<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Under the Bunnet</title>
	<atom:link href="http://thebunnet.com/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://thebunnet.com</link>
	<description>Watching the world go by - as I see it.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 20 Oct 2012 07:07:28 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>NATO. Did SNP swap morality for pragmatism?</title>
		<link>http://thebunnet.com/nato-swapped-morality-for-pragmatism/</link>
		<comments>http://thebunnet.com/nato-swapped-morality-for-pragmatism/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 20 Oct 2012 07:03:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Lar</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Referendum]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Scotland]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[NATO]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[SNP]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thebunnet.com/?p=330</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In common with everyone else with even a passing interest I have an opinion on NATO and on the SNP reversal of policy. I accept that the policy has been changed democratically within the party, but it is obvious to the dogs on the street that it would not have been so without the leadership pushing the case. It is of course gratifying to see democratic debate in action, but the outcome leaves me a little bemused. A policy which in opposition has been one of the hallmarks of the party, one which set it apart from others has been jettisoned for what? Have the leadership been wrong all these years, have we all been misled?  Or is it as some of the opposition would have it simply a calculation of referendum Yes votes won and lost on the issue?  The calculation has undoubtedly been that a solid Yes vote is not going to jump the dyke on the basis of a single issue- but an undecided who is a political passer by may well be soothed enough to know that nothing is going to change and there will be a few extra pounds (sic) in their pocket. The calculation [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://thebunnet.com/nato-swapped-morality-for-pragmatism/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>NATO or No to NATO</title>
		<link>http://thebunnet.com/326/</link>
		<comments>http://thebunnet.com/326/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 05 Oct 2012 08:48:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Lar</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Mixed bag]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thebunnet.com/?p=326</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[NATO is exercising the hearts and minds of the SNP and will soon be front and centre of the party’s debate.  It is almost certain to be a very high profile issue at conference and one which will stir the leadership to apply their powers of persuasion Angus Robertson proposes that the SNP long standing opposition to NATO membership be reversed and, as yet there appear to be no dissenting voices being loudly aired amongst the party’s elected representatives in Edinburgh or London. There are however many dissenters amongst the rank and file. The subject raises a couple of questions and requires clarification of a few issues. At present the fact that it is being debated should be of more interest to party members than to the general public.  The proposal is not as clear cut as the simplified position that is being presented. Angus Robertson has been careful to include the caveat that an insistence to housing Nukes in Scotlandwould be a deal breaker that would have a newly independent Nation walking away to a peripheral position of cooperating as a non member It is unfortunate if the argument becomes conflated with the independence debate at this point amongst [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://thebunnet.com/326/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Davidson &#8211; is there any other show in town?</title>
		<link>http://thebunnet.com/davidson-is-there-any-other-show-in-town/</link>
		<comments>http://thebunnet.com/davidson-is-there-any-other-show-in-town/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 11 Aug 2012 00:22:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Lar</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Referendum]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Scotland]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[BBC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bias]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cochrane]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Davidson]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Fraser]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Lamont]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Prebble]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thebunnet.com/?p=313</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Oh Dear Oh Dear as Alan Cochrane opens his diatribe… Read it for yourself Mr Cochrane is rushing to the defence of Mr Davidson (joined predictably by Mr Foulkes) who having made allegations of bias against Isobel Fraser has now demanded an apology to boot! These are serious allegations of unprofessional bias against an individual. It is not only the corporation editorial stance Mr Davidson questions but Ms Fraser’s personal professional integrity. It is not that we have not heard such allegations before- but usually they are made by the other side that, in light of recent revelations about BBC staff briefings would seem to have a more justifiable claim. Cochrane goes on to dwell upon the revelation that Andrew Tickell, the lawyer who appeared to refute Mr Davidson’s committee claims has “Nat affiliation” Mr Tickell’s (or as others know him, Lallands Peat worrier) has his credentials questioned by the use of Cochrane’s quotation marks around the word “expert” pointing out that he is in fact a Human rights lawyer not a constitutional lawyer. Ms Fraser is therefore castigated on two counts 1. She has introduced a Nationalist to voice an opinion on law. 2. Mr Tickell is not a [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://thebunnet.com/davidson-is-there-any-other-show-in-town/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Stop the theatrical and get down to the facts!</title>
		<link>http://thebunnet.com/stop-the-theatrical-and-get-down-to-the-facts/</link>
		<comments>http://thebunnet.com/stop-the-theatrical-and-get-down-to-the-facts/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 04 Aug 2012 09:09:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Lar</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Referendum]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Independence]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thebunnet.com/?p=233</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I was listening today to a program about climate change and it struck me that the doom merchants and naysayers of climate change have each done themselves and their arguments a disservice. The argument has become a black and white “Oh No it isn’t!” “Oh Yes it is” pantomime. The problem being that each group has exaggerated their argument, for whatever reason, from the world ending this afternoon in a large hiss of steam to refusal to recognise that there is any change in climate, and certainly if there is it is more likely to be down to Pixie activity than human pollution. This has served to invalidate the positions of both sides and has stifled genuine open debate amongst scientists and at the same time has driven laypeople to the hills at the very mention of Global warming The same can be said of the Independence debate: On the one hand Scotland will sink to the bottom of the Atlantic as England unclips our water wings and leaves us floating alone with several punctures around the area of the Mammores and a fatal leak just north of Berwick. This is scheduled for 3 and half hours after the count [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://thebunnet.com/stop-the-theatrical-and-get-down-to-the-facts/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Game changer- really?</title>
		<link>http://thebunnet.com/game-changer-really/</link>
		<comments>http://thebunnet.com/game-changer-really/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 29 Jul 2012 08:57:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Lar</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Referendum]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Scotland]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Danny Boyle]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[NHS]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Olympics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Scottish Government]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thebunnet.com/?p=206</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I never bothered watching the opening ceremony live – and confess to having as much interest in the Olympic Games as I have in Outer Mongolian horse nutrition. What has captured my interest enough to fast forward through the various aspects of the opening ceremony is the absolute drivel dripping from various mouth-pieces about political game changers. Let me add my drips&#8230; The show appears to have been well put together, as a stage-show of what the writer believes to have been a few of the seminal moments and developments in British history and the essence of Brittania today. Well done Danny Boyle on that score &#8211; and on the musical score that accompanied the show. Something for nearly everyone! He has tried to create a tangible representation of the figment that is held to be “Britishness&#8221;. British history exists in spades- although most of it went unmentioned- (well in decent company it would wouldn’t it?), but modern British culture as a positive aspect of life is not easy to illustrate, mainly because it does not exist in any positive form. Any attempt to fabricate an impressive modern culture from bits and bobs of what is Britain today can only [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://thebunnet.com/game-changer-really/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Who is insulted?</title>
		<link>http://thebunnet.com/who-is-insulted/</link>
		<comments>http://thebunnet.com/who-is-insulted/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 27 Jul 2012 05:26:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Lar</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Mixed bag]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[National anthem]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thebunnet.com/?p=200</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[So some of the Scottish ladies and Welsh men footballers have upset many of the &#8220;Team GB&#8221; fans if the Daily Mail is to be believed- and who would ever suggest that we could do other than hang on every word of the Daily Mail? The insult we are told was given by their refusal to sing along to God Save the Queen- or, as it is also known (for now) the “National Anthem”. Putting Scottish or Welsh Nationalism aside for a moment, why should any of us choose to sing along with the dirge? To start with the “National” in National anthem denies each of us the identity of our nation within the erstwhile union of nations we have come to know in shorthand as UK. A song that calls for divine intervention to extend the life of an over-privileged citizen, in order to continue to lord it over us at the nation’s expense, is what should be causing offence. Offence to the millions of atheists and millions of would be republicans within our group of nations. Time will tell if the union is to survive in its current form, and for how long anyone will reign o’er us. [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://thebunnet.com/who-is-insulted/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Church and State &#8211; the right to marry</title>
		<link>http://thebunnet.com/church-and-state-the-right-to-marry/</link>
		<comments>http://thebunnet.com/church-and-state-the-right-to-marry/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 19 Jul 2012 04:50:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Lar</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Mixed bag]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Equal rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Marriage]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thebunnet.com/?p=196</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Cardinal O’Brien’s pronouncement that “The Church” strenuously opposes gay marriage and his call for a referendum on the subject is neither unexpected nor relevant. His claim that this is an attack on the institution of marriage is misguided. What it may be is different than the Roman Catholic church understands and sanctions as the sacrament of marriage. It is time that we opposed strenuously the right of religious organisations to interfere in the activities of the state. Functions which bestow legal rights and apply our laws should be the reserve of our legal institution, totally divorced from religious organisations. Marriage is a legal union, which the state recognises as a contract between two individuals, until now traditionally of different gender. The law confers certain rights to those entered into such an agreement and the state therefore has an obligation to ensure that all its citizens have the opportunity to enter into this agreement with whomsoever they choose. Selected religious organisations are currently granted the right to perform the legal function of joining two people into this agreement, and they choose to wrap this up in the trappings of their chosen religious ceremony. If they are not willing to perform the [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://thebunnet.com/church-and-state-the-right-to-marry/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Maximising the tax take</title>
		<link>http://thebunnet.com/maximising-the-tax-take/</link>
		<comments>http://thebunnet.com/maximising-the-tax-take/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 08 Jul 2012 02:30:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Lar</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Mixed bag]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tax]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[US]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Westminster]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thebunnet.com/?p=194</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[So there is to be more tinkering with the tax laws to prevent the rich avoiding paying their way. No doubt the following day the accountants will be prodding at new loopholes to ensure that the mass of wealth remains in the pockets of those who are stashing huge amounts of it away. Perhaps it is time for a radical rethink and follow the US down the avenue of worldwide taxation based on citizenship rather than residency. Every “US person” is required to pay tax on their income from whatever source worldwide, regardless of whether they are living in the US or overseas and regardless of where their wealth is laying and attracting interest. To spread the net even wider a “ US Person” for the purposes of taxation includes anybody working in the US regardless of citizenship and claws income even from the interest of foreign citizens accounts in their home or other country whilst they fall within the US tax net. This way there is no such thing as a tax exile. Short of renouncing citizenship there is no escape from giving the revenue its due simply by virtue of domicile. Even renouncing citizenship is no certain way [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://thebunnet.com/maximising-the-tax-take/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Green dissent no bad thing!</title>
		<link>http://thebunnet.com/green-dissent-no-bad-thing/</link>
		<comments>http://thebunnet.com/green-dissent-no-bad-thing/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 10 Jun 2012 03:03:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Lar</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Referendum]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Scotland]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Scottish Greens]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[SG]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[SNP]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Yes]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thebunnet.com/?p=185</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[It is a testament to the Greens internal democracy that they have decided to review within their membership the links to YES SCOTLAND! It is to be hoped that they don’t throw the baby out with the bath water. There are many who aspire to an Independent Scottish nation who do not fully see eye to eye with the SNP on what is being revealed as their vision of Scotland’s future. It would be a shame to lose support for the Independence movement on the basis of party political decisions which may or not be implemented in the future. It cannot be said too many times that this is not an SNP trip- all who want to climb aboard have the right to do so, and everyone’s vision is equally valid. The only thing that requires consensus is the constitutional issue, and even then that takes us only to a starting point. In the future an independent Scotland will be totally empowered to select the best course on each and every aspect of life including refinement of the constitution with the consent of the people. It is understandable that the Greens would like to see all their policies carried through [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://thebunnet.com/green-dissent-no-bad-thing/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Alex- the Splitter?</title>
		<link>http://thebunnet.com/alex-the-splitter/</link>
		<comments>http://thebunnet.com/alex-the-splitter/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 25 May 2012 05:07:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Lar</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Referendum]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Scotland]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Harvie]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Salmond]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thebunnet.com/?p=176</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Patrick Harvie hits the nail spot on when he talks of Independence being an opportunity for radical reform. It seems that the pre match kick about has been used by the SNP leadership to dilute the possibilities that are on offer. The aim being, presumably, to lower expectations of the left and calm the fears of the centre right who may be open to persuasion as long as the horses are not startled. The logic is of course that those minded to establish a left leaning radical alternative would still prefer a new Scotland with the opportunity to develop than an old empire which is spiralling downwards in the grip of the right. The leftists will not therefore vote against Independence. There is though a danger that they may abandon the poll altogether rather than be involved in a movement that they see as less than commendable. Once the disdain for the style of Independence that is on offer sets in, the trickle of those walking away to watch from the sidelines could develop a momentum of its own. There is an alternative view- Those who see Salmond in a Machiavellian form may consider that he has set the scene [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://thebunnet.com/alex-the-splitter/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
