The Beginnings of a brand-new Scotland? (by Sean Connery)

The beginnings of a brand-new Scotland?

2007/5/27

By Sean Connery [Special to The Washington Post]

This has been a historic week for Scotland. The country's new first minister met Queen Elizabeth -- Queen of England and Queen of Scots -- at Holyrood Palace on Thursday. This was the first time Her Majesty has met the leader of a Scottish government who is committed to Scotland rejoining the community of nations as an equal and independent partner.

The meeting was also the culmination of a month of firsts for Scotland. On May 3, the Scottish National Party (SNP) -- a democratic party, committed to independence, that I have proudly supported all of my adult life -- won the largest number of seats in the Scottish Parliament. And last week the Scottish Parliament elected the SNP leader, Alex Salmond, to the country's top job.

The American media have described this election as good news for the SNP and very bad news for the British government of Tony Blair and his successor, Gordon Brown. What was not covered was the momentous significance for Scotland. This marks the first time in 50 years that the Labor Party has lost an election in Scotland. Fifty years is a long time -- in politics, it is a virtual eternity.

Scare tactics often work in elections, and with the Labor Party contemplating defeat, it was willing to throw all the negativity it could into this campaign. People in Scotland heard it all: Labor conjured up descriptions of plague and pestilence if Scots voted for the SNP and a new and different government.

And I'll tell you this: It didn't work. In fact, it backfired badly on Labor.

Scots voted for optimism. They voted for change. They voted for progress. And that is why they voted for the SNP.

Polls show that the SNP is the most trusted party in Scotland. And by a margin of five to one, people think that Alex Salmond cares more than Tony Blair does about making Scotland successful. As for the SNP's position that it makes good democratic sense to ask Scots to decide their own constitutional future in a democratic referendum, a whopping 80 percent of the Scottish public agrees.

My politics come from a simple belief: that my country, Scotland, should have equal status with the nearly 200 other independent countries around the world.

Independence is a concept that Americans inherently understand. After all, the sentiments for freedom in the Declaration of Independence echo those from the Declaration of Arbroath that Scots penned in the 14th century. (We said nothing about the pursuit of happiness, however, a fantastically American addition.)

The debate on an independence referendum is one for another day, and I firmly believe the answer will be yes. This month's election was about a new government. Alex Salmond will be a new kind of first minister for Scotland, a man who answers not to a party in London but to the people of Scotland.

The Scottish public first became aware of Salmond 20 years ago, when, as a young member of the British Parliament at Westminster, he interrupted the chancellor's budget -- the most televised day in British politics -- to protest the government's unfair, regressive tax policies. The House of Commons proceedings ground to a halt as the speaker ejected Salmond. He exited to the waiting cameras outside and the commentators asking who was this young guy with the nerve to interrupt the British chancellor of the exchequer.

In Scotland we saw the picture through a different lens -- we saw someone giving the country a voice and standing up for what he thought was right.

Two decades later, Salmond is leading a new kind of government. Quoting Scottish author Alasdair Gray, he pledged that his government will work as if living in the early days of a better nation.

The exciting thing is that in Salmond, Scotland will have a leader for the first time who both governs well and trusts the people to choose their own future.

No doubt the queen and her first minister had a lot to talk about.

SHEER HYPOCRITES

(Thanks to mediawatch for these pics.)

Huge Support for Independence (Herald)

In the context of the recently oft-repeated assertion that a majority of the people of Scotland voted for Unionist parties on May 3, the letter from Danus Skene (May 14) is highly significant.

To be a LibDem supporter, a Tory or a Labour supporter and to support Scottish independence is perfectly compatible and, as we were told often enough, the election we just experienced was not about independence but mainly about a wide range of issues, many of them to do with the day-to-day governance of Scotland within the limitations of our parliament's devolved status.

In common with thousands of political activists across Scotland, I was recently involved in a huge canvassing effort and I have the details of the about 2000 returns on a survey of about 22,000 voters across Argyll and Bute.

Of those returning the survey who identified themselves as intending to vote LibDem around 60% ticked "yes" for independence, were we to have such a referendum; for Labour supporters it was over 75% and even 28% of Tories expressed support for Scotland going it alone.

The other highly significant feature of the returns was that the SNP amassed more second preferences than the others put together - an indication of intent that was fully realised when one looks at the list voting patterns across the country at the election. To a considerable extent the survey return was a self-selecting one and it is likely that those more inclined to independence were more inclined to return it; nevertheless, it clearly demonstrated the possibility of a huge independence vote in a referendum from many who do not at present vote SNP.

This, I suspect, is why our Unionist parties are so opposed to a referendum. They know it would divide their support and they know they might well lose the vote.

Confused, contradictory and ambiguous positions on the Irish Home Rule question destroyed the Liberals in the early years of the last century. Similar puzzling behaviour on the Scotland question is threatening to reverse the modest LibDem revival of recent years and destroy the party as an electable force in Scotland for the foreseeable future. The constitutional question - which will now dominate Scottish politics - is eating away at the support of the Tory and Labour parties also and the old left/right polarisation is becoming much less important than the nationalist/unionist one. My guess is that the LibDems will be the first party to divide on the issue (as it did on the Irish question) and it will serve them right.

Their constitution is quite clear. It reads: "We believe that sovereignty rests with the people and that authority in a democracy derives from the people. We therefore acknowledge their right to determine the form of government best suited to their needs." (Unless we don't like it, that is.)

David McEwan Hill, 1 Tom Nan Ragh, Dalinlongart, Sandbank, Argyll.

Suspicion remains

I am pleased Christopher Mason, leader of the LibDem group on Glasgow City Council, has attempted to explain why the LibDems were willing to do a coalition deal with Labour but not with the SNP (May 14). However, his letter does not explain their absolute opposition to a referendum on independence.

It would be perfectly reasonable for the Liberal Democrats to maintain their support for a federal UK while supporting a referendum on independence. After all, a referendum is simply a choice. If the Liberal Democrats still support the Claim of Right document for Scotland which they signed up to during the devolution debate, then they must logically subscribe to the position that the Scottish people have a sovereign right to choose their own political destiny.

Those who are unwilling to do so can make any excuse they like, but the suspicion must remain that the only reason they don't want the question to be asked is because they also don't think they will like the answer.

Joe Middleton, Independence First, 1/4 Wardieburn Place South, Edinburgh.

Do the Scottish Liberal Democrats still support the 'Claim of Right'?

Letter to the Editor
15/04/2007

Sir,

The Scottish Liberal Democrats have refused to countenance any referendum on independence, despite the fact that polls show a massive majority for a referendum being held.

The fundamental question they must ask themselves is, do they still support the Claim of Right for Scotland? This document, which was signed by Labour, the Liberal Democrats and various civil groups and individuals said clearly that sovereignty lies with the Scottish people and that they and only they have an absolute right to decide the future of their country.

In 1997, Tony Blair refused to endorse the Claim of Right, declaring "Sovereignty remains with me as an English MP and that is the way it will stay."

We also know that the British Government does not officially believe in the Scots right to self determination either. In answer to an official letter by our organisation, Independence First, calling for a referendum on independence, they wrote: "It is worth noting that in the UK political system the UK parliament is sovereign and it is for Parliament to decide whether or not to hold a referendum on any particular issue - and what the terms of any referendum should be."

The basic question for the Scottish Liberal Democrats is do they support the British Government's position? Do they also believe that only a parliament based in London can decide Scotland's constitutional future?

If they don't and they do still believe in the sovereignty of the Scottish people then they must also support giving the Scots a vote on independence when according to the most recent polls 60% of our people desire one.

If they refuse such a vote then they cannot in truth describe themselves as Democratic. Given the fact that their party is clearly controlled by London, and they are happy for our country to be denied any say on its future they can hardly claim to be Scottish either.

Yours faithfully,

Joe Middleton
Press Officer
Independence First
www.independence1st.org

Maybe Lib dems don't want to know what the people think!

Sir,

I am pleased that the leader of the Liberal Democrat Group on Glasgow City Council has attempted to answer the question of why the Liberal Democrats were willing to do a coalition deal with Labour and not with the SNP (14/05), however his letter does not effectively explain their absolute opposition to a referendum on independence.

It would be perfectly reasonable for the Liberal Democrats to maintain their support for a federal UK while supporting a referendum on independence, after all a referendum is simply a choice.

If the Liberal Democrats still support the Claim of Right document for Scotland which they signed up to during the devolution debate, then they must logically subscribe to the position that the Scottish people have a sovereign right to choose their own political destiny.

During the election campaign a poll by the Daily Telegraph specifically asked the following question: There has been much debate on whether Scotland should be independent. The SNP has proposed calling a referendum on this issue. Leaving aside your own views on whether or not Scotland should be independent, would you support or oppose a referendum being being held on this issue?

I support holding a referendum on independence 60%

I oppose holding such a referendum 28 %

Don’t know 12 %

Since the vast majority of the Scottish population seem to support holding a referendum on independence, any democrat, whether they are a unionist or not should be willing to ask the public their opinion on the future of their country.

Those who are unwilling to do so can make any excuse they like, but the suspicion must remain that the only reason they don't want the question to be asked is because they also don't think they will like the answer.

Joe Middleton
Press Officer
Independence First
www.independence1st.com



--------

No mandate for an independence referendum

I have been a member of the Liberal Party since 1962 and I have no difficulty in supporting the Liberal Democrat MSPs' position on coalition with the SNP.

As I understand it, Alex Salmond invited the Liberal Democrats to discuss joining a government which would be committed to preparing a white paper on independence and to putting a Bill before parliament to provide for a referendum on the issue. If discussions had led to the formation of a coalition government on those terms, all the Liberal Democrat ministers would have been bound by collective responsibility to support the white paper and the Bill, and Liberal Democrat MSPs would have been expected to vote for the Bill in parliament.

The Liberal Democrats are a federalist party, not a separatist one. Why is it supposed that Liberal Democrats have some kind of moral duty to support an important policy to which they are opposed? And can anyone explain why the Liberal Democrats have that duty, but not the Labour or Conservative parties? Or why the Liberal Democrats ought to have wasted everybody's time by discussing a coalition that was not going to happen so long as Mr Salmond insisted (as was his right) that his government's programme must include a commitment to his policy on a referendum?

The thing that astonishes me is that there has been so little public discussion of the soundness of Mr Salmond's decision, before the election campaign started, to insist that any government led by him must be committed to a referendum. What was the point of the policy? If the election had resulted in a parliamentary majority for the pro-independence parties, why would the new Scottish government have needed a referendum before starting independence talks with Westminster? But as things have turned out, the referendum was a big issue in the election and the Scottish voters elected a parliament with a clear majority of members opposed to a referendum. The election results, and opinion polls, also show that a clear majority of Scottish voters are opposed to independence. So how is it that the SNP strategy for achieving independence still kicks off with a referendum Bill, which would not be passed by parliament, leading to a referendum that the SNP would lose? Perhaps some long-term member of the SNP, such as Mr Salmond, could give us the answers to these questions.

Christopher Mason, Leader of the Liberal Democrat Group, Glasgow City Council.

CANADIAN PAPERS BEGIN TO PANIC ABOUT SCOTTISH INDEPENDENCE

Ill informed commentaries about Scottish independence seem to be popular in Canadian papers just now, desperate to play down the fact that the SNP have just won a historic victory. The reason of course, Quebec. If Scottish independence happens, perhaps Quebec will decide that maybe independence would suit them after all.

I was pleased to have the opportunity to speak on Canadian news just before the election about the situation here in Scotland. We obviously appreciate international interest from all countries here in Scotland and obviously there are huge amounts of Scottish ex pats in Canada.

Let's not forget however that Canada was once linked to the British Empire as well and chose to go for independence. If Canada can be independent, so can Scotland.

Perhaps Quebec and Scottish nationalists should begin to compare notes, because it sounds like Quebec is as much a victim of biased media as we are here in Scotland.

Check this set of headlines out:

Scotland: the road to nowhere

An independent Scotland as likely as a separate Quebec

Scottish independence unlikely

Just ask Quebec - Scottish independence the road to nowhere

Scottish independence not on SNP's agenda now

These are all actually the SAME article (with assorted negative headlines), the last one being the worst since it pre-emptively (and completely wrongly) suggests the SNP have given up on independence. All by a london based journalist named Gwynne Dyer, yet obviously this version of events suits the Canadian press, who have given his analysis blanket coverage.

America (who judging on the hits on my Scottish Independence Guide website have a very strong interest in Scotland and Scottish independence) gets in on the act as well:

A Scottish Guddle
By Neal Ascherson

For the first time in their history, the Scots have voted in such numbers for a pro-independence party. In elections for Scottish parliament last Thursday, the Scottish National Party, or SNP, emerged as the largest party and is preparing to govern in Edinburgh. The SNP wants to make Scotland a separate nation-state within the European Union, linked with England only by a common Queen.

Scottish politics won't be the same again. But independence isn't coming soon. Most Scots, first of all, don't think it's necessary. As in Quebec, voting for an independence movement isn't the same as voting for independence. ...

(More comparisons with Quebec, maybe the good old USA has a vested interest in Quebec staying under Canadian control as well.)

DOUGLAS ALEXANDER BLAMED FOR BALLOT CHAOS

Confusion over ballot papers predicted nine months ago
http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=709282007

"Four voters put one cross on the paper; three put two crosses in the same column," the researchers reported. "This sort of mistake suggested a lack of understanding of the election format (ie, that there were two separate votes)."

Crucially, they went on: "The separate papers were less likely to give rise to these types of mistakes; because they were on separate sheets, it was clearer to voters that each column required a cross."

--- Who's to blame then? Mr Alexander (the Scottish Secretary, Wendy's brother). Also who lied when he said "it was Jack McConnell's campaign" on TV and yet (as revealed in the Sunday Herald) McConnell's ideas were ripped to shreds by Blair and Brown and he was told what his campaign would be! Mr Alexander again, the full story is here:

http://www.sundayherald.com/news/heraldnews/display.var.1379934.0.how_labour_lost_it.php

The bitterness infecting the Labour campaign turned septic at a strategy meeting early this year in London. Attended by McConnell, Brown and Blair, as well as their advisers, it was meant to iron out the differences in approach hampering the pre-election planning. According to one insider, McConnell made a presentation in which he called for a positive campaign strategy based on education, rather than focusing on independence. He also wanted to replace McTernan, then knee-deep in cash-for-peerages, as campaign chief.

The initial response to McConnell's pitch, said one Labour source, was "total silence". Blair is said to have "taken apart" the presentation, while Brown picked at the bones of the first minister's speech. Gould is understood to have winced at McConnell's "humiliation".

...

The views on McConnell from within the Labour camp are brutal. One senior campaign aide said his TV performances were "bloody awful", and added: "There was contempt for him within the team. People were pretty open about it. He was just no good."

Part of this antipathy stemmed from McConnell's perceived inability to stick to Labour's anti-independence line. According to one member of the inner circle, the first minister failed to carry out the instructions agreed by his party's fragile coalition.

"He would go on radio or whatever and just not be convincing about the Nationalists' case. He would want to talk about his so-called achievements, which were almost non-existent," he said.

THIS frustration was keenly felt by the Westminster-based campaign chiefs, McTernan and Alexander. By the end they resorted to an old trick to keep McConnell out of the way: pack him off on the Labour battle bus. A tactic used to marginalise Donald Dewar in 1999 was recycled in 2007.

LET THE PEOPLE DECIDE ON REFERENDUM

"The result of the election shows there is no demand or mandate for independence" said Nicol Stephen, the Liberal Democrats' leader in Scotland. "Therefore the group agreed unanimously that we will not support a referendum on independence."

There is a hell of a lot more evidence for enthusiasm for independence than there is for the union! Let's remember that a referendum on independence could go either way and the traditional unionists who are opposing a referendum are opposing asking the people of Scotland what their choice is.

If the case for the union is strong why are the unionist political parties unwilling to hold a referendum on it? The SNP have won the election while the Lib Dems have fell into fourth place behind the Tories. Clearly there is substantial interest in independence despite enormous negative campaigning against it.

Independence must be a question for the people of Scotland, not the political parties. The real question for the Liberal Democrats is do they support the sovereignty of the Scottish people or not? If they do and they still support the principles of the Claim of Right then they must support giving the Scottish people a choice on independence.

Tomorrow and Tomorrow and Tomorrow

By Ian Hamilton

This blog is too superior a blog to bother telling Alex Salmond what to do. He is a historian and knows that the best generals win by delaying. A minority government is the best type of government. Let the Libdems rot on the back benches and die there. They are now a mere whimper from the past. It matters little to the great juggernaut car of history what they do. History is on the side of independence and it cannot be stopped...

See the rest of this article at the excellent ‘a drunk man looks at the thistle’ blog:
http://www.ianhamiltonqc.com/wordpress/

Nice one!

Saw this on Gus Abraham's blog 1820 http://1820.org.uk/

SCOTTISH PEOPLE SHOULD DECIDE ON INDEPENDENCE NOT LIB DEMS!

Given that anywhere between 60% and 80% according to opinion polls support a referendum on Scottish independence and given that the SNP have won the Scottish elections, while the Liberal Democrats have been beaten into fourth place by the Tories, the moral legitimacy of a referendum being held on independence has now been won.

The SNP and pro-independence parties did not win an overall majority of the Scottish Parliament. The SNP in those circumstances cannot make any direct moves forward to independence and everyone accepts that fact. However it is clear that the Labour party made independence the central plank of this Scottish election and that their negative campaign which flowed unimpaired through a compliant media has been rejected by the voters.

If the unionists believe in their case for the British union they should be willing to put the straight question of Scottish independence to the Scottish voters. If not, why not? Is it that they don't trust the public to decide in their favour? Labour have already tried to launch legal action to overturn the result of the elections, despite the fact it was their own decisions on the ballot papers that left the voters confused!

The fact is that independence support crosses all parties, including people in the traditional 'unionist' parties and their voters. The Liberal Democrats have no right to deny the Scottish people a democratic choice on independence. An independence referendum does not guarantee independence, it only guarantees that the Scottish public will decide on the future of their nation.

What's wrong with that?!

L'independentisme creix a Escòcia

Great Catalan Vid about Scottish Independence.

VOTE FOR HOPE: SCOTTISH INDEPENDENCE

Scotland goes to the polls tomorrow for the most important election for a generation. We have a golden opportunity after 300 years of unequal union to vote for normal powers for our country and set in motion a democratic referendum on independence.

The alternative is to let Labour's scaremongering tactics win and retreat 'defeated and feart' and accept the status quo as 'good enough'.

Labour have wasted their years in power, they have sold their soul to English Conservatism, they have ruined Britain's international reputation and they have signed Scotland up for billions of pounds worth of new nuclear weapons that we don't want and our Scottish MP's voted against.

It's now or never. If we want the freedom of normal powers for our country, we need to vote for hope and against fear. I urge every elector who considers themselves Scottish first rather than British to use your vote to back a Scottish party in this election.

Choose Scottish Freedom not British imperialism

MCLEISH BLASTED FOR BACKING PRO-UNION ADVERT

Tartan Army’s fury over manager’s remarks

By Gordon Blackstock

http://www.dcthomson.co.uk/MAGS/POST/news2.htm

THE SFA has had complaints from the Tartan Army about Alex McLeish backing a campaign to keep Scotland in Britain. Last Monday the Scotland boss, with 14 other Scots football legends including Ally McCoist, Graeme Souness and Walter Smith, put his name on an advert supporting the Union.

The full-page ad, sponsored by Glasgow company Lynnet Leisure, appeared in two newspapers, urging “every patriotic Scot to help maintain Scotland’s place in the United Kingdom”.

In a subsequent interview, McLeish was reported as saying, “I support the Union. I think it has benefited us.”But his comments sparked fury among the rank and file Tartan Army, who accuse 77-times capped McLeish of using his position to give weight to a political campaign.

Stuart Darling, who attends most of Scotland’s home and some away matches, said he had formally complained to the SFA. In a letter he said, “I think it is a shocking misuse of his position that he should be so public about his feelings. “I feel he should apologise for these comments and remove his name from the campaign. To suggest a Scotsman could only be patriotic if they vote for a pro-Union party is appalling.

Patriotism

“In effect he is questioning the patriotism of a large section of the Tartan Army.”Alan Duncan, chairman of the North of Scotland Tartan Army, said, “It’s been a hot topic of discussion this week and most of us think he’s made a monumental blunder. Football should be kept separate from politics.

“I think he’s been ill-advised and his comments show a surprising degree of naivety. He needs to realise he’s not just Alex McLeish, but Alex McLeish, Scotland manager. And that carries a huge responsibility.

“He should realise it was largely Jack McConnell’s pro-Union government who threw away our chances of hosting the forthcoming European Championships through mismanagement of the bid. However, we don’t think it’s going to endanger his job as Scotland manager.”

SFA spokesman Andy Mitchell said, “We’ve received a number of e-mails and letters complaining about Alex McLeish’s involvement in the advert. “The opinion expressed is a personal one and is not endorsed by the Scottish FA.”

Last night Alex McLeish refused to comment. But he’s understood to have told friends he regretted the comments and thought he was merely passing on his individual political views. He’s believed to be upset that he could have alienated a large section of the Tartan Army. No-one from Lynnet Leisure was available to comment on the ad, but head of the company, James Mortimer, is known to be a vocal supporter of the Union.