Under proposals from the SNP in Scotland (hence the S), Scotland would get 9% of the UK – including ice cream vans, babies, human waste and as many shiny things as Britons can fit in an envelope.

Alex Salmond was expected to tell Scotsfolk that things were just fine in Scotland, but instead revealed that an independent Scotland would be a more condensed, colder version of the UK.

“I can’t wait to get 9% of kiddies piggy-banks,” said the First Minister

The UK Government responded to the demands by not responding at all – a trick they picked up from the SNP themselves.

If Scots vote for independence, then Nicola Sturgeon and Alex Salmond will travel up and down the UK picking up 9% of possessions from households. One resident of London had this to say:

“I’m happy for that strange man to come into my home and take a few things – as long as he takes away some of the rats under my shed.”

Asked if he would be writing his wish list to Santa, Salmond said, “Santa is a Unionist Tory, so no.”

Pressed for more answers, Salmond then recited some Robert Burns, talked about the oil he ate for breakfast then pretended to get a funny text and left the room.

Jessie J (pop star, future icon, blathering imbecile) is either the most cynical woman in the world or blurring the boundary between idealism and idiocy to previously unfathomable levels. She sings a jaunty, happy sounding song called 'Price Tag' which Wikipedia helpfully informs us:

"is about Jessie J trying to make the world dance by forgetting about how much money we have."

It's a call to arms for the entire world to stop concentrating on material goods and just simply to let the love in. Then we'd all feel better, and everything would be fine. Essentially it's a Disney version of 'Imagine' by John Lennon, where someone who has more money than us tells us we should probably give up all our possessions.

John Lennon, incidentally, wasn't a very nice man. He wrote some very, very good songs ('Imagine' wasn't one of them), but he was also a bell-end who got shot at precisely the right point in his life to maintain his legacy. Seriously, if he'd released any more increasingly-pish solo albums he'd probably have been so bereft of critical acclaim that he'd have sprinted right onto the stage at Live Aid to help Paul McCartney. It doesn't help that all that was truly great about the man has been diluted through a series of over-adulating pricks who revere all things at the Church of Lennon while simultaneously missing most of the points he made and misrepresenting him horribly.

Jessie J, meanwhile, is no John Lennon. Not even John Lennon on a really bad day when he was recording himself shitting through a colander onto a bean bag with extra reverb. Jessie J's previous career was writing songs for smiley-Queen-of-pre-reality-check-dawning-tweenager Miley Cyrus. And Chris Brown. I don't think I've ever heard a Chris Brown song, but I do know that he and Charlie Sheen should be rohyphonoled, made up in drag, and then locked in a room together until they finish beating each other up, probably some time around 2014.

The label Jessie's album is out on is Universal Music. It's fair to say they're probably not the most relaxed label when it comes to distribution of their music. Then again, Jessie J is stating over and over again in 'Price Tag' that we shouldn't care about the money, just to get the world healed and having a good time together as one.

'Price Tag' is 79p to download on Amazon. Or you can buy the whole single package for £3.99, or the album for £7.00.

Obviously if we are to stop caring about the money and dance around for a bit, we're going to have to strut our stuff to a different song. One that is, y'know, free. Because if material possessions aren't important and the whole world needs to hear Jessie's message then logically none of her songs shouldn't be available for free upon request from either herself or her label. That or her song doesn't really mean anything and is a hollow and vacuous, if jaunty, piece of inane babble. When you listen to a song by Lady Gaga you don't generally think 'Oh, this is an interesting point about society she's making', you think, 'Hmm, this would be really good if it didn't go on for about twelve minutes and she wasn't such a massive attention whore'. But crucially her songs don't generally wear their earnestness and idealism on their sleeves. They're simply catchy, silly playground chants that you can dance to, with a hint of underlying meaning that's there if you want it.

Jessie J is claiming that she wants to make the world a better place. Oh really, Jessie? Well, let's go out to Somalia shall we and see how well they react to their message there. Have they heard your song? No. They don't have 79p to download it from Amazon. They don't even have an Amazon account. You could hum it for them I suppose. Yes! That's working! Look at them dance! Look at them - oh, wait, no, that was just the death throes of an infant born with HIV. Sorry. False alarm.

I suppose if we hadn't bought your album we could've given the money to charity or something, but then if we hadn't bought your album how would we know about all the bad things in the world? It's a tough decision. Really, for the good of mankind, it's essential that you download Jessie J's album right now and learn its message about the futility of capitalism even though you know for a fact that a child's internal organs have just collapsed in the Third World as a direct result of this never-ending cycle of hypocrisy. Because if you save a child's life today it'll still die in a harsh and unforgiving world where people aren't singing and dancing and having fun but instead are buying shit albums made by people detached from reality who appear to have written songs specifically to be played at school discos.

In Jessie J world the fact that, apart from money, we're all still human beings and that is a new and vital discovery. Presumably she was brought up in a very 'Britain for the British' household where it was forbidden to spend money on foreign aid projects while there were still problems in Britain because apparently 'Britain' is a place where we lack the most basic fucking compassion.

Or possibly Jessie J knows that her message is complete bollocks, but that it'll chime perfectly with a young un's idealistic streak about how the world is shit and stuff an' we should all totally get together and fix it.

Right after we've worked out a dance routine to the new Keisha single.

He has co-written for the great ('Fuck You' by Cee Lo Green) and Kesha. Remember the South African World Cup song? He helped with that. The man, like a goth fish, obviously knows his way around a hook.

Unfortunately, he is also a bell-end.

I am basing this entirely around two things:

1. His lyrics.

2. The fact that he chose his stage name for the following reason: "I felt like I didn't have [any] pizzazz, and a lot of girls say I’m out of this world, so I was like I guess I'm from Mars."

See? Bell-end. Not content with offering the smuggest of smug reasons and looking like his smug fedora is only on his thumb-like head to contain all the smuggery, Enceladus - the sixth largest Moon of Saturn - is the most likely place in our Solar System that might support life, YOU TWAT. Imagine not knowing that.

Anyway. His lyrics.

They're utter bollocks.

Imagine a bollock, just hanging there, chilling (to the extent that a bollock can chill), minding its own business. Then imagine an entire wind tunnel full of bollocks, all contorted in such a way that the shrivelled skin forms a tiny, screaming face. IN STEREO.

That's how bollocks Bruno Mars lyrics are. Let's go into detail. From 'Grenade':

'Should of known you was trouble from the first kiss.'

ME AM NO GUD GRAMMUR YUH?

He follows up this illiterate mung-storm with:

'Why were they open?'

Don't snigger. This is a serious dissection of culture. And also begs the question, 'If it's such a big deal, why were yours open too Bruno? HMMMM?'

He continues:

'Gave you all I had/And you tossed it in the trash'

Then:

'You tossed it in the trash, you did.'

Just in case we weren't sure. Bruno appears to be haplessly devoted to someone who is not reciprocating. OH WOE.

'I’d catch a grenade for ya (yeah, yeah, yeah)/Throw my hand on a blade for ya (yeah, yeah, yeah).'

This is the chorus. It's nowhere near as catchy as I was expecting. I was promised the catchiest substance known to man when this song was described to me. I was thinking catchy like syphilis or the plague, but no. It's about as catchy as AIDs. You might find it catchy by accident, but it's also highly possible that you might have to be rather careless.

Also, I'm curious as to the veracity of Mars' statements. He's prone to hyperbole you see, and of not giving us the full picture. This grenade f'rinstance, is it live? If it's not live then catching it is no biggie, and if it is just chuck it back. You've played Call of Duty right Bruno? You should, it's well good. All sorts of limbs flying all over the place, people throwing their hands on blades, etc. Yes, you did just imply you would throw your severed hand onto a knife. Is it the knife you used to remove said hand? To give to your loved one? To ask her to plant it so lots of little You might grow? That's scary Bruno Mars, that's just plain scary. At least you wouldn't jump in front of a train for her.

'I’d jump in front of a train for ya (yeah, yeah , yeah)'.

Oh.

'You know I'd do anything for ya (yeah, yeah, yeah)'.

Bruno, are you actually mentally well? Is this song actually about a form of insanity brought on by unrequited love? Because if it is, the tune is slightly too jaunty. And do you know what Bruno, the following lyric is not romantic:

'When I see your face/There's not a thing that I would change '

That's not as good as you think it is, Bruno. Most men do not lie awake at night looking at their partner's faces and going over them with a felt tip to save time when they awake in a plastic surgeon's theatre, as you give them the thumbs up before they go under again. No-one in the history of romance has ever uttered the words 'I love you but I want to change your face'.

Still, looking forward to the Biffy Clyro cover of that song. Maybe they'll do it in the style of their early stuff. Y'know. WHEN THEY WERE GOOD.

I'm rich.

I just came out of a meeting with a major production company - can't say which one, their name is actually an untranslatable word from the Necronomicon - and they're very excited about an idea I pitched for Saturday night tea-time telly.

The as-yet-untitled project blends family entertainment with a social conscience, and is hosted by the erotic homonculi of Patrick Kielty, Paddy McGuinness, and Vernon Kay. Banter.

The concept is delightfully simple: a family team of four has to lure a tramp to the television studios using any means necessary. They then participate in a series of challenges designed to test their tramp to the limit.

The first round is a culinary challenge, as the families seek to make a meal so delicious that the tramps are actually moved to tears. Points will be awarded per millilitre of moisture, sucked from the tramps' eyes with a special hoover. Recipes will be available on a website after the show. This game is followed by the families' attempts to make an overnight shelter using only a flat-packed cardboard box, some string, and an old copy of The Metro. They have sixty seconds in which to design, build and test their shelters, and the one that shows the most structural integrity in the wind tunnel will be the victor.

The next round is the Jism Viscosity round, where two members of the family take turns masturbating the tramp and proffering their chins. We have high hopes that this round will become affectionately known as the 'Oh god, no, not my eyes' round, and the winner is the team whose tramp jizz touches the floor last. The more viscous the expulsion, the more points you win. And what do points mean?

Well, that's the beauty of the thing. Points mean family. The team that wins gets a new house, including the tramp. Not only are you providing a public service, but you're gaining a friend.

The final round is an adventure round, as the teams enter the realm of 'The Big-Ish Shoe'. Inside The Big-Ish Shoe is a series of obstacles and challenges for the whole family to enjoy, such as 'Making eye contact with a stranger', 'Not being smothered in your sleep by your own dog', 'Why not just end it all?', and 'That first inkling that the kindly stranger is a rapist'.

But, as I said, we aren't entirely sure what to call it. I welcome any suggestions.

Here's hoping that it actually gets the love and care it needs to flourish as a series, and doesn't just end up on the late-night Channel 5 schedule presented by Justin Lee-Collins.

I'm rewatching this amazing amazing amazing creation - and I've come up with a theory of how the first producers' meeting went. Only those who are familiar with BSG will understand...

Producer 1: So we're going to start filming in a week. How do you think things will look in the future?

Producer 2: Hmm...well what kind of things? Every day things?

Producer 1: Yeah like...well will paper be the same? Different colour perhaps?

Producer 2: Yeah I think it'd be the same - maybe not rectangular though

Producer 1: Not rectangular? What do you mean?

Producer 2: Well maybe...maybe eight-sided?

Producer 1: ...that's genius! What about...well...what about picture frames?

Producer 2: ...eight-sided?

Producer 1: Wow this is great stuff! What about...em...tables?

Producer 2: Maybe they, too, could be eight-sided?

Producer 1: Computer screens and the like?

Producer 2: Eight-sided *smiley face*

Producer 1: Excellent stuff! I think I understand the formula now. Let's start cutting the corners off of stuff!

Anyone else watch the football this weekend? Amazing matches on! And the Superbowl? The SFX Awards? Lots of stuff going on, all of it very exciting.

And what has Prime Minister David Cameron been up to this weekend?

Well.

In Munich he made a speech where he said that 'State Multiculturalism has failed'. This may have played well in Germany where Chancellor Merkel made similar comments last October, and 30% of of people believed the country was 'overrun by foreigners'.

Who else appreciates the irony that Britain and Germany have been brought closer together by xenophobia?

Both speeches stated many cultures in both countries had failed to integrate, and in both they provided cursory 'I'm not racist, but...' statements that appeared to contradict the rest of their speeches. Merkel said:

"We should not be a country either which gives the impression to the outside world that those who don't speak German immediately or who were not raised speaking German are not welcome here."

I expect it's snappier in German. It either means 'We should look like we're not xenophobic, right, but that doesn't mean we can't act like it when no-one's looking', or 'I have said Multiculturalism has failed, then said that integration is the problem, and then said we should welcome foreigners'.

Cameron drew a distinction between Islamist Extremism and Islam, and said that under state multiculturalism 'different cultures have been encouraged to live separate lives'. He then said that groups, specifically Islamic ones getting public money must be ones who live according to the following principles:

'Do they believe in universal human rights - including for women and people of other faiths? Do they believe in equality of all before the law? Do they believe in democracy and the right of people to elect their own government? Do they encourage integration or separatism?

So, common sense then? Good. Glad that's occurred to him. I'm sure he'll make sure that applies to all Government policy. Singling out Islamic groups, of course, is totally fine. In no way is making this speech on the day of an English Defence League (staunch adherents to the above rules) throwing fuel on the fire and - YOU'LL LAUGH WHEN YOU READ THIS - widening the divides between cultures. I mean, if multiculturalism has failed, then increasing the distance between groups does no harm. Almost like increasing a deficit really, isn't it Mr Cameron?

I can’t be the only one who wants to see the criteria by which Multiculturalism's success or failure is judged, not to mention some sort of agreement on what it actually means. The rhetoric suggests that everything has failed because once the country received all these different people we haven't bothered about the whole 'integration' thing. To my mind this seems to be included in the concept of a multicultural society along with mutual assimilation of traits and practices that benefit us. I mean, only an idiot would advocate bringing lots of different cultures into a country and then half heartedly point to the buffet table while shouting 'MINGLE'. It's going to take more than that to integrate people from different backgrounds, but attempts to do so are back-burner policies, kept in reserve to show people that some sort of effort is being made. There is no danger of any immediate progress on what is surely a constantly evolving concept.

Anyway, to sort that problem out would be, like, a total hassle for the government to sort out. Much easier to appeal to abstract concepts like 'Britishness' which is a set of values that is horrifically subjective. When adjectives are proscribed to 'Britishness' it sounds much like every other democratic country's idealised version of itself. Essentially what Cameron describes as 'muscular Liberalism' - stop sniggering, it's got nothing to do with Clegg's sphincter - means 'We believe in these freedoms. Now start believing in them too or we'll deport you.'

Multiculturalism has failed because Islam is different – or at least that's the message I'm getting. And indeed a spokesman for the Islamic Society of Britain said a lack of national identity isn't a problem caused by Multiculturalism, and neither is Islamic extremism. The actual content of his speech can be summarised as 'Don't give money to people who might encourage extremism', which is spectacularly obvious. He did nuance it with 'Don't give money to people who fail to discourage extremism and are Islamic' which is just unfair. The state funded the visit of a Religious Leader who failed to discourage the systematic cover up of child molestation, after all.

Speaking of state-funding, David doesn't see a problem with having a massive celebration for the forthcoming Royal Wedding. After all, William is "a remarkable young man - great, balanced, poised."

This was in a chat with CNN, which apparently lasted for the rest of David's weekend, where he did his best to make Britain seem like a mimsy Dickensian street urchin who would only be too happy to shine America's boots for it. We're still a world power! Oh the Queen! How quaint! Mr Cameron seems to think a Royal Wedding will make everyone in the country proud.

He seems to have forgotten that some people don't especially care about the Royal Family, whilst others actively dislike them. . Apparently nobody’s told him that there is a tiny possibility that some people – British people, not Muslims even - might be a bit annoyed that the Government is paying for the security arrangements. Because that means the money that Will's family are putting forward is partly tax-payer funded, and the money that the government is putting forward is partly tax-payer funded, partly tax-avoided by Vodafone, and not going anywhere near your Local Council as they are pressurised into cutting back on vital services. But the souvenir mug/cheap tat/ghost written banality industry will be absolutely minted, so that's nice.

Sadly, a great many people will be missing the Royal Wedding because not all Community Volunteers get public holidays. But I'm sure they'll join in with the latent happiness that the wedding will doubtlessly haemorrhage over the country. Which is a world power. Despite not having a strong national identity. And being overrun by foreigners.

"It will be a royal wedding the whole country can celebrate", he proclaimed.

Unless of course you're a Muslim, in which case you presumably don't share enough British values to join in.