The Scots Covenant Campaign proved Westminster ignores Scotland's wishes

There was a large amount of moves towards a Scottish parliament at Westminster in the 19th century and a number of home rule bills were proposed and supported by Scottish MP's at the end of the 19th and the very beginning of the 20th century.

It wasn't until the Scottish Covenant Campaign however led by one of the early leading figures of the SNP John MacCormick (who would eventually join the Liberals) was launched in 1949 that the full support for some form of Scottish self government was revealed.




Excerpt from Restless Nation (1996)

An incredible Two million Scots in 1950 demanded home rule but were completely ignored by BritGov. This experience (not unnaturally)  disillusioned many. The election of Winnie Ewing in Hamilton in 1967 began the long march towards power of the SNP.

In the 70's fear of the SNP's rise in support (and the discovery of Scotland's Oil which boosted the SNP's credibility) led to Labour's 1978 devolution bill. There was a clear vote in favour at the subsequent referendum but Labour's wrecking clause (the 40% rule)  meant no devolution was delivered. The Tories had said if the people did not vote for the referendum bill as proposed by Labour then they would provide a stronger alternative. In fact when Mrs Thatcher gained power she immediately said no devolution would happen in Scotland (a move which then caused a younger Malcolm Rifkind to resign from her front bench, though he came back and acted as Scottish Secretary/Governor General for some years).

Thatcher then proceeded to decimate the Scottish economy which had heavily relied on manufacturing industry. This caused the Conservatives to gradually become less and less popular in Scotland and at one point they had zero MP's (they still even now, only have one!). Labour when out of power campaigned hypocritically for the devolution they had cynically denied Scots while in office and when Blair was elected he was forced (reluctantly) to introduce devolution. The rest as they say is history. We should never forget though that Westminster ignored that 2 million strong petition fo Devolution in 1950 and proved forever that they could not be trusted to act in Scotland's interests.

Tories: When in doubt kick the poor

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/aug/10/chris-grayling-defends-plan-credit-rating-agencies-benefits

The above article in the Guardian features a Conservative party election poster from the UK elections this year. These things were pasted up all over.

In fact however people who refuse work ALREADY would get their benefits removed under existing legislation. So why on earth launch such a misleading and factually inaccurate poster?

Who would realistically want to live on the abysmally low income of the benefits system if they could find a job easily? The Conservatives and their right wing allies at the Daily Mail deliberately dig up individuals who exploit the system to tar all those who require to claim benefits.

This is part of the Tory strategy to blame the unemployed for being unemployed during a worldwide recession. When in doubt kick the poor. That's why the Tories were rejected in Scotland, shame on those who voted them in elsewhere.

Of course anyone who is fraudulently claiming benefits should have them removed but the Conservative party should never have ran the misleading advert shown above and they should in fact have some compassion for those whose life has been ruined by the train wreck of the British economy.

A large amount of the unemployed get benefits for six months only.

Those who get benefits for a more prolonged period only get them because they have been means tested ie they are required. I believe those who receive benefits should get them in a civilised society.

Chase your tax dodging pals Cameron and then I might believe you had any real interest in fairness.

LABOUR DEMANDED CUTS DURING UK ELECTIONS

At UK Government level Labour fought the 2010 election on making "deeper and tougher" cuts than Margaret Thatcher.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/mar/25/alistair-darling-cut-deeper-margaret-thatcher

Guardian: Alistair Darling admitted tonight that Labour's planned cuts in public spending will be "deeper and tougher" than Margaret Thatcher's in the 1980s, as the country's leading experts on tax and spending warned that Britain faces "two parliaments of pain" to repair the black hole in the state's finances.

The Institute for Fiscal Studies said hefty tax rises and Whitehall spending cuts of 25% were in prospect during the six-year squeeze lasting until 2017 that would follow the chancellor's "treading water" budget yesterday.

Asked by the BBC tonight how his plans compared with Thatcher's attempts to slim the size of the state, Darling replied: "They will be deeper and tougher – where we make the precise comparison I think is secondary to an acknowledgement that these reductions will be tough."

These cuts would have begun at UK level and filtered down to local level.

The SNP are proposing giving slightly more money to Scottish councils but are expecting them to effectively freeze their expenditure in consequence. This is not easy for councils and it might have been easier for the SNP to say, "we'll allow councils to raise more cash if they want."

However it is probably logical in the current climate as under the Tories pressure will certainly come down upon the total Scottish Government budget. If the SNP can prove that all the Scottish councils are making the best use of their allocation of public spending then they can make a better case for maintenance of the current Scottish block grant post-Barnett formula.

Labour want to raise local taxes, cutting the amount of money the public have in their pocket, to keep council services at roughly the same level. Yet they were saying during the elections "cuts must be made" and the SNP were being selfish in asking Britain to protect the Scottish budget.

So where would Labour's cuts have come from? Wouldn't a Labour Government have been squeezing public expenditure? I suggest they would and that if they needed to make an enormous 25% cut in spending they would have aimed some of that at the SNP Government.

The SNP are forcing the Scottish councils to be careful with their finances but are still offering a decent grant to them all in difficult times.

If Labour were serious about wanting to make "deeper and tougher" cuts than Margaret Thatcher" they cannot pretend now that they do not support encouraging better use of public money. Well they can but it is utterly hypocritical and I don't expect the public to swallow it.

Superb poster from SNP

Classic!

Labour have failed to regulate financial system

Letter to the Editor(s)

Dear Sir or Madam,

Given that the UK central bank, the Bank of England, has cut interest rates
to 0.5% one might imagine that our bailed out banks would have passed on
this change in interest rates to their customers. They certainly have in
respect of savings accounts. Most people will have found that their interest
rates in that respect have been drastically cut. On mortgages they have
reduced slightly, but not by much. It also still costs a fortune to arrange
a fixed rate mortgage.

Meanwhile the interest rates on loans, credit cards and overdrafts remain
extortionately high. The average yearly rate for a credit card is currently
18.8%. Why? If the base rate is reduced then that reduction should have been
passed on throughout the banking system. That way borrowers could afford to
spend more, boosting the economy and ending the economic depression.

The government should have forced a wholesale reduction in interest rates at
the point they offered tax payers money to prop up the financial system.
They could still do so for the semi-nationalised banks today. If the
political will was there.

I witnessed a TV advert this morning that encouraged customers with debts to
avail themselves of an internet based loans system at quickquid.co.uk. The
only catch? An eye watering interest rate of 2356% APR!

It is blatantly obvious that Labour have failed to put in effective
legislation to control lenders and that the banks themselves are happy to
extort horrendous sums from borrowers. Clearly proper regulation is
required. Unfortunately the main 'opposition' the Conservatives are in a
large part to blame for the 'big bang' of de-regulation in the first place
which ultimately led to this mess.

This upcoming British general election offers no choice between two parties
which are equally as awful as each other. Both want to drastically slash
public expenditure while allowing the banks to bully their own borrowers.

Surely we can do better? Proportional representation, independence for every
country in the UK, removal of the House of Lords and the end of the
undemocratic oath to the Queen are all measures which could and should have
happened long ago.

Old Britain is bust and we need to try something radically different.

Yours faithfully,

Joe Middleton

David Cameron's Conservatives are treating Scots with contempt

You have to laugh at the contradictory messages currently coming from the British media. On the one hand David Cameron is trying to dictate whether Alex Salmond gets an invite to the proposed TV debates:

David Cameron calls for Alex Salmond to be barred from TV debates

David Cameron has said Alex Salmond should be barred from a series of televised general election debates between the main party leaders despite Scottish National Party threats of legal action.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/scotland/6251864/David-Cameron-calls-for-Alex-Salmond-to-be-barred-from-TV-debates.html

On the other hand the Times pretends that he is desperate to woo Scotland, aye right! (Even Angus Mcleod can't quite believe it!).

David Cameron desperate to ‘seal the deal’ and win over the Scots

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/scotland/article6867080.ece

So it's a kick from a boot and a simpering smile and words of encouragement as well.

David Cameron's local puppet the pantomine dame Annabel Goldie tried to bring in her brand of comic relief:

"I have been delighted at the response to the message in my speech on Monday that the approaching General Election is a British election, for the British Parliament, for a British Prime Minister

"People are saying to me at Conference that that message is resonating beyond Scotland."

Only if your head is wedged firmly in the sand at Berwick! Poor old Goldie appears to be delusional.

She goes on:

"The SNP are irrelevant at a British General Election. Their influence on the British economy is virtually nil."

So is Scotland relevant? Not to Goldie it isn't.

"As a sideshow Alex Salmond, and he is a sideshow in the British General Election..."

"... I shall do all I can to persuade people in Scotland that at this British General Election they should be voting for a British Prime Minister."

So what relevance does your Scottish position hold then? Why on earth should we listen to Ms Goldie when both her and her leader treat our country with utter contempt.

http://www.scottishconservatives.com/news_press/speeches/annabel_goldie_speech_to_the_scottish_fringe-conservative_party_conference_manchester_2009.aspx

Speech to the 'Scottish fringe' that just about sums up the importance the Tories think Scotland has.

But let us not forget those organs of the British press determined to spread light and truth around the planet, well everywhere apart from Scotland obviously, for us it's spin, lies and distaste.

Gillian Bowditch: Allow Gaelic to thrive without taxpayers’ cash

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/scotland/article6869384.ece

Scottish Gaelic our once proud national language is just a figure of fun to Anglo-centric commentators, what a disgrace.

David Cameron has no right to dictate the relevance of the SNP. That is up to the people of Scotland to decide. He has no right to demand a rigged TV debate either which excludes our most important political party.

Scotland will not stand for politicians who ignore our opinions and our interests.

The fact the Tories have one solitary MP should give them cause to consider before trying to dictate our future to us.

Britain is busted and independence is normality. David Cameron has nothing to offer as a political Tweedle Dum to Labour's Tweedle Dee. Scotland does not want or need a pompous Tory boy who looks like he needs someone to skelp his lug. Tony Blair was bad enough and no other smirking opinion poll driven power mad spinner is required.

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

SNP plan for independence is the only chance to avoid Tory Government

Letter to the Editor
The Herald

11/06/2009

Sir,

I note that in today's edition of the Herald, when reporting on the SNP
and Plaid Cymru's call to dissolve the UK parliament, that your reporter
claims that Labour's Peter Hain "scored a direct hit" on the SNP's Pete
Wishart when he claimed the real SNP agenda was to get a Tory
government.

You report: Mr Wishart said the last thing Scotland wanted was a
Conservative government. "Is he then saying he prefers a Labour
government?" asked Mr Hain.

If this represents a 'direct hit' it is on the logic of your paper's
pro-union position not on the policies or position of the SNP.

The SNP support independence for Scotland. Labour support the Union. It
is very clear from the English local elections and the European
elections that Labour cannot possibly win against The Conservatives in
England.

We are therefore looking at the almost certain prospect of a UK
Conservative Government, even if they actually have a minority of
support.

This is partly because Labour has upheld the discredited First Past the
Post system but mainly because they have wasted their entire term in
Government by pandering to the rich rather than supporting their 'ain
folk'.

Independence offers an opportunity to escape right wing Government from
England whether by the Labour or Conservative party. Mr Hain is a
hypocrite and his party is dead in the water.

This new situation is something your paper might want to wake up to if
it wishes to remain relevant to the people of Scotland.

Yours faithfully,

Joe Middleton

Neither Labour nor Tories really want reform

David Cameron is simply not credible as reform champion

Dear Sir,

So David Cameron thinks that suddenly we will believe he intends
genuine political reform? I'm sorry, but the Conservatives have been
on the wrong side of any political reform for their entire history as a
political party. The clue is in their name.

Mr Cameron may think that simply because he has proved more popular
than his immediate incompetent predecessors as Tory leader he has
acquired 'street cred' with the public but he is very wrong.

What has actually happened is that our political establishment and most
of the media have swung behind this Tony Blairite clone as the logical
continuation of a right wing consensus which has throttled reformist
politics during the Labour years.

Cameron doesn't want to change anything significant. Yes, some
slight changes at the edges might be vaguely considered but the big
questions have already been ruled out.

Labour and Conservatives have nothing to choose between them. Both
have MP's who have been guilty of fiddling their expenses and both share
the same right wing agenda. Both support the pointless Trident II and both
believe that being the puppet of America makes Britain great.

In my opinion four basic points are required to begin genuine reform of
Westminster:

1) Embracing genuine electoral reform. The first past the post system
inevitably leads to untouchable, unreachable, unpopular Government.

2) Abolish or elect the House of Lords

3) force MP's to drop all outside interests as soon as they enter parliament

4) Remove the oath that stops honest republicans from entering the British
parliament.

David Cameron wants none of these, nor does his rival Gordon Brown, so
where's the difference?

Scotland can do better and we would do with independence.

If we can't reform Westminster we can remove it's influence.

Yours faithfully,

JOE MIDDLETON

and shorter version:

Neither Labour nor Tories really want reform

Sir,

Like a modern Wolfie 'Citizen' Smith David Cameron thinks all he needs to do is raise his fist and shout 'Power to the People!' and we will all believe he wants to reform parliament.

I'm sorry, but the Conservatives have been on the wrong side of any political reform for their entire history as a political party. The clue is in their name!

Labour and Conservatives have nothing to choose between them. Both have MP's who have been guilty of fiddling their expenses and both share the same right wing agenda. Both support the pointless Trident II and both believe that being the puppet of America makes Britain great.

In my opinion four basic points are required to begin genuine reform of Westminster:

1) Embracing genuine electoral reform. The first past the post system inevitably leads to untouchable, unreachable, unpopular Government.

2) Abolish or elect the House of Lords

3) force MP's to drop all outside interests as soon as they enter parliament

4) Remove the oath that stops honest republicans from entering the British parliament.

David Cameron wants none of these, nor does his rival Gordon Brown, so where's the difference?
We in Scotland can do better and we would do with independence.

If we can't reform Westminster we can remove it's influence.

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

LABOUR HYPOCRISY DESERVES DEFEAT IN GLASGOW EAST

One begins to wonder just how stupid the Labour party think the electors of Glasgow East are. Are they really expected to swallow the enormous lie that Labour are still socialists despite the fact that Labour's every move in Government has been designed to appeal to traditional Conservative voters?

The SNP's John Mason said there was little difference between Gordon Brown and Mrs Thatcher, given the idolisation of the latter by the former this is a statement of simple fact. The Labour party try and translate this into the SNP being Conservative supporters. One can't accuse them of originality since they have been attempting to stick the SNP with a Tartan Tory Tag since the 1970's.

Their other big idea is that the SNP are extremist nationalists. Why? Because the SNP believe in full self determination for the people of Scotland. Wait a minute aren't the Labour party also nationalists? Are they not absolutely desperate to maintain the British union? British nationalists are still nationalists they just think it's OK for their countrymen to be outvoted 10-1 at Westminster, probably because their parties are all completely controlled from inside the city of London.

Mason's support for independence (which is the same as every other member of the SNP) makes him supposedly a 'hard liner' ie an extremist. No, he's not a member of the IRA or the BNP but he might decide to keep campaigning for independence after an unsuccessful referendum. What a shock!

Yes, everyone no doubt imagined the SNP would just give up if a future referendum failed didn't they, after all didn't the devolutionists do just that when Labour swindled Scotland out of devolution despite a vote in favour in 1979?

The only policies the SNP have co-operated with the Conservatives on have been those previously contained in the SNP manifesto. Labour on the other hand have destroyed the principle of free education by introducing student loans and tuition fees and voting against the latter's removal. They are in the process of creating a new internment for potential islamic terrorists and have already realised plans to snoop on every person's individual correspondence and telephone conversations.

Pointless ID cards, part privatisation of the NHS in England, new nuclear power stations and most importantly wasting billions on new nuclear weapons show exactly where Labour's loyalies lie and it is not towards their former working class supporters. Their support for the discredited Council tax over a system based on ability to pay and their removal of the 10 pence tax band proved that Labour could not care less about the poor, unless of course they are in a by-election in Glasgow and then they pretend they are redder than John MacLean.

I'm sorry but it just won't wash. Labour should expect to pay the logical price for their hypocrisy on the 24th of July. If they however survive and their gaffe prone candidate becomes their new Scottish leader then don't expect the SNP to lose any sleep. The bitter illogical rubbish which has been generated by this campaign will not sustain any serious politician and will certainly provide no serious threat to Alex Salmond.

Does the David Davis by-election matter?

Davis stood down to force a by-election on the Labour Governments decision to extend pre-trial detention to 42 days. The Liberal Democrats supported his line and did not stand. Labour decided they weren't going to bother standing either. A craven decision which showed their cowardice and their lack of faith in their own position.

Has David Davis succeeded in bringing 42 days to the attention of the general public? The answer is that it's too early to say. However Davis has shown that he has guts and political principles thereby marking him out as unusual in an era of spin and stealing the opponents philosophy.

David Cameron on the other hand has resorted to kniving the poor and sick and thereby showed quite clearly that the Conservatives remain the nasty party that they have always been.

He will no doubt win in England but he won't get in in Scotland or Wales. We don't want Conservatism and Brown and Blairs New Labour/Rosey Toryism has frankly been a complete waste of time.

There is an alternative and the SNP are proving highly credible in Government.

If it's a choice between Scotland and the SNP or Britain under either Blair or Cameron we are going to choose independence. Funnily enough at that point a freed Tory party which is Scottish in its outlook may do better, but it would have to get over it's current addiction to being British.

Unionists conduct shows a cynical lack of respect

Labour's decision to hold a crucial by-election during the traditional Glasgow holiday shows that they prefer to have elections without any candidates and even without any voters if it suits their purposes. If you don't want to be disenfranchised and live in Glasgow East, get a a postal vote.

Labour's Margaret Curran strongly attacked Alex Salmond for serving in two parliaments. No doubt they had a fair point at the time (though no doubt like Ian Paisley FM Salmond finds it handy to make the occasional visit to Westminster) but it seems a tad hypocritical that they are now rushing to do the same thing after all the genuinely local candidates ran for the hills.

Labour's own internal rules didn't allow dual roles. That is until they had an emergency meeting of their NEC and changed them. Suddenly it's quite OK to spend time in both parliaments, no doubt it will be a positive advantage by the end of the campaign.

Of course the media are taking their usual impartial stance with their coverage heavily in favour of Labour and constant pictures of Ms Curran (though given her miserable coupon that might not be the best idea!). During the proposed TV debate however I think we will see the true nature of Labour and their unionism. We got a taster with their other Glasgow MSP suddenly welcoming a 7 day festival devoted to the Orange Order. Great! Unless you are a Catholic or simply not a bigot.

Of course these issues are not crucial but they tend to suggest Labour will do anything to get re-elected. Luckily it's not up to them but to Glasgow's voters.

SNP Candidate John Mason, can he 'do a Govan' and get ripped into Labour's candidate on live TV? Let's hope so.

The only fundamental question in this by election for those voters is: 'Are you happy with what Labour have done with your area and their conversion via New Labour to a pseudo Conservative party?'

If not, then you have nothing to lose by kicking them where it hurts on the 27th July.

Why not give the Scottish party a chance? Why shouldn't Scotland run our own affairs? Labour have never explained what makes us uniquely incompetent among the peoples of the world in this area.

With independence we could revitalise Scotland, we certainly couldn't do any worse than the UK Labour Government which will soon be returning to the usual shade of Tory blue.

Of course it's that nice Mr Cameron, not the nasty Mrs Thatcher.

Er no, not any more he isn't. In this by-election Cameron decided to turn extremely nasty and had a kick at the poor, and just for good measure, fat people! Saying that they deserve all they get. Don't help, just ignore them.

The Tories have always blamed the poor and praised the rich but to pop up and spit on the locals is pretty unusual behaviour for a party which are supposedly campaigning for votes!

Then again it's not any real surprise because just like Labour the Tories only care about that bit of Britain where the most votes are, and it's not Scotland. That's why in a parliament in London where we are outvoted 10 to 1 the only sensible thing to do is to leave it but before then we need MP's who put Scotland's interests first.