I shouldn’t…I really shouldn’t…but damn it, I will. I’ll say what I think many are thinking. I’m losing patience with Unionist tinkering with the constitution. Didn’t they throw away their chance to claim they have the answer when they said No to a second question? Wasn’t that the time to step forward with an alternative and put it to the people for a mandate in the referendum?

Where have Ming and Gordon been all this time? (Sorry, I forgot, Gordon has been jetting around the globe business class earning over £900,000 for his “office” but not for himself, oh no, not like the man he stabbed in the back and tried to fire – Alistair – who at least spends the £170,000 a year he earns on top of his MP’s salary and expenses)

How many formulations of powers, responsibilities and services can we take, let alone assimilate? Why has it proved beyond them – those who can so enthusiastically club together against Scotland – to sit down and agree a precise and detailed option they all agree on…Ben Thomson at Reform Scotland managed it within weeks of the SNP winning the election. It is this total failure to come together to be constructive that is the least convincing part of their case. If they can’t do it now, what chance they will agree in the horse market of Westminster with angry English backbenchers demanding Scotland be told to shut up or it loses the Barnet Formula?

The Liberals won’t win the next election so we can pretty much discard their offer. It is highly unlikely either Labour or the Tories will win outright and whatever line-up we have in power they will be confronted by an angry mob who have had enough of the Scottish question and in no mood to back “concessions”. As you can see from the BBC website under today’s New Powers from Brown and Campbell story, the southern punters are already talking about appeasement by which I think they mean enhanced powers.

I will always accept the best Scotland can get if it’s less than independence but in order to persuade Don’t Knows I think they each need a guarantee from their London leaderships on the minimum powers to be in a manifesto and to have a done deal ahead of a General Election with red line issues no matter who forms a government or coalition. That is the question to be put to them. Does the London leader back this in the manifesto and is there agreement between all the Unionist parties (minus UKIP)? After all, they were able to bury every disagreement between themselves on the economy, on poverty, welfare, privatisation and every other divisive issue in order to present a united front against change so why not in support of change? So although I’m always interested in ideas and alternatives but this is a bellow from the elephant’s graveyard. Not so much a call to arms as a retrospective plea for mercy. I think Scotland has moved on and they haven’t noticed.

Why wasn’t this the thrust of their approach for the last two years, with public meetings, published reports on policy areas, open debates on what kind of devolution in addition to the commissions? Has Johann actually asked her party members what they want? Her MSPs? Her constituents? Don’t be silly. This is Labour where they like nothing better than a darkened corridor and the smack of Stalin. Mind you, I haven’t noticed the party membership making demands either apart from LFI. Are they comatose, intimidated or silently waiting to vote Yes…

And is there something just a bit cringe-making about Johann always sitting behind other people? She’s behind Gordon and behind Alistair and behind Ed (either of them). I thought leaders were supposed to, erm, lead.

55.875134 -4.276330