Graph of the numbers of MP's at UK Westminster Parliament

Why are BBC prioritising non-native Scots audience on independence?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-22358121

I find it slightly worrying that for a debate about Scottish independence the BBC are first and foremost looking for people who were born outside Scotland. They add a bit about how if you are not from elsewhere in the British isles we would like to hear from you too but it is obvious that the BBC is prioritising people who were born outside Scotland.

They are also asking a series of questions about whether they support Scottish National (sic) and whether they are pro or anti-independence.

I was a member of the audience in the televised Usher Hall Debate on independence which if I remember rightly happened around 1992. This was an open debate organised by the Scotsman which was overwhelmingly pro-independence.

If you pick the make up of the audience, pick the questions etc then as with Question Time you can present a debate which is not necessarily the one an audience would like to have.

There are of course plenty of people who are originally from England who identify with Scotland and support independence. Mike Russell has played a leading role in the SNP and those who identify themselves as English have a right to voice their opinions on independence.

Nonetheless I don't think the BBC should be prioritising those who were born outside Scotland unless they are deliberately trying to find people who don't (for whatever reason) identify themselves as Scots.

I have written before that the British state as currently configured does favour English interests over Scotland's. That is true on a population basis (England has 10 times more MP's than Scotland at Westminster and 20 X more than Wales) and also because every aspect of British rule has an English aspect to it. The flag, the Queen's Title, The anthem, the name of Britain (from Britannia), the Bank of England (despite it's name it's supposed to be a British institution but given the statements of the Chancellor George Osbourne he clearly believes England owns the bank and the lone right to print Sterling notes).

Given this situation it makes some sense for JK Rowling and others to say they prefer the status quo. Likewise if you have spent most of your career at Westminster (like Alistair Darling) and identify with London more than Scotland, which I think it is fair to say he does, even though he claims status as a Scot due to his residence here (which I don't dispute but I do dispute that he would ever put the Scottish national interest first).

The question is why is the BBC blatantly prioritising the opinions of people who are not from Scotland originally over the people who were born here? Unless they are trying to find people in Scotland who prioritise the British identity over the Scottish one and therefore are more likely to vote against independence.

If this is the case then the BBC is not acting in the interests of the people who live here and we need to have our own national broadcaster. Broadcasting powers should have came to Scotland in 1999 if Blair had not deliberately scuppered the idea. (The plans from the cross party constitutional convention included broadcasting but he removed it). Now we know why!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-22358121

Better Together, for who?

by Joe Middleton

The British unionist campaign in the Scottish independence referendum is called Better Together but the question needs to be asked Better Together for who? There are clear advantages for England in retaining the Union and it does not surprise me when English people in Scotland like J K Rowling or Emma Thomson argue in favour of its retention.

If you see the Union Jack as equivalent to the English flag and given the dominance of the St George's Cross in the centre, who couldn't, then the flag could credibly represent England.
 

Given that ancient England was named Britannia by the Romans then Britain is also quite acceptable and indeed it backs up the English preferred view of Wales ie that it doesn't exist.

Therefore if you are English then you can be quite comfortable with either of these symbols in the knowledge that they really actually mean England.

Similarly Queen Elizabeth II of England has a certain ring to it and celebrating bashing those rebellious Scots who England regularly fought with over hundreds of years doesn't really present a problem. Similarly singing about Brittania ruling the waves doesn't really reflect on any other country apart from England a fact made quite evident by the British naval flag.

Since England has approximately 90% of Britain's MP's Westminster could legitimately be claimed to be as good as and in fact a lot better than any devolved English parliament.

Britain means retention of the Scottish Oil Fields under English political control and the use of that money in capital projects like the London Olympics, or duelling the A1 or indeed the Channel Tunnel. It also keeps the pound as a credible currency and magnifies British importance in Europe much like the Scottish fishing grounds.

The Bank of England is effectively Britain's central bank. The inclusion of Scotland and Wales's GDP keeps Britain in the G8 and these additions mean that not only does Britain have a seat in the UN they also get the added boost of being a member of the security council. Both of these places which England relies on would be at risk after Scottish independence.

All in all England gets every advantage from the Union and zero disadvantages. So a piddling amount of Scottish or Welsh MP's might vote in a different way to the English but in reality any party who gets into power in Westminster has to have huge support in England by definition.

The Trident Nuclear Deterrent means England can boss other countries around and interfere in their domestic policy while sonorously declaring that no-one else should have nuclear weapons. They are unpopular in Scotland of course but it's handy to keep them somewhere.

Retaining Britain means that England also retain control of little outposts like the Falklands or tax havens like the Channel Islands which means that the filthy rich can still work in Britain while avoiding paying any nasty tax there.

Do we want or need these? David Cameron certainly sees them as important.

Unfortunately all these additional benefits for England come at a cost. Wales and Scotland have to pretend we don't exist internationally. David Mundell (Scotland's lone Tory MP) doesn't have a problem with that but Better Together can't count him as very representative of the general viewpoint!

The truth is 'independence' for England would mean an actual reduction in power not an increase and England would have to accept that their imperial dream was finally over.

This is something that no English MP will ever countenance voluntarily (though they will be forced under international law to do so after any democratic vote for independence) which is why every London based party is 100% against Scottish independence. It is not in their national interest.

Can Alistair Darling whose ultimate loyalty to London has never been in doubt really convince the Scots who live in Scotland (and don't flip their mortgages) that they actually benefit from English control of everything?

I don't think so.

Britain not Scotland has a fascism problem



In light of the disgraceful image in todays Scotland on Sunday (below) which attempts to link the Scots self determination movement with both the Nazis and the Klu Klux Klan and the scaremongering associated article it is worth considering whether the British themselves have something significant to hide in terms of links to fascism both before and after the second World War.

 

I should start off by saying that the Scots, English and Welsh all played an honourable part in defending the World from the fascist threat of the Nazis. During that time however Churchill regularly referred to Britain as 'England' and during the war Scots were buried under an avalanch of propaganda that rarely if ever mentioned Scotland.

 

Perhaps it is because of this (possibly unintended) insult that the post war years saw a gradual but ultimately impressive increase in support for the Scottish independence movement.

 

London's actual attitude towards Scotland at the time however is rather more disturbing. According to official documents Britain would actually have allowed an invasion of Scotland to happen and that England was seen as "the total priority for defence".

 

These damning allegations are contained in a book called When Hitler Comes which is available from Amazon here: http://www.amazon.co.uk/If-Hitler-Comes-Preparing-Invasion/dp/1843410621

The book also exposes fascist Scots in Scottish society however as the above article notes these were linked within the British Unionists (which was the old name of the Scottish Conservatives) and landed aristocrats.*

Hitler's ultimate agenda was not entirely understood before the war. Though there were obvious indications of his hatred of the Jews the full extent of the Nazi Holocaust was only exposed fully afterwards.

In England in particular there was substantial support for fascism and in fact Oswald Mosely who was a politician who had been a Westminster MP for both Labour and Tory formed his own army of Brownshirts under the label of the British Union of Fascists.

The BUF (flag above) used to martial support in the thousands and held various parades. After the war started their support died away however an English minority attraction to fascism has continued until today with some modern support for Nick Griffin's British National Party who have even managed to gain enough support in England to get MEP's elected to the European Parliament!

The BNP and the non-fascistic but still xenophobic and offensive and anti-Scottish UKIP (UK Independence party) an oxymoron as the UK are already independent have made zero headway in Scotland. In England however UKIP are rising fast and the British Conservatives (who with one MP are also as popular as the plague in Scotland) have taken them so seriously that an in-out referendum on the EU is officially planned in the next few years.   

In short then England had a real pre-war problem with home grown outright fascism and has an on ongoing problem with a modern equivalent of the French National Front in the BNP.

Given the above facts the attempts by the Scotland on Sunday today via a book named 'Fascist Scotland' which is illustrated on the web by a picture of Oswald Mosely but had a disgusting mock up of a Saltire shaped into a Nazi flag in the paper (see top of article) to suggest there was real support in pre WW2 Scotland for fascism based on much innuendo and speculation are desperate and rather absurd and I suspect this has been a desperate attempt to bury the bad news of the original damning book and its conclusion that Scotland was seen as expendable by British military planners during World War II.

Clearly the writer desperately wants Scotland and early Scots nationalists to be tarred with the Nazi brush but he admits himself that BUF demos which were organised up here were disrupted and fought against in Scotland just like the English Defence League (which they renamed as Scottish Defence League in Scotland but no-one believes it) demos in Scotland involving a few hundred English skinheads have been in recent times.  

The Orange Lodge can muster 10K anti-independence Union Jack waving marchers down the Royal Mile (much of them imported from NI) but no-one could argue that they credibly dominate the political debate in Scotland. In fact their sectarian views are rightly seen as repugnant by the vast majority of Scottish society.

The summation of the article shows the writers intentions and marks a new low even for the Scotsman:

Today, the ruling party of Scotland has nationalism as its creed and is suspiciously coy about its own history. Elsewhere in the nationalist family, the BNP, before it plunged into fratricidal warfare, trounced the Far Left in recent Scottish elections and, in 2010, received a respectable 1,000 votes in Alex Salmond’s stamping ground of Banff and Buchan. To this should be added growing sympathy for the agenda of Ukip. The Scottish electorate now appears more receptive to radical nationalism than Mosley’s blackshirts could ever dream of. With fears of globalisation and mass immigration on the rise, and the political “old gang” unpopular, there might still be living space in Scotland for the “Brown Beast”. In this way, we would be very much in line with our European cousins. Wha’s like us? Quite a few.

The facts are that the SNP are a civic nationalist grouping which warmly welcomes support from all sections and ethnic groupings in Scottish society. Even in it's earliest incarnations it supported self determination and opposed right wing extremism. Read the Flag in the Wind by John MacCormick to read the early (and proud) history of the SNP.

Even early outspoken radical Scots like Wendy Wood (who was often involved in civil disobedience such as moving the border post to it's more accurate position just after the River Tweed) were firmly rooted in legitimate campaigning and democratic politics.

Despite the British State's best efforts the Scottish independence movement has never ever been linked credibly to any political violence of any kind. This is despite the fact that the UK authorities (as exposed by Gaelic doc Diomhair still available on Youtube) attempted to supply young Scots students with fake explosives. MI5 have also regularly spied on Scottish demonstrations and the British Government itself deliberately and persistently lied about the extent of North Sea Oil during the original 1978 devolution referendum.

British mainstream parties like Labour and the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats are also nationalists but of the British type. It could be credibly argued that British nationalism which constantly harks back to the glory days of the British Empire and seems to embody a distrust of foreigners and immigration is of a much more negative nature than the 'national freedom' type nationalism of the SNP which has much more in common with those countries who eventually escaped the imperial yoke.  

To insult the SNP and the wider Yes campaign in such a desperate and sickening fashion shows the desperation of the No lobby which has came up with zero positive arguments for union. A fact effectively illustrated in this video which was temporarily banned from youtube for daring to use embarassing pseudo-patriotic footage of Better Together's own activists.  



* Incidentally the former English King (Edward VIII) was in fact known to be a Nazi Supporter who had meetings with Hitler and who would almost certainly have been installed as a puppet ruler of Britain if Germany had succeeded in their invasion plans.

Peter Tatchell reveals Scots independence support





Peter Tatchell: If Tiny Malta can be independent, why not Scotland?



Equality and human rights campaigner and former Labour Westminster candidate Peter Tatchell has called on Scots to vote Yes in the 2014 independence referendum.

The well known gay rights activist and social justice campaigner suggested that an independent Scotland would be “more left wing” than England and could have a “progressive future”.

Mr Tatchell is well known for his direct style of campaigning and is also famous for when he stood as a Labour candidate in a bitterly fought by-election in Bermondsey, south London in the 1980s, when it is claimed he was subjected to an anti-gay campaign.

Mr Tatchell claimed that an independent Scotland could follow the example of nations that had won their independence in recent decades.

He said: “If I were Scottish, I would support independence. Lots of small breakaway states, like Slovenia, have been success stories. Scotland has historically been more left wing than England. Independence would give the Scots people the opportunity to chart their own progressive future. If tiny Malta can have self-rule, why not Scotland?”

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/peter-tatchell-reveals-scots-independence-support-1-2834297

The real (English) motives of Tony Blair

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Historically, England called the shots to achieve a union because the union was seen as a way, among others things, of amplifying England's power worldwide.

And the reverse would certainly be true. A broken-up United Kingdom would not be in the interests of Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland, but especially not England.

Our voting power in the European Union would diminish. We'd slip down in the world league GDP tables. Our case for staying in the G8 would diminish and there could easily be an assault on our permanent seat in the UN Security Council."

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

The Reality of Union: Scotland invisible!

I was watching the BBC programme Dinner with Portillo some time ago (it was discussing Scots independence) and some of the reactions of the English guests were instructive. Rod Liddle initially tried to doubt the existence of Scotland at all, but later admitted that he was really worried an independent Scotland would take away all the Scots Labour MP’s from Westminster. As a leftist of sorts he thought this might not be in his interests as England would become a permanent Tory zone.

Portillo himself seemed to imagine there would be no consequences whatsoever for England, with London remaining the centre of the universe, he was therefore quite happy for the Scots (and Wales) to become independent because essentially we don’t really count.

An Oxford academic worried about how England might change without the influence of Scotland and Wales and might become a less tolerant country as a result. None of them were particularly interested in the effect independence might actually have on Scotland, an omission which perhaps perfectly illustrates the nature of the union!

On the ‘other side’ Hardeep Singh Kohli, who appears to have wangled a berth for himself as a TV expert on Scotland, proved his own ignorance by declaring that a separate military presence for Scotland was impossible and also bizarrely claimed that he didn’t even know the SNP’s policy on nuclear weapons.

He seemed to imagine Scotland as a jealous lover, spurned by those nasty English types who don’t care for our affections! In fact a battered wife might have been a better analogy but when people claim ‘the English’ as a whole believe a certain thing they are generally on a hiding to nothing and this was clearly the case with Mr Kohli.

Former Labour party First Minister Henry McLeish could have enlightened him on SNP policy no doubt but perhaps couldn’t be bothered, he was more interested in whether the RBS should be considered a British bank rather than a Scots one.

Meanwhile historian Michael Fry made some decent points but his political analysis seemed to be that we would be so skint with independence that we would have to slash public spending (as a Tory he liked the sound of that) even though the actual evidence is that Scotland puts more money into the union than we receive!

I mention this programme because it indicates the kind of mish mash which passes for serious commentary on Scots independence through the British prism of TV news.

Anyone watching this programme would have been no wiser about Scots independence at the end than they would have been at the start, yet the case is very clear and easily described.

As long as Scotland and Wales are outvoted by a factor of 10-1 and 20-1, in the important arenas of defence, foreign affairs and other important areas like pensions and social security, within the British parliament, then we do not live in a genuine democracy and our views are easily and effectively ignored.

So what moves are being made towards holding a referendum on independence and what is the current situation of the SNP Government?

Recently the SNP were being attacked by the ‘Scottish’ press for various imaginary sins. Possibly to deflect attention from actual fraud at British parliamentary level by Jim Devine MP, the press decided that an auction for a lunch with Alex Salmond was the height of corruption. The fact that the individual who bought the lunch, could have made the same donation directly to the SNP, and that there were no policy implications escapes our journos.

No, the most important issue for them is that the SNP might have used the parliamentary canteen (parliamentary facilities!) for the lunch in question… If it sounds pathetic, it is.

Nicola Sturgeon was also dunked into luke warm water for the heinous crime of representing a constituent. Yes, because Nicola wrote a letter asking a court to consider that a custodial sentence might not be advisable for a benefit fraudster with ten kids this was seen as a shocking lapse of judgement.

The Edinburgh Evening News claimed “the honeymoon is finally over for SNP”. This claim that the SNP’s popularity was a ‘honeymoon period’ was always designed to be a stick to beat them with, however given that the SNP won the elections in May 2007 it’s been a hell of a long honeymoon! The unionists have yet to hit the SNP with a charge that will stick. In reality they have governed extremely well, a fact which sticks in the throat of many a biased journalist.

The unionists attempted to kill the SNP’s referendum bill by trying to arrange one of there own flunkies as committee chairman. Margo MacDonald’s assisted suicide bill which should have went to the health committee was instead given to a newly created ad hoc committee with a view to ensuring a unionist chair on the proposed referendum bill which was expected to follow it.

In fact however the SNP neatly sidestepped this abuse of parliamentary procedure by publishing the Bill in draft form meaning that they can delay its actual implementation to a more opportune time.

The SNP plans to hold the referendum in late 2010, after the result of the UK elections and at a point where any new Government will have revealed its hand in respect of Scotland. Labour and Liberals might find it more difficult to deny a choice on independence in the face of a hostile Conservative UK Government!

At the moment however all the unionists are pledged to deny Scots a choice and to publish a bill would simply hasten its demise. Timing in this case is everything, and the SNP have organised through their national conversation a proper consultation with the public. SNP ministers have travelled up and down all of Scotland and held numerous public meetings to properly consider independence.

The ill fated Calman commission, designed to scupper independence without actually going as far as considering it, has given its findings which have subsequently been entirely ignored by both Labour and Conservatives. So called devolution max, is actually devolution minimal as no unionist party is willing to countenance any actual financial level of independence.

Without the purse strings of course a devolved assembly remains effectively controlled by central Government, a fact they are all well aware of. Calman was designed to outflank the national conversation, however because it ignored independence all it has done is reveal the poverty of ambition for Scotland of all unionists. Job well done!

What this means is that the line between independence and devolution remains clearly drawn. When the referendum happens the Scots will get a choice which is clear between those who want the best for Scotland and those who don’t.

The unionists can delay that vote but ultimately they cannot deny it. If the SNP needs to spend more time talking to the public and dealing with actual political issues then I’m sure they are happy to do this. If they have to fend off ill aimed allegations without much actual weight then they seem entirely capable of that as well.

According to opinion polls many people in Scotland remain unconvinced by independence, probably because the actual issues are rarely properly addressed through the British media. Those issues will only be properly addressed by those who believe in independence making a case for it. This is what the SNP is attempting to do and gradually they are moving towards their ultimate objective.

Scotland must finally be given a choice and when that choice is properly debated through a referendum campaign their patient groundwork through the national conversation will hopefully pay off.

As I write this the UK General election has just happened. If you lived in England you might well believe that there are no other countries in the British union since it was dominated by coverage of the three unionist parties. These elections are always unfair to pro-independence parties because the UK parties get a double dose of election coverage. They are featured in UK-wide coverage but also in the so called ‘regional’ broadcasts where there branches pretend to be Welsh or Scottish parties in their own right.

As the TV broadcasts were extremely prominent in the campaign the SNP and Plaid Cymru were able to make the point that this is unfair and the BBC’s response to their complaints highlighted that unfairness. Effectively the BBC decreed that only those parties which could potentially elect a Prime Minister ie those parties who could get a majority in the UK parliament deserved a seat at the debates. What this means effectively is that only the parties that contest seats in England are considered relevant. This is an effective comment on the union because it relies on Scotland and Wales remaining invisible for it to work.

In the event a hung parliament emerged while in Scotland and Wales the situation was unchanged. Both gave back large numbers of Labour MP’s both had a reduced rump of Conservatives and a handful of nationalist MP’s. It appears that the Liberal Democrats will either be in coalition with the Conservatives or will prop up a Conservative Government. Luckily Scotland and Wales both have our devolved parliaments to protect us from that dismal prospect. Also, given the continued pariah status of the Conservatives in Scotland, this result should provide a boost to the pro-referendum cause.

Published in Carn the magazine of the Celtic League.

Campaign for English Parliament (CEP) is deliberately misquoting SNP

Scilla Cullen
Chairman
Campaign for an English Parliament

Dear Mr Cullen,

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

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

The relevant part of his speech is here:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yours faithfully,

JOE MIDDLETON

Brainwashed by Britain? Labour's plans for 2012 Olympics

Here is what one Labour think-tank has to say about 2012 (thanks to Ray Bell for this - JOE)

Quote:

"Sport is one of the most powerful tools available to policy makers seeking to entrench the best of British identity. In its elite and mass forms, it reaches into the lives of many millions of people. In the run-up to the 2012 Games, with their focus on children, children are going to be increasingly involved with sporting activity that is explicitly British rather than English, Scottish or Welsh."

Opinion Leader Forum Report, It's the Taking Part that Counts, Opinion Leader Forum 2007, p23

MEDIA BLACK OUT OF DISGUSTING 'F*CK 'EM' LORD SEB COE COMMENT

"The creation of the team [GB] has been opposed by the Football Associations of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland who are concerned it may compromise their individual status within Fifa.But he said the BOA, which selects teams for the Games, has decided to press ahead with a football squad despite the opposition.When asked last night about the opposition from the Welsh and Scots, Coe replied bluntly: “F*** em!”

==============================

See also the Tartan Army Board

http://taboard.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=82111

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

Thanks to Ray B. for passing on the above information. This story has been removed from the website of the paper concerned and Lord Coe has threatened legal action however since it appeared in the print media it seems unlikely that the paper simply invented it. Perhaps Coe made the remarks 'off the record' and trusted the journalists to keep schtum.

What is perhaps most surprising is that this story has not made the TV media AT ALL.

The whole issue has been blacked out despite the story appearing in both The London Paper and The Metro. Obviously if it turns out that the journalists concerned have made up the story then Coe will escape censure however an urgent investigation needs to happen immediately because if true it is clear that his position is completely untenable.

The Scottish and Welsh national football teams are functionally independent. Since both are completely opposed to a British team neither the English FA nor the British Government can force through a British Olympic Football Team under those circumstances. To do so could seriously compromise future Scottish and Welsh involvement in The World Cup and European Championships. (Is this actually the game plan of 'the Anti-Scot' Gordon Brown?).

Lord Sebastian Coe seems to think that not only can a team GB be forced through against our own FA's express wishes but that he can insult Scotland and Wales with impunity. Clearly his alleged remarks have been blacked out of the British media altogether which suggests that the powers that be believe this story is just too embarassing to break.

Luckily the power of the internet is such nowadays that this won't work. Personally I believe that Coe has reacted as reported. No doubt he didn't mean his remarks to be widely circulated as it would inevitably mean his job however the almost imperialist attitude that Scotland and Wales simply DO NOT COUNT are the political consequence of joining in an unequal union with a country that in our case is eleven times larger and in Wales case 20 times.

Why should Murray want to be English?!

Post on the Scotsman:

The Scotsman has claimed that Murray has given up on Scotland but it's not actually true. They've said he's a new 'British bulldog' - don't make me boak. Is the Scotsman that desperate to create a pro-British story? Just because he got pictured with a flag? (probably handed to him by some Unionist hack desperate to get that pic!)Why does he have to make loads of humiliating declarations about how much he loves the English when he should just be concentrating on his game? Why is it even an issue? The last time he was at Wimbledon everyone cheered for the English players and after they went out they cheered for him, that was with his saltire armbands.

This year some supposedly 'quality' papers would prefer it if he forgot about being Scottish altogether! Sad, sad very sad and it says a lot about the Scotsman that it won't allow any Scot to be a success without the frankly sickening garbage of claiming them as a British bulldog, fair enough mention he's British if you MUST (for the moment anyway) but this cr*p is well OTT.

Brown has hurt Scotland by becoming PM, we won't get another and his boot licking of England and the Union Jack now means that England expects everyone to do it. Murray should have told them all to f*ck off. When we are independent our sportsmen will be treated with respect and won't be put through this obstacle course of abasing themselves before the glory of greater England. It's pathetic and it's not based on any actual remarks by Murray who said he would NOT be wearing any 'union jack head bands' which suggests that he remains a Scot first and foremost even if the sad hacks want to pretend otherwise.

Come out for independence Andy and kick everyone's a*se next year - even if everyone in 'SW1' hates your guts. It worked for McEnroe. - JPM

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

The disgusting remarks about Murray have reached their zenith with this sh*te from Tony Parsons. I don't think for a moment that Murray desires to be English, why the hell should he? However you can see that the hacks are confused since they can't tell the difference between Britishness and Scottishness themselves, don't worry Tony it will be spelt out politically soon enough.

Opinion: Tony Parsons on why Andy Murray doesn't represent England

Mirror columnist Tony Parsons wrote he wouldn't be supporting Andy Murray at Wimbledon after the Scot's anti-English remarks during the last World Cup. But would witnessing Murray's astonishing performance at first hand change his mind?

As fate would have it I was at Centre Court on Monday when Andy Murray staged one of the greatest sporting comebacks of all time against highly strung Frenchman Buster le Gasket.
Some say that the French have surrender in their bones, but this is grotesquely unfair to Andy Murray. Like several million other Englishmen I have never warmed to the dour Scot who they call Gordon Brown's lovechild.

However nobody should take anything away from what Murray did in the twilight of a Wimbledon day. He was awesome, he was magnificent, but I can't pretend I've suddenly fallen in love with the fiery Scot. His anti-English remarks cannot be forgotten so easily. No doubt there are other Englishmen and women who will feel differently because everyone loves a winner but despite his incredible performance on Monday I still can't confuse him with Bobby Moore.

I started that five set marathon cheering for the Frenchman and I ended up cheering for Murray. It would have been churlish, petty and mean-spirited to do anything else.
What I can't do is pretend Andy Murray represents me and my country.

I don't think that his remarks about England in the World Cup, when he said he would support anyone but England, were a joke I think he still feels that way and I think there are millions of people that still feel that way.

There are some people who just don't like the English, and I believe in my marrow that Murray is one of them. That's fine. Wimbledon is not really about flagwaving. Ultimately a tennis player represents no one but himself. They are as lonely as boxers.

Murray has already had an incredibly successful Wimbledon.

Whatever happens against Nadal he can be proud of himself, Scotland can be proud of him and Britain can be proud of him. But that doesn't mean we have to like him. Murray is the best thing we've seen in years in what is the most English of sports.

I am sorry that he made those stupid and insensitive remarks earlier in his career, and though he'd never admit it, I bet he is too. Viva Espana.

--- What is incredible is that this w*nker feels everyone must *automatically* support England at football! We Scots don't expect England fans to support us, or French Fans or United States fans. Then again we are not imperialist supremacists. That's the difference. To Parsons we are colonials - well it won't be for ever buddy.

Andy Murray: "He's a Brit if he wins, a Scot if he loses."

This article (see below) shows the ripe old hypocrisy of the English press. It's conclusions are probably true, Murray will never be truely loved by Britain's tennis fans for the simple fact that he's a Scot first and foremost.

That's entirely in his favour. I think it is astonishing that he has to defend himself against accusations of being ant-English (even though as he has felt forced to point out, sad in itself, his coach is English, his girlfriend is English and much of his family is English).

Murray is a potentially great tennis player, potentially a world champion. He is also a Scot who likes to wave the Saltire. That doesn't make him anti-English, it just makes him pro Scottish.

He has played in British teams in the Davis cup, sometimes risking his personal health to do so but for little reward.

It is obvious that the English would have preferred 'one of their own' like Henman to win Wimbledon, even if ultimately he just didn't have the talent. If Andy manages it they will no doubt try to drape him in a UJ and claim him as the 'best of British' but in reality they would just as easily drop him, if he loses.

Andy is Scottish, he is a source of pride for our country. If the discredited union leads some to be jealous of him and unwilling to cheer him for his talent, that makes them anti-Scottish but it does not make him anti-English.

Good luck Andy and if in the future you lose, don't worry about it because you have plenty of time and the ultimate talent to be world No. 1 not just British No. 1.

You have a long lustrous career ahead of you and on current probability most of it will be within a proudly independent Scottish state. So if some people won't clap you or support you ignore them because they are just plain jealous.

This article aptly sums them up:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2008/jun/29/andymurray.wimbledon1

Murray's a winner - but not yet a heroTim Adams watches as Andy Murray advances to the next round at Wimbledon but fails to inspire Henman-style hysteria
Tim Adams The Observer, Sunday June 29, 2008 Article historyThough Andy Murray overcame the occasionally stubborn challenge of German Thomas Haas at Wimbledon yesterday to advance to the fourth round of the tournament for the second time, 'Andymonium' has yet officially to break out in SW19. Partly, this looks like a question of flags. Outside Centre Court there was not a Union Jack to be seen except as a detail on the caps of a contingent of Aussies 'jeez mate-ing' loudly about paying forty-eight quid for a tray of Pimm's.

This evidence of the slow disintegration of the union seemed to be gathering pace by the big screens. Nobody was making their way to Murray Mound; Henman Hill, it seems, will be forever English. Perhaps there was something in the air: forget Scottish independence, this week has seem something of an assertion of devolution for the Home Counties. First there was the by-election at Henley in which the party of the Scottish Prime Minister was outflagged by the BNP; now there was this comparative apathy toward the progress of Murray - a living embodiment of the Midlothian question. (It seemed somehow symbolic that as he took to the court, Labour's Scottish leader, Wendy Alexander, 'bring it on' challenger to Alex Salmond, resigned her post.)

The Wimbledon crowd, anyhow, had not forgotten how to respond to one of their own: before Murray's match the very-nearly-14-times-champion Tim Henman was introduced to the crowd from the Royal Box, and the response on his eponymous hill were the discreet whoops that pass for mania in Dorking. The emergence of Murray provoked a more muted kind of murmur.

Wandering among the crowd I eventually come across some red, white and blue draped around the shoulders of Rebecca Lynch, up from Brighton. She had camped out overnight with her mate, Melanie Cole, who had confused the issue of identities by bringing out her full St George's Cross attire - a relic, she admits from her decade supporting Henman. Murray's Scottishness isn't a problem for them, 'though he is a bit miserable'. 'I'm half Scots anyway,' Melanie suggests, from beneath her bowler hat. 'Let's just say if he wins he's British; if he loses he's a Scot.'

Others are more robust in their opinion. 'He's a f**** moaning Scot who hates the English, but he's the best we have,' offers Charlie Robson, who has just done his A levels in Twickenham. That's pretty much a general feeling, though expressed more genteelly elsewhere. 'He's a bit scruffy,' says Christine from Oxshott, 'and he looks permanently in pain'. I glance up to the screen where Murray is warming up. It is hard to argue with this assessment. Practising his serve, he wears the look of a man regretting a pre-match pickled herring.

The resultant absence of jingoism is quite a pleasant surprise. Though Murray is playing a German, and we are enjoying a long afternoon in the sun, there are no Dambuster refrains; a stag-nighter in an afro wig who climbs on to a table to conduct a chorus of Rule Britannia ends up singing solo before falling off.

Some of this ambivalence, I'm repeatedly told, goes back to the throwaway remark Murray made the last time he played here in 2006. When asked who he was supporting in the World Cup, he replied 'anyone but England'. After he made that original remark he was shocked to hear a woman on her mobile phone exclaim: 'That Scottish wanker Murray has just walked past!' As a result he launched a cross-border charm offensive at the outset of this year's tournament. He was, he said, a quarter English through his gran; his physiotherapist was English, and, despite the name, so was his coach, Miles Maclagan.

'My girlfriend's English, too,' he went on, in some desperation, 'and I live in London. I'd have qualified to play football for England but probably wouldn't have got into the team!' Despite his efforts, the offensive doesn't seem to be working.

Far more patriotic excitement was garnered by Chris Eaton earlier in the week, with his tales of driving up from Surrey to the tournament in a sports car held together with duct tape. Eaton's appearance at the tournament excited not only a high-pitched entourage of fans, but also a lively correspondence in the Telegraph, the house journal of Surrey sports-car-with-duct-tape drivers; one observer seemed to voice the opinion of many when he noted: 'How nice to see a player that actually enjoys his tennis and showed true deference to the traditions of Wimbledon, rather than the truculence and downright rudeness of Andrew Murray and his appalling family! Well done, Eaton, see you next year. Here's hoping we see the last of the miserable Murrays in the next round!'

For a while in the second set against Haas, which he chucked away, it seemed possible that that particular wish would be granted; but, in the end, Murray won with some style. Maybe that's the other reason, beyond the state-of-the-union issues, that Andymonium has yet to ignite here. Murray has not yet put us through the wringer enough times to excite general national neurosis. Though he makes a gesture toward the style of tennis that British Wimbledon fans have come to expect of their heroes - the sublime touch followed by the embarrassing mis-hit - in general he is far too much in control to count yet as a national treasure. He's winning too easily; he just hasn't suffered enough and neither have we. No doubt in the coming week all of that will be put right.

Dear Wendy, what happened to the Claim of Right?

(sent through Wendy's blog)

Dear Ms Alexander,

Does your party still support the Claim of Right for Scotland? Gordon Brown and his followers appear to think power resides with the UK parliament, not the Scottish people (see below for the proof of that statement).

That was always the view of the Conservatives and that was why they acted the way they did while in office. Yet Labour along with the Liberal Democrats signed the Claim of Right and also demanded control of Scottish broadcasting from London.

Now it appears that your own leader thinks Scotland's views can be ignored:

Put that if Alex Salmond took Wendy Alexander's advice and held a referendum on independence, it would take place before the Calman Commission reported, the PMS said that for there to be a legally binding referendum, it would require legislation in the UK Parliament.

Asked if the PMS was suggesting that the Prime Minister would seek to block an early referendum after saying that any binding referendum would need legislation in the UK Parliament, the PMS replied that he was not suggesting anything; he was setting out a factual position.

My organisation, Independence First wrote to the last Scottish Executive and British Government seeking their views, what returned was illuminating and alarming.

The Scottish Parliament replied: “The Scotland Act 1998 sets out the statutory framework for the Scottish devolution settlement. Schedule 5 to the Act defines matters which are reserved to the United Kingdom Parliament.”

“The devolution settlement and constitutional matters generally are reserved matters under the Act. The Government of the United Kingdom is responsible therefore for considering any fundamental changes to the existing devolution framework in Scotland.”

The Scottish Office in London replied “It is worth noting that in the UK political system the UK parliament is sovereign and it is for Parliament to decide whether or not to hold a referendum on any particular issue - and what the terms of any referendum should be.”

http://www.independence1st.com/comment/not_acceptable.shtml

Yours sincerely,

Joe Middleton

A progressive nationalism for England?

Billy Bragg makes an excellent contribution to the debate here:

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/billy_bragg/2008/04/a_different_strand_of_socialism.html

The SNP has managed to unashamedly be both proud of their country and progressive. Their 2007 manifesto for the Scottish election was available in Polish, Urdu and Cantonese, yet they are a nationalist party.

Their patriotism has driven them to ensure that old people get free care, students don't have to pay tuition fees and prescriptions get cheaper in Scotland, even as they become more expensive in England. This is nationalism as a positive social force, uniting people around the implementation of progressive policies in the name of Scottish self-determination.

Yet the same sense of pride that the Scots have used to move their national agenda to the left of New Labour, we in England are only too eager to surrender to the far-right. Unable or unwilling to distinguish between xenophobia and progressive patriotism, some on the left are destined to fight old wars in which class is the single defining characteristic. In the post-ideological period in which we live, national identity has become more significant than class or religion. For the English, this process has been exacerbated by a programme of devolution that many believe has treated them unfairly.

During the next election, there is a strong possibility that the issue of England will be a prominent feature on the agenda, if only because the Tories hope to use it to embarass our Scottish prime minister. If a Conservative government hostile to Scotland's social spending is elected, the momentum for Scottish independence will increase. Should the Scots decide to break with the union, there is every likelihood that the English will suddenly find themselves independent too.

A new progressive England?

St George’s Day for an imagined nation? Mark Perryman argues it is time we start thinking about England after Britain (Compass, Wednesday, April 23, 2008)

The first three terms of a Labour government have been constitutionally dominated by devolution. Whilst the English, at the outset of this process, mostly took a take-it-and-leave it attitude, the impact in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland has been much more profound.

http://www.compassonline.org.uk/article.asp?n=1642

This is very good (Alan McCombes recommended it).

I have added a comment.