The Gilded Cage.

There was a certain symbolism about where the UK’s permanent representative to the European Union Tim Barrow handed over The Letter to President Donald Tusk yesterday.  It was in the European Unions brand new futuristic new 321-million-euro headquarters, a building that “symbolised 'joy' according to the PR from the EU.   

A glass lantern-shaped structure inside a cube made of recycled window frames sourced from across the 28-nation bloc (doesn’t that word remind you of the USSR?), the Europa building has been dubbed the "Space Egg" because of its other-wordly appearance.   

At its heart is a huge room decked out in psychedelic rainbow carpets and ceiling tiles (sitting in it for too long you would wonder if you were “on something”) where European Union leaders will hold their summit meetings on the multiple crises that beset the bloc.  

If it had been in existence when David Cameron tried unsuccessfully to do a little bit of renegotiation before he put the Stay or Leave question to the people of the UK, you could maybe see there was a reason for the EU leaders weird behaviour to not to even give the crumbs off the table to our then Prime Minister.   

Perhaps that was his punishment for describing the Space Egg in 2011 as a "gilded cage" for leaders at a time when austerity was causing pain across a debt-hit continent.   

Perhaps if President Tusk and his colleagues had spent more time on listening to and dealing with the issues that afflict the voters across the EU they would not have been so dismissive of David Cameron and his attempts at getting just a few crumbs from the table.  

Perhaps we would not be leaving if some crumbs had fallen into our PMs lap.   

But of course, and the irony would not have been lost on David Cameron as he resigned as PM and MP and as he watched The Letter being handed over yesterday, at least he was elected by a constituency, real voters, back in Witney in Oxfordshire.   

President of the European Council, Donald Tusk, just like the other Presidents in the EU, President of the European Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker and President of the European Parliament, Antonio Tajani, has no democratic mandate with a single voter.

Whose side are they on?

I do get dismayed when I hear of politicians, and it is largely politicians who have never worked in the productive economy, talk about the catastrophe that will befall businesses once we leave the EU.

Really?  Most businesses I know are ambitious.  They don’t sit and wait for governments.  They get out there and create new opportunities.  Just watch this clip of Tom Turner, boss of V12 Footwear.

Like all good business leaders, Tom Turner and his V12 business, is out there looking for business opportunities outside Europe.  

It is the likes of Tom who create the wealth in our nation.

So listening to Keir Starmer, who must be one of the most intelligent people on the Labour benches, spouting such ridiculous nonsense of his Six Tests at the weekend, does leave you holding your head in your hands.   

Whose side are they on you may well ask?

"It's a failure, it's a tragedy."

Well, I never thought I would agree with EU Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker.  The UK leaving the EU:  “it’s a failure, it’s a tragedy”.

But the question is why it is a tragedy?  

Well, I guess that depends on where you are starting from.  It’s a tragedy if your hope was even greater integration in the EU with nation states giving more powers to the EU Commission.  Now that won’t happen, certainly not with the UK there.   

Then there is the other view, it’s a tragedy because such greater integration was always going to lead to tensions that could break up the consensus of the political classes.  And the EU leaders couldn’t see that elephant in the room.  So their project, as they keep calling it, is damaged.

From my doorstep view it has ended in failure and is a tragedy because those driving the EU bus didn’t watch out for the road signs.  And the result was the start of a crash that will go on till the EU as it has been constructed in this grand project is brought back to its pre Maastricht days.  That was a “union” most could all agree was a good one.

Who is going to pay?

The First Minister has alluded to running an alternative referendum if the UK Parliament doesn't acquiesce to her wishes of a proper legally binding one. 

According to Scottish government figures, the vote in September 2014 cost £15.85m, or £4.38 per voter.  Where is Nicola going to find that sort of money? 

She surely wouldn't ask the taxpayer to fund a vote that had no legal standing and was actually nothing more than an opinion poll for a political party.

Sobering bedtime reading for Nicola.

Today accountancy firm French Duncan revealed the results of a survey into attitudes of business leaders in Scotland to the potential for a 2^nd Scottish referendum.  And it will make sobering reading over the Horlicks tonight, if that is Ms Sturgeons night time drink of choice.

This survey reflects the views of a sample of 800 of the SME community, a community that employs most of the population of Scotland who don’t work in the taxpayer funded sector and pays for the taxpayer funded services.   

While French Duncan point out it’s not a scientific survey, it still is pretty clear snapshot of what business leaders think.

There is an alternative, First Minister.

Today in the Scottish Parliament Ms Sturgeon acknowledged to MSPs that many people do not relish the prospect of another referendum.  But I really don’t think she understands on what basis people don’t relish another referendum.  

She clearly comes from a household where everyone voted one way.  I don’t.  My family was split 2 for and 2 against YES.  Debate was robust at times.  But we survived.  And we agreed that whatever the outcome, that would be that.  Sadly not all families survived the acrimony.

Now she suggests that the only alternative available today is another referendum, insisting that the only alternative was “simply to drift through the next two years, crossing our fingers, hoping for the best while fearing the worst.”

Actually First Minister that is not the only alternative.  Another alternative is to roll up your sleeves and make leaving the EU work.  Not to do so is tantamount to seeking to wreck the UK that Scotland only 2 short years ago voted to remain a part of.

The defeatist talk of cliff edge shows that she is more interested in rhetoric than opportunity. 

Parliament has spoken. So will the Lib Dems rejoice?

The Liberal Democrats.  The party that agreed with the Supreme Court ruling that Parliament must pass such a Bill to make it legitimate.

Well, last night the parliament did just that.   Last night Paddy and his friends failed to get the parliament to back their view.  

Their response?  Celebrate the greatness of parliament that it can come to such a view?  After all, that’s what they supported in the Supreme Court battle.  They surely could celebrate that parliament had spoken?

Nope.  They whine like a cry-baby when they discover that parliament can vote against them.

Perhaps the Liberal Democrats will now go and try and understand why people of the UK voted to leave the EU.

Last night in a final fling of the dice the Liberal Democrats tried to put the interests of EU citizens living in the UK before the interests of the UK citizens living in the EU.

No wonder UK voted to leave the EU.

What did the Chancellor actually say?

If I was to say to you, “This is simply amazing” you would think I am giving praise.  But if I said to you, “This is simply amazing.  It’s so inaccurate you can scarcely believe it”, you would have a totally different appreciation of the point I was making.

I use this little grammatical juggling to illustrate what happened after the Budget this week.  

If I ask you “what is the government doing to the self-employed?”, if you have had even a half ear open this week, you will know that they are going to penalise them in some way.  Leave them worse off. 

Only, that is actually the exact opposite of what the Chancellor is going to do.

The second part of the Chancellors proposal was, and I paraphrase, “the self-employed now get the full state pension and will get further benefit entitlements later on…not only that but their NICs will still not be at the same level as employed people’s and they are in fact having some contributions reduced”.

But what did the BBC report?  Not even half the full story.  All they reported was that the Chancellor was increasing NIC’s for the self-employed.  Indeed, the BBC’s top economic editor, Nihal, speculated that the Chancellor was in some way vilifying the self-employed, calling them cheats who were dodging paying their full whack.  Er, what?  Where did he get that from?  Certainty not from the Chancellor.

But the BBC further compounded their error by allowing Labour’s John McDonnell to claim that the self-employed have got absolutely nothing back.  Which is simply not true.   So why did the BBC not challenge him and not let him get away with it.

Good question.  And it has only two answers.  One, sloppy journalism.  Or two, bias.  You make up your own mind.

I know the BBC has slowly been going downhill but at least they should get the facts right and not spin a news story that simply is false.

Conjuring trick.

Now, here is a thought to conjure with.  

Let’s for a moment assume that the First Minister gets her way and has, against her previous statement that the last referendum was a once in a generation one, a second referendum. 

Let’s for a moment suppose the vote was 52% Leave with 48% Remain.

But let’s also suppose some areas, for example, the in the Borders, Dumfries and Galloway, voted to remain part of the UK by a margin of 64% to 36%, as they did in the last referendum.  

Now, using Nicola Sturgeons logic she could not drag them out of the UK against their will. So when the Borders, Dumfries and Galloway, or indeed an individual, go to court to protect their legal right to remain part of the UK will Ms Sturgeon accept their case?  Everywhere south of a line from Dunglass in the east to Cairnryan in the west, staying in the UK.

Let’s put it this way.  I didn't vote for the person who became my local MP.  I didn’t vote for an SNP candidate at the Scottish parliamentary elections, but the SNP are the governing party.  I didn’t vote to remain in the UK when we had the once in a generation Scottish independence referendum.

But, and it’s a kind of important but, I have accepted the result in all of these because that’s democracy.

The SNP will never accept that democracy means that sometimes you don’t get what you want.  Even if there is a 2^nd Scottish referendum and they loose they will simply look for a reason for a 3^rd one.  

Held to ransom.

If the Amendment before the Lords to allow unconditionally EU nationals to remain in this country is passed, will those in favour of it be equally understanding if the EU says after negotiations start after the invoking of Article 50 that UK citizens living in EU countries will not enjoy the same rights in the countries they have chosen to settle in?

Will they be quite happy if the EU, after Article 50 was triggered, said that it would not agree to equal treatment without a series of concessions on other areas?  

Would they be happy if the UK refused to agree to UK citizens being used as a bartering tool in any such concessions?  

That is what the Amendment will open our citizens up to. Being held to ransom.

Fake news is everywhere.

So, the Conservatives are attacking the foundations of Devolution the Scottish First Minster is claiming.  Devolution now faces a “grave threat”.  

There is a big problem here using terms like “grave threat”.  Tony Blair used a form of words “clear and mortal danger” and look what that turned out to be.

What Nicola really means is, if you don’t give us everything we want, you are not negotiating in good faith.  Which putting it mildly, is rather disingenuous.

To use a current expression, the first Minster is making up fake news.  She’s stoking the fire of disillusionment when, as a highly remunerated politician (package on offer is £144,687 – outstripping the prime minister’s overall pay of £142,500) she should be leading with optimism.  All she does is constantly blame someone else.  

Take the news agenda away from her governments failings is her PR goal.  She cannot accept that the people of Scotland two years ago voted to stay a part of the UK, and that the UK voted to leave the EU.   End of story.  

Her job now is to make that happen with the best results possible for the UK that will mean it’s the best results for the Scotland.  After all, the rest of the UK is our biggest trading partner.  Scotland still conducts the vast majority of its trade within the UK.  In 2014, Scotland's exports totalled £76 billion, of which £48.5 billion (64%) was with constituent nations of the United Kingdom, £15.2 billion (20%) with other parts of the world and only £11.6 billion (15%) with the rest of the EU.  So this fixation with the EU is somewhat misplaced, important as it is. 

One little reminder, with all this talk of Scotland being at the mercy of the bad Tory government, just remember, it's this bad Tory government that devolved tax varying power and many other things to Holyrood.  But when the burden of responsibility comes up on Nicola and her government, what do they do?  Retreat in to their turrets and continue to blame these bad Tories.  

Rather pathetic really.