Sorry Twitter, it’s not me, it’s you.

Some of you may have noticed I've deactivated, not just protected, my Twitter Accounts.

Twitter has been a distraction in my life for far too long. I dislike the person I am on Twitter and just detest the atmosphere that has arisen on the platform, but given my other issues I think it's time to take a break. 

As some of you who know me on Facebook will known I’ve had my health issues of late. A year of constant referrals to the GP and a series of sprays and antibiotics for my nose didn’t seem to be clearing anything. And then just before summer I was floored with tonsillitis and admitted to the ENT at the Queen Elizabeth Univserity Hospital. 

It was there that I decided I’d had enough with Twitter, I got a whole new clarity on life. 

However once cleared one of the specialist consultants asked me to come back and see him after my summer Holliday as there was something bugging him about the whole way my infection had affected me. That hunch may well have saved my life. 

A few weeks later I was getting cameras up my nose and discussing the possibility of having my adenoids removed, and so off i went to a CT scan. 

It’s hard to describe the next part, there I was sitting with my consultant about to discuss the results of the scan and then I hear the words “I’m actually really worried about you” there then followed a sentence in which “cancer“ was mentioned but it’s difficult to recall much else. You might suspect you have cancer, it may be sitting there in the back of your mind, but nothing prepares you for the moment when you actually hear it. 

It took me about an hour to recover my objectivity but I knew what I needed to do - how am I going to beat this?

I’m fit, I’m healthy, I’ve got a great family and friends support network and work have been great, together we’re going to beat the crap out of this. 

I’ve a huge mind map and project plan of all the stages I’m going through. 

Following more CT scans and an MRI (that’s a weird experience) I went under the knife to get a biopsy which went very well and I was back at work within a couple of days. 

With the tumour being in the nose and skull its very difficult to operate on but fortunately I was in the hands of some world experts in this particularly rare form of cancer. Glasgow NHS ENT is so lucky to have the team they have, they have been nothing short of fantastic. 

Last Thursdays I had surgery to remove some of the tumour in my head and that was a success, although sore and it’s taking me quite some time to recover, largely because I’m trying too hard to get better and back to work!

The next step is to further study the tumour and determine the form of radio and chemo therapy that I’ll need. That’s going to be a hard shift I know but it’s one that I’ll get through with the support of friends, work and family. 

I can’t offer any new advice to anyone hearing the c-word for the first time other than try your best to relax, stay calm and listen to your medical team. Then stop moaning and feeling sorry for yourself, work out how you are going to get better and what YOU need to do as part of that process. 

I’ll update the blog from time to time as this process develops, I’ve been persuaded by my good friends Phil and Charlotte (@Scotfax) to support their twitter pensions account so you’ll “see” me from time to time and right now it’s helping alienate the boredom of post-operative recovery, so I might do some updates from there. 

UPDATE 2018:
So about a month ago I got my final pathology, my cancer is adenoid-cystic-carcinoma  which is a very rare cancer usually found in the saliva glands. In my case however it's in the nasopharynx. That rarity is good in the sense that I have some of the best people in the NHS from across the UK all over me (I'm assuming there are a few papers out of it).

My treatment starts today (14 November) and it's daily radio therapy until early January (with weekends and bank holidays off).

From what I've been told the cancer is incurable but is at least manageable provided they can beat it back with radiotherapy and I've every confidence in the team that are supporting me. I can't say enough the admiration I have for the NHS and the specialist that called me back based on nothing more than a hunch.

For now I've got a tough road ahead and over the next two weeks I can expect the radiotherapy to take it's toll. So I'll be quieter than usual I'm sure as I focus on beating this. As I always say to everyone, I'm not worried and neither should anyone else. We've got this and it's going to lose. 

UPDATE 2023:

I wanted to wait a while before updating this blog. In 2019, before lockdown and whilst basking in the success of an incredibly difficult 28 sessions of radio therapy I ended up getting the odd dizzy spell. 

This led to a number of tests and scans only for me to hear the news I never wanted; it's back. This time it's spread to my lungs. 

There's no going back from this, I can't get radio again and the tumours are inoperable. That means I can wallow in self-pity or I can roll my sleeves up and get on with life and make the most of what I have left.

It's that reason that I retired early. I've been lucky and I've been VERY well prepared for retirement with my finances, it means that I have the luxury of being able to retire at the bright age of 51 and I can only thank Scottish Friendly for all their support over that period. 

So for now, I'll consider my options in retirement. Golf seems to be the way to go and I'll probably take the metaphorical plunge. I'll even think about reviving my Twitter account. Maybe I can learn from the past and be a better person on the platform. From the brief interactions I had on with with Phil I didn't really see it as improving. But hey when you are faced with living with cancer, no matter how bad it gets surely the odd post on X.com about demographics, pensions and insurance can't be worse... can it?

The SNP & the Rape Clause cover up

This is an emotive issue, so let me be clear right from the start. 

I oppose the family cap and the consequent "rape clause” that goes along with it. The family cap should be ended and with it the rape clause. In particular this policy need to be abolished in Scotland where we have significant issues over population growth; as a nation we should be welcoming big families.

Forgetting everything else about how abhorrent the policy is, if the SNP were true to their word about wanting to improve population growth in Scotland then they would see ending the family cap as a direct investment in the future of Scotland.

In this blog I’ll quickly establish that the SNP can end both the family cap and the rape clause in Scotland, I’ll then go on to show through a new FOI that the SNP have looked into the cost of ending the family cap and it’s entirely affordable, and yet they still refuse to abolish it. Supporters of the SNP who oppose the family cap and rape clause need to ask themselves why they are not taking action.

Ending the family cap
Let’s be clear about this right from the start, the SNP government in Holyrood could end the family cap tomorrow. At first the SNP attempted to pretend that they couldn't, but there is no doubt that they can, therefore they have since moved to a 'why should we' stance to defend their inaction.

Using Section 24 powers of the Scotland Act 2016 the SNP have the power to create a top up benefit to universal credit that can apply to all children after the first two. This benefit can be administered by the DWP on behalf of the Scottish Government and would mean that the UK would fund the first two children and the Scottish Government would fund every child after that. 

In practical terms benefits in the hands of the families would remain a single payment (as if the family cap never existed) and the costs would be organised at inter-governmental level.

With no family cap there is no rape clause.

Why should we?
As noted then the SNP’s excuse for not doing this boils down to 'why should we' or the false we'd pay twice for one welfare benefit (technically you pay twice for two welfare benefits). In any case that’s a remarkable excuse by anyone’s standard so let me give you a straight answer as to why the SNP should:

1. Unlike the Tories the SNP don’t support the family cap or the rape clause.
2. The cost of doing so is exceptionally small in the context of the Scottish Government budget.
3. It encourages population growth which the SNP's Growth Commission report notes as one of the most acute long term problems facing Scotland.
4. As a nationalist government it would help to establish Scotland leading the UK by showing there is a different way to the Tories and benefit cuts
5. Ending the family cap in Scotland will help put pressure on the Tories in the rest of the UK by giving the line, "if Scotland can afford to get rid of it why can’t we".


The FOI and the costs
The beauty of FOIs is that they do enable us to see that the Scottish Government has at least looked into the possibility to using their welfare powers to end the family cap. So we know that the SNP have at least considered ending the family cap but have (by their actions) evidently decided against doing anything.

I need to follow up with more focused FOIs (and that was my mistake) but the reply I got was revealing enough.

The cost of ending the family cap this year was £20M, less than one quarter the SNP Government 'record low' underspend in 2016/17.

Even after five years the cost is less than the cost of reducing Advance Passenger Duty.

Government is about choosing. What would you prefer your government spent money on? Subsidising my semi-weekly commute to London or investing in the long term growth of Scotland’s population and helping to end child poverty?

If you want to give me cash then fair enough, and thank you, but you can stop complaining about the family cap and rape clause because you now own that choice. 

That equally applies to SNP MPs, and would also benefit from the cuts to ADP, who are campaigning heavily in Westminster over these issues but refuse to utter a word about Holyrood inaction, or just try to defend it with 'why should we'.

Ending the rape clause alone
Now if you are still handwringing about the SNP being unable to afford to end the family cap then I’ll give you another alternative that costs even less: keep the family cap but end the rape clause. 

There is nothing to stop the SNP introducing a new benefit which only applies to women who have had more than two children one or more of which was the result of non consensual sex. That benefit can be paid as an exemption to the family cap and apply to all children in the family and have no obligation on proof on the part of the mother. 

The benefit can be paid on application across of wider range of exemptions (with no obligation on the applicant to say which one applies), so for example:

The Scottish Family Support Top-up credit can apply to all children in a family of more than two children born to parents where:
- One or more of the children is disabled
- One or more of the children is diagnosed with learning difficulties, i.e. dyslexia
- One or more of the children were conceived as a result of non consensual sex
- One or more of the parents were injured or killed as a result of serving in the armed forces
- One or more of the parents work more than 12 hours a week with a registered charity
- One or more of the parents is a carer for an elderly relative

You can add in more and more categories as you see fit, but the point is that ending the rape clause itself costs very little. In all of the cases above this would only cover a few people and the costs would be a rounding error within the Scottish Government budget, if you are worried about fraud then you can start to require levels of proof for each of these categories but my view would be simple... end the family cap.

Stop with the grievance and start governing
This whole episode shows the SNP at their absolute worst. Campaigning around the country against the family cap and the rape clause and yet doing nothing about it in Scotland. Anyone who is taken in by the 'why should we' excuse really needs to ask exactly how horrified they would feel if that was the UK Government's response.

I have no preference for which government ends the family cap and rape clause in Scotland, all I care about is that the policy is ended. It’s a bad policy and it’s particularly bad for Scotland. 

The Tories at least support the policy that they are implementing across the UK, the SNP say they are opposed and yet refuse to use their powers to end it.

To that end the SNP are guilty of the worst kind of hypocrisy on this issue and MP’s like Alison Thewliss and Mhairi Black should be hanging their heads in shame at the inaction of the Government represented by their party. 

To govern is to choose, someone should tell the SNP they are in power.

Sturgeon's "Nothing has changed" moment

No one with a passing interest in politics will ever forget Theresa May's "nothing has changed" rant during the last General Election. It was the cry of a desparate politician conducting a real time U-Turn and contradicting the publication of her own manifesto. I'm sure for many it was the moment that May lost her majority.I included the GIF above not just because it's fun, it is, but because you can see in the eyes the desperation of someone that has been publicly caught out and way off balance. 

Her manifesto upset a huge swathe of her natural constituency and she was bleeding support. Something had to be done. 

But how ridiculous it was to take to media and contradict a party document within hours of publication. 

Come on you've all guessed where this is going...

The Growth Commission : Nothing has changed
I'm guessing that about 48 hours after the publication of the Wilson Report Sturgeon's eyes were about the same. 

The SNP's carefully planned and tightly held coalition of nationalists was fracturing from left to right, suddenly many on the nationalist left were realising that they were indeed "useful idiots". 

Campaigning for independence to deliver social justice is much harder to take when you realise you are arguing for public service cuts.

I can't emphasise enough the work done by Kevin Hague to expose this fact. Slowly but surely the troops started to notice, indeed some even admitted through gritted teeth that the Growth Commission was the validation of the Hague's tireless efforts on this matter. 

 

Ian Macwhiter in the Herald (above) went so far as to call the Wilson Commission a call back to Osborne. 

The sands were shifting, the report was printed and in the public domain. What else could Nicola Sturgeon do to plaster over the fracture?

She took to twitter and said "Nothing has changed"

Austerity? Not much call for it around here sir

 



In a series of tweets Sturgeon tried to steady the troops. The key tweet (above) stated that the Growth Commission was actually not about Austerity and that it recommends "above inflation spending growth each year". 

The message went out, it's OK the Growth Commission actually says that public spending will always increase so this isn't Austerity and we'll still get the deficit down. Back to your barracks, we're still progressives after all. 

The trouble is, as Kevin Hague has been pointing out again and again that the two positions are not necessarily compatible:

1 Wilson is arguing that the deficit will be closed through a fiscal rule that will mean spending will be 1% below GDP. (The fiscal rule)

2 The SNP are arguing that spending will always increase at least by inflation. (The spending recommendation)

For example if growth is 0.8% (as it has been) then following the fiscal rule spending must fall by 0.2%, but that contradicts the spending recommendation. 

How can this be, how did no one notice this flat contradiction in the 'peer review' process. 

Spinning out of control again

It's simple. The report doesn't say what the SNP have claimed about spending, the report is quite clear when it talks about spending increases. Spending will only increase at the trend rate of GDP growth that they have assumed (1.5%). Note this typical passage in 3.187:

Or this summary section:



Each time the increases in public spending above inflation are nothing more than a consequence of the assumptions they have used, it's not a hard and fast rule. Indeed in the report it's not a rule at all. It is a recommendation (as Sturgeon said) but it's not a rule in any way shape or form.

So there we have it. Sturgeon took to social media to try to "do a May" and rewrite the policy and hope no one would bother to go and check. Sorry Nicola we did. 

The on air rewrite
Had it all been left there then it might have all ended up with a petty debate over the word  "recommends". Trouble is the fracture was so severe that the SNP were forced to go further and actually rewrite the rule 'live on air'.

To clarify, using the terms above that Wilson, Forbes and Sturgeon are arguing - if the spending recommendation had been applied then austerity would not have occurred. This has all been covered in tremendous detail by Kevin Hague. 

To clarify, using the terms above, the Wilson, Forbes and Sturgeon are arguing that if The spending recommendation had applied then Austerity would not have occurred. 

The trouble is to achieve that then the fiscal rule would have been abandoned. 

Therefore it's clear that the SNP have rewritten the Growth Commission report. They have literally switched the positions of the rule and the recommendation. 

Suddenly the rule seems to be be real increases in spending and the recommendation is 1% below GDP growth. 

Rewriting your manifesto after a few months work is embarrassing, but rewriting a 2 year million pound document after 48 hours and effectively dumping it's central 'peer reviewed' recommendation is beyond incredible. 

Nothing has changed... the SNP will still get away with it.