Part-time Junior Assistant Imperial Master’s communications team costs rise by 8 times in only 8 years!

One reader suggested that this is a face from his past of a failing schoolteacher deciding he’ll have to belt an unruly pupil.

From answers to House of Commons questions yesterday:

Between 2010 and 2019 the annual cost of the Governor’s communications team rose from £108 439 to a staggering £819 640. The ‘reason’:

‘The Office is resourced to deliver all of the communications functions and activities expected and required of a Government Department in its own right and on behalf of the UK Government in Scotland. The number of staff, in communications, reflects this requirement.’

Click to access Written-Questions-Answers-Statements-Daily-Report-Commons-2020-01-14.pdf

A government department ‘in its own right?’ Oh, come on! With responsibility for what function? Health? Transport? Crime and Justice? No? No? No? What then? Unionist propaganda? That’ll be it.

4 thoughts on “Part-time Junior Assistant Imperial Master’s communications team costs rise by 8 times in only 8 years!”

  1. Utterly appalling, utterly corrupt – clearly an abuse of Westminster government power. Is there anything anyone can do – other than try to shame the shameless? Probably not much. Yet another good example of why Scotland needs to chart her own future free of the wreckage that is the Westminster/Whitehall colonial system of rule.

    Liked by 2 people

  2. Hi Ludo, have to agree with you fully there, except I’ll add a feeling of dismay – but I always get that feeling when hearing anything about Westminster.

    In other news: the crowdjustice thing I was promoting has unfortunately reached its target – unfortunate because it’ll cost me more than I can really afford, oh well more the fool me – but good that it is now going ahead. It’s not a magic bullet, it’s just one thing, one stage in the process to finally allow us to be given a choice – and such a sad state of affairs it is that we need to push to be allowed to vote – all mandates are in order and all events have come to pass that should allow us immediately, now, to know when our referendum is. The number of people saying ‘you had your vote,,,’ is astonishing. How is that rational thinking in a democracy? Also the use of ‘you’ or ‘youse’ has become evident, indicating an othering of a pre-judged group. I chat with extremist unionists on occasion, but can’t get a coherent answer on what group this is that they are othering – just ‘not them’ I guess, those people that are capable of more than just quoting bigoted headlines, you know, the thinking population.

    Anyway, the group Forward as One (appear to be based in Dumfermline) has posted the advice from the advocate on the question: does the Scottish Parliament have the right to hold a referendum on Scottish independence with the law as it currently stands?

    A bit irritatingly they’ve posted on Facebook and each page as an image (you won’t be reading it on your phone without very sharp eyesight).

    The summary is that there is a very good argument to say that current law does allow for the Scottish Parliament to legislate for an independence referendum. The document is fascinating as it gives the history of constitutional matters and the relationship between the Union Parliament and the parliaments of the other nations. His main arguments to the court appear to be that constitutional matters constantly change, that the Scotland Act 1998 changed the constitution and the treaty of union (which said that there would be forever only one union Parliament). He goes into detail about why the court should rule on this issue, and those arguments appear fairly strong (it needs clarified, and this can only be done in a court of law). And, the crux of the matter, the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament on reserved matters – the Scotland Act that defines this, he mentions two clauses, this first says the treaty of union cannot be changed by Scotland, the second lists reserved matters and it only mentions the trade agreements of the Treat of Union. He argues that a referendum in and of itself does not change anything – legislating to poll the people only potentially initiates changes, and it is the intention of the legislation that matters – the purpose would be to open negotiations, not to declare UDI – means that the referendum does not impinge on reserved matters.

    Well, it needs to get past the hurdle of the Court of Session agreeing to rule on the matter – my opinion is its about bloody time, but judges may not agree – and then the ruling could go either way, probably a 50-50 chance. I don’t think the urgency of the matter was emphasised enough, but I assume any orders sent to court would do so? I wish there was more information about the next steps, but I guess we have to wait. Again. The strength of the argument, which is predicated on interpretation and the niceties of law, I don’t know about, but I think it’s as good as it gets, and we have to hope Westminster isn’t able to change constitutional law in the meantime.


  3. I should have mentioned regarding the legal arguments:

    The Scottish Parliament absolutely and clearly, as set out in the Scotland Act, has the right to hold a referendum on anything and everything, (unlike the Welsh assembly), so it is only the nuance of does the subject impinge on reserved matters, and does that matter? The legislation for a referendum does NOT change any reserved matters, so they are not legislating to change anything reserved when initiating an independence referendum – the outcome of that referendum could or could not relate to reserved matters (the treaty of union), but that does not make the initial legislation relate to reserved matters in itself, because the outcome is uncertain.


  4. Contrary, I hope this legal case is successful, it will send Boris into a frothing heap of threats and bluster agin the courts, judges, media and the polis should stand by—just in case “the Burd” gets it.

    What I cannot advocate, is a rolling protest of flash-mobbing senior Toadies ( Jack, Carlot and Boris if he comes To Scotland).
    What I cannot advocate is protesters follow the lead of Extinction Rebellion, and get themselves into Scottish Office premises, and chain, glue or just hing onto something for as long as they can.
    What I cannot advocate is to make ourselves so troublesome to the Brit Nats that normal business becomes impossible for them. A lock-in would be good.
    I DO advocate there is no physical violence, no vandalism, no behaviour that can be misconstrued by a colonial media.
    Ultimately, what I cannot advocate is dozens of protesters glueing themselves to the benches, Speakers Chair etc in the Commons and the Lords, and chanting–“what does Scotland want to see—Scotland wants democracy”!
    Have a series of protests with a humorous side, so the world takes notice and laughs, along with us, at the Ruritanian nonsense that is the disfunctional Ukania.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.