Express Group to back Scottish Independence!

Recent Daily Express headline highlighting a readers poll which showed massive support for Scottish independence. According to the Guardian the whole Express group of papers are about to declare their support for normal powers for Scotland.

This is welcome move by the 'Scottish' Daily Express. Though London owned and controlled the fact that the owners see a commercial benefit in making this political move suggests the independence cause is being treated more seriously by the British media.

Like the Sun we can no doubt expect a later return to unionism, however it's still better to have one paper on our side than none. My late grandmother read the Express as do many older people so hopefully this move will encourage some older voters to be less resistant to the general idea of independence. (It would be great if the Sunday Post could adjust it's line as well).

Recent polls suggest that Labour's harsh scaremongering tactics (backed up by a compliant media) have, as they were designed to do, put a short lived scare into older people (and women) over independence. Luckily the sight of a Scottish Government doing a more effective job than the British Government and standing up for our interests (Salmond delivered a great talk tonight about supporting Gaelic broadcasting) will convince a majority throughout Scotland to support independence in a future referendum.

---------

Extract of article from the Guardian (full version here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2007/dec/19/dailyexpress.pressandpublishing?gusrc=rss&feed=media )

Once one of the most widely-read papers in Scotland, the paper's sales have been suffering. It has been sold as the Scottish Daily Express for decades, long before other London titles launched dedicated Scottish editions, and commanded substantial loyalty among its readers.

The Audit Bureau of Circulations put Daily Express sales in November in Scotland at 80,454, against 127,759 for the Daily Mail. Desmond's other titles - the Daily Star, which sells 91,668 copies a day in Scotland, and the Sunday Express, selling 44,472 - are also expected to join the pro-independence push. Last weekend, the Sunday Express carried an opinion piece by Alex Salmond, setting out the case for independence.

This new editorial stance is a minor coup for First Minister Salmond. Although the Sun briefly flirted with nationalism in the early 1990s, Scottish daily papers have traditionally been neutral or firmly pro-union. At the last Scottish parliamentary election in May, the Scotsman declared itself tentatively pro-SNP but opposed independence, while only Sunday papers boldly embraced the nationalist party.

Daily Telegraph pleads 'call yourself British' - Game Over 4 unionists

I find it tremendously amusing that the Daily Telegraph are so desperate to prop up the failing concept of Britishness that they are now running a campaign for English people to call themselves British!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2007/12/10/dl1001.xml

This is because even according to their own polling most English people prefer to call themselves English rather than British.

When the only part of the UK that got any benefit from the British union can't even be bothered terming themselves by their past imperialist identity it shows that the union is well past it's sell by date and suits no-one. The Telegraph's campaign won't work any more than Brown's plans for a British national day or a new 'national' anthem.

The Scots and English have outgrown the British identity, we don't need it and we don't want it.

It's almost as funny as 'call me Dave' lecturing the Scots on Britishness (to a hand picked gathering of Tory party activists of course, he wouldn't want to hear from any real people in Scotland, the Tories ignored our views for their entire term in power!) :

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/12/10/nbrits410.xml

"an English politician in a Scottish city saying clearly today and for all time that Britain comes first"

What a shock! We really thought the Tories might have an interest in standing up for Scotland? Aye right! The puppets are still firmly attached to their strings.

Mr Cameron waxes lyrical about the enlightenment and yet during that period if any enlightened soul criticised the British union they were put in irons and sent to Botany Bay!

The enlightenment wasn't a political enlightenment, it was a time of severe political oppression and also the time when the Brits tried to remove Scottish identity altogether.

Luckily for us enough of our historic contemparies were as fond of the idea of 'North Britain' as most of us are today and the concept was (eventually) given the bum's rush.

It's a pity Tory leader David Cameron cannot realise that in Scotland people are most proud of being Scottish, and in England most people consider themselves to be English. We CAN have an equal relationship - when both our countries are independent and we are NOT locked into a union with a country ten times our size.

Get hame to yer bed 'new boy David' and leave Scottish politics to those that have a genuine interest in it!

Melanie Reid's bile against Scotland doesn't become her

10/12/2007

Letter to the Editor
The Times

Sir,

If I was Melanie Reid's doctor I would be seriously concerned. Her article about St Andrew's day 'wake me up I'm trapped in a wee nightmare' suggests she is in imminent danger of choking on her own bile.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/melanie_reid/article2988408.ece

What annoys me about unionists is that while they seem to hate Scottish nationalism they at the same time ignore all the flaws in British nationalism. Thus people like Billy Connolly can shower scorn on the SNP while being proud of his status as 'a Commander in the British Empire'. Isn't that a ridiculous imperialist ostentation? Isn't the SNP's civic form of nationalism more admirable than Gordon Brown's attempts to invent a British national day?

Melanie Reid thinks the height of Scottish culture is masquerading in a Russ Abbot style 'see you Jimmy' wig, that says nothing about Scotland but it says a lot about her contempt for her own country. Does Reid wince like a scalded cat when she sees a Saltire? Does her heart beat with horror when the Scotland football team play?

I believe that Reid is a victim of the British cringe. An inability to see the worth of her own nation because someone sold her on the idea of Britishness as a kid.

That big map with the pink bits showing Britain's imperial extent has left her jealous that anyone else might have some justifiable pride in Scotland on our national day.

Sad for her, not so sad for the rest of us.

Yours faithfully,

Joe Middleton

Just what the doctor ordered

Great article - quite frankly I'm surprised the SoS printed it as it's well above their usual standard. JOE

by DANI GARAVELLI (from Scotland on Sunday)

IMAGINE you are suffering from asthma. Your GP has recommended you take salbutamol and beclomethasone, but you can't really afford two prescription charges this week, so you toss up and opt for salbutamol. As a result, you have a severe attack and end up at A&E in the early hours of the morning - a visit that costs the NHS much more than the £6.85 you just saved.

Or perhaps you are suffering from depression that has been kept at bay by a mixture of drugs, but it's Christmas and you've presents to buy so you decide to skip your medication for a couple of weeks and find yourself unable to cope. How much does your inability to pay for your prescription cost the country in terms of arranging foster care for your children and loss of productivity? Then there is the anomaly of cancer patients who receive drugs free in hospital, but have to pay once they go home to their families.

Wherever you stand ideologically on prescription charges - and since the NHS is supposed to be free at the point of use it is easy to argue they should never have been introduced in the first place - the way the system is currently administered is a mess. Not only are they an inefficient form of taxation (they are costly to process and 90% of them are free), but the system of exemptions is arbitrary and unfair: the cut-off point for those eligible for free prescriptions on the grounds of low income is so sharp that those who are just above it often end up worse off than those who are just below it, and the list of those exempted on the grounds of chronic conditions has not been updated since the Sixties, before conditions such as HIV existed and before asthma was so widespread.

Those not exempted can benefit from a Prescription Prepayment Certificate (PPC), a three-month, six-month or 12-month pre-payment or "season" ticket which will save them money. But this adds to the bureaucracy and is not widely publicised. A recent survey by the National Association of Citizens' Advice Bureaux (Nacab) found 27% of those who could have benefited from PPCs did not even know of their existence.

Last week, the Scottish Executive tried to address these inequities by pledging to reduce the charges steadily every year until 2011 when they will be scrapped altogether. Instead of being lauded, they found themselves facing criticism, both from those who believe those who can afford to pay should continue to do so, and those who believe the party should have kept to the letter of its manifesto promise -which was to scrap prescription charges for those chronic conditions immediately.
But it seems to me the party has walked a tightrope between ideology and fiscal prudence with considerable agility. Research shows a direct link between prescription charges and the failure to manage drug regimes properly.

A survey carried out in 2001 showed around 50% of those who had received a prescription in the past year (and about two-thirds with long-term health problems) found it difficult to meet the charges, while Nacab estimates about 100,000 of its clients fail to make full use of their prescriptions. For the government of a country with a low life expectancy that supports improving access to health services to allow this situation to continue would have been unthinkable.

Yet almost two years ago, the Labour executive did precisely that, voting against the Scottish Socialist Party Bill with a fraction of the backlash the SNP is now facing. One option the new executive could have considered was to extend the number of exemptions, but instigating a sweeping review of which chronic conditions should be included would have been time-consuming and expensive, and many people felt it would be unfair to keep charging a smaller and smaller proportion of the population.

As for the SNP's decision not to axe prescription charges for those with chronic conditions sooner, it is unfortunate, but it would be particularly wasteful to launch a review expected to take until 2009 to complete when prescription charges will cease to exist in four years' time.

The party has already pledged to reduce the cost of prescriptions - to £5 next year and by a further £1 a year to 2011, and could easily help ease the burden on those who need regular medication by advertising the "season ticket" option more widely.
Those who oppose the scrapping of charges say they are necessary as a barrier to demand; that if they were abolished patients would seek prescriptions for drugs such as paracetemol that they would previously have bought over the counter. Some doctors have recommended the imposition of a token charge of say £1: small enough not to jeopardise people's access to medication, but enough to remind them that drugs are not free and should not be sought frivolously.

Early studies of the situation in Wales - where prescription charges were scrapped in April - however, suggested no perceptible change in GPs' prescribing habits and only a slight rise in the number of patients asking for prescriptions for over-the-counter medicines. There, patients are reaping the benefits of not having to worry about whether or not they can afford to take the drugs they need and administration has been reduced.

You really have to be the kind of person for whom the glass is always half empty to berate the SNP for "reneging" on a tiny part of its manifesto pledge, when what it has actually done is to commit to a socialist policy that Scottish Labour bodyswerved for a decade.

The fear of Scottish independence that unites historic enemies

A couple of superb letters from the Herald:

Scotland's parliament, after years in the doldrums, has sprung to life following the May elections. Not only has the minority SNP government been extremely active, but now the three big opposition parties are uniting in a "historic" cause to improve and develop the powers of the Scottish people. Historic enemies such as Labour and the Tories have put aside their differences to work in common cause for the Scottish people. How wonderful, so what has driven them together? I can only just remember the last time it happened, when Nazi aircraft were bombing us. So what force is driving them together now?

Well, it is obvious to me that the enemy which now confronts them, and which drives them into each other's arms, is the pressure from the Scottish people demanding more power for the Scottish Parliament, and their fear that this will result in Scottish independence. Which Labour has been trying to ignore until now.

Their urgent odd-fitting coalition is designed to stop this at all costs. As usual, they all know what they don't want but they are far from certain about what they do. They reject any common ground with the SNP government. They reject the ideas of Canon Kenyon Wright, who wants this debate to be inclusive.

Their belated recognition that Scotland must have a greater say in how its people and resources are used, is welcome. However, their attempt to divert us from getting the power we need to stop our young people from being killed in an illegal war in Iraq, or to stop nuclear weapons being based in our country, is futile.

They have entered into the debate, which they are most welcome to do, but they do not have, and cannot have, the right to control or direct it.

Andy Anderson, 22 Earlish, Nr Portree, Isle-of-Skye.

It is interesting to see the timely parallels between Kosovo's battle for independence, and the ongoing debate on our own nation's constitutional future.

For months the future of the Serbian breakaway province of Kosovo has been uncertain, and after 120 days of negotiations between Serbian and Kosovo Albanian leaders, sponsored by a troika comprising US, Russia and the EU, no conclusion has been reached.

Following this failure, Kosovo's Albanian leaders are expected to declare independence, creating Europe's newest nation, a declaration that is expected to be recognised by the UK Government.
Contrast this with the Constitutional Commission devised by the opposition parties in the Scottish Parliament and supported by their London masters, which is to review the devolution settlement and the powers of the Scottish Parliament, but will stop short of independence.

It is rather ironic that while, on the one hand, we see London Labour approve Kosovan independence, it denies the Scottish people a say on their own constitutional future through a referendum, failing even to include the option of independence in their own commission.

Alex Orr, Flat 8, 35 Bryson Road, Edinburgh.

Welsh Leader seeks SNP link

LABOUR'S Welsh First Minister Rhodri Morgan wants to work with Alex Salmond to find a common approach to working with Westminster. The two men held talks yesterday at Mr Salmond's official residence, Bute House in Charlotte Square.

Later, Mr Morgan delivered a lecture at Edinburgh University in which he argued that both Scotland and Wales were moving on to "Devolution Mark Two". Mr Morgan said: "Alex Salmond and I come from very different political traditions, but that doesn't mean we can't find things to work together on."

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

Good news! Wales and Scotland have had a very similar experience of British rule and Mr Morgan is currently in an alliance with Plaid Cymru in the Welsh assembly.

How much are the papers worth to unionists?

According to the ever more laughable Scotsman the SNP bought the last election because Brian Souter gave them a donation:





I must have fell asleep during the election campaign, because what I remember is the newspapers giving regular huge ridiculous headlines to the idea that Armageddon would happen if anyone dared vote SNP!

How much was that worth to the Labour party and their fellow unionists? How much is the extraordinary blatant bias of the Daily Record (which is now handed out for free on the streets of Edinburgh) and the Scotsman worth?

Much of the Scottish press can't get over the fact they all told people to vote against the SNP and yet the party still won the elections. In fact the SNP are now riding higher than ever in the opinion polls despite the continued efforts of the Britman which even managed to concoct a negative headline out of the fact revealed yesterday than the SNP is committed to removing prescription charges over the course of the parliament- a change which the Scotsman campaigned for!!!

Increasingly no one believes one word of the Scotsman or the Daily Record with their ridiculous bias, if a new paper was set up now which offered an alternative to these papers (ie some fair reporting of the news) it would potentially clear up.

SCOTSMAN CHOPS WENDY ALEXANDER/PETER MACMAHON LETTER

Well the Scotsman printed my letter:



No comparison to be made


Peter MacMahon attempts to compare the illegal donation to Wendy Alexander's leadership campaign with Professor David Bell's research that some council tax payers might lose pennies on their benefits if the SNP's council tax freeze goes ahead (Opinion, 4 December).


If there are no increases in council tax then common sense indicates that all tax payers will be better off than if there had been an increase.


If your council tax is currently paid by benefits agencies then you will see no difference in your income whatsoever.


If the government pays out slightly less council tax relief then this is a saving of pennies for the government not a serious hit on the incomes of low earners and it is quite frankly an insult to suggest otherwise.


JOE MIDDLETON
Wardieburn Place South
Edinburgh




http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/letters.cfm?id=1901652007



Sadly they chopped all the decent bits, full version is below:



Come on, come off it!


Sir,


I know Peter MacMahon is an ex-Labour party spin doctor but his latest attempt to spin Labour out of difficulty beggars belief 'SNP in no position to claim moral high ground' Scotsman 04/12.
MacMahon attempts to compare the illegal donation to Wendy Alexander's leadership campaign with the Scotsman's research that some council tax payers might lose pennies on their benefits if the SNP's council tax freeze goes ahead.


If there are no increases in Council Tax then common sense indicates that all tax payers will be better off than if there had been an increase. If your council tax is currently paid by benefits agencies then you will see no difference in your income whatsoever.


If the Government pays out slightly less Council Tax relief then this is a saving of pennies for the Government not a serious hit on the incomes of low earners and it is quite frankly an insult to suggest otherwise.


Mr MacMahon's new found concern about the pennies of the under classes is as unconvincing as Ms Alexander's explanations that she didn't know her donor was off shore despite writing to him at his home address!


Yours faithfully,


Joe Middleton

WENDY SCUPPERS HER OWN DEFENCE

This was reported in the Scotsman today:

"But Ms Alexander has a series of e-mails, between herself and Charlie Gordon, the Labour MSP who solicited the donation on her behalf, in which she asks Mr Gordon about the legality of the donation."

This suggests that Ms Alexander KNEW or at least SUSPECTED that the donation was dodgy before she wrote to the donor's Jersey address thanking him for the money. Up to now she has claimed that she didn't know she had done wrong, but now we know in fact she did but was willing to accept dubious assurances from Charlie Gordan MSP (who has been set up as a sacrificial lamb, watch for a by-election defeat from the SNP shortly).

Open mouth insert foot - this email trail will haunt Alexander in the future.

'KEEP CRUSHING THOSE SCOTS' SAYS BROWN

British Prime Minister Gordon Brown has rejected calls to amend the British national anthem 'God Save the Queen' which refers to 'rebellious Scots to crush' a reference to the Jacobite uprising.

The national anthem is not inclusive and should perhaps be changed, Lord Goldsmith, the former attorney general now leading a citizenship review for Gordon Brown, has suggested.
He said that there were problems with some of the later verses of the anthem, which refer to "rebellious Scots" being crushed.

Lord Goldsmith said: "Part of it is not actually that inclusive, but that's if you go on to the later verses. "Some people have suggested we might think about whether there are different words that might be put in place which would be more inclusive."

But last night, Number 10 made clear that Lord Goldsmith's plan was not backed by Gordon Brown, himself a Scot representing a Scottish constituency. A Downing Street spokesman said: "This does not reflect the Government's views. We are proud of our national anthem and the traditions it represents."

Lord Goldsmith's suggestion also brought an immediate rebuke from a Tory MP who warned that such a change could lead to the "unravelling all sorts of things". Andrew Rosindell, MP for Romford in Essex, told the Daily Telegraph: "I don't think we need to change the national anthem. It's an historic anthem."

Mr Rosindell, who two years ago complained that the national anthem was no longer played at the end of main programming each night on BBC1, also dismissed calls for the Welsh Dragon to be added to the Union flag.

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

Who cares about the Scots and Welsh, that's the 'inner meaning 'of this story. The British flag with it's St George's Cross dominating the front and with the saltire to the rear shows the relative powers within the union. Wales flag is too different so they don't even bother including it.

Dump the anthem, dump the union and dump Gordon Brown a Scot who doesn't even have the bottle to object to his fellow Scots being crushed in the British national song! You can imagine his instinctive response: Mr Brown felt it might be too embarassing (for him) to change the national anthem. "As a Scot I find it a privelege to be crushed by Britain."

Scots Wha Hae should be our national anthem after independence but up till then the people's choice 'Flower of Scotland' must prevail. 'We can still rise now and be a nation again' is a sentiment which has genuine relevance.

Britain and England can have whatever anthems they like because they have no relevance to us anyway, just don't expect us to sing 'em.

Who benefits from move to 'De-Tox' Scots Tories?

The Conservatives. It doesn't help the SNP one iota but it does suggest that the SNP are daft enough to believe David Cameron's cynical rebranding exercise.

I hope the SNP activists prove to be wiser than SNP MSP's and vote to maintain the complete bar on working with the Conservatives. The ban shows the party's rightful disdain for the Conservatives who have a long history of being both anti-Scottish and of completely ignoring Scottish views.

The Tories are the party of Thatcher. Cameron's 'Mr nice' persona doesn't fit with the grassroots of his party. The SNP should do nothing to help the Tories get back involved in the Scottish mainstream, they are irrelevant to Scotland like ALL their fellow unionists.

The SNP is a democratic party so despite the fact that this is being raised there is no guarantee that it will be passed. I think the SNP activists will be likely to decide that continuing to keep the Tories at arms length is a good idea and will vote accordingly.

Des Browne - I give very little time to Scotland job

Des Browne the Defence Secretary has admitted that he hardly gives any time to his Scottish Secretary job and claims he spends most of his time on defence matters (he is joint Defence and Scottish Secretary).

Browne has admitted he carries out his duties as Secretary of State for Scotland in his spare time as he attempts to fight claims he is a "part-time" Defence Secretary. His dual mandate at the Ministry of Defence and the Scotland Office has sparked anger from former military chiefs and opposition MPs, who say he needs to devote his entire time to defence matters.

But Mr Browne yesterday insisted the armed forces should not feel insulted by his juggling act, as he spent the same amount of time on defence as he did before he was landed with the Scotland Office portfolio in June.

His admission came after the Tory leader, David Cameron, called on Gordon Brown, the Prime Minister, to appoint a full-time defence secretary on the back of a row sparked by five former military chiefs. Although Mr Browne was in Glasgow yesterday attending a conference on regenerating the city, he made clear that defence took up most of his diary.

"I would put my record on commitment and delivery up against anyone's," he said. "The amount of time that [the job of Scottish Secretary] takes comes out of what was my private life, my family's life and my constituents' time."

Mr Browne added: "I devote as much time to being Secretary of State for Defence as I did in the time that I was not Secretary of State for Scotland. "I have been with more regularity into the operational theatres than any secretary of defence ever has been, and when I go out and talk to troops they don't raise these abstract issues about what other title you may have. They look to see what I do. And if you have some criticism about a part of the job I should have been doing and I'm not doing, I will answer it."

The Conservatives were quick to blame the dual mandate on the Prime Minister. Mr Browne was already Defence Secretary when the Prime Minister added the Scotland portfolio to his workload nearly six months ago.

In a letter to Mr Brown, Mr Cameron said: "At a time when our forces are engaged in two highly dangerous missions in Iraq and Afghanistan, the need for the Defence Secretary to be able to concentrate full-time on his role is surely a matter of plain commonsense.

"People do not understand why you have chosen to combine the job of Defence Secretary with Scottish secretary at such a crucial time."

Liam Fox, the shadow defence secretary, said Mr Browne was "having to spend time fighting the SNP and the Taleban", calling this "an insult to the men and women of our armed forces".

----

What utter contempt for Scotland. We don't need Des Browne, we don't need a Scottish Secretary or a Scottish Office, what we do need is independence, soon.

Determination's Coull is still desperately attacking IF

Had the misfortune to go on Our Scotland website and came across this thread:

http://ourscotland.myfreeforum.org/sutra51431.php#51431

...where my former colleague in Independence First (now part of 'Determination') Dave Coull is trying (and failing) to tarnish another IF member (Kevin Williamson)'s reputation.

Contrary to Mr Coull's interpretation of events, it was his own nit picking and dubious approach to debate which led to IF closing down our member's forum. If he wants to blame anyone for it he can blame me and not Kev who wasn't at the meeting who decided it (and indeed objected to the decision afterwards).

Members at the meeting which decided to close the forum felt it would be better (and politer) if any grievances were addressed at meetings face to face rather than through an online forum which tended lend itself to pedants who wouldn't let any point go and would waste everyone's time.

This has proven to be the case. Of course this was not the real reason Dave Coull and others left to form Determination, the real reason was that their pal Neal Caple was bumped as Convenor in a democratic vote and replaced with our current convener, Eric Canning.

They've bumped their gums about Canning's membership of the Communist Party of scotland (which supports independence) yet have overlooked Canning's massive experience as a former Vice Chair of the Scottish Constitutional Convention. Sadly they could not accept democracy when it didn't go their way and even had the cheek to mis-use our database to send out their propaganda.

Independence First has organised two rallies for an independence referendum, we have also organised an online petition for a referendum and have received answers from the British Government (unsatisfying answers but answers nonetheless).

The departure of Coull and his friends has left us with less activists, however at least we don't have to put up with the childish behaviour of Mr Coull and can ignore most of his outbursts.

Independence First is now working with the Independence Convention to create a new and stronger petition demanding an independence referendum. We believe that after 300 years the Scottish people need to have a direct say on the self determination of their country.

The fight goes on and anyone who wants to join Independence First should come to the Wash bar in Edinburgh tonight at 6.30pm.

3rd Time Unlucky for Alexander as she appoints spin doctor who admires SNP!

(from Sunday Herald)

SCOTTISH LABOUR'S new spin-doctor made a series of damning criticisms of his colleagues weeks before he accepted the job as the party's head of communications. Gavin Yates used his blog to describe Wendy Alexander as "abrasive", labelled shadow health minister Andy Kerr as "simply uninspiring", and blasted Jack McConnell for being a "lame duck leader" when in office.

He also said the fledgling SNP government had a "long and impressive" list of achievements, while describing first minister Alex Salmond as "a great example of a politician on top of his game".

The online blasts are the latest PR disaster for Alexander who, as Labour's newly appointed Holyrood leader, has watched two spin-doctors quit in as many months.

The first press aide, Brian Lironi, quit his post in September, days after she had been formally installed as leader.

Then her media chief, Matthew Marr, resigned in disgrace eight days ago after shouting the c-word at Salmond during an awards ceremony.

Alexander is set for further embarrassment after it emerged that Yates - the Labour group's new head of communications - attacked his future bosses weeks before accepting the new job.

His comments featured on his WordPress-hosted blog, GYmedia. A message on the blog page now states: "The authors have deleted this blog. The content is no longer available." But the Sunday Herald has uncovered a number of Yates's postings, many of which portray the Labour leadership in a negative light.

On Alexander's speech to the UK Labour conference in September, one of his internet postings states: "New Labour leader Wendy Alexander was rather less positive, using her conference speech to apologise' for losing the last election in Scotland. Rather odd: and certainly doesn't bode well for her renewal agenda.

"The news yesterday that her spinner-in-chief Lironi had resigned after a month, to be replaced by a man who ripped up his party card a few years ago, does not augur a speedy return to government either."

The same entry, which was made days after Alexander became leader, saw him aim a jibe in her direction: "As Gordon Brown considers taking the biggest political risk of his life, the Scottish government can go along unhindered by a competent opposition."

Brits 'R' now Bhoys as Reid becomes Celtic Chairman

Celtic Football Club have recently appointed John Reid MP as their club chairman. Reid is a London orientated British unionist who has shown a constant and visceral hatred of his own country's aspirations towards independence.

A former Communist, Reid embraced the New Labour project for the sake of his own career. He worked besides Tony Blair and Gordon Brown as they neutered Labour into a washed out shadow of the Conservative party and they all went along with the US in the ill thought out and ultimately illegal invasion of Iraq.

As Home Secretary he demanded that immigrants should speak English and used internment camps where asylum seeking families were kept in captivity by the British Government.

This is the man who every year got up and waffled a lot of hypocritical drivel about socialism at Labour's party conferences (while his colleagues tried to privatise the NHS and introduced student loans!). Reid has been praised for his political 'X-factor' but in fact he is a brazen demagogue who could and would say anything to retain political power. Whenever Tony Blair needed someone to defend the indefensible John Reid would be wheeled out on Newsnight. (One time the old hypocrite used the fact he was Scottish to whinge that Jeremy Paxman was being racist towards him. Paxman had called him Tony Blair's attack dog, which is exactly what he was, someone who could argue black was white with fake conviction on the orders of his boss.)

Reid has no interest in Scotland whatsoever and has consistently claimed that we are too wee, too daft and too poor to be independent. Who next? Could an Ulster Unionist be chairman of Celtic? An Orangeman? If not, why not? After all they pretty much share the same opinions as Doctor Reid about Scotland and Ireland when it comes to their rights to independence.

It is a sad fact that some people in Britain have a hatred for the Irish, a hatred which is promoted by the Orange Lodge and by other organisations like the Masons which are effectively anti-Catholic societies.

The continued prescence of the ubiquitous Irish joke, clearly designed to portray the Irish as thickos undeserving of independence (a bit like the tight Jocks) shows a society which has racist opinions at it's core.

The loud mouthed bigoted types who originally demonstrated against Irish immigration nowadays turn their hatred on Poles and other new migrants but it is all part of an imperialist mindset which talk of 'them' and 'us', us being assumed to be the Brits, the false imperial identity designed to justify an Empire which doesn't fit Scotland or Ireland well and never has.

The most obvious representatives of this imperialist misplaced hatred is the Orange Order, which is not only against Irish independence (and Catholic Schools and anything else to do with promoting Roman Catholism) it is also actively campaigning against Scottish independence. Last year the order had one of their biggest ever demonstrations in Scotland, specifically against Scottish independence. 10,000 Orangemen marched through Edinburgh to oppose our rights to rule ourselves!

For Celtic to appoint John Reid an arch enemy of both Scotland and Ireland as their club chairman beggers belief, the fans might as well burn all their Tricolours and join their old rivals Rangers in waving the Butcher's Apron because that is what this pompous jingoistic cretin has built his 'career' on waving.

Answer received from German Consulate re Potterings remarks

I put in a complaint to the German Consulate in Scotland about the comments of the EU President (and German Euro MP) Hans Pöttering who said he felt that Scotland should not consider independence and would be better of remaining in the UK, an extraordinary comment from a supposedly neutral official who is supposed to represent the whole EU. I was interested to find out exactly what the German Government thought of Mr Pottering's ill judged comments.

This was the consulate's reply:

Dear Mr Middleton,

Thank you for your e-mail of 18 November 2007 regarding a recent interview by the President of the European Parliament, Mr Hans Pöttering, MEP on regional policies in Europe. As you are undoubtedly aware, Mr Pöttering acted in his capacity as Member of the European Parliament, which is an independent institution of the European Union.

As a Consul of the Federal Republic of Germany, I am not authorized to comment on any of Mr. Pöttering´s statements. All I could say on the matter is that – at the end of the day - it is up to the Scottish people to decide whether the actual devolution settlement should be altered or not.

May suggest, that you put further questions directly to the European Parliament, which might be done via the following link
https://www.secure.europarl.europa.eu/parliament/public/citizensMail/secured/cmRequest.do?cmLanguage=en

You may also write to the European Parliament Office in Scotland ( The Tun, 4 Jackson's Entry, Holyrood Road, Edinburgh EH8 8PJ or email: ependiburgh@europarl.europa.eu ).

Yours sincerely,

Ingo Radcke

Consul General of the Federal Republic of Germany 16 Eglinton Crescent Edinburgh EH12 5DG tel.: 0131-337 2323 fax: 0131-346 1578 www.edinburgh.diplo.de

Life without Scotland? Lies about Scotland more like.

Visitors to the Guardian website may be attracted by the link described as "Guardian writers examine what the UK would be like if scotland were to go it alone."

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/scotland/story/0,,2211295,00.html

Sadly on arriving they will be subjected to a rather childish, pathetic piss take which examines no issues and instead simply waffles pure drivel. That the Guardian (usually a decent paper it has to be said) should run this contemptous garbage and pass it off as genuine analysis shows that Scotland is neither treated seriously or fairly by any of the English press.

Edinburgh Independence First Meeting - 26th November

Well our dreams of football glory may have been smashed but the fight for political independence goes on!

Independence First's next big event will be the National Petition for an Independence Referendum 'Let Scotland decide' which is being organised by the Scottish Independence Convention with the assistance of IndependenceFirst.

To this end we are organising a working conference to help make sure the petition is effective at grassroots level. All members of IndependenceFirst will receive notification by mail about this with more details shortly.

Our next local Edinburgh branch meeting is on:

Monday 26th November Starting at 6.30pm, Wash Bar, 11-13 North Bank St,Edinburgh, EH1 2LP.

** ALL WELCOME **

http://www.independence1st.org

ID Cards fight steps up a gear

The NO2ID campaign is calling in it's 11,360 £10 pledges to take the anti ID card campaign to the next level, a campaign of civil disobedience against this totally unnecessary measure.

If anyone out there would like to donate to the campaign the link is here:

http://www.no2id.net/pledge/

Scotland goes down - but the fight goes on!

We were robbed. A last minute goal from a free kick which should never have been given. Sometimes it seems to be almost inevitable, Scotland puts in a brave performance yet every time we eventually go down to a heartbreaking defeat.

Yet let's face it we did well to even get into this position. we played well and had Italy on the ropes for much of the game, We can therefore be proud of our performance and hope to do better in 2010 in South Africa.

Our strong run of results in the qualifying stages of the European championships SHOULD mean we get a better draw this time and hopefully we WILL qualify for the next world cup.

Our footballers did us proud.

Well done all.

Typical bias by the Britman against SNP over Police numbers

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1794842007

This headline would tend to suggest that the SNP are CUTTING spending on the police and removing police men from the beat. In actual fact the SNP are INCREASING spending and are planning to recruit 500 extra officers at a cost of £54M.

It is perhaps predictable that the press would try and stab the SNP in the back over this as polls show that 'Law 'N' Order' is one of the most emotive issues around. However the fact is the SNP are spending more than Labour on the police and if they can't yet deliver the 1,000 extra police they wanted to that is because Labour in London have cut back on the parliament's funds in real terms.

Colin McKerracher, Grampian Chief Constable and president of Acpos, has said the association welcomes the announcement of the 150 extra officers.

WILLIAMSON TO LAUNCH BELLA CALEDONIA

Kev Williamson has sent out the following info re the launch of the new magazine he is publishing 'Bella Caledonia':

An event coming up this Saturday, 27th of October in Edinburgh

Time: 7.30 Location: Out of the Blue Drill Hall (former TA drill hall)

30-38 Dalmeny Street (just off Leith Walk) Edinburgh Map here: http://tinyurl.com/2xf3vu

This an event to celebrate and discuss the launch of Bella Caledonia, a brand new paper for the emergent Scotland. The newspaper is pro-independence, republican, internationalist, and anti-authoritarian. The first edition has a flagship article by Andy Wightman ("Who Owns Scotland") on ownership and control of The Balmoral Estates. It will prove The Queen does not own Balmoral Estates - and explain who does - and why we have been misled on official documents and websites about this.

These facts have never been published before and are central to the argument about land reform and taking control of all Scottish lands back into the hands of Scots.

Alasdair Gray has re-designed Bella Caledonia (a character illustrated in his novel Poor Things) and provided the artwork to create the masthead for the newspaper. Radical historian James D Young is interviewed.

There will also be a libertarian left analysis of the Veneuelan revolution 1999-2006 included in the magazine.

Rejecting the centralism and authoritarianism of the old Marxist left, promoting movements rather than parties, Bella Caledonia intends to join the dots from the political processes in Scotland, to the stateless nations of Europe, to the revolutionary Bolivarian processes at work in Latin/South America, and throughout the anti-globalisation movement.

The newspaper - which is not associated or linked to any political party or organisation - will be handed out free to all Scots who want one. First edition available on the night. 5000 print run. The discussion panel will include editors Mike Small (who helped set up IndyMedia Scotland) and Kevin Williamson (founded Rebel Inc), as well as one of Scotland's foremost radical historians, James D. Young.

(Note: Lesley Riddoch - who has contributed a piece to the newspaper about women in the Outer Hebrides and the renaming back of the Western Isles to its original Celtic name of the Hebrides - but has had to pull out of the discussion.)

---

Mike Small has written a number of excellent articles for the Guardian recently and Indy Media Scotland (which is also edited by Gus Abraham of the 1820 blog) is the most effective local Scottish news website around. - JM

Archie Stirling's Uncle wasn't as clean as he pretends

Scots' generosity of spirit stretched by MacKenzie's laughable criticisms

Following Kelvin MacKenzie's outburst on Question Time (your report, 13 October), the research assistant to Christine Grahame MSP has, presumably with approval, made complaints to the Tayside and Metropolitan police forces under Section 155 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994.

This neatly sums up the complete uselessness of some of our MSPs and their assistants. Where's their confidence in the Scottish people? Are we so feeble that we have to go running to nanny every time anyone says anything unpleasant? Are we Scots - the greatest inventors in the world - so over-sensitive that we can't choose to either ignore or laugh at something so obviously puerile and untrue?

What MacKenzie - a talented ex-tabloid editor, journalist and broadcaster - apparently said, was that the Scots were not entrepreneurial and that they relied on the clever English for handouts. That, of course, is to paraphrase because MacKenzie was bent on milking the situation for just such a reaction as he has got. Now the office of one of our less thoughtful MSPs has decided, instead of ignoring and laughing at something so clearly untrue, to take action. The truth is that the Scots are one of the most entrepreneurial and talented races on Earth - or at least used to be - but may have occasionally been accused of being a bit dour in the humour department by those who were not subtle enough to understand "dry".

This reaction to Kelvin MacKenzie is truly sad. With crime rates rising, police time at a premium and most police stations unmanned where is our sense of proportion? Apart from anything else, the comments made MacKenzie look stupid and bigoted - we should leave it at that.

ARCHIE STIRLING
Craigarnhall
Bridge of Allan, Stirlingshire

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

Archie Stirling's party despite being given blanket coverage by a compliant media received an extremely low vote. This was deserved becaused it termed itself 'Scottish voice' while ignoring almost everyone in Scotland's views!

His letter tries to suggest that the SNP should be blamed for a 'nanny state' attitude because of the actions of one of their researchers, who isn't even a member of the party! "This neatly sums up the complete uselessness of some of our MSPs and their assistants."

Does it really? I don't think so, it shows that in fact our MSP's are employing people with brains who know the law of the land.

Individual political activists can take action without necessarily being asked to do so by any political party. This doesn't neatly tie in with Mr Stirling's top down 'Big Daddy knows best' type of politics however.

Stirling's 'big idea' seemed to be at the last election that he was intrinsically 'better' than all the other candidates for MSP. Presumably due to his money, his snobbery and his 'status' as the nephew of the founder of the SAS.

In fact his uncle was also involved in a coup to bring down the democratically elected Wilson Labour Government! To use this 'pedigree' was ridiculous and his right of centre unionist politics fell on deservedly deaf ears in Scotland.

More Tories? Why? The ones we have just now are bad enough.

GOOD RIDDENCE TO POMPOUS IRRELEVANT BRIT MING

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SNP ARE RIGHT TO BACK SCOTS FARMERS

The SNP did the right thing. Scottish farmers were promised compensation and then cynically denied it. If Labour had still been in power then this would have been swept under the carpet.
Instead the SNP tried to talk to the UK Government about it but when they refused to listen they made the only possible choice and backed our farmers interests and demanded that the Goverment pay the planed compensation.

The Scotsman has become used to a supine boot licking Labour Executive which meekly follows orders whether they are in Scotlands national interest or not. We now have a Scottish Government which is prepared to fight our corner, that is a fact to be welcomed by all who have ambition for our country.

BROWN BOTTLES ELECTION AND SHOWS HIS TRUE COLOURS

Mediawatch have it absolutely right.

'Wha' will fill a cowart's grave?'

'Wha sae base as be a slave?'

'Let him turn and flee!'

Sums up Gordon Brown. The man who writes voluminous books about courage and heroism saw a couple of positive opinion polls for 'call me Dave' Cameron's Tories and ran like a big fat scared rabbit!

Brown feels 'we need some time to get to know him' yet we already know him! We know his fake bluster about Britishness and his new dodgy accent are designed to cover up his Scottishness. We know his new found love for the England team and his love for Gazza's goals are either a fabrication or an act of treason against his home country, we know he was up to his neck in the 'New Labour' project and is just as responsible ultimately for the Iraq debacle as Tony Blair.

Brown bottled it when he had the chance to defeat Blair for the leadership, he sat in the sidelines moaned and griped to journos but kept schtum while Blair sold the Labour party's soul. Now he has a chance against just as light weight a contender, against a simpering boy from the home counties and he can't even face up to him.

This individual is not fit to be British Prime Minister, he's hardly fit to be a Scottish MP, he has sold out everything and he is now sitting on borrowed time, a lame duck PM, fearful to go to the electorate because he knows he'll get humped. Good riddance Brown, you've muffed your chance and you won't get another.

LET SCOTLAND DECIDE

Isn't it ironic that the first genuinely Scottish Prime Minister we have had in some time sounds more like a 'Little Englander' than any of his predecessors? Gordon Brown has adopted the language of the far right, threatening deportations and shouting for "British jobs for British Workers". He has even embraced Margaret Thatcher's legacy and is now being given warm praise by people like Norman Tebbit.

The question is what priority does Scotland have in Brown's vision of Britain? The obvious answer is not much. Ever since James VI and I moved his court to England in 1603 we have been ruled by people who may be nominally completely Scottish but whose first thought has been to their new adopted home in England's green and pleasant land.

Who speaks for Scotland in London at the moment? Certainly not Des Browne our 'Scottish Secretary' who doesn't even listen to Wendy Alexander. It seems to be nobody at all, apart from the small current SNP Group in Parliament. If a General Election is called the Scottish people may well decide that to increase that group would be a very smart option.

As for David Cameron's Conservatives their call to 'Let the People Decide' on Europe is fair enough but it is also somewhat hypocritical when they and their fellow unionist parties are blocking a referendum on independence in Scotland. Why not let Scotland decide?

I believe that increasingly the UK parliament will be seen for what it is, an unnecessary obstacle in the path of Scotland's people which is preventing us from moving towards the type of free and social democratic state most Scots would prefer.

BOOM! MacWhirter shoots down Brown and Labour

Excellent piece from Ian MacWhirter in the Sunday Herald:

Getting the blues from Brown’s conference spin

IT'S THE eyes that are the give-away. In the sci-fi comedy Men In Black, you could tell the aliens who had stolen the bodies of Earthlings because their eyes always behaved in inhuman ways. Well, the Brownite young Turks have similar oracular ataxia: think of the thousand-yard stare of Ed Balls; the manic gleam in the eyes David Miliband; or Douglas Alexander's cross-eyed glaze, which makes the development secretary look as if he is too exhausted to see straight.

Everyone has praised Gordon Brown's conference for its unity, cleverness and presentation. How he has shafted the Tories by stealing their clothes. But there was something alien about this Labour conference, a strange look in its eyes. They behaved a little like The Stepford Wives, or some religious sect. Come to think of it, the last time I saw someone looking like David Miliband they were trying to sell me a copy of The Watchtower...

There were 81 references to "B-word" [British] in Brown's speech. He was using techniques of repetition drawn from American advertising, but it sounded neurotic, insincere, protesting too much. Then there was the ham-fisted celebration of John Smeaton, have-a-go hero of Glasgow airport. It was all so clunkingly, transparently manipulative. As Brown got up to speak, the colour of the conference stage backdrop changed from red to Tory blue to make sure TV viewers got the message.

Read full article here:

http://www.sundayherald.com/oped/opinion/display.var.1724139.0.0.php

GORDON BROWN'S LATEST FAN - NORMAN TEBBIT!

Labour's traditional supporters will surely love this, not! Not only has Brown grasped Mrs Thatcher to his buxom, now he is embraced by the grotesque Norman Tebbit, with friends like these and slogans like "Real jobs for Real Britains" Brown has proven that he is not only out of touch but like David Blunkett he'll use the race card when required. If Tebbit is supporting him, and former top Tories are welcomed at their conference, Labour must realise in their heart of hearts that they have lost their way.

Norman Tebbit - Right wing loon who invented the 'Cricket Test' which suggested that people shouldn't be allowed to stay in Britain unless they supported England at cricket.

A right wing former Tory minister praised Gordon Brown and attacked David Cameron today as the party geared up for its conference next week. Lord Tebbit, the former Conservative party chairman, said that voters believed that Mr Cameron was out of touch and had "no experience of the world". By contrast, he praised Gordon Brown's "courtesy and political nous" in inviting Lady Thatcher to No 10 at a time when the Tory leadership was attempting to distance itself from her.

In an interview with the Times, Lord Tebbit said that Mr Brown was a "very clever man and I have considerable regard for him", adding that the prime minister was not "tacky" in the manner of his predecessor, Tony Blair.

Lord Tebbit, who served in Lady Thatcher's cabinet, said that the former prime minister knew exactly what she was doing when she was photographed in Downing Street with Mr Brown earlier this month.

"I'm quite sure that Margaret Thatcher knew exactly what she was doing," he said.
"She's, first, too well-mannered to rebuff the prime minister and, second, of course, the present Conservative leadership has been at great pains to distance himself from her - and she is, after all, a woman."

He said that the present Tory party "lack somebody of the standing of Margaret". He said that the prime minister's invitation to Lady Thatcher was "Gordon Brown at his very best, a wonderful mixture of his courtesy and his political nous".

He added: "After all, Cameron described himself as the 'heir to Blair'. It's only natural that Brown should make himself the 'heir to Thatcher'. It's the perfect response, isn't it?"

LABOUR'S LOVE FOR BRITAIN WILL BE THEIR UNDOING

Alexander says sorry for letting SNP gain power at Holyrood - Wendy Alexander has apologised to the people of Scotland for allowing the SNP to be victorious over Labour in the May elections (reports the Britman).

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1531252007

How can Wendy Alexander apologise "to the people of Scotland" for "allowing Labour to be defeated"? The fact is that the people CHOSE the SNP because they had a positive uplifting message and faith in their own folk something Labour will never understand in a million years.

While Wendy actually apologies to her Labour chums (when in fact they should be grateful the Scots have given them the benefit of the doubt for years) and pleads for help to defeat the SNP, her boss tells us exactly why Labour will never deserve another vote from a Scot again:

Quote from the Scotsman's front page article: "And that nation, as ever, is Britain, an identity the Prime Minister again made clear he believes must come before and above those of the constituent parts of the United Kingdom."

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1531142007

Aye well there's the rub, if Brown doesn't care about Scotland and puts Britain first as he so clearly does, why should we care about him? The more Brown trumpets his love for Britain the more Scots will flush his party down the toilet of history. His hingers on like the Alexanders will enjoy the u-bend right beside him.

CHANGE THE RECORD WENDY- YOU'RE FOOLING NO-ONE

The difference between the SNP and Labour is that the SNP believe the Scots are equal to any other people on the planet and that we have the same right to rule our own affairs, while Labour are stuck to a union which suits their party politically but is long past it's sell by date.

Independence is normality and the SNP are right to call for it just as all the other parties based in Scotland support it as well.

Ms Alexander comes across like another self interested glove puppet of No. 10 Downing Street.

She is only slightly more appealing than her brother, one of the most irritating individuals ever, a puffed up little tick whose career has been based on sooking up Broon's backside and who has obviously never given even an idle thought to the best interests of the people of Scotland.

That Wendy Alexander can only come up with this dreadful response to the SNP's national conversation reveals what everyone already knows, that there is no enthusiasm for continued union or for the low level aspirations for Scotland that Labour has.

The pumped up Britishness of Gordon Brown, clearly designed to cover up his scottish identity and fool the English UK majority is both transparent and pathetic. The SNP have nothing to fear from this crowd. The time is right for independence.

LIBERAL DEMOCRATS CONTEMPT FOR SCOTS LEADER = CONTEMPT FOR SCOTLAND

From 'secret weapon' to Lib Dem fringe act (Scotsman)

A YEAR ago, Nicol Stephen made his battle cry for the Scottish elections on the main stage at the Liberal Democrats' conference, billed as the party's "secret weapon", ready to be deployed against the SNP. Yesterday, for his sole appearance at the Brighton conference, Mr Stephen and the Scottish Liberal Democrats were, literally, relegated to the fringe.

http://news.scotsman.com/scotland.cfm?id=1492352007

Interesting article from the Britman about the Lib Dems, it transpires that the Lib Dems are now demanding some of the oil money for Scotland (a move in the right direction) but the British party conference won't even let them say it on their main stage! It doesn't say much for their influence or relevance down south does it?

This reminds me of the treatment of Jack McConnell during the last election. Basically Jack went down to London, explained his plans for the Scottish elections which were ripped up and laughed at by Blair and Brown (or Bwown as he now prefers to be known) and then he was told how it would be run, and yet he was supposed to inspire respect as First Minister of the Scottish Government...!!

I just watched Nicol Stephen on Newsnight Scotland (the one Jeremy Paxman doesn't want us to have even though he's never actually watched it) and he was ripped to bits by Gordon Brewer who is hardly the finest interviewer on the TV, he's more of a friendly puppy than an attack dog, yet even he, an arch unionist, was flabbergasted at the Lib Dem's hypocrisy.

Do you want a referendum on the EU, 'oh yes' says Nicol 'because we believe in the EU and we want the chance to put our case for it', do you want a referendum on the minimal new powers at Westminster proposed by Gordon Brown, 'oh yes the British people should have a choice on this important change in the powers of the Government'.

'So you want a referendum on the EU but you don't want to have a referendum on Scottish independence? You don't want to make a positive case for the union?' says Brewer.

'Oh no! We don't believe in independence' says Mr Stephen. (So they will only hold referendums they think they can win and suit their party, a great attitude to Democracy.)

A referendum on independence gives the SCOTTISH PEOPLE a choice on independence. Nicol claimed that the people had the chance to vote for independence in the Scottish elections and the UK general elections, yes they did and they also had a massive campaign of lies and misleading statistics led by a biased media against independence. They also were voting on party manifestos and local issues, so it was NOT a direct vote on independence, as he well knows.

Of course Nicol claimed he had came back to Scotland for important discussions with his new best pals the leaders of the Labour and Tory parties. Their humiliating conclusion? That they now need to GO BACK DOWN TO LONDON to get advice on exactly what powers Britain might decide to advance to Scotland!

There we have again if proof was ever required that the Liberal Democrats have no interest whatsoever in what the Scottish people might desire, all they want is to stop any move towards self determination, what a sad day for a once proud actively campaigning Scottish political party which held to the Claim of Right for Scotland. I imagine their could be some screams of anguish at their next Scottish conference, IF they have any principled members left.

When the Scottish Liberal Democrats get humped in Scotland in the upcoming British general election they will only have themselves to blame.

Independent Scotland would have to apply to join EU CLAIMS the Scotsman

http://news.scotsman.com/scotland.cfm?id=1497442007

The 'meat' of the 'story' is here: "On the issue concerning Scotland's independence, that's not my competence to assess or to evaluate..."

IE this person is not competent to make a judgement so this is yet another attempt by the scotsman to cast doubt on the SNP's position without foundation.

The European Commission retained its neutral position yesterday. A spokeswoman said: "It is not customary for the commission to state its views on matters which, as things stand, are purely hypothetical."

Scotland joined the EU as part of Britain. If Scotland becomes independent then the British state as enshrined in the Act of Union no longer exists. There will be a rump state of England and allies (possibly terming itself the UK but without any foundation to that because 'the Kingdom' ie the state would not in fact be united anymore).

It is unlikely that it will last for long as logically Wales would follow Scotland to independence and NI might see less prestige in being part of England rather than Britain.

However when Britain breaks up there will be at least two seperate new states created, they will either both have to apply for EU membership or both will be automatically accepted, I suggest the latter is more likely to be prudent given our resources and our history as an EU member.
If in fact we do have to re-apply for membership then many people would argue that Scortland would be better off outside anyway so this won't necessarilly affect Scots prospects of voting for independence as much as the Scotsman hopes.

The most important body we need to join is the UN, the others are negotiable.

http://www.scottishindependence.com/

A VIEW FROM ENGLAND

Quite a good article with some interesting comments appended. JOE

If Scotland got its vote, then so should we
Beware, Mr Brown, the English are proud patriots too
William Rees-Mogg (The Times)

After three centuries, this seems likely to be the year of Scotland’s revenge. In 1707 the last Scottish Parliament of the old order dissolved itself and Scottish sovereignty was transferred from Edinburgh to London.

In their hearts many Scots never accepted this English predominance. They rebelled in 1715 and 1745, but it was not until May of this year that they elected, with a plurality of only one seat, a Scottish government committed to Scottish independence. I admire Alex Salmond’s achievement as leader of the Scottish National Party.

In a month’s time in Lisbon, Gordon Brown, who is a Scottish Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, will go to the European summit to approve a treaty that will transfer many of the remaining powers of British sovereignty to the European Union.

Although the Scottish people were given two constitutional referendums to establish Scottish devolution, no such consideration will be given to the British people, if the Prime Minister can avoid it. Certainly, the English people, however much they might object to becoming one of the western provinces of a European empire, will be allowed no chance to decide the matter for themselves.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/william_rees_mogg/article2469067.ece

SCOTLAND BEWARE AS BROWN WOOS ENGLISH TORIES

'Not so New' Labour: Does this man represent our interests and our values?

(from Washington Post) Gordon Brown and Mrs Margaret Thatcher's meeting at Downing Street came after the current leader praised Thatcher, still a hugely divisive figure in British politics and amid an apparent campaign by Brown to appeal to supporters of her party, the main opposition Conservatives.

In recent weeks, Brown has appointed two Conservative lawmakers as advisers to his government and hired the opposition party's ex-deputy treasurer as an environmental consultant.

Brown, who must call a national election before mid-2010, has also tapped Thatcher's former advertising agency to handle Labour's looming campaign.

Unionist Arguments Against Independence Are Desperate Rubbish

Letter to the Editor (Metro)

14/09/2007

Dear Sir,

Proponents of Scottish independence should perhaps be pleased as the arguments against it seem to have become ever more desperate over the years. The latest assertion by 'Robin' that "Scottish independence is nothing more than a label to hide behind for hatred of the English" is perhaps the nastiest assertion yet, though most unionists have sang some variation on this theme at some point.

Let's be absolutely clear. A belief that Scotland has a right to the normal political powers that almost every other country enjoys is about simple democracy not any imagined feeling of superiority.

It is ironic that those who hark back to the so called golden times of the British Empire - which was in fact based upon a philosophy of imperialism and superiority to other cultures - try and turn the argument against Scotland for wanting the same freedoms that most former colonies now enjoy.

Modern civic based nationalism is about changing Scotland for the better and it attracts support from every nationality and ethnic minority living in Scotland. It is about improving things for everyone who lives here.

'Nick' from Edinburgh says nationalists are all right wing thereby attempting a variation on the other great lie that fascism and nationalism are somehow linked. Not all nationalists believe in the superiority of their culture over others, those who do are imperialist nationalists like Hitler or the BNP.

The SNP are quite different. They are a genuine democratic left of centre inclusive political party, however 'Nick from Edinburgh' probably knew that already just as his pal 'Robin from Glasgow' is no doubt aware that more Scots fought in the Spanish civil war per head of population than any other outside nationality.

If more people had followed our example we might have avoided World War II altogether! It is a totally grotesque insult against every Scot who fought in the second world war to claim that if we were independent at that time we would have taken no part in it.

If British unionism is based on both blatant lies and deliberately twisting our past shared history (and it is surprising how often these 'arguments' come up) it is no wonder that increasing numbers of Scots see the British union as redundant and want a better life for them and their children as a free and independent state.

Yours faithfully,

Joe Middleton

Unsettling changes (for Labour and the Media)

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/mike_small/2007/09/unsettling_changes.html

A cracking article and some very interesting well thought out comments appended to it.

Waffle from Wendy? Or are Labour going to back a referendum?

Ruaridh Nicoll in the observer:

At the Apex, Alexander hinted at how she might be prepared to call Salmond's bluff. 'There will be a referendum in 2010,' she told the delegates.

That's quite a statement. Why must there be a referendum? Her certainty was odd, for there is no need for one. The SNP have not got the votes in Parliament to call it. Could she be planning to have Labour back this call? Her advisers were not forthcoming, beyond encouraging speculation.
'There will be a referendum in 2010 and the SNP will lose,' she told the delegates.

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,2165514,00.html

UNIONIST BLOC TRYING TO HOODWINK SCOTS OUT OF INDY

United call for new Holyrood powers

SCOTLAND'S three main Unionist parties joined forces last night to launch a joint bid for more powers for the Scottish Parliament. Scottish Labour, the Scottish Conservatives and the Scottish Liberal Democrats announced plans for their own "national conversation" to rival that launched by Alex Salmond, the First Minister, earlier this month to push for independence.

http://news.scotsman.com/scotland.cfm?id=1370472007

Labour and the Liberal Democrats were in power for the last two parliaments. If they had any genuine desire for more powers for the Scottish parliament they would have articulated that desire during their time in power. Although it was not properly reported prior to the election the independence movement as a whole was never more united than at the last election. All the major scottish parties (SNP, Greens, SSP, Solidarity) are agreed on political strategy (ie through a referendum and also delaying a final decision on the EU and monarchy till after independence to ensure maximum unity now) and all were actively working together within the Independence Convention and the referendum campaign Independence First.

In the past Labour and the Lib Dems lined up against the Conservatives for devolution (also motivated by a desire to outflank the SNP). The Conservatives were like King Canute, telling the waves of support for devolution to stop, before being washed away electorally. Now Labour and the Lib Dems have joined forces with the Tories and now effectively speak with one unionist voice bellowing NO to a Scottish public which wants a referendum. 'This far and no further' they effectively told the Scottish people at the last election, Devolution was 'good enough'.

Labour subsequently got cuffed by the SNP. Since the elections Labour, Tories and Lib Dems have started issuing joint statements and are now having secret meetings supposedly to call for 'more powers' but actually to decide the absolute minimum of power they think Scotland will be satisfied with. The message that there is no difference whatsoever between these parties is now ringing out very loudly and very clearly.

Most polls prior to the election showed a narrow MAJORITY for independence (if don't knows were excluded (see Independence First's website for more info) which explains why the unionst bloc is actually unwilling to countenance a referendum, they might well lose it!
If the unionist parties supported the 'Claim of Right for Scotland' which was the moral basis of the Scottish constitutional Convention in the 1980's then they would respect the Scottish public's desire for a referendum on independence (support for that is at between 60 and 80% according to the polls).

In fact they do not. All are London owned and controlled branches of larger British parties which require the status quo on the union to continue to allow them to gain power at Westminster. The more they act together the more the Scottish public will see who they can trust and who they can't to represent Scottish interests. It's not hard now we see a home grown Scottish party in power to see the difference in political ambition between the current administration and the last.

No doubt mistakes will be made by the SNP but no one can doubt their desire for more power for their fellow Scots. On the other hand one can easily see the moves by the unionists to call for 'more powers' are an obvious and pretty cynical last ditch attempt to hoodwink their fellow Scots out of the natural normal powers of independence.

SNP: KEEP SCOTS IN THE DARK OVER INDEPENDENCE

The usual garbage from the retard, only they could spin the logical idea that scots must take our own decisions AFTER independence into this:

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/news/tm_headline=keep-scots-in-the-dark-nats&method=full&objectid=19603978&siteid=66633-name_page.html

Still the fact they are attacking this aspect of the convention shows they recognise the danger (for unionists) of a united pro independence campaign.

WHY FLYING OUR FLAG MATTERS

Gordon Brown's attempt to foist the Union Jack upon everyone has backfired. Jack Straw has been forced to admit that Scotland can choose to fly any flag we want and Christine Grahame has taken up the cudgels with the SNP hoping to get the Saltire flying everywhere all the time.

No doubt some will think this is a fuss over nothing, some will claim it doesn't really matter what flag flies and that the Scottish parliament should be doing something more constructive.

This attitude misses the point, Scotland has our own flag, while the union continues we will no doubt have to put up with seeing the union flag flying occasionally but we should not be forced to have our national flag flown in a subservient position, as current rules dictate, nor should our flag be demoted just because Gordon Brown want's everyone in England to forget he's a Scot!

The saltire is a symbol for all Scots. The union flag on the other hand has a blood stained history as a symbol of imperialism over a huge chunk of the planet. Not for nothing has it been termed 'the Butcher's Apron'. It's possible that England's own flag the St George's Cross can become a welcoming symbol for all England's people, it's equally certain that the British flag cannot because of it's history.

Billy Bragg's comments on this were disappointing, particularly given his recent book. Many people in Scotland have no regard for Britishness whatsoever and would be entirely happy to see the union flag put in the dustbin of history. The flag is dominated in it's centre by the St George's Cross and it represents effective English dominance over Scotland. There is no way the vast majority of people in Scotland will ever be proud to fly the union flag no matter how much Gordon Brown wishes they would.

England has their own flag, it's time for the English to adopt some pride in it and stop attempting to get everyone else to love a flag which has lost all relevance to Scots and represents a discredited racist imperial past. That tarnished history which has seen the union flag adopted by skinheads across the globe and neo fascists in this country (not to mention deluded anti Europeans in UKIP) means it can never properly represent any true AND GENUINE civic natonality.

Since Scotland and Wales have acheived a measure of devolved power the English have rediscovered their flag and have begun to wave it with pride. this is a positive natural development and should be welcomed and encouraged (though in Cornwall, which is also historically a Celtic Country, like Scotland, Ireland and Wales they naturally want to wave their own flag and are gradually voting for Mebyon Kernow their equivalent of the SNP).

The union flag represents an unequal union which has seen Scotland, Wales, Ireland and Cornwalls rights subsumed within an unrepresentative and unequal alliance of convenience which for many years benefited England and contrbuted to England's vast trading Empire (which was largely established before the union of parliaments) but has long since ceased to benefit anyone else. The Empire is over and the flag that represented past British/English power and imperial arrogance is no longer relevant.

Our flag however the Saltire has no such baggage and is a proud symbol of all Scots who live in Scotland, no matter when they arrived. That's why the SNP are right to promote the Saltire at every opportunity and why the Scottish people as a whole should resist any attempts to force the British flag upon us.

LABOUR ADMITTED SELLING HONOURS SOME TIME AGO

This from the Guardian:

Police had arrested Labour's chief fundraiser Lord Levy, another close No 10 aide and a millionaire donor during the inquiry but yesterday they were told by the CPS that there was an unrealistic prospect that the evidence would lead to a conviction. Senior Scotland Yard figures were said to strongly disagree.

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/funding/story/0,,2130916,00.html

So in other words the Police had collected enough evidence to prosecute but the CPS has been nobbled. We know that Labour are guilty because early on Frank Field admitted as much however he said it was OK because “everybody does it.”

In an interview with The Daily Telegraph, Mr Field, a former social security minister, said the selling of honours "needs to be seen in context"."It has always gone on and probably always will. Most people know that for the best part of two centuries that honours were appropriated by money," he told the newspaper.'In the 18th century honours and cash for political parties were in effect the constitution. It is a different relationship now. But of course it is still going on today.'

http://www.politics.co.uk/News/domestic-policy/constitution/honours-system/honours-have-always-been-sold-$458742.htm

From the Mail on Sunday:

There is no doubt that British political parties (and not just Tony Wright's own New Labour) are basically corrupt and have been for many years. All of them are bankrupt and have, at times, sought to make good their cash shortfall by offering favours to party donors. In some cases, as in the Ecclestone scandal over tobacco advertising for Formula One racing, they change government policy in order to help out their donors. On other occasions, they offer meetings with ministers or senior politicians in return for hard cash.

But the practice of exchanging honours for money, either in the form of donations or loans, is most common of all. Both Tories and Labour have raised scores of millions of pounds in this way. A recent piece of research showed that a Labour Party donor was 7,000 times more likely than a non-donor to receive a peerage, and 1,600 times more likely to receive some other kind of honour.

It's long been an open secret that honours were for sale, so much so that the former Downing Street policy chief Geoff Mulgan once remarked that "in later years, the scarcely concealed sale of peerages to wealthy party donors, and the appointment of the party's top donor - Lord Sainsbury - to ministerial office, did little to restore public confidence in the Government".

http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/pages/live/articles/columnists/columnists.html?in_article_id=469858&in_page_id=1772&in_author_id=382

SCOTS HAVE BEEN BRAINWASHED FOR YEARS

In a week where we found out via Alistair Campbell that our former Prime Minister Tony Blair considers Scots to be "Whingeing Jocks" here is a typical example of biased reporting by the Press Association which then filters through other media. Various claims are made but very little evidence is there to back them up!

The raw figures are that the vast majority (76%) of people think of theirselves as Scottish first and only 23% are very proud of Britain, however the report seems to draw very different conclusions.

Let's face it our 'Scottish' education system has always been geared towards a rosy coloured British viewpoint of history and it's not so long since every classroom had a huge map with pink parts all over the world denoting the extents of the British Empire. For a long time Scottish history was not taught at all and even now it is marginalised and limited (kids were beaten for speaking in Scots for years). This classroom bias has a huge long term cultural effect.

We have also been awash with pro British propaganda and various British themed TV since the beginning of the BBC. Every day seems to provide a new documentary about WWII and outside Football and Rugby we have no independent representation (not even in Eurovision never mind the Olympics!), given that it would be strange indeed if there was no one who had some residual feelings (what does 'some pride' mean anyway?) about Britain, whether based on reality or not.

Our education system is also geared towards a rosy coloured British viewpoint of history and it's not so long since every classroom had a huge map with pink parts all over the world denoting the extents of the British Empire.

What's most obvious is that Scottish identity is on the rise despite all the above factors.
The report claims: "Scots, even those who say they are 'Scottish not British' are not hostile to the idea of Britain, its history, or its empire, and are happy to think of it in cultural unifying terms."

There are also plenty of people around who are Scots not British and believe the Empire was a racism fuelled international embarrassment and that the British state has long outlived it's usefulness to both Scotland and England.

This view is the one which is genuinely on the rise for obvious reasons.

-----Original Message-----
From: mediapoint.scotland@pa.press.net

SCOTS 'STILL HAVE SENSE OF BRITISHNESS'
SOCIAL British

12 Jul 2007 - 16:49
By Katrine Bussey, Political Reporter Scottish Press Association

Scots still have a sense of being British, despite an increasing sense of Scottish national identity, academics said today.
Edinburgh University researchers Frank Bechhofer and David McCrone studied issues surrounding national identity.
And they found that despite a strengthening sense of Scottishness over the past 30 years, there is still a widespread sense of being British both north and south of the border.
The proportion of people identifying themselves as Scottish has risen from 65% in 1974 to 76% in 2005.
But the academics, from the University's Institute of Governance, say that while people are more likely to identify themselves as being Scottish rather than British, most are not opposed to Britain.
Their paper is published in the current edition of The Political Quarterly just weeks after Gordon Brown - who has made repeated calls for greater pride in the British identity - took office as Prime Minister.
The researchers state that while levels of pride in Britain are higher among the English than the Scots, there is a "clear majority" in Scotland who take some pride in Britain.
The SNP formed a minority administration in the Scottish Parliament following its election victory in May.
The survey asked people how proud they were of being British, with 41% in England describing themselves as "very proud" compared to 23% of Scots.
At the same time in England, 79% expressed some pride in being British, compared to 64% in Scotland.
The authors concluded that the data is "certainly not compatible with a strong rejection of being British".
They added: "The dominant impression is that a majority of people in Scotland take some pride in being British.
"Scots, even those who say they are 'Scottish not British' are not hostile to the idea of Britain, its history, or its empire, and are happy to think of it in cultural unifying terms."
The study also looked at politics and national identity, with the researchers stating that a person's sense of national identity was only "loosely associated" with their political preferences.
Among supporters of the Conservative Party - traditionally the most unionist of the parties - 76% described themselves as being at least as Scottish as they are British.
And among SNP supporters, only 51% reject any idea of Britishness, describing themselves as 'Scottish not British'.
Further it is only among people who regard themselves as being Scottish and not British that there is a majority of support for Scottish independence, with 51% of this group backing such a move.
Professor McCrone said: "The relatively weak association between identity and party political support or even views on independence suggests it is difficult to mobilise national identity in a straightforwardly political way."

SCHOOLS ARE NOT THE PROBLEM - BIGOTS ARE

SNP 'is open to idea' of state schools for Muslims

THE SNP government has signalled it is willing to consider having separate Muslim state schools in Scotland. A spokesman for Education Secretary Fiona Hyslop said ministers were "open" to proposals about such a move.

http://news.scotsman.com/politics.cfm?id=1081232007

The survival of Catholic schools owes a lot to the fact that despite being almost completely integrated within society Catholics still see themselves as being under some level of threat. The large amount of Orange lodges and Orange parades proves that this threat is not imaginary.

The Act of Settlement with its various bigoted clauses also gives the impression that discrimination against Catholicism is institutional and until this is removed or adjusted that is actually the case.

There are also other shady groups like the Masons who deliberately exclude Catholics from their membership and which have an insiduous influence within society. The constant requests from the Orange lodges for Catholic schools to be closed actually guarantees their continued existence.

They are also guaranteed under law because the Catholic church used to run their own schools themselves and their right to have seperate schooling is enshrined in the legislation which set up comprehensive education.

Catholic shools will continue until Catholics feel they are 100% integrated. This has almost happened but given the above factors has not actually quite completed as yet.

If Muslim schools are introduced it will be done for progressive positive reasons. However it might prove to be a backward step eventually that will cause even more problems because it will indicate that a further group feels under threat from the community at large, which is a great pity.

Cultural 'divisions' between Muslims and 'Christians' (in fact most people are not genuinely interested in religion at all) are already exacerbated by a divisive foreign policy by the British Government and various attempts like citizens ceremonies to push a false British identity upon us all. We should be asking why Muslims feel the current schools system does not suit them.

In Scotland we seem to historically have had a mature approach which is based on respecting the rights of others however it is probably true to say there is still insufficient understanding of other religions and what they actually represent.

The real problem is that non-demoninational schools are not actually seen as genuinely non-denominational, for many they are Protestant schools which reflect the dominant religion of this country. As long as this persists people will want to opt out of the status quo and the only logical answer would seem to be to remove religious education entirely from all schools.

Unfortunately this won't cure bigotry which is not actually induced at school but at home and is ultimately based on ignorance.