First, there’s a Chief Executive whose failure to meet his targets deserves not only a multi-million pay package but a near million pound bonus to boot.  According to the Independent on Sunday, he’s to get more. much more.

There’s the small matter of the bank being mainly state-owned and such an eye-watering remuneration package being considered appropriate for the head of what is effectively a public sector body.  The unions, in particular, have been frothing on this.

And then there’s the political response.  The Chancellor is outraged that he did not meet said targets which include a level of job cuts and service scything that make Fred the Shred look like an amateur.  Reward for putting people out of work:  nice.

Vince Cable, meanwhile, is reported to have insisted that Hester should not get the bonus.  Such private ire is touching.  The Lib Dems may be powerless – despite their oft-repeated promises on conference platforms to tackle the bloated executive pay culture – but we can be reassured they care.

Labour is treading a predictable line, trying to appeal to Mr Hester’s better side:  such rewards are unacceptable when other public sector workers have been subject to a pay freeze. Oh, and the Prime Minister should do something.

The Prime Minister tries to lay the blame at Labour’s door.  They appointed him, he insists, they put together the original package, and we’re stuck with it, because replacing this team would be too expensive.  The Scottish Government is silent, as it has been throughout the financial crisis.

(UPDATE:  just to thole me the First Minister broke his cover 30 minutes after this was published.  On the BBC Marr show, he blamed Labour and Conservatives for not taking more action to curb bonuses and apply discipline on public sector pay “at all levels”. Hmm.)

Helpless and hapless, not a single politician on these shores has come up with a solution to the problem.  A lot of hot air has been expended, some mealy-mouthed pledges have been made to tinker at the fringes of this culture, but they amount to nought.

No wonder the lieges are silently – and not so, if you’ve listened to any of the radio phone-ins in recent days – seething.

People are furious because nothing has changed.  Hester’s bonus is just one more in a long line of insults from the political and economic establishment.  People know that the brouhaha masks an awful truth: we still have the same system in place which caused this mess in the first place.  While all around, people are hurting – from frozen and fallen pay, from rising prices on everything from groceries to nursery fees to heating bills, from reduced pension pay-outs, from cuts in local services, from proposed and actual benefit changes – it’s business as usual.  We are paying the price, they are not.

Politicians are either wilfully or disingenuously covering this up with their pointless hand wringing.   They are being aided and abetted by the economic establishment: if we are to have the “best” (sic) people leading our financial institutions, runs the consensus, there is a small pool to choose from and these men (and they largely are) can command their price.  “Bashing bankers profits no one in the long run” sums their attitude up concisely.

The awful truth is that the world of high finance is still predicated on high risk, high reward.  There has been no tightening of regulation, there has been no global response, there has been no change.  (In fact, David Cameron took time out on Friday to have a pop at the proposed European financial tax).  It is still acceptable to gamble away people’s life savings, their homes and their pensions to make money.  If anything, it’s worse:  the game has shifted focus, moving on to toying with whole countries’ liquidity and leverage, with a handful of pumped up investors managing not only to calibrate whole economies and currencies, but also political frameworks.  Out with democratically elected politicians not up to the job and in with pals of theirs.

Oh, and they get to reward themselves, and those who play the game by their rules, handsomely.

No attempt to reform the rules, no thought on how to change the game.  We still accept the convergent neo-liberal and neo-conservative economic consensus that these institutions and activities are acceptable and actually, desirable.  This is how the money world operates and the only way to clean up our mess is to slash and burn our way out of our indebtedness, ignoring the pain caused to ordinary innocents along the way.

Yet, there is a real appetite for change.  The desire for a different offering is what lies behind people’s frustration.  But our political and economic classes (stoked by and stroked by a compliant media) are conspiring to keep it all the way it was.  A handful of people rule the universe:  same as it ever was.

What I find most curious is the SNP’s silence on it all and its lack of an alternative offering.  So much of the positive case for independence is predicated on not losing the trappings and comforts we currently enjoy.  Independence is an opportunity, not a threat: hence, the rather muddied message on lender of last resort.  It might make sense economically but really does not add up politically.  Yes, there is a balance – and it is a fine one – to be struck between enough change to persuade people to vote yes and not so much that it scares everyone into accepting the status quo.

But if ever there was a case for change, it is to the fundamental building blocks of our economy.  Scotland can be different.  We do not have to allow people to get rich on the misery of others.  We can have a successful financial sector but it could be calibrated differently.  Creating a fiscally and socially responsible fiscal culture that is based on key principles of fairness, moderation and justice might not find favour with the current masters of the universe, but it would open new opportunities.

Scotland as a global leader in fashioning a new and different way of doing business:  there are plenty who will scoff, but plenty more who will listen.   Such concepts may discomfit the SNP leadership and campaign team but these are the kind of discussions we need to have in the next two years.

Do I want to live in a Scotland post independence which has its own Hester bonus brouhahas, because some people are allowed to get filthy rich for making very little contribution to our economic or social common weal?  No.

And neither does anyone else I know.

Killie left it late, but in truth they utterly dominated the game.  The local rivals whose name dare not be spoken (except in derogatory terms) came with a plan:  soak up all the pressure and hope to counter.  Soak it they did, spending most of the 90 minutes fully entrenched in their own half.  Killie played some nice football, as is their wont these days, and it was goal-less at full time, thanks only to some superb goalkeeping.

But in the last five minutes, Ayr came to life.  They wanted to stay in the hunt more than Killie wanted to win it, it seemed.  I was filled with dread for extra time but eventually class won out.  At the third time of asking.

Being in the national stadium for the first time in a while, I realised how much I like it and why it was a good decision to redevelop the park.  Every country needs a national football stadium; them what suggested we should just use the Old Firm middens were very wrong.  Some of us don’t like going there for ordinary football, never mind big games.

Yes, we were wee in number but not so wee that we couldn’t make our voices heard or our presence felt.  The atmosphere was a good one, the banter abusive but part and parcel of the ritual.  There was no menace, not even when a young team of Ayr supporters forced their way down through the Killie throng provocatively.  They were ignored by police and punters alike, as it should be.

Our day out was nearly a disaster.  The wee chicklet arrived without a coat.  He’d only ensconced himself in the car at 9.45am but managed to forget a couple of essentials as a result.  Bless.  Fortunately the mammy had extra attire in the bag (it’s in the job description) and a jacket was borrowed from one of the Stranraer contingent.

We only managed to get in five minutes after the start, for which blame the aforesaid team fae the toon.  The big chicklet was safely ensconced with his pal in the VIP section by this time, surrounded by ex, retired and injured players – “it’s all about contacts, ma”.  We had to wait for our tickets to arrive.

And wait.  And wait.  They like leaving everything to the last minute that lot.  Worse was the garbled phone communications about which entrance.  They’ve only got over a century of visiting Hampden among them:  maybe the problem was that for once they were doing it sober.

But it gave us plenty of time to people watch.  Keeping the ticket prices low was a gamble but it worked.  They came from Ayrshire and beyond in their tens of thousands.  The regulars and the families up for a big day out.  Lovely.

We were promised, nay threatened with Olympic standard security measures and searches, as a test run for the real thing.  The North Stand had them five deep at the turnstiles as a result but the rest of us?  Well, I didn’t even get my bag searched which was a first.  Light touch works:  keep it that way.

Despite the determination of the fans to have a good time, it did seem as though the authorities were just as determined for us not to.  The programme booths ran out well before kick off;  by half-time, there were no pies, hot dogs or ketchup sachets left;  the hot water in the ladies was scalding and dangerous;  and a couple of bored polis decided to pick on some juniors, just to justify the overtime.  This latter occurrence is a regular one at football matches, I’ve found, and it’s pathetic.

Sometimes I wonder at our football bodies’ fitness to govern.  It’s the small things that make or break a big day out at something like a cup semi-final.  It should be written into the SFA and Scottish League’s standing orders and rules:  running out of pies is a sackable offence.

But it didn’t really dent the bonhomie.  Everyone made do and enjoyed it nonetheless.  The win, of course, helped.

Did I feel sorry for the rivals?  For a nano second.  They came to play for penalties, right from the start, and if they’d actually played the match properly, they might not have been on a long trudge home.  Their track record against Killie in cup games is after all, remarkable.  Or an amusing anomaly, as one neutral put it.

But no, the right team won, we all had a great day out and the best of it is, we get to do it all over again on 18 March.

It would be nice to have a repeat of the “family friendly” SFA Cup Final in 1997 with Falkirk as our opponents.  Especially as we’d fancy our chances again.

But Celtic hold no fears either – they have been both spectacularly good and remarkably poor this season.  Not only did we nearly beat them in the league, Killie are due a League Cup win.  With two outrageous defeats under our belt – the last one against Hibs prompting the Big Chicklet to vow that he would never go to a final again – it could be, should be third time lucky.

The law of averages requires it.

Scotland’s MEPs host the annual European Parliament Burns Supper on the Wednesday closest to the bard’s birthday.  Accordingly this year was one of the few occasions when the event actually fell on the 25th – and so members of Scotland’s Brussels-based diaspora duly gathered this week to raise a glass or two, kindly provided by one of the country’s bigger distillers.

The event turned out to be a good one.  I’m not implying that some Burns Suppers are “bad” – it’s just I think we all know that some can be better than others.  At the lower end of the scale the speeches can tend towards the sentimental and that is to miss the true genius of the poet’s work.

This year, however, there is a positive buzz in the Scottish community – and that extends to expats in Brussels.  The Scottish Government’s choice of Robert Burns’s birthday to launch the referendum consultation was wholly appropriate, and wholly unsentimental.  The referendum – indeed Scottish independence – is very much about the future and Scotland’s place in Europe and the world.

“O wad some Pow’r the giftie gie us, To see oursels as ithers see us!” Burns famously wrote whilst addressing that infamous louse.  Unfortunately, as an MEP we have all too many powers to see how others see us – particularly in the form of the more Euro-sceptic elements of the media.  The EU as a whole is unlikely to win any popularity contests in the near future and the European Parliament continually comes in for a beating in the press, if it gets any press at all!

This apparent lack of popular support was at the heart of the speech given by Martin Schulz MEP on being elected to the Parliament’s Presidency last week.  Mr Schulz raised the very real possibility of the EU failing and he called for reinvigoration of the “community method”.

Schulz spoke of decisions increasingly taken by governmental summit, to the exclusion of the Parliament, the only directly elected EU institution.  Nowhere has this been more apparent than in the agreement reached by 26 of the EU’s Member States, after David Cameron’s pointless use of the veto last month.

President Schulz should be supported in his efforts to raise the European Parliament’s profile, and guarantee its inclusion in the EU decision making process.  Nevertheless, the Member State – the independent Member State – is and must remain at the heart of the community method that Mr Schulz defends.

The Heads of State and Government are all elected by the citizens of each Member State, so it would be wrong to suggest that the European Parliament has greater democratic legitimacy than prime ministers and presidents.

It is certainly both Scotland and the EU’s great misfortune that we are currently represented at the top table by a hapless Tory toff completely inept at international diplomacy.  Scotland’s remedy for this however lies with the people in a vote which will take place in 2014.

An independent Scotland will play a full role in the community method – with Scottish government ministers attending Councils and summits as of right, as opposed to by Westminster-issued permit as at present.

Last week’s plenary session welcomed not just Martin Schulz to the presidency of the Parliament but also Denmark to the Presidency of the Council.  Prime Minister Helle Thorning-Schmidt stated that “Europe’s destiny is Denmark’s destiny” before outlining how her northern nation of some 5 million people intends to shape the debate over the next 6 months.

That destiny is also an independent Scotland’s destiny – and we will be able to embrace the community method fully.  That method requires mutual respect between Member State governments and the European Parliament – but we must not seek to rebalance power away from national parliaments or governments.

In Burns’s “A Dream” he wrote to the king:

 Far be’t frae me that I aspire

To blame your legislation,

Or say, ye wisdom want, or fire,

To rule this mighty nation:

But faith! I muckle doubt, my sire,

Ye’ve trusted ministration

To chaps wha in barn or byre

Wad better fill’d their station

Than courts yon day.

Plus ca change some might say – particularly after Cameron’s December summit fiasco.  But reinvigoration of the EU  – like Scotland’s future – is the responsibility of the citizens and change must start with the people.

The European Parliament can work in partnership with Member State governments – but must not go down the road of competing with them over who enjoys most democratic legitimacy.

I’m not nearly as cynical as I make out, and on occasion, am wont to daft naivete.  Especially where politicians are concerned.

Deep down, I look for the redeeming qualities:  everyone has some surely.  And I like to think that all politicians will come good in the end, once the folly of their ways has been shown to them.  I may hae ma doots, but more often than not, I’m keen to give everyone the benefit of the doubt.

That was before.  This is now.  And I have come to realise that this Conservative-Liberal Democrat lot in government are the worst I have ever known.

It only takes a modicum of research to find them out.  Five minutes in fact, was all I needed, lurking on the House of Lords’ webpages to discover that it really is one rule for the one per cent and a whole different set of mores for the 99%.

Last year in the budget, the Chancellor announced that private jets would be subject to air passenger duty.  I commented on it at the time, in a budget review for Newsnet Scotland before its spat and its split, along the lines of not having realised that private jets were exempt from the tax the hoi polloi had to pay (something that the last UK Labour government either allowed or tolerated or both).

Thanks to the Lords – my new heroes after their good work in demolishing some of the worst excesses of the welfare reform bill in the last two weeks – we now know that those poor wee souls who fly privately are getting a long lead-in time before being hit by this new tax.  Lord Palmer asked on Wednesday why air passenger duty on private jets would not be implemented until 2013.  This was the reply from one of the UK Government’s front bench team, Lord de Mauley (no sniggering in the cheap seats please):

“My Lords, from April 2013 air passenger duty will for the first time cover passengers travelling aboard private or business jet flights. The changes will bring a substantial number of new operators into the regime and will require the introduction of special rules, tailored to business aviation. Given that the sector comprises many small operators, the Government decided to implement the change from 2013 in order to ensure that burdens both for HMRC and industry were minimised and that the system functions effectively.”

How thoughtful, giving folk time to prepare for the change.  Shame they refuse to do the same for the lesser mortals, whose burdens will be increasing hugely from this April, thanks to changes to the tax credit regime and other sundry attempts to reduce the UK’s public expenditure deficit.  All those pop stars, oliogarchs, footballers and global business people who fly hither and thon on their very important business need time to ensure they can meet the burden of paying tax every time they and their entourages visit Blighty.  Because when you are very rich and can afford to own or charter a private jet, you might just not manage to pay the additional whack that air passenger duty is going to put on the cost.

Worst of all, this same courtesy has not been afforded to people on benefits.  The welfare reform bill has not yet passed.  Given the views and votes of their Lordships, there might be a bit of ping pong to happen still, at least until someone blinks or the Parliament Act is invoked.  In any event, the earliest we are likely to see the act passed and on the statute books is Easter.  It might even take until the summer, yet the bulk of the changes come into effect by April 2013.  There has been a nod to the complexity or impact of some measures which have been given longer roll-out periods but mostly, the single biggest upheaval to welfare benefits in a generation will come all at once.

With little consideration of the burden it’s going to place on some of the poorest and most vulnerable individuals and families all across the UK.  Worse, many of the systems have yet to be developed, let alone tested for effective functionality – as the Scottish Government has been finding out every time it asks to see the modelling done to gauge the impact of many of the changes.  One of the reasons for the Scottish Parliament’s reluctance to pass a legislative consent motion allowing Westminster carte blanche over measures that affected devolved areas was because of its inability to make an informed decision on the impact, thanks to the tardiness of the Department for Work and Pensions and HMRC to provide the necessary information.

But whatever the consequences, the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats do not want to hang around and find out.  They’re bashing on, ignoring the gloom and doom-mongers that make up the voluntary sector (mostly) and who know the potential effects of some of these measures because they work with those most affected by the reforms day in and day out.  Organisations’ calls for caution have been brushed aside.

This reform is necessary, they say, on so many levels.  We haven’t got time to work out the consequences of all the measures, they reckon.  Time is of the essence.

But only when it’s about sweeping away some of the founding values and principles of the welfare state and pushing potentially hundreds of thousands of people into deep and abiding poverty.  When it comes to rich people, then time is yet another luxury afforded to them.

Sceptical idealist?  Make that a complete cynic where the ConDem government is concerned.  There is not a single redeeming quality to be found.

I’ve been scrummaging around in my Burn’s poems in book form and online.  Burns found ingenious ways to weave social justice themes into his work.   He used satire of course, but much of his tone was also lamenting (though curiously unselfpitying when talking about his own lot and misfortune), and occasionally visceral.  It still barbs now so imagine how many reacted over two hundred years ago on a first hearing or reading.

There are lots of famous poems and songs that cover, amongst other topics, poverty.  Burns was awfy guid at prodding the hypocrisy of the unco’ guid, in particular.  Holy Willie’s Prayer is perhaps one of the best examples of that.  But there is also the Twa’ Dugs and of course, A Man’s a Man and plenty more besides.

So it seems fitting that on the day that the big debate on Scotland’s future is launched with the focus all on the process rather than on the purpose; on the day when it was confirmed what we all suspected – that the UK economy shrank in the last months of 2011; and on the day when the uber-rich gathered in Davos to tell us how they were going to save the world, again, it’s worth pausing for a moment to appreciate just how brilliantly Burns chronicled and lamented poverty and its impact.

Was with us then, is with us now.  Wha’s like us huh?

All devil as I am, a damned wretch,
A harden'd, stubborn, unrepenting villain,
Still my heart melts at human wretchedness;
And with sincere tho' unavailing sighs
I view the helpless children of Distress.
With tears indignant I behold th' Oppressor,
Rejoicing in the honest man's destruction,
Whose unsubmitting heart was all his crime.
(From A Penitential thought...)

...Then sore harass'd, and tir'd at last, with fortune's vain delusion, O,
I dropt my schemes, like idle dreams, and came to this conclusion; O
The past was bad, and the future hid, its good or ill untryd; O
But the present hour was in my pow'r, and so I would enjoy it, O
No help, nor hope, nor view had I; nor person to befriend me; O
So I must toil, and sweat and moil, and labor to sustain me, O
To plough and sow, to reap and mow, my father bred me early, O
For one, he said, to labour bred, was a match for fortune fairly, O...
(From My Father was a Farmer)

Wae worth thy pow'r, thou cursed leaf! Fell source o' a' my woe and grief! For lake o' thee I've lost my lass! For lake o' thee I scrimp my glass! I see the children of Affliction Unaided, thro' thy curst restriction: I've seen the Oppressor's cruel smile Amid his hapless victim's spoil; And for thy potence vainly wish'd, To crush the Villain in the dust: For lake o' thee I leave this much-lov'd shore, Never perhaps, to greet old Scotland more!
(Lines written on a banknote)