Next Labour? Oh dear! Not Labour is more accurate.

When Gordon Brown stepped down as Prime Minister he left both new and old Labour as a busted flush. Still retaining some loyalty in Scotland and Wales but disliked throughout the rest of the UK.

Next Labour? New Labour signalled a sell out to Conservatism. Sticking another adjective in front will just show that Labour still hasn't a clue what the hell it stands for.

What we do know is that it is not Labour ie the working classes that they represent so "Not Labour" would probably be the most honest re-branding of all.

My cynical prediction for next Labour leader is Andy Burnham. I think that Labour will want someone who can challenge the Tories and Liberal Democrats on their own turf. That means they need a blandly handsome individual with no particular political ethos.

Ed and David are bland but they are not handsome and to be brutally frank they come across as oddballs on TV. They inherited some political good will and credibility from their principled father. Unfortunately in actual action they have been less successful.

While it is unfair to judge a person based upon their looks, if you bear a resemblance to a gasping goldfish unfortunately that becomes a factor. The older Miliband looked out of his depth at the foreign office and the USA did not take him seriously. Who could? He looked like a serious young lad who was up past his bedtime and was playing at being a serious politician.

This worked out for Gordon Brown who wanted to remain the main figure in his Government. After his 'warfare' with Tony Blair (which probably was very useful to the Labour Government as a distraction from political issues) he was no doubt nervous of promoting anyone into such a potentially powerful position who might have been able to use it as a platform. No, it was no doubt thought better to promote an ambitious follower rather than a future leader. Of course later on Mr Miliband tried to oust Brown but his actual credibility was no match for Mr Brown's even at the fag end of his administration.

Brown was always a 'big figure'. As a unionist his first loyalty was never to Scotland and therefore I have never had much regard for him, however it has to be said that he was a much more substantial figure than Tony Blair and David Cameron. Gordon Brown's main fault was to be a Scot at a time where Scotland had began to retain some of its power through devolution. If he had called an election shortly after taking over as PM he might have managed to win over England.

As it was the caricature of a "Brown Bottler" became his trademark. The public (well actually the tabloid press) decided they were sick of his face and wanted an election. From that point he was a dead duck Prime Minister. Unfortunately Labour (as we now see very clearly) had no alternative leader in the wings. In Scotland probably most people (and where the tabloids have less direct influence) felt he should be given a chance to prove himself, in England that was not the case.

David Cameron might be best described as another Tony Blair, while Nick Clegg might be seen as a Tony Blair twice removed or even a David Cameron copy.

Cameron was the product of a long search for Tory leader in which every variation was tried. Eventually it was decided that the whole brand was toxic and the Tories needed someone who could pretend he had sort of drifted into Conservatism by mistake. If Cameron had failed then I suspect Boris Johnson would have been the next candidate.

Cameron is a true Tory with true Tory instincts (ie a dislike for the poor) but who is also a PR man who can pretend otherwise. It is true he has changed politics. He was the man who became what Blair wanted to become, the true heir to Blair. A man with a better smile and with even less political principle.

Unfortunately for him at the point he was elected, Blair himself had outlasted his usefulness and was now something of a liability. Along with Blair's fall a distrust of spin persisted.

That is why Cameron failed to win the election outright, however Nick Clegg has proven to be a perfect ally because they are birds of a very similar political plumage.

Clegg was brought in when Ming Campbell was removed. Campbell, another clever Scot, proved to be too old and decrepit to challenge the new boy David. So it was the more handsome Clegg rather than the smarter Chris Huhne who became the Liberals leader. (Huhne was lining himself up for Home Secretary, the only big job the Libs would have had. I suspect it was Nick Clegg rather than David Cameron who decided he shouldn't get it).

[Any rational analysis of the new Government by the way suggests some brilliant negotiation by the Conservatives and some disastrous errors by the Liberal Democrats. Every major post is held by the Tories and the LD's have effectively sold out their 'big idea' Proportional Representation. AV is not true PR and a referendum on that is likely to lead to a continuation of FPTP. Welcome to the political wilderness Liberals. Your old party will get stuffed very shortly and deservedly, leaving UK politics back with the big two.]

So where is Labour now? Well I think it is fair to say that at the moment they are floating dead in the water and the antics of the Milbands are being treated, not unnaturally, as the last gasps of a corpse.

Their published views so far indicate that the Milly boys are not leaders with their own political judgement. What they actually are is mouthpieces for a discredited political party whose mouths are still opening and closing on reflex.

They are the entrée dishes and the main course has yet to be served. The real fight will be between Alan Johnson and Andy Burnham. Johnson is a credible candidate but I suspect in this PR obsessed time his age will be a factor. Burnham (or someone similar) will win but his party will still be moribund and politically irrelevant.

I expect the future leader (whoever it is) to fail against David Cameron (who will not need the Lib Dems post the next election). I suspect at UK level the people will see at least a decade and probably much more without another Labour Government.

At that point a new leader may arrive who will move Labour back to the political left. However by then it will be far too late.

Despair then? Hardly. Scotland has an opportunity to escape the bland faces of British politics with relative ease and the SNP will fight the next elections in Scotland from Scotland which makes all the difference.

Calman shows the limitations of British rule

Letter to the Editor
The Scotsman

11/06/2009

Sir,

So Sir Kenneth Calman's unionist commission has decided the future of
devolution. Rather than have a 3p rate that no-one wants to use, instead
we will get a 10p rate that no-one wants to use. What a visionary man
Sir Kenneth must be!

As we all know Calman's commission was set up by the unionist parties to
preserve the status quo. That is exactly what this proposal is intended
to achieve.

Is this is the best deal Britain can offer Scotland? If so it shows the
limitations of a continued union between three and a quarter countries
with very different political positions.

We Scots will eventually have a choice on the one logical option that
Calman has desperately tried to avoid. That choice is the normal
national and international powers of independence.

Calman's commission has proven that there is not one iota of national
pride or genuine Scottish interest in any of the British parties.

While this won't come as any shock to anyone, it will not stop the
ongoing rise of the SNP who are much clearer about the country whose
interests they represent.

Yours faithfully,

JOE MIDDLETON

Letter to the Editor of the North Edinburgh News

25/05/2009

Dear Mary,

I was browsing the BBC iplayer the other day and happened to stumble upon
some coverage of our Scottish parliament in action. The motion in question
was about student debt and was sponsored by Labour and the Tories with
support from the Liberal Democrats.

This unionist triumvirate, who have been jointly responsible for scrapping
the grant system of education and the principle of free education along with
it had the gross cheek to lambast the SNP for failing to 'dump the debt' of
students!

Sadly most of these parties MSPs weren't even in the chamber to listen to
their own debate! I suggest this indicates the actual priority they give to
student debt.

Labour and Tories appear to now wish students to have the power to borrow
more ie saddle them with even more debt, albeit delayed till the day they
earn the princely sum of 15K a year. Such an attitude is unlikely to
encourage anyone of modest means to enter university but let's face it the
days when Labour supported anyone outside the ranks of the middle classes
are long over.

Manifesto commitments are important for all political parties and they
should never be undertaken lightly, however in a devolved pocket money
parliament like ours the money is only available if Westminster provides it.
The SNP are a minority government. While this makes it more difficult for
them to govern it also (rightly) reflects the narrow nature of the election
result. It also means that they are, to an extent, reliant on the other MSP's
in parliament acting in a mature fashion and not deliberately obstructing
them for the sake of it.

The unionist parties deliberately forced through the unpopular Edinburgh
tramworks proposals which slashed hundreds of millions of pounds from the
money the SNP had to work with. The British government furthermore provided
the tightest financial settlement since devolution began. In those
circumstances the fact that the SNP have managed to remove tuition fees is
fairly extraordinary. The fact that they have increased financial support to
poorer students is also pretty praiseworthy.

If student leaders are willing to sup with the Liberals, Labour and even the
Tories and attack the SNP Government on this issue then they are either
suffering from total collective amnesia or they need new leadership which is
not puppeteered by our unionist UK establishment.

I trust that if the SNP Government are in power long enough they will
eventually rid students of all debts. We know that Labour would never
consider such an action by their own actions in the British parliament which
they currently control.

Are we really supposed to imagine that the same New Labour who were bribed
by F1's Bernie Ecclestone over fag advertising to the tune of one million
pounds, covered up a bribery scandal involving BAE systems and who
themselves introduced the Graduate endowment fee and the student loan are
really serious in Scotland about student debt?

Aye right!

Labour's priority in recent years has been to feather their own nest and
sell their soul to the political right. If they lose this election they will
leave a legacy of a near bankrupt Britain represented by UKIP and (god help
us) possibly the BNP in Europe while Scotland will have no distinct voice
and a lot less than half our rightful share of Euro MP's.

David Cameron's Conservatives are an extension of the Thatcherite project,
he might have a nicer smile than Tony but he represents the same old clapped
out 'let business handle everything' political philosophy that has entirely
wasted Labour's years in power.

What happened with reform of the House of Lords? The independent hereditary
toffs got turfed and were replaced by a bunch of new Labour puppets. Great!
No actual meaningful reform there then.

The electoral system which hands huge power to one party and helped Scots
suffer under Thatcher? That's staying the same as well because Labour want
to make sure they get another bite (one day) at the cherry. No electoral
reform means the British Government will always be sheep led by shepherds.
Whether it is Labour sheep or newly grown Tory sheep makes no difference, at
all.

We Scots have one chance of saving our country and that is by choosing
independence when we get the chance. There are no urgent issues in Scotland
which are better off being decided 300 hundred miles away!

Yours faithfully,

JOE MIDDLETON

LONDON CALLING! CONFUSION NOW REIGNS OVER WHETHER LABOUR WILL SUPPORT 2010 REFERENDUM

London has called and Labour's support for an independence referendum is now looking decidedly dodgy.

Let's be clear about this the British Government DOES NOT support the sovereign right of the Scottish people to choose independence. The proof is here:
www.independence1st.com/comment/not_acceptable.shtml

Up till recently it seemed that the Scottish branches of Labour, Tories and Lib Dems didn't either because all refused to countenance a referendum on independence and yet this is the only point of genuine conflict.

Scottish Labour (if there is such a beast) in the shape of Wendy Alexander seemed to have changed their tune for a brief moment but they have rapidly returned to form with Brown now clearly pulling the strings.

All the parties would supposedly support more powers for the parliament, I say supposedly because the Tories simply cannot be trusted in this area as their last period in Government showed quite clearly.

If all parties support more powers then the SNP can easily accept the Calman commissions recommendations whenever they are published, but as they will still be far short of independence this won't resolve a thing.

We would also then have to rely on Westminster implementing any changes and not fiddling with the powers of the parliament in a detrimental fashion. In fact Labour have already fiddled the electoral system in the Welsh parliament so they can't be trusted in this respect either.

Gordon Brown has already signalled that he wants a number of inconvenient powers removed forom the Scottish Government, an obvious example would be planning rules which allow the Scottish Government to block new nuclear power stations.

The Blair Government ignored elements of the last broad based Scottish Constitutional Convention (this body which included the Liberal Democrats and 'Scottish' Labour recommended broadcasting powers be returned to Scotland but this power was removed at Westminster, also the bill suddenly gained lots of new bits where it was explicitly claimed that Westminster had full power over any future change to the constitution in Scotland even though this violates international law and specifically Scotland's rights to self determination).

Given that episode Westminster can easily ignore their own hand picked cabal of safe unionists whatever froth is recommended (in fact they are so pro-Government they will probably say the status quo is just fine!).

The only way to guarantee as much power as the parliament requires is by voting for independence. Those who oppose that choice don't support the sovereign right of the Scottish people to decide their own destiny and as such don't deserve one vote in Scotland.

Dear Wendy, what happened to the Claim of Right?

(sent through Wendy's blog)

Dear Ms Alexander,

Does your party still support the Claim of Right for Scotland? Gordon Brown and his followers appear to think power resides with the UK parliament, not the Scottish people (see below for the proof of that statement).

That was always the view of the Conservatives and that was why they acted the way they did while in office. Yet Labour along with the Liberal Democrats signed the Claim of Right and also demanded control of Scottish broadcasting from London.

Now it appears that your own leader thinks Scotland's views can be ignored:

Put that if Alex Salmond took Wendy Alexander's advice and held a referendum on independence, it would take place before the Calman Commission reported, the PMS said that for there to be a legally binding referendum, it would require legislation in the UK Parliament.

Asked if the PMS was suggesting that the Prime Minister would seek to block an early referendum after saying that any binding referendum would need legislation in the UK Parliament, the PMS replied that he was not suggesting anything; he was setting out a factual position.

My organisation, Independence First wrote to the last Scottish Executive and British Government seeking their views, what returned was illuminating and alarming.

The Scottish Parliament replied: “The Scotland Act 1998 sets out the statutory framework for the Scottish devolution settlement. Schedule 5 to the Act defines matters which are reserved to the United Kingdom Parliament.”

“The devolution settlement and constitutional matters generally are reserved matters under the Act. The Government of the United Kingdom is responsible therefore for considering any fundamental changes to the existing devolution framework in Scotland.”

The Scottish Office in London replied “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.”

http://www.independence1st.com/comment/not_acceptable.shtml

Yours sincerely,

Joe Middleton

GOOD RIDDENCE TO POMPOUS IRRELEVANT BRIT MING

Steve Bell summed up Ming's political future with this cartoon.

In a media obsessed age any personal faults are magnified. Ming might have been clever but he came across as pompous and his love for the Britain that he represented at the Olympics was out of place in modern Scotland.

His leadership has led the Scottish Lib Dems into the political wilderness with their undemocratic disdain for a referendum on Scottish independence, while at the same time demanding one on the EU. (the Tories are hypocrites in this area as well).

Dynamic politicians have charisma and earn respect no matter what their age is. Age might have been the excuse to get rid of him but the reality was that Campbell wasn't an effective leader of his party. Also, his own attempts to draw attention away from his age - claiming recently that he had 'married a young turk himself' were cringeworthy.

Since Labour have moved to the right and the Tories have moved to the left (marginally) both are attempting to occupy the voter friendly, politically muddled ''centre ground'.

In this situation the Lib Dems become irrelevant because they can't seriously compete with the 'big two'. In Scotland the SNP are a much more logical alternative to Labour and the Tories.

This leads to the question, what is the point of the Lib Dems? The answer is not a lot and they would be as well to throw their lot in entirely with the Labour party who they kept afloat in Scotland for many years. Those genuine home rulers who would balk at Labour's unionism (there doesn't seem to be a lot of them left given the non-reaction to the blocking of an indy referendum) could then move over to the much more relevant SNP.

DISINFORMATION AND HYPOCRISY FROM LIBERAL DEMOCRATS

The story in the Herald re Ming Campbell today is interesting as it shows up his utter hypocrisy - pity they don't allow any comments.

The Scotsman is more biased (the Herald is biased as well but is slightly more subtle) but at least you get a chance to comeback.

Check this out:

http://www.theherald.co.uk/politics/news/display.var.1230481.0.0.php

'Sir Ming' [who obviously has a vested interest in the status quo] argued Scotland would forfeit much international influence if it went independent, for instance losing a seat on the UN Security Council. "Our ability to influence the kind of world we live in would be very severely dented," he stressed.

Is he really so stupid? It's not SCOTLAND's seat at the UN security council. Scotland is not represented in the UN at all.

Jack Straw was a hell of a lot more honest when he said he was worried England would lose their seat at the UN Security council if Scotland became independent.

Straw is quoted by the BBC as saying: "Historically, England called the shots to achieve a union because the union was seen as a way, among others things, of amplifying England's power worldwide. And the reverse would certainly be true. A broken-up United Kingdom would not be in the interests of Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland, but especially not England."

He adds, "Our [England's] voting power in the European Union would diminish. We'd slip down in the world league GDP tables. Our case for staying in the G8 would diminish and there could easily be an assault on our permanent seat in the UN." [Security Council]