With daft Scotsman articles - who needs logic?

With 'best pals' like these, who needs auld enemies?
by Tom Brown

http://news.scotsman.com/opinion.cfm?id=618442007

GREETINGS from the capital of In-ger-land. They speak the same language, even though they can't pronounce it properly. They spend the same money, although there seems to be much more of it sloshing around in London. The relatives and friends are all as affectionate as ever.
So why does it feel like a foreign country? For one thing, there is still - but not for much longer - the stench of tobacco smoke in pubs, wine bars and restaurants.


---------

"...when he voiced this [being closest of buddies] in front of activists and MSPs at the SNP manifesto launch, they all burst out laughing at the improbability."

I very much doubt it since the SNP have been saying similar things to this for some time.

"Salmond somewhat patronisingly tells the English that Scottish independence would be good for them."

Scottish cringe alert! Why is it patronising to tell the English that independence (for both countries) will be good for them while it is suposedly not patronising for Blair to come up and lecture us about how disastrous it would be if we became independent!

Double standards surely. The Scotsman and others like to pretend nationalism is motivated by bigotry but it is simply not the case. IMPERIALISM on the other hand is a nationalism of a different colour.

Tony Blair and the British Government exhibit signs of this belief that they are superior to other countries and have a right to tell other countries what to do.

I submit that British imperialism is out of date but civic inclusive Scottish nationalism is on the rise. One is positive one is negative and it's not difficult to work out which is which.

JOE

Scottish Independence - One Million Votes Required

REFERENDUM CAMPAIGN CALLS FOR A MILLION VOTES FOR INDEPENDENCE

INDEPENDENCE FIRST, the referendum campaign has asked for one million Scots to vote for a referendum on independence. The referendum campaign recently held a successful march and rally on Saturday 31/03.

Speaking at Independence First’s national meeting in Glasgow on 14/04, Press Officer Joe Middleton told assembled members: "Independence First want people to vote for candidates who support a referendum on independence. We only need around a million votes, in total in both FPTP and PR elements to gain an absolute majority in the Scottish parliament to push through a referendum."

Mr Middleton also urged any parties supporting more powers for the parliament to “put up or shut up”. He said “Any party which is proposing more powers for our parliament must explain exactly how they are going to achieve those powers in the face of a hostile Labour run Westminster Government."

"Since no party has formulated any such plans we can only conclude that their talk of more powers is hot air. In the Liberal Democrats case we know they have been in coalition with Labour for two terms but have gained zero concessions on new powers from Westminster.”

He added “The Tories have been dropping hints that they favour more fiscal powers for the parliament, however they have no actual plans for this and historically we know that the Tories tend to say very different things in opposition to what they say when in power!"

"Independence First urge both these parties to put up or shut up and for Scottish pollsters to refrain from asking meaningless questions about more powers which are not on offer at this election.”

“The only way to genuinely increase the powers of the Scottish parliament is to vote for a democratic independence referendum. We urge the Scottish people to do just that on May 3rd.”

Lib Dems warned not to shun SNP

A senior Liberal Democrat has warned his party not to close down the option of coalition talks with the SNP. Newly retired MSP Donald Gorrie said it should "never say never" to an independence referendum.

The Nationalists are committed to one, but Scots Lib Dem leader Nicol Stephen has regarded it as a "significant block" to a power-sharing deal. Mr Gorrie said this need not be the case, and has urged all party leaders to set aside "macho posturing".

He said they should be prepared to "negotiate away disagreements" after the May election, adding that Labour would have the Lib Dems "over a barrel" if it became clear they would not talk to the SNP.

Personally, Mr Gorrie favours referendums, but politically, he expressed concern that the Liberal Democrats would weaken their negotiating position by ruling one out. The Holyrood and Westminster veteran has suggested a multi-option referendum as a possible compromise.

The Liberal Democrats, he claimed, may have to choose whether to form a coalition with Labour or the SNP. He said they should do so on the basis of which party would help deliver the Liberal Democrats manifesto.

Unions endorse Labour by ONE vote!

JACK McConnell will today try to prevent a haemorrhaging of Labour's traditional support after his party only narrowly won the endorsement of Scotland's trades unions. The First Minister will use his keynote address to the Scottish Trades Union Congress to seek to re-establish his party's credentials after the STUC's general council, its ruling body, decided by only one vote to back Labour in the Holyrood and council elections.

www.scotsman.com

Why are Lib-Dems denying Scots a choice?

LibDem leader Nicol Stephen states categorically that he is not in favour of independence for Scotland; nor is he in favour of a referendum on independence. I can understand the first part of his statement. For many years his party has argued for a system of federal regions throughout the UK, although it is now clear that this is never going to happen.

The concept has virtually no support in England and was recently rejected by the north-east (in a referendum, by the way). The policy would also mean Scotland becoming the seventh or eighth "region" of the UK, an even more demeaning status than the present half-way house.

But why should the Liberal Democrat party also oppose the liberal and democratic idea of the Scottish people deciding for themselves if they want Scotland to be an independent nation again? After all, the LibDems actively supported the devolution referendum 10 years ago and earlier the UK referendum on joining the EEC.

Both of these were recognised as major constitutional issues that should not be decided only by politicians. A decision on independence for Scotland is also a major constitutional decision and should be made by all the people.

Nicol Stephen and his party are perfectly entitled to dislike the idea of independence and to campaign against it in the run-up to a referendum. But they are not entitled to deny a sovereign people the final say in their own future. They should remember that all politicians are elected to serve the people, not to rule them.

Iain A D Mann, 7 Kelvin Court, Glasgow.

Your editorial on the prospect of an SNP administration agreeing to a referendum which includes a sop to the Liberal Democrats of including an option of simply "more" powers for the Scottish Parliament misses a key point.A referendum with a single question on independence comes with the right to secede from the UK if a positive vote were to be won.

This principle is enshrined in international and EU law and politicians such as David Cameron and Douglas Alexander have acknowledged that victory in such a plebiscite would decide the matter.

A victory for the "more powers" camp, on the other hand, would be pointless, as the Scottish Parliament does not have the right under any law simply to demand "more" powers from Westminster, which could simply say no. Any multi-option poll would be muddied in confusion and its result ambiguous. The SNP should stick to its guns and after 300 years of a Union that no-one voted for, give Scots a clear choice of yes or no to independence and nothing less.

Gavin Fleming, 517 Webster's Land, Grassmarket, Edinburgh.

Does the SNP think the rest of the UK is going to sit back and wait for Scotland to take three years for us to make a decision on independence? This will have a direct effect on them with regards to defence, inward investment, foreign policy, etc.

If the SNP won I would expect the other nations in the UK to demand a referendum immediately to stop the uncertainty.

Andy Moffat, 52 Bradda Avenue, Rutherglen.

It is an illiberal party that denies the people a voice

by
IAIN MacWHIRTER April 16 2007

Last week, at their manifesto launch in Edinburgh, the Scottish Liberal Democrats' leader, Nicol Stephen, retired exhausted following an arduous 15 minutes of questions. The assembled hacks demanded extra time to discuss the party's opposition to a referendum on devolution and other matters.

Tavish Scott, the party's transport spokesman, was obliged to convene an impromptu news conference in order to soothe the brow of the beast. He did a pretty good job as it happened . . . of imitating the Rev Ian Paisley.

Aren't the LibDems prepared at least to negotiate on the referendum? No, said Tavish. Would they accept a referendum with three questions on it, one of which might be the Liberal Democrat option of federalism; ie, more powers for the parliament? No!

What about the Constitutional Convention mark II, which they propose to set up to give Holyrood more powers? Would they consider putting its findings before the people in a referendum? No! No! No! Truly, Tavish is now the Abominable No Man of Scottish politics.

The Liberal Democrats are in danger of making themselves look ridiculous. Correction, the Liberal Democrats are looking ridiculous over their opposition - under any circumstances, until hell freezes over - to a referendum on the constitution. This was always a very strange position for a party of constitutional reformers that has participated in numerous referendums over the years.

Whether on Europe, Scottish and Welsh devolution or the Good Friday Agreement, referendums are how we do things in this country. Over three decades, they have become the accepted means of resolving constitutional issues. What makes the Liberal Democrats think they can dictate otherwise?

Try turning the issue on its head. If, as the LibDem leader, Nicol Stephen, insisted last week the "real referendum is on May 3", what does that mean if the SNP wins? Does it give the Nationalists the right to break up Britain, begin negotiations with Westminster over secession, without first getting a further explicit endorsement from the people? Of course not.

People vote on all manner of issues in a General Election. You cannot simply infer a nation's attitude to one of the most profound constitutional issues in a generation from how many people voted Alex Salmond on the ballot paper. Many people in May will be voting to scrap council tax, remove Trident or because they don't like Jack McConnell's face.

The Constitutional Commission, chaired by the LibDems' former leader, Lord Steel, 18 months ago proposed a whole range of new powers for Holyrood, from fiscal autonomy to welfare and immigration. The Steel Report actually looks a lot more Nationalist than the SNP's own very tame manifesto published last week. Given the history of devolution referendums, it would be unthinkable to wrest so many new powers from Westminster without the people of Scotland being given a chance explicitly to endorse such a move.

Yet the referendum is the only issue upon which the ideology-lite Liberal Democrats refuse to compromise. In the eternally shifting sands of LibDem policy, where everything is provisional and principles are merely negotiating postures, their rejection of a constitutional vote is the one bedrock, the one issue upon which they will not be moved; it's the one item on which they cannot be bought. They aren't the Liberal Democrats anymore; in this election they are the No Referendum Party.

Ludicrously, they say they will not even sit down with the SNP, should the Nationalists be returned as the largest party, unless Alex Salmond abandons the referendum and presumably goes back to the old SNP policy of regarding an election victory as a mandate for independence. If he refuses, the Liberal Democrat ministers will forgo their ministerial cars, along with their red boxes, and sulk on the back benches, rather than allow Scotland to choose the constitutional arrangement which best suits it. It beggars belief.

Indeed, and most people simply don't believe the Liberal Democrats. Such is their form, on issues like road pricing, that no-one believes they will actually do as they say.

The Mail on Sunday ran a story yesterday claiming that a deal has already been struck behind the scenes with the SNP. This is denied fiercely by the LibDems, and seems to have more to do with SNP open-mindedness on the nature of the referendum than anything that's coming from the LibDems.

Alex Salmond has moved a long way in the past week. At the SNP's manifesto launch, he told the media that his "preference' was for a single-question referendum putting only the option of independence or the status quo. But he refused pointedly to rule out there being other options on the ballot paper. This was a pretty remarkable concession.

Look at the arithmetic. If the polls are to be believed, in any multi-option referendum, the Nationalists would lose. In the recent Times ICM poll, 88% of Scots said they wanted more powers for Holyrood, but only 27% wanted full independence. Of course, the precise level of support for Scottish independence is hard to determine because it depends very much on how the question is phrased. But most polling experts accept that, while a comfortable majority of Scots want more powers for Holyrood, only around one-third favour leaving the UK.

[Not the case if secondary issues (such as EU and monarchy) are removed there is a majority for independence. The question of more powers confuses the issue and is disingenious - no more powers are on offer and the Lib Dems haven't said how any new powers could be achieved. - JOE]

In other words, the Liberal Democrats are rejecting a constitutional referendum which they would almost certainly win and which would probably cement Scotland's place in the United Kingdom for the next decade. What are they waiting for? They should be claiming game, set and match.

But the LibDems say they will do nothing to endanger the Union. That the SNP would turn their joint administration into a battering ram for independence, by fomenting rows with London, to prepare the ground for 2010. But surely the Nationalists would do that anyway, whether or not there is a referendum. In fact, a referendum would surely encourage the SNP to behave as responsibly as possible to demonstrate to the people of Scotland that it is capable of running a responsible administration.

But where this becomes objectionable is in the way the Liberal Democrats seem to believe that they can have a veto over the parliament itself. This is a decision of Holyrood, not any particular party. We have had two referendums on devolution - 1979 and 1997 - and it is the height of arrogance for one party to decide, unilaterally, that there should not be a third before further radical change.

The precedents are too well established now for the LibDems to dump this. Their rejectionism is constitutionally unsustainable, morally insupportable and politically inept. If the Liberal Democrats really want to give Scotland a reason for rejecting them, this is the way to do it.

How Scottish newspapers are out of touch with their readers politics

by Murray Ritchie

on http://www.scottishindependenceconvention.com

The notoriously anti-democratic bias of Scotland’s newspapers is exposed by a remarkable set of figures in a recent YouGov opinion poll.

The survey shows that the SNP is clearly the most popular party among readers of Scotland’s indigenous daily newspapers – the Herald, Scotsman, Press and Journal, Courier, and Daily Record.

Yet the Scottish press remains unanimously and implacably opposed to the SNP’s flagship policy of independence. Not one paper in the country reflects the main political aspiration of its own readership. It could only happen in Scotland.

The figures are truly astonishing. So here are the figures, published for the first time.The survey was conducted by YouGov on the back of a recent poll commissioned by the SNP on voting intentions for the Scottish general election.

Pollsters asked 1063 respondents across Scotland from March 27-30 which newspaper they read. They were then asked which party they supported.The results show that even the slavishly pro-Labour Daily Record’s readers prefer the SNP to Labour by 40% to 37% in the constituencies (and 39% to 36% in the regions).

Readers of Scotland on Sunday are the most pro-SNP of any newspaper surveyed. Yet SoS continues to adopt a stridently unsympathetic approach to independence while its readers show a simple majority in favour of the SNP - 52% in the constituencies compared with Labour’s 15%, and 47% in the regions compared with Labour’s 20%. SoS is the only paper with an overall majority of SNP voters.The Scotsman, once the Union’s most passionate supporter in the days of Andrew Neil, has a readership of whom 42% favour the Nationalists over Labour’s 19% in the constituencies. In the regions the Scotsman’s figures are 37% and 22% in the SNP’s favour.

And what of The Herald? The survey suggests 45% of its readers in the constituencies back the SNP (Labour 22%). The Herald’s regional figures are SNP 37% and Labour 21%.Other titles - Aberdeen Press and Journal, Dundee Courier, the “Scottish” Daily Express, Sunday Herald, Sunday Times, News of the World, Sunday Mail, Mail on Sunday, and the Sunday Post - show similar majorities for the SNP over the other parties.

Will our editors now show a little more balance, thus reflecting the sympathies of their readers?

Well, what do you think?

Re: Scottish National Party—still Tartan Tories beneath the left veneer

Letter to the Editor - WSWS

RE: http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/apr2007/snp-a13.shtml

The clear choice in this election is between independence and the freedom to decide our own political destiny and a continuation of a union where eternal right wing government is guaranteed.

I think you could make considerably better use of this site by actually attempting to consider what is actually happening rather than what you want to happen with your three men and a dog 'socialist unity party'.

If this is a WORLD socialist web site why does it hate the social democratic SNP, the socialist SSP, the socialist solidarity and the Scottish Greens who all have genuine support in Scotland? It's bizarre and in no way reflects any genuine strand of opinion in Scotland.

By all means remain Brits and argue for continuation of the union like every other fringe left grouping based in London in the last twenty years but please don't pretend to a 'holier than thou' attitude which you don't deserve.

Scottish socialists in Scotland want a better future for our country. That might be acheived with independence or it might not but at the end of the day at least the Scottish people will decide our future destiny (every party based in Scotland opposes Trident for a start). Scotland has a fundamental right to self determination.

Labour and the Lib Dems denial of this right will see them get cuffed at the next election. If you want to keep playing their games and attacking the SNP on dubious grounds then do so but realise that YOU are also ignoring Scotland's democratic aspirations towards normal national powers which could be used to provide a much more progressive society for our citizens, something a WORLD socialist web site might be expected to support!

You might want to look at this article:

http://www.swans.com/library/art12/joemid02.html

I doubt it will make any difference however!

Joe Middleton

Some cracking vids of the 31/03 IF Rally

More here:

http://youtube.com/group/independencefirst

Scottish Independence: The time is right for us to grasp the thistle

http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=51&id=501372007

Scottish Elections May 2007 - Expect lies!

PEACE CAMPAIGNER BRUCE KENT BACKS SNP

Veteran peace campaigner Bruce Kent today gave public backing to the SNP and said he wanted to see it win power. He told the SNP conference that Labour must be made to pay the price for the "foolish and dangerous" decision to replace Trident.

"Come May, I want an administration in Edinburgh in which your party, the SNP, either has a controlling voice or an absolute majority," he said.

The veteran anti-nuclear campaigner, who stood unsuccessfully as a Labour parliamentary candidate in 1992, told the conference he was brought up to understand Britain was England with the other component parts of the UK attached by "some sort of umbilical cord".

But he told the conference that recent trips to Scotland opened his eyes and his mind and that Scottish independence was "not a bad price to pay" for having another "peaceful and peace-minded and nuclear weapon-free" country in the world.

The Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament vice-president went on to urge politicians to use Holyrood's devolved powers to make the anti-nuclear case. He said Holyrood could invite governments and other bodies to take part in talks on a nuclear weapons abolition treaty which already existed in draft form.

"Put such consultations under your education budget, or your citizenship budget, or call it part of the festival," he said. "There is more than one way of belling this cat.

"What is needed now is some practical evidence that we could eliminate these weapons. "Gorbachev might well be willing to chair such a consultation.

"If governments do not want to participate, then ask the most active NGOs from their country."

St Andrews Day March 2006 - Scottish Independence

Scottish Independence Guide Presents...

Think about it...

BLAIR HAS NO MORAL ROOM TO CHALLENGE SNP

Letter to the Editor

Dear Sir,

Isn't Tony Blair the most awful hypocrite? Just because the SNP has dared to ask him some difficult questions at Westminster, about his alleged sale of seats in the House of Lords to big donors, he has the cheek to claim this makes the SNP unfit for Government!

There is little doubt that Blair is guilty of selling honours. His former colleague Frank Field admitted that it goes on, but claimed that it was OK because everyone does it! (By 'everyone' he means of course the equally discredited Conservatives.)

Blair claims independence would be 'crazy' but what would really be crazy is staying in a state where the legitimate aspirations of the Scottish people to independence are treated with utter contempt.

Yours faithfully,

Joe Middleton

Notes: In an interview with The Daily Telegraph, Mr Field, a former social security minister, said the selling of honours "needs to be seen in context".

"It has always gone on and probably always will. Most people know that for the best part of two centuries that honours were appropriated by money," he told the newspaper.

'In the 18th century honours and cash for political parties were in effect the constitution. It is a different relationship now. But of course it is still going on today.'

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

Wendy Alexander Negates Labour's case

[More cracking letters from the Herald. JOE]

POOR old Wendy Alexander, MSP. She really ties herself in knots in her valiant efforts (March 6) to discredit Professor Andrew Hughes Hallett's earlier reasoned case for Scottish fiscal independence.

Her concluding statistical point about Scottish GDP per head surely negates the whole anti-independence case that she and her Labour colleagues are seeking to present in the run-up to the May election. For if it really is the case that Scottish GDP per head (which is an estimated $29,263) is actually higher than that of a quartet of the richest G7 countries on earth and including Japan, Germany and France, this single fact in itself makes a nonsense of Labour's boring mantra about an independent Scotland being an "economic basket case".

Against this background Ms Alexander has a clear responsibility to explain to the Scottish electorate exactly why she and her Labour colleagues - virtually alone among the parties represented at Holyrood - continue to resist the commonsense case for the Scottish Parliament to have complete control over all of the taxable sources of Scotland's obvious wealth.

Ian O Bayne, 8 Clarence Drive, Glasgow.

WITH the assuredness of a cat on a devolved roof, Wendy Alexander uses GDP per capita (ie, per human being) to paint a nuanced picture of Scotland's position in the EPL (Economic Premier League) being comparable with G7 countries such as France and Germany. This takes no account of the cost of living there, which would give a better picture of relative disposable wealth - the money one could actually spend for the betterment of one's self and family.

May I counter Wendy's Peter Pan argument using my own economic guru? Lemmy of Motorhead was recently asked why he, the archetypal British rocker, has now permanently based himself in the United States. His paraphrased response was: "Are you kidding? The weather's nicer, the service is nicer, the girls are nicer and everything is half price compared with Britain."

There is, I would contend, more to success than generating wealth for the City of London.

Paul Cochrane, 10 Grants Way, Paisley.

I CAN'T seriously believe Wendy Alexander, MSP (The success story of Scotland's GDP per head, March 7), wants us to believe that, because the GDP per capita figure for Scotland is allegedly a few dollars more than Germany and Japan, the Scottish economy is now suddenly a raging success.

I could be wrong, but I haven't actually noticed that Scotland is now in possession of a Siemens, a Volkswagen or a Porsche-type company, nor for that matter have I spotted the sudden emergence of a Scottish Sony, Panasonic or Toyota.

Such figures are, of course, utterly useless unless they are broken down properly, and I would suggest that in Scotland's case they are skewed heavily because of the increasing dominance of the financial services sector. Having one or two banks producing profits in the tens of billions in a country as small as ours makes for an imbalance in the calculations and Wendy should know that and stop trying to pull the wool over our eyes. It doesn't become her.

Dick Winchester, The Old Schoolhouse, Old Rayne, Aberdeenshire.

HOUSE OF LORDS NEEDS TO BE ABOLISHED NOT REFORMED

Today UK Westminster MP's voted for a 100% elected upper house. A step towards democracy? A momentous day in history? A blow against class privilege?

Sadly no, it looks like British MP's are merely playing daft games. Put forward an unworkable plan and then when the Lords send it back, kick it into the long grass where it won't trouble new proposed PM Gordon Brown. Brown doesn;t want to consider doing anything which might democratise society, no he wants to Be King Gordon, after King Tony, his career comes first, as always.

Blair made some half hearted attempts at reform early on in his administration, clearing out a layer of hereditary peers. Unfortunately the modern hangers on (dubbed Tony's Cronies by the tabloids) are no better than the hereditary ones - in fact sometimes worse - after all sometimes an evil individual can have a decent son or daughter. If you are reliant on the patronage of the current PM it hardly encourages dissent!

The house of Lords is of course an anachronism. MP's like to pretend to consider reforms but they really prefer it as it is. A house of irrelevant idiots in ermine robes who put on a show for the tourists but who are rightly ignored by the media.

The only problem with electing the House of Lords is that it would effectively become a rival to the House of Commons and with two elected houses there would be little to choose between either. The 'upper house' would be much more tempted to meddle in the other chamber and there would be no clearly dominent parliament. 'We've been elected as well' they would cry.

A second chamber is not actually required at all.

The real underlying problem is that the FPTP system used to elect the British Parliament's House of Commons leads to absolute dictatorships by minority parties. The Blair Government only attracted 30 odd percent of the vote at the last UK elections. Despite this fact FPTP delivered Labour a workable majority. The second chamber in theory acts as a balancing mechanism, it stops the Government's more absurd proposals and ensures all legislation is properly scrutinised. Unfortunately it doesn't actually do any of these things.

Yes, the Lords can make slight amendments and can send laws back (three times) but ultimately the 'lower house' can overrule it and any determined Government can push through any draconian law. This has been proven on numerous occasions.

The simple answer for Scotland is of course to get independence and then we don't need to worry about the anachronistic institutions and the non existent constitution of Britain any more. It can't happen soon enough.

The powers wielded by Tony Blair (on behalf of the monarch) are considerable and in reality the Blair Government is a dictatorship which rules MP's like sheep through the whipping system. (A highly appropriate term).

The only way the undemocratic constitution of Britain can be unraveled is by setting up a new one under a democratic republic. This could happen in Scotland with independence but it won't happen for the foreseeable future in England.

The answer to the question of Lords reform is very simple. Dump it and elect one chamber by PR. At one stroke the problem of undemocratic minority Governments is solved. In future all legislation would have to be passed by parties representing the majority of the people. They will still get it wrong occasionally which is why all parliaments have regular elections.

Anyone who suggested a second chamber for Holyrood or for our future independent Government (or a new monarchy for that matter) would be laughed out of the room. Sure the quality of MP's and MSP's is poor and certainly some of the relics in the House of Lords have useful experience but while these people are appointed to rule over others (usually by naked bribery or by patronage) then a country is not free.

Most peers are completely out of touch with reality and they ignore the views of absolutely everyone. Most are has beens with no more sense than any other person in the street. All have lived lifes of extraordinary privilege and most cannot imagine anything better than the status quo.

Every former minister can get their place in the Lords and few refuse. Lord Lang, Lord Forsyth, failed Governor generals for Scotland, politicians who chose to sell their soul to England and made a career out of running down their own country. These characters are a total waste of space.

If any of the Lords want to represent the people they should stand for election. If they won't do that then they are not fit to help run any Government.

LABOUR ADMITS 'THEY (SCOTS) DON'T KNOW JACK AND THEY DON'T LIKE LABOUR'

(from Scotland on Sunday)

What a disgrace - JOE

Scottish Labour have 'given up' on positive electioneering

Plans to discredit SNP are revealed by party sources Independence bashing will be at centre of campaign

Key quote:

"There is nothing that Labour can say that will change peoples' minds about Labour. There is no point in having a positive campaign because it doesn't wash. There isn't a bit of evidence to suggest that going positive will make any difference. They don't know Jack and they don't like Labour." - Labour campaign source

Story in full

JACK McConnell is to gamble his election chances on a relentlessly negative campaign against the SNP, after party chiefs admitted they were giving up their bid to persuade people to back him on his record.

According to senior party sources, internal polling evidence within the Labour camp has concluded that a positive campaign based on Labour's policies is doomed because the public are no longer listening.

Instead, party chiefs now think their only chance of winning them round is to destroy the Nationalists' credibility.

The behind-the-scenes moves came as McConnell yesterday launched an unprecedented personal attack on SNP leader Alex Salmond, accusing him of having "walked out" on the people of Scotland when he left Holyrood prior to the last election.

The speech was intended to kick-start McConnell's bid for re-election following sniping from the SNP last week that he had become "the invisible man".

But Scotland on Sunday can reveal that the turmoil within Labour's ranks is continuing. Last week, Kirsty O'Brien, the party's UK head of policy, was parachuted into the campaign from London, as party chiefs desperately try to haul in the SNP's clear lead in the polls.

Tony Blair's polling guru Philip Gould is also now heavily involved in the Scottish campaign, in a clear sign of the UK party's growing fears over the May 3 vote.

One campaign source said that the party's polling evidence showed clearly that people were tired of Labour's own record and were not for turning. The insider said: "There is nothing that Labour can say that will change peoples' minds about Labour. There is no point in having a positive campaign because it doesn't wash. There isn't a bit of evidence to suggest that going positive will make any difference. They don't know Jack and they don't like Labour."

McConnell yesterday vowed to fight toe-to-toe with Salmond on his record in office. But he then issued a tirade against the SNP leader, accusing him of being a quitter. He told Labour candidates at a conference in Dunblane: "Building Scotland needs staying, not quitting. You don't build a great nation with glib soundbites and self-satisfied smirks, but by hard work and tough choices. You don't build hospitals by talking, but by doing. You don't build schools in Scotland scoring cheap points in Westminster."

McConnell also appealed to voters whose concerns over the SNP may have been softened by the Nationalists' plan to hold a referendum on independence.

The SNP say they will run Scotland as it is until around 2009. Scotland would only become independent if it backed a referendum which Salmond would hold at that time. But McConnell said an SNP victory would lead immediately to "paralysis, conflict, uncertainty and cost".

He added: "It would start immediately. The body politic of not just Scotland but the UK would be convulsed by 'the Scottish question'."

He went on: "If you don't believe it, don't vote for the SNP. There isn't a half-way house."

McConnell's attack comes after a torrid week for Labour in which McConnell was pursued over his refusal to agree to a TV debate with Salmond. A poll in the Scotsman, meanwhile, showed that the Nationalists had a 5% lead over Labour.

McConnell has now agreed to take on Salmond and the other party leaders in a televised debate on April 1.

An SNP spokesman said: "The SNP are campaigning positively on the policies, showing how an SNP administration can make Scotland more successful. That is what the people of Scotland want to hear."

He added: "Personal attacks from Mr McConnell are unworthy of the Scottish election process, and only show that Labour have nothing constructive to say in this campaign."

What the other parties said

THE Scottish Green party yesterday set out their plan to become "the green backbone" of government at Holyrood.

Campaign director Mark Ruskell MSP said the Greens would back a "stable minority government" from the opposition benches.

He said: "We will be instead the green backbone, forcing government to act now and put our agenda first."

At the Scottish Socialists' meeting, leader Colin Fox said the party would back free public transport for all. He also said the party had recovered from its split and the fall-out from former leader Tommy Sheridan's defamation case against the News of the World, insisting the SSP was still "the biggest, best and most successful" socialist party in Scotland.

But at another meeting Sheridan claimed his breakaway Solidarity party - formed after his case last year - would trounce his former colleagues and win seven seats in May's elections.

Sheridan claimed that the lower-than-inflation NHS pay rises announced by Chancellor Gordon Brown last week could scupper Labour's chances.

DISINFORMATION AND HYPOCRISY FROM LIBERAL DEMOCRATS

The story in the Herald re Ming Campbell today is interesting as it shows up his utter hypocrisy - pity they don't allow any comments.

The Scotsman is more biased (the Herald is biased as well but is slightly more subtle) but at least you get a chance to comeback.

Check this out:

http://www.theherald.co.uk/politics/news/display.var.1230481.0.0.php

'Sir Ming' [who obviously has a vested interest in the status quo] argued Scotland would forfeit much international influence if it went independent, for instance losing a seat on the UN Security Council. "Our ability to influence the kind of world we live in would be very severely dented," he stressed.

Is he really so stupid? It's not SCOTLAND's seat at the UN security council. Scotland is not represented in the UN at all.

Jack Straw was a hell of a lot more honest when he said he was worried England would lose their seat at the UN Security council if Scotland became independent.

Straw is quoted by the BBC as saying: "Historically, England called the shots to achieve a union because the union was seen as a way, among others things, of amplifying England's power worldwide. And the reverse would certainly be true. A broken-up United Kingdom would not be in the interests of Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland, but especially not England."

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

Excellent video of Question Time

March for Scottish Independence with Independence First in Edinburgh on 31/03.

Journalists seem to have already decided May election

The Editor
The Scotsman

16/02/2007

Sir,

Have I missed something? Has the election already happened? Surely we need to actually wait for the results before deciding that a majority of independence supporting MSP's won't happen? The SNP are running very high in the polls and could easily be the biggest party. The Scottish Socialist Party and Greens traditionally actually poll much better than their poll rankings. Sheridan's Solidarity is well organised and has the most powerful speaker in Scottish politics at its helm.

The Scotsman's current editorial stance seems to have been inherited from Andrew Neil, an individual who has never had any keen interest in Scotland and has always (like many others) been dazzled by the power of Westminster.

The fact no-one wants to positively back the union on your website might be an indication that you are backing the wrong horse.

Why remain in thrall to London rule? Why not put Scotland first? Like the Scottish people, what do you really have to lose?

Yours faithfully,

Joe Middleton

Don't castigate the SNP based on imaginary decisions

This got in the Evening News but was chopped a bit.

http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/letters.cfm?id=279102007

The Editor
The Evening News

Sir,

I am an admirer of Ian Swanson. I think he is an excellent journalist and I was therefore a little disappointed to read his column about the SNP's flagship policy of a referendum on Scottish independence.

Whoever the SNP anonymous source is that Swanson quotes he must be aware that he is doing the party no favours with his suggestion that the SNP might renege on their commitment to a referendum. I therefore doubt this unnamed individual's genuine commitment to the Scottish independence cause. Who does this idea benefit? Only the SNP's adversaries in the Scottish parliament.

It is unfortunate that our politicians are amongst the most mistrusted individuals around. To a certain extent of course they have only themselves to blame, however by making speculations like this and suggesting that the SNP would betray their supporters in this fashion, effectively the Evening News is encouraging the public to view the SNP as untrustworthy before they have even tasted Government!

The SNP's raison detre is independence and it can reasonably be expected that the party will do everything to achieve that goal.

By all means castigate the SNP (or welcome their change of heart) if they do decide in Government to waive the referendum idea (and commit political suicide) but please don't insult our intelligence by suggesting it just now simply because it suits the Scotsman group's political prejudices.

Yours faithfully,

Joe Middleton

LIB DEM HYPOCRITES ATTACK SNP FOR XENOPHOBIA

Douglas Fraser in the Herald writes:

This pre-coalition courting ritual between LibDems and SNP - Nationalists doing some rough wooing, while the LibDems play hard-to-get - will see Nationalists deflated after this weekend.

I replied:

Why? The childish claims of xenophobia towards the SNP are rank hypocrisy. The imperialist nationalism favoured by the British state is indeed xenophobic however the desire for liberation of Scotland is a civic based nationalism ie including everyone who lives here.

You know that I know that and the public are not daft enough to believe anything different. This is something which is recycled regularly by the unionist parties but it is not new and it¹s certainly not true. I think the SNP will be satisfied that the Lib Dems have shown themselves to be political hypocrites.

Call them whatever else, but don't even hint at a link between the Scottish independence movement and the ethnic nationalists in other parts of Europe, often on the ugly, anti-immigrant far right. There's nothing Alex Salmond hates more, having worked hard to prove it wrong.

Of course they don't like the implication because it's not true. In any case most independence movements in Europe are on the left not the right. Look at Wales, Ireland, Catalonia, the Basque Country.

Mr Fraser replied:

Thanks for your response. While you make strongly partisan points - and you're obviously entitled to do so - I don't think your arguments are at odds with what I wrote in the article to which you refer. You're welcome to make these same points through the letters page or on our website.

To which I replied:

Thanks for your comments.

It’s beyond dispute that British nationalism has a xenophobic character based on its imperial roots unlike Scottish nationalism. There is clearly an anti immigration agenda which has been pushed by the Daily Mail and other right of centre tabloids and which has been aped in Government by the Home Office and by the statements of leading figures in the Conservative Party and that’s before you even get to the BNP.

Also most nationalist movements in Europe which are roughly equivalent to the SNP ARE on the political left. Don’t you agree? If so why are you suggesting the SNP will be damaged by the language of the Lib Dems? Is it not more logical that the Lib Dems will be damaged for their hypocrisy in saying one thing about having a nice campaign and then promptly doing the exact opposite?

---

My good friend Ray Bell also sent me over this:

So the Scottish Lib Dems label the SNP "xenophobic", but meanwhile it's alright to vote members of a fascist party into council positions south of the border. Beggars belief!

"Despite repeated public statements that the Lib-Dems would never work with the BNP, or support BNP representatives gaining senior positions on decision-making bodies, two Lib-Dem members of the council voted for the BNP candidate to become a board member of Padiham Life. The Lib-Dem members who voted for Cllr Wilkinson being Cllrs Jones and Sumner."

http://politicalhackuk.blogspot.com/2007/01/burnley-lib-dems-back-bnp.html

ANDREW LUMSDEN: INDEPENDENCE MOVEMENT LOSES ONE OF IT'S BRIGHTEST STARS

I've just heard that Andrew Lumsden has died suddenly. Andrew was a passionate advocate of the Scottish independence cause and was our SNP candidate in Midlothian in 1992. He was about 35 at the time and hit Midlothian like the political equivalent of a tornado. An economics lecturer from Galashiels he had an instinctive grasp of the local politics in Midlothian and he could speak to the people in a honest and forthright manner.

Andrew was a massive and lasting inspiration to me and all the other SNP activists in Midlothian. He was a very fine speaker and a staunch socialist. He was one of the first people who really inspired me in politics and he had the fight and heart to take on Labour in their heartland.

Andrew believed he could win in Midlothian and he convinced his young team of activists that we could win as well. Even though the SNP didn't win the election we saw a massive increase in our vote (from around 4,000 to over 10,000 votes) and the series of public meetings that he spoke at and organised were very influential in later local government successes in the area.

The Free by '93 campaign was a watershed one for the SNP, it was extremely hard fought and Andrew was our candidate for a full three years before the election during which he tirelessly worked to build up the party in the area.

Andrew helped local miners in their successful bid to re-open Monktonhall colliery he took their campaign to the European (he was always a very strong advocate of the benefits of independent EU membership) and Westminster Parliaments and while their campaign was led by the miners themselves Andrew made a massive political push on their behalf and he joined the consortium when the pit was re-opened.

Along with Jim Sillars and Alex Neil he spoke at Miners clubs right across Midlothian and he gave the Labour party a real fright. He exposed the closure of Greenhall high school and we made school closures a central part of our local election campaign just after the general election in 1992.

Andrew was by far the best SNP candidate we ever had in Midlothian and we have never seen his like again. He was a massive inspiration to everyone who met him and his socialist values combined with his strong political nous had a lasting impact on us all.

Andrew and Alex Neil wrote an influential joint paper 'Poverty Amidst Plenty' about the economics of independence that can be read here: Poverty Amidst Plenty

I have enclosed a couple of Andrew's Press Releases from the Advertiser (see this page) It really was an amazing campaign in Midlothian and Andrew encouraged me (and others like Dave Moyes and Brian Archibald) to support him by writing press releases and letters and he gave us free reign to write anything we liked on the campaign's behalf.

His faith in my abilities was a great boost to my confidence at the time and his astute political advice over many years afterwards was invaluable to me personally. The funeral is being held next Wednesday, 14th Feb at Cloyster Chapel, Warriston Crematorium at 2.30pm. His wife Sheila can be contacted by Email: shiela@lumsden.biz

The Ladder of (dis)Respect

The way Westminster treats Wales tells us a lot about their priorities. Wales was offered a drasticaly reduced version of the powers in the Scottish Parliament. Since then Westminster has had to re-visit the Wales Act to provide more powers however it still falls far short of Scottish levels.

Plaid Cymru undoubtedly want independence but they have obviously decided to work on a gradualist basis building support for more powers for the existing assembly rather than going straight for independence.

However given that Wales like Scotland is a recognised country what justification do Labour have for providing different powered assemblies?

Quite simply it is because England gained power over Wales earlier and they feel that Wales can be more easily ignored. Labour are ignoring Scotland as well because polls are showing majority support for independence however it's all part of the same game.

Wales is at least better off than Cornwall which has been almost completely absorbed into England and while Cornwall has an active independence movement as well (Mebyon Kernow) Cornwall is completely ignored altogether with zero provision for devolution there despite a massive 50,000 petition in favour by Cornish nationalists.

Nationalities within the UK occupy a ladder of respect. Independent Ireland is treated with the most respect by the UK though for a long time their people were treated the worst and were victims of appalling levels of racism (Irish 'jokes' anyone?)

Scotland are lower down on the ladder but the success of the SNP has pushed the independence argument higher up the agenda and we have gained a stronger parliament. Wales is lower still and Cornwall is at the bottom.

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.