Express Group to back Scottish Independence!

Recent Daily Express headline highlighting a readers poll which showed massive support for Scottish independence. According to the Guardian the whole Express group of papers are about to declare their support for normal powers for Scotland.

This is welcome move by the 'Scottish' Daily Express. Though London owned and controlled the fact that the owners see a commercial benefit in making this political move suggests the independence cause is being treated more seriously by the British media.

Like the Sun we can no doubt expect a later return to unionism, however it's still better to have one paper on our side than none. My late grandmother read the Express as do many older people so hopefully this move will encourage some older voters to be less resistant to the general idea of independence. (It would be great if the Sunday Post could adjust it's line as well).

Recent polls suggest that Labour's harsh scaremongering tactics (backed up by a compliant media) have, as they were designed to do, put a short lived scare into older people (and women) over independence. Luckily the sight of a Scottish Government doing a more effective job than the British Government and standing up for our interests (Salmond delivered a great talk tonight about supporting Gaelic broadcasting) will convince a majority throughout Scotland to support independence in a future referendum.

---------

Extract of article from the Guardian (full version here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2007/dec/19/dailyexpress.pressandpublishing?gusrc=rss&feed=media )

Once one of the most widely-read papers in Scotland, the paper's sales have been suffering. It has been sold as the Scottish Daily Express for decades, long before other London titles launched dedicated Scottish editions, and commanded substantial loyalty among its readers.

The Audit Bureau of Circulations put Daily Express sales in November in Scotland at 80,454, against 127,759 for the Daily Mail. Desmond's other titles - the Daily Star, which sells 91,668 copies a day in Scotland, and the Sunday Express, selling 44,472 - are also expected to join the pro-independence push. Last weekend, the Sunday Express carried an opinion piece by Alex Salmond, setting out the case for independence.

This new editorial stance is a minor coup for First Minister Salmond. Although the Sun briefly flirted with nationalism in the early 1990s, Scottish daily papers have traditionally been neutral or firmly pro-union. At the last Scottish parliamentary election in May, the Scotsman declared itself tentatively pro-SNP but opposed independence, while only Sunday papers boldly embraced the nationalist party.

Daily Telegraph pleads 'call yourself British' - Game Over 4 unionists

I find it tremendously amusing that the Daily Telegraph are so desperate to prop up the failing concept of Britishness that they are now running a campaign for English people to call themselves British!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2007/12/10/dl1001.xml

This is because even according to their own polling most English people prefer to call themselves English rather than British.

When the only part of the UK that got any benefit from the British union can't even be bothered terming themselves by their past imperialist identity it shows that the union is well past it's sell by date and suits no-one. The Telegraph's campaign won't work any more than Brown's plans for a British national day or a new 'national' anthem.

The Scots and English have outgrown the British identity, we don't need it and we don't want it.

It's almost as funny as 'call me Dave' lecturing the Scots on Britishness (to a hand picked gathering of Tory party activists of course, he wouldn't want to hear from any real people in Scotland, the Tories ignored our views for their entire term in power!) :

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/12/10/nbrits410.xml

"an English politician in a Scottish city saying clearly today and for all time that Britain comes first"

What a shock! We really thought the Tories might have an interest in standing up for Scotland? Aye right! The puppets are still firmly attached to their strings.

Mr Cameron waxes lyrical about the enlightenment and yet during that period if any enlightened soul criticised the British union they were put in irons and sent to Botany Bay!

The enlightenment wasn't a political enlightenment, it was a time of severe political oppression and also the time when the Brits tried to remove Scottish identity altogether.

Luckily for us enough of our historic contemparies were as fond of the idea of 'North Britain' as most of us are today and the concept was (eventually) given the bum's rush.

It's a pity Tory leader David Cameron cannot realise that in Scotland people are most proud of being Scottish, and in England most people consider themselves to be English. We CAN have an equal relationship - when both our countries are independent and we are NOT locked into a union with a country ten times our size.

Get hame to yer bed 'new boy David' and leave Scottish politics to those that have a genuine interest in it!

Melanie Reid's bile against Scotland doesn't become her

10/12/2007

Letter to the Editor
The Times

Sir,

If I was Melanie Reid's doctor I would be seriously concerned. Her article about St Andrew's day 'wake me up I'm trapped in a wee nightmare' suggests she is in imminent danger of choking on her own bile.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/melanie_reid/article2988408.ece

What annoys me about unionists is that while they seem to hate Scottish nationalism they at the same time ignore all the flaws in British nationalism. Thus people like Billy Connolly can shower scorn on the SNP while being proud of his status as 'a Commander in the British Empire'. Isn't that a ridiculous imperialist ostentation? Isn't the SNP's civic form of nationalism more admirable than Gordon Brown's attempts to invent a British national day?

Melanie Reid thinks the height of Scottish culture is masquerading in a Russ Abbot style 'see you Jimmy' wig, that says nothing about Scotland but it says a lot about her contempt for her own country. Does Reid wince like a scalded cat when she sees a Saltire? Does her heart beat with horror when the Scotland football team play?

I believe that Reid is a victim of the British cringe. An inability to see the worth of her own nation because someone sold her on the idea of Britishness as a kid.

That big map with the pink bits showing Britain's imperial extent has left her jealous that anyone else might have some justifiable pride in Scotland on our national day.

Sad for her, not so sad for the rest of us.

Yours faithfully,

Joe Middleton

Just what the doctor ordered

Great article - quite frankly I'm surprised the SoS printed it as it's well above their usual standard. JOE

by DANI GARAVELLI (from Scotland on Sunday)

IMAGINE you are suffering from asthma. Your GP has recommended you take salbutamol and beclomethasone, but you can't really afford two prescription charges this week, so you toss up and opt for salbutamol. As a result, you have a severe attack and end up at A&E in the early hours of the morning - a visit that costs the NHS much more than the £6.85 you just saved.

Or perhaps you are suffering from depression that has been kept at bay by a mixture of drugs, but it's Christmas and you've presents to buy so you decide to skip your medication for a couple of weeks and find yourself unable to cope. How much does your inability to pay for your prescription cost the country in terms of arranging foster care for your children and loss of productivity? Then there is the anomaly of cancer patients who receive drugs free in hospital, but have to pay once they go home to their families.

Wherever you stand ideologically on prescription charges - and since the NHS is supposed to be free at the point of use it is easy to argue they should never have been introduced in the first place - the way the system is currently administered is a mess. Not only are they an inefficient form of taxation (they are costly to process and 90% of them are free), but the system of exemptions is arbitrary and unfair: the cut-off point for those eligible for free prescriptions on the grounds of low income is so sharp that those who are just above it often end up worse off than those who are just below it, and the list of those exempted on the grounds of chronic conditions has not been updated since the Sixties, before conditions such as HIV existed and before asthma was so widespread.

Those not exempted can benefit from a Prescription Prepayment Certificate (PPC), a three-month, six-month or 12-month pre-payment or "season" ticket which will save them money. But this adds to the bureaucracy and is not widely publicised. A recent survey by the National Association of Citizens' Advice Bureaux (Nacab) found 27% of those who could have benefited from PPCs did not even know of their existence.

Last week, the Scottish Executive tried to address these inequities by pledging to reduce the charges steadily every year until 2011 when they will be scrapped altogether. Instead of being lauded, they found themselves facing criticism, both from those who believe those who can afford to pay should continue to do so, and those who believe the party should have kept to the letter of its manifesto promise -which was to scrap prescription charges for those chronic conditions immediately.
But it seems to me the party has walked a tightrope between ideology and fiscal prudence with considerable agility. Research shows a direct link between prescription charges and the failure to manage drug regimes properly.

A survey carried out in 2001 showed around 50% of those who had received a prescription in the past year (and about two-thirds with long-term health problems) found it difficult to meet the charges, while Nacab estimates about 100,000 of its clients fail to make full use of their prescriptions. For the government of a country with a low life expectancy that supports improving access to health services to allow this situation to continue would have been unthinkable.

Yet almost two years ago, the Labour executive did precisely that, voting against the Scottish Socialist Party Bill with a fraction of the backlash the SNP is now facing. One option the new executive could have considered was to extend the number of exemptions, but instigating a sweeping review of which chronic conditions should be included would have been time-consuming and expensive, and many people felt it would be unfair to keep charging a smaller and smaller proportion of the population.

As for the SNP's decision not to axe prescription charges for those with chronic conditions sooner, it is unfortunate, but it would be particularly wasteful to launch a review expected to take until 2009 to complete when prescription charges will cease to exist in four years' time.

The party has already pledged to reduce the cost of prescriptions - to £5 next year and by a further £1 a year to 2011, and could easily help ease the burden on those who need regular medication by advertising the "season ticket" option more widely.
Those who oppose the scrapping of charges say they are necessary as a barrier to demand; that if they were abolished patients would seek prescriptions for drugs such as paracetemol that they would previously have bought over the counter. Some doctors have recommended the imposition of a token charge of say £1: small enough not to jeopardise people's access to medication, but enough to remind them that drugs are not free and should not be sought frivolously.

Early studies of the situation in Wales - where prescription charges were scrapped in April - however, suggested no perceptible change in GPs' prescribing habits and only a slight rise in the number of patients asking for prescriptions for over-the-counter medicines. There, patients are reaping the benefits of not having to worry about whether or not they can afford to take the drugs they need and administration has been reduced.

You really have to be the kind of person for whom the glass is always half empty to berate the SNP for "reneging" on a tiny part of its manifesto pledge, when what it has actually done is to commit to a socialist policy that Scottish Labour bodyswerved for a decade.

The fear of Scottish independence that unites historic enemies

A couple of superb letters from the Herald:

Scotland's parliament, after years in the doldrums, has sprung to life following the May elections. Not only has the minority SNP government been extremely active, but now the three big opposition parties are uniting in a "historic" cause to improve and develop the powers of the Scottish people. Historic enemies such as Labour and the Tories have put aside their differences to work in common cause for the Scottish people. How wonderful, so what has driven them together? I can only just remember the last time it happened, when Nazi aircraft were bombing us. So what force is driving them together now?

Well, it is obvious to me that the enemy which now confronts them, and which drives them into each other's arms, is the pressure from the Scottish people demanding more power for the Scottish Parliament, and their fear that this will result in Scottish independence. Which Labour has been trying to ignore until now.

Their urgent odd-fitting coalition is designed to stop this at all costs. As usual, they all know what they don't want but they are far from certain about what they do. They reject any common ground with the SNP government. They reject the ideas of Canon Kenyon Wright, who wants this debate to be inclusive.

Their belated recognition that Scotland must have a greater say in how its people and resources are used, is welcome. However, their attempt to divert us from getting the power we need to stop our young people from being killed in an illegal war in Iraq, or to stop nuclear weapons being based in our country, is futile.

They have entered into the debate, which they are most welcome to do, but they do not have, and cannot have, the right to control or direct it.

Andy Anderson, 22 Earlish, Nr Portree, Isle-of-Skye.

It is interesting to see the timely parallels between Kosovo's battle for independence, and the ongoing debate on our own nation's constitutional future.

For months the future of the Serbian breakaway province of Kosovo has been uncertain, and after 120 days of negotiations between Serbian and Kosovo Albanian leaders, sponsored by a troika comprising US, Russia and the EU, no conclusion has been reached.

Following this failure, Kosovo's Albanian leaders are expected to declare independence, creating Europe's newest nation, a declaration that is expected to be recognised by the UK Government.
Contrast this with the Constitutional Commission devised by the opposition parties in the Scottish Parliament and supported by their London masters, which is to review the devolution settlement and the powers of the Scottish Parliament, but will stop short of independence.

It is rather ironic that while, on the one hand, we see London Labour approve Kosovan independence, it denies the Scottish people a say on their own constitutional future through a referendum, failing even to include the option of independence in their own commission.

Alex Orr, Flat 8, 35 Bryson Road, Edinburgh.

Welsh Leader seeks SNP link

LABOUR'S Welsh First Minister Rhodri Morgan wants to work with Alex Salmond to find a common approach to working with Westminster. The two men held talks yesterday at Mr Salmond's official residence, Bute House in Charlotte Square.

Later, Mr Morgan delivered a lecture at Edinburgh University in which he argued that both Scotland and Wales were moving on to "Devolution Mark Two". Mr Morgan said: "Alex Salmond and I come from very different political traditions, but that doesn't mean we can't find things to work together on."

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

Good news! Wales and Scotland have had a very similar experience of British rule and Mr Morgan is currently in an alliance with Plaid Cymru in the Welsh assembly.

How much are the papers worth to unionists?

According to the ever more laughable Scotsman the SNP bought the last election because Brian Souter gave them a donation:





I must have fell asleep during the election campaign, because what I remember is the newspapers giving regular huge ridiculous headlines to the idea that Armageddon would happen if anyone dared vote SNP!

How much was that worth to the Labour party and their fellow unionists? How much is the extraordinary blatant bias of the Daily Record (which is now handed out for free on the streets of Edinburgh) and the Scotsman worth?

Much of the Scottish press can't get over the fact they all told people to vote against the SNP and yet the party still won the elections. In fact the SNP are now riding higher than ever in the opinion polls despite the continued efforts of the Britman which even managed to concoct a negative headline out of the fact revealed yesterday than the SNP is committed to removing prescription charges over the course of the parliament- a change which the Scotsman campaigned for!!!

Increasingly no one believes one word of the Scotsman or the Daily Record with their ridiculous bias, if a new paper was set up now which offered an alternative to these papers (ie some fair reporting of the news) it would potentially clear up.

SCOTSMAN CHOPS WENDY ALEXANDER/PETER MACMAHON LETTER

Well the Scotsman printed my letter:



No comparison to be made


Peter MacMahon attempts to compare the illegal donation to Wendy Alexander's leadership campaign with Professor David Bell's research that some council tax payers might lose pennies on their benefits if the SNP's council tax freeze goes ahead (Opinion, 4 December).


If there are no increases in council tax then common sense indicates that all tax payers will be better off than if there had been an increase.


If your council tax is currently paid by benefits agencies then you will see no difference in your income whatsoever.


If the government pays out slightly less council tax relief then this is a saving of pennies for the government not a serious hit on the incomes of low earners and it is quite frankly an insult to suggest otherwise.


JOE MIDDLETON
Wardieburn Place South
Edinburgh




http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/letters.cfm?id=1901652007



Sadly they chopped all the decent bits, full version is below:



Come on, come off it!


Sir,


I know Peter MacMahon is an ex-Labour party spin doctor but his latest attempt to spin Labour out of difficulty beggars belief 'SNP in no position to claim moral high ground' Scotsman 04/12.
MacMahon attempts to compare the illegal donation to Wendy Alexander's leadership campaign with the Scotsman's research that some council tax payers might lose pennies on their benefits if the SNP's council tax freeze goes ahead.


If there are no increases in Council Tax then common sense indicates that all tax payers will be better off than if there had been an increase. If your council tax is currently paid by benefits agencies then you will see no difference in your income whatsoever.


If the Government pays out slightly less Council Tax relief then this is a saving of pennies for the Government not a serious hit on the incomes of low earners and it is quite frankly an insult to suggest otherwise.


Mr MacMahon's new found concern about the pennies of the under classes is as unconvincing as Ms Alexander's explanations that she didn't know her donor was off shore despite writing to him at his home address!


Yours faithfully,


Joe Middleton

WENDY SCUPPERS HER OWN DEFENCE

This was reported in the Scotsman today:

"But Ms Alexander has a series of e-mails, between herself and Charlie Gordon, the Labour MSP who solicited the donation on her behalf, in which she asks Mr Gordon about the legality of the donation."

This suggests that Ms Alexander KNEW or at least SUSPECTED that the donation was dodgy before she wrote to the donor's Jersey address thanking him for the money. Up to now she has claimed that she didn't know she had done wrong, but now we know in fact she did but was willing to accept dubious assurances from Charlie Gordan MSP (who has been set up as a sacrificial lamb, watch for a by-election defeat from the SNP shortly).

Open mouth insert foot - this email trail will haunt Alexander in the future.

'KEEP CRUSHING THOSE SCOTS' SAYS BROWN

British Prime Minister Gordon Brown has rejected calls to amend the British national anthem 'God Save the Queen' which refers to 'rebellious Scots to crush' a reference to the Jacobite uprising.

The national anthem is not inclusive and should perhaps be changed, Lord Goldsmith, the former attorney general now leading a citizenship review for Gordon Brown, has suggested.
He said that there were problems with some of the later verses of the anthem, which refer to "rebellious Scots" being crushed.

Lord Goldsmith said: "Part of it is not actually that inclusive, but that's if you go on to the later verses. "Some people have suggested we might think about whether there are different words that might be put in place which would be more inclusive."

But last night, Number 10 made clear that Lord Goldsmith's plan was not backed by Gordon Brown, himself a Scot representing a Scottish constituency. A Downing Street spokesman said: "This does not reflect the Government's views. We are proud of our national anthem and the traditions it represents."

Lord Goldsmith's suggestion also brought an immediate rebuke from a Tory MP who warned that such a change could lead to the "unravelling all sorts of things". Andrew Rosindell, MP for Romford in Essex, told the Daily Telegraph: "I don't think we need to change the national anthem. It's an historic anthem."

Mr Rosindell, who two years ago complained that the national anthem was no longer played at the end of main programming each night on BBC1, also dismissed calls for the Welsh Dragon to be added to the Union flag.

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

Who cares about the Scots and Welsh, that's the 'inner meaning 'of this story. The British flag with it's St George's Cross dominating the front and with the saltire to the rear shows the relative powers within the union. Wales flag is too different so they don't even bother including it.

Dump the anthem, dump the union and dump Gordon Brown a Scot who doesn't even have the bottle to object to his fellow Scots being crushed in the British national song! You can imagine his instinctive response: Mr Brown felt it might be too embarassing (for him) to change the national anthem. "As a Scot I find it a privelege to be crushed by Britain."

Scots Wha Hae should be our national anthem after independence but up till then the people's choice 'Flower of Scotland' must prevail. 'We can still rise now and be a nation again' is a sentiment which has genuine relevance.

Britain and England can have whatever anthems they like because they have no relevance to us anyway, just don't expect us to sing 'em.