Vote ‘YES’: Scotland to dig dividing ditch

‘Canal’ to be completed by 2030 between the River Tweed and Solway Firth


Speaking at the launch of the ‘Yes Scotland’ campaign in Edinburgh, the SNP leader Alex Salmond raised the possibility of an aquatic division between Scotland and England that could be constructed by as early as the end of the next decade.

The project dubbed ‘The Bruce Boundary’ would consist of a man-made canal approximately half a mile wide from the respective coasts at the River Tweed and Solway Firth, taking a more direction route than the actual boundary. Border control would be based within the small part of Scotland remaining on the other side, bridged only in the centre by ‘The Aurelius Retreat’.

Naturally, like the rest of the independence bid, this venture would be entirely beneficial to Scotland with no apparent downside, according to Salmond. He said today:

‘The Bruce Boundary would be a great asset to Scotland’s economy, whereby trade can pass through on the way to Scandinavia. Rather than being caught up in the traffic nightmare of the English Channel, vessels can take the Scottish Channel instead. What’s good for Scotland is good for England too. And the world.’

Critics of the move feel it won’t all be plain sailing, with voting intentions already suggesting the SNP’s figures are adrift. The SNP leader dismisses most as ‘English rhetoric’.

Many have suggested that greater links with the rest of the UK should remain, including established land routes, but Salmond believes there are plenty more fish in the sea.

Lib Dem baiting ban in Queen’s Speech

Deputy Prime Minister vows to tackle seriously offensive jibes

Ed and Wallace..or Wallace and Ed

Following the recent high profile arrests for inciting racial hatred online and on public transport, Nick Clegg has vowed to extend police powers to cover excessive politically aggressive insults and related obscenities.

Many Members have taken a great deal of abuse, especially via Twitter, due to their respective political positions, but until now it’s been generally considered fair play.

This will change under the Safety of Public Office Bill announced today, which would make a criminal offence of certain aggravating statements and general abuse. Nick Clegg said today:

“For too long politicians have been degraded. Taking up public office shouldn’t mean having to contend with such abuse on a daily basis and this Bill recognises that.”

Some would argue that with expenses-gate, cuts to the public sector while indulging the rich, wholesale manifesto sell-outs for power and deficit denial among countless other issues, politicians largely had it coming.

Mr Clegg disagrees:

“There’s a difference between legitimate complaint and defamatory abuse. As we tell our children, constructive criticism is to be applauded, outright insults and unscrupulous negativity should not be rewarded.”

It’s unclear how far-reaching the legislation will be and this has yet to be decided. Some commentators are suggesting it should include all sustained abusive language, including swearing and unpleasant tones. Others feel there should be exemptions for traditional political chants, like ‘Tory b@stards’ and similar intellectual retorts.

Critics of the proposed Act suggest it will be hard to legally define insults,  saying it could be argued statements like ‘Lib Dem wets’ should be covered under the Act, where others may deem it factual.

Unusually straying for his combative position of late, the Leader of the Opposition came out in support of the proposal. Having suffered greatly at the hands of online bullies compared him to Nick Park’s Wallace, Ed Miliband backed the government saying:

“I’m not made of plasticine – I’m human and I have feelings too.”