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.

The real (English) motives of Tony Blair

This is a commentary on the following two articles in the Scotsman: Euan McColm: SNP ignore the lessons of Blair’s Third Way at their peril http://www.scotsman.com/scotland-on-sunday/opinion/comment/euan-mccolm-snp-ignore-the-lessons-of-blair-s-third-way-at-their-peril-1-2828746 Tony Blair: ‘SNP just like Ukip in blaming others’ http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/tony-blair-snp-just-like-ukip-in-blaming-others-1-2822778

It should be remembered that Tony Blair was reluctant to provide any devolution for Scotland but felt it was inevitable. The scheme he did offer had Broadcasting powers removed and he also moved to block a Scottish 6 O'Clock News!

The fact is that Labour only provided devolution 20 years after a clear vote in favour (not implemented due to their own wrecking 40% clause) and they only did that after repeating the referendum process.

Labour would have had no credibility whatsoever if they had completely ignored demands for devolution so Blair was forced into it.

At the time he also bluntly reminded us of where he perceived the power would continue to be: "Sovereignty rests with me as an English MP and that's the way it will stay." Scotsman 1997

Given all the above his attempts to stop Scots taking the next logical step to self-rule is entirely predictable and his claim that SNP are like UKIP is risible.

I think the SNP's change in policy on NATO was questionable, however it is now pretty clear there will not be any nuclear weapons in an independent Scotland. I also think that claiming the UK or British identity will continue post independence is self defeating. Yes, England probably will pretend to be Britain after we leave but that does not mean it reflects reality.

Blair's influence on politics in general was a negative one. Yes he was in power, but what did he do with it? In most areas he continued or worsened Conservative policy. He wishes to maintain the Status Quo because he believes it benefits England and he misrepresents the SNP's motivations so as to more easily attack them.

Independence is about representing ourselves as Scots on the world stage. Do we need to do this? Does the union not actually represent ourselves as well? The answer to that is a resounding No. In fact our voice is smothered under the British label. Britain comes from Brittania and as Jack Straw admitted England created the union to expand their power internationally.

"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.

Our 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."

Scottish and Welsh independence would reduce England's international muscle and the loss of Oil would mean a drastic cut in her finances. That is why all English/British nationalists want the union to continue. Mrs Thatcher was also an English nationalist by the way as she admitted herself: "I'm an English nationalist and never you forget it," said Mrs Thatcher to James Naughtie in 1986.

Labour don't put Scotland first

Letter to the Editor

The Scotsman

24/09/2011

Dear Sir,

Your interview with former Secretary of State for Scotland Jim Murphy which

was printed today (http://tinyurl.com/3vey85t) was illuminating on a number of points.

Firstly his comment: "We need to be where most Scots are - Scottish first,

British second." is unlikely to be popular amongst his fellow unionists but

it has the whiff of realism about it.

Unfortunately for Labour they do not have a history of putting Scotland

first and in any contest of patriotism with the SNP they are likely to fall

far short.

Mr Murphy regrets his own lack of input to the last Scottish elections and

according to the article writer appears to suggest that MSPs will never be

left alone again to run their own campaign. This suggestion rather

undermines the supposed plan for operational independence from London which

has been reported recently in the Scotsman.

As far as his own ambitions go it is clear that the future of Labour in

Scotland is not Mr Murphy's main priority. He prefers to pretend to be a

Defence Minister in London. Being Scotland's party leader might be of some

interest in the future, but only after twenty years!

So long as Labour sees Westminster as the most important parliament and

their top politicians are openly declaring that their own personal

priorities lie outside Scotland it is no wonder that the Scottish people

will prefer a SNP that places Scotland first.

Yours faithfully,

Joe Middleton

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.

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.

Superb poster from SNP

Classic!

Disgusting Labour attacks on poor and sick highlight wasted years in power

Letter to the Editor

12/04/2010

Dear Sir/Madam,

Labour have decided to cut unemployment benefit by restricting all claimants to a maximum claim of two years according to reports at the weekend.

In actual fact vast numbers of the unemployed are denied benefit already. Everyone who has paid their full share of NI gets the princely sum of £64.30 a week, but only for six months. After that point, if they have a partner who works, whether or not they have a low income, this benefit is removed.

Those who do get income based JSA are means tested and have no other income.

It is a fact that the unemployed do want to work and that no-one actually enjoys the pathetic income which the benefits system provides. Labour appear to have forgotten that we are in the midst of a major recession at least partially caused by their own failure to regulate the financial system. The actual amount of jobs available is extremely low and it would be in practice impossible to provide every claimant with an immediate job. What Labour are actually doing is deliberately stigmatising the people at the sharp end of the depression.

This disgusting proposal sums up Labour's utter failure in office. The people's party has actually worsened the gap between rich and poor something which should have been utterly inconceivable after the efforts of Mrs Thatcher.

If threatening the unemployed and disabled (who have also been targeted shamefully by Labour) is all that this pointless party can come up with then they deserve to lose the next election. Sadly their 'official opposition' is no better.

It is long past time for Scotland to decide our own benefits system and treat ordinary working people with the basic respect they deserve.

Yours faithfully,

Joe Middleton

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

COMPASS - THE LAST LABOUR GOVERNMENT

Compass think-tank warns that a Cameron victory could mean political oblivion for Labour

Tory plans for fewer MPs, reforms cutting Labour's link to the unions and Scottish independence would be 'final blow' to the party

by Toby Helm [Whitehall editor The Observer, Sunday 27 September 2009]

Gordon Brown could be leading the last-ever Labour government unless he offers people a chance to change the voting system at the next general election, a prominent leftwing pressure group warns today.

In a doom-laden assessment of the party's prospects ahead of this week's Labour conference in Brighton, the influential thinktank Compass predicts that a Conservative victory would be just the first disaster David Cameron's party would inflict on Labour.

Armed with new polling evidence, it argues in a report to be released at conference that the party would face a triple assault under the Tories that could slash its number of seats at Westminster from 349 at present to a rump of around 130 in opposition.

The collapse of its Westminster representation, Compass argues, is likely because of a greater chance of Scottish independence if the Tories, who are less popular north of the border, came to power.

At a stroke, Scottish independence would strip Labour of its 41 Scottish seats in Westminster. It also predicts the loss of up to 45 more Labour seats as a result of Cameron's plan to cut the overall number of MPs by 10%.

The final blow to its viability as a governing party of the future would come as a result of likely Tory reforms to party funding, which Compass believes would break the historic link between Labour and the trade unions and further destabilise an organisation which is heavily in debt and has a sharply declining membership base.

The report, entitled "The Last Labour Government", says: "These three factors could then combine to ensure that an already intellectually and organisationally weak party fails to ever recover."

Polling conducted for Compass by YouGov to accompany the report shows that, if the Conservatives win power, 34% of the Scottish electorate will be more like to vote Yes in the referendum on independence promised by the SNP by the end of 2010.

The polling shows that 31% of Scots would currently back independence and 53% oppose it. But the extra 34% who say they might be swayed to support a split if the Tories came to power could tilt the balance in favour. "This could be enough to see a Yes vote through," Compass argues.

It predicts that Tory plans to cut the number of Westminster seats by 65 will hit Labour hardest of all the main parties because the biggest reduction will be in areas which have seen population flight, including Labour strongholds in Wales and the industrial heartlands.

Compass argues that the only hope of avoiding catastrophe would be a referendum on voting reform, which could be a "game changer". "It is now the only way for the party not just to avoid crushing defeat but the strong chance that it will never govern again."

It says the offer of a fairer voting system would draw people to Labour and allow it to paint the Tories – who are strongly opposed to ditching "first past the post" – as opposed to reform of a political system severely discredited by the scandal over MPs' expenses: "A referendum moves the party from zero chance of the Tories not losing next May to striking distance of a hung parliament and Labour being the biggest single party. The decision could decide not just Labour's future for one or two parliaments, not even for a generation, but for ever."

Brown is known to be considering offering a referendum on voting reform, possibly in the party's election manifesto. While some senior cabinet ministers, including home secretary Alan Johnson, are pressing the case strongly, others such as Ed Balls, the schools secretary, have serious reservations.

In particular, Balls and chief whip Nick Brown oppose the idea of holding a vote on the same day as the general election, arguing that it will look like gerrymandering, confuse voters and distract from the government's central election message on the economy. Ratcheting up the pressure on Brown, Compass says that Labour desperately needs a "game changer; a policy that wakes up the electorate".

A recent survey by YouGov for the Electoral Reform Society showed that around 30% of Liberal Democrats and 30% of Labour-inclined voters would be more likely to plump for Labour if a referendum on electoral reform was promised.

"Now everyone who wants the party to win, or at least to keep out the Tories, must be able to see the prize of backing a referendum and the dangers of refusing to do so: potential political oblivion," says Compass chairman Neal Lawson.

On party funding, the report says: "The party is already heavily reliant on the unions and could be more so if in opposition. But the Tories, with a healthy majority and a fresh mandate, could easily introduce new funding rules to cut off union funds while allowing business and personal funding to flow and they will be much harder to regulate. The evidence is there that this is exactly what they will do.

"The Conservative argument has been that a donation cap of £50,000 is necessary to restrict influence of companies, individuals and trade unions. Under current legislation, trade union affiliation payments – the collective membership payment of ordinary members – are counted as donations to the party. For the purposes of a donation cap, each trade union would be treated as a single individual within the cap.

"This could end the ability of trade unions to affiliate to the party, ending the relationship that has sustained social progress throughout the last century. Labour without a secure funding basis would find it almost impossible to renew itself."

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

Published on the first day of Labour conference 2009, this report argues that the current Labour Government could well be the very last and argues only a referendum on the electoral system can save Labour now.

Download it here.

I added the following comment:

All I can say is good! Labour have wasted their years in power and an independent Scotland will be able to escape from the stifling right wing consensus which exists in Britain. With Britain gone Wales would emerge as an independent country and Cornwall would move in that direction with perhaps devolution initially. NI is unlikely to want to be part of England though one never knows but the chances of re-unification with Eire would be more likely.

Without Britain's imperial pretensions and Scotland's Oil an independent England would likely drop Trident (the Scottish people don't want nuclear submarines and an SNP Government would ask for them to be removed.)

England would initially get the right wing Government which they will get anyway under Britain and have suffered to an extent under Labour anyway, but the pendulum might shift back again and this time there might be an actual socialist party in existence ready to make reforms. There isn't one at the moment as Labour are a busted flush who rely on the House of Lords for their ministers and whose MP's are almost as corrupt as the Tories.

Yes to electoral reform but no Labour won't go for it and in any case Scotland has a much brighter future without the obstacle of Britain.

Scotland isn't at the next climate change conference 'because that is the way it has always been done', things need to change. Joe Middleton, Edinburgh.

Mandy's daft remarks are no dafter than his position!

Peter Mandelson's description of himself as 'a Kindly Pussycat' (various reports today) is certainly absurd and ridiculous, however it is no more absurd or ridiculous than a supposed 'Labour' Government using the honour system to advance people above their own elected MP's!

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

MEBYON KERNOW OUTPOLL LABOUR IN CORNWALL

Mebyon Kernow polls 7% in Cornwall and pushes the Labour Party into sixth place

Mebyon Kernow – the Party for Cornwall has achieved its best-ever ‘national’ election result in the elections to the European Parliament. MK polled 11,534 votes (7% of the total) in the Cornwall part of the South West Euro-constituency, pushing the Labour Party into sixth place in the Duchy.

In many places in Mid and West Cornwall, MK was polling over 10%. When votes from the Isles of Scilly, Gibraltar and throughout the massive South West seat (including Bristol, Devon, Dorset, Gloucestershire, Somerset and Wiltshire) were added in, the MK total finished at 14,922.
Party Leader Cllr Dick Cole, who has just been elected onto Cornwall Council, described the result as a fantastic one for MK. He said: “Achieving 7% of the vote in Cornwall and out-polling the Labour Party is a truly fantastic result for Mebyon Kernow and we would like to thank the thousands of people who voted for the Party for Cornwall.

“MK fully accepts that the odds were heavily stacked against us in this contest. But we are a party of principle and we stood in this election because we wanted to give local people the opportunity to vote for Cornwall.

“We are even more pleased with the result given that we were denied fair access to television broadcasts and there was a general lack of election coverage in the local press in Cornwall.”
In order to be allowed party election broadcasts, MK would have had to stand candidates in nine regions. Due to this unfair arrangement, MK were denied media coverage, though many minor parties including the BNP, Christian Party, the Jury Team, Libertas, No2EU and Socialist Labour were allowed coverage.

The Green Party and UKIP were both allowed two European election broadcasts, as well as one each for the local elections. MK had more local election candidates than the Greens and UKIP but were not allowed coverage because we do not stand outside of Cornwall.

At the same time, there was very little coverage of the European election in local newspapers and MK had little opportunity to feature on reports on local television.

Mebyon Kernow – the Party for Cornwall can also confirm that it will be making representations to recover the £5,000 deposit that it was forced to pay to stand in the Euro-elections.

Cllr Dick Cole added:

“Parties polling over 2.5% of the vote automatically get the deposit back. As a Cornish Party, we only campaigned in Cornwall and polled 7% of the votes cast in Cornwall, though in the massive South West seat this equates to 1% of the overall poll.

“We are a unique party and it is hardly our fault that we have to stand in a massive constituency of which Cornwall makes up only 10%.

“As we only distributed literature within Cornwall, we believe that there is a strong moral case for the money to be returned to MK to support our ongoing campaigns for a better deal for the people of Cornwall.”

The main results of the European Election in Cornwall was as follows:

Conservative Party 46,589
UKIP 39,954
Liberal Democrats 29,436
Green Party 13,361
Mebyon Kernow 11,534
Labour Party 8,483

GERRY HASSAN SIMPLY DOES NOT UNDERSTAND SNP

I think what is coming across from this article [review of Break up of Britain book here] is that Mr Hassan does not understand the SNP and his past allegiance to Labour has left him with an irrational hatred and fear of all nationalism.

I also don’t recognise the description provided of the book ‘Eclipse of Scottish Culture’. This in fact argued that Nairn was to an extent viewing Scotland unfairly through a British/Marxist prism of understanding while still agreeing with his ultimate conclusions that the British state deserved to break up!

The SNP are a principled left of centre party. In UK terms they and Plaid Cymru are considerably to the left of Labour as indeed are Sinn Fein.

Isobel Lindsay (who has been a member of both Labour and SNP) in the current issue of Scottish left review analyses the SNP programme in office and comes to this overall conclusion.

The few right wing twitches which she does identify are very few and far between. The position on the 48 hour week (not advocating the cut off in working hours) is unfortunate and is a fair example.

If this issue was discussed at a party conference however I have little doubt it would be adjusted the other way and I suggest that insufficient internal debate have allowed the SNP's MEP's to take such a stance.

Finishing off an uncompleted motorway is not a betrayal of leftist values however but a logical end to a half done job! The reduction in rates for business is an attempt to equalise an area where Scots business had been paying a traditionally higher rate. It has been party policy for ten years to do this so it is not a change in direction.

Overall the SNP as a minority Government have did the best they can despite a unionist opposition which has worked together when required.

Labour in London denied them funds with a lower than normal block grant and Labour, Tories and Lib Dems all banded together to force through the expensive Edinburgh trams project. This has left the SNP vulnerable to attacks that they have not fulfilled their entire manifesto by those same parties who deliberately denied them the funds to do so!

Nonetheless they did remove Tuition fees and have taken what progressive measures they can within a restricted budget.

I am looking forward to reading the full book but certainly the chapters I have read have been a valid and indeed important contribution to the ongoing debate. Kev's concentration on the culture of nationalism is I think a lot more important and relevant than any person within the current British establishment would like to admit.

It is a cultural fight and onslaught we face with a constant stream of British flag waving entertainment (much of it trivial but the underlying jingoism is there) and a deliberate campaign to ignore Gaelic and our other national language, Scots.

Those who have championed the Scots language like Kelman and Welsh have therefore engaged Britain at a level where it is most vulnerable and the cultural connection is extremely important to understanding the state we are in today. It is also crucial to providing the confidence to vote us out of it.

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

By-election in Glasgow imminent as Speaker Martin resigns

So Michael Martin has caved into pressure and decided to resign. Martin's position became untenable when a number of MP's proposed a motion of no-confidence. Martin himself has not been blameless in terms of his own expenses and his wish to pass his Glasgow North East seat onto his son Paul suggests he thought he could treat the voters as an afterthought.

No doubt Brown will be pleased to see a sacrificial goat served up on the basis that this might take the heat off him, however things won't work out that way if the SNP thrash him in the now upcoming by-election.

As the speaker is seen as being a non-political figure none of the unionist parties stand against him. Their party machines (outside Labour) will therefore be rather dormant in the area and Labour's activists in Glasgow are unlikely to be that motivated to save face when the original plan for the seat was to have a royal type change over from father to son.

This behaviour shows why 'the people's party' is now the rich people's puppet party and the fact that speaker Martin tried desperately to cover up the expenses scandal rather than try and reform the House of Commons shows the measure of the man.

Still I'm sure like every other failed and disgraced cabinet minister the Speaker will find himself with an automatic ticket into the House of Lords. Whether his son will join dear daddy on the greasy pole of success now looks a lot less likely however though Labour perhaps have enough of a brass neck to stick him forward.

Whoever stands for Labour will represent a Government which has lost its moral compass and is drowning under a sea of contempt. In these circumstances the SNP have an excellent chance for another breakthrough by-election win.

Labour hold Glenrothes despite large increase in SNP vote

Peter Grant - sadly the competent candidate lost!

Well after the extraordinary result in Glasgow East earlier this year everyone in the national movement had hoped the SNP might have a repeat performance. Unfortunately it wasn't to be and despite a superior candidate and an excellent campaign by the SNP Labour have held the Glenrothes Westminster seat in today's by-election.

The SNP vote rose by 13% while Tories and Lib Dems lost their deposits. Unfortunately it wasn't enough to defeat Labour who fought a dishonest campaign about supposed cuts in council services (the SNP candidate was the Council leader).

Still, our day will come. Independence is normality and we will get there.

[The on screen fawning bias towards Labour was shocking by the way but we have come to expect such treatment from the BBC. Kenny MacAskill fought the SNP's corner well but he was outnumbered on the night.]

KNIVE BROWN QUICK PETER AND DO US ALL A FAVOUR!

LABOUR became complacent about its power north of the border and should not have created a 'two jobs' Scottish Secretary, according to the new holder of the post. Jim Murphy, who was appointed to the Cabinet job on Friday, said Gordon Brown made a mistake when he hitched the job onto another Cabinet position...

http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/uk/Brown39s-39mistake39-over-Scottish-role.4559852.jp#3304121

Technically the Scottish Secretary post is supposed to be about representing Scotland's views in the cabinet. In fact it is actually a sort of colonial governor general type post where the UK Government tells the Scottish parliament it has it all wrong. Previously the Tory incumbents used to give the exact same message to the entire population and we know how that went down eventually.

Murphy clearly has a closed mind already. Was it ever open? Probably not. The SNP should avoid any meetings with this puppet of the desperate Brown. There is no need for a Scottish secretary post devolution. It's an utter irrelevance and could and should have been abolished some time ago.

Ex minister David Cairns always came across as a rather pompous squeaky puppy on newsnight while Des Browne (though a fairly normal human being in person) was effectively invisible in Scotland. He's now been dumped (one less Jock in the cabinet) and the desperate Murphy has been promoted well beyond his competence. I expect he will recycle all Gordon's garbage until he loses his seat at the UK elections. He certainly won't have any relevance to either the SNP or the Scottish people.

The return of Mandelson (soon to be followed by his fellow failure Blunkett, yes really!) shows that Brown is utterly desperate. Mandy will choose his moment to knive Gordon again and usher in a new English Tony, but one cannot say that this time Gordon won't deserve it.

He's had his chance and has used it to undermine his own country, basically made a complete fool of himself and wasted the last opportunity to turn Labour into a credible alternative to Toryism. I say a permanent good riddence to Brown and all his ilk. Knive him quick Peter and do us all a favour.

Brown forgets Scotland and HBOS in conference speech

Given that this guy is an ultra unionist this is a damning indictment of Gordon Brown's relevance to Scotland:

Brown has forgotten his Scottish roots

by Angus Macleod, Scottish Political Editor (Times)

Anyone in Glenrothes watching Gordon Brown's big speech yesterday might have been excused for wondering what it had to do with them. Granted there were touches of the well-worn pulpit-thumping Brown style familiar to all Scots, but equally there were large swaths of the speech, on crime and health policy for example, which, because of devolution, had absolutely no relevance to the good citizens of the Fife town or anywhere else north of the Border.

Free universal check-ups for the over-40s? Extension of nursery places? No prescription charges for cancer patients? A commissioner for victims of crime? More children connected to the internet? All England and Wales only, I'm afraid.

It was a speech that underlined just how wide the domestic policy divide between Scotland and England is nowadays, especially when the party in charge in Edinburgh is different from the government in London.

Whereas Scots already have cheaper prescriptions for all, England gets free prescriptions for cancer patients in a year's time. While Scotland already has free personal care of the elderly, England, the Prime Minister pledged, is to get more financial protection for the vulnerable elderly.

The only policy initiatives mentioned by Brown yesterday that could truly be said to be UK-wide was his promised future restoration of the link between state pensions and earnings and his never-ending fight against child poverty.

On flexible opening of GPs' surgeries and new targets for curbing carbon emissions, Brown is actually catching up with the SNP administration at Holyrood.

Indeed, this very Scottish Prime Minister, apart from one glancing reference, hardly mentioned Scotland at all. He also completely ignored Alex Salmond and the SNP as if they didn't exist. Unfortunately for him, they do - and right now only the most optimistic Labour fan of Brown would bet against the Nationalists inflicting another crushing and possibly politically terminal by-election defeat on both him and Labour in a Scottish by-election in a few weeks' time.

Having said that, there were many in Labour in Scotland who will feel uplifted by Brown's rhetoric and his sermon on “fairness”. It could hardly be otherwise, perhaps. Morale in Labour north of the Border is on the floor. But the “new settlement for new times” theme of the speech will be a difficult message to sell in Glenrothes after 11 years of a Labour Government dominated by Brown and Blair, when the big issues remain food and fuel bills.

These Labour troops in Scotland will have been thrilled as much as activists in England by Brown's assault on David Cameron and the Tories. The trouble is that north of the Border, Cameron's Tories are little more than also-rans.

Nor was there any specific mention of the travails of HBOS, a strange miss given that Brown, by at last ditching his dithering last week and taking decisive action to override competition rules, could make a fair case for having saved the day for the bank. Maybe he's keeping that for a rainy day in Glenrothes. Of course, that's if he decides to go there and campaign, as an increasing number in his party in Scotland believe he must.

A failure to do so would be seen not only by his own party but also by the wider Scottish public as a complete failure of leadership from a Prime Minister who only yesterday told us that he was the right person to lead Britain through the present economic jungle. It would be a Godsend for the Nationalists who could start contemplating the size of their majority. Prime ministerial convention that the office-holder does not get his hands dirty in a by-election campaign is one thing. Prime ministerial survival is quite another. Absence will not make the hearts of Glenrothes voters grow fonder of Brown.

SHAREHOLDERS CAN STILL SAVE OUR BANK

Listening to the podcast of the exchanges in the Scottish Parliament on Thursday (18/09) it was obvious that there was wide spread shock and dismay across all parties at the possible final elimination of Bank of Scotland as an independent bank.

This process began of course with the merger with Halifax to create HBOS but the Bank had survived that and despite dubious financial speculation by some it remained a powerful player.

Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling have been at pains to deny any efforts to save Scottish jobs, not that this was ever in doubt. Personally I believe that Mr Brown welcomes the demise of Bank of Scotland, in fact he believes he deserves substantial credit for engineering the takeover! This shows a certain mindset where the Union Jack is all important and Scottish interests are subsumed to the 'greater good' of the British economy.

The rules have been changed to stop 'short selling' but it is too little to late and one wonders why it was not felt necessary to do so before this potential disaster for the Scottish economy had happened.

The Bank of England are also seemingly happy with the deal but any shareholder or employee of the Company must be deeply disappointed, not to mention HBOS's millions of depositors!

Mr Brown has inadvertently illustrated the urgent need for Scottish independence. An independent Government might not have saved this national bank but they would certainly have tried to do so, rather than cheering this disastrous deal.

Luckily the Bank can still save itself. If only 25% of their shareholders hold their nerve and reject this insulting offer then HBOS will survive as a separate entity.

If they do then the long term prognosis is good despite the panic and hypocrisy of the Bank of England and the British Government who appear to believe this well funded well capitalised bank was on the brink of collapse even though their own Financial Services Authority completely disagreed!