ULSAN, South Korea, the world's largest shipyard

taken from the BBC News website - May 2015, with my additions {15th May 2015}, including the referendum in/out vote!

 

Ship under construction in the Ulsan shipyard in South Korea

To a European visitor, the city of Ulsan on the southern tip of the Korean peninsula seems like a throwback to some lost world.

At first, it is hard to say exactly why. It is just that something doesn't feel quite right. Ulsan feels like a place you vaguely know but can't quite figure out how.

And then it hits you. It is reminiscent of old photographs of European shipbuilding towns on rivers whose names are redolent of their history: in Britain, the Clyde, Tyne, Wear, Tees or Mersey.

In those pictures cranes and partly built ships towered over houses. Thousands streamed from work together the moment a shift ended.

Nobody could forget how work enabled their lives because they saw, heard and smelled the place of work in every corner of the town. It was their skyline.

Asian domination

That world of the heaviest of industry is no longer prominent in Europe. Even the biggest shipyards that remain (in Romania, Poland and Germany) are minnows compared to the yards of Asia.

If you look at the league table of shipbuilding companies in the world, five of the top 10, including all of the top four, are South Korean. The other five are Japanese and Chinese.

But the Hyundai Heavy Industries yard at Ulsan is the biggest of them all, giant cranes (aptly called Goliaths) dominating the skyline. The city pulsates with work and wages and the activities of far from idle hands.

A dry dock at the shipyard
A cross section view of a ship under construction

The yard stretches for 2.5 miles (4km). More than 60,000 people are employed there, constructing a huge ship every four or five days. These ships are the length of three football fields and are built in pieces each weighing hundreds of tonnes and then assembled around the clock.

A life's work

In the dark, the yard glows across the town. By day, the clang of construction rings out. In the old European pictures and newsreels, workers would stream home on foot or maybe bicycles. At Ulsan, they swarm out on motor scooters.

And when they are out, they drive the company car, eat in the company restaurants, laugh and cry in the company theatre, shop in the company department store, have their children in the company hospital, learn in the company schools, cheer for the company football team.

Partially constructed ships at Ulsan shipyard in South Korea
The Ulsan shipyard opened in the 1970s and now has a 16% share of the global market

One of the longest-serving workers, Lee Sang-bok, told the BBC: "Everything here is Hyundai. The highway I drive on is named after the founder of the company. The hospital and university is funded by Hyundai too.

"There's a town joke that it's just like the Hyundai Kingdom."

He started work at the yard soon after it opened in 1974.

"I joined this company when I was just 16. In the past 40 years, shipbuilding really has become the centre of my life. I devoted all my youth to this company. It's become my identity".

'Directed capitalism'

When South Korea industrialised in the 1960s and 1970s, setting in train its breathtaking transformation from poverty to affluence, it was done in a way to make Western "free-market" economists disapprove (though there is an argument that when the United States and Britain industrialised, they broke their own rules, too).

A massive propeller being fitted
A ship's propeller can weight as much as 100 tonnes

Government direction and government subsidy was the order of the day. South Korea's leader at the time, Gen Park Chung-hee, said "do it" and the corrupt rich he had jailed and threatened had no choice but to create the industries the government decreed.

It was "directed capitalism".

Under Park Chung-hee, scores of businessmen were arrested and charged with "illicit profiteering".

Property was confiscated. Some were paraded with signs round their necks saying: "I am a corrupt pig."

In return for freedom and renewed access to their money, the country's richest people were told to invest in new industries.

Welders working on a ship at South Korea's Ulsan shipyard
Welders are crucial members of the teams that construct the ships

They had to sign an agreement stating: "I will donate all my property when the government requires it for the construction of the nation."

Initially, the plan focused on six key industries (cement, synthetic fibre, electricity, fertiliser, oil refining and iron and steel), but in the early 1970s it turned to shipbuilding.

And this is where construction magnate Chung Ju Yung came in.

It should be said that he was not in that first wave of corrupt business leaders. He earned his money the hard way, born a peasant who left home to labour on building sites and then to form his own construction company.

With the Korean War, he thrived.

Metal bashing

Initially, he made cars in Ulsan but then turned to shipbuilding. He was supremely ambitious and supremely confident - legend has it that he toured London seeking finance and when it was pointed out that South Korea had no shipbuilding industry, he took out a Korean bank note on which was a famous ship from the 16th Century.

He was also supremely careful with money. In the company museum at the Ulsan shipyard, there are two pairs of shoes which Mr Chung is said to have worn for 30 years, getting them constantly repaired despite being a multi-billionaire.

His parsimony has paid off. It used to be said that Asian manufacturers competed with Europeans and North Americans on price but not on quality.

That is no longer so. The Ulsan yard is a builder of sophisticated vessels into which goes a lot of top research.

Metal gets bashed but lab mice get pushed, too. It is heavy industry in which research and the latest technology is incorporated.

Lee Sang-bok is now an inspector at the yard. His role is important.

Some of the vessels built there are carriers of liquefied natural gas. Inside these ships go huge containers. A leak of LNG would be catastrophic, igniting a huge explosion, so welds have to be inspected in microscopic detail. This is what Mr Lee does.

It is a working life that has lasted 40 years. It has given him and his family prosperity and pride.

My thoughts and rationale.

There can be no doubt that the world is changing, rapidly and worryingly so!  Our navy, as was ever thus, will be a crucial asset to our Island defence and therefore to our survival.  I am not a betting man nor will I eat my hat if it doesn't come to fruition, but I'll wager here and now that the UK will vote to leave the EU* when the in/out vote is called.  Despite all the clap trap being spoken by the so called experts, we shouldn't under-estimate the 'silver hair' voters, many of whom sacrificed much for what Britain has given over to Brussels in recent years, and dearly want it back before they pop their clogs.  When you think of it, this silver hair brigade's sacrifice was caused by the German's and the fickle capitulating French, who by capitulating, greatly assisted the German's and took the pressure off them in central Europe leaving us a more difficult job, whilst they swanned around on their boulevards sipping wine and scoffing frogs, and who have now joined ranks to 'lord it' over us with millions of miles of red-tape and perverse Franco-German laws, hidden from that fact by a hapless bureaucratic Brussels.   De Gaulle, at the end of WW2 in true French hypocritical style marched at the head of the Paris victory parade, and yet spent his remaining years covering up the capitulation citing the Resistance and the few regiments of the Foreign Legion who did fight the Germans throughout as being the true French - pull this one: it's got bells on it!  He didn't acknowledge the part played by the extremely brave British SOE operatives without whom many Resistance fighters would not have been able to operate.  The French are still at it with the current [2015] G7 meeting stating that they are not pulling their weight in the sorties flown against the IS in Iraq flying a lot less that we Brit's are doing. What they couldn't do to alter our way of life by waging [and supporting] war, they have done by European Laws: mind you, the German's have at last learned that the pen is mightier than the sword, but, read on. However, we really must take on board the difference between Germans and the French laid clear for all to see in the Greek crisis of summer 2015.  The French government today are extreme leftist bordering on communist principles just the same as the Greek government, and they too have a dodgy and unstable economy, so much so, that they are pro-Greek in both the bail-out and the debt-reduction. Germany on the other hand, would err to the right and is at gross odds with the Greek ways of doing things and as such has several influential, very influential allies! **  Nevertheless, it is sick when one remembers the reason why Germany, chief of all other continental Europeans, wanted a European Union to make sure that European Nations would no longer wage war against each other. Think about it, and the sheer arrogance and audacity in their intent.  They were the chief  Axis protagonists who caused both world wars, sent millions and millions of people to early graves in a most disgusting manner, and now seek to be 'top dogs' again in  a "protected society".  Protected against whom?  Well, against them, the German jackboot of course. It only takes a German ultra or extreme right wing government {currently a coalition with centre-left Social Democrats and Conservative centre-right party led by Angela Merkel}, and fascism is always near the surface in Germany, for a third attempt on 'ruling the world by force' to be attempted!  Additionally, through the sheer incompetence of the UK Parliament in not stopping immigration from non-EU countries and the EU ruling allowing free movement of all Europeans across the 28 countries forming the EU, the number one issue with the vast majority of UK voters is unchecked and increasing immigration. Despite what Cameron may win from the EU Parliament, if he doesn't win the immigration battle within the EU, the country will I believe vote to exit from our Membership. If you read and keep ahead of what is happening in the UK, you will be aware that those pathetic would-be immigrants to the UK swilling around in the back-water of Calais  are, if they achieve their aim, one enemy we have to contend with, but look no further than credible UK broadsheets, and you will see that our Government and the Bank of England outnumber those immigrant enemies by two to one, for they too are the Britishers' enemies, make no mistake.  Have a read of this story [dated for your reference] which any of you EMPLOYED or RETIRED will , or should be, appalled by. If you can't be bothered to read the whole article, then just read the last line.  A definitive statement from the Bank of England says that both groups, those in work with higher wages and those retired with higher interest on their savings will or should benefit directly. Start reading and get yourself prepared for when the referendum date is known.  Interest rates would be higher without immigrants.

* See line two first paragraph above. Thinking about the  EU! NEARLY Every time I see this guy whom I have politely euphemistically called  MR TACTILE, he is touching somebody, man or woman, with only a few parts of the body not touched. I am not sure whether he is a friendly guy, a cuddly grandpa or what? Its getting to spoil my day when he has in hands in his pockets, although I appreciate he could be touching something else! I think he is a so called 'big wheel' MEP. Incidentally, the guy is on the left. I shouldn't over-worry because clearly the guy at the back is on to him. If you see other photograph taken of EU meetings/gathering during this frenetic time in Brussels in Summer 2015 [Greek Euro loan - mass immigration from third world countries - UK's requests leading to the EU in/out referendum} give me a shout please.

** A pointer of great significance about Greece, is their liberal welfare system, paid for out of borrowed funds which are totally unsustainable. It, juxtaposed with the British system, will make you, a law-abiding Brit, jealous not to mention questioning about the mind blowing payments made to Greeks whereas we receive absolute pittances by comparison. This is a snippet from a BBC news 6th July 2015.
In Greece, monthly pensions have gone down to an average of €833 ($924; £594) from an average of €1,350 in 2009, according to INE-GSEE, the institute behind Greece's biggest union. When the Greek government announced that banks would shut for the week, starting last Monday, they put a cap on withdrawal from cash machines of €60 a day. But that left many pensioners who did not have bank cards in the lurch.
MY ADD-ON.
In the UK, a monthly pension is £502.45 [£115.95 pw x 52 = £6029.40 ÷ 12 = £502.45]
In Greece, before the cut, it was €1350 a month now down to €833 [£957.83 to £590.99 @ 7/7/15 exchange rate]. So the Greeks still get more pension than a pensioner in the UK which is paid on unsustainable borrowed money, whilst ours is paid on sustainable borrowed money even after their so-called draconian cut. How sick and unjust is that?

Assuming that to be the case, namely our exit from the European Union, and still building on the story of our Royal Navy, our next and inevitable problem will be with the SNP {not the Scottish people} and their second bash at independence, for be assured, it will come, eventually. When that comes, we will have two problems. The first is where and what to do with our nuclear deterrent and the second is where our future surface naval vessels will be built for clearly that wouldn't be in an unfriendly Scotland: remember that our submarines are built in England so no problems there.

The blatantly obvious answer to the first point covering all points even to that of actually saving money, is to relocate, and almost overnight as it were with very little turbulence or disruption, to the USA East Coast. There, with one hundred percent operational independence from the USN, we could cruise to our patrol areas with nearly as much ease as we do now, and when back in base [several and many to chose from] we would have the US facilities which we already use now [test ranges etc], and the very weapons we carry [Trident] will be on hand at the point of manufacture within the USA.  I can well remember Dunoon at Holy Loch when the USN SSBN's were based in Scotland much closer to the "big bear". It all worked perfectly well except for the CND party led by John Collins, but despite all their rhetoric they never managed to stop a USN or a RN ICBM patrol, so it goes down in history as a big failure.   In my plan, I envisage that our SSN's stay [or are based] in Devonport where facilities already exist with close proximity to the Western Approaches and the mouth of the Atlantic. That does away with the Gareloch, Rhu Narrows, HMS Neptune, the Faslane Base and Coulport the Trident ammunition Depot. Coulport and its associated floating dock/cranage, several miles away from the submarine base at Faslane,  cannot be replicated  near to any other naval port in the UK outside Scotland and that is why Devonport cannot take ICBM [SSBN] submarines. It has to be the USA on the same basis of operating as the Holyloch USN-Faslane RN precedent created in the 1960's. Moreover, there are no 'nutters' in the States to compare with our CND, fortunately now defunct, although other 'rabble' raises their ugly heads every now and again.  Both sets of submariners would be much happier especially the SSBN crews who would be stationed in England when not at sea on patrol, but also the SSN crews who would be nearer to civilisation than at present in their northern base.  It would be Scotland's loss for every reason, and a gain for the UK, now under the protection of the USA/USN [without being a part of either] operating and socialising with friends and like minded people.  As for the very real problems of disposing of nuclear submarine reactors at the end of the boats' lives { see http://www.godfreydykes.info/UK's_REDUNDANT_NUCLEAR_SUBMARINES.html} Scotland should be left to deal with the "Rosyth problem" and we to deal with the "Devonport problem."

Ooops! Three days on, and I missed one for yesterday Sunday 28th June.  Her he goes again! Oh and by the way he is the European Commission Chief, the very guy that Cameron tried to stop getting to that position. His name is Jean-Claude Juncker - boy, he's a real toucher! 

 

The second issue stares us full in the face and yet we appear to be blind to it. There can be no doubt that given the tools, English naval yards [latterly Chatham but now realistically discarded from the equation] Portsmouth,  Devonport and Belfast, can, and have built many fine ships or all sizes and types in the past. Recently we have been denied doing that when the Government favoured the Scots, and now there is no credible organisation available to create a start-up in either of those premier ports. But there is, and the story above is the obvious answer!

Hyundai is that answer, with a proven track record of turning out ships to order within the shortest of periods, and moreover, it is a company based in a friendly country with lot's of influential friends. It is probable that they could have had the Queen Elizabeth in the water in a quarter of the time taken by English engineered sections being floated north for bolting and welding together by the Scots in Rosyth. A costly affair by whatever yardstick used, not to mention time consuming!

Now I am not suggesting that our future surface naval vessels are built at Ulsan or indeed any other foreign place, but what I am suggesting is that we invite Hyundai into our naval dockyards in England/N.I.,  to mastermind our ship building needs. Further, there could be a joint financial enterprise involving UK tax payer's money and Hyundai coffers, as well as an undertaking to use a new- UK work-force/skills under Hyundai best-practices management.  The carrot for Hyundai would be a foot-hold in Europe which if not an English Yard a Northern Ireland Yard, in direct competition with German, French, Spanish and Italian yards, building both merchant vessels and naval vessels for all comers within the size/limitations of the yards in question. Effectively, the design and planning stages for our warships [probably at MOD Bath] would maintain its lead function,  and the fitting out would be undertaken as before by BAE, Thales, Babcock in the new-UK build-yard. 

Pie in sky you say? Few like to think laterally [which means forget logic] but such a plan would work given a Government with guts and commitment. 

Look here.

This shows my animated map with the proposed USA/USN base on the East coast of the States and the existing Scottish Base.
It also shows a Projected Patrol Zone with lots of targets, all well within range of a Trident missile and its many warheads, one of them heading for China on the animated map and one at you if you don't duck.
The whole of Africa, Europe, Middle East and Asia is targetable in our position in the Indian Ocean, well west of the Maldives. Those parts difficult to reach in far away Siberia are not worth the waste of an expensive weapon load. Our other two potential enemies, Argentina still awaiting it's moment, and Scotland, who in this scenario, has destroyed the UK, would have to answer to the rest of the Royal Navy [SSN's, strike carriers when they are ready {?}, amphibious vessels, destroyers and frigate, especially if the Argentinians tried to steal our territory again, and the Scots, many against their will and want, now alone in the European Community, try to circumvent England's Border Controls by smuggling immigrants and contraband [EU trade goods] etc. 
Hardly scientific and no marks scored for navigation although I do not have the benefit of GPS as I write, but I have laid on the tracks of two imaginary SSBN'S leaving for a patrol, one from Scotland and one from Norfolk Virginia USA. You can get some idea on the lengths of those tracks before I have merged them, and they are more or less the same. The merge point to the patrol area is where such submarines might head for to make themselves ready as a deterrent. It's hypothetical but nevertheless is has a germ of reality about it. The new-UK move from Scotland to the states is not as far fetched as you might believe on first hearing of it. At least we would not have to watch our backs?

 We would save ourselves from Brussels and from Edinburgh; save money; save a great deal of disturbance to operational requirements/commitments; give new-UK back its ship building prowess and pride to a new-UK work-force unfairly sacked whilst the building blocks for the two carriers were still being fabricated; keep and better our Trident fleet in a more conducive environment than is the case at present; and once again, give us [the new-UK]  back our pride, a pride that many living and working in this country [the UK] today have never had the chance to experience because of Brussels, the size ten bogey man to many of UK's voters.

 When it comes to it, remember my words, and vote OUT. Ladbrookes are offering 3/1  [as at 9th June 2015] on the UK leaving and 2/9 staying in the EU. A good early sign! So you can enjoy a laugh at my expense [if the vote goes the other way]  I have £100.00 @ 3 to 1 on leaving the EU. With the £300.00 win I intend to go to London to join the rejoicing crowds in Parliament Square. Watch this space! On the other hand, the same £100 placed on staying in the EU would net you £22.20. True, early days yet, but a good start for us Eurosceptics.

What Will Be The Outcome Of The Potential UK EU Membership Referendum Be.docx

Before the groups start to try and tell us to STAY IN or LEAVE the EU and this includes the recommendation of our Prime Minister, take to heart these very wise words spoken today in Parliament [9th May 2015]  during the second reading of the EURO REFERENDUM BILL, by a man whom I admire and regularly follow Hansards to read of his wisdom, his loyalty to our dear country and his overt and transparent patriotism. He is the Conservative MP Sir Bill Cash, MP for Stone, Staffordshire, and a prominent  Eurosceptic. He is 75, a couple of years younger than me and a man of great experience and learning. Sir Bill, with 31 years in the House, is an internationally acclaimed Constitutional Lawyer, sought by many international Governmental clients, and has witnessed many referendums in lots of countries, including the famous case of Quebec versus Canada at a time when De Gaulle was allowed into Canada to speak on French Quebec ceding from Canada, plus many others, the Irish referendum most recently.  Although all Members of the Commons are democratically voted in, the diverse nature of what they actually bring to the House renders some of them 'not fit for purpose' when trying to compare them with others Members, and here I am thinking about the twenty year old girl voted in as an SNP Member compared with Sir Bill. Here is what Sir Bill said today {and has said many times over}, and if you don't understand what he said and meant, then I bid you adieu, as I consider you unfit to be living in my country, ergo, Sir Bill's country: as for that 20 year old SNP lassie voting to stay in Europe when I doubt that she even understands what the wars were all about, I pass. Sir Bill's parents were fully au fait and affected and so too was Sir Bill through things like privations and severe rationing when a child, whereas, simple maths, using the age of 25 for the start of parenting, might suggest that the grandparents of this SNP MP were born around the 1945 mark probably post WW2. Now over to Sir Bill:-

......veteran Conservative Sir Bill Cash said the referendum was a fundamental question of "who governs Britain".

"We have a positive alternative to the EU," he said. Our democracy and our national Parliament is what people fought and died for in two world wars and it was through this sacrifice that we saved Europe."

Back to me.  Staying with countries only [and not considering parts of countries  e.g., France and the French Resistance]  how many European countries other than the UK, can you recall as having helped to "save Europe?" What countries were not overrun by the Wehrmacht and the Axis forces {Italy, Austria, plus}, were neutrals, or cowardly capitulated so as not to cock-up their daily routine leaving somebody else to do their fighting, that's in addition to collaborating with the enemy like the Vichy French did: and let's not forget Oran either, when one of my historically famous ships, the Hood, helped to address a small misunderstanding we had with the French navy, and equally, the French ships which fought on the side of the Allies [the R.N., in fact] after the Oran stand-off! Also remember that some so called neutrals were not so, and these included the Irish harbouring UBoats in their southern ports, Switzerland laundering Nazi spoil for the benefit of Nazi Germany, and believe it or not Holland, for they actually raised SS Divisions of Dutch men. The answer is NONE ! Europe was saved by the UK and its Allies, all of whom in large numbers came from many thousands of miles away from Europe, and in fairness, from Eastern European countries like Poland [escapees] who supplied many fine air force pilots and one very well known Royal Navy officer! Here also, I salute and acknowledge many combatants who, having escaped their over-run countries, fought bravely for the Allies. PLEASE REMEMBER Sir Bill's wise words when you come to vote. 

If you haven't yet [June 2015] heard of this man's name DOMINIC CUMMINGS you are really missing out. Don't take my word - just Google his name and read. He will save our country from Brussels when no other man will or can.  He is rank and file BRITISH and he speaks more good common sense than ANYBODY {no matter from which side of the argument} we have to date heard from.  He is also considered to be THE MAN [based on his past performances with referendums and voting] who more than any other SWAYS the outcome of national issues. If you are unsure, dithering or a sure 'out' voter, then following him is a must, believe me! Just to whet your appetite, do you remember the Scottish Independence vote - how could you not?  Well, apart from voters [from the age of 16] businesses got involved, just like they are trying to do in the EU in/out vote referendum.  Dominic warned them that if they did and the vote went against what they were championing, their trade would decline and their future would be less than rosy. It happened, and there are many Scottish companies failing because they dared to show that "they were NOT patriotic Scots" or is that fools? : come to that, there are high profile people who didn't vote yes in the Scottish Referendum who are now bullied and are choosing to leave Scotland to live in England. On this very day [25th June 2015] the Scottish First Minister Ms Sturgeon has had to publically rein in SNP supporters who are using foul and profane posting on social media sites, as they bully their way against anybody who has not joined their ranks.  The companies rue the day they didn't listen to his advice and openly too, as will British companies who vote to remain in the EU, the same companies who wanted to join the single currency! Dominic is already warning-them-off not to get involved, either way, keeping only to the private votes of the company's boardroom directors and the company's employees.

Now there are millions in this country who are devout Royalists, but there is nobody more devout than I am, and normally I hang on every word my Queen speaks. However, I think she was badly advised in her speech made in Germany, which despite what her aides in Buckingham Palace might tell you, was a pro-Europe rallying call for us to stay in the EU unequivocally endorsed by the German President. That I believe is regrettable. The President might be right in his understanding that the EU needs the UK, but we don't need the EU. When the Queen suggests that division in Europe is dangerous [and clearly on this very day, that division is rife especially between the poor EU States and the rich EU States] and that we should stick together, is tantamount to endorsing the status quo, and hardly apolitical. I think it is the very first time I ever not hung onto Her Majesty's words in my relatively long life!

The Queen is in Germany with the Duke of Edinburgh on a four day visit.htm

If I may be so bold, I think that the Queen meant, when she said "we have witnessed how quickly things have changed for the better", that better meant no more war, but things are the very opposite politically and immigration-wise, where, by being a member of EU, we have lost control of our country and we are dictated to by a foreign and much hated faceless bunch of bureaucrats, many despising whilst secretly envying the UK !  Well, the war is now long past, and politics are extant, so we should be addressing now and the future and not something that's time-expired out to seventy years ago.

 Oh! By the way, many many months or so ago, when Scotland appeared to be hell bent on forsaking the UK, I wrote a page about what would happen to us were they to leave! Still relevant and worth a second of your time.  http://www.godfreydykes.info/THE_SCOTTISH_QUESTION.htm

For those of you thinking that I have a down on the Scots, you are way off mark, be assured!  Like so many people south of the border, we hear only the voice of the SNP and never the voices of Scotland proper, and as such our/my comments are directed to the Republicans north of the border and not to Scots per se. They, we believe, want to stay as part of our world-envied family.

In 31 years in the navy, I met and worked with thousands of Scots, some superiors, some inferiors and the majority peers.  I would need many pairs of hands to count them on, and still today I can call them friends.  The vast majority of these people I see regularly, which means they have chosen to settle south of the border in England.  I also have a good handful of men who are English [but wherever they come from originally, not Scots] who now live in Scotland, to a man, because they married a Scottish lady. On top of that, I can name many Scots who I have enjoyed entertaining me, not personally, but through the medium of stage and film. This is a long list. Add to that the 'famous' Scots, who pro rata, have always more than boxed their weight nationally and internationally. I also had periods of service in Scotland, in and around Rosyth at Pitreavie, and also in the west in the areas of the inner Hebrides particularly in the Clyde areas serving in submarines,  topped off by a couple of month-long wonderful, whole-of-Scotland family exotic and energetic holidays, both resulting in severe anticlimax's on coming back home to our pads in England. I can never remember a fall out or a quarrel, except with drunken aggressive Scottish sailors who, quite regularly over my long naval career I have had to discipline even to the point of having them locked-up in a cell overnight until they sobered up. It is they, or rather their type who are probably the spear-carriers and rabble-rousers of the SNP.

So to whom I am I targeting my caustic comments, for caustic they are by design without an apology? Well not to the "huge majority" who voted down the Scottish Referendum whose votes left two 'YES' areas surrounded and humiliated by the many vast tracts of Scotland who went for the 'NO' vote, wanting to remain a part of Great Britain and the UK. Nor to the almost total electoral vote of Scotland [16+ and over] who returned the Nationalistic Party [SNP] at the 2015 General Election virtually wiping out all other politicians and Political Parties, for the voters minds were perverted by the false hopes, lies and false promises of the nationalistic leaders. How many times in history have we seen this type of propaganda, and how can it be that the leader of the northern nationalists get 1,454,436 *to vote for her and is acclaimed as a hero of the people, and yet down south in England, a man gets 4.1 million  [getting on for nearly 3 times more] to vote for him and his ideas and is branded as a force for evil: truly, what is the difference between a woman wanting to force her idea of a bullying Scotland onto other members of the UK,  and a man wanting to better the UK as a whole - cutting down on immigration, getting the UK back in UK hands and seeing-off Brussels and the many lame-ducks/corrupt nations within its 28-nation membership? 

 * The Scottish General Election Electoral Register {18+} was 3,044,487 of which 2,161,586 voted = 71.1% - as opposed to 66% in the rest of the UK.  1,454,436 voted SNP 47.8% of the Electoral Register giving them 56 seats; 707,147 voted Labour,  half the SNP vote and yet giving them 1 seat only; the Tories and the Lib Dems also secured one seat each. Thus the SNP was elected by LESS THAN HALF the enfranchised people of Scotland.  Had the voting system been fairer using a Proportional Representation rule [PR] instead of as it was and always is in the UK, the First Past the Post rule, then, as clearly shown in this BBC diagram, UKIP would have been the third largest party and the SNP the fifth largest party with the Green coming in sixth place ahead of the 'others' which are the Northern Ireland DUP, the Welsh nationalists and the odd independent.  There are in total 650 MP's elected. Although entirely academic, further playing with the PR figures, for the Tories to keep their overall majority of 12 or thereabout from the First Past the Post rule - the status quo - they would need UKIP's 82 votes [which is a sky high probability on the important issues of EU, immigration and retaining Trident], plus some of the DUP [they have 8 seats in the House] votes, and here I will suggest half, four seats known to be anti SNP and pro Tory. With a Tory/UKIP coalition and just a tiny bit of help, it is not unreasonable to count a total of 331 {Tory = 245 + UKIP = 82 + DUP = 4} leaving the rest of the House sitting on 319 votes, giving the government a majority of 12 at best and 8 at worst!  I agree not the same as having an overall majority of Tory votes against all other MP votes, but a much better and fairer outcome rewarding the UKIP on total votes achieved, and demoting the SNP in recognition of the small number of voters they have as electors.

My comments are  directed wholly towards the SNP, and this article in particular tells one just how disconnected many Scots are from her brand of  rebellious leadership, which bodes ill for her future as the First Minister of a devolved parliament. Are_the_Scots_really_behind_Sturgeon_and_her_Republican_movement.htm

The SNP are asking for, nay begging for,  more money from the UK Parliament claiming to be poor and badly treated, when the truth of the matter is, if they are poor, they have brought it upon themselves. They want more for the Scottish NHS and yet they have universal free prescriptions for all Scots whereas we select very closely, the people who get free prescriptions south of the border, these being  the elderly and the sick: also, some of Scotland's medical diligence and clinical excellence is not fit for purpose. Scotland's NHS problems are legion mainly because of their diet, their national abuse of alcohol, their adverse weather and higher than England's levels of poverty/deprivation, in many cases brought on by the abuses/limitation mentioned.  See also this snippet about the State of Scotland told by a Scottish household name BBC SCOTLAND 10th June 2015.htm .  No amount of extra money will fix that!  The growing number of the elderly is yet another red herring, for we all in the UK have to accommodate this welcome and natural evolution of biology, and Senescence is not unique to Scotland alone.  They want a better deal for education for now they trail well behind the standards achieved in England, and yet they award free university places to all comers, whereas the students in other parts of the UK have to pay £9,000 for the privilege of being awarded a degree, a potential bread-ticket for life. The elderly in Scotland get preferential free or heavily subsidised  treatment giving them almost free health care and total peace of mind in their own homes, whereas south of the border, people have to sell their houses to get the same comfort in life [and just before death]. There are other "gifts" the Scots get and the rest of the UK is paying for it, in many cases through the nose.  Mr Cameron should be firm and tell them that if they want more money, then they must rescind the laws which allowed the perks just mentioned. Crying poor in a country rich in hand-outs on the backs of non-benefitting other UK tax payers, does not wash, and if hand-outs are to stay, Scottish taxes must be increased.  Seeking further money from these non-benefitting other UK tax payers is an affront. Me thinks Scotland with a small population; a lot of beautiful but largely unusable land so their claim  that Scotland represents one fifth the size of Great Britain is a no-brainer and a red-herring; a small economy, and the SNP has, disproportionally, a far too big a mouth and too much to say for itself.  In reality it is a tiny country which cannot survive on its own, and the SNP is trying-on 'the dog wagging the tail of UK' bit, and it should be frapped down and told to keep in its place. Come on Cameron! Are you really going to let Ms Sturgeon dictate to you either from Edinburgh or from Scottish MP's in Westminster? Surely, your manifesto, your canvassing can't be all for naught, and if you can win the day with Ms Merkel [as we think you might do - but what avail?] then you should be able to wipe the floor with this wee Jacobean lassie and upstart! Hot air, resulting in loud and threatening noises, is for bag pipes and not for the dignity of the British Parliament and the largely English Members!

Good voting and farewell.