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.

Why we need an independent Scotland

Why we need an independent Scotland
by Joe Middleton
 
There was much manufactured mirth in the press about Alex Salmond’s speech to the SNP Conference [2009] and particularly this passage:

"One of the things he [Mahatma Gandhi's grandson, Arun] told me is that his grandfather's philosophy is much misunderstood. His resistance was not passive, but active. His dedication to non-violence a strength, not a weakness. Sometimes, someone has to break the cycle of retribution with an act of compassion - that is what Kenny MacAskill did and we should be proud of him for doing it."

‘Wha’s like us, - Ghandi!’ exclaimed Tom Gordon in the Herald.

Others like Murdoch’s News of the World also lined up to claim that everyone was laughing about the SNP daring to compare one of its members to the great Ghandi. Yet there is a very real comparison which can be made with India and Scotland and India’s progress towards independence and Scotland’s.

One of Ghandi’s most famous quotes on independence is: “First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”

Well Scotland has been ignored and laughed at for years and the forces of the union are fighting to keep Scotland within it. They are not fighting through force of arms or beating us in the streets but they do use a biased media to belittle every achievement of the SNP Government.

Labour and the Conservatives would like people to believe that nationalism is a narrow backward force. That it is based on racism and hatred and xenophobia.

There is a type of nationalism which is all these things, British nationalism. Based on a dream of Empire British nationalism is based upon the idea that Britain is superior to other nations. Britain has a right to nuclear weapons but other nations do not.

The unionists like to hold their hands up in horror at the BNP but really the BNP is at the extreme end of a nationalism which they themselves subscribe to. We can also add into this group of comrades the ridiculous UK independence party (the UK is already independent!) and the Orange Lodge both of whom are firmly opposed to the idea of Scottish independence.

Ghandi’s nationalism was about the self determination of the people of India. It was about their right to rule themselves without being represented by the British crown.

Freedom type nationalism about the rights of a place and the people in it to represent themselves is a very different type of nationalism to the imperial type. Firstly it is not racist in nature, it is not based upon superiority but the idea of equality, that your country has a right to represent itself and that the people of that country have a right to be heard. 

The United Kingdom, Great Britain, none of these entities are a country at all!

England is a country, Scotland and Wales are but Britain or Brittania is really just a geographic name for that historic area that included England, Wales and Cornwall.

The ancient Britons (who ended up in Cornwall and Wales) had no connection with the state which was created in 1707. If Scotland had been the stronger partner in the union then perhaps Great Caledonia would be the world’s name for this island but it would not cancel out the modern existence of England anymore than renaming the English parliament cancelled out the existence of Scotland.

We know that there was an attempt to actually rename us as North Britain and Ireland as West Britain but those attempts failed. Scotland is still a country, it just isn’t an independent state.

Nonetheless in 2010 if the unionists agree then we will have a chance to vote ourselves into existence in international terms as a proper independent state. We will have our flag flying at the United Nations and we will have a full voice as a member state of the European Union.

We won’t have a larger voice than France or Germany or Luxembourg but we will have a equal voice with the other countries of the EU.

Ultimately the final decision on whether to stay in the EU or not will be up to the Scots after independence. Equally, after independence we will decide on the future of the monarchy.

Without independence however we can’t decide whether we want a monarchy or the EU and therefore independence must be the objective of all those who support Scotland’s rights whether they agree with each other or not on either of these points.

To my mind it would be very strange indeed if an independent Scotland decided to keep the Queen. The very existence of her position and her official title reminds us of the contempt in which we are held by Britain. Elizabeth II without an Elizabeth I of Britain reminds us that England is seen as more important than Scotland.

The Act of Settlement reminds us of a past where Scotland was divided on religious lines and it institutionalises anti-Catholic bigotry. Having a King or Queen to rule over subjects is as logical in the 21^st century as having a house of parliament where no-one is elected!

Residents of the House of Lords like Lord Forsyth, Lord Lang or the newest denizen, Baron Martin are all effectively political failures. Their views became irrelevant when they resigned their seat or got thumped in elections.

It is a disgrace that every member of the Scottish parliament is forced to take an oath of allegiance to the monarch. A much more suitable oath would be to swear to represent the people of Scotland to the best of their abilities. This is something that ever person in Scotland could subscribe to, without actively discriminating against opponents of the monarchy.

Scotland can do better. We can do better than Labour or Conservatives or the Liberal Undemocrats. The latest recruit to Labour is the Orange Lodge! Yes that army of bigots and fools who marched against independence before the last Scots elections have endorsed Scottish Labour as the best chance of saving the union.

The Orange order claims credit for the Glenrothes by-election and it intends to use its legions of bigotry to try and win Glasgow North East for Labour. The only thing more embarrassing would be Nick Griffin turning up to canvass for Labour. However Labour were even willing to grant him legitimacy by allowing Jack Straw to join him in the recent debate on the BBC’s Question Time.

When you have the likes of UKIP, BNP, Labour, Tories and Liberal Democrats all trying to deny Scotland a voice and a referendum on independence, it’s not too hard to realise who is on the right side of the argument.

If we become independent then what will happen? What policies are we likely to have in an independent Scotland? The only truthful answer to that question is that we don’t know.

However we do know that the SNP believe in the principle of free education. We do know that the SNP have said they will rid Scotland of the unusable Trident nuclear deterrent.

We do know that Labour have not only failed to close the gap between rich and poor in Britain, they have never really tried to do so!

When Labour got in they cut spending on the NHS. They doubled VAT. They removed tax breaks from pensions. They brought in a minimum wage, but at a very low level.

They refused to bring back housing benefit for students. They didn’t bring back the student grant. Instead they brought in tuition fees.

On economic policy they aped the Tories at every turn and rather than tax business they taxed the general public. Brown’s tax credits are an indication that wages are far too low.

The burden of paying a decent wage should be paid for by employers not the benefits system. Under Labour’s rules you get unemployment benefit for six months. It doesn’t matter if you were working for 10, 20 or 30 years. Six months is all you get before means testing and if your partner works more than 24 hours a week then you get nothing as an individual!

During those six months you are ineligible for Legal Aid. Yet if you want to take your employer to an industrial tribunal then that has to happen within three months!

No doubt Labour will claim they inherited this system, but why have they done nothing to change it? Why have they wasted their years in power? Why should Scotland keep supporting a party which has done nothing to help the ordinary workers and the unemployed? Why should we vote in Scotland for the Conservatives Mark II when the SNP offer a decent left alternative?

Labour have failed. They have failed to offer moral leadership. Under their watch racism has risen. They have failed to help Trade Unions. They kept every Thatcherite anti-Trade union law.

When Cameron gets in he will find a situation where nothing substantial has changed. Britain hasn’t moved to the left but Cameron will move it to the right.

Scotland can do better and Scotland should do better. We gave Labour a chance to change things for the better. They failed to do so and now we need to take matters into our own hands.

To escape Conservatism, we now urgently need independence. In the future the policies of Scotland will be decided by Scots for Scotland.

No longer will we be ruled as if our opinions don’t matter and don’t count. We don’t know what the political future of Scotland would be but we do know that the anti-Scottish Conservatives are irrelevant to Scotland.

Annabel Goldie let the truth out when she said that the SNP was completely irrelevant to a British general election. If Scotland’s biggest party is irrelevant then want does that make Scotland?

The fact is that Scotland is irrelevant in numeric terms to every British general election. With less than 10% of the combined population of the UK and less than 10% of the MPs our opinions don’t count and our votes don’t matter.

It is a convenient fiction to pretend we are in an equal union. It wasn’t equal 300 years ago and it’s not equal now. Would Britain see a union with Russia, China or even the USA as equal? Why not?

To be treated equally in Europe and the United Nations we need the normal powers of an independent state.

I remember that Morgan Tsvangirai was furious when Robert Mugabe offered him a share of power where defence and foreign affairs were kept by Mr Mugabve. “Only an idiot would accept that” he said.

Yet this is exactly the great deal that the unionists offer Scotland! We can pay for Trident which we don’t want while they keep our oil revenues and block us from a seat at the United Nations.

The reason the unionists don’t want a referendum is because when we were confronted with the full force of British scaremongering at the last election the public voted the SNP into power. Confronted with the same negative scaremongering tactics during a referendum campaign who really believes that the people will vote no to independence? Even with opinion polls apparently in their favour, the unionists don’t want to take any chance that the public might not believe them.

We have had one party in Scotland already who ignored the people’s voice. If Labour and the Liberal Democrats want to avoid the fate of the Scottish Conservatives, if they don’t want to be the new pariahs of Scots politics then they will need to support a referendum on independence.

If not then the SNP will continue to rise and will pass a referendum bill with a much stronger force within the Scots parliament.

We Scots are not fools and we will show it when we get a democratic choice on the future of this country. The unionists can delay a referendum but ultimately they cannot deny our right to decide our own constitutional future.

Whether it happens in 2010, or shortly after, we will have our say.

Note: This article was written a few years ago (25/10/2009)

Scots 'got' Thatcherism but we didn't vote for it!

Once Labour stood with fellow Scots and shouted "Scotland, United will never be defeated!" Not any more... #indyref twitter.com/freescotlandno…
— Joe Middleton (@freescotlandnow) April 17, 2013
 

Thatcher: What does reaction say about Scotland?
Article in Scotsman by David Torrance

Given that David Torrance actually used to work for the Tory party at Westminster is he really the best person to look at 'both sides' of this?

I recently saw him on TV deliberately kniving the SNP during a discussion on class, he has a political agenda and I think like many others he is trying to re-write history to justify the 'Good old Maggie, she was just mis-understood in Scotland' myth.

"Of course anti-Thatcher hostility is not a specifically Scottish phenomenon, ­although here it has a curiously personal edge. Thatcher closed Ravenscraig; she shut down the coalmines, as if as Prime Minister she had personally – and by implication vindictively – directed the demise of heavy industry without reference to economic winds or management desire."

That anyone could blythly dismiss the Ravenscraig/Gartcosh closure like this suggests that David Torrance has read the books but he doesn't understand the reality on a gut level. He's perhaps just a few years too young as he was born in '77. That means he's only seven years younger than me but I have a vivid memory of '87 which is when Thatcher was first wholly rejected by Scots and was an election I was actually involved in, my first political action as a Scottish nationalist and I was interested in politics for some years before.

The Scots 'got' Thatcherism (in both senses, we were given it whether we wanted it or not, and we understood it), but we didn't vote for her and if Britain had provided devolution (something the Conservative's had promised us) we would have avoided much of the destruction of our industrial base during the Thatcher years. We certainly would never have had the Poll tax!

The recent film about Mrs Thatcher the Iron Lady was actually quite a clever film but it sheared away from the controversy of her legacy and in fact it seemed to be an attempt to humanise Thatcher, using her dementia as a device to show her love for her husband Dennis. That's not a bad thing, Mrs Thatcher was a human being after all, but despite the fantastic central performance by Meryl Streep it really did not serously touch on her politics at all! I don't think there was one mention of Scotland in it but that is probably not surprising.

We Scots definitely did understand her politics and we didn't like them in much the same way as we don't support the actions of David Cameron right now. 

Let's not forget that the Tories recently used the murder of six small children to justify their benefits reforms. That puts a few hundred people in George Square holding a flash demo on the day of Mrs Thatcher's death in perspective!

Harry Reid wrote these comments about Mrs Thatcher on the Scottish review of books:

"The fact is that by the mid 1980s Thatcher had lost Scotland. This was a disaster for such an enthusiastically Unionist politician, a leader who grandly claimed that the Tory party was a “national party or nothing”. This was a quote from Disraeli, which Thatcher duly delivered to an audience of Scots Tories. In this context, national meant British. So, in Scotland anyway, the Tory party became, by her own admission, nothing.

Thatcher could never really grasp that Scotland itself was a nation, and a proud one; that was part of the problem. For her, much as she tried to respect and to understand Scotland, the country was just a component part of the UK. In losing Scotland, she grievously diminished her party’s unionist credentials, and she helped to pave the way for the fragmentation of the Union she cherished.

Thus the most successful and controversial British leader of modern times, and the most politically talented Unionist, could not maintain the unity of the UK. That is, in essence, her legacy in Scotland. It could be argued that she, more than anyone, paved the way for eventual Scottish independence."

What we can say about Mrs Thatcher is that she clarified the relative status of Scotland and England within the British union. England elects a Government, we get the results, and our opinions can be utterly ignored by Westminster.

In private Mrs Thatcher actually claimed to be an English nationalist and her action in denying Scotland devolution (a reversal in policy which caused Malcolm Rifkind to resign) and making sure North Sea Oil stayed in 'British' hands were certainly not in our interests but a case could be argued that these two actions allowed her to keep British imperial delusions alive, something which is central to English state interests.

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

PS: I recommend reading this article by Mike Small on Bella Caledonia:

http://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2013/04/11/ding-dong/

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.

BRITISH POLICY: CONTEMPT FOR SCOTLAND AND WALES

British Petroleum has been in the news a lot recently. A massive eleven billion loss will decimate pension funds for future generations. Strangely enough though a similar sum can be found for the London Olympics. Yes this mass extravaganza will be entirely wonderful for everyone (well everyone in London anyway) and please don’t question the enormous cost because we all know that it’s the London metropolis that keeps all us beggars on the outer fringes afloat. The fact that the facts don’t agree? You’ll never get that through the media.



The thing I think about most when I consider the London Olympics is Lord Sebastian Coe (see above) who when asked about what Britain should do if Scotland and Wales didn’t want to be part of Britain’s football team. His answer? F*** ‘Em! Strangely enough however despite this comment being picked up in the press Lord Coe is still fronting the London Olympics and to my mind that fact represents a two fingered salute to every other country in Britain outside England.
Of course all has changed recently. We have a wonderful new coalition Government. Yes the new Conservative Government has added a dash of Liberal Democrats and we are now supposed to accept their drastic monetarist cost cutting medicine as inevitable and indeed entirely just. After all that nice Mr Clegg would hardly get himself involved in any shenanigans would he? Oh, no! The coalition Government has a new found lovey dovey respect for Scotland and Wales which lasted oh, two whole weeks before things returned to business as usual.
The pleasant Mr Clegg decided that the best thing for us Scots and Welsh was to have our national elections at the same time as his AV referendum bill. Thus ensuring a big British campaign which can drown out all those irrelevant local issues like who is going to run our countries for the next four years. After all didn’t that work well at the last election? Scotland and Wales ignored and only the big English parties getting equal TV coverage. Just to be on the safe side the 2015 elections for Scotland and Wales will be on the same day as (you guessed it!) the next Westminster elections.
Yes the respect agenda is alive and well. We get told what to do and are given less money and are expected to get on with it. Strangely enough the new coalition bears a startling resemblance to a Conservative Government. Every big post, Foreign Secretary, Home Secretary, Defence Secretary and Prime Minister are all held by the Tories. Mr Clegg became the new John Prescott while Vince Cable is the new Lord Mandelson. If Mr Clegg says the Iraq war is illegal he can be ignored as speaking for himself yet if a Conservative minister makes an announcement then that is party policy. I think I can see how this works.
Of course Mr Clegg didn’t give up the Liberal Democrats votes for nothing. Oh no! He got that aforesaid Alternative Vote (AV) referendum which was what he had always wanted. Well no, he said during the election AV was a waste of time. Which it is, marginally better than First Past the Post but by no means proportional, unlike STV (Single Transferable Vote). Personally I would have supported AV as a small step in the right direction however given that Mr Clegg has stuck it right in the middle of Scotland and Wales election campaigns Plaid Cymru and SNP would be both amply justified in telling him exactly where to stick it.
Still the Liberals did get another wondrous prize, yes the post of Secretary of State for Scotland, the cabinet post that the LD’s said should have been abolished during the election is now the greatest thing since sliced bread. You can tell that by the fact that Danny Alexander wanted to hold on to it for oh, weeks before rushing off to bigger and better things. We now have a new puppet Michael Moore who will no doubt regularly tell us that the Tories are right and that we Scots can survive on less money.
The sepulchral figure of Jim Murphy was of course our last SoS for Scotland. Murphy had a very simple law, if you are comparing Scotland with other nations make sure you never mention anyone with oil. After all that’s utterly irrelevant. Norway? No! Finland? Yes! Still voting Labour will definitely keep the Tories out. We did, but strangely enough we got ‘em. It makes you think that perhaps there is another country ten times our size who has rather more influence on the UK than Scotland. Still I’m sure thin Jim will get his reward some day with a job in the House of Lords or as I like to call them, the House of Losers. Yes, it doesn’t matter how incompetent you were as a politician or how you made no useful contribution to public life. So long as you were in the British cabinet you get a guaranteed spot in a plush retirement home with a nice new ermine red coat.
That real working class hero John ‘two jags’ Prescott has been punted up to the Lords. John Reid the man who did so much for British rule in Ireland and was rewarded with the chairmanship of a supposedly Irish nationalist football club has had a further ‘promotion’. Joining him is Helen Liddell (another SoS) various other Labour non-entities and Jack McConnell. Yes McConnell the former First Minister was considered to have been such a decent suck up that he didn’t even have to wait to lose his seat in the Scottish parliament before receiving his ‘just desserts’. The thought of this detritus of politics joining the ranks of such illustrious political hate figures as Lord Ian Lang and Lord Michael Forsyth makes me feel that what goes around comes around. Nonetheless, where is Guy Fawkes when you really need him? He could cut public expenditure at a stroke and no-one would be the worse for it.
William Hague is the new British foreign secretary, well he was but now it appears David Cameron prefers to make the rounds of other countries on Britain’s behalf. Mr Cameron doesn’t let the facts get in the way of sucking up to America. Oh, no he’ll re-write history and insult past generations if his supple tongue requires it. What’s that sir? You want Turkey to forgive Israel? Count on me!
Foreign policy for Britain is about asking America just how high they want us to jump. Don’t think of irrelevant stuff like the human rights of the Kurds or that silly old Turkish annexation of half of Cyprus, no think only of Uncle Sam and the rights of Israel to commit acts of terrorism that will ensure world respect.
Personally I would like to see Turkey in the EU. But only after they have relinquished half of Cyprus and improved their record on human rights. Strangely enough that is what the EU wants as well but it would be mad wouldn’t it to think we have a common interest with those European types. No far better to maintain an irrational xenophobic dislike of all Johnny Foreigners. Those mad continental types don’t even speak the Queen’s English.
BP’s trouble in the USA has led to the Americans taking a sudden interest in Scottish affairs. Of course Mr Cameron did the decent thing when asked to explain BP’s dodgy dealings. Don’t look at me he said look at Scotland who let out the mad terrorist Al Megrahi! It is of course true that Kenny MacAskill showed compassion for a dying man. It is also probable that the man in question had no connection whatsoever with the Lockerbie bomb. The US demanded to hear from the lowly Scots in person and were amazed to find that our Government had learnt a word which no British diplomat had ever used in recent recorded history: ‘No’.
There was indeed a ‘deal in the desert’ BP did in fact lobby a foreign Government. However it was the last Labour British Government, not the Scottish one. Mr MacAskill decide to grant compassionate release to a dying man. This has put those lovely types from the tabloids and the unionist politicians together in a basket in which they each hold a stopwatch and guess how long he’s got to go.
The fact the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission reckoned his conviction was ‘unsafe’. Who cares? The indisputable fact he’s dying of cancer? What does that matter? What matters is he is not dying in three months like he should have done!
I joined a US website a while back because I wanted to leave a comment re an inaccurate report about Scotland. Since then I have received numerous mail shots. If they are anything to go by the art of politics has died in America in favour of pathetic idiotic semantics. America might have the power the money and the secret agents but in terms of moral authority or fresh political ideas it has nothing. An independent Scotland and Wales would be far better throwing their lot in with the rest of Europe. The fact UKIP, the BNP and most of the Tories all want us to disengage from Europe gives us an idea of the right and wrongs of the issue!

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

BRITISH PARTIES REFERENDUM REFUSAL INDICATES THEIR FEAR

Quality letter which hits the nail on the head. JOE


Referendum role (Recent letter in the Scotsman)


The dropping of legislation to hold a referendum on Scottish independence (Comment, 6 September) can surely not be a setback for SNP credibility.


Rather, it must be interpreted as terror on the part of the Unionist parties.


Otherwise, why should they show their fear by opposing the chance to allow the Scottish people the opportunity to show they preferred independence to continued London rule?


Were this not so, they would be eager to back a referendum that would allow the Scots to oppose a second Battle of Bannockburn that would win their freedom again.


ANDY MACPHERSON


Trinity Crescent
Edinburgh

Salmond sets the record straight in Glasgow Herald Letter

From The Herald, Monday June 28, a letter from Alex Salmond:

Your report on my interview with another newspaper was headlined, in quotation marks, “Independence is not key aim’” (Herald, June 26), despite the fact that no-one – least of all myself – actually said this, and the reference to independence “no longer” being the SNP’s central aim was just silly.

I was in fact making exactly the opposite point – that the centre of gravity in Scottish politics is shifting towards independence not away from it.

A generation ago it was for an Assembly, then for a Parliament, then for Calman, now for fiscal responsibility, which is currently galvanising a range of opinion across Scottish society.

At each stage in that road, the SNP campaigned in favour of more powers for Scotland as well as pursuing the independence campaign. There has never been any contradiction in doing that – nor is there now.

Indeed, one of the essential ingredients of gaining more power for Scotland is the vigour of the independence campaign. It is the engine which fires the debate.

The publication of the Government Expenditure & Revenue Scotland report – showing in 2008/09 a Scottish current budget surplus of £1.3 billion, compared to a UK current budget deficit of £48.9 billion – is a strong illustration of the argument which both increases the urgency of fiscal responsibility as an alternative to a dismal decade of Westminster spending cuts, and also shifts the centre of gravity in Scottish politics towards independence.

Alex Salmond, Edinburgh

BRITAINS 'ASYLUM' POLICY IS INHUMAN AND BARBARIC

Now asylum children face 'even worse prison than Dungavel'

Scotsman report: http://www.scotsman.com/news/Now-asylum-children-face-39even.6306713.jp#5240497

In my opinion if someone asks for political asylum they should live in the community until their application is properly processed and be allowed to work and/or claim benefits during that period.

Sticking them into prison is barbaric and misses the whole point of political asylum. Better to not offer it at all (and accept that Britain is more xenophobic and heartless than any other nation in Europe) than treat these refugees in this disgusting and humiliating fashion.

Give Scotland the powers over asylum and immigration that the UK currently holds and I'm sure we could come up with a better and fairer system than this.

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!

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

BBC are colluding with Brit parties to exclude SNP/PC

16/03/2010

Dear Sirs,

Thanks for your reply. The problem is that you are providing the UK wide parties with a political advantage over those parties which are only active in one country within the UK.

Nonetheless all the UK has an interest in the future independence of any part. Excluding arguments over independence in Scotland and Wales means an important political dimension of the UK general election has been ignored. This suits the unionists but it does not suit the peoples of Scotland and Wales whose potential political choice is being ignored.

Yes there will be 'regional debates' but Scotland is a country not a region and in these debates the local branches of the UK parties will be there as well. That means they get two bites at appealing to the electors while SNP get just one. Is that fair?

Post devolution much of the proposed debate will be irrelevant to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

You should therefore have had seperate debates for England with the three main English/UK parties and seperate debates including Plaid Cymru (to be shown in Wales) SNP (to be shown in Scotland) and the NI parties (for Northern Ireland).

The SNP is fighting every seat in Scotland and could potentially have 30 or more MP's. In a hung parliament (as is likely given the fact all the UK parties are politically indistinguishable) the SNP could hold the balance of power. The SNP are relevant therefore to the whole of the UK.

By treating the SNP as functionally irrelevant within the UK system you have proven that the UK is too inflexible to represent the views of Wales and Scotland. While this is no bad lesson to learn the BBC should still be ashamed of allowing the UK parties to easily portray their nationalist opponents as irrelevant.

I received a letter from Nick Clegg today, I quote: "And when it comes to Westminster elections, the SNP are irrelevant - too small to change anything."

Isn't that what your 'explanation' implies as well?

Clearly you take the British part of your name very seriously but you see your requirements for ensuring equal share of TV coverage as much less important. I am not impressed and I will personally argue for the removal of the license fee in future.

You have failed Scotland and ignored our politics, shame on you!

Joe Middleton


----- Original Message -----
From:
To:
Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2010 11:53 AM
Subject: BBC Complaints [T2010031602N3S060]


> Thanks for your e-mail.
>
> We note that you're unhappy that the Scottish Nationalist Party has not been invited to take part in the planned Prime Ministerial Debates.
>
> Televised debates between those party leaders who aspire to be Prime Minister of the UK have never taken place before, despite some evidence that the electorate would welcome such a development. The BBC - along with ITV and Sky - put forward proposals aimed at establishing in principle that such debates would take place during the coming General Election campaign for the Westminster Parliament.
>
> It was announced on December 21st that the three largest parties at Westminster had agreed, in principle, to the broadcasters' proposal.
>
> The broadcasters also made it clear that each - individually - would put forward additional proposals to ensure due impartiality across the UK. The BBC will hold election debates between the largest parties in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
>
> The details of the BBC's UK-wide debate have now been agreed in full. You can read more in the following blog by the BBC's Chief Adviser, Politics, Ric Bailey:
>
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2010/03/prime_ministerial_debates.html
>
> Further information on the Prime Ministerial debates and the leaders debates in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are also available on the BBC Press Office website:
>
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2010/03_march/02/debates.shtml
>
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2010/03_march/02/debates2.shtml
>
> For all other parties, the BBC will also bring forward proposals to ensure that there are opportunities for their views to be given appropriate coverage in the context of the UK-wide debate.
>
> For the Westminster Parliament, that context is the aspiration to form a government and to become Prime Minister. The Scottish National Party and Plaid Cymru, each fielding candidates in only one part of the UK, do not aspire to win a majority of the seats in the House of Commons. The party leaders do not aspire to be Prime Minister of the UK.
>
> On the basis of the 2005 General Election, the number of seats held by the SNP and Plaid is a fraction of those held by the Liberal Democrats.
>
> It is entirely appropriate and consistent, therefore, for the BBC's Prime Ministerial debate to include the three largest UK-wide parties. Other parties, including the SNP and Plaid, will have the opportunity for their views to receive appropriate coverage, both in national debates in Scotland and Wales and additional coverage across the BBC in response to the UK-wide debate.
>
> However, we would like to assure you that we've registered your complaint on our audience log. This is a daily report of audience feedback that's circulated to many BBC staff, including members of the BBC Executive Board, channel controllers and other senior managers.
>
> The audience logs are seen as important documents that can help shape decisions about future programming and content.
>
> Thanks again for taking the time to contact us.
>
> Regards
>
> BBC Complaints
> ________________________________________________
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/homepage/

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

Complaint to BBC: UK TV leaders debates are unfair to Scots

BBC Complaints Department (submitted online)

05/03/2010

Dear Sir/Madam,

As a Scottish voter I am deeply concerned that the proposed 'leaders debates' will unfairly exclude the SNP from UK general election coverage.

The fact the SNP will only be in regional debates while the Conservatives, Labour and Lib Dems will be featured in both national (UK) debates AND regional debates suggests a clear unfairness.

The SNP form the Scottish Government and are in contention to win the UK General Election in Scotland. To provide their London based rivals with a debate which excludes the party is unfair and ignores Scottish interests.

While there will be so called 'regional' debates, this suggests that Scotland is a region, it's not. It is a country, unlike the UK, which is technically a union of countries. Labour (and other UK parties) will have two seperate opportunities to address the electorate in Scotland.

Scotland (and Wales and NI!) are also being treated as somehow an afterthought, that it doesn't matter if the SNP are excluded from a 'national' debate (even though the SNP obviously see Scotland as a nation) and devolved policy which will be irrelevant to Scotland (as our devolved parliament controls them) and policies/promises only affecting England will be presented as UK policy.

Similarly the SNP's policies on reserved powers (ie foreign policy and defence, amongst others) will be ignored yet these policies are directly relevant to Scotland in a UK general election, as they cut to the heart of independence ie SNP oppose Trident for example and always have done, yet only with independence can Trident be removed from Scotland. The Lib Dems will be able to present themselves as the anti Trident party even though they have only recently adopted this policy!

This whole situation is clearly unfair and I appeal to the BBC to refuse to show any debate in Scotland which entirely excludes the SNP.

Please show English orientated debates featuring London based parties only in England. Anything shown in Scotland or Wales or NI should represent all the relevant parties standing in the election in our country.

If you do not do so you will be breaching the spirit if not the law of broadcasting guidelines and will directly affect the election results in Scotland in favour of the UK parties over the SNP. This should not be your role in a healthy democracy in a multi-part state.

The SNP won both the European and Scottish elections and deserve a level playing field at the UK elections as well.

If this does not happen then by your own actions you are actually proving that the Union is not flexible enough to include Scots opinion fairly and you are also allowing the UK parties to treat Scots as if our country does not exist.

Since we pay our TV license fee in Scotland and are effectively joint shareholders in the BBC this is simply not acceptable.

Please make a representation to the BBC Trust on my behalf indicating this complaint if you are unable to address this issue directly.

Please urgently address this issue before these unfair debates happen.

Yours faithfully,

JOE MIDDLETON

Scotland: Glasgow North East By-Election

The decision of the voters in Glasgow North East will have long lasting implications for the cause of Scottish independence. Glasgow can do better than Labour's Baron Springburn and the SNP deserve their chance to represent the constituency at the UK parliament.

Scotland's party puts Scotland first and a vision of a free and independent country is a lot bettter than sticking with failed bankrupt Britain with it's divide 'n' rule policies and xenophobic attitudes fixed firmly in the past!

To the Scotsman - Inventing the News is wrong!

Nationalists 'give up' on 2010 referendum
by David Maddox

http://www.scotsman.com/latestnews/Nationalists-39give-up39-on-2010.5783424.jp

SENIOR figures within the SNP have privately accepted that their hopes of securing a referendum on independence in 2010 are dead, The Scotsman can reveal. While SNP MSPs are still pushing publicly for a vote, there is a growing acceptance in the party hierarchy that none of the Labour, Conservative or Liberal Democrat opposition parties will support a poll before the next Scottish Parliament elections in 2011.

Since this 'story' is of no advantage whatsoever to the SNP and in effect seems to be an attempt to take the pressure of the Liberal Democrats, it seems highly unlikely that any genuine spokesman of the SNP would have authorised it.

I reckon its a work of fiction by the Scotsman and the SNP should make it clear that this speculation does not represent its actual view. Why let the Lib Dems and Labour off the hook now when both are clearly split on the referendum issue? What sense does it make to attempt to declare a coalition deal before any elections? It makes no sense whatsoever.

The Scotsman should be aware that its actual job is to REPORT the news, not to try and set the news agenda by fabricating statements from the SNP that fit its own agenda.

This is a new low even for this rag.

15 Years on - What was the impact of Braveheart?

IN THE basement screening room of a New York hotel, a small group of international journalists – Scots, Russians, Japanese, Germans and Australians – is waiting for Mel Gibson to arrive. We've just watched Braveheart (a Blu-ray version will be released on 2 November, exactly 15 years after the original), witnessing Gibson's William Wallace slashing and burning his way through English subjugation and straight into the heart of Scotland's iconography.

http://news.scotsman.com/entertainment/Interview-Mel-Gibson.5762142.jp

Mel's interview is interesting. He doesn't add much to the story that we don't already know but Scottish nationalism undoubtedly owes his film a debt of gratitude of some sort.

Not because it was historically accurate (it wasn't, the battle of Stirling Bridge, is missing er... a bridge) but because it raised the profile of William Wallace Scotland's greatest historic hero who laid the way for Robert Bruce's ultimate victory at Bannockburn.

Is that still relevant? Yes, because if we had been beaten then, then the union would have been brought forward by 400 years and it wouldn't have been a union but a total annexation. We might now be sitting in a country called England.

The viewpoints at the end are disappointing, my remarks are in brackets:

Viewpoint Pat Kane: Musician and writer

Is Scottish independence worth it if its narrative is face-painted blue, bares its collective arse at all critics, dreams fondly of its own guerrilla movement and renders the English as collectively either doltish, sadist or effete?

(Yes, independence is worth it no matter what any film says and to imagine that the film in any way reflects modern Scottish nationalism is both absurd and ridiculous. It's a piece of entertainment and yes it reflects a crude sense of humour at times but so what? The political boost was raising awareness of our history and historical figures. Yes at times in our history Scots had to fight to gain independence. Without that win, there would have been no Declaration of Arbroath and possibly less civil rights around the world. For the first time Scotland said, we are in charge, not the King. Considering the times it was declared this is utterly remarkable.)

Every time the SNP does one of its dumb appropriations of Mel Gibson's neo-fascist tartan epic, even an independence supporter like me sinks lower in his chair.

Gibson has subsequently shown himself to be one of the weirder Hollywood movie-makers, seemingly in love with blood sacrifice, one way or another. Isn't it time we consigned the brutal dualisms of this movie to the dustbin of Scottish memory?

It's no surprise that European and American neo-Nazis take it as an inspiration. And as Scottish independence – if and when it comes – will be a matter of mastering the complexities of politics, law and economics, the last thing we need is the stench of Gibson's macho and xenophobic version of national liberation in our nostrils. Sorry, compatriots: Braveheart no more.

(To compare today with any historical movie is absurd, and it is just a film, after all. Let's remember that the real William Wallace was fighting for Scotland in very different times and he actually died for our nation. Mel's film might not entirely reflect the man but it does offer a moving tribute to his spirit. It deserves some respect for that.)

Viewpoint T M Devine: Sir William Fraser professor of Scottish history and palaeography, University of Edinburgh

One thing is certain, the movie has dramatically raised Scotland's international profile and place on the world map, for good or for ill. The Wallace Monument at Stirling, for decades neglected and virtually ignored, is now one of the nation's star tourist attractions. drawing visitors from across the globe. Americans may be still uncertain about where Scotland actually is, but they do know it is the land of Braveheart, which has now become as famous a part of the Scottish iconography

Then there is the extraordinary impact of Braveheartism in Europe. Scottish festivals abroad have become a veritable growth industry, booming from almost zero activity in 1990, from Moscow to Amsterdam. An event in the German city of Leipzig draws nearly 20,000 people annually. For the first time, in 2007 thousands of Russian 'Scots' paraded in full Highland dress in front of the Kremlin. The most recent count suggests that there are now at least 160 of these fantasy events scattered across Europe.

Not all this of this has come about only because of Braveheart, but who can deny that the movie has done much to renew the remarkable world-wide romantic appeal of a fictitious Scotland. Mel as the successor to Ossian and Scott?

Viewpoint Neil Davidson
Senior research fellow, University of Strathclyde

Freedom is a noble thing, but what kind freedom did Braveheart offer us? In a telling scene, Edward I throws his son's gay lover to his death. Edward is the pantomime villain – he hates Scots and gays: boo, hiss. But here's the point; the scene is played for laughs, and the audience does laugh.

As this suggests, the politics of the film are those of the right-wing, rifle-wielding backwoodsmen who think Barack Obama is a Kenyan commie and the NHS exists to kill your granny. Is this the kind of freedom we want for Scotland?

(So one scene means the whole film represents modern American politics right down to their current views on the NHS? Mr Davidson hates Scots independence, that is his political agenda.)

The film famously ends on the eve of Bannockburn, but long before then, before Wallace's death even, the Wars of Independence had become a struggle to see which gang of French-speaking, Latin-writing feudal banditti would exploit the Scottish peasantry. "Our" side won: fantastic. But freedom? As the Eagles used to sing: that's just people talking.

(It's a strange type of Scot that couldn't care less who won at Bannockburn. Yes 'our side' won, Scotland!)

Viewpoint Hannah McGill
Director, Edinburgh International Film Festival

Braveheart's position in Scottish film culture is as wobbly as Mel Gibson's on-screen accent. It has more sentimentally invested in the idea of Scottishness than any other film, but its own racial profile is notoriously all over the place: Australian star/director, American screenwriter, English leading lady and – most controversially of alI – some Irish locations.

(I think it's international flavour is actually its greatest strength. I don't think anyone else would have made it, it needed an Australian to look at Scotland's past and see the potential for a blockbuster.)

So, is it invalid as an icon of Scottish cinema? Not if you view it as what it is: one of the few big, fat, populist films to take Scotland as a subject, and as cross-bred, cobbled together, cynical and inconsistent as big fat populist films almost always are. Along with its more obviously 'authentic' contemporary, Rob Roy, Braveheart lent Scotland a presence in Hollywood as an inspiration and as a location. If Ireland got some temporary business out of Braveheart, Scotland – for better or worse – got its own permanent movie myth.

(I think this probably genuinely sums up the impact of Braveheart, certainly it helped put Scotland on the map internationally. It had obvious flaws but most big budget blockbuster films do. It also had confidence however and was unambiguous in supporting Scots independence. Something no film did before or since. I find the only people who really detest the film are British nationalists who would prefer no-one had ever heard of William Wallace and would prefer Scotland had no voice on the international stage at all. JOE)

If Salmond is 'irrelevant' then so is Scotland

British Conservative leader David Cameron's remarks again show his party's irrelevance to Scotland. If Alex Salmond and by extension the SNP are "irrelevant" to a British general election then this shows up the fact that Scotland does not count within the current setup.

The SNP are currently Scotland's most popular party. They won the last Scottish election and the last Euro elections with the largest share of the popular vote. The Tories on the other hand have one MP in Scotland and might soon have zero. The SNP however could realistically under FPTP increase their numbers to 20-30 seats.

That makes the SNP a huge player in Scotland. If David Cameron continues to push this line then what he is actually saying is that no party in Scotland counts and that whatever way we vote does not matter in a UK election.

If that is so then the only logical option for Scots is independence, because otherwise he is right and we don't count at all within the UK setup where we are outvoted 10-1.

If the BBC go ahead with a debate and show it in Scotland without the SNP's participation then they will be wide open to legal action. It may be David Cameron's opinion that the SNP don't count but in reality it is his party that is the irrelevance to all Scots.

In Scotland this election is between Labour and the SNP. Who wins will have relevance to whether we move forward to independence or have a future of right wing rule. Cameron knows he is not popular up here and he also knows he has no hope of winning any election but he has no right to decide the scottish people's vote in advance of te actual election, nor has he any right to declare that the SNP are irrelevant when they have an excellent chance of winning the elections in Scotland!

--------

David Cameron has branded the Scottish National Party leader Alex Salmond "an irrelevance" in the upcoming general election. His comments came after Mr Salmond predicted England would be "dancing to a Scottish tune" if the election delivers a hung Parliament with SNP MPs holding the balance of power.

But Mr Cameron insisted the only options for voters casting their ballot in any part of the UK was between continued Labour rule and a switch to Conservative government.

Campaign for English Parliament (CEP) is deliberately misquoting SNP

Scilla Cullen
Chairman
Campaign for an English Parliament

Dear Mr Cullen,

http://www.politics.co.uk/opinion-formers/press-releases/legal-and-constitutional/-england-to-dance-to-scotland-s-tune-says-salmond-$1335371$479240.htm

Your headline says 'England to dance to Scotland's tune' says Salmond yet you must be aware that Mr Salmond said nothing of the sort.

The relevant part of his speech is here:

"Votes for the SNP will turn all these noes into yeses from the London government. A Scottish bloc of MPs will unblock Westminster."

"We shall use voting power to make London dance to a Scottish tune."

Full transcript:
http://www.epolitix.com/latestnews/article-detail/newsarticle/salmond-scotland-has-what-it-takes/

London Government is a reference to Westminster which is the British parliament.

I look forward to an apology and a retraction on the epolitics site.

Adjusting politicians speeches to give an inaccurate account of what they said is simply not acceptable and is poor politics.

If you want to attack the Scottish National Party (I wonder why when logically the British state is the obstacle to international recognition for England!) then do so on the basis of what they actually say.

This kind of silly headline based on inaccurate remarks is no way to gain credibility for your campaign.

Yours faithfully,

JOE MIDDLETON