Glasgow North East - Scotland - David Kerr SNP

The latest (and hopefully the best!) Glasgow North East by-election video. It took me a long time to get this version uploaded, if you like it then please pass on the link.

Video description: It's decision time in the Glasgow North East by-election. After 74 years of Labour the voters have a chance to vote for a change. The Scottish National party (SNP) have an articulate and talented candidate in David Kerr. Will Thursday be a great step forward for Scotland? Let's hope so.

74:59 - The Glasgow North East By Election - Scotland

What do the numbers 74 and 59 have to do with the Glasgow North East by-election? Who is David Kerr and what do the SNP stand for? What is the difference between Labour and Tories? Who is best for Glasgow? Who is best for Scotland? All these questions are answered in less than six minutes with the Scottish Independence Guide's overview of the Glasgow North East by-election. (The film uses existing TV footage of the candidates and SNP leader Alex Salmond).

Scotland: Glasgow North East By-Election

The decision of the voters in Glasgow North East will have long lasting implications for the cause of Scottish independence. Glasgow can do better than Labour's Baron Springburn and the SNP deserve their chance to represent the constituency at the UK parliament.

Scotland's party puts Scotland first and a vision of a free and independent country is a lot bettter than sticking with failed bankrupt Britain with it's divide 'n' rule policies and xenophobic attitudes fixed firmly in the past!

LTE: Scotsman needs to report news not invent it

Letter to the Editor
The Scotsman

02/11/2009

Dear Sir,

Your correspondent David Maddox's article on Friday claimed that the SNP have ditched their referendum proposal. Nationalists 'give up' on 2010 referendum (31/10/2009). He has not one attributable quote in support of this but says 'senior figures' have revealed this to him. On the eve of a Liberal Democrats conference specifically to discuss the SNP's proposals is obviously the logical time for high up SNP members to express inner reservations about them! The Evening News recycled the same rubbish: SNP abandons hopes for independence poll (31/10/09).

Today Mr Maddox imagines that the SNP are considering a property based alternative to their local income tax 'E-mail hint of SNP's plans for property tax' (02/11/09).

His 'evidence' for this is that civil servants are currently comparing different types of local taxes. Naturally a desperate Labour spokesman, Iain Gray, their party leader in Scotland, is quick to hoover up this crumb of comfort declaring: "This is not only a sign of the SNP's hypocrisy and incompetence but a complete shambles."

The SNP Government itself explained the obvious: "The request made was for the purpose of assessing other parties' proposals, it is not a government proposal." They add: "There is no question of this government considering any reform to local taxation other than the introduction of a fairer local tax, based on the ability to pay."

In fact the SNP is still firmly in favour of both an independence referendum and a Local Income Tax. Even although the Scotsman has been campaigning for some time for the SNP to drop LIT, they have not actually done so.

Not one other paper is likely to pick up these 'stories' because they are not true news stories at all! The first 'story' on the referendum is pure invention, deliberately timed to undermine the SNP case and encourage the Liberal Democrats. The second is almost as silly and irrelevant as it contains not a shred of evidence that the SNP are actually planning any change whatsoever in their LIT policy.

There needs to be a clear distinction between reporting the news and inventing it. The Scotsman newspaper might have a legitimate difference of opinion with the SNP Government on many issues, obviously the paper has a right to indicate this and to campaign on these issues.

Nonetheless however the SNP are our elected Government and deserve some level of respect. The Scotsman newspaper has no right or remit to invent new Government policy and it should avoid pretending that an imminent political change by the SNP is in prospect without an attributable quote to that effect.

Labour have changed their policy position on an independence referendum on a number of occasions. The SNP however have been politically consistent in demanding a vote on independence. A change in that position would indeed be newsworthy but it hasn't actually happened.

We can hardly complain about a lack of trust in our politicians if newspapers are allowed to invent a new policy position for them ever week!

Yours faithfully,

JOE MIDDLETON

To the Scotsman - Inventing the News is wrong!

Nationalists 'give up' on 2010 referendum
by David Maddox

http://www.scotsman.com/latestnews/Nationalists-39give-up39-on-2010.5783424.jp

SENIOR figures within the SNP have privately accepted that their hopes of securing a referendum on independence in 2010 are dead, The Scotsman can reveal. While SNP MSPs are still pushing publicly for a vote, there is a growing acceptance in the party hierarchy that none of the Labour, Conservative or Liberal Democrat opposition parties will support a poll before the next Scottish Parliament elections in 2011.

Since this 'story' is of no advantage whatsoever to the SNP and in effect seems to be an attempt to take the pressure of the Liberal Democrats, it seems highly unlikely that any genuine spokesman of the SNP would have authorised it.

I reckon its a work of fiction by the Scotsman and the SNP should make it clear that this speculation does not represent its actual view. Why let the Lib Dems and Labour off the hook now when both are clearly split on the referendum issue? What sense does it make to attempt to declare a coalition deal before any elections? It makes no sense whatsoever.

The Scotsman should be aware that its actual job is to REPORT the news, not to try and set the news agenda by fabricating statements from the SNP that fit its own agenda.

This is a new low even for this rag.

The Remains of the Day (novel) by Kazuo Ishiguro

This is a bit outside the normal preoccupations of this blog but I thought I would share it with you all anyway. I managed to get my first tutor marked assessment done today so I am quite pleased. This isn't related btw, it is a posting/review to my OU group.

I thought I might share with the group a recent experience of reading a novel which indicates to me personally what might be achievable when writing.

I had a transatlantic phone call some time ago with my brother in Virginia. He mentioned that he had recently seen the film ‘The Remains of the Day’ with Anthony Hopkins. I think he might have said he had watched it again, because I seem to remember him talking about it before.

“It’s a wonderful film” he said. “Hopkins is fantastic in it, he subtlely seems to portray a sort of reserved inner sorrow. Emma Thompson is wonderful as well.”

He said more of course than this, but such is my memory of the incident.

“Oh yes,” I said “I have the book. I think you mentioned it before, I’ll have to see it sometime.”

At that point I meant to obtain the film and indeed I might have, or I may have just seen the trailer. I can think of the characters, and I can think of a number of incidents from it however I have just read the book and now I am no longer sure!

I had been to an interview yesterday. It was for a job I have always wanted and my preparation was quite intense. I have no idea if I will be successful, certainly I hope so but it is the nature of interviews to be confusing and I have my doubts. The field was cut from sixty two to ‘twelve strong candidates’, all of whom are being interviewed and one out of twelve is not the best odds!

Anyway, that doesn’t really have much bearing on my story, however I was lying in bed, sweating a bit, the temperature seemed to have changed and I turned my pillow as it was wet. Sharon was turning over, and said sleepily:

“Are you all right?”

“I think I’ll get up”, I said “I feel a bit restless.”

I had actually been lying awake for some time mulling things over, the past interview and other related ideas.

Anyway I jumped up, pulled on a pair of jeans and a T-shirt and wandered through to the living room. There I sat and looked around and my eye was drawn to the book ‘The Remains of the Day’ by Kazuo Ishiguro.

I took it down from the bookcase. I had bought it some time ago from a second hand shop for a few pounds. Perhaps it was before seeing the movie, perhaps it was afterwards, I only know that for a while as I read the book the faces of Anthony Hopkins and Emma Thompson would swim into mind as I read the dialogue.

I’ll give it a go I thought, as I settled onto the couch, I was intrigued by the subject matter and that the writer was of Japanese origin, given that the story is about the inner machinations of an English butler.

[Strangely enough I reached this point in writing and suddenly stopped, I thought I’ll just read my emails! I think this would have interrupted my flow fatally so I will carry on regardless! The emails can wait.]

The story is of a butler named Stevens and his relationship with his employer and fellow staff in a large English mansion from the 1920’s onwards. Stevens prides himself on his professionalism and his decorum, his essential ‘dignity’ which he believes marks him out as a true gentleman’s gentleman. On a road trip to meet up with an old colleague Stevens looks back at his time in service and reflects on his life and his theories about being a great butler.

He relates his story in the first person and we gradually realise that in amongst his colourful reminiscences there is more than meets the eye. How this is revealed is very subtle and the descriptions of the surrounding characters are quite extraordinarily well done.

Stevens’s father in particular is very ably portrayed. He is an uptight emotionless man who nonetheless Stevens is tremendously proud of and who he imitates, to his own folly. Stevens relates one incident in particular which gives the audience a measure of his father’s character and it is perhaps my favourite part of the book, relying as it does on action to illustrate the man.

There are many such moments however. I started the book in the early hours of this morning and I had finished it by about 11am with a break of a few hours sleeping in between.

The quality of the prose is really quite lovely and the only thing to touch it to my mind is George MacDonald’s Fraser’s ‘Mr American’. That novel is very different but it is also beautifully written with a tug of nostalgia towards a forgotten age (in this case the American west) and is superior in my mind to his wildly successful ‘Flashman’ novels, even though I do rather enjoy them as well.

The Remains of the Day contains timeless themes, of love, of regrets, of a sense of wasted opportunities and it really is a quite marvellous novel. On the face of it Stevens is a blinkered fool and his boss is a deluded Nazi puppet, but when one understands the background to their characters a much more complex picture emerges.

Stevens’s employer, Lord Darlington, can’t quite understand anti German feeling. He sees the Germans as honourable foes who were harshly treated after World War one was over. So far so good, but later he extends this sympathy and sense of decency towards the later German state and fails to realise the real threat that Hitler poses.

[Another film which covers similar themes of war, honour and modernity and is also quite fantastic is Michael Powell and Emeric Pressburger’s ‘The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp’. All their films are superb but Blimp is particularly satisfying.]

Stevens’s convictions that “great affairs must be left to great men” is entirely outside what we believe to be correct in the modern age. His class bound ethos blinds him to the poor treatment he receives personally and to the faults of his employer while his emotionless behaviour restricts his life. Stevens’s father works in the same household and their attitudes to each other are revealing.

Nonetheless, he does appear to have a great personal dignity (many of the people he meets on his travels mistake him for a landed gentleman himself) and we sympathise with his behaviour because we can see that the son has followed in the footsteps of the father. Stevens is a real character and his actions are utterly consistent with that character. He is completely and utterly believable and he holds the entire novel together.

It occurs to me that this is what we should aspire to as writers. To create a work which is utterly gripping, which may be quite outside our normal experience, but nonetheless is recognisably authentic on both an emotional and practical level.

The amount of research that must have gone into this book has to have been absolutely tremendous yet it flows effortlessly and there is not a word within it that seems to be superfluous. Little nuggets of humour add to the whole experience. It is a quite tremendous feat and even if we don’t achieve such heights ourselves nonetheless the example provided here is very inspiring.

15 Years on - What was the impact of Braveheart?

IN THE basement screening room of a New York hotel, a small group of international journalists – Scots, Russians, Japanese, Germans and Australians – is waiting for Mel Gibson to arrive. We've just watched Braveheart (a Blu-ray version will be released on 2 November, exactly 15 years after the original), witnessing Gibson's William Wallace slashing and burning his way through English subjugation and straight into the heart of Scotland's iconography.

http://news.scotsman.com/entertainment/Interview-Mel-Gibson.5762142.jp

Mel's interview is interesting. He doesn't add much to the story that we don't already know but Scottish nationalism undoubtedly owes his film a debt of gratitude of some sort.

Not because it was historically accurate (it wasn't, the battle of Stirling Bridge, is missing er... a bridge) but because it raised the profile of William Wallace Scotland's greatest historic hero who laid the way for Robert Bruce's ultimate victory at Bannockburn.

Is that still relevant? Yes, because if we had been beaten then, then the union would have been brought forward by 400 years and it wouldn't have been a union but a total annexation. We might now be sitting in a country called England.

The viewpoints at the end are disappointing, my remarks are in brackets:

Viewpoint Pat Kane: Musician and writer

Is Scottish independence worth it if its narrative is face-painted blue, bares its collective arse at all critics, dreams fondly of its own guerrilla movement and renders the English as collectively either doltish, sadist or effete?

(Yes, independence is worth it no matter what any film says and to imagine that the film in any way reflects modern Scottish nationalism is both absurd and ridiculous. It's a piece of entertainment and yes it reflects a crude sense of humour at times but so what? The political boost was raising awareness of our history and historical figures. Yes at times in our history Scots had to fight to gain independence. Without that win, there would have been no Declaration of Arbroath and possibly less civil rights around the world. For the first time Scotland said, we are in charge, not the King. Considering the times it was declared this is utterly remarkable.)

Every time the SNP does one of its dumb appropriations of Mel Gibson's neo-fascist tartan epic, even an independence supporter like me sinks lower in his chair.

Gibson has subsequently shown himself to be one of the weirder Hollywood movie-makers, seemingly in love with blood sacrifice, one way or another. Isn't it time we consigned the brutal dualisms of this movie to the dustbin of Scottish memory?

It's no surprise that European and American neo-Nazis take it as an inspiration. And as Scottish independence – if and when it comes – will be a matter of mastering the complexities of politics, law and economics, the last thing we need is the stench of Gibson's macho and xenophobic version of national liberation in our nostrils. Sorry, compatriots: Braveheart no more.

(To compare today with any historical movie is absurd, and it is just a film, after all. Let's remember that the real William Wallace was fighting for Scotland in very different times and he actually died for our nation. Mel's film might not entirely reflect the man but it does offer a moving tribute to his spirit. It deserves some respect for that.)

Viewpoint T M Devine: Sir William Fraser professor of Scottish history and palaeography, University of Edinburgh

One thing is certain, the movie has dramatically raised Scotland's international profile and place on the world map, for good or for ill. The Wallace Monument at Stirling, for decades neglected and virtually ignored, is now one of the nation's star tourist attractions. drawing visitors from across the globe. Americans may be still uncertain about where Scotland actually is, but they do know it is the land of Braveheart, which has now become as famous a part of the Scottish iconography

Then there is the extraordinary impact of Braveheartism in Europe. Scottish festivals abroad have become a veritable growth industry, booming from almost zero activity in 1990, from Moscow to Amsterdam. An event in the German city of Leipzig draws nearly 20,000 people annually. For the first time, in 2007 thousands of Russian 'Scots' paraded in full Highland dress in front of the Kremlin. The most recent count suggests that there are now at least 160 of these fantasy events scattered across Europe.

Not all this of this has come about only because of Braveheart, but who can deny that the movie has done much to renew the remarkable world-wide romantic appeal of a fictitious Scotland. Mel as the successor to Ossian and Scott?

Viewpoint Neil Davidson
Senior research fellow, University of Strathclyde

Freedom is a noble thing, but what kind freedom did Braveheart offer us? In a telling scene, Edward I throws his son's gay lover to his death. Edward is the pantomime villain – he hates Scots and gays: boo, hiss. But here's the point; the scene is played for laughs, and the audience does laugh.

As this suggests, the politics of the film are those of the right-wing, rifle-wielding backwoodsmen who think Barack Obama is a Kenyan commie and the NHS exists to kill your granny. Is this the kind of freedom we want for Scotland?

(So one scene means the whole film represents modern American politics right down to their current views on the NHS? Mr Davidson hates Scots independence, that is his political agenda.)

The film famously ends on the eve of Bannockburn, but long before then, before Wallace's death even, the Wars of Independence had become a struggle to see which gang of French-speaking, Latin-writing feudal banditti would exploit the Scottish peasantry. "Our" side won: fantastic. But freedom? As the Eagles used to sing: that's just people talking.

(It's a strange type of Scot that couldn't care less who won at Bannockburn. Yes 'our side' won, Scotland!)

Viewpoint Hannah McGill
Director, Edinburgh International Film Festival

Braveheart's position in Scottish film culture is as wobbly as Mel Gibson's on-screen accent. It has more sentimentally invested in the idea of Scottishness than any other film, but its own racial profile is notoriously all over the place: Australian star/director, American screenwriter, English leading lady and – most controversially of alI – some Irish locations.

(I think it's international flavour is actually its greatest strength. I don't think anyone else would have made it, it needed an Australian to look at Scotland's past and see the potential for a blockbuster.)

So, is it invalid as an icon of Scottish cinema? Not if you view it as what it is: one of the few big, fat, populist films to take Scotland as a subject, and as cross-bred, cobbled together, cynical and inconsistent as big fat populist films almost always are. Along with its more obviously 'authentic' contemporary, Rob Roy, Braveheart lent Scotland a presence in Hollywood as an inspiration and as a location. If Ireland got some temporary business out of Braveheart, Scotland – for better or worse – got its own permanent movie myth.

(I think this probably genuinely sums up the impact of Braveheart, certainly it helped put Scotland on the map internationally. It had obvious flaws but most big budget blockbuster films do. It also had confidence however and was unambiguous in supporting Scots independence. Something no film did before or since. I find the only people who really detest the film are British nationalists who would prefer no-one had ever heard of William Wallace and would prefer Scotland had no voice on the international stage at all. JOE)

If Salmond is 'irrelevant' then so is Scotland

British Conservative leader David Cameron's remarks again show his party's irrelevance to Scotland. If Alex Salmond and by extension the SNP are "irrelevant" to a British general election then this shows up the fact that Scotland does not count within the current setup.

The SNP are currently Scotland's most popular party. They won the last Scottish election and the last Euro elections with the largest share of the popular vote. The Tories on the other hand have one MP in Scotland and might soon have zero. The SNP however could realistically under FPTP increase their numbers to 20-30 seats.

That makes the SNP a huge player in Scotland. If David Cameron continues to push this line then what he is actually saying is that no party in Scotland counts and that whatever way we vote does not matter in a UK election.

If that is so then the only logical option for Scots is independence, because otherwise he is right and we don't count at all within the UK setup where we are outvoted 10-1.

If the BBC go ahead with a debate and show it in Scotland without the SNP's participation then they will be wide open to legal action. It may be David Cameron's opinion that the SNP don't count but in reality it is his party that is the irrelevance to all Scots.

In Scotland this election is between Labour and the SNP. Who wins will have relevance to whether we move forward to independence or have a future of right wing rule. Cameron knows he is not popular up here and he also knows he has no hope of winning any election but he has no right to decide the scottish people's vote in advance of te actual election, nor has he any right to declare that the SNP are irrelevant when they have an excellent chance of winning the elections in Scotland!

--------

David Cameron has branded the Scottish National Party leader Alex Salmond "an irrelevance" in the upcoming general election. His comments came after Mr Salmond predicted England would be "dancing to a Scottish tune" if the election delivers a hung Parliament with SNP MPs holding the balance of power.

But Mr Cameron insisted the only options for voters casting their ballot in any part of the UK was between continued Labour rule and a switch to Conservative government.

The Making of A History of Scotland

The Making of A History of Scotland: a debate presented by The Open University in Scotland in this year's Edinburgh Lectures series ¦ Wednesday 11 November 2009, 6.30 pm ¦ The Hub, Castlehill, Edinburgh EH1 2NE

A History of Scotland is a landmark ten part television series for BBC1 Scotland, co-produced with The Open University. The series, presented by the writer and archaeologist Neil Oliver, is being transmitted in two parts throughout the UK in 2008 and 2009.

In this debate, presented by The Open University in Scotland, BBC producers Neil McDonald and Richard Downes, and series historian Mark Jardine will be joined by historian Catriona Macdonald to discuss the issues involved in presenting Scotland’s history. Chaired by journalist and broadcaster Ruth Wishart, the discussion will be illustrated by clips from the television series.

Tickets must be pre-booked and are available from Hub Tickets, The Hub, Castlehill, Royal Mile, Edinburgh (Mon-Fri, 10am-5pm). Tel: 0131 473 2000. www.hubtickets.co.uk. There is a £3 per ticket non-refundable booking fee.

This debate is part of the Edinburgh Lectures series 2009/10 which runs from 1 October 2009 to 23 February 2010. For further info on this debate and all 2009/10 Edinburgh Lectures visit www.edinburghlectures.org.

National Conversation comes to Dalkeith

The National Conversation comes to Dalkeith
Monday 26 October 2009 – 7.00 pm to 8.00 pm
Dalkeith Schools Campus, 2 Cousland Road, Dalkeith, EH22 2PS

The National Conversation is the debate on options for Scotland’s future, including independence. The Scottish Government is keen that as many people as possible have a chance to take part in the debate. That is why Government Ministers are holding meetings across Scotland to let you have your say. You can find out more on the National Conversation website.

The event will be chaired by Alex Neil, Minister for Housing & Communities and will feature a presentation from Kenny MacAskill, Cabinet Secretary for Justice on the options for constitutional change. This will be followed by an open question and answer session.

Refreshments will be available from 6.30 pm, but in any case it would be helpful if you could aim to arrive by 6.45 pm. There is no charge to attend, but you do need to register in advance. I would be grateful if you could indicate whether you can or cannot attend this event by emailing nationalconversation@scotland.gsi.gov.uk or calling 0131 244 1893 during office hours.

Please also let us know if you have any dietary, access or other requirements. You are welcome to nominate someone else to attend. If you are nominating someone else please pass on their name and contact details, including their e-mail address.

You should note that this event may be recorded and video and audio coverage of the event may appear on the Scottish Government website
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/a-national-conversation or on broadcast media.

Time for media to ignore this clown

It was a daft decision by the BBC to show the BNP on question time at all, but the media now needs to show some sense.

His squeals of political bias, whether by him or his merry band of skinheads from the English 'defence' league should be ignored.

This tube consorts with the KKK yet thinks a few questions equates to a lynch mob!

All parties should have maintained a boycott. Either that or pelted him with eggs, he should certainly not be chased around by reporters as if his band of bigots actually matter.

Campaign for English Parliament (CEP) is deliberately misquoting SNP

Scilla Cullen
Chairman
Campaign for an English Parliament

Dear Mr Cullen,

http://www.politics.co.uk/opinion-formers/press-releases/legal-and-constitutional/-england-to-dance-to-scotland-s-tune-says-salmond-$1335371$479240.htm

Your headline says 'England to dance to Scotland's tune' says Salmond yet you must be aware that Mr Salmond said nothing of the sort.

The relevant part of his speech is here:

"Votes for the SNP will turn all these noes into yeses from the London government. A Scottish bloc of MPs will unblock Westminster."

"We shall use voting power to make London dance to a Scottish tune."

Full transcript:
http://www.epolitix.com/latestnews/article-detail/newsarticle/salmond-scotland-has-what-it-takes/

London Government is a reference to Westminster which is the British parliament.

I look forward to an apology and a retraction on the epolitics site.

Adjusting politicians speeches to give an inaccurate account of what they said is simply not acceptable and is poor politics.

If you want to attack the Scottish National Party (I wonder why when logically the British state is the obstacle to international recognition for England!) then do so on the basis of what they actually say.

This kind of silly headline based on inaccurate remarks is no way to gain credibility for your campaign.

Yours faithfully,

JOE MIDDLETON

David Cameron's Conservatives are treating Scots with contempt

You have to laugh at the contradictory messages currently coming from the British media. On the one hand David Cameron is trying to dictate whether Alex Salmond gets an invite to the proposed TV debates:

David Cameron calls for Alex Salmond to be barred from TV debates

David Cameron has said Alex Salmond should be barred from a series of televised general election debates between the main party leaders despite Scottish National Party threats of legal action.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/scotland/6251864/David-Cameron-calls-for-Alex-Salmond-to-be-barred-from-TV-debates.html

On the other hand the Times pretends that he is desperate to woo Scotland, aye right! (Even Angus Mcleod can't quite believe it!).

David Cameron desperate to ‘seal the deal’ and win over the Scots

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/scotland/article6867080.ece

So it's a kick from a boot and a simpering smile and words of encouragement as well.

David Cameron's local puppet the pantomine dame Annabel Goldie tried to bring in her brand of comic relief:

"I have been delighted at the response to the message in my speech on Monday that the approaching General Election is a British election, for the British Parliament, for a British Prime Minister

"People are saying to me at Conference that that message is resonating beyond Scotland."

Only if your head is wedged firmly in the sand at Berwick! Poor old Goldie appears to be delusional.

She goes on:

"The SNP are irrelevant at a British General Election. Their influence on the British economy is virtually nil."

So is Scotland relevant? Not to Goldie it isn't.

"As a sideshow Alex Salmond, and he is a sideshow in the British General Election..."

"... I shall do all I can to persuade people in Scotland that at this British General Election they should be voting for a British Prime Minister."

So what relevance does your Scottish position hold then? Why on earth should we listen to Ms Goldie when both her and her leader treat our country with utter contempt.

http://www.scottishconservatives.com/news_press/speeches/annabel_goldie_speech_to_the_scottish_fringe-conservative_party_conference_manchester_2009.aspx

Speech to the 'Scottish fringe' that just about sums up the importance the Tories think Scotland has.

But let us not forget those organs of the British press determined to spread light and truth around the planet, well everywhere apart from Scotland obviously, for us it's spin, lies and distaste.

Gillian Bowditch: Allow Gaelic to thrive without taxpayers’ cash

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/scotland/article6869384.ece

Scottish Gaelic our once proud national language is just a figure of fun to Anglo-centric commentators, what a disgrace.

David Cameron has no right to dictate the relevance of the SNP. That is up to the people of Scotland to decide. He has no right to demand a rigged TV debate either which excludes our most important political party.

Scotland will not stand for politicians who ignore our opinions and our interests.

The fact the Tories have one solitary MP should give them cause to consider before trying to dictate our future to us.

Britain is busted and independence is normality. David Cameron has nothing to offer as a political Tweedle Dum to Labour's Tweedle Dee. Scotland does not want or need a pompous Tory boy who looks like he needs someone to skelp his lug. Tony Blair was bad enough and no other smirking opinion poll driven power mad spinner is required.

Excluding SNP from TV debate proves Scotland does not matter

I am pleased to hear that UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown is going to appear in a Prime Time TV debate. Unfortunately it also appears that broadcasters are attempting to exclude the most popular party in Scotland from that debate! This simply cannot be fair and must be inconsistent with the BBC's position as a politically independent broadcaster.

The idea that Scotland's views are irrelevant to a UK parliamentary election are a direct consequence of being in an unequal union with a country ten times our size. If the fiction that Scotland and Wales do indeed share an equal place in Britain is to be maintained then the SNP and Plaid Cymru must have an equal voice in this debate. Scotland is not a part of the cozy British three party consensus and to suggest that Scotland has no say whatsoever in picking the next Prime Minister is to indirectly prove the pointless of Britain as a political concept.

Those TV channels who allow such a blatantly discriminatory situation to exist are opening themselves up to legal action. They are also hastening their abolition since they are showing themselves up to be ignorant of the Scottish national interest. In such circumstances why retain a BBC if it is prepared to entirely ignore Scotland during a UK election where for the first time ever the SNP are amongst the leading contenders?

The choice is clear. Either include the SNP Government and maintain a semblance of political democracy or ignore Scotland altogether and hasten the end of both the BBC and the British Union.

Answers to Scotlands Future about Scottish independence

I have decided to answer some of the Questions from someone calling themselves ScotlandsFuture on Twitter about Scots independence:

1) Discussion of Scottish independence in chatrooms and forums is always shut down by extreme SNP supporters

That's not my experience, quite the reverse. British unionists own the papers and can block pro-independence comments. I find that the independence side tends to provide a logical argument ie that independence is normality and most countries are independent. The unionist case depends upon the illogical assumption that Scotland is incapable of independence and often it descends into abuse against 'sweaty socks' (Jocks) etc I could point you towards loads of such comments on youtube and in fact I've made a film about it here!

2) It seems they can't answer valid questions so they mount ad-hominem attacks, calling people traiters, anti-Scottish, Labour stooges etc

No Questions yet but more witless allegations.

3) But I want those questions out in the open. I want people to really think about the consequences and implications of independence

In other words I want to scaremonger and put people of, yet no questions yet

4) Maybe there are good answers and I have nothing to worry about. I would very much like to hear some answers from decent SNP supporters

You'll get them but I doubt you will listen!

5) So I'll use this account to ask some of those questions. Who knows, maybe someone will answer...

Maybe they will, get on with it!

6) Here goes - How much would an independent Scottish government have to spend on services and how would it compare to the current arrangement?

This is impossible to answer because we don't know what the economic situation will be when we are independent. We do know from GERS that Scotland puts more in than we get back out, that Labour wasted hundreds of billions and lied about Scotland's economic prospects with independence in the 1970's. But just as Gordon Brown can't accurately predict the British budget in ten years time I can't forsee the future either, what a shock eh, bet you're really disappointed.

7) SNP want to reduce voting age in independence referendum. A cynical attempt to manipulate the result?

No. The SNP have had this policy for years to reduce the voting age to 16. It's not new and it wasn't arrived at recently.

8) How can the SNP find the money for a bill which won't get through parliament when they're cutting spending on everything else?

As you should be aware the Scottish parliament as a devolved parliament exists on a financial settlement provided by Westminster. Within that settlement the SNP can choose to use the money as they see fit. The pary has already produced a draft bill. They have also extended the debate through the National Conversation. The unionists didn't want to discuss independence and set up the Calman commission and filled it with various worthies whose only qualification was that they were willing to ignore independence. That cost money, produced a report and then it was kicked into the long grass because the Tories (who are likely to form the next Government) didn't like its conclusions.

All they suggested was a 10p unusable tax rather than 3p unusable tax but the Conservatives prefer as little power as possible going to Scotland (as they proved in office last time) Calman was a costly sham.

Labour have said they support a referendum on independence and would vote for it. That was when Wendy was leader, unfortunately she didn't clear it with Gordon (her boss) so the policy has always been confused.

Despite the SNP coming up with the only possible question which reflects the current powers of the Scots parliament Labour like to pretend the question is 'rigged' (they are experts in this area themselves after the 1979 referendum) and now pretend that because of the recession we can't have a referendum. Yet they caused the recession by following Conservative gospel on deregulation and it is obvious we need power over our own economy. So I'm sorry this bill would be cheap, it is important and yes we can and should be able to consult the people on their future.

The SNP are working within a lower financial settlement in real terms but so far they are not 'cutting spending on everything else' this is simply inaccurate.

9) Assuming an independent Scotland dumps the pound, what effect will exchange rate fluctuation and conversion charges have on our businesses?

SNP Policy is actually to retain the pound for as long as required then move to the Euro when it is economically appropriate. Some of your other questions relate to this point.

10) If we did adopt the Euro wouldn't that take financial decision making even further away from Scotland than it is already?

Well your question admits that financial decision making is far from Scotland just now and indeed it is. If we are in the Euro then we have a common currency with much of the EU. This makes trade easier. It also means we would have a more stable currency, as the pound fluctuates violently against other currencies at the moment.

Yes the European Central Bank would take decisions on interest rates etc for the good of the EU as a whole but in the interests of financial stability I think that makes better sense.

However it is important to remember that the ultimate decision on whether to stay in the EU or adopt the Euro or keep the Queen as head of state will be made by our own Government after independence. The SNP have a policy on these things and it right that they have but that does not mean that is what will happen after independence.

11) Would those who vote against independence be stripped of British citizenship and forced to adopt Scottish nationality against their will?

Since Britain would no longer exist there would ultimately be a choice between English and Scots nationality, however Mike Russell has indicated that there might be some interim arrangements with the rump UK state for as long as that exists.

12) What would happen to Scots living in England and Wales who become unemployed? Would they be paid benefits by Scotland, Britain or neither?

For those who live In England and Wales it would be paid by the Governments there. In Scotland it would be paid by the Scottish Government

13) What about the 10% of Scotland's population who were born in England? Will they be forced to choose between Scottishness and Englishness?

No, those who live in Scotland will be treated as Scots, those who think of themselves as Scottish or were born in Scotland could also apply for Scottish citizenship if they chose.

14) Will the 800,000+ Scots living in England and Wales be forced to choose between Scottish and British citizenship?

Ultimately yes because Britain won't exist any more but as I say the Scottish Government is open to suggestions for an interim arrangement.

15) Our remaining shipywards are only surviving because of large orders from the UK navy. What would happen to them after independence?

Well there isn't many of them left but those that do have a contract which wil run its course. Afterwards Scotland will require a Navy and under EU rules they could also apply for English military contracts on an equitable basis.

16) The (Scotland's conversation) website doesn't answer the key questions around currency or finance nor can it guarantee how the EU and UK will react.

No that's correct, we can't guarantee how the EU or rump UK will react to independence because it hasn't happened yet! British unionists like to pretend that the EU will reject Scots membership however our opinion (unsurprisingly) is that the reverse is true. If we do have to re-negotiate membership we might well end up with a better deal or Scotland's independent Government might decide that it prefers to stay out of the EU altogether. That is the ultimate beauty of independence the Scots will decide what we want to do in Scotland! The UK/British state as it stands will not exist however we do know that because without Scotland there is no Britain.

Anyway, 'Scotlandsfuture' you can no longer say that no-one has answered your questions. You might not like the answers but you have got them.

Personally I think you should remove your Union Jack tinted specs and genuinely think about Scotland's future. Unlike the UK or Britain, Scotland is a country and we deserve better than the sterile status quo or right wing Government whether that be from Labour or Tories.

COMPASS - THE LAST LABOUR GOVERNMENT

Compass think-tank warns that a Cameron victory could mean political oblivion for Labour

Tory plans for fewer MPs, reforms cutting Labour's link to the unions and Scottish independence would be 'final blow' to the party

by Toby Helm [Whitehall editor The Observer, Sunday 27 September 2009]

Gordon Brown could be leading the last-ever Labour government unless he offers people a chance to change the voting system at the next general election, a prominent leftwing pressure group warns today.

In a doom-laden assessment of the party's prospects ahead of this week's Labour conference in Brighton, the influential thinktank Compass predicts that a Conservative victory would be just the first disaster David Cameron's party would inflict on Labour.

Armed with new polling evidence, it argues in a report to be released at conference that the party would face a triple assault under the Tories that could slash its number of seats at Westminster from 349 at present to a rump of around 130 in opposition.

The collapse of its Westminster representation, Compass argues, is likely because of a greater chance of Scottish independence if the Tories, who are less popular north of the border, came to power.

At a stroke, Scottish independence would strip Labour of its 41 Scottish seats in Westminster. It also predicts the loss of up to 45 more Labour seats as a result of Cameron's plan to cut the overall number of MPs by 10%.

The final blow to its viability as a governing party of the future would come as a result of likely Tory reforms to party funding, which Compass believes would break the historic link between Labour and the trade unions and further destabilise an organisation which is heavily in debt and has a sharply declining membership base.

The report, entitled "The Last Labour Government", says: "These three factors could then combine to ensure that an already intellectually and organisationally weak party fails to ever recover."

Polling conducted for Compass by YouGov to accompany the report shows that, if the Conservatives win power, 34% of the Scottish electorate will be more like to vote Yes in the referendum on independence promised by the SNP by the end of 2010.

The polling shows that 31% of Scots would currently back independence and 53% oppose it. But the extra 34% who say they might be swayed to support a split if the Tories came to power could tilt the balance in favour. "This could be enough to see a Yes vote through," Compass argues.

It predicts that Tory plans to cut the number of Westminster seats by 65 will hit Labour hardest of all the main parties because the biggest reduction will be in areas which have seen population flight, including Labour strongholds in Wales and the industrial heartlands.

Compass argues that the only hope of avoiding catastrophe would be a referendum on voting reform, which could be a "game changer". "It is now the only way for the party not just to avoid crushing defeat but the strong chance that it will never govern again."

It says the offer of a fairer voting system would draw people to Labour and allow it to paint the Tories – who are strongly opposed to ditching "first past the post" – as opposed to reform of a political system severely discredited by the scandal over MPs' expenses: "A referendum moves the party from zero chance of the Tories not losing next May to striking distance of a hung parliament and Labour being the biggest single party. The decision could decide not just Labour's future for one or two parliaments, not even for a generation, but for ever."

Brown is known to be considering offering a referendum on voting reform, possibly in the party's election manifesto. While some senior cabinet ministers, including home secretary Alan Johnson, are pressing the case strongly, others such as Ed Balls, the schools secretary, have serious reservations.

In particular, Balls and chief whip Nick Brown oppose the idea of holding a vote on the same day as the general election, arguing that it will look like gerrymandering, confuse voters and distract from the government's central election message on the economy. Ratcheting up the pressure on Brown, Compass says that Labour desperately needs a "game changer; a policy that wakes up the electorate".

A recent survey by YouGov for the Electoral Reform Society showed that around 30% of Liberal Democrats and 30% of Labour-inclined voters would be more likely to plump for Labour if a referendum on electoral reform was promised.

"Now everyone who wants the party to win, or at least to keep out the Tories, must be able to see the prize of backing a referendum and the dangers of refusing to do so: potential political oblivion," says Compass chairman Neal Lawson.

On party funding, the report says: "The party is already heavily reliant on the unions and could be more so if in opposition. But the Tories, with a healthy majority and a fresh mandate, could easily introduce new funding rules to cut off union funds while allowing business and personal funding to flow and they will be much harder to regulate. The evidence is there that this is exactly what they will do.

"The Conservative argument has been that a donation cap of £50,000 is necessary to restrict influence of companies, individuals and trade unions. Under current legislation, trade union affiliation payments – the collective membership payment of ordinary members – are counted as donations to the party. For the purposes of a donation cap, each trade union would be treated as a single individual within the cap.

"This could end the ability of trade unions to affiliate to the party, ending the relationship that has sustained social progress throughout the last century. Labour without a secure funding basis would find it almost impossible to renew itself."

----------------

Published on the first day of Labour conference 2009, this report argues that the current Labour Government could well be the very last and argues only a referendum on the electoral system can save Labour now.

Download it here.

I added the following comment:

All I can say is good! Labour have wasted their years in power and an independent Scotland will be able to escape from the stifling right wing consensus which exists in Britain. With Britain gone Wales would emerge as an independent country and Cornwall would move in that direction with perhaps devolution initially. NI is unlikely to want to be part of England though one never knows but the chances of re-unification with Eire would be more likely.

Without Britain's imperial pretensions and Scotland's Oil an independent England would likely drop Trident (the Scottish people don't want nuclear submarines and an SNP Government would ask for them to be removed.)

England would initially get the right wing Government which they will get anyway under Britain and have suffered to an extent under Labour anyway, but the pendulum might shift back again and this time there might be an actual socialist party in existence ready to make reforms. There isn't one at the moment as Labour are a busted flush who rely on the House of Lords for their ministers and whose MP's are almost as corrupt as the Tories.

Yes to electoral reform but no Labour won't go for it and in any case Scotland has a much brighter future without the obstacle of Britain.

Scotland isn't at the next climate change conference 'because that is the way it has always been done', things need to change. Joe Middleton, Edinburgh.