One rule for you, one rule for me.

There is strange logic at times from Scotland’s First Minister.  When it was her government setting up Police Scotland, it was all about, cutting back the number of chief constables to make a more efficient and effective service.

Now it’s the UK government cutting back the number of HMRC offices, she’s on the march already.  She said the announcement on office closures "appeared to put significant numbers of jobs in Scotland at risk".  She also stated  she would be seeking urgent talks with the UK government to discuss the matter. 

So with the police, it is ok, because she is doing it.  With the tax office it is not ok, because it's the baddies at Westminster once again doing cuts.

It’s interesting the justification that has been put forward for the HMRC changes.  They rather closely mirror the reasons Ms Sturgeon gave for setting up a unified police service in Scotland.  HMRC's chief executive Lin Homer said: "HMRC has too many expensive, isolated and outdated offices. This makes it difficult for us to collaborate, modernise our ways of working, and make the changes we need to transform our service to customers and clamp down further on the minority who try to cheat the system."

But here is the odd thing.  You would have thought that Ms Sturgeon would have come out and said, brilliant, we can save the taxpayer money by doing it more efficiently and at less cost.  But no, once again she thinks that governments are a taxpayer funded job creation agency.

Bully boys and girls.

Last night there was a series of votes in the UK parliament on what has become known as the Scotland Bill.  It’s an interesting piece of legislation that no one voted for at the independence referendum.  A simple yes no question was all that was on the ballot paper.  And only 35% of the people in Scotland voted yes.

Many people had already voted by post before Gordon Brown and his Vow came along.  So the voters who still had to go to the polls were being told there really was a third option on the table.  Vote No and you will not get what you are voting No to, but something else, and that something has been turned into the Scotland Bill.  Weird, but there you go. 

If you watched the debate you will have seen Angus Robertson addressing the Scottish people and remarking that what was happening on the government benches showed disrespect for the people of Scotland and the people of Scotland would be watching.

There is a famous portion in Matthews Gospel when the writer says "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?  If only Mr Robertson had noted such advice.  The behaviour of his MPs was really quite remarkable.  Barracking and shouting at anyone who dared to question the Nationalism Party. 

One particular incident occurred when former Consultant breast surgeon Dr Philippa Whitford, SNP Health spokesperson, sought to intervene in a speech by Ian Austin, MP.  You really want to go and look at the footage.  The intervention was somewhat unbecoming of her status.   It may be an unfortunate camera angle but her face says aggression, even hatred towards Mr Austin who was gently reminding the SNP that they already had the power to do things in NHS Scotland which is a devolved matter.  And in Mr Austin’s view, the SNP government in Scotland were making a bit of a hash of it.

And this was the general tone of the SNP.  You can’t comment on Scottish things because you’re not Scottish.  It really was unpleasant.

But this all comes back to one thing.  Leadership.  People follow the behaviour of their leader.  And week after week in the Scottish parliament Ms Sturgeon, by her words and her body language, encourages people to think that anyone who speaks against the SNP is talking rubbish, is unpatriotic, or is somehow cerebrally challenged.  This is her flaw. And will be her downfall.

I think on reflection Angus Robertson will realise that the Scottish people would have been looking, not so much at the government benches but at him and his party.  Unruly, disrespectful, ignorant of how to behave in a debate.  It really was a poor showing in what could have been a grand debate where they could have delivered a stunning argument.  They didn’t.

What is the NHS actually for?

I pose this as today's question after reading an article in the Herald.   Is the NHS there to ensure that people are treated quickly and effectively as possible?  I hope you will agree with me that this is what the NHS should be doing. 

And here is the problem.  It’s not.  Why?  Well, as the carefully and thoughtfully written article about retired neurologist Dr Ian Bone, who was diagnosed with prostate cancer after he went to see his GP with a sore foot, points out the NHS as we know it today is not about treating a patient as quickly and effectively as possible.  It is about treating a patient quickly and effectively as possible within the structures and systems of the NHS monolith. 

Even if a patent can be treated quicker and as effectively by some other provider, the NHS won’t pay as this article demonstrates. "But why not?" I hear you ask.  After all, we have all paid our taxes for getting health care at the point of need for free through our taxes.  So why insist it can only be spent in the nationalised health provision business and not on treatment by some other provider who can do it quicker and more effectively?

I had occasion to come across this problem recently when my daughter damaged her knee.  Waiting time in the NHS?  Oh, about 6 months probably.  But if you went to another provider, the response was “When would you like to come in to get it done”.  It really is time we stopped treating the NHS as the only provider of service.

Let’s just think what the NHS is.  It has only one role.  And that is to provide a free at the point of delivery healthcare service to the nation.  Does it mean it has to have a big organisation to do this?  To actually run hospitals?  I think not.  That is such old thinking and it restricts the clinical excellence we do have in the UK form blossoming into a world class system.  Which it's not.

So lLet the NHS concept of free at the point of delivery flourish.  But endow it with the opportunism of innovation and free thinking.   But for that to happen the politicians have to agree that the NHS needs to end its monolithic sole provider status.  Only then will innovation and fresh thinking waft through the wards.   Let’s save the NHS by liberating its ability to care for people at their point of need.  Let the money follow the patient like Dr Bone.  Even if it means the money goes to Germany.  For me, the patient should always come first.

There is no such thing as the Police family.

It was a sad occasion.  The funeral of a police officer in Liverpool today.  Very dignified. 

But was it very fitting?  There was something not quite right about it all. There were no "ordinary" people there.

Apart from the family and friends of the officer I’m not sure I saw many people who were not in uniform.  The subliminal message, this is all about us, it’s one of our own we have lost.  Which when you think about it for more than a nano second is the wrong message. And it reinforces the thinking that seems to exist in the police that its all us vs them.  That is certainly what it looked like today with the community the police serve being rather significantly absent and seen as irrelevant.

The tired phrase “police family” was trotted out again.  But the police are not a family.  They are members of our communities, just like everyone else.  It’s just we have given them one thing.  The power of arrest.  And that power is there to be exercised on behalf of the community family they come from.  This talk of the police being a family only alienates people from the police. 

Putting it very simply, they are not a Police Family.  They are not a Police Force.  They are a Police Service for the community provided by people of the community who chose to serve as officers.

When he laid out his nine principles of Modern Policing in 1829 Sir Robert Peel said this: 'The police are the public and the public are the police’ – police officers are drawn from the community and we exercise our powers on their behalf – we police by our community’s consent.'

Be careful what you wish for, Prime Minister.

Legislate in haste, repent at leisure. 

Words the prime minister should remember before he acts to “reign in” the Lords.  

The day may yet come when we will be grateful to have a last bastion against an elected dictatorship.

Be careful what you say.

In this day and age it is very difficult for you to say something in the public domain without it being checked, dissected, and generally exposed to full public examination.  So one wonders how Michelle Dorrell, a mother-of-four, who shouted "shame on you" on BBC Question time as she confronted Amber Rudd, the Energy Secretary, over the welfare reforms and accused the government of taking the money she had worked "bloody hard for", feels this weekend.

For a start, taking her “evidence” for her own predicament, she was wrong according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies which suggested that, because Ms Dorrell does not make a profit, she is unlikely to be hit by changes to the income threshold for working tax credits, which is being almost halved to £3,850 a year.  Point one.

Point two.  She will also not be affected by the changes to child tax credits, which will only be restricted to the first two children for new parents from April 2017.  David Phillips, a senior research economist at the IFS, said: "On what she has told us she wouldn't be affected by the cuts to the child tax credits or the change to the taper rate because she is not above the threshold.   Even the family element thing comes in 2017, and will only apply to new claimants.”

Point three is where it comes more difficult for Ms Dorrell.  Accountants said that she may face scrutiny from HMRC over her business under a new test for self-employed benefit claimants.

The test requires that in order for people to claim tax credits work must be carried out on a "commercial basis" with a "view to a profit".   Ms Dorrell said that her business makes a maximum of £150 week, all of which is put back into new products and advertising.  The business has a website but is not advertised at her property.   Robin Williamson, an accountant at the Low Income Tax Reform Group, said: "If she receives no income from her business it is always possible that HMRC may investigate to see if this test is satisfied."

So apart from her claims being found somewhat tenuous in relation to money getting cut, she could end up being on the wrong side of an HMRC enquiry into her business.  Not a position anyone really wants to be in. So my advice today is, if you are going public, and that includes saying anything on social media, get the facts right and don’t open the door for people to enquire more about your circumstances.  You might just regret it.

Remind me how we voted in the referendum.

The UK government wants to impose a minimum 50% turnout in strike ballots.  

So what right has SNP minister Roseanna Cunningham to make an official request for Scotland to be excluded from the UK government's bill proposing curbs on trade union powers?

Well every right to make the request I would think. 

But zero right to be answered in a way she clearly wants to be answered.    

Let’s get this clear.  Only 35% of Scots voted to leave the UK.  This is UK wide legislation.  So the Scots didn’t back Roseanna on this. 

Indeed it could be argued that 65% of Scots approve of the legislation as they didn’t vote to leave the UK.

Another vacuous promise

Nicola Sturgeon is today going to pledge to build a new £200m network of NHS treatment centres for planned operations if the SNP wins next May's Holyrood elections.  Brilliant I hear you say. And it is.

But what she has not indicated is where she will get this additional £200m from.  Where is she going to cut from other budgets to enable her to do this very important thing.  Hear anything? Nope, I have not heard that either.  So another pledge so she can slate off the UK government about lack or resources.  This is the UK that only 35% of Scots voted to be separated from. 65% didn't vote to separate.

Well Nicola, the time has come.  These excuses are beginning to wear a bit thin.  Especially as you have not availed yourself of the tax varying powers that you already have.

Health, education, police, three of the areas you have full control over.  And the wheels on the wagons are beginning to get a bit shooglie.

There is poverty out there

But it is not where Labour are suggesting it is.  I watched in amazement at the poverty of new thinking in the speech by Mr Corbyn.  Rambling, incoherent, amateurish.  Even delusional.  A speech that was embarrassing to watch.  Worst of all, he talked as though the election in May had never happened.  It did, and Labour lost.

It really was exceptional.  And combined with the words of the shadow chancellor, it made for depressing listening.  And I suspect I’m not the only one to think that.  They are not my cup of tea when it comes to economics.  And when Guardian writer Zoe Williams was out batting for the Labour leader today she dropped this nugget explaining:  "Of course there is a money tree, it's called the Bank of England.  That's how countries make money."

Er, what?  Did you see John McTernan’s face?  It says it all.  He knows a gaff and how to avoid one having been around Prime Minister Tony Blair's Director of Political Operations from 2005 to 2007, director of communications for the Australian prime minister, Julia Gillard, from September 2011 to June 2013 among other things.

I had hoped for a fresh stimulating argument to take to the Conservatives.  But what did we get? People like Zoe talking utter nonsense and she clearly doesn’t understand that governments actually have no money except that which we allow them to take off of us.   But there was one hint of light at the end of the tunnel that was not an oncoming train.  Tax avoiders.

Is it not ridiculous the local coffee shop owned by local people pays more tax than Starbucks it is competing with? Is it not ridiculous that the local chemist owned by a local person is paying more tax than Boots the Chemist that they are competing with.  Is it not ridiculous that the local electrical shop is trying to make a living competing with Amazon that is paying less tax?   I certainly think so.  And I suspect the vast majority of people in the UK do to.  (Yes, I know Amazon have agreed to paying more tax.  But there is a long way to go).

Think of it this way.  Every £ in tax these businesses avoid means an extra £ of tax the honest taxpayers have to pay just to keep the funding to the NHS, police, armed forces as they currently are.

If Corbyn (or is it string puller Watson) is smart Labour will focus on this inequality.  It strikes a chord across the country.

Unless the Conservative get their act together on this issue, this could just be the vote winner the Labour party needs.

My memory was playing tricks, I thought.

It is funny the tricks your mind plays sometimes.  I am sure that the First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, was always very clear on what she thought about the referendum that happened 12 months ago.

But now, I'm not so sure my memory is correct.  Perhaps she didn't say it was a one off event. Perhaps she did say something like "the referendum result will only stand if we get our own way".  Or was it "the referendum will of course be re run every few years till we get a result".

I was beginning to think I must have misheard her 12 months ago till I was by flicking through some tweets from Jo Swinson, former LibDem MP.

And there it was, a nice wee montage of words from Nicola.  Had I been wrong all along?  Nope.  Check it out!

How to bring down a prime minister.

Ever wondered what commodity prices can do?  

First of all, what is a commodity?  Well traditionally a commodity was a thing like Precious Metals, a raw material product that can be bought and sold, such as copper.  Then there is Energy.

But other products joined the raft.  Agriculture Commodities. Coffee.  Ok, we don’t all drink coffee.  But then you find that foodstuffs become commodities.   Corn.  Wheat. Cocoa, Cotton, Live Cattle, fats.  You will find today's trading prices at  Bloomberg.    Will water become a commodity one day?  In this bull market thinking some would argue, why not. 

But there are consequences of having life sustaining things as commodities.  When Greed Becomes Hunger was a two part drama on radio 4 earlier this year, surely an award winner somewhere.  It just simply showed the power of the commodity market.  In this case, famine and hunger were the outcomes.  You can listen here. Part One: The Pit  and Part Two: The Pen.

So next time you wander the aisles of your supermarket, don’t think that this is all about Asda doing it cheaper than Tesco .  This is all about global traders buying and selling other people products, doing “short selling” on them (the practice of selling securities or other financial instruments that are not currently owned, and subsequently repurchasing them ("covering")).  Is that gambling by another name?

Yes, our whole food chain is now part of this global gambling arena.  Farm to the Fork sounds idealist.  But today’s farm to the fork involves a lot of people making a lot of money out of trading these commodities.  These traders of course don’t do any of the back breaking work.  Oh no, that’s the poor people who do that.  For a pittance of a wage.

So where do prime ministers come into this?

We will never know what Tony Abbott, the PM of Australia, could have achieved if commodity prices hadn’t collapsed.  That was what did it for him.  He lost the confidence of the “market”.  Not the electors you note, the market.  The very people who are the ones who gamble with your food prices.

Political leaders can ride high if the economy is working or if there is a common enemy to overcome (reactionary or greedy unions or a perceived terrorist threat, for example). They can even weather media gaffes.  But if the economy goes wrong and they stay on the wrong side of the culture wars they risk all.

The commodities boom, which a succession of Australian PMs had the benefit of with the apparently insatiable Chinese appetite for everything Australia could unearth, suddenly collapsed earlier this summer.  It threatened to turn the high-riding Lucky Country into the new Greece.

So we will see how the very confident Malcolm Turnbull, the new Australian PM, will now deal with the economy.  Or how it will deal with him.  Because if the gamblers in the commodity market don’t do him any favours or don't like what he is doing, the knife will be stuck in him just as he stuck it into Abbot.

What's the trigger?

An interesting interview with Stewart Hosie who said there would need to be a 'trigger point' in Scotland for there to be a second referendum.  There could be another Scottish referendum, he contends, but it would be silly to rush into one. Which I think we all understand to mean, we're not doing it again if we don't know for sure we will win.

He is right.  But such a trigger would have to be something that wasn’t being talked about at the time of the referendum.

Some in the SNP say Trident could be the trigger.  Well, I don’t think so because if either Labour or the Conservatives had won the UK General Election, Trident update would have been ordered.  The people of Scotland knew that and voted No in the referendum.

Austerity?  A much misunderstood and inappropriately used word.  But basically, should we live with a balanced budget.  In varying degrees all the main parties agreed we should at the UK General Election.  So for the UK government that was elected by the whole of the UK that Scotland voted to stay a part of, it surely is free to implement such a policy, it's not a new policy.  The people of Scotland knew that and voted No in the referendum.

The Vow, ah yes the Vow.  Unfortunately we weren’t voting on the Vow.  We were voting on a very simple question "Should Scotland be an independent country?".  And as a significant number of people had already cast their votes before the Vow appeared, the Vow has little if any legal relevance.  It certainly was not what we were voting on.  The people of Scotland knew that and voted No in the referendum.

Indeed, only 37.7% of those eligible to vote voted YES.  Itn anyone book, that’s a bit of a defeat.

So I am struggling to find new evidence of any policy that the UK government is going to implement that was not known at the time of the referendum.  So a trigger?  Nope, I can’t see one either.

The best thing the SNP should do now is get their head down, using the powers they do have, and show the people that they can make a fist of it. Then, and only then, will the people genuinely say, “know what, we can do it”.

Patriotism and support for the monarchy are not the same thing.

Yesterday saw a service at St Pauls Cathedral for a Battle of Britain memorial service.

While all the attention should have been on giving thanks to those who made the ultimate sacrifice, attention quickly wandered to what people were wearing and what they were singing.  I am referring of course to the dressing and vocal activity of Jeremy Corbyn.

Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn did not to sing the national anthem.  Shock horror.  It has certainly generated many column inches in today's papers. Mind you, there a good few Tories like me who for the same reasons of believing in democratic accountability and everyone should be able to achieve the highest office in the land similarly stand in dignified silence. So it is not a Labour v Tory thing.  

The London Times reports that the decision by the staunch republican Labour leader to (in his own words) stand in "dignified silence" while God Save The Queen was sung was "met with fury among the Royal Air Force veterans, former military commanders and politicians". 

So condemned if he doesn’t sing words of praise to an hereditary monarch.  But if he had uttered the words God save the queen, would we not be now branding him a hypocrite?  I would.  Everyone knows he would rather have a democratically elected head of state.  So for him to align himself with words that he finds repugnant declaring long live a hereditary monarchy, he really would have been hypocritical.

And, just for a moment, can you think of any other national anthem in the world where a person is the theme?  North Korea?  Nope, not even North Korea.  It’s all about the fatherland, being industrious and counting tractors.

Should a national anthem not be about the country and its people?  As Republic's CEO, Graham Smith, said yesterday: "It hardly mentions the nation.  It's wrong to accuse people of being unpatriotic for not singing God Save The Queen.  Patriotism and support for the monarchy are not the same thing."

Most of us claim to believe in democracy, we value our freedoms and believe we have the right to hold people to account. But if we really believe in democratic values and opportunity for all to achieve anything then there is no place for an hereditary monarchy.

One day we will have a national anthem we can all sing with pride, including Jeremy Corbin.  And me.

Now, round off your day by having a look at some myth busters about the monarchy.

What is happening at the borders?

A new website has been set up to help co-ordinate Scotland's response to the refugee crisis. (sic)

ScotlandWelcomesRefugees invites people to donate "time, skills, goods, accommodation or other practical help to refugees arriving in Scotland".  As vacuous statements go, the web site name rates pretty highly.  Perhaps that can be expected of the Scottish Government as it seeks to divert peoples attention from its own failings on the NHS, education and policing.  But I really would not have expected it from the Scottish Refugee Council.

I have a friend who lived and worked in Hungary for many years.  They still have friends there.  And the story coming out from them is not the story we are being told here.  Yes, there may be refugees amongst the crowd, but the vast majority are not.  They are economic migrants.  They want to come to the West for a better life.  Understandable.  Who can blame them.  But if you want to go to Australia for a better life you better get ready to meet their entrance criteria.  So why have we abandoned all such criteria in this desire to welcome anyone who seeks to cross a border not as a refugee but as someone who wants to live here for a better life?

Is it not right that Hungary should treat them as economic migrants until they can prove otherwise?  The UN are the experts in this area.  Can’t we rely on them to tell us who is and who is not a refugee?  

Which is exactly the approach the Conservative government are taking in the crisis.  And that is why the UK will be taking real refugees from UN camps. 

A BBC reporter today labelled the Hungarian government as hard line.  Sounds like they took sides in the conversation to me. That pejorative term simply showed the narrative in western Europe is so out of touch with what is happening at the frontiers.  The Hungarians know who they are dealing with.  We, and the BBC reporter, clearly do not.

I do find it rather strange that on one hand when we want to do certain things people rightly say it must be taken before the UN.  But on this occasion the UN is being side-lined for political expediency by some people.

Oh yes, I know people will accuse me of being heartless.  But the real heartless ones are those people who are seeking to label themselves refugees when they are nothing of the sort.

I want to welcome genuine refugees. 

Who's the leader?

So, who is the new leader of Labour in England and Wales?  Did I hear you say Jeremy Corbyn?  Mmmm.  Try again.  Or let me rephrase the question.  Who do you think is the real new leader of Labour in England and Wales.  Ah, yes, a different answer.

Let us start with the facts.  Tom Watson was elected Deputy Leader. But was that just a front backed by the unions as a preamble for Tom Watson to take over the Labour leadership in due course?  One scenario could be:  Corbyn wins, Labour MPs immediately rebel (two months perhaps) and a second election is scheduled.  Tom Watson runs and wins second contest easily. 

Some more facts.   Tom’s support in the Union movement is total.  Louise Menche reckons he would be “an effective leader of the Opposition if he worked hard on understanding the shift he’d just made, and above all other things, controlled his temper and moderated his speech”.

And the reality?  Corbyn endures a truly dreadful first 48 hours as leader, with silence at the PLP, a fight over Remembrance Day poppies, and Labour women incensed at the sexism of their party.  By the end of Corbyn’s first day as leader Tom Watson had already made his move culminating with an extraordinary headline in the Times :  “Unions join attacks on Corbyn’s top team”.

One senior trade union source commentated: “I’m honestly shocked at how bad the operation has been for the past 48 hours.  I honestly thought [Mr Corbyn] would be better than this.”  Len McCluskey, the Unite leader who had hailed Mr Corbyn as the future, was among those said to be pushing for alternative candidates to lead Labour’s economic strategy.

In public, trade union bosses were barely more polite — either about Mr McDonnell, or on Mr Corbyn’s electoral appeal.  Dave Prentis, general secretary of Unison, said that Mr Corbyn would have to “grow into the job”.  Recently knighted Sir Paul Kenny, general secretary of the GMB union… “Let’s see what the voters say.  Because at the end of the day, they are really the important ones.”

Are these not quite remarkable words barely three days after Corbyns victory?  The Unions, bastions of the left, move against the hardest left leader Labour has ever had?  The question is, why?  The answer is found in two words as you suspected as you started reading today: Tom Watson.

And the Unions place in all this?  Unite is Tom’s union.  He’s been running Unite candidates to get selected as Labour MPs.  They “Hailed Mr. Corbyn as the future” until Tom’s was elected Deputy Leader. Thanks for that. Now off you go Jeremy.  And forget not, Watson is very connected in the union movement with people like Dave Prentis, general secretary of Unison.  

Labour MPs know that they need a person who can command armies. Someone clever.  Someone patriotic.  Someone pragmatic.  And someone who, if they get themselves a good speechwriter, is a potential prime minister. That person is someone for whom MPs have already voted.  That man is Tom Watson.  

Unintended consequences

It really is a funny old word in which we live when you find that Jeremy Corbyn's famous supporters include Daniel Radcliffe, Charlotte Church and Russell Brand. 

Entertainment stars will, of course, be big among the losers in the maximum wage proposals.  For example, last year Daniel earned £66m.  If the maximum wage is put at the rate George Monbiot suggests, and he is usually fairly on the money when it comes to knowing the mind of the political left, the figure will be around £500,000 including bonuses.  That means Daniel will be parting with £65.5m of his earnings every year.  Did Daniel know that when he attached his support to Mr Corbyn?

It is uplifting that people like Daniel are so in favour of such a policy.  But given his views I’m sure he already is one of the few people who have sent a cheque to HM Government for all the money they earned over £500,000.  You too can do it, just write a cheque to HMRC and mark it as a gift for use by HM government for whatever they see fit to use it for.  Just pop it in the post to HMRC, Bradford BD98 1YY United Kingdom.

Are footballers included?

Jeremy Corbyn believes that a national maximum wage should be introduced to cap the salaries of high earners.  

I look forward to footballers being top of his list for those he is targeting.  Surely it is obscene in any society for a person to be paid £142,014 a week for kicking a ball.  That tots up to £7,284,000 per annum.  Yip, £7,284,000 per annum.  That is the average wage of a premiership footballer in one of the top 5 clubs.

A nurse in the UK earns on average  £23,091 per annum.  So a footballer "earns" 315 times more a year than what a nurse does. 

That really cannot be right in anyone's book.

Your money

John McDonnell may not have been a name that tripped off many lounges until this morning when it emerged he was the new Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer.

One of his key policies is the banks should be nationalised.  And on the surface that seems like a good populist move.  After all, it’s the banks that got us into the economic mess he would no doubt argue.  Others would of course argue it was Gordon Brown by liberalising the banking regime was the catalyst for banking excess.  I tend to go with that thinking.

But whatever, nationalise the banks.  But what actually are we nationalising?  Think about it.  Where does your salary go every month?  A bank.  Where do you keep your savings.   A bank.  To who do you go to borrow money.  A bank.  Or grow your business.  A bank.

So what John McDonnell is really saying is "I want to nationalise all your savings, I want politicians to control them.  I want politicians to be able to decide commercial lending policy.  I want to be totally in control of 100% of the money in the country, not just the tax I take off of you as an individual or a business". 

If that doesn’t worry you, I am not sure what will.

Flawed logic?

I am struggling a bit with the logic of what the First Minster of Scotland is saying these days.

Exactly 12 months ago we were told we had a once in a generation chance to vote YES.  By a significant number, close on 65%, the electorate did not back her views that Scotland should be an independent country.  And as a generation will be at least 16 years, assuming the age where people legally can contribute to a new generation, that’s a good few years away.  Like 2030.  But if you use official statistics the average age for people having their first baby in Scotland it is actually more like 30.  2014+30=2044.  The people knew that when they voted.  And the people decided.

So move on a year from the referendum.  We have Ms Sturgeon saying they will put into the manifesto for the elections to the Scottish Parliament in 2016 the timescale for a possible second referendum on independence.

She said: "Our manifesto will set out what we consider are the circumstances and the timescale on which a second referendum might be appropriate, but we can only propose.  It's then for people in Scotland, whether it is in this election or in future elections, to decide whether they want to vote for our manifesto and then if there is in the future another independence referendum, whether that's in five years or 10 years or whenever, it will be down to the people of Scotland to decide whether they want to vote for independence or not.  So at every single stage this is something that is driven by and decided by the people of Scotland, not by politicians."

This is strange logic indeed.  Just read what she said again.

The reality is that at every stage it will be driven by politicians.  Ms Sturgeon and her colleagues.  It clearly is not the Scottish people, they did not back her ideas 12 months ago, even though they will probably back her in to government again next year.  But that’s because there is nothing better to choose.

Redistribution is the solution to what question?

Let us not kid ourselves, Jeremy Corbyn’s win will not being about fairness should he lead his party to success at the general election.  It is all about redistribution.

I think the defining moment many will reflect on was his thinking that the rich won’t mind paying more tax. “Many well-off people I speak to, in Islington and around the country, would be quite happy to pay more tax to fund better public services or to pay down our debts. Opinion polls bear this out: better off people are no less likely to support higher taxes.  A more equal society is better for us all. We all do better with good public services and when we all care for each other.”

This is the flaw in his argument. He wrongly equates higher taxation with fairness.  But what Corbyn is all about is not fairness, it is about the state taking more and more control of the money you and I earn. 

He really does not see a picture of the state living within its means.  He doesn’t see that waste is rampant in the public sector. He doesn’t see the picture that someone has to earn money that the state can then tax.

Cut the waste and you will either be able to reduce taxes or use the taxation that already comes in for better purposes.   Oh yes, you can print even more money.  And live with the consequences.