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)

LABOUR DEMANDED CUTS DURING UK ELECTIONS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Superb poster from SNP

Classic!

David Cameron's Conservatives are treating Scots with contempt

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

She goes on:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gillian Bowditch: Allow Gaelic to thrive without taxpayers’ cash

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

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

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

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

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

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

COMPASS - THE LAST LABOUR GOVERNMENT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Download it here.

I added the following comment:

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

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

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

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

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

Interview with Novi Reporter - Srpska

"Novi Reporter" (New Reporter) from Banjaluka, capital of Republic of Srpska. Republic of Srpska is Serb predominant entity in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

I was interviewed for the above magazine, here's the questions and answers.

Question:

In February this year Albanian leaders in Kosovo unilaterally declared independence from Serbia. That decision, by this time, approved about 30 countries. United States of America and some countries from European Union claim that Kosovo is isolated case and can not become a blueprint for similar situations in other countries. What is your opinion about these claims?

Answer:

I think that since Kosovo was supported by the UN as a semi-seperate state from Serbia it was inevitable that it would declare independence. I also believe all declarations of independence should be respected as this is the primary basis of international law. Kosovo's independence appears to have been objected to by a coalition of the guilty, Russia who are blocking Chechnya's independence, China who have militarily occupied and effectively annexed Tibet and Spain who are busily outlawing every left/radical organisation or independence supporting party in the Basque country. With friends like these, Serbia does not want for enemies! I think Kosovo is an unusual case and I don't think it is particularly relevant to other countries.

Q. Serbian part of Bosnia and Herzegovina - Republic of Srpska, but also some areas in Bosnia with Croatian majority, shows intention to split from the country where Muslim population is in majority. Independence First insists on the right to self-determination in the issues between Scotland and England. Is it possible to apply same right in Bosnia and Herzegovina?

A. It depends if a majority of the population in these areas are determined to support independence. Yugoslavia was a false state and the remnants of it are still trying to come to terms with their proper boundaries. We certainly support the right of self determination in all cases but nonetheless there should be some historical justification and clear territorial boundary involved. Independence is about the best interests of the people living in a specific country. If an ethnic form of nationality is pushed it can obviously have racist connotations.

Q. How would you explain to the people outside of Scotland and England the differences between Scottish and English national identity? And also explain a need for Scotland to decide by itself, independently from London about his destiny?

A. Scotland is a historic country which has a recorded history stretching back well over one thousand years. We have our own culture, two indigenous languages seperate from English (though English now predominates for obvious reasons) our own law and education system and we now have our own devolved Government led by the independence supporting SNP. While it took a lot of campaigning to get a devolved parliament, this is not sufficient for us as most major decisions are stull taken in the Westminster parliament where our MP's are outvoted 10-1. Scotland needs our own seat at the UN and independent representation in Europe as well as full control over broadcasting, taxation, foreign affairs and defence.

Q. In the media with the global influence, often we can read and watch that majority in Scotland do not support independence from the Great Britain. Is this truth?

A. Polls on this tend to be very mixed. Just before the last election a number of polls showed the largest percentage of support was for independence however the polls are now saying that figure has dropped. I would say there is probably around 35-40% strong support for independence with perhaps 30% support for the union and 30% undecided. It's somewhere around there. Recent polls have indicated that for instance if the UK Government deliberately cuts the Scottish Governments finances a lot more people will support independence. Most people certainly support more powers for the Scottish parliament and a referendum on independence. Independence is the logical end of the home rule journey and we believe that if the positive argument is made for independence in a referendum campaign against the usual scaremongering against it by the unionist parties the positive case will win.

Q. How much you did so far in achieving your political goals? Regarding that, what are political differences between Independence First and the Scottish National Party?

A. Independence First is a campaign purely for an independence referendum and as such it has no political policies. We have a number of SNP members in our ranks as well as members of the Greens, SSP and many others from no party. We are of course supportive of the SNP Government's plans to hold a referendum in 2010. With regard to our own actions we have organised two political rallies for a referendum here in Edinburgh, we have ran a petition through the Scottish parliament for a referendum and we have managed to get detailed answers from the British Government which suggest they are ignorant of the concept of the sovereignty of the Scottish people.

Q. Can we talk about increase of secessionism in England? And about possibility that we, in near future see a politician, south from the Hadrian Wall who will be ready to talk with Scotland about your independence?

A. This is still quite far off I think though it might theoretically be advantagous to the British Conservatives to lose a country where they tend to get heavily defeated on a regular basis at the ballot box. There is a growing movement towards self determination for England but it is rather young and politically immature at this point, tending to be led by perceived grievance rather than genuine political principle.

Q. Is it possible that religion differences in Scotland (Protestants and Catholics), slow down your road to independence? Regarding that, what is your opinion about long chronology of conflict in Northern Ireland, where factor of religion plays important role?

A. There is a sectarian problem in Scotland though it is nowhere near as bad as Northern Ireland. It tends to be inflamed by football rivalry (Glasgow Celtic is a traditionally Irish team and in reaction their Rangers rivals wrap themselves in the colours of the British Union Jack). Also the anti-Catholic Orange Order while small and mostly irrelevant still appears to have some support in some towns in the West of Scotland. These people do oppose Scottish independence as well as Irish independence and have now started marching against independence for Scotland specifically. However such bigots represent a tiny minority of the population. Most people in Scotland are not particularly religious at all and most practising Protestants and Catholics have no conflict of interest whatsoever, in fact both religions enjoy a good relationship at local level.

I expect Scottish independence to bring Irish unity closer as I think the Unionists have more attachment to the idea of Britain rather than England and with independence for Scotland the British state would come to an effective end. At the moment the unionists are working together with Irish nationalists at Stormont and they may see their future as being more appropriately tied to Dublin than London eventually. At the end of the day though that is a decision for the people of Northern Ireland not the people of Scotland.

All the best,

Joe Middleton (Press Officer, Independence First).

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?"