-called UK (or as I prefer to call it, the YUK). They may have sovereignty over England but this is most certainly not the case with Scotland. In Scotland the people are sovereign, a fact which was acknowledged by Lord Cooper as Lord President at the Court of Session in 1953 when he stated that the supreme authority in Scotland is the Scottish people, and that “The unlimited sovereignty of Parliament has no counterpart in Scottish Constitutional Law”.

        • leavergirl says:

          I hope unicameralism stays. Another chamber is a money drain, it creates an endless adversarial situation, legislative gridlocks, and provides little of the promised accountability.
          The first Pennsylvania constitution was unicameral. That one was quite radical. The elites scuttled it in 10 years and created two chambers. Nebraska still has one chamber and nobody’s lamenting.

          • Jock Campbell says:

            Neither Nebraska nor Pennsylvania are sovereign states. and the USA maintains a bicameral (actually closer to a tricameral) arrangement.

            This automatic perception that having a second chamber is “elitist” is erroneous in the extreme. There is nothing that dictates a second chamber be populated by “elites”. the attendees of the UK’s second chamber are predominantly civil peers… members of the public who have been recognised for their contribution to society… nothing “elite” about them except their extraordinary endeavours… and from ALL walks of life!

            As for “legislative gridlocks”, be thankful for them… they are doing their job in protecting the people from unconstitutional legislation!

            • Guga says:

              ” nothing “elite” about them except their extraordinary endeavours”

              Do you mean their extraordinary endeavours as in bunging lumps of cash to the Red Tories or the Blue Tories?

            • leavergirl says:

              “As for “legislative gridlocks”, be thankful for them… they are doing their job in protecting the people from unconstitutional legislation!”

              Bwahahaha! Maybe in Utopia. Not in reality.

              • Jock Campbell says:

                So leaving political idealists who are often corporately-sponsored, complete freedom to do as they please, makes sense to you?

                Yeah, only in Utopia. Not in reality!

        • benmadigan says:

          a lot of countries have an elected Senate as the second chamber. I do not think there is any need to create any sort of “peerages” to fill a second chamber

          • Jock Campbell says:

            There is no advantage to an elected second chamber. Such a chamber, being selected on the basis of populism, fails to balance the populist remit of the political representatives. the whole advantage of a second chamber is to be politically neutral… thereby judging legislation without political bias.

            Your perception of the term “peerage” is clearly misaligned. do not confuse the term peerage with “hereditary peerage”… which is a specific type of peerage based on familial privilege.

            A peer… by definition of the common word, merely means someone in society we look to for guidance by dint of their experience, wisdom, example of success. Thus a “peer” could be a successful shopkeeper, a brilliant charity worker who revolutionised the charity industry, an engineer who invented a new technology, a retired politician, a judge, an academic, a broadcaster… all of whom displayed some particular and notable wisdom and talent in their particular field and now recognised (on the nation’s behalf) for that talent and requested to put that talent to good use in scrutinising legislation drafted by the elected politicians… hopefully, while setting their political prejudices to one side.

            The point of having an unelected second chamber is to avoid the risk of political bias motivating those officials to pass dodgy legislation on the basis of political leaning. an elected second chamber almost guarantees political bias in senate judgements… making the process very precarious indeed!

            • Guga says:

              “The point of having an unelected second chamber is to avoid the risk of political bias”.

              And of course there is no political bias in the Red Tories or the Blue Tories making peers out of their business chums, bankster chums or whoever gives them a suitably large donation!

            • leavergirl says:

              ” the whole advantage of a second chamber is to be politically neutral… thereby judging legislation without political bias.”

              Really? Really? And where you get these politically neutral angels? Some other planet?

              • leavergirl says:

                Apropos: “Nebraska’s legislature is also uniquely nonpartisan and has been so since the ratification of the 1934 unicameral amendment.”

              • Jock Campbell says:

                from society rather than politically-appointees. how are YOU going to get even a modicum of political neutrality from popularly-elected political narcissists??!

                Indeed, this is why we have maintained a politically neutral monarch… to ensure that at the end of the day… even if a government were capable of passing dodgy legislation through a second chamber, the monarch can stop it in its tracks!

                and THAT’s why we have a monarch… a politically-neutral overseer of the entire process

                • leavergirl says:

                  “a politically neutral monarch”

                  Dagnabbit. Looks like I tangled with a troll. Oops.

                  But folks, if you want to rethink the unicameral set up, tread carefully. I used to buy the propaganda about the two chambers balancing one another, but I don’t anymore. Caveat emptor. Trust those who created it enough to give it a real think-through.

                  • Jock Campbell says:

                    Try reading something about political rationale rather than the Donald Trump guide to idealist utopia.

      • Steve Asaneilean says:

        Hi Platinum – l didn’t say parliaments – I specifically criticised the list system.

        So let’s look at what happens.

        In each constituency we directly elect our MSP. But then we are also “allocated” 7 further MSPs from lists.

        We have no direct say in the drawing up of these lists. We don’t control who the parties put on them and who they put at the top to ensure they get an MSP gig. We can’t stop parties from topping their lists with place people.

        Yet these list MSPs are supposed to represent me?

        This form of proportional representation does nothing to restore my faith in democracy. It is worked out using the so-called D’Hondt system apparently which you would need a degree in statistics to fully master.

        So what to do instead? Have first and second preferences at constituency level, giving each constituency two directly elected MSP and ditch the list.

        I just happen to think that in a democracy every politician should have to fight directly for the constituency that they represent.

    • jdman says:

      “How can the list system be deemed to be democratic?

      Maybe it’s time we took the plank out of our own eye…”

      A system decided by who remind me Steve?
      by the labour party to ensure that the SNP could never gain a majority in Holyrood,
      that worked well then didn’t it?

    • Aucheorn says:

      In the SNP the members decide who is on the “List” and in which order they would be elected on reaching the required quota. Local democracy controlling the Party List, works for me.

  13. Iain says:

    Was it one of her bras that Lord Sewell was wearing?

    She evidently didn’t know that you’re supposed to keep your ‘honour’ secret until the official announcement has been made. But that’s quite good – the more often these ‘honours’ are treated like bingo wins rather than as awards of great national importance, the cheaper and less meaningful they become.

  14. alanski says:

    Right on the button Paul, another great piece.

  15. What is interesting is the number of famous people who have turned down any so-called honours from the Westminster Government. They literally run into the hundreds.
    The list is too extensive to write about here, but my admiration has increased for those, some of whom are no longer with us, who refused.
    My favourite quote is from the actor, Albert Finney, who turned down two honours including a knighthood when he said that, ” such baubles only perpepuate the class snobbery that exist in this country today”. Well put.

  16. Brian Powell says:

    Scottish Labour, so mired in it’s narrow hatred of the SNP, played the most useful idiots of all.
    It stuck us with a Tory Westminster, now and again and again in the future.
    The elected representatives promoting the unelected, forever and ever. All made worse by the sickening hypocrisy of claiming to want rid of that institution.

    But then their own voters bought it too, and voted No.

  17. Guga says:

    Talking of “Lords”, here is a list of the traitors who sold the Scottish people out for English gold; the original Parcel of Rogues in a nation.

    Earl of Marchmont: received £1,104. -17s-7d. In 2006, this was worth £153,957
    Earl of Cromarty: received £300. In 2006, this was worth £41,798
    Lord Preston Hall: received £200. In 2006, this was worth £27,865
    Lord Ormiston: received £200. In 2006, this was worth £27,865
    Duke of Montrose: received £200. In 2006, this was worth £27,865
    Duke of Athol: received £1000. In 2006, this was worth £139,328
    Earl of Balcarres: received £500. In 2006, this was worth £69,664
    Earl of Dunmoor: received £200. In 2006, this was worth £27,865
    Lord Anstruther: received £300. In 2006, this was worth £41,798
    Mr. Stewart of Castle Stewart: received £300. In 2006, this was worth £41,798
    Earl of Eglington: received £200. In 2006, this was worth £27,865
    Lord Fraser: received £100. In 2006, this was worth £13,932
    Lord Cesnock, now Polwarth: received £50. In 2006, this was worth £6,966
    Mr. John Campbell: received £200. In 2006, this was worth £27,865
    Earl of Forfar: received £100. In 2006, this was worth £13,932
    Sir Kenneth MacKenzie: received £100. In 2006, this was worth £13,932
    Earl of Glencairn: received £100. In 2006, this was worth £13,932
    Earl of Kintore: received £200. In 2006, this was worth £27,865
    Earl of Findlator: received £100. In 2006, this was worth £13,932
    Lord Forbes: received £50. In 2006, this was worth £6,966
    John Muir, Provost of Ayr: received £100. In 2006, this was worth £13,932
    Earl of Seafield, Lord Chancellor: £490. In 2006, this was worth £68,266
    Marquis of Tweedale: received £1000. In 2006, this was worth £139,328
    Duke of Roxburgh: received £500. In 2006, this was worth £69,664
    Lord Elibank: received £50. In 2006, this was worth £6,966
    Lord Banff: received £11-2/-. In 2006, this was worth £1,550
    Major Cunningham of Eckatt: received £100. In 2006, this was worth £13,932
    The Messenger who brought the Treaty of Union: received £60. In 2006, this was worth £8,360
    Sir William Sharp: received £300. In 2006, this was worth £41,798
    Patrick Coultrain, Provost of Wigton: received £25. In 2006, this was worth £3,483
    Mr. Alexander Wedderburn: received £75. In 2006, this was worth £10,450
    The Commisioner for Equippage & Daily Allowance (Duke of Queensberry): received £12,325. In 2006, this was worth £1,717,220

    Stated by THE EARL OF GLASGOW, on oath, and by DAVID NAIRNE, Secretary Depute for Scotland.

    • Jock Campbell says:

      And when the nation’s nobles walk into Holyrood… for nothing… I suppose you’ll be the one at the front of the crowd cheering them in?

      • Guga says:

        No. my little Tory troll. As far as I am concerned we do not need a second legislature, and we most certainly do not need either archaic aristos or politically appointed yes men in our parliament. Remembering also that most of the yes men in the House of Lards have bought their position by bunging large sums of money to either the Red Tories or the Blue Tories.

        • Jock Campbell says:

          No one mentioned a “second legislature. you clearly don’t have a bloody clue what the second chamber is there for! Second chambers do not legislate, they adjudicate!

          Please explain why, if it requires some apparent “Tory archaic aristos” to warrant a second chamber, why do the United States, Australia, Canada, France and the majority of other stable states have Senates? The Bundestag a “Council of Elders”?

          Go educate yourself! And get on board with Scotland’s current political leaders, who accept the rational, logical sense in having a second chamber!

          • leavergirl says:

            Well, just a peek at a few of the states that function merrily without a second chamber:
            New Zealand
            Costa Rica

            All failed states, I see… wink wink, nudge nudge

            • Jock Campbell says:

              So what? The issue is not that they ARE failed states… but that they COULD become failed states! That they have failed to learn the lessons of history is hardly our concern… that WE DO is OURS!

              Let me put it this way… would YOU trust David Cameron with both legislative AND judicial power?

              No… thought not!

              • leavergirl says:

                Hey: naive soul, this is for you. I hardly think any exist on the Dug, but just in case, so I can sleep at night. There are three branches of government: legislative, executive, and judicial. They don’t mix. A David Cameron sitting in the Nebraska chamber would be still just a legislator.

  18. Albaman says:

    It could get worse, Cameron may have is eye on J.K. Rowling and her ability to give a large lump of money, as a donation you understand!.

  19. Lollysmum says:

    I love it when you’re angry🙂 The emotion shows in your writing & really lets the reader know what you are feeling & we all empathise with that. Well done young man😉

    Thanks for that list, I’d never seen it before & what struck me most was how very little gold it took to persuade them to enter a union which would eventually strip everything of value from Scotland over the course of 300 years. Those lords & other assorted minions have a lot to answer for!

    My dearest wish is that Scotland wins its independence next time round & that everyone can start rebuilding the new nation that could become the envy of the world. I have faith in all of you & hope to join in that task in the not too distant future so I suggest ignoring the trolling by Cameron et al & keep on doing what you’ve all shown that you do well at-upsetting Westminster & its minions🙂

    Scotland really does have them on the run & yes they are bricking it! Keep up the good work🙂

    • Guga says:

      Lollysum, don’t forget that as well as bribing these traitors, the English made sure they toed the line by massing English troops on the border to ensure things went their way.

      Moreover, these traitors were not elected to the Scottish parliament by any form of democratic means, nor did the represent the views of the Scottish people; which is why there were riots in the streets all over Scotland when the people found out that we had been bought and sold for English gold.

  20. Frank says:

    With all that has happened and is currently under investigation, the very least that Cameron should do is NOT declare ANY new lords or ladies until the various investigations are concluded, and further, that the purpose of this cabal is determined.

  21. Bud says:

    Well said Paul.
    All together now – tick tock, tick tock……….

  22. Alex Waugh says:

    ” British democracy is the democracy of an establishment which has never been successfully challenged, and which maintains its corpse like grasp on the sclerotic organs of state by co-opting useful idiots and spreading its virus of acquisitive greed and self-interest to those who are selfish and egoistic enough to offer up their veins to the vampires of power. ”

    That, sir, is one of the most articulate, powerful and, above all, accurate sentences I have ever read. Thank you.

  23. emilytom67 says:

    Why do we in Scotland need to have any “political” parties running the country?inmo they all eventually fail through party politic/agendas and losing touch with their core,couldn,t we elect a body of men/women of proven worth,chosen for their ability in the necessary fields,allimportant decisions should be openly discussed for all to see and understand,wasn,t this the original concept of democracy.

  24. Cag-does-thinking says:

    Brill, as always. Hits the nail on the head.

  25. Aucheorn says:

    Archduke Ginger Dug, would that be “Your Grace” or “Your Reverence”? I’m a bit rusty on the kowtowing, forelocktugging etc.

  26. Steaphan MacRisnidh says:

    Great post, but what does this blog do for society that I might be asked to donate money to it?

  27. smiling vulture says:

    Wee Dug ,hope you were walking the dug ,when Kezia mentioned House of Lords,Glasgow

  28. leavergirl says:

    I don’t want to underestimate you. You likely realize, Jock Campbell, that telling other people what makes sense to them (as though you knew better than they), is a form of verbal abuse, right?

    Do you wanna be just a troll, or do you want to talk with us as equals? Rather than talking down and picking fights, together coming up with new ideas for old problems, and looking for solutions from various angles?

    • leavergirl says:

      Hm. So I looked this guy up, and he is a gung-ho idealist monarchist. So why would he care about unicameral vs bicameral legislatures? There are monarchies that are unicameral and fare well… Weird.

  29. Jock Campbell says:

    Your behaviour doesn’t impress me, Leavergirl. Everything you accuse me of… naivety, idealism, abuse, trolling, talking down, picking fights,… is exactly how you have behaved towards me.

    I’ve offered rational explanation for my position, which is a damn sight more than you’ve offered, I’ve asked the difficult questions that need answers (for which no-one has yet offered answers except me). In response to those questions, you descended into these behaviours, rather than presenting answers or asking for explanations for the solutions.

    The truth is, you desperately don’t want the answers to be revealed, so you use these tactics to shut conversations down. Well guess what, facts don’t stop being facts because you don’t like them! The facts remain, unchanged, unaffected by your stonewalling tactics. The only way you can intellectually overcome those facts is if you try discussing them like an adult and understanding the other side of this complex coin. Once you do, you will then be empowered to argue the alternatives more powerfully. Until then, you will continue to behave like an ass.

    I am no idealist. I am a rationalist and a pragmatist, and i have learned that there are always deeper answers to difficult questions if you are prepared to remain open-minded enough to seek them. Nor am I “gung-ho”… which is, frankly, a childish sleight.

    If you find it difficult to understand my position, why don’t you ask me to explain my position like any normal rational logical human being does, rather than behaving like a circus clown? I’m open to discussing the issues like an adult… the question is… are you capable?

  30. Ken500 says:

    HoL can stop a Bill twice that’s all. After that it becomes Law. HoC control the Lords. A complete waste of time and money. The only our purpose (legal) of a monarch of Head of State is impartiality. If the Crown is not impartial (it is not) it serves no purpose. Cost £45 Million?

    • Jock Campbell says:

      Ken you’re repeating the usual groundless propaganda with nothing to back it up.

      The HoC does not control the HoL, even to suggest it is hilarious. And NO bill becomes law without HoL rubber stamping AND the signature of the monarch.

      The HoL does the same job as any other second chamber, including the US Senate… it scrutinises government legislation to ensure it does not undermine prior established law. that’s not a waste of time, it;ls essential to ensuring our government is not seeking to undermine established law. The monarch then scrutinises any such bill to ensure it does not undermine prior constitutional law. These are exactly the same jobs that second chambers and presidents do in republics… except for one notable difference: a constitutional monarch guarantees political neutrality in all their adjudications…. and does it FAR more cheaply than any president!

      The US presidency costs 1.4 BILLION annually, and because they cannot ensure political neutrality (because they are elected to office as political party representatives) the public requires another means to defend their constitutional rights. In the case of the US, that’s the 2nd Amendment… the right to bear arms, which accepts that their president CANNOT provide politically neutral oversite, so the people must protect their constitutional rights themselves! That means the US is awash with guns, so on top of that 1.4Billion, you can add the cost of gun problems upon US society and factor that in to the constitutional cost equation.

      That’s not to say the HoL or any second chamber needs to be populated by gong-wielding hereditary peers, but there is no reason it cannot be populated by civil peers… and Westminster is already populated by 90% or so civil peers!

      Scotland will simply follow Westminster’s lead and form a second chamber of civil peers. Of course, Scotland has more hereditary peers than England, so it’ll take time to allow the system to revise.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s