WHY FLYING OUR FLAG MATTERS

Gordon Brown's attempt to foist the Union Jack upon everyone has backfired. Jack Straw has been forced to admit that Scotland can choose to fly any flag we want and Christine Grahame has taken up the cudgels with the SNP hoping to get the Saltire flying everywhere all the time.

No doubt some will think this is a fuss over nothing, some will claim it doesn't really matter what flag flies and that the Scottish parliament should be doing something more constructive.

This attitude misses the point, Scotland has our own flag, while the union continues we will no doubt have to put up with seeing the union flag flying occasionally but we should not be forced to have our national flag flown in a subservient position, as current rules dictate, nor should our flag be demoted just because Gordon Brown want's everyone in England to forget he's a Scot!

The saltire is a symbol for all Scots. The union flag on the other hand has a blood stained history as a symbol of imperialism over a huge chunk of the planet. Not for nothing has it been termed 'the Butcher's Apron'. It's possible that England's own flag the St George's Cross can become a welcoming symbol for all England's people, it's equally certain that the British flag cannot because of it's history.

Billy Bragg's comments on this were disappointing, particularly given his recent book. Many people in Scotland have no regard for Britishness whatsoever and would be entirely happy to see the union flag put in the dustbin of history. The flag is dominated in it's centre by the St George's Cross and it represents effective English dominance over Scotland. There is no way the vast majority of people in Scotland will ever be proud to fly the union flag no matter how much Gordon Brown wishes they would.

England has their own flag, it's time for the English to adopt some pride in it and stop attempting to get everyone else to love a flag which has lost all relevance to Scots and represents a discredited racist imperial past. That tarnished history which has seen the union flag adopted by skinheads across the globe and neo fascists in this country (not to mention deluded anti Europeans in UKIP) means it can never properly represent any true AND GENUINE civic natonality.

Since Scotland and Wales have acheived a measure of devolved power the English have rediscovered their flag and have begun to wave it with pride. this is a positive natural development and should be welcomed and encouraged (though in Cornwall, which is also historically a Celtic Country, like Scotland, Ireland and Wales they naturally want to wave their own flag and are gradually voting for Mebyon Kernow their equivalent of the SNP).

The union flag represents an unequal union which has seen Scotland, Wales, Ireland and Cornwalls rights subsumed within an unrepresentative and unequal alliance of convenience which for many years benefited England and contrbuted to England's vast trading Empire (which was largely established before the union of parliaments) but has long since ceased to benefit anyone else. The Empire is over and the flag that represented past British/English power and imperial arrogance is no longer relevant.

Our flag however the Saltire has no such baggage and is a proud symbol of all Scots who live in Scotland, no matter when they arrived. That's why the SNP are right to promote the Saltire at every opportunity and why the Scottish people as a whole should resist any attempts to force the British flag upon us.

LABOUR ADMITTED SELLING HONOURS SOME TIME AGO

This from the Guardian:

Police had arrested Labour's chief fundraiser Lord Levy, another close No 10 aide and a millionaire donor during the inquiry but yesterday they were told by the CPS that there was an unrealistic prospect that the evidence would lead to a conviction. Senior Scotland Yard figures were said to strongly disagree.

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/funding/story/0,,2130916,00.html

So in other words the Police had collected enough evidence to prosecute but the CPS has been nobbled. We know that Labour are guilty because early on Frank Field admitted as much however he said it was OK because “everybody does it.”

In an interview with The Daily Telegraph, Mr Field, a former social security minister, said the selling of honours "needs to be seen in context"."It has always gone on and probably always will. Most people know that for the best part of two centuries that honours were appropriated by money," he told the newspaper.'In the 18th century honours and cash for political parties were in effect the constitution. It is a different relationship now. But of course it is still going on today.'

http://www.politics.co.uk/News/domestic-policy/constitution/honours-system/honours-have-always-been-sold-$458742.htm

From the Mail on Sunday:

There is no doubt that British political parties (and not just Tony Wright's own New Labour) are basically corrupt and have been for many years. All of them are bankrupt and have, at times, sought to make good their cash shortfall by offering favours to party donors. In some cases, as in the Ecclestone scandal over tobacco advertising for Formula One racing, they change government policy in order to help out their donors. On other occasions, they offer meetings with ministers or senior politicians in return for hard cash.

But the practice of exchanging honours for money, either in the form of donations or loans, is most common of all. Both Tories and Labour have raised scores of millions of pounds in this way. A recent piece of research showed that a Labour Party donor was 7,000 times more likely than a non-donor to receive a peerage, and 1,600 times more likely to receive some other kind of honour.

It's long been an open secret that honours were for sale, so much so that the former Downing Street policy chief Geoff Mulgan once remarked that "in later years, the scarcely concealed sale of peerages to wealthy party donors, and the appointment of the party's top donor - Lord Sainsbury - to ministerial office, did little to restore public confidence in the Government".

http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/pages/live/articles/columnists/columnists.html?in_article_id=469858&in_page_id=1772&in_author_id=382

SCOTS HAVE BEEN BRAINWASHED FOR YEARS

In a week where we found out via Alistair Campbell that our former Prime Minister Tony Blair considers Scots to be "Whingeing Jocks" here is a typical example of biased reporting by the Press Association which then filters through other media. Various claims are made but very little evidence is there to back them up!

The raw figures are that the vast majority (76%) of people think of theirselves as Scottish first and only 23% are very proud of Britain, however the report seems to draw very different conclusions.

Let's face it our 'Scottish' education system has always been geared towards a rosy coloured British viewpoint of history and it's not so long since every classroom had a huge map with pink parts all over the world denoting the extents of the British Empire. For a long time Scottish history was not taught at all and even now it is marginalised and limited (kids were beaten for speaking in Scots for years). This classroom bias has a huge long term cultural effect.

We have also been awash with pro British propaganda and various British themed TV since the beginning of the BBC. Every day seems to provide a new documentary about WWII and outside Football and Rugby we have no independent representation (not even in Eurovision never mind the Olympics!), given that it would be strange indeed if there was no one who had some residual feelings (what does 'some pride' mean anyway?) about Britain, whether based on reality or not.

Our education system is also geared towards a rosy coloured British viewpoint of history and it's not so long since every classroom had a huge map with pink parts all over the world denoting the extents of the British Empire.

What's most obvious is that Scottish identity is on the rise despite all the above factors.
The report claims: "Scots, even those who say they are 'Scottish not British' are not hostile to the idea of Britain, its history, or its empire, and are happy to think of it in cultural unifying terms."

There are also plenty of people around who are Scots not British and believe the Empire was a racism fuelled international embarrassment and that the British state has long outlived it's usefulness to both Scotland and England.

This view is the one which is genuinely on the rise for obvious reasons.

-----Original Message-----
From: mediapoint.scotland@pa.press.net

SCOTS 'STILL HAVE SENSE OF BRITISHNESS'
SOCIAL British

12 Jul 2007 - 16:49
By Katrine Bussey, Political Reporter Scottish Press Association

Scots still have a sense of being British, despite an increasing sense of Scottish national identity, academics said today.
Edinburgh University researchers Frank Bechhofer and David McCrone studied issues surrounding national identity.
And they found that despite a strengthening sense of Scottishness over the past 30 years, there is still a widespread sense of being British both north and south of the border.
The proportion of people identifying themselves as Scottish has risen from 65% in 1974 to 76% in 2005.
But the academics, from the University's Institute of Governance, say that while people are more likely to identify themselves as being Scottish rather than British, most are not opposed to Britain.
Their paper is published in the current edition of The Political Quarterly just weeks after Gordon Brown - who has made repeated calls for greater pride in the British identity - took office as Prime Minister.
The researchers state that while levels of pride in Britain are higher among the English than the Scots, there is a "clear majority" in Scotland who take some pride in Britain.
The SNP formed a minority administration in the Scottish Parliament following its election victory in May.
The survey asked people how proud they were of being British, with 41% in England describing themselves as "very proud" compared to 23% of Scots.
At the same time in England, 79% expressed some pride in being British, compared to 64% in Scotland.
The authors concluded that the data is "certainly not compatible with a strong rejection of being British".
They added: "The dominant impression is that a majority of people in Scotland take some pride in being British.
"Scots, even those who say they are 'Scottish not British' are not hostile to the idea of Britain, its history, or its empire, and are happy to think of it in cultural unifying terms."
The study also looked at politics and national identity, with the researchers stating that a person's sense of national identity was only "loosely associated" with their political preferences.
Among supporters of the Conservative Party - traditionally the most unionist of the parties - 76% described themselves as being at least as Scottish as they are British.
And among SNP supporters, only 51% reject any idea of Britishness, describing themselves as 'Scottish not British'.
Further it is only among people who regard themselves as being Scottish and not British that there is a majority of support for Scottish independence, with 51% of this group backing such a move.
Professor McCrone said: "The relatively weak association between identity and party political support or even views on independence suggests it is difficult to mobilise national identity in a straightforwardly political way."

SCHOOLS ARE NOT THE PROBLEM - BIGOTS ARE

SNP 'is open to idea' of state schools for Muslims

THE SNP government has signalled it is willing to consider having separate Muslim state schools in Scotland. A spokesman for Education Secretary Fiona Hyslop said ministers were "open" to proposals about such a move.

http://news.scotsman.com/politics.cfm?id=1081232007

The survival of Catholic schools owes a lot to the fact that despite being almost completely integrated within society Catholics still see themselves as being under some level of threat. The large amount of Orange lodges and Orange parades proves that this threat is not imaginary.

The Act of Settlement with its various bigoted clauses also gives the impression that discrimination against Catholicism is institutional and until this is removed or adjusted that is actually the case.

There are also other shady groups like the Masons who deliberately exclude Catholics from their membership and which have an insiduous influence within society. The constant requests from the Orange lodges for Catholic schools to be closed actually guarantees their continued existence.

They are also guaranteed under law because the Catholic church used to run their own schools themselves and their right to have seperate schooling is enshrined in the legislation which set up comprehensive education.

Catholic shools will continue until Catholics feel they are 100% integrated. This has almost happened but given the above factors has not actually quite completed as yet.

If Muslim schools are introduced it will be done for progressive positive reasons. However it might prove to be a backward step eventually that will cause even more problems because it will indicate that a further group feels under threat from the community at large, which is a great pity.

Cultural 'divisions' between Muslims and 'Christians' (in fact most people are not genuinely interested in religion at all) are already exacerbated by a divisive foreign policy by the British Government and various attempts like citizens ceremonies to push a false British identity upon us all. We should be asking why Muslims feel the current schools system does not suit them.

In Scotland we seem to historically have had a mature approach which is based on respecting the rights of others however it is probably true to say there is still insufficient understanding of other religions and what they actually represent.

The real problem is that non-demoninational schools are not actually seen as genuinely non-denominational, for many they are Protestant schools which reflect the dominant religion of this country. As long as this persists people will want to opt out of the status quo and the only logical answer would seem to be to remove religious education entirely from all schools.

Unfortunately this won't cure bigotry which is not actually induced at school but at home and is ultimately based on ignorance.

Unionist MPs are motivated by self-interest (Herald)

[Excellent letter from new SNP MSP Jamie Hepburn. Jamie, Bill Wilson, Aileen Campbell and Bob Doris are all new MSP's and are all declared supporters of the Independence First referendum campaign along with Sandra White, Alex Neil, and Stewart Maxwell so we have a few new friends in high places].

Unionist MPs are motivated by self-interest

Malcolm Bruce suggests that the new SNP government is trying to provoke the Westminster government. Among the examples he cites are the abolition of the graduate endowment fund and the denial of this benefit to English students.

This is a bizarre claim to make. First, I seem to recall that his party also included the abolition of the graduate endowment fund in its manifesto at the Scottish Parliament election. Was this an act of provocation, too? Or does Mr Bruce's attitude suggest that this was a LibDem promise that was never to be fulfilled in the first place?

Secondly, far from it being the SNP that denies English students the same entitlements as Scottish students, it is he as a Unionist who does so. Mr Bruce knows fine well that if Scotland were an independent member state of the EU, then English students would be entitled to the same as Scots-based students. Our status as a sub-state nation within the EU denies us this opportunity. It is being part of the UK that stops English students from being entitled to the same benefits as Scottish students.

Mr Bruce then goes on to spout the old Unionist rubbish about Scotland suffering reduced influence in the world with independence. His statement that "our combined influence in the world" would be weakened with independence is nonsense.

Indeed, his claims don't stand up to scrutiny, given that we are presently in the throes of seeing Scotland's number of representatives at the European Parliament cut from seven to six, while Lithuania, with a population of some 1.5 million fewer than Scotland, has 13 members of that body.

The fact of the matter is that Scotland presently has no distinct voice of its own in the world and only independence will rectify that.

Mr Bruce almost comes clean as to his real concerns when he writes about Scots being no longer eligible for influential careers with independence. This is, of course, by and large total garbage. Scotland will have its own civil service and diplomatic corps and there will be many opportunities for our citizens as part of this.

One area of employment may be cut off, however. The 59 Scottish MPs who are presently elected to Westminster will no longer be able to sit in that institution and draw their salaries or expenses.

Mr Bruce is, of course, one of these individuals. It is his career he is really worried about, and not those of anyone else. It is this self-interest that is so evident in the Unionist politician that holds our country back from making real progress with independence.

Jamie Hepburn MSP,
Scottish Parliament.