Sick of Racism? Break the Union

The news that the BNP are having a party political broadcast and their leaflets distributed with public money is disturbing and there is no doubt that this so called party is in reality a racist organisation which is intended to stir up hatred against non-white people.

Sadly however the other British parties are little better and have played the race card when it suits them. Remember the comment that asylum seekers should be "sent to an island far, far away"? It wasn't the BNP who said that but Oliver Letwin of the Conservative Party during the last elections.

It's not hard to work out why various skinheads and right wing groups love to wave the Union Jack. The British Empire was utterly racist in it's attitude towards other cultures and effectively exploited almost every country on the planet. Hitler was on record as greatly admiring the British Empire.

If we want to end the British imperialist culture of imagined superiority towards other nations and the xenophobic attitudes which feed of this then we need to break up the union which pushed this distorted world view in the first place.

Scottish independence supporters want equality with other nations. This Labour Government wants something more than equality.

Tony Blair says Britain must be prepared to use what he terms 'hard power' or military force against other nations, rather than what he describes as 'soft power' ie democratic negotiations. He recently told MP's: "You have to be prepared... to be engaged with hard power where it is right and necessary to do so. You only get the ability to use 'soft' power properly if you are prepared to do the other difficult things."

The end of Britain would signal the final end of imperial ambition. It would be a reality check for our sadly out of touch Labour Government and would allow Scotland to adopt a rational position on world affairs. This would almost certainly not include wasting money on buying a new generation of Trident or letting our young soldiers be killed in an illegal war which has inflamed the Middle East and led to the deaths of around half a million Iraqi civilians.

Choose Freedom Not Empire

CHURCH BIGOTRY AGAINST GAY ADOPTION IS WRONG

I wonder who the Catholic church think they are actually representing with this stand?

Perhaps they should actually consult with their parishioners before taking a bigoted stand against a minority in the community. I very much doubt most Christian church goers would support this stance.

The new testament is all about tolerance and understanding of others. The idea that one section of the community can be legally discriminated against is quite disgusting.

Anyone remember the Nazis?

In Scotland we should be completely against discrimination and every political party should support the removal of discriminatory laws. I was very proud of the Scottish Parliament for ridding us of Section 2A aka Section 28 and I wish they would show a bit more leadership this this time as well.

It is morally wrong to discriminate between married and unmarried people in the 21st century no matter what their sexual orientation. Those who are prepared to justify this are not true Christians and they don't represent the attitude of the New Testament which basically boils down to 'treat others as you would like to be treated yourself'.

It's at times like these I'm glad I decided to become an atheist.

IRISH STAR ADRIAN DUNBAR BACKS INDEPENDENCE FIRST

Irish film actor Adrian Dunbar, star of 'the General' and 'Hear My Song' has backed Independence First the Scottish Independence Referendum campaign, Mr Dunbar says:

"In 1916 James Connolly, a boy from the Cowgate in Edinburgh realised a last chance for Independence was presenting itself to the Irish people. He knew how important it was to seize the opportunity as events can overtake you and timing is everything. By his actions and those of his friends (who came from all creeds and classes and political persuasion) he went on to secure the rights and privileges existent in modern Ireland. Scotland may not be in O,Caseys words "rotten ripe for rebellion" but the quiet tartan revolution is gaining momentum and through Independence First the Scottish people can begin to seize the moment and take their place again amongst the nations where their enlightened voice, good humour and moral courage is so badly needed. yours citizen by the grace of Connolly Adrian Dunbar."

Excellent video of Lloyd Quinan being interviewed in Sardinia by iRS

www.scottishindependence.com/sardinia.htm

FAILED TORY 'LORDS' ATTACK SCOTTISH INDEPENDENCE

With friends like this, Tony Blair needs more enemies. Today 'Lord ' Forsyth, probably the most unpopular Secretary of State for Scotland ever and one of the men along with 'Lord' Lang who presided over the Tories collapse to zero seats in Scotland have yet again attacked Scottish Independence hopes.

It's time these relics were shoved out of the Lords and onto the doll queue. After independence their cushy positions, large salaries and ermine robes will be put in the dustbin and there is no place better designed for this shower of no-hopers!

Former leader of the Liberal Democrats 'Lord' Steel also attacks Scottish independence despite his own party supposedly believing in a federal UK.

Despite huge desire for devolution, both Ian Lang and Michael Forsyth ignored the will of the Scottish people (who had already voted in 1979 for devolution) and forced Tory policies down our throats. They received a richly deserved order of the boot when they were wiped out in Scotland (they still have only one MP in Scotland today).

They want devolution to go in reverse, Lord Forsyth has called for it to be removed on a number of occasions, however the logic of devolution is that if we want more powers over our own affairs then the only way is independence.

WALES,SCOTLAND, CORNWALL, ENGLAND, IRELAND

To: ALL those who support the principle of self determination and the freedom of ALL the countries listed. It's time to work together on a common strategy to free our nations from the British Union which suits politicians from the British Labour and Conservative parties and no-one else.

Contact me if you want to help take this further.

joe.middleton@blueyonder.co.uk

For more info see: www.scottishindependence.com

I believe 2007 can be the year freedom begins for all our nations. We can do it if we work together. Let's begin now.

Scotland has a different experience from Wales but it's similar. We have been provided with a stronger parliament (but not as strong as was actually demanded or initially proposed). In both countries the local Labour parties pour scorn on the financial capabilities of both nations to support independence. Our experience is similar and our main nationalist political parties are very similar also.

Ireland has had a different experience from Scotland but again there are considerable similarities. The Unions of 1801 and 1707 happened for very similar reasons. Ireland was brutally suppressed at the height of Empire. It's fight for full independence was cruelly cut short and it's people were finagled out of the independence they had voted for as a nation in a crucial area. A Scottish King laid the foundation of that injustice but together as United Irishman and Scotsmen we have fought against the harsh injustice of British rule.

Cornwall is one of the oldest Celtic nations and has as much right to that title as Wales or Scotland however because it was taken over by England so long ago it has been marginalised and possibly treated the worst of all the Celtic countries (the others are at least officially recognised as countries). The idea it is merely a county of England is an insult. Mebyon Kernow is the forgotten nationalist party but it deserves similar recognition to the SNP and Plaid Cymru.

England is only just waking up to an uncomfortable experience of being politically excluded and it forms by far the largest element in Britain with the largest population (around 83-85% of the British Union). It is therefore a major player in the Union (and was it's historical instigator) however the Union no longer suits England either as many are now deciding (59% at last count).

England's unique political views ARE being ignored by a cabal of Scottish Labour ministers who are ruling England and pushing through legislation by the votes of Scottish MP's who have no genuine interest in Scotland or England. Often Scottish MP's are voting for legislation which has been rejected in Scotland. This is not fair and we need to have mutual independence to sort this 'West Lothian Question'.

BIG BROTHER HAS HIGHLIGHTED BRITISH IMPERIAL RACISM

There is a connection (albeit a tenuous one) between the recent controversy in C4's 'celebrity Big Brother' and Scottish independence. What we have in Britain is a state that still thinks of themselves (delusionally) as a world power. This has been obvious from the actions of Tony Blair and also recent comments by him.

This is part of the historic attitudes of the British Empire which like all imperial nationalism was based upon the superiority of the home culture over the local natives who were exploited for their wealth and often raped, enslaved or sometimes incorporated into Britain's militarity might as soldiers (much like the Nazis and the Romans did as well).

The British Empire is over but the imperial attitudes which drove it still exist, particularly amongst the most poorly educated who rely on a right wing often racist tabloid press for their main news.

Despite winning a war against fascism Britain has seen the rise of Neo Nazi groups like the BNP with their overtly racist and anti-immigration agenda. The comments of certain individuals within the BB house were racist but they reflect the culture from which they sprang.

Racist opinions are ugly but they are even more ugly when they are voiced by political parties and both Labour and the Tories have been guilty of playing the race card when it suits their purposes.

Liberation type nationalism which led to the break up of the British Empire and the freedom of most countries from it is quite different in character, it is about equality of the country in question with others.

This is what Scottish nationalism represents and if we do become independent we will have the chance to put the imperial attitudes which were previously associated with the British Empire in the dustbin of history where they belong.

We can also force the rest of the remaining British state to re-evaluate their role more properly in the post imperial landscape. Britain's current foreign policy is absurd as it is reliant entirely on being the cats paw of the US. The sooner rump Britain is faced with the removal of (unusable and ridiculously expensive) nuclear weapons and an appropriate reduction in ambition the better.

www.scottishindependence.com

TIME TO END THIS FALSE 'UNION'

While other countries celebrate their independence day with passion and pride the muted and unenthusiastic reaction (there wasn't any!) to the anniversary of the British union reflects the historical fact that this was a forced union against the will of the ordinary people of Scotland.

If British unionists really genuinely believe that the people of Scotland don’t want independence then they should be willing to put the issue to a democratic vote. In fact most opinion polls consistently show a majority of those surveyed in favour. This Scottish Executive is not asking the question because they know they won’t like the answer.

The Scottish independence movement’s victory is ultimately guaranteed because while supporters of independence have genuine enthusiasm for their cause the unionist case is based on scaremongering, absurd misrepresentation and lies.

Jack Straw recently admitted this union was ‘designed to amplify English power abroad’ and it has never done anything else in its history. The ‘union’ wasn’t really a union at all, it was in fact a hostile takeover. Those who are still supporting it have a vested interest in the status quo and no interest in returning normal national powers to the people of Scotland.

The ordinary people of England now believe the union should end as well so just who do Labour and the Tories think they are actually representing?

THE TRUTH ABOUT THE BRITISH UNION

The people of Scotland will not find out the truth about the British Union
from the two biased documentaries produced by the BBC. Both presented by
unionists, both present their own 'spin' on the events.

Everyone and their dog knows what the British union really was anyway, a
shotgun marriage of convenience which suited England because it
(theoretically) closed the door to a possible Scottish based invasion and it
suited the 'Noble' families of Scotland who (I) regained the money they lost
on the Darien expedition and (II) ended English economic sanctions which
would have lost them their lands in England and also opened the way to make
money in the newly emerging English (soon to be renamed British) Empire.

Just in case the Scots rejected English plans a large army was based on the
border and since Cromwell's New Model Army (he ruled Scotland directly while
in power) there was no hope of Scottish victory in a direct confrontation.

The peoples views were very different from their ignoble 'leaders' - they
saw this for what it was the end to the glorious days of Scottish
independence and effectively the virtual end of Scotland as a distinct
entity.

Post union the English renamed Scotland as North Britain on official
documents (England remained England of course) leading Robert Burns to write
some years later:

"Alas, I have often said to myself what are the boasted advantages which my
country reaps from a certain Union that counterbalance the annihilation of
her Independence, and even her name!"

So could union have been avoided? The people of Scotland hoped so with over
seventy petitions containing 20,000 names calling for the nobles to respect
the will of the people and remember the Declaration of Arbroath.

Unfortunately the truth is probably not, a huge part of the sovereignty of
Scotland had been given away one hundred years before with the Union of
Crowns in 1603. James VI had no interest in his native land whatsoever and
like every other traveller to London Government since preferred to sit in
London and sook up the gravy train than come home to his country.

James VI was a traitor. We know this from his own words, he said Scotland
would: "with time become but as Cumberland and Northumberland, and those
other remote and Northern Shires... they as other Northerne Countreys will
be seldome seen and saluted by their King, and that as it were but in a
posting or hunting journey"

This is the man who would later divide and rule Northern Ireland by sending
in loyalist Scots settlers to rule it on behalf of England. The monarchs
after him were no better.

James VII was removed because he didn't suit English plans and every one
since has considered his bread well buttered by England and completely
ignored Scotland accordingly.

Our current monarch followed this tradition with her choice of Elizabeth II
of England rather than Elizabeth I of The United Kingdom.

The reformation didn't help matters either putting a wedge between Scotland
and our Catholic allies in Europe. Some writers believe John Knox was
specifically sent into Scotland by Elizabeth I to divide and rule us and
this success is why she is so venerated today by Britain. Certainly, the
Catholic Church was a lot more patriotic about Scotland and risked
ex-communication as a nation to back their King and Country during the long
wars of independence. The Church of Scotland had the power to foment
rebellion against union but as long as their rights to maintain their
religious freedoms were maintained they were simply not interested.

So effectively in reality we have been controlled by England for 400 years
rather than 300. Darien proved this as King William of Orange backed
England's imperial interests over Scotland's. The Scots were well sick of
him and their desire to get rid of the Union Of Crowns and restore full
sovereignty to Scotland eventually led to them being finagled out of their
parliament.

There were huge riots in all Scotland's major cities against the union so we
definitely know that the ordinary people didn't want it.

Of course this historical stuff is all very interesting but what relevance
does it have today? Well today Scotland has a devolved parliament but it
remains powerless because sovereignty is still at Westminster. In this 300th
year anniversary of the forced union we have a golden opportunity to make
our voice heard very loudly on the international stage. We can have our own
seat at the United Nations, we can have our own Scottish Olmpic Team and we
can put Scotland right back on the international map.

Today, we the people have the power and we are not reliant on easily bribed
nobles to represent us. To do so however we must ignore 300 years of blatant
British propaganda and say "we are as good as every other country and we
deserve the same right to rule our own affairs".

Current polls show a clear majority in Scotland for independence.

If you want it, vote for it this year.

It's time to stop honouring despot Dundas

I read with dismay the Evening News report today that the council are planning to refurbish the statue of former Scottish Home Secretary Henry Dundas, Viscount Melville, in the centre of St Andrews Square.

Can I suggest when they take him down they make the arrangement permanent?

Dundas enjoys two very prominent statues in St Andrews Square which is pretty disturbing when he personally ran one of the most politically repugnant and corrupt administrations in Scotland's history!

It was Dundas's brother Robert who as Lord Advocate arranged to send Edinburgh lawyer Thomas Muir to Botany Bay for the 'crimes' of demanding universal suffrage, reform of the British House of Commons and Scottish independence.

The Dundas brothers and their allies claimed that the British constitution was 'the finest in the world' and there was no need to change it despite the fact that it was blatantly rotten with corruption and wholesale bribery and he and his brother were forced to regularly use troops against their own countrymen to maintain the established order.

Henry and Robert Dundas ran a huge network of spies and in a recent book by Hector MacMillan (Handful of Rogues - Thomas Muir's enemies of the people) it is explained that they even went so far as to execute one of their own informers to ensure a high profile conviction for sedition!

Sadly, since Edinburgh council is today led by Labour politicians who take a similar approach to Scotland's national rights as the Dundas brothers did, I'm sure they will be happy to resurrect this shameful statue to this corrupt British despot, just as they have blocked any plans to commemorate Edinburgh's James Connolly in the city.

Hopefully next year Henry Dundas and the racist imperialist state he represented in Scotland as 'North Britain' will be finally and completely consigned to the dustbin of history. When that happens hopefully all the assorted statues of the exalted ruffians of the British Empire which are scattered all over Edinburgh will be discarded as well.

Labour MSP's dismayed at return of 'awful' Rhona Brankin

Jack McConnell angered and dismayed many of his Labour colleagues yesterday by naming Rhona Brankin as his new Communities Minister. Ms Brankin, 56, who had been deputy minister at environment and rural affairs, was promoted to full cabinet rank despite a reputation for being ineffectual.

In 2001 she was burned in effigy by fishermen protesting at cuts in the Scottish fleet, while last year she was forced to gut a bill meant to reform crofting after warnings that it was more likely to destroy crofting altogether. In the eyes of many MSPs, the First Minister chose Ms Brankin because of geography rather than talent - in order to restore the east-west balance among his ministers.

Until he was forced to resign as Communities Minister last month for backing an SNP motion against renewing Trident, Malcolm Chisholm had been the only Labour minister representing a constituency outside west central Scotland.

The appointment of Ms Brankin, who represents Midlothian, means there are as many female Labour ministers as males for the first time. A senior Labour figure admitted to being "gobsmacked" by Ms Brankin's promotion, describing it as "a reward for incompetence". One Labour MSP added: "There's no-one who rates her." Another summed up the new minister as "awful".

Inside cabinet, it is understood Health Minister Andy Kerr is one of Ms Brankin's sharpest critics, and is thought to have warned Mr McConnell against making her education minister last year. Ms Brankin's promotion appeared to come as a particular blow to Labour's Allan Wilson, who has toiled as a deputy in various portfolios for the past six years, but whose seat is in Ayrshire. Mr Wilson, who seemed to have dressed up in readiness for the TV cameras, looked crestfallen when it emerged the job had gone to someone else.

As if aware of the rumblings on his back benches, Mr McConnell made the unusual decision not to appear beside Ms Brankin as she left Bute House just after noon. Her low-key exit contrasted with the recent appointments of Hugh Henry as Education Minister and Elish Angioloni as Lord Advocate, both of whom were accompanied by a beaming Mr McConnell.

Ms Brankin's replacement in the deputy environment job is Sarah Boyack, 45, a former Transport Minister who was sacked in 2001. Like Ms Brankin, Ms Boyack also represents an east-coast seat - Edinburgh Central - although as a popular convener of Holyrood's environment committee she was a natural choice for her post.

Ms Brankin's portfolio is likely to be undemanding until the election. A major planning bill has already passed through parliament, while financial issues with the Glasgow Housing Association, which occupied much of Mr Chisholm's time, should also be quiet as the GHA is in the process of finding a new chief executive.

In a letter to Ms Brankin, the First Minister said her first task would be the launch of a strategy on Scotland's ageing population. He also expected her to take a lead on the voluntary sector, tackling racism, work with faith communities, social housing and homelessness.
"I know you will give the post your full commitment and energy, and I have every confidence in you being a highly successful minister," he said. Ms Brankin said she was "delighted" with the new post, but admitted there were "some challenging times ahead".

Nicola Sturgeon, the SNP leader at Holyrood, said she wished Ms Brankin well "in what will be a very short period in office". She added the appointment had only come about because the First Minister could not bear any Trident critics in his cabinet.

(from the Herald)

[This is pretty funny, but what a shame for the people of Midlothian (where my home town of Mayfield, Dalkeith is) who are stuck with the awful New Labourite Brankin. Let's hope she gets kicked out next time. JOE]

Alex Salmond interview

Alex Salmond: You ask the questions

The leader of the Scottish National Party answers your questions, such as 'How can you justify independence?' and 'What would your anthem be?'

What was your reaction to the execution of Saddam Hussein and what should Britain do now about Iraq? HOUZAN SALEH, London

I do not support the death penalty and thought the execution of Saddam Hussein has made him a martyr rather than a criminal. I believe that the Government needs a timetabled exit strategy from Iraq.

Given that it was the SNP which reported the cash for honours affair to the police, do you think it was appropriate for the Prime Minister to give a knighthood to the man who will make the decision about prosecuting him or others? B EMMERSON, Yorkshire

The knighthood awarded to Ken Macdonald shows the complete lack of contrition from the Labour Government - especially when combined with the knighthood also awarded to John Scarlett who was the author of the dodgy Iraq dossier - the two biggest shadows over Blair's reign.

If Scotland wins full independence, will you repatriate all those Scottish MPs currently meddling in English domestic politics, and end the constant anti-English diatribe? DAVE JONES, by e-mail

There will be no Scottish MPs at Westminster after independence. The SNP, as you may know, does not vote on English matters at Westminster and it is right that Scottish MPs should not tip the balance on domestic English issues. Independence for Scotland and England would mean a new relationship of equals and would I hope end any diatribes from either side!

How can you justify breaking away from the UK when you know deep cuts to services will have to prevail to keep the economy from falling apart? Would Scotland have its own army or would you rely on the English army? JAMES CRONIN, London

Scotland has a budgetary surplus this year of £600m at a time when the UK has a budgetary deficit approaching £40bn. There would be no cuts in services, but we wouldn't waste our money on new nuclear weapons or the Iraq war! Scotland, like Ireland, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Estonia, Iceland etc, will have armed forces and I can guarantee that a Scottish government I lead will not send our young men and women into an illegal war.

If you don't win the May election outright, who will you go into coalition with? DAWN MACRORY, Aberdeen

We will enter into coalition talks with all parties except the Conservatives. We have already had discussions with the Greens about co-operation in the next parliament short of a formal coalition.

Would you introduce passport controls for English visitors? GEOFFREY CHAPMAN, Guildford

No, there would not be border guards on the border. We would be in exactly the same position as Ireland and the UK today. We can visit our cousins in Cork without passports.

Will the Queen continue to be Queen of an independent Scotland, as the direct descendant of James VI? Or will you reinstate the Stuarts? LAURA CORDON, Lewisham, London

The Queen will be Elizabeth of Scotland in the same way as she is Queen today in Canada, Australia and a host of other Commonwealth nations.

Nationalism has proved to be the scourge of the 20th century, so why should anyone vote for a national party? ANTHONY FIELD, by e-mail

There is British nationalism or Scottish nationalism. I prefer the civic nationalism of small nations that has been expressed through the independence of a dozen European nations of similar size to Scotland in the past 100 years. They have prospered and I'd choose the tolerance and peace of Norway and Ireland over Trident and the illegal Iraq war any day.

How important is North Sea oil for a strong Scotland, and what would you do when it runs out? CHRIS GITTINS, Bristol

On UK government estimates of probable to potential reserves we are about halfway through the reserves of oil in the North Sea, which means that we are probably less than halfway through the revenues. Scotland will prosper when we create a more competitive economy through policies like lower corporate tax. Oil will remain an important part of Scotland's economy, but it is only one part of an impressive resource and economic hand Scotland can play. As important as oil is we have huge renewable potential, with Scotland having as much as 25 per cent of the EU tidal and wind resource, which with the right approach can deliver a second energy windfall for our nation.

Many people foresee an EU of Scotlands, Catalonias, Bavarias etc, instead of big nations. How imperative is Europe in your long-term ambitions for Scotland? CAMPBELL WATERMAN, by e-mail

I want to see Scotland as a full member of the EU. It makes sense for the nations of this continent to co-operate and in areas such as trade and the economy there is no doubt that the single market and our partnership provides huge benefits. Independent membership of the EU would also allow a Scottish government to stand up for Scottish interests in areas such as the fishing industry which has long been sold short by the UK Government in EU negotiations.

Would Cumbria be better off Scottish? GEOFF SMITH, Crosby nr Maryport

The SNP has no territorial ambitions on England - even for our friends in Cumbria.

Do you accept that independence for Scotland would mean an end to the generous subsidy funded by English taxpayers? ALLAN MUNDS, Isle of Wight

There is of course no subsidy from England to Scotland - quite the opposite. You may not realise, but the basis for this attack on Scotland is a set of figures that excludes revenues from the Scottish sector of the North Sea and includes a charge for English courts, prisons and tourism promotion to name but a few. This year Scotland is in relative surplus to the UK to the tune of almost £3bn and including all our nation's resources we have been in surplus for the last three decades. You may want to consider why it is that the SNP argues for full fiscal independence for Scotland (we raise and spend our money ourselves) while the UK Government wants to keep the current system with its supposed subsidy!

What happens if Shetland decides on self determination from Scotland? Is Scottish independence viable without North Sea oil and gas? BRIAN FLETCHER, by e-mail

Ireland is doing very well without any oil or gas resource. Scotland will flourish when we can create a competitive advantage for our economy - through policies like lower corporation tax. I have every confidence that Shetland will remain part of Scotland, despite attempts to divide and rule!

Scotland has a disproportionately large percentage of its workforce in the public sector. An independent Scotland could not flourish like this. What would you do about it? ALLAN FORRESTER, Westray, Orkney

Scotland is not flourishing. We have the lowest long-term growth in the EU and that is because we do not have the financial flexibility to give Scotland a competitive edge. Ireland, Norway and Iceland - our three neighbours and all in the top six wealthiest in the world - are no more talented or entrepreneurial, they have no advantage in terms of skills, geography or people. They do have the ability to choose their own direction and work to their strengths - an option denied Scotland while London has remote control of the main economic levers.

In the event of Scottish independence, what do you think the consequences will be for the proposed Trident replacement. JOHN BUTLER, Kidderminster

The British Government would have to find a new site for its nuclear arsenal. I'd hope that independence for Scotland might make them think again about a new generation of these devastating and immoral weapons.

In an independent Scotland, would you hold a referendum on leaving Nato? ALEX SKINNER, by e-mail

There would not be a referendum on this issue, it would be decided by the Scottish government who could choose to follow Finland and be partners with Nato (as the SNP proposes) or Norway and be members of Nato.

Why do Scottish and Welsh nationalists not have candidates in England? It is wrong to think the English are against the break-up of the Union. PAUL BRAZIER, Wotton under Edge

We are a Scottish party and having us standing in England would be like the Tories standing in France!

Why can't the Scots produce any decent music? Franz Ferdinand are rubbish, the Bay City Rollers were a joke, and bagpipes are noise pollution. What will do you for a national anthem? MARTIN FORREST, Newcastle upon Tyne

It's a question of taste. Millions would disagree with you about Scotland's musical record, but I can promise that the Bay City Rollers won't be providing the national anthem!

If Scotland breaks away, should not all Scottish peers be removed from the (English) House of Lords, such as Lord Strathclyde? NATALIE JONES, by e-mail

Yes, but that would be a decision for Westminster.

If the SNP wins the Scottish elections in May, which bits of UK-wide legislation will you block? Road pricing? ID cards? ROBERT MACBRIDE, Oban

The devolved Parliament cannot "block" UK legislation in reserved areas. With independence though we would not introduce Big Brother ID cards, preferring to spend the money instead on the real security of more police patrolling our streets.

Who is the greater poet, Burns or Shakespeare? ELEANOR HATTON, Islington

No doubt - Robert Burns. Shakespeare was the better dramatist!

Isn't it true that Scots don't really want independence? They just support you because they are fed up with Labour and the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives are non existent in Scotland? HUGH MACDONALD, Edinburgh

Recent polls suggest otherwise. A clear majority of Scots now support independence.

Why did you stand down as leader, and why did you come back? DAVID SMITH,

I was leader for 10 years and after the Scottish election of 1999 I felt that was a good time to step down. I came back to campaign to be First Minister of Scotland and because I believe we can make Scotland a more successful country than we are today.

Do you support green taxes? HENRY BIRTLES, Hackney, London

Yes, but only as part of a package and not the blunt taxes favoured by this Chancellor, such as hikes in fuel duty which hurt people in rural areas who do not have the same alternatives to the car. We have to do more than just tax people - for example if we want people to use the plane less often, why not invest in a high-speed train link from north to south. That would see a significant fall in domestic air travel in the UK.

If you were Scotland's First Minister, just how bad would your relations with a Labour government be? SIMON JONES, Whitstable

The UK is a mature democracy and has good relations with governments across Europe and the world. I see no reason why the same would not apply with Scotland.

The Independent, 8 January 2007

Excellent map of stateless nations

Check this out!

http://www.eurominority.org/version/maps/map-nations2.asp

This is the related website:

http://www.eurominority.org/version/eng/

Queen's historian backs Scottish Independence

The Queen’s official historian in Scotland has sparked a political row by claiming that the country could flourish as an independent state. Professor Christopher Smout, the Historiographer Royal, said it was “perfectly feasible” for Scotland to go it alone and that it could prosper in the same way as eastern European republics have done since the break-up of the Soviet Union. He claimed voters south of the border would be happy to see the break-up of the United Kingdom.

He also criticised claims by John Reid, the home secretary, that Scotland’s national security would be compromised by independence, describing his argument as “a complete non-starter”.

Smout, who is emeritus professor of history at St Andrews University, will this week chair a conference in Edinburgh, organised to commemorate the 300th anniversary of the Act of Union. Ministers have condemned his intervention claiming that, as a member of the Royal household, he should remain politically neutral.

Senior Labour figures said his comments, so close to an election when the future of the Union will be a key issue, were “naive and destabilising” and would be an embarrassment to the Queen.

“It is unfortunate that someone this close to the Queen is coming out with these frankly shallow and not very significant arguments in favour of independence,” said Tom Harris, the Glasgow South MP.

“Politically, it would be better for us to stay in the Union and I would have thought that if a senior member of the Queen’s household did not share that view then they would just keep their mouth shut.

“I wouldn’t want to anticipate what Her Majesty’s view on this is, but I would expect she would be the first and foremost defender of the Union. I think he should be careful about coming out with destabilising and naive views without the express authority of the Queen because it does put a question mark over the royal family’s position on all of this.”

Allan Wilson, the deputy Scottish enterprise minister, said: “An adviser to the head of state should not be trying to destabilise it and jeopardise the jobs and prosperity of millions of Scots.”

Smout said the current constitutional settlement is unstable and it will be resolved either by the break-up of the Union or by Scots MPs being stripped of their voting rights at Westminster. Scottish independence, he said, would be welcomed in England, although he admitted that it would sadden the Queen.

Smout, who has advised the Queen on Scottish history since 1993, rejected Reid’s suggestion a separate Scotland would be a soft target for Al-Qaeda and would require frontier guards.

“There are no border patrols between Belgium and Holland and security there is no worse or better than it is here. There is no reason to think security would be slacker in an independent Scotland. Dr Reid’s observations are a complete nonstarter.”

He added: “The English would probably not be awfully upset if the Scots decided to go it alone. I think the Queen would be sorry, but I can’t see many other people south of the border being too regretful.”

Back to the drawing board for new unionists

The Britman isnae half sooking up the arse of millionaire Archie Stirling and his new unionist party. Unfortunately it is obvious that they can't even decide on their own name!

The latest reports claim it will not be called Scottish Voice but instead the Scottish Democrats. 'Scottish Democrats' is of course just as inappropriate as 'Scottish Voice' because Scottish majority opinion on independence has been completely ignored.

Also I'm afraid the new name will prove to be unusable. The electoral commission are very strict when it comes to names and this name will rightly be judged to be too close to the existing Scottish Liberal Democrats.

Back to the drawing board!

Welcome to the Scottish independence Guide (video)

Why not call for independence referendum?

I see Plaid Cymru are calling for a referendum on 'Scottish style powers' for the Welsh Parliament after the next elections. Yet recent polls in Wales have shown a majority for full independence just like Scotland.

Why not therefore aim to have a referendum on Welsh independence in 2007?

Blair has an unhealthy infatuation with the rich and famous

Letters (Glasgow Herald)

JIM Sheridan, MP, either had too much at the bells, is naive or he thinks the people are if he expects us to swallow his line about Tony Blair and Joe Public being at one when staying at friends' homes (Letters, January 1). TB's freebie holidays cannot be divorced from politics; he is the Prime Minister after all.The concern many have is that this sleaze-ridden New Labour government, and Blair in particular, seem infatuated with the rich and famous. People have a legitimate concern about the influence the super-rich seem to have over him as he craves their company. Maybe Blair's policies have created the ever-widening gap between rich and poor that attracts them to each other. But, hey, that's getting political. Sorry about that, Jim.

Thomas Morrison, 105 Alderman Road, Glasgow.

JIM Sheridan, MP, attempts to defend Tony Blair's free holiday by saying, "Well, we have all stayed with friends for a break, haven't we?" Yes, Jim, once or twice, but Tony Blair is a serial, indeed obsessive, offender. Since he became Labour leader, has he ever paid for a holiday?
I would estimate he has enjoyed £750,000 in benefits for himself and his family, often including large travel subsidies from the British taxpayer for his travel costs.These holidays were given by "friends" such as Silvio Berlusconi who expected and got political favours in return. Cliff Richard and Robin Gibb will be pleased that Mr Blair is now an ardent advocate to extend copyright protection of ageing rock stars. There is no such thing as a free holiday, just like a free lunch. But the wider question is what does this serial freeloading tell us about the man and the party he leads? In my 20 years of watching (inside and outside) the rise of Blair and the decline of socialism in Labour, I have concluded that his major preoccupations are power and wealth, preferrably for himself.

Hugh Kerr, 31 Melville Street, Kilmarnock.

"Provided there is no proven impropriety or misuse of taxpayers' money, it is none of our business." So, presumably, unproven impropriety is none of our business, like the ongoing investigation into cash for honours? It is good to see the rule "Thou must not get caught" printed in black and white, straight from Jim Sheridan, MP.

Alan Ritchie, 2 Carolside Avenue, Clarkston.

GUESS what, Jim Sheridan, MP, I care and I'll wager a million or so other Scots with their brains engaged, do also. What actually were you suggesting in your silly little letter? It read to me as: "Look, we were hanging Saddam so that Tony could sneak off and schmooze with a rich celeb without too much hassle." Didn't the big bad press spin it like should? Saturday night fever, indeed. See you at the ballot box.

Colum K Buchanan, 9 Greenlaw Avenue, Paisley.

Scotland has ignored oil opportunities

Your Letters (Herald) January 03 2007

In 1974 I went to the Middle East to work as a civil engineer. I had been a lecturer at Strathclyde University, and had actively supported the SNP. I authored the 1972 booklet, The Reality of Scotland's Oil, which drew attention to the potential benefits that an independent Scotland could expect from the great oil wealth discovered in the North Sea. Of course this booklet, and the SNP's own well-researched economic claims in their It's Scotland's Oil campaign, were roundly rubbished by the unionist press (including The Glasgow Herald).

We now know that even in the 1970s our unionist politicians knew the truth of the SNP's claims but were determined to hide this from voters.

In 1975, the Middle East was a fairly undeveloped area with little in the way of infrastructure and services. That is why I, and thousands of other British engineers, were going there. The region's oil wealth had risen greatly in value after the 1973 Arab/Israeli war, and this was now being invested frantically in the construction of roads, ports, water and drainage schemes, power stations, desalination plants, hospitals, schools and universities. Later, it became luxury hotels, shopping malls, apartment blocks, libraries and museums, business parks and theme parks; now even the world's tallest building. The tangible fruits of their oil wealth are there for all to see. Their worldwide investment portfolios are even more impressive. Millions of people now go to the Gulf countries on holiday and are no doubt astonished at what they find in cities such as Dubai, Abu Dhabi, Muscat, Doha and Bahrain. Not as astonished as I am, since I first saw all these places in the 1970s.

In all this, where stands Scotland, itself a major oil producer for 30 years? World oil production is around 0.6 tons/year/head of world population. The figure for the US has averaged 1.2 tons/year/head. But the vast majority of countries are at nil or less than 1.0.Over the past 10 years (and for a good number of years before that) Scotland has produced an average of around 20 tons of oil/year/head of population. For comparison, let us look at the mega-rich Arab Gulf countries. For Kuwait and the UAE, the figure is around 55; for Saudi Arabia, it is 23. The Norwegian figure is way up there with the big boys at around 30 tons/year/head, which helps explain how they have managed to build up a heritage fund in excess of £100bn for future generations, while still being now Europe's most prosperous country. So you can see that Scotland has been (in oil production terms at least) in the big league.

So where has Scotland gone wrong? Why are we the only country in the world whose population has stayed static for the past 50 years while the world's population has soared from 2.5 billion to 6 billion? Why have we had, at 1.8%, the lowest average GDP growth in western Europe over the past 30 years? Why is it that, of all the countries of western Europe, only in Scotland is male life expectancy still below 70 years? It is the same with indicators such as the percentage of people either unemployed or not in employment through incapacity, our car ownership rate and other measures of economic wellbeing.

All that oil wealth we produced, oil wealth that transformed the Gulf countries and Norway, has simply passed us by. We even suffer the annual indignity of being taunted by our unionist leaders about how much we are indebted to a subsidy from England for our very survival as one of western Europe's poorest countries. I used to think that there was something wrong with Scottish voters that so many could be so easily fooled and deceived, election after election, especially by the Labour Party. But at least they had an excuse – like those who voted for the war in Iraq. I now see that the real "dummies" in Scotland have been our own business and commercial people.

They have, for 30 years, totally failed to see the economic opportunities that would have arisen in an independent oil-rich Scotland. A trip to the Middle East would soon put them right. The economic opportunities, and the best oil-related jobs, were snapped up by London and the south-east, where control of our industry lay, and they didn't notice.

Scotland still has a lot of oil left to be produced and it has become very, very valuable. In this coming year, "energy security" will come to be recognised as an important quality for a country to have. Scotland will have that in spades. Perhaps in 2007 our business leaders, and even the voters, will finally get the message.

Nick Dekker, 1 Nairn Way, Cumbernauld.

RECORDS REVEAL REVOLT OVER WILSON DEVOLUTION PLANS

Prime Minister Harold Wilson was warned his 1970s gamble on devolution would lead to Scottish independence if it failed, official documents made public today reveal.

Secret government papers from 1975/76 unearthed by The Herald newspaper show the extent of internal opposition to the then-Prime Minister's flagship policy of devolution for Scotland and Wales, as well as concern among the policy's own supporters.

The files have been accessed at the National Archives in London under the 30-year-rule.
Wilson was behind efforts to devolve power to both Scotland and Wales as economic crises raging across Britain in the 1970s.

But according to The Herald, papers clearly indicate that some senior ministers thought the devolution project was politically mad and should be dropped.

The measure is described by the Treasury as a "firebreak" to stop SNP momentum in the mid-1970s, the paper says. Nationalist representation at Westminster reached a high point after the
1974 General Election when the party won 11 seats on the back of SNP's "It's Scotland's Oil" campaign.

One memo seen by The Herald quotes Commons leader Ted Short telling the Prime Minister that there was "fairly widespread misgiving" on the Labour back benches about the plans for Scottish and Welsh assemblies, and that it was "disappointing so many of our supporters are reluctant to see the merits of our scheme".

According to the paper, Mr Short wrote: "If our present policy does not carry the day, the direction in which we shall be forced will not be back towards the status quo or less devolution.
"The possibility of a separate state north of the border (bringing, incidentally, a permanent shift of political balance south of it) is not far-fetched."

The number of Labour anti-devolutionists was said to include Labour luminaries such as Tam Dalyell, Neil Kinnock, Robert Kilroy-Silk, and Dennis Skinner, as well as future New Labour ministers Robin Cook and Brian Wilson, The Herald said.

The newspaper also discovered comments from Wilson Cabinet member Harold Lever, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who declared that the government's constitutional strategy for Scotland and Wales "cannot work".

In a memo of June 1975 to the PM seen by the Herald Mr Lever argued it would cause "serious friction" between London and Edinburgh with the Labour-run Scottish Executive handing over "more and more money and more and more independence" to appease the SNP.

Labour pursued its devolution proposal for Scotland and Wales, eventually seeing votes take place in 1979.

The Scots narrowly said yes to devolution ? 52% to 48% ? but did not meet the necessary 40% population threshold, while the Welsh voted no overwhelmingly, 80% to 20%.
According to the Herald, the documents also reveal Labour ruled out a referendum on independence as it feared it might not win.

A memo by Sir John Garlick, head of the government's constitution unit, reportedly said: "The underlying idea of a referendum on independence for Scotland is to secure a firm No and thus weaken the Nationalists by being able to dismiss their policy ... at best, the move works only if there is a clear no with a high poll.

"Many factors might mitigate against this. The Nationalists might go for abstention, people might not turn out, there might be tactical voting, eg a significant yes element designed simply to convey a demand for more devolution. Or perhaps worst of all, there might be a significantly large and genuine yes vote."

Commenting on the disclosures, an SNP spokesman said today: "Just as 30-year papers have revealed that London governments covered up Scotland's oil wealth, these new papers reveal how Labour's commitment to Scottish self-government was lukewarm at least. And just as the Tories are prepared to prop up Labour in the Scottish Parliament, they also reveal how Labour connived with the Tories to stall devolution.

"These papers' revelations only show why more and more people distrust the London parties and are turning to the SNP as we approach the elections in May."

Support Cornish Rights (please!)

Happy New Year everyone,

I hope some of you will take a few minutes to sign the petition at the end of this post. Cornwall's situation is similar to Scotland's, only worse!

While we were joined with England in an act of union Cornwall was simply annexed. Cornwall has no Euro seat of it's own, no university, no development agency, no TV stations, an even more biased press than ours (!) and no sporting recognition.

Cornwall is effectively treated as an English County and is not officially recognised by the UK in any way (apart from the Prince of Wales who leeches his personal finances from Cornwall), even though it has a historic right to it's own parliament and a rich history and culture and language.

Cornwall has none of the political rights that we Scots and Welsh take for granted. It's important that we try and help pressurise the UK to give Cornwall more rights and to recognise Cornwall's status as a fellow Celtic country.

Mebyon Kernow, the party of Cornwall the Cornish equivalent of the SNP and Plaid Cymru are fighting a long and difficult political fight. Despite 50,000 people, an enormous chunk of the Cornish population signing a petition for a Cornish Assembly recently Cornwall has been completely ignored by the British Government.

In this historically relevant year of 2007 when we might actually win our own vote for independence I hope you will all take a few minutes to support another nation's rights to self determination (and also at the same time turn up the pressure on BritGov from another source!).

More information about Cornwall is here:

http://www.scottishindependence.com/cornwall.htm

Please sign the petition here:

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/CornwallDuchy/

All the best - JOE

Still an English Brit Nat?

I see 'Tommy Eng-er-lish' isn't adverse to using the Union Jack when required! I thought these English nats wanted to break the British union up?



http://in-ger-land.blogspot.com/2006/12/better-off-out.html

AXE SCOTTISH OFFICE SAY SNP

The leader of the SNP has called for the Scotland Office to be abolished and for the money saved to be invested in the health service. Alex Salmond said its £6.4m annual budget would be better used improving accident and emergency services. He said that since Labour came to power in 1997, Scotland had lost eight A&E services. However, former Scotland Office minister George Foulkes said the department had strengthened devolution.

Mr Salmond said: "By getting rid of this office in London we could free up millions of pounds each year that could be used instead to protect the vital services at Ayr and Monklands, now threatened by a Labour and Liberal Democrat Scottish Executive.
"It's time to focus on the people's priorities and spend less on jobs for the Labour boys in London and more on keeping health care in Scotland local."

However, Lord Foulkes said: "This proves Alex Salmond's ignorance on two counts. "First he clearly knows nothing about how government works."Secondly, it shows he doesn't recognise the role of the Scotland Office plays in arguing Scotland's corner in government and strengthening devolution - two things the SNP are entirely opposed to with their dangerous plans to break up Britain." [Planet Earth calling George Foulkes! - JOE]

Divisions rage despite the Union

by Brian Taylor Political editor, BBC Scotland

So just how should we commemorate the Act of Union - whose tricentenary falls next year?

Perhaps you favour a special coin? Maybe an exhibition at Holyrood and Westminster? Both are in train. Then again, perhaps we might mark 300 years of political marriage between Scotland and England by filing for divorce - and abolishing the Union.

Such an option will be on offer to Scots at elections next year, albeit indirectly.

First, though, the celebrations that are already in hand.

The exhibition and related school projects will, apparently, "inform and stimulate debate about the legacy left by the Act of Union 1707" (Source: the Scottish Executive).
Alternatively, it will amount to "a few half-baked parties about a Union that is past its sell-by date" (Source: the Scottish National Party).

What about that coin, then? Chancellor Gordon Brown announced that he had obtained the
approval of Her Majesty the Queen to issue a £2 coin in honour of the treaty which conjoined the parliaments of Scotland and England.

Rest of article is here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/6199275.stm

Tories Will Prop up Union to their Last Gasp

Interesting article but dubious conclusions. Also why ignore the SSP and Solidarity? Either might do better than the discredited Tories. The SNP would be mad to get into bed with the Tories no matter what garbage they were spinning. The main hope for independence is if the Scottish parties can form a coalition.

We should ignore all the unionists, Lib Dems included, they are part of the problem not the solution. The Tories will of course prop up their fellow British right wingers in the Labour party and indeed they have already promised to do so. JOE

Tories could be saviours of the Union
Robert Kilgour (Herald)
December 27 2006

Could Scotland be hurtling towards independence by the backdoor? Could Tony Blair's much vaunted legacy be the break-up of the United Kingdom?

Could the three hundredth anniversary of the union of the parliaments in 2007 coincide with their final fracture? These are the crucial questions facing Scottish voters as we move inexorably towards the Holyrood elections in May.Scots are every bit as hacked off with Tony Blair and Labour as voters elsewhere in the UK, but unlike England, the main opposition party north of the border is the SNP. If opinion polls are anything to go by then the Nationalists look set to gain the most seats at next year's polls. They will still be far short of an overall majority and will be searching for coalition partners. [Not necessarily, according to the polls it's a lot closer than that and remember there are forty odd independence supporting MSP's at the moment. JOE]

The Greens, also tipped to do well, will be an obvious choice. They, too, favour independence and have already touted Robin Harper for ministerial office in an SNP/Green coalition. Even then, most [biased] political commentators doubt if Salmond and Harper could muster enough seats to form a majority government.

Meanwhile, the LibDems, although always quick to prostitute themselves to anyone offering them a seat at the top table, appear to be playing hardball with the Nats. Nicol Stephen has ruled out any coalition deal with Alex Salmond unless the SNP drops its manifesto pledge to hold a referendum on independence within 100 days of taking power at Holyrood. Needless to say, this has become a major obstacle to further talks, driving the LibDems back into the arms of their current bed-mates – Jack McConnell's motley Labour crew.

Although the LibDems are making their traditional anti-Labour noises as they attempt to define some wiggle-room between themselves and their coalition partners prior to the polls, this remains the most likely scenario. So, Scotland will find itself following the elections in May with the SNP and Greens confronting Labour and the LibDems, with neither having sufficient seats to form an administration.

Enter Annabel Goldie and the Scottish Tories who will, in these circumstances, hold the balance of power. But are they ready to shoulder such a responsibility? Certainly, the David Cameron effect has not filtered north of Manchester, and in Scotland, while opinion polls indicate that the majority would prefer him to Gordon Brown as the next UK PM, the "Cameron bounce" has not benefited Goldie's beleaguered Scottish Tory party. Although Tory MSPs claim to have embraced devolution, they have still not embraced the voting system by which the Scottish Parliament is elected. As Struan Stevenson MEP pointed out in an article in The Herald last year, it is the only party going into the Holyrood elections with the slogan "vote for us, we want to be in opposition"! Albeit now Annabel Goldie has refined this message to "principled opposition", it still looks as if the Scottish Tories are determined to prop up a minority administration rather than actively seek power in a coalition.

Clearly, propping up a lame-duck Lab/Lib coalition that has effectively lost the election next May, would not be popular with voters seeking change. Nor will it be applauded by David Cameron, who will hardly enthuse about his party keeping Labour in power in Scotland while he seeks to oust it from power in England.

[That is what they WOULD do though, their attachment to the Union Jack is much stronger than any interest in democracy in Scotland- JOE]

Far better, then, that Goldie should bite the bullet and join a rainbow coalition with the Nats and Greens. This would provide the Scottish Tories with a meaningful role. Not only would they be in power, but they would be the guardians of the Union, threatening to bring down the coalition if any attempt were made at wrecking Scotland's traditional partnership within the UK.

Of course, the Tories would have to agree to the referendum on independence, but they would do so on the condition that they would use their ministerial positions and influence to campaign for a No vote. Also, they would insist such a referendum could only be con-sultative. There could never be a Referendum Bill, as constitutional affairs are reserved. Indeed, even the funding of a consultative referendum could be challenged in the courts. In the unlikely event that a majority of Scots voted for independence in any referendum, Gordon Brown, assuming he is by then Prime Minister, would face a classic political dilemma.

If he acceded to the demands of a majority of Scots and allowed Scotland to become an independent nation, it would destroy his own career, abolish his own con-stituency and deny Labour the chance ever again to form a government at Westminster, so reliant is it on the army of MPs elected in Scottish seats. On the other hand, if he ignored the result and refused to acknowledge the desire for independence, he could risk fomenting civil unrest in Scotland.

Exciting stuff, and it is ironic that the Scottish Tories may end up hold-ing the jackets during this classic con- frontation. Let's hope that Annabel Goldie's principled opposition melds into a bid for power. There is no-one else that we can rely on to save the UK from political disintegration.

ThinkScotland is a new right-of-centre online think-tank, chaired by Scottish global entrepreneur Robert Kilgour, focusing on European affairs from a Scottish perspective.

Scottish independence argument is now unstoppable

By Joe Middleton

As I opened the Scotsman the other day it was obvious that nothing had changed with the unionists arguments against independence. 'A Black Hole of 11.2 billion pounds with independence!' shouted the headline complete with a starry field mock up, the message is that independence will lead to total economic disaster.

Conveniently the politically motivated GERS report referred to by the Scotsman completely ignored oil revenues and other inconvenient statistics which might refute Labour's scaremongering.

The next article promised to wonder if Scotland can 'remain afloat' with North Sea Oil as if our massive oil reserves are in danger of pulling us below the surface!

As Jack McConnell has himself admitted recently there is no evidence whatsoever to indicate that Scotland would be in economic difficulties after independence. Our economic situation post independence is reliant on a wide range of factors and would rely chiefly on the economic policies pursued by an independent Scotland.

Of course the Tories and Labour are well aware of that and in the same edition of the paper Katie Grant conservative columnist makes the obvious jump in logic for the Tories, ie to embrace independence and suddenly their anti-Scottish label (entirely justified) might disappear.

The traditional unionist arguments are failing fast. Either they are right and Scotland is in such a terrible shape that we require generous England to keep us going (which would appear to be the basic message) in which case they are obviously failing to help Scotland achieve our economic potential.

Then again if we are really as prosperous as they occasionally pretend we are then why couldn’t we afford to go it alone? After all an independent Scotland would not be paying for nuclear weapons and would have the considerable benefit of North Sea Oil revenues. (Labour's internal papers have recently revealed that we have at least thirty years supplies left at the same time as they are pretending that it is about to run out!)

The problem for Labour and the Tories is that independence can mean anything to anyone and the social democratic vision of the SNP is only one vision of independence amongst many.

On the harder left there could be a democratic Scottish workers republic achieved with high investment in services and higher taxation on business, this is what the Tories accuse the SNP of secretly wanting, but people like Jim Mather and Alex Neil don’t say this at all.

Those who do, like the SRSM or the SSP however are unswerving in their support for independence because Scotland does enjoy the potential of becoming a much fairer society.

All the Scottish parties support removing nuclear weapons from our soil so the feeling on Trident is pretty universal and reflects the public mood.

Blair’s utterances on this issue show him up for what he is, a tool of the United States who is desperate to keep alive the US/UK alliance by buying expensive and unusable weapons of mass destruction.

Of course Jack decided shortly after that, after much soul searching (a few hours and a quick chat with Tony) that he was in favour of keeping the nuclear deterrent, so they could be bargained away later! So he's opposing nuclear weapons by supporting having them, good one Jack!

Leaving aside the 'wee sleekit timorous beastie' the cause of independence is simply becoming much too strong to be ignored. The left of centre argument for a fairer Scotland reflects the values of most of the people and the SNP are right to support that as it continually exposes Labour’s permanent lack of vision and political principle.

There are other valid arguments for independence as well. Scotland is currently over regulated and has three tiers of Government where only two are required. The Scottish Office and the British Government it represents are entirely unnecessary, getting rid of those layers would bring an independence dividend with a smaller Government and a Scottish Government could also much more easily court business with lower taxation.

The SNP have moved in on this ‘independence action’ as well but along with an even more aggressive tax cutting policy it can easily be tailored to Scottish orientated Conservatives like Katie Grant.

There is also the historical and cultural argument that Scotland requires freedom to flourish on a cultural level and that respect for our ancestors and their fights for independence from England should lead us to the logical conclusion that the union is no longer in our interests (if it ever was).

This is the most emotionally powerful argument, it reverbrates down the centuries and the more people look into the history of the union the more we realise it was a shotgun marriage of convenience for England which almost wiped out our nation altogether in favour of a new sub-English state called North Britain.

Current opinion polls are also leading to the most modern argument for independence. Democracy and Scottish human rights. A union with a country ten times our size is simply not democratic and the denial of a direct democratic vote on the union is an infringement of our collective Scottish human rights under the United Nations Charter.

It was to highlight this democratic deficit that the non party political referendum campaign Independence First http://www.independence1st.com was formed. Independence First as an organisation has no political policies whatsoever and it is purely about garnering support for a referendum on independence. Because it bypasses any possible political disagreements it has succeeded in gaining support from members of every single pro- independence group and it's membership is open to absolutely every independence supporting individual.

Recently IF presented an epetition to the Scottish Parliament for a democratic referendum on Scottish independence. Despite the fact that the petitions system is supposed to provide a balance to the parliament and a voice for the people the 1300 strong petition was swiftly rejected with Labour and Liberal Democrat MSP’s voting it down before the parliament as a whole even had a chance to consider it.

This undemocratic act went almost completely unnoticed in the media despite a substantial piece being filed by the Scottish Press Association. When a legitimate news story of this type is buried by the press the level of unionist bias becomes much more obvious. It is a disgrace that such a decision can happen without any comment or reaction from any of the Scottish papers.

The Committee claimed that this issue would be conclusively settled by the next Scottish elections. In fact people vote for political parties for a variety of different reasons. Independence is supported by individuals on the left and right of politics and some of those people support Labour, Tories and Lib Dems as well as the independence supporting parties based in Scotland.

The only way therefore to get a clear view about support for independence is to have a democratic vote on the issue called by the Scottish Parliament. This is precisely what Independence First called for on the 15th of November. Unfortunately it would appear that this executive not only ignored the views of over 1300 Scots but also the majority of the Scottish population who opinion polls suggest support independence.

Incredibly there is also majority support for Scottish independence in England and most English people want to break up the British union altogether as do the public in Wales. The unionists are therefore fighting a cause that represents no-one and is respected by no-one. They have might on their side in terms of a highly biased press but you can only feed the public so many lies before they get sick.

The signs are that the people of Scotland are getting very sick of all the unionists lies and that is why the Scottish Independence Convention and Independence First along with the Scottish parties can win an election for independence next year, if they continue to work together. We only need around a million votes for independence next year to win an election which is well within our collective capabilities.

Joe Middleton is the creator of the Scottish Independence Guide http://www.scottishindependence.com and the Press Officer for Independence First http://www.independence1st.com the referendum campaign.

Labour slips up on length of oil reserves

by Jason Allardyce (Sunday Times)

LABOUR has been accused of misleading the public in the debate over independence after one of its own policy documents revealed North Sea oil reserves will not run out for “at least 30 years”.

While the party has claimed publicly that an independent Scotland would face economic catastrophe because of dwindling oil reserves, the internal Labour document says the industry will continue to flourish for decades to come.

The disclosure comes after government figures suggested last week that, without the tax revenues generated by oil, an independent Scotland would face an £11 billion black hole.

That led Labour to claim the SNP would be forced to raise taxes or cut public spending if they win power next year and Scotland becomes independent.

Last week Wendy Alexander, the former enterprise minister who is leading Labour’s attack on the SNP’s economic strategy, described North Sea oil as a “decreasing, volatile resource”.

In an article she said: “Oil production is already down one third, is due to fall further and could be exhausted by 2030. So not only will the Union dividend have gone but so will oil revenues — long before many Scots are picking up their pensions.”

The attack was the latest in a series by senior Labour figures after opinion polls put the SNP on course to win next May’s Scottish election and showed that most Scots support independence.

However, the policy document, produced by Labour’s Scottish policy forum last month and signed off by Jack McConnell, rejects Alexander’s suggestion that oil could run out within 24 years, and claims: “There remains at least 30 years of oil and gas in the UK continental shelf.

“Given our technical and academic excellence, opportunities exist for Scottish expertise to develop clean technology for continued use of fossil fuels in our energy mix.”

Alex Salmond, the SNP leader, said the paper had “blown a hole” in Labour’s argument. “Labour has been caught out saying one thing in private while they try to scaremonger Scotland in public,” he said.

GERS was conceived as a political exercise - Salmond

December 19 2006 (Letters page, Herald)

I MUST be ever-present in Wendy Alexander's thoughts (December 16) these days, having been mentioned by name no fewer than seven times in the same letter! Let me see if I can return the compliment and in so doing cast some light into Labour's "black holes".

Ms Alexander accuses the SNP of traducing civil servants by attacking the basis of the Government Expenditure and Revenue for Scotland (Gers) analysis. Unlike her, I have been a civil servant (ie, a real one, not a special adviser) and know full well the parameters in which they work.

Gers was conceived as a political, not as a statistical, exercise. We know this because the original correspondence from the then Secretary of State, Ian Lang, was leaked some years ago – he wanted it to "undermine the other parties", saying "this initiative could score against all of them".

The civil servants involved have several times tried to pull it back from its more blatant political exploitation by Tory and Labour politicians. The economist in charge, Dr Andrew Goudie, has noted that "Gers tells us nothing about the situation under independence". So why do Ms Alexander and her even less numerate friends misuse it as the basis of their anti-independence attack?

The problems with Gers are twofold and very obvious. It publishes a non-oil headline figure and takes no account of UK borrowing. Thus, it is used by the Tories to talk of subsidies or Labour of black holes. The first is as ludicrous as taking the financial sector out of London finances while the second places the debate in an artificial context. The UK has a budget deficit this year of £34bn, a non-oil deficit of £45bn, and accumulated debt of £500bn.

In Wendy's looking-glass world, this UK black hole should be immediately filled by swingeing tax rises, or does her brand of logic only apply to Scotland? Gers is also two years out of date, and merely by adjusting for this year's oil revenues, which have doubled to more than £10bn, and allowing for the UK deficit, the "subsidy" flows in 2007 from north to south. That is before making any other corrections – for example, the clear counting of English-only departmental expenditure as part of the Scottish total.

Wendy should stop claiming that "oil revenues are falling", since the pre-budget report shows them rising from just more than £10bn to almost £12bn over the next five years. Nor should she pretend that it is running out – Labour's internal policy documents suggest more than 30 years of supply. Of course, there is nothing new about the Labour Party systematically and cynically under-estimating Scotland's oil wealth. The secret papers, recently published from the 1970s, show that this is a long-established Labour tradition.

In these papers was the private economic advice that an independent Scotland would be richer than Switzerland. In public, Labour politicians were comparing our economic prospects to those of Bangladesh.

Ms Alexander doesn't go that far, but she does seem to have great trouble in coping with the notion that Scotland could be a normal independent successful country like our near neighbours, Norway, Ireland and Iceland. All three have lessons to teach us if we are open-minded enough to learn. One of these lessons is to use the strength of Scotland's current budget position to improve our competitive advantage and generate growth and revenue for the long term.They pursue three very different social and taxation models but all three are among the top six economies in the world in terms of wealth per head.They also happen to be three of a handful of western countries running an absolute budget surplus. That has happened because they are economically successful.

I have used up my seven mentions of Ms Alexander so let me close on this note. In a world of dodgy dossiers on Iraq and loans for Lords, the black hole she should really worry about is the one where Labour credibility used to be.

Alex Salmond, MP, 17 Maiden Street, Peterhead.

I NOTICE that Wendy Alexander is now taking a swipe at Norway's tax regime as if that should be a disincentive for Scots to vote for independence.Since all tax systems differ the key to the debate is not tax but quality of life. Ms Alexander should know this and acquaint herself with the UN and other internationally accepted institutions which consistently show Norway, Iceland and Ireland way ahead of us on this measure.

Can she produce a single country in the north-west of Europe whose quality of life has been overtaken by Scotland over the last 50 years?

Would she be even more transparent and volunteer to name the countries that have overtaken Scotland during the same period, and why?

Graeme McCormick, Redhouse Cottage, Arden.

SNP's Good Week Compared to Labour's (Herald)

WENDY Alexander started her letter to The Herald on Saturday with the statement "The SNP have had a bad week". As she is obviously in no position to benefit from such a state of affairs and is an unimpeachable barker of truth, I will be gracious enough to believe her.

However, I must let her know that, in common with the rest of the electorate, I failed to notice, as we discovered the Labour Prime Minister had been questioned by police investigating the grubby commercialisation of the honours system. At the same time we learned he had spiked the Serious Fraud Office's investigation into allegations that a major British contract to secure the sale of weapons of mass destruction to a country, a number of whose citizens were largely responsible for the 9/11 atrocities, involved bribery and corruption on a scale running into hundreds of millions of pounds.

In the same week, the war the Labour leader largely initiated saw a death toll between Sunday and Friday of at least 443, with many more kidnapped, missing and injured.

At a Holyrood level, we heard that the Liberal Democrats would not tolerate the prospect of a minority Labour administration, following the Deputy FM's long-held wish to lower Scottish business rates to below those of our competitors being scuppered by the Finance Minister's pledge to retain parity until 2012. I also read a poll which suggested that Scottish Labour were performing so badly that they would continue to control only one solitary local council after May 2007, perhaps as a result of an electorate tired of having a massive deficit and anaemic growth being waved around as a barometer of success. Then again, it may have something to do with the publication of a Culture Bill about which, despite careful scouring of newspapers, websites and broadcast media, I have yet to find a kind word.

If the SNP happened to have had a bad week, as Wendy established, is the fact Labour had an infinitely worse one a result of simple bad luck or fiendish manipulation of the news cycle by Nationalist spin doctors? Perhaps the people should be told. Perhaps not, though.

Alex Cox, Whistlefield Court, Bearsden

WENDY Alexander starts her partisan pro-Labour letter on Saturday with the assertion that it has been a bad week for the SNP. Where has she been all week when the rest of us have heard of Tony Blair's interview with the Met, the surrender of the UK government to Saudi blackmail and that a majority of Scottish MPs would appear to be against the renewal of Trident? These are matters of morality and amount to a far worse week for Labour than the politicking of which she accuses the SNP.

She boasts that she lived through the transformation of Labour (not, I note, New Labour) to an organisation that answers tough questions convincingly (not, I note again, truthfully). Such a pity they lost their moral compass in the process of that change.

Fred Allardice, Hillside, Grange of Lindores, Cupar

WHAT on earth political cloud-cuckoo land does Wendy Alexander occupy? In a week which has seen a Labour Prime Minister and a Labour government almost overwhelmed by sleaze and corruption, she suggests it was the SNP that has had the bad week. It takes a particularly virulent intellectual myopia to be able to write something like that.

Alan Clayton, Westfield, Letters Way, Strathlachlan

I SEE that senior Labour opinion-formers are advising that to beat David Cameron a slightly shop-soiled Gordon Brown may have to be skipped in favour of someone from the younger generation to lead them into the next election. At this interesting moment in the music-hall of politics, who could fail to be amused by the contributions of the Alexander Twins as ambitious Wendy presses an accordion on eager Douglas, crying, "Play, brother, play!" until the strains of Land of Hope and Glory echo around the manse.

Frederic Lindsay, 28 The Green, Pencaitland, Tranent

Why Scotland can do better with independence

By Alex Salmond

Scotland is underperforming. We have the lowest long-term growth in the European Union and over the past 10 years – the Gordon Brown era – our growth has been almost 30 per cent lower than that of the UK as a whole. Growth is the key to a flourishing country. We only have to look to Ireland to see the transforming effect of annual growth rates averaging almost 8 per cent – four times the Scottish rate.

The result is that too many new businesses in Scotland struggle to survive, average wages are lower, households have less money to spend and each year 25,000 young people leave home to find work and opportunities elsewhere.

Twenty-five years ago, Ireland was the poor relation of these isles. However, with the Dublin government free to choose the right policies to give Ireland an economic edge – lower corporation tax, full engagement with the EU and a national investment in skills and education – it has soared past the UK to become one of the world’s wealthiest half-dozen nations. Last month, Ireland was judged the fourth best place in the world to live by the United Nations, leaving Britain (and Scotland) trailing.

Sustainable growth is the central objective of economic policy for any country and it is Mr Brown’s proudest boast of his record as UK chancellor. By the same measurement, he has failed miserably in his home country.

The devolved government in Edinburgh is unable to move the most important economic levers. It cannot lower corporate tax rates like Ireland or effectively husband our huge natural resources like Norway. It is powerless to make the necessary improvements that could see Scotland join the premier league of successful countries.

What frustrates me most about Scottish Labour politicians is their insularity, illustrated by their depressingly low ambition for our nation. They seem proud when growth figures almost touch the UK average, but over the cycle leave Scotland trailing each of our near international neighbours. They boast of high employment, but seem to forget that includes more low-wage, low-skill, part-time positions. They claim, wrongly, that Scotland is subsidised by the generosity of the London Treasury, euphemistically describe it as a “dividend” and seem content with that state of affairs.

Never have so many people spent so much time desperately attempting to “prove” that their country is subsidised. In the Labour looking-glass, world oil revenues are “falling”, the oil price is about to collapse and the resource is about to run out. In reality, oil revenues are rising (even in the pre-Budget report), we are only about halfway through the North Sea oil revolution in resource terms and the expectation is for a continuing rise in prices over the medium term. The Scottish National party’s approach to oil is to control the resource for the long term – as Norway has done through a capital investment fund – not the grab everything you can, “boom and bust“ attitude of the chancellor.

Scotland’s economic performance today is not good enough for any self-respecting Scot. We urgently need a new management and a new, fresh approach. We can be more successful: we can create a wealthier, fairer and more dynamic nation.

All around us, we have examples of successful independent countries. The human development index is a measurement by the UN that looks at both the performance of a nation’s economy and the success of its society. To our west is Ireland, the fourth most successful country in the index; to our north, Iceland, the second; and to our east Norway, for the sixth year in a row the top country for quality of life. These nations, all also in the top six in terms of gross domestic product per head, form an arc of prosperity that Scotland must aspire to join.

Scotland has as much talent, energy and enthusiasm as these nations. Our people are as skilled; our geography, if anything, offers more advantages. Only Norway could claim to match Scotland in terms of natural resources.

Why are these nations powering ahead, while Scotland’s economy slumbers? I believe independence is the key. Norway, Ireland, Iceland, Finland, Denmark and Sweden are all comparable nations to Scotland, each with the freedom to find the best way to enable their economy to compete.

Not one would leave their success to another nation or tolerate the whining defeatism that is the miserable excuse for unionism in Scotland – the extraordinary proposition that somehow Scotland is uniquely incapable of managing a successful economy. We have tried devolution and, after almost eight years, we know its shortcomings. It is time for Scotland and England to be equal, independent partners, neighbours and friends.

Nuclear Chain Reaction could Break up Britain

Opposition to Trident could trigger a win for the SNP, which in turn could generate a push for independence and the euro.

John Palmer (Comment is Free - Guardian)

The increasingly desperate-sounding calls from Labour leaders to the party faithful in Scotland to prepare for a life-or-death struggle against the Scottish National party comes on the heels of the cabinet's decision - come hell or high water - to drive the modernisation or replacement of Britain's Trident nuclear weapons system through his party and parliament. It is difficult to think of something better calculated to play into the hands of the SNP. As Iain Macwhirter reminded us, the vast majority of Scottish people do not want Trident and demand that the nuclear base at Faslane is removed from Scottish soil. As matters stand Labour is heading for a humiliating defeat in its traditional Scottish heartland next May. According to the latest YouGov poll, the SNP already enjoys a substantial lead over Labour among Scottish voters.
A convincing win for the SNP in the elections to the Scottish parliament next year would generate new momentum behind the demand for independence. With an ICM poll in the Sunday Telegraph showing a clear majority of English voters in favour of dismantling the United Kingdom the London establishment could find it much harder this time to win the case for union.

It is true that the SNP will need to find coalition partners to take office in Edinburgh. The Scottish Greens would certainly back the SNP in demanding an end to the Trident nuclear base at Faslane. Although Tommy Sheridan's anti-Trident, pro-independence Solidarity party will need time to recover from the split among the Scottish socialists, it may yet win seats next May. As Iain Macwhirter points out, more leading Scottish Tories - the latest being Michael Fry - have now come out for independence.

The most likely coalition partners for the SNP are the Liberal Democrats. They will not be keen to agree to a full-blown referendum on independence during the life of the next Scottish parliament. But they will not have missed the opinion poll evidence showing a small - but measurable - majority support for Scottish independence. They will also know that the Blair government's obsession - no matter what the expense - to maintain and enhance Britain's capacity to unleash nuclear devastation will strengthen the move of public opinion flowing towards independence.

The shape of a future independent Scotland remains unclear. But getting there will involve negotiations not only between Edinburgh and London but also between Edinburgh, London and Brussels. If Scotland is to become an independent state in the European Union, the consequences for the UK state within the EU will be very far reaching. The number of votes the UK is entitled to cast within the EU council of ministers would be sharply reduced - and the balance transferred to the new Scottish state. Mind you, a reduction in the powers of the UK to block EU decisions will cause few tears elsewhere. Scotland would also - subject to future treaty changes - be entitled to nominate a member of the European commission.

A common complaint heard in Scotland is that its economy needs lower interest rates than are being set by the Bank of England. If and when independence within the EU comes to be negotiated this could open the debate on whether an independent Scotland should join the euro. After all real interest rates (nominal rates adjusted for inflation) just now are lower in the euro zone than in the UK. In this event a political border between Scotland a rump British state might also become a currency frontier between sterling and the growing number of countries in the euro area.

Even short of outright independence, the polarised political atmosphere in Scotland after the next Scottish elections may make an eventual closure of the Faslane nuclear base inevitable. A new home would then have to be found for Trident - almost certainly somewhere in England. Wales and Northern Ireland are most unlikely to volunteer to house the new system. The consequences of the Blair government's determination to turn its back on nuclear non-proliferation will last much longer than ministers seem to understand. The ultimate irony is that Blair's Iraq war and Trident bequests to his Labour successors may now help set the scene for the break-up of the UK.

Scotland's Strong Independence Movement is Hardly a 'Faint Blip'

I don't have a subscription to the Wall Street Journal unfortunately however this article certainly begins on a very positive note:

Scotland's Strong Independence Movement Is Hardly a 'Faint Blip'
Word Count: 629

Scottish and English readers were probably surprised to read Quentin Letts's assertion that Scottish independence is a "faint blip" on the political radar ("Scot Free," editorial page, Dec. 8). After all, the latest numbers show 52% of Scots and 59% of English people are in favor of Scottish independence. Mr. Letts may call this a "faint blip," but in democracies the more appropriate term is "majority."

It is a certain type of critic who takes issue with the basic principal of self-governance, and I am pleased to say that they are in the minority in the United Kingdom.

Scotland's destiny is in our own hands

Letter to the Editor
11/12/2006

Dear Sir,

Not many people realise it but after the treaty of union Scotland's official designation was North Britain, and people used to write NB at the bottom of a letter rather than Scotland.

We know that this upset some of our historic contemporaries like Robert Louis Stevenson who complains in a letter to a friend "Don't put `NB' on your paper, put Scotland and be done with it ... the name of my native land is not North Britain, whatever may be the name of yours."

Robert Burns was similarly concerned about his country's identity writing "Alas, I have often said to myself what are the boasted advantages which my country reaps from a certain Union that counter balance the annihilation of her Independence, and even her name!"

Sir Walter Scott said "All must center in London... What are we esteemedby the English? Wretched drivellers, incapable of understanding our own affairs; or greedy speculators, unfit to be trusted? On what ground are we considered either as one or the other?"

However Hugh MacDiarmid probably summed it up best when he wrote"Without it's own culture, Scotland will remain a slave."

We owe a great debt to MacDiarmid, to Sir Walter Scott, Burns and the rest for defending our identity during the height of the Empire and beyond and itis probably true to say that without the actions of patriots like them our identity as Scots could have been snuffed out. Of course we can also look back to the heroic deeds of Sir William Wallace and King Robert the Bruce who fought England to a standstill and guaranteed our national independence for four hundred years.

Today most Scots according to the opinion polls support full self government for Scotland. Devolution, though it was a hundred years delayed, and denied undemocratically for twenty years has encouraged us to realise we can have normal powers for Scotland whenever we choose to vote for it.

We have a historic opportunity next year to vote to resume our proper place in the world as a proud independent nation.

Let's go for it.

Joe Middleton

www.scottishindependence.com