A couple of loosely connected little tales to round off the week.
Better Together may be the view of those hoping to solemnise a same-sex relationship, and off course it is very much on the agenda with a bill to be taken through parliamentary process. There’s an excellent summary of the position, of the views taken by parties and by their leaders, depending on geography. Catch it here.
But if your idea of being better together is the cost of sending elected members to Westminster, and the value we get for that money, then you’ll be glad to know that MPs expenses are back under scrutiny. One member, from the far-flung reaches of Glasgow, that backwater where travel connections must be difficult, managed to rack up as much the Shetland delegate. The latter may be acceptable, but the Glasgow eejit boasts of an intention never to milk the system. I shudder to think the extent that we may be fleeced if he had gone back on that one, but have a look for yourself. Given the analysis by Rev Stu, I think we should be told a bit more on exactly what he speny our money on. Come clean Willie, or is it just the extra cost of following party policy in deliberately opposing every Nationalist motion, or the costs of campaigning with the blue tories for more of the same?
Better Together? Let them get married, but let us get rid of those who still have their snouts in the trough. You’d think they might learn. But I guess if Mr Laws can get a promotion rather than a sentence…….. No wonder these Westminster boys are so vociferous in wanting to keep their jobs. But is it in Scotland’s best interest? You decide.
Or as someone said elsewhere – if we happened to be an independent nation today, about to hold a referendum on a proposed union with England, how would you vote? Thought so. Better Together, aye right.
laidbackviews 