They’re at it again

One of my pet hates since I started to understand a little about politics is the House of Lords. Unlike many it would appear in this country, I actually like the idea of democracy, you know the kind where you put your vote in the box, or through the post (Labour would appear to prefer this method mmm) and you get the government that the people voted for. Now, it’s bad enough that our system actually means we never get the Government we vote for unless the south of England should happen to agree, which as a matter of fact usually happen about twice every hundred years as far as Scotland goes.

But over and above the unfair Westminster Parliament elections we have the House of the Dead, sorry Lords. Those unelected elders, of which there are around 723, yes I said 723, and none of them elected by you and me. If they all attend and claim their £300 a day expenses, yes I did say £300 a day expenses, they can earn (and I mean that very loosely) around £109,000 a year from the tax payer and many do. So you would expect that given a) they are unelected b) earn more than the vast majority in this country ever will in 10 years that they might actually try to contribute to the daily grind of trying to govern or as I prefer manage a country. But no, what we get are the following:

Lord [Ian] Lang of Monkton, a Conservative cabinet minister under John Major, said that splitting up the Union would “dishonour the sacrifices made in common cause of those who died for the UK”.

Now as well as being a bloody stupid statement, esp for £300 a day, I would argue that what dishonors our war dead more is the fact that in some ways they died so people like Lord bloody Lang of Monkton, elected by no-one, can live it up the rest of his life at our expense, make anti-scottish statements and appear to be more concerned about his cash than his countries war dead and their families. Bad enough Glasgow has to be forced to start(well not forced it is a Labour Council) the celebration of the worst, most brutal war in modern history, but people like Lang will use it to try to shame the Scottish people for having the balls to want a vote on their own future.

On to the currency debate:

Lord (spit) Wallace of Tankardness I certainly have noted that the Governor of the Bank of England today has highlighted the principal difficulties of entering into a currency union—losing national sovereignty, the practical risks of financial instability and having to provide fiscal support to bail out a foreign country. That is why we have consistently said that, in the event of independence, a currency union is highly unlikely to be agreed so the Scottish Government need a plan B. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, that people who, from experience, have an important contribution to make should make it. Indeed, this month, Better Together has published a very good pamphlet which quotes many people showing how untenable the position of the Scottish Government is on the issue of the currency.

What strikes me is that a) he’s talking shit which is not new b) he is actually Scottish but you would never know it c) he talks of Scotland being a foreign nation, like it is a dirty word, and fails to mention that we actually own a part of the bank of England(UK) in the first place so it’s not England’s gift to give. Wallace is one of those politicians that achieved very little, if anything in political life but still have sway over every aspect of Scottish life as the Advocate General for Scotland and has talked Scottish Law down repeatedly in the past. Shouldn’t he be defending Scotland interests in the House of the Dead, shouldn’t he be at least trying to be impartial, bought and sold for English gold comes to mind.

There is also no way on this planet that what is left of the UK after a YES vote is not going to agree a currency union because their balance of payments would go in the toilet. Still always nice to have an un-elected blow heart tell us how to live our lives, what we can and can’t do and all for £300 a day of your money.

My point is, these un-elected twats have a huge amount of influence over our country and what happens in it, they are not elected, they earn a fortune at the expense of the taxpayer and pretty much serve little purpose what so ever in my opinion. So, have a wee think about this as you consider your vote in September:

A No vote is a vote to keep this un-elected gravy train of the useless.
A No vote says that you agree they can earn £109,000 a year while JSA for a single adult is around £3692 a year.
A No vote means that you are ok with these people talking you down, your country down at every opportunity to preserve their way of life, a life you can’t even dream of.

If you believe the polls, a lot of people will vote yes if they are only £500 better off a year, think of what these people will do to you for £109,000, do you think they might lie, do you think they might try to keep you down, do you think they are happy to ensure that people stay poor and dying young. Only a Yes vote will start on us on a journey to democracy, to honesty and to decency. I know how I will be voting, you might want to think about how you might be voting.

Advertisements

3 comments

  1. bringiton

    Well said.
    It is noteable that the people screaming loudest against our right to democratic governance are the Westminster politicians,their geriatric colleagues in the HoL and the parasitic London press pack.
    I would have a little more respect for them if they exerted the same energy when working people are faced with redundancy.Little chance of that happening.
    We do not want to see any of these people in a position of power in Scotland after independence.
    Thanks Grumpy.

  2. Anonymous

    Bringiton

    It is very interesting that the ones with the most money to lose are happy for those who have nothing to continue to have nothing as long as they are ok. Once we vote yes we have to ensure that we get a) a written constitution b) control over the political parties for actual members and I would also like to see limited terms of a maximum of two so we no longer get politicians in office for year after year and no second chamber or un-elected head of state but I suppose one thing at a time.

    Thanks for your comments, much appreciated.

    Bruce

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