POLITICAL RALLIES NEED TO INCLUDE EVERYONE

As someone who has been involved in helping organise such events in the past (through Independence First) I very much hope that this new rally on Saturday organised by http://www.independenceforscotland.com/ is a success and leads to victory in the referendum in 2014.

Obviously the website is very professional and the organisers have made good use of social networking to publicise and advertise the rally. They have also apparently attracted wide support from across the political spectrum with some very famous faces lined up to speak at the rally including the First Minister himself.

Nonetheless banning the Scottish Republican Socialist Movement (SRSM) from events (based on the opinions of someone like Jim Murphy) is entirely counter productive. 

The story is here: http://www.scotsman.com/scotland-on-sunday/scottish-independence-snp-under-fire-over-extremists-at-rally-1-2529585 and was also reported in the Glasgow Herald.

As a current member of the SNP and a former member of the SRSM I obviously have an interest in these developments.

Scottish republicanism is a legitimate political position to take which is supported by somewhere around 50% of the Scottish people. The British Queen has as much interest in Scotland as the Spanish King has to Catalonia and he made it clear where his loyalties lie this week. At the height of the devolution debate in the 70's 'our' Queen similarly distanced herself from Scotland and I'm sure would do the same again. Given the contemptuous title of England's Queen Elizabeth II it has always been clear where her personal loyalty has lay.

The British flag is a symbol of imperialism, racism and divide 'n' rule politics. Showing contempt for that flag by burning it is a legitimate political response and more honest than smiling wanly while it is thrust down our throats during sporting events where Scotland is excluded from participating as ourselves.

Brittania was the Roman name for England and Wales, not Scotland. Great Britain was always a device for expanding English power (a fact which was admitted by Jack Straw MP) at the expense of Scotland and Wales and it remains precisely that today.

All groups who support independence should have been made welcome at the rally. Past organisations (like IF) which organised events were deliberately set up on an entirely non-political basis so they could be made bullet-proof from divide 'n' rule style stirring by the British unionists and their allies in the press.

Radical elements are all part of what makes independence movements tick. The SNP is a broad church but it won't enthuse everyone by promoting a pro-European and pro-monarchist position or by watering down it's opposition to nuclear weapons. That radicalism needs to come from groups outside the SNP and the SRSM have always been 100% committed to Scottish independence and a republic in the tradition of John MacLean. He wasn't popular with the establishment either but his name lives on while most of his Brit loving supposed 'international socialist' contemporaries are deservedly gathering dust.
 
In his early years Salmond was a republican and part of the '79 group. Without the fire in his belly of those early experiences it is unlikely he could have risen to the position he holds today. The SNP should realise that it does not speak for everybody and welcome support from outside its ranks. Any group organising a rally needs to do the same thing otherwise it will ultimately be dictated to by a unionist lobby which ultimately includes low lifes like the BNP and the Orange Lodge (guess who organised the only jubilee street party in Glasgow!). Given the company they keep and the war mongering actions of the state they represent British unionists have no right to criticise any element of Scotland's independence movement.
 
If we want to gain the mass support recently demonstrated by activists in Catalonia then we need to widen our ranks to include every supporter of independence from the right to the left of political thought in Scotland. If we don't do that then we are very unlikely to win independence in 2014.

IMPORTANT NOTICE: INDEPENDENCE FIRST DEBATE

IMPORTANT NOTICE: Independence First are organising an important debate about the case for and against Scottish independence with MSP speakers from the SNP, Greens and Labour and leading Scottish academics. The debate will be held at the STUC premises, 333 Woodlands Road, Glasgow on Saturday the 13th of September, 1pm - 4pm (registration 12.30pm onwards). Contact Carol Walker for more information.

Fiscal Autonomy vs Unionism vs Independence

If Labour had ever wanted to introduce fiscal autonomy they would have done it already. In fact without oil 'fiscal autonomy' would be worthless and would probably be less advantageous than Barnett (even though it is actually designed to squeeze our expenditure not increase it).

If you have Oil then it's independence. FA is a useful tool whereby you pretend you want more powers but in fact you would be happy to see Scotland get less money (while being swindled out of our rights to the Oil and Gas revenues). Wendy was in that camp, her own recent paper acknowledged it.

The fact is as well that Labour and not going to win the next GE so we would be reliant on the Tories to give us a fair financial settlement. This will not happen because the Conservatives support is in England and as such they don't care particularly how they are seen in Scotland (when in Government that is, as we saw last time). They are always more pleasant out than they ever are when they are in, prior to Thatcher they pretended they wanted 'stronger devolution' than Labour but they showed their true unionist colours eventually.

Their comments in Glasgow East were revealing, if you are poor it's your own fault. This from a public school boy who went to Eton and Oxbridge! Don't trust anything a unionist says and you will never go wrong.

Independence is normality so logical arguments against it are few and far between. All are flawed.

We would lose our seat in the UN security council.

We might but since it doesn't represent Scotland in any shape or form who cares? Rump England would remain a nuclear power if they had somewhere to put the weapons so they might remain part of the bullies council, but it doesn't matter to us. Scotland needs an ordinary seat in the UN with our flag flying at it. Until we have that we have nothing else.

Scotland would have a lesser voice in Europe.

Same as above we have no voice at the moment so independent membership, a seat in the Council of Ministers and improved representationin the parliament would be a significant step up.

The EU doesn't want you.

The EU wants everyone else (if they are democracies) and given the amount of natural resources like fish and Oil we have they would be daft to try and pull anything. In fact the EU is a mixed blessing anyway so this argument is losing it's teeth. (The EU are trying to make a mediterranean union btw behind the scenes which will infuriate the arab world, Libya is right on this). There's hasn't been a word about it in Scotland, so the truth is we are out of the loop in a lot of areas.

We would be out the G8.

Britain would yes (because it relies on the GDP of Scotland to make it one of the 8 richest nations) but apart from a fancy dinner Britain doesn't get much out of it anyway. Russia and China have poor human rights records so the body will never do anything significant anyway.
Scotland would however be eligible for membership of OPEC along with Norway which is the powerful group the G8 was set up to imitate!

We would also be members of numerous other world bodies, we would have consular representatives in all the nations in the world we wanted them. At the moment we have no influence world wide because on every maor issue the British Government represents their interests and it's not the same as ours.

Scotland could have an effect in a number of areas. We could increase the percentage of GDP we give to third world countries. We could reach free trade agreements which help open markets (but without strings attached) we could help towards world conflict resolution.

As for we're too poor/daft/incompetent to rule ourselves, if anyone believes that they should consult a psychiatrist because they have a colonised midset through reading too many biased British newpapers!

Others are simply disinterested/demotivated and say 'I'm not interested in politics, they are all the same' or 'why bother with change it's too much hassle let's settle for what we've got'. Why bother living at all then? Everything in life worth getting is worth risking something and if the only risk is having faith in your fellow Scots it shouldn't be that hard.

We have plenty of opportunity but we have to be able to see them and as the ex SNP MSP Cambell Martin said "for the unionists to see clearly they have to first get up off their knees."
Some people like it down there though they have their wee bit money and their big hoose and they don't give a damn about their fellow Scots.

Unionists conduct shows a cynical lack of respect

Labour's decision to hold a crucial by-election during the traditional Glasgow holiday shows that they prefer to have elections without any candidates and even without any voters if it suits their purposes. If you don't want to be disenfranchised and live in Glasgow East, get a a postal vote.

Labour's Margaret Curran strongly attacked Alex Salmond for serving in two parliaments. No doubt they had a fair point at the time (though no doubt like Ian Paisley FM Salmond finds it handy to make the occasional visit to Westminster) but it seems a tad hypocritical that they are now rushing to do the same thing after all the genuinely local candidates ran for the hills.

Labour's own internal rules didn't allow dual roles. That is until they had an emergency meeting of their NEC and changed them. Suddenly it's quite OK to spend time in both parliaments, no doubt it will be a positive advantage by the end of the campaign.

Of course the media are taking their usual impartial stance with their coverage heavily in favour of Labour and constant pictures of Ms Curran (though given her miserable coupon that might not be the best idea!). During the proposed TV debate however I think we will see the true nature of Labour and their unionism. We got a taster with their other Glasgow MSP suddenly welcoming a 7 day festival devoted to the Orange Order. Great! Unless you are a Catholic or simply not a bigot.

Of course these issues are not crucial but they tend to suggest Labour will do anything to get re-elected. Luckily it's not up to them but to Glasgow's voters.

SNP Candidate John Mason, can he 'do a Govan' and get ripped into Labour's candidate on live TV? Let's hope so.

The only fundamental question in this by election for those voters is: 'Are you happy with what Labour have done with your area and their conversion via New Labour to a pseudo Conservative party?'

If not, then you have nothing to lose by kicking them where it hurts on the 27th July.

Why not give the Scottish party a chance? Why shouldn't Scotland run our own affairs? Labour have never explained what makes us uniquely incompetent among the peoples of the world in this area.

With independence we could revitalise Scotland, we certainly couldn't do any worse than the UK Labour Government which will soon be returning to the usual shade of Tory blue.

Of course it's that nice Mr Cameron, not the nasty Mrs Thatcher.

Er no, not any more he isn't. In this by-election Cameron decided to turn extremely nasty and had a kick at the poor, and just for good measure, fat people! Saying that they deserve all they get. Don't help, just ignore them.

The Tories have always blamed the poor and praised the rich but to pop up and spit on the locals is pretty unusual behaviour for a party which are supposedly campaigning for votes!

Then again it's not any real surprise because just like Labour the Tories only care about that bit of Britain where the most votes are, and it's not Scotland. That's why in a parliament in London where we are outvoted 10 to 1 the only sensible thing to do is to leave it but before then we need MP's who put Scotland's interests first.