Will Lamont's Cowardice Trump Baillie's Lies in Labour's Race to the Bottom?

On Saturday, as senior figures in what is left of the Scottish Labour Party prepared to give speeches about the SNP and Alex Salmond to a couple of hundred bitter Unionists in a half-empty Caird Hall in Dundee, Jackie Baillie hit on a super wheeze to get herself into the headlines.

Wordle of Lamont's speech. "Scotland" and "Scottish" removed for clarity

Labour's most northerly MSP decided that she would accuse Scotland's hard-working NHS staff of cruelly forcing hospital patients. Baillie claimed in her speech to the Labour Conference that she had correspondence between her constituents and the Royal Alexandra Hospital detailing the claims.

Baillie, the privately-educated MSP for Dumbarton, further claimed that at the hospital, patients were using gowns in place of blankets.

Paisley's Royal Alexandra Hospital - victim of Baillie's smear campaign

Naturally, the BBC treated Baillie's claims with the reverence usually only reserved for the sort of statement carved in stone and handed to them on the top of Mount Sinai.

However, there was one problem with the claim.

It was a total lie - a fantasy invented by Baillie for no reason other than to get a cheap headline and embarrass the Government. These fantasy claims are a thread which seems to run through Scottish Labour: it is not long ago that Johann Lamont stood up in Parliament and told a malicious lie about a rape case in order to get a soundbite on TV and embarrass Alex Salmond.

The Greater Glasgow and Clyde Health Board itself stated that:

There [is] no truth in this claim. Extra blankets are available in all our hospitals, as and when patients need them.

in response to Baillie's claims (and quite why Baillie's constituents would be at the Royal Alexandra Hospital rather than the Vale of Leven hospital, I'm unsure), Health Secretary and Deputy First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, commented that:

Jackie Baillie should be ashamed of herself for talking down Scotland's health service in this way and misleading people - the health board provided proof weeks ago that there is no truth in this claim.

Even after being shot down in flames by the Health Secretary and her lies exposed by the Health Board, Baillie continued to try and brazen her way out of yet another lie, only months after it transpired that she had tried to blacken the reputation of Scotland's Health Service for political reasons with a lie, sending a spokesliar out to claim:

If the Health Board tries to cover this up rather than deal with it, that is an extremely serious matter. It is unacceptable for patients to have to use their dressing gowns as a blanket because there are not enough

Baillie's repeated attempts to demolish the fantastic achievements of Scottish Health Service workers, to lie about them, and to cheat them out of the praise they deserve, is little short of despicable, and all too symptomatic of the total collapse of morality and decency in Scottish Labour.

Baillie - notorious liar

However, after the accusations, after the media coverage, after the mud had been thrown and some of it stuck, after she had sent her lickspittle out to accuse the GGC Health Board of a "cover-up" - she casually admitted in yesterday's Herald that she had invented the whole thing.

This is the second time that Baillie has uttered outright lies - not mistakes, not mistruths, but something she is well aware is a lie, coldly, cruelly and calculatedly designed to harm the reputation of Scotland's Health Service for her own political gain.

She has gained a reputation for putting the interests of Jackie Baillie and Scottish Labour far ahead of the health of the people of Scotland: blocking the Minimum Pricing of Alcohol Bill despite the pleas of doctors, police and health service professionals, for which she received and accepted a "gift" from a major brewer.

So, what will the outcome be?

Johann Lamont, the Invisible "Leader" of Scottish Labour has, since her election last year, behaved with nothing other than total and utter cowardice.

She refused to take action against Baillie for lying about infection statistics.

She refused to take action against drunken ned Eric Joyce for assaulting MPs and policemen.

She refused to take action against thuggish MP Ian Davidson for threatening to attack a female MP.

She refused to take action against Glasgow Councillor Gilbert Davidson for his threat to sack a Councillor's disabled son from his apprenticeship if she voted against Labour in Council.

By refusing to take action against these people, her cowardice provides tacit support for them.

She is content to let Baillie lie about infections in Scottish hospitals. She is content to see "her" MPs on a drunken rampage, headbutting bystanders. She is content for her MPs and Councillors to intimidate, and threaten to violently assault women.

By any measure, Baillie is not fit to be Shadow Health Secretary. Her hatred of the Scottish National Party, and her contempt for the workers in the Scottish Health Service, outweigh any residual shred of ability to do her job.

In any normal party in any other democracy, a Shadow Health Secretary caught out in a blatant lie designed to batter the reputation of the Health Service would be summarily dismissed.

But Labour aren't a normal party. Anne Marie Millar could tell you that.

Will Lamont's cowardice outweigh Baillie's attempts to trash the compassion of Scotland's health professionals?

Or will she finally find some courage and sack a woman who has no right to impose her lies on the Health Service

Labour Plunge New Depths In Glasgow in Blackmail Scandal

Congratulations are in order to Gordon Matheson, who took over from Labour criminal Stephen Purcell in a scandalous resignation involving drugs, gangs and blackmail, but which seemed to elicit little interest from the mainstream media or BBC Scotland. Matheson, who has never had a proper job, professed himself "delighted" to have pushed through the Glasgow budget, with its £43.000.000 cuts, including some Freddy Krugeresque jactitations of Glasgow City Council workers' terms and conditions.

Congratulations, Gordon. Well done son.

Matheson: replaced drug addict Purcell as Labour leader

Matheson, who scraped into the City Chambers at the last Council election on the sixth count, failing to reach the quota, had looked as though he was going to lose the all important budget debate, which would have precipitated a vote of no confidence in him and his administration, after the resignation from the Labour group of several councillors in the hours leading up to the vote.

However, Labour, despite being in a minority administration in a No Overall Control council, managed to sneak the budget through by 40 votes to 38, despite a United Opposition budget supported by the SNP, Independents, some Labour councillors, the only Tory, and the Liberals. Some might say that when every other party in the Council as well as half of your own are united behind an alternative budget, it would be an act of unpardonable arrogance to push your budget through. The arrogance of Matheson and his Labour Party is another story for another day.

It was, truth be told, a surprise result - every observer had anticipated a victory for Glasgow over Labour.

The reason for the victory, a Pyrrhic one for Matheson and his party of thugs and criminals, soon became apparent. The sex-pest, stalker and councillor for Springburn, Gilbert Davidson, had threatened a female Independent councillor that her disabled son would be sacked from his apprenticeship if she voted against Labour.

Davidson - sex pest and blackmailer

It's not a surprise, in all honesty.

Labour has a record of threats and bullying, particularly against women, and particularly in Glasgow. Davidson's namesake, Pollok MP Ian Davidson, threatened to violently assault a female Nationalist MP, Dr. Eilidh Whiteford, after which Dr Whiteford felt it necessary to withdraw from a committee on the British parliament.

Davidson and Butt - Labour colleagues in Glasgow

Again in Glasgow, and again in Labour, Govan Councillor Shaukat Butt was arrested and charged with battering his wife.

Labour is the party of violence, bullying and threats against women.

The crisis at the heart of Glasgow Labour strikes at the very top of what is left of the Labour Party. Almost all of the convulsions are taking place in "leader" Johann Lamont's constituency of Pollok, which she won by a majority of only 600 in Labour's wipeout in May. If Lamont can't control her own party in her own constituency, and keep hold of her own councillors, it begs the question how she can begin to rebuild a divided, crisis-ridden party which she has dragged to the murky depths of 23% support - a level of contempt amongst the electorate for the party which even Wendy Alexander and the astoundingly poor Iain Gray didn't reach.

Wendy: bringing it on Lamont: misled Parliament

This is the result, directly, of Lamont's appalling leadership of the Labour Party. Whether it's using a fabricated rape case to mislead Parliament, threatening to introduce tuition fees for Scottish students (Lamont, of course, enjoyed an expensive University education totally free of charge at public expense), refusing to publish any details of the leadership election she claims to have won, or refusing to tell the people of Scotland whether or not she supports weapons of mass destruction being imposed on this nation, Lamont inevitably makes wrong choice after wrong choice and increases the sense among the public that Labour is a busted flush, which is almost anti-Scottish in its determination to feather its own nest.

There is another question to be answered also.

Lamont is married to deputy Council Leader, Archie Graham. Is it conceivable, really, that the deputy leader was unaware of sex-pest Gilbert Davidson's intention to threaten yet another woman?

Is it conceivable that Davidson acted alone?

Is the reason that Labour are point-blank refusing to apologise or investigate this shabby incident, almost evil in its cold, calculated malice, that it reaches to the black heart of Labour?

Lamont must reveal what she knew about the blackmail to a Glasgow City Councillor, when she knew it, and what she intends to do to make sure that the democracy of Glasgow is never again abased undermined by Labour councillors using blackmail as a political tool.

Questions, Answers, SLabbers and Sudan

The Government's question for the referendum is straightforward, concise, and will elicit a clear answer in either direction. It is, quite simply:

Do you agree that Scotland should be an independent country?

Naturally, the Unionist lickspittles within Scotland, as well as the British régime, are up in arms about it. They would rather the question went something a little more like "do you believe that Scotland should be ripped from the embracing bosom of her neighbours, the queen shot at dawn, EastEnders forever banned from Scottish television screens, and machine gun posts erected at the border so that you can never visit your granny in Barnsley again? Do you? WELL, DO YOU?!"

This sniping and whining should, of course, be treated with the contempt it deserves. As I said on BBC Scotland's Big Debate on Wednesday last, it is astounding that political parties which only nine months ago campaigned on a platform of no referendum, now or ever, wish now to dictate the terms of the referendum. The Unionists had three centuries to set up their own referendum.

But is there something in this particular whine?

In the last such referendum, in Europe, when a nation seceded from a larger state (Montenegro leaving Serbia-Montenegro), the question was:

Do you want the Republic of Montenegro to be an independent state with a full international and legal personality?

Whilst Southern Sudan didn't have a question per se, I can see the British régime and the Unionists asking if the Juba administration has any blank ballot papers left over. I think they'd rather like the wording.

SLab's preferred ballot paper

Incidentally, President al-Bashir of Sudan claimed that the issue was "about unity or separation" and refused to consider any discussions about further devolution to southern Sudan. al-Bashir is a violent dictator, indicted by the International Criminal Court, and widely regarded as a corrupt thug.

Perhaps Johann Lamont ought to consider if it is entirely seemly for the "leader" of the Labour Party in Scotland to be parroting al-Bashir's arguments verbatim.

"Separation": Lamont and Bashir, yesterday

Meanwhile, back in Europe, there are so many precedents for a similar question to the Government's proposed one that it would bore both blogger and reader to go through them all.

A selection will suffice.

Estonia EU referendum 2003:

Are you in favour of the accession to the European Union and passage of the Act on Amendments to the Constitution of the Republic of Estonia?

Latvian independence referendum 1991:

are you in favour of a democratic and independent Republic of Latvia

Slovenia 1990:

Should the Republic of Slovenia become an independent and sovereign state?

Ukraine 1991:

Do you support the Act of Declaration of Independence of Ukraine?

Ballot Paper, Ukraine 1991

Georgia 1991:

Do you support the restoration of the independence of Georgia in accordance with Act of Declaration of Independence of Georgia of May 26, 1918?

The British régime recognises all of these countries. Clearly, there is no doubt that a "do you support", "are you in favour", "do you want", "do you agree" style of wording is no impediment to the referendum being clear, concise, free and fair.

Consequently, any further mewling from the British and their Unionist allies in Scotland can be treated with the utmost contempt.

Scottish Flag Banned At London Olympics

Amongst the excitement of the week, the announcement that the Athletes' Village has been handed over to the London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games has slipped somewhat off the radar.

As part of LOCOG's final preparations for the organisation of the Games, they have issued a list of policies, some of which relate to the behaviour of spectators at Olympic venues. One condition of ticket sales, for example, is the eminently reasonable suggestion that spectators don't enter venues with

firearms, ammunition, dangerous weapon or object, explosive, chemicals or incendiary device.

Less reasonably, but in keeping with the Olympics as a money-making rather than sporting venture, is the instruction that fans don't wear

objects bearing trademarks...promotional signs or messages.

However, the Devil, as always, is in the detail of these things. In Section 19.2.3 of the terms and conditions, amongst such prohibited and dangerous items such as sandwiches, umbrellas, Bibles, Trade Union activity and lighters, lies the condition that spectators must not bring to the Games (the games for all of the UK, remember?)

flags of countries not participating in the Games

As Scotland remains banned from competing in the Olympic Games, despite the proud Olympic traditions and success of Scots, we are now in a situation where Scottish fans, supporting Scottish athletes, in an event taking place partly in Scotland, will be ejected from an Olympic venue (even in Scotland) for waving the Scottish flag.

Scottish Olympians celebrate medal successes at Beijing 2008

The London Olympic games have already been a public relations disaster for the Unionist movement, with the announcement that despite the objections of the Scotland Football Association, the Football Association of Wales, the Irish Football Association, and supporters of all three teams, they would force through a "British" team for the Olympics despite genuine concerns that it would compromise the footballing independence of the so-called Home Nations.

Fans protest outside British Olympic Association headquarters

Not only this, but the very hosting of the Olympic Games has led to charities in Scotland being deprived of 70% of their National (sic) Lottery funding in order to fund sporting, transport and social developments in Britain's richest city to the tune of more than £10,000,000,000. This money, in the midst of the Unionist Parties' recession, would fund NHS Scotland for a year and still have money left over to buy an ice lolly for every man, woman and child in Scotland.

Is this the Respect Agenda? That Scotland's sportsmen are prohibited from taking part as Scots, that the desire of our national sporting associations are ridden over, roughshod, and that the flag of our nation is banned from being waved by our own people in support of our own athletes in a competition paid for by Scottish money and taking place largely in Scotland?

And in these days of southern whining about the Barnett Formula, and the idea that it may somehow be used to calculate an Independent Scotland's share of the Unionist generated UK debt, what does Scotland get in Barnett consequentials for this lavish investment in Britain's richest region?

None. It's a UK event.

The First Parliamentary Attempt By Unionists to Partition Scotland

Last week, I predicted that the British would use every trick at their disposal to maintain the southern flow of subsidies, and suggested that John Taylor's call to Partition Scotland was not merely the murmurings of a madman, but the deliberate floating of a balloon to gauge reaction to the prospect of Partition.

In Hansard today, it was made quite clear that the British have no interest at all in allowing the people of Scotland to decide the constitutional direction of Scotland, and no interest in allowing democracy to prevail. The British State and its establishment, in the form of the affront to democracy which is the House of Lords, and in the person of the despicable Malcolm Sinclair, who has generously taken time out from driving wives to suicide to undermine the democracy of Scotland, is now busily engaged in an attempt to strip away all of the rights of Scotland as a nation.

Malcolm Sinclair

That a former British government minister, a member of the governing coalition, is now attempting to amend the Scotland Bill to ensure that Britain retains Scottish territory - and Scottish oil - at the expense of Scotland post-independence, shows that Partition is a plan from the top. The British have no interest in allowing Scotland to govern itself. They have no interest in allowing the subsidy flow south to cease, and will do all in their power and much outside their power to prevent it.

The Scottish Government, I am certain, will be clear on this issue.

The Scottish nation will take national decisions, as a nation. If Scotland votes in favour of returning powers to Scotland as we did in 1979 and 1997, then those powers will be returned as a nation. Orkney and Shetland are universally recognised as part of Scotland, and return Members to the Scottish Parliament. By including these constituencies under the aegis of Holyrood, the British government has confirmed this.

In the case of Rockall, the position is absolutely clear. The island is part of either Inverness-shire or Ireland. There is international agreement - including the British government - that it is part of the former. There is no geographical, legal or moral case for this island or any other territory of Scotland to remain part of Britain after independence.

The British policy of divide and conquer, Partition, has caused misery, violence and failure across the world.

Scotland must stand strong against the aggressive behaviour of the British, and the British need to realise that the territory of Scotland is not fixed by legislation of the British parliament, any more than is the territory of any other country.

One last thing: this is an attempt to deprive the people of Scotland of the territory of Scotland, the assets of Scotland, and the riches of Scotland.

It is an example of the outright anti-Scottishness which does exist in a large part of the Dependentist Movement.

This isn't anti-Independence. It's blatant and bitterly anti-Scottish.

Unionists will never accept Scottish independence

It's becoming increasingly clear that Unionism is not prepared to accept Scottish democracy.

Already, we have witnessed the quite despicable events of the British régime's attempts to usurp the democratically-elected Scottish government by dictating to the people of Scotland not only which questions they will permit us to answer, but when we will do so.

The régime is trying to bully and cow Scotland into voting "no" - the British finance minister even threatening that we will be prohibited from using both our currency (the Pound Sterling) and our central bank.

We will be hearing more and more of these fairy stories as we approach the referendum. But recently, a new, sinister narrative has started to emerge: the premise being that Scotland, as a nation, does not get to decide our constitutional future.

The British are utterly determined to keep the flow of subsidies flowing south as fast as ever, and to continue pocketing our national wealth (the profits from Scottish oil pays for the British to have three million unemployed). The call from John Taylor to partition Scotland, retaining the richer parts for the UK, is floating a balloon at the moment.

As the Unionist Alliance of Labour, Tory and Liberal continues to collapse, and continues to lose the debate on independence spectacularly, one can expect this call to intensify. Simon Heffer, the aptly-named polemicist of the Daily Mail, has questioned Shetland's position in an independent Scotland, floating the idea that it may be a dependency of England (and, at a stroke, keeping Scottish oil money flowing south).

There is no popular movement in any part of Scotland to be anything other than part of Scotland. It is baffling that the likes of Taylor and Heffer are suggesting this idea. One a Lord, one a High Priest of the Conservative movement. You imagine this idea of partition hasn't suddenly germinated from nowhere.

When Scotland voted "yes" to Home Rule, the Labour government changed the rules and told us we couldn't have it.

When Scotland voted - overwhelmingly - for a pro-Independence Parliament (72/128 MSPs are pro-Independence), the first reaction of the British parties was to demand that the rules be changed to prevent it happening again.

When the Scottish Government announced it would be holding a referendum on Independence, the Labour, Liberal and Conservative parties stood shoulder-to-shoulder to bully it into submission.

The British have never, ever accepted that Scotland's people have the right to choose Scotland's future.

A "yes" vote in the referendum isn't going to change that. That the people will vote for Independence is now more likely than ever before: but that positive step will be nothing more than the beginning of the battle. The dirty tricks, bullying, dissembling, intimidation and outright thuggery will start when the Scottish and British governments begin negotiations.

The British have no intention of having, on their own border, a rich, fair, socially-democratic nation for all their people to see. Questions would be asked. People would get angry. And the British establishment would be finished - which is the real, fundamental reason why the Establishment is so implacably opposed to Scottish people controlling Scotland's affairs.

Senior Labour figure fired - BBC Scotland refuses to report it

More on the sacking of the disgraced "Nazi smear" Labour MP, Tom Harris.

The parasitical BBC in Scotland exists by extorting money from the people of Scotland, whether or not they share the BBC's fanatical support for the Labour Party, whether or not they wish to use the service, on pain of imprisonment.

So here's how they report on the sacking of the man in charge of Labour's digital strategy, the man who only last month came third in their leadership election.

Oh, they don't.

Stories which the BBC deem more worthy of coverage than the end of a senior Labour figure's career:

A possible new garden in Aberdeen

The Press & Journal slightly changes the length and width of its pages

It is expensive to build roads

Fit for purpose?