Scots lawyers must have liberty to attack injustice

The trial of Aamer Anwar for contempt of court which begins tomorrow at the High Court in Edinburgh has huge implications for the type of society that we wish to live in.

This case takes place in the shadow of a war in Iraq which was carried out without the sanction of the United Nations. It happened in revenge for an unconnected act of violence which was in itself blowback for various intelligence operations which failed. Osama Bin Laden was a CIA asset trained to fight the soviets in Afghanistan who eventually realised that the US was as large an enemy to his and his fellow rebels interests as the Soviets.

His network believes it is fighting an all out war against the military occupation of the Middle East, a modern crusade by Christianity against Islam. The war is real, the consequences are real and the threat to our civil liberties in this country is very real as well. Already the right to a fair trial (Habeus Corpus) has been undermined with a pre trial dentention period of one month during which time anyone can be held on suspicion. Not content with the longest period of detention in the western world Labour wants to extend this to 42 days.

ID cards are being pushed through the UK parliament on the back of terrorist threats yet the Goverment has admitted in correspondence that they would have no significant effect on terrorism whatsoever!

On the front line of often badly drawn and regressive legislation which can give suspects an effective life sentence for publishing seditious material on the internet are the human rights lawyers. One in particular, Aamer Anwar is treading the balance between what is right to protect society and the human rights of his client. Sadly the state has decided that it not only doesn't like the actions of his clients, it doesn't like what he says in defence of them.

This is extremely worrying. To ensure our justice system works effectively all lawyers must have complete liberty to attack any decision which they believe adversely affects their client or is injurious to civil rights in general. this should particularly apply in the case of lawyers fighting high profile human rights cases based on new legislation.

In Scotland we like to believe we have a decent respect for human rights. Sadly that respect is not shared by the British Government which has been extremely cavalier about European human rights legislation and has in consequence experienced a whole series of judicial reverses because of badly framed legislation and attempted abuse of executive powers.

If this case is successful then in the future lawyers might rightly fear the consequences of pursuing difficult cases and fully expressing their opinions if they are going to be threatened with a subsequent appearance in the dock themselves once their trials are over. If even a popular, widely celebrated and respected Scottish lawyer like Aamer Anwar can be convicted on these charges in a Scottish court then in future the truth will only be what the British state says it is.

That's not good enough in these dangerous and volatile times.

Interview with Novi Reporter - Srpska

"Novi Reporter" (New Reporter) from Banjaluka, capital of Republic of Srpska. Republic of Srpska is Serb predominant entity in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

I was interviewed for the above magazine, here's the questions and answers.

Question:

In February this year Albanian leaders in Kosovo unilaterally declared independence from Serbia. That decision, by this time, approved about 30 countries. United States of America and some countries from European Union claim that Kosovo is isolated case and can not become a blueprint for similar situations in other countries. What is your opinion about these claims?

Answer:

I think that since Kosovo was supported by the UN as a semi-seperate state from Serbia it was inevitable that it would declare independence. I also believe all declarations of independence should be respected as this is the primary basis of international law. Kosovo's independence appears to have been objected to by a coalition of the guilty, Russia who are blocking Chechnya's independence, China who have militarily occupied and effectively annexed Tibet and Spain who are busily outlawing every left/radical organisation or independence supporting party in the Basque country. With friends like these, Serbia does not want for enemies! I think Kosovo is an unusual case and I don't think it is particularly relevant to other countries.

Q. Serbian part of Bosnia and Herzegovina - Republic of Srpska, but also some areas in Bosnia with Croatian majority, shows intention to split from the country where Muslim population is in majority. Independence First insists on the right to self-determination in the issues between Scotland and England. Is it possible to apply same right in Bosnia and Herzegovina?

A. It depends if a majority of the population in these areas are determined to support independence. Yugoslavia was a false state and the remnants of it are still trying to come to terms with their proper boundaries. We certainly support the right of self determination in all cases but nonetheless there should be some historical justification and clear territorial boundary involved. Independence is about the best interests of the people living in a specific country. If an ethnic form of nationality is pushed it can obviously have racist connotations.

Q. How would you explain to the people outside of Scotland and England the differences between Scottish and English national identity? And also explain a need for Scotland to decide by itself, independently from London about his destiny?

A. Scotland is a historic country which has a recorded history stretching back well over one thousand years. We have our own culture, two indigenous languages seperate from English (though English now predominates for obvious reasons) our own law and education system and we now have our own devolved Government led by the independence supporting SNP. While it took a lot of campaigning to get a devolved parliament, this is not sufficient for us as most major decisions are stull taken in the Westminster parliament where our MP's are outvoted 10-1. Scotland needs our own seat at the UN and independent representation in Europe as well as full control over broadcasting, taxation, foreign affairs and defence.

Q. In the media with the global influence, often we can read and watch that majority in Scotland do not support independence from the Great Britain. Is this truth?

A. Polls on this tend to be very mixed. Just before the last election a number of polls showed the largest percentage of support was for independence however the polls are now saying that figure has dropped. I would say there is probably around 35-40% strong support for independence with perhaps 30% support for the union and 30% undecided. It's somewhere around there. Recent polls have indicated that for instance if the UK Government deliberately cuts the Scottish Governments finances a lot more people will support independence. Most people certainly support more powers for the Scottish parliament and a referendum on independence. Independence is the logical end of the home rule journey and we believe that if the positive argument is made for independence in a referendum campaign against the usual scaremongering against it by the unionist parties the positive case will win.

Q. How much you did so far in achieving your political goals? Regarding that, what are political differences between Independence First and the Scottish National Party?

A. Independence First is a campaign purely for an independence referendum and as such it has no political policies. We have a number of SNP members in our ranks as well as members of the Greens, SSP and many others from no party. We are of course supportive of the SNP Government's plans to hold a referendum in 2010. With regard to our own actions we have organised two political rallies for a referendum here in Edinburgh, we have ran a petition through the Scottish parliament for a referendum and we have managed to get detailed answers from the British Government which suggest they are ignorant of the concept of the sovereignty of the Scottish people.

Q. Can we talk about increase of secessionism in England? And about possibility that we, in near future see a politician, south from the Hadrian Wall who will be ready to talk with Scotland about your independence?

A. This is still quite far off I think though it might theoretically be advantagous to the British Conservatives to lose a country where they tend to get heavily defeated on a regular basis at the ballot box. There is a growing movement towards self determination for England but it is rather young and politically immature at this point, tending to be led by perceived grievance rather than genuine political principle.

Q. Is it possible that religion differences in Scotland (Protestants and Catholics), slow down your road to independence? Regarding that, what is your opinion about long chronology of conflict in Northern Ireland, where factor of religion plays important role?

A. There is a sectarian problem in Scotland though it is nowhere near as bad as Northern Ireland. It tends to be inflamed by football rivalry (Glasgow Celtic is a traditionally Irish team and in reaction their Rangers rivals wrap themselves in the colours of the British Union Jack). Also the anti-Catholic Orange Order while small and mostly irrelevant still appears to have some support in some towns in the West of Scotland. These people do oppose Scottish independence as well as Irish independence and have now started marching against independence for Scotland specifically. However such bigots represent a tiny minority of the population. Most people in Scotland are not particularly religious at all and most practising Protestants and Catholics have no conflict of interest whatsoever, in fact both religions enjoy a good relationship at local level.

I expect Scottish independence to bring Irish unity closer as I think the Unionists have more attachment to the idea of Britain rather than England and with independence for Scotland the British state would come to an effective end. At the moment the unionists are working together with Irish nationalists at Stormont and they may see their future as being more appropriately tied to Dublin than London eventually. At the end of the day though that is a decision for the people of Northern Ireland not the people of Scotland.

All the best,

Joe Middleton (Press Officer, Independence First).

A new Desperation from Daily Mail?

While I have written a fair amount of letters to the Daily Mail over the
years I have rarely found myself in political agreement with their
editorials or their journalists. Of course in a democracy all honest
opinions are obviously welcome even if one deplores the ideas behind
them.

Nonetheless there is a fine line between fair comment and libel and the
article entitled 'a New Racism' (Daily Mail 19/04/2008) in which the
Mail's James Grant accused all nationalists of racism crossed that line.

Claiming there was some significance in the fact that the date of the
SNP's spring conference was the same as the 40th anniversary of Powell's
infamous remarks about rivers of Blood, Mr Grant went on to claim that
"Scottish nationalism like every other form of nationalism is dangerous
and has its roots in Xenophobia and racism."

His circular argument for this was that because Salmond said "As a
sovereign people the people of Scotland - and we alone have the right to
decide how we are governed", this was somehow racist to the other people
in the United Kingdom!

Let's be clear that all Alex Salmond was asserting was the right of the
people of Scotland to decide their own political destiny. When he says
"we Scots" he means all the people who live in Scotland. This right to
self determination through the sovereignty of the Scottish people was
enshrined in the Declaration of Arbroath and was much more recently
acknowledged by both the Labour and Liberal Democratic parties when they
endorsed the Claim of right for Scotland.

The Daily Mail and their correspondent must be fully aware that there
are two separate and distinctive forms of nationalism.

There is the imperial type where adherents believe in the superiority of
their country to others and attempt to assert their superiority by
conquering or exploiting other nations.

Historically both the British Empire and the Nazis fitted this form of
nationalism. There is also however the civic type where the people of a
country join together in a common democratic cause. Mr Grant admits this
when he remarks that "nationalism has often been a necessary step on the
road to democracy."

Scottish nationalism is clearly civic and is also clearly not imperial.
The SNP have no plans to invade anyone! Therefore Mr Grant's argument
has no justification whatsoever.

If unionism can only justify itself by making such deliberately false
assertions about its opponents then one can only conclude that the
arguments for the continuation of the union are not strong enough on
their own.

Independence is normality. Independence supporters run our Government
and the cause of independence has strong support across every political
party and at every level of Scottish society. If the Daily Mail wishes
to insult a possible majority of the Scottish population then they can
go ahead but they can also logically expect their readership figures to
drop like a stone.

If they continue in this vein then they should also expect to have their
day in court eventually at which point they would be expected to provide
actual proof of their allegations or pay the compensation required for
attempting to libel both the SNP and all other supporters of Scottish
independence.

A new progressive England?

St George’s Day for an imagined nation? Mark Perryman argues it is time we start thinking about England after Britain (Compass, Wednesday, April 23, 2008)

The first three terms of a Labour government have been constitutionally dominated by devolution. Whilst the English, at the outset of this process, mostly took a take-it-and-leave it attitude, the impact in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland has been much more profound.

http://www.compassonline.org.uk/article.asp?n=1642

This is very good (Alan McCombes recommended it).

I have added a comment.

Independence is normality

Letter to the Editor
Edinburgh Evening News

07/04/2008

Sir,

With regard to the Evening News editorial today 'the US allows separate states to be different' I would remind your paper of the obvious fact that Scotland, like the United States, is a country and not a state.

The idea that all Scots should aspire to is the status of a federal state shows a certain lack of ambition. Just what is it about Scotland that we are judged to be uniquely incapable of running our own affairs? What is wrong with our flag, the Saltire, that it shouldn't fly on its own at the United Nations?

Why should we ever want to swear allegiance to a flag which is clearly designed to represent England's past dominance over Ireland and Scotland (Wales isn't even on it!) with the St George's cross front and centre?

Jack Straw recently admitted that the Empire was basically a device to amplify English power abroad. Yes, Scots played a part in the Empire but most of our ancestors were just as poor at the end of it as we were at the beginning!

The Empire is over, knighthoods and other honours which pretend to membership of a British empire are as absurd and anachronistic as the UK monarch's claim to be 'defender of the [Catholic] faith'.

It is time to wash away this backward looking nonsense and any along with it any innate desire to bully other nations. What we need is equality with other countries, not superiority.
Independence is normality. Scotland is entirely capable of becoming a successful independent modern state and deciding our own policy on foreign affairs and defence.

If unionist opinion is genuinely strong, why was there no celebration whatsoever of the Union of Crowns or the Union of Parliaments? The only organisation which did mark both occasions was the Orange Lodge, who are hardly the most modern of political thinkers.

The union does not suit any country, not Scotland when we are outvoted 10-1 at Westminster, not Wales which is offered sub standard forms of Devolution and not even England who are waking up to the fact that the English identity has been subsumed by a British one which doesn't necessarily represent their views either.

Alex Salmond is right, we should take courage from the US who ended their own remote control by Britain and who like most other countries warmly celebrate their independence day. We have nothing to lose and everything to gain by independence.

At the very least the unionist parties should have the basic politeness after 300 years to ask the Scottish people whether they want the union to continue or not. The fact they desperately don't want to do so, suggests they already know the likely answer!

Raise your game please Evening News and think seriously about what suits our country right now, not 50 or a hundred years ago.

Yours faithfully,

Joe Middleton

Song for the Labour Party

The working class will now be conned
To believe the union is still strong.
For the Scots they want their oil and gas
But we cannot give them what they ask.
The time has come to think again
If Brown's to stay in Number Ten.
But as we don't want Party schism
We won't have changes, just revision.

We can't forget Nye Bevan's ghost
But yuppies votes are uppermost.
We can't indulge in Leftist dreams
We must appeal to Milton Keynes.
The time has come to think again
If Brown's to stay in Number Ten.
But as we don't want Party schism
We won't have changes, just revision.

The people's flag is deepest grey
Because we get more votes that way.
Who gives a damn for socialism
If all looks good on television.
The time has come to think again
If Brown's to stay in Number Ten.
But as we don't want Party schism
We won't have changes, just revision.

(very good!)

Cracking article from Sean Connery in LA times

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-connery5apr05,0,7932603.story

NO OTHER COUNTRY PUTS A PRICE ON INDEPENDENCE

Douglas Fraser: Divorce in haste could give cause to repent at leisure

Memo: to Sir Tom Hunter, tycoon, property magnate, philanthropist and Scotland's richest man. Welcome to the task of writing a political column, and congratulations: your call for a quick "yes-no" referendum on Scottish independence was big on well-timed impact. A tip, though: be careful when you accuse politicians of "posturing, positioning and pontificating". That's uncomfortably close to what we do in writing commentary.

Your views seem to receive more attention than the average bloke on the Broughty Ferry omnibus, but it is worth remembering the nature of elections and referendums is that said bloke's opinion is of the same value as yours. We pay disproportionate attention to folk such as you because of your success and celebrity. We give a special place to our leading entrepreneurs and corporate alchemists. But, with respect, your argument for a snap referendum, quickly getting ourselves up to speed on the issues and then allowing us to invest in whichever future we choose, shows political naivety. (Herald)

Tom Hunters comments were motivated by an honest opinion from someone who is answerable to no-one. Douglas Fraser's regurgitates the usual unionist scare stories under the guise of independent commentary but he's never likely to come to a conclusion that independence is desirable because it would probably cost him his job.

His ultimate conclusion that we must look before we leap is no great leap of insight but ignores the fact these issues have been exhaustively argued over for the entire history of the union (well apart from those times when the British state would have locked you up or deported you for talking about independence of course). Yes we should look but why not leap if the waters look right?

No other country around the world would put a price on their independence. It would rightly be seen as a priceless commodity which is absolutely required in every quarter of their national life.
Unfortunately our history as part of a successful economic Empire (now dead as the dodo) means that some will always cling to that imperial identity as 'better' and 'more important' and find some spurious reason to argue that this is the case.

We cannot get accurate figures about independence. The Westminster Goverment has a history of telling blatant lies about Scotland. We know that from the research in the 1970's which have came to light under the freedom of information act.

Public spending figures exclude various expenditures such as defence expenditure so the information is incomplete. Scotland is geographically large in comparison to England. we have around two thirds of the landmass with only around 10% of the population. A per head ratio of public spending is therefore ridiculous.

Scotland will spend what we can afford after independence. Currently we appear to have enough income to maintain current spending levels if oil revenue is included even on the Governments own figures. (To my mind that probably means we have more money than that in reality. Gordon knows the figures and yet he is desperate to keep us locked in).

If we do in fact ultimately need more money then we will do what every other country does and borrow it. Britain just now has a huge financial deficit but I don't see anyone seriously arguing that it should join the US!

[bold]Independence is normality.[/bold] Scotland is capable of voting for it and our people are not uniquely incompetent to run our own affairs. Those who argue we somehow are would be well advised to take a long hard look in the mirror.