Time for a turnaround (Guardian)

by Ewan Crawford

The issue is not whether England is subsidising Scotland, but how the Scots can address their country's persistent low economic growth.

Watching and reading the UK media over the past few days it seems that the Westminster overseas aid budget had been re-directed from Africa to Aberdeen.We in Scotland are apparently living the high life in terms of health and education spending on the backs of hard-working tax-payers south of the border.

Writing in The Guardian earlier this week, Tory higher education spokesman Boris Johnson took time off from his goodwill tour of English towns and cities to claim that English tax-payers are shelling out £2 billion to enable Scottish students to enjoy free university education.

Today the SNP Scottish Health Secretary, Nicola Sturgeon, announced yet more largesse for the Scots - an expansion of free personal care - at a time when English pensioners are still having to flog their houses to pay for care. Oh, and Alex Salmond's government is also committed to helping out Scottish businesses by cutting their rates bills.

But there's something very curious about all this. If the Scots are being funded so generously by those of you who live in England, why is the SNP so keen on independence - which by definition would mean an end to any south-north transfers. Even more curious, why is it that those - such as the Tories - who complain the loudest about Scots subsidy-junkies, are also the staunchest opponents of Scottish Independence?

The answer perhaps lies in the fact that the whole "England is subsidising Scotland" argument is total nonsense. During these periodic discussions of public spending allocations in the constituent parts of the UK, something called the Barnett Formula is often put forward as the means by which the Scots perpetuate their huge unfair advantage.

But the reality is somewhat different. The Barnett Formula is actually a convergence mechanism through which Scotland's share of UK spending is designed to fall. Percentage increases in public spending in England have in fact outstripped those in Scotland in recent years.

What is happening now is that the new SNP government is spending money on what it believes to be priority areas. This has involved making difficult decisions - for example rejecting a huge project to provide Edinburgh airport with an expensive rail link.

And before anyone complains too loudly, the incredible sums of money generated by Scotland's oil should be remembered. As Andrew Marr detailed on his BBC programme on post-war Britain this week, the fact that North Seat oil and gas basically kept the UK economy afloat during the 1980s has been airbrushed out of contemporary history.

In 1997, the then Chief Secretary to the Treasury, William Waldegrave admitted that between 1978 and 1995 Scotland generated a surplus of £27.6 billion (£34 billion at today's prices). Moreover secret British government documents written in the 1970s and uncovered by the SNP through Freedom of Information, revealed that with Independence: "(Scotland) would tend to be in chronic surplus to a quite embarrassing degree."

However, in Scotland at least, the debate has now moved on. The issue is not about who is subsidising who, but about how Scotland's persistent low economic growth, poor health record and appalling life expectancy figures can be turned around.

The answer is increasingly clear - equip Scotland with the tax and other economic powers we need to compete in the global marketplace. In other words - independence. This would have the added benefit of ending the silly name-calling of this week. Boris Johnson and his friends can rest happy that English taxes are being spent on useful things like Trident and the Iraq war and not on fripperies like Scottish public services. And we in Scotland can get on with the business of using our resources to turn our country into the prosperous and just society it deserves to be.

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/ewan_crawford/2007/06/time_for_a_turnaround.html

[Excellent! JOE]

SCOTLAND SHOULD DECIDE ON ABORTION - CARDINAL

Cardinal O'Brien to Britain: Let Scotland Make its Own Laws on Abortion

EDINBURGH, Scotland, June 12, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Cardinal Keith O’Brien, Archbishop of St. Andrews and Edinburgh, stated yesterday that the Parliament of Scotland should be able to decide important national issues such as abortion for itself, the Scotsman reports.

Cardinal O’Brien indicated that the recent turn-over in the government of Scotland reflects a growing dissatisfaction among Scottish citizens about the limits that are currently in place on the Scottish Parliament. He was referring to the May 3 elections in which the Scottish National Party (SNP), the party working for independence from Britain, was voted into power, replacing the formerly popular Scottish Labor Party.

Since the Scottish Parliament was re-established after a 1997 referendum, ending a 300-year-old merger of the Scottish and British parliaments, the parliament has been limited in the issues it may decide to areas of education and training, local government, economic development, health and environment, sports and the arts. Even within these areas the United Kingdom Westminster Court has the power to over-rule decisions and to decide major controversial topics.

Recently, Cardinal O’Brien called for the local Scottish parliament to be able to rule on abortion within the country as well as to have an official say on Trident, UK’s nuclear armament system. Both issues have caused a great deal of controversy within Scotland.

The Scotsman quotes the Archbishop saying, “It was as if Scotland wasn't grown-up enough to deal with something like Trident, adoption or abortion, and I think voters were fed up of that.”
“In many ways, people have been disappointed with what has come out of the Scottish Parliament... and they are looking for a greater lead from our Scottish Parliament and Executive.”

Less than two weeks ago, the Cardinal also spoke out against abortion in St. Mary’s Cathedral in Edinburgh. During a homily on the 40th anniversary of the Abortion Act, he said that pro-abortion politicians who call themselves Catholics may not expect to receive Holy Communion. Condemning abortion as an “unspeakable crime” and the “wanton killing of innocents”, he also described the misinformation that has spread about abortion, saying, “We were told a pack of lies – lies and misinformation masquerading as compassion and truth.”

See http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2007/may/07053102.html

WARK SHOWS HER LABOUR BIAS WITH SALMOND INTERVIEW

Kirsty Wark - biased towards Labour. Wark was forced to publicly apologise for this interview.

Hostile interview shows Labour has failed to grasp new political reality

Kirsty Wark's brusque treatment of Alex Salmond on BBC's Newsnight (your report, 9 June) is another illustration of the difficulty the Labour Party and its adherents find in accepting that an era has ended, and that their cosy world of power and influence has vanished. An independent political commentator should have been able to analyse these trends instead of reacting with personal hostility.

The fact is that Labour's stranglehold on Scottish public life, including and especially the media, has been broken, and there is no way back. There will be no repetition of blatant pro-Labour propaganda like The Gathering Place, and it might even be possible now to reveal the whole truth about how the restoration of the Scottish Parliament came about.

With the SNP now bidding fair to replace the already moribund Labour on the left side of the Scottish political spectrum, and with the ongoing decline of the London parties likely to steepen in the foreseeable future, the main strategic objective now is to consolidate the centre-right of Scottish politics on an exclusively Scottish basis. This process is already under way, and should be completed before the 2011 election.

(DR) JAMES WILKIE West Clyde Street Helensburgh

We learned over the weekend that Kirsty Wark, in her e-mailed apology to Alex Salmond's constituency office (why not go directly to him on his mobile) asked him to "agree" that her Newsnight "interview with him was conducted in a fair and robust manner".

I hope he doesn't agree, because that would put him in a minority of one. Fuelled by bias and antagonism to an SNP First Minister, this figure in what can only be described as the broad Labour establishment that was our overlord for generations went revealingly over the top and everyone knows it.

JIM SILLARS Grange Loan Edinburgh

The appalling treatment of Alex Salmond, by Kirsty Wark is indicative of a lack of judgment and understanding of Scotland and devolution. .
To have Ms Wark, who has holidayed with the former first minister Jack McConnell and his family, interview his replacement was a crass and naive judgment by the BBC and reeked of bias. At least the editor of the programme, Peter Barron, has had the decency to apologise.

ALEX ORR Bryson Road Edinburgh

Kirsty Wark was out of order in her rude and biased questioning of Alex Salmond over the proposed Westminster deal regarding the Lockerbie prisoner exchange debate.
Given her friendship with Jack McConnell and other Labour ministers she is clearly not fit for purpose as an independent political reporter.

DENNIS GRATTAN Mugiemoss Road Bucksburn, Aberdeen

ANTI SCOTTISH DIATRIBE BY 'THE TIMES' NEWSPAPER

Rather a nasty little column, I think the only 'fit of pique' here is that the Times don't like the idea of anyone at all standing up for Scottish interests. JOE

Peak of Pique

Is there no perceived slight too small to test Alex Salmond’s temper? Alex Salmond is growing into a parody of the gruff, chippy, fight-picking “Hey Jimmeh!” Scotsman from central casting.

Scotland’s First Minister roams the world like a Saturday-night drunk looking for excuses to bruise his knuckles.

For his latest brawl he has accused Tony Blair of ignoring the Scottish Government and its legal system by signing an agreement with Muammar Gaddafi over prisoner transfers from Britain to Libya – an agreement, hissed Mr Salmond, which could lead to the Lockerbie bomber, Abdul Baset Ali al-Megrahi, being switched from Scotland to his homeland.

It marks the latest of myriad whinges from a man famous for having a temper shorter than a Paris Hilton jail stay. Mr Salmond can be relied upon to find three new things to beef about before breakfast.

He has whined about Scotland not having its own Olympic team, has demanded a separate Scottish version of the BBC TV Six O’Clock News, bleated about getting Trident out of Scotland, criticised Tony Blair for sending troops into Kosovo, demanded a fat Scottish share of North Sea oil revenues, and queried why Scottish ministers cannot lead the British delegation at EU meetings.

If there is an opportunity to moan self-pityingly about how cruelly Scotland is oppressed by its southern neighbour, then Alex Salmond is the man to grab it. No doubt Mr Salmond is already exploring reasons to grow indignant about yesterday’s snubbing of the Munro Society by surveyors who declared a Scottish mountain not tall enough to join the Munro list of 3,000ft-high mountains.

Would that mark the peak of Mr Salmond’s pique? Unlikely. Mike Tyson may soon be the only opponent left who is worthy of Mr Salmond’s sparring skills. Now that is a bout we’d all pay to watch.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/leading_article/article1906974.ece

HOLIDAY FIRM BANS WELSH SPEECH IN WALES!

Staff at [English firm] Thomas Cook's Bangor shop in Gwynedd have been told all work conversations must be in English. The firm said it must ensure "clear communication at all times."

The Commission for Racial Equality in Wales says it will write to Thomas Cook asking the firm to explain why staff have been asked not to speak Welsh. The firm told staff they must conduct business conversations in English, as it is the UK's common language. The Welsh Language Board said it was "disappointed" and it would ask the company to change its position. It emerged last week that staff at the Bangor store - one of the areas of Wales where Welsh speaking is strongest - had been asked to use only English in business.

A Thomas Cook spokeswoman confirmed the policy applied to all non-English languages. Concerns were raised in the Bangor travel agent A company statement said: "Thomas Cook requests that all staff speak English when discussing work-related matters in the work place. "This ensures clear communication at all times and is respectful to team members who do not speak other languages." Thomas Cook employs staff from many cultural backgrounds, therefore the company appreciates its staff may want to talk to colleagues in other languages for anything that is not business related".

The Commission for Racial Equality in Wales has warned that the policy might be in breach of the Race Relations Act. Wales Commissioner, the Reverend Aled Edwards, said the promotion of good relations was their "paramount concern". He would not comment on the particular case, but added: "The Commission for Racial Equality does have a power to investigate through its legal committee and also if it sees fit to start a formal investigation but I think common sense and courtesy would be the best option."

Meri Huws, chair of the Welsh Language Board, said there was "disappointment" that a large private sector company had decided to take this decision. She said the Welsh Language Act does not cover the rights of the individual in the work place. But she added it was "a very surprising decision, in the light of the number of private sector companies, large and small, that are choosing to use the language in terms of marketing, in terms of services to their customers, and generally in day-to-day work place activity".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/6739121.stm

Bad tactics?

Article by Alex Orr. I think the SNP have given up on a single issue referendum a bit too easily. The clear choice is between independence and the status quo. Most calls for 'more powers' are ill defined and no more powers can be granted for the Scottish parliament without the agreement of Westminster.

The devolution conventions oroginal proposals included broadcasting powers however these were removed by Tony Blair (he also personally sabotaged plans for a 'Scottish six' 6 O'Clock News).

Scotland's oil wealth won't last forever and the idea that we can have a few more powers and that will sort our problems is wrong. We need independence immediately. If we can inch a few more concessions out of Westminster along the way then fair enough but the SNP should not be talking up vague calls for more powers as a valid option for the Scottish people when the only real opportunity is independence.

Time to take issue out of the hands of politicians
By Alex Orr, SNP MSP

BOTH THE SNP and the Liberal Democrats have promoted the need for some form of constitutional change and have talked favourably of a constitutional convention, yet the Liberal Democrats are refusing to sit down or even negotiate with the SNP unless they give up their policy of a referendum on Scottish independence. Given this seemingly insurmountable roadblock, the time has come to take this issue out of the hands of the politicians, who have failed to get their act together, and pass it to the people.

Perhaps the most significant achievement of the Scottish Constitutional Convention, which from the late 1990s prepared the way for devolution, was to entrench popular sovereignty as the founding principle of the new Scottish politics. Popular sovereignty belongs, simply, to the people. In democratic regimes it embraces a right for voters to place before their peers for their judgement a proposition of its own choosing, as in the "citizen's" or "popular" initiatives that operate in Switzerland, New Zealand and some of the American states.

The launch of a citizen's initiative to hold a multi-option referendum - offering a choice between the status quo, greater powers for the Holyrood parliament or full independence - is an eminently achievable way to end this current constitutional impasse and represents an exercise in participative politics as promoted by the Scottish Constitutional Convention.

A citizen's initiative, where the voter petitions for the holding of a referendum, would put pressure on the Scottish parliament to bring it forward. On the model of the Swiss popular initiative, numbers would have to be significant (around 100,000) and there would need to be some agreement on the use of e-petitions and other mechanisms and checks on the validity of the petitioners.

But if a sufficient number of Scottish citizens petitioned for a multi-option referendum on Scotland's constitutional future, then, in the name of citizen empowerment and faced with an already largely politically apathetic and disillusioned electorate, it is difficult to see the parliament defying the will of the people and the principles on which it was itself established.

Such a citizen's initiative might also have a particular relevance to the circumstances in which Scotland now finds itself. Proportional representation is justified on its own democratic merits, but it is no secret that part of its attraction for some champions of devolution was that it would create an additional barrier to the advance of political nationalism. A power of citizen's initiative could challenge this by giving a sufficiently large number of frustrated voters an opportunity to intervene in politics on terms of their own choosing rather than on the terms dictated by the politicians' club.

This would not only serve to tackle voter apathy and cynicism towards the political system, but has the potential to revitalise democracy, re-engage people in the political process and make politics work for people, a valuable prize indeed.

The Beginnings of a brand-new Scotland? (by Sean Connery)

The beginnings of a brand-new Scotland?

2007/5/27

By Sean Connery [Special to The Washington Post]

This has been a historic week for Scotland. The country's new first minister met Queen Elizabeth -- Queen of England and Queen of Scots -- at Holyrood Palace on Thursday. This was the first time Her Majesty has met the leader of a Scottish government who is committed to Scotland rejoining the community of nations as an equal and independent partner.

The meeting was also the culmination of a month of firsts for Scotland. On May 3, the Scottish National Party (SNP) -- a democratic party, committed to independence, that I have proudly supported all of my adult life -- won the largest number of seats in the Scottish Parliament. And last week the Scottish Parliament elected the SNP leader, Alex Salmond, to the country's top job.

The American media have described this election as good news for the SNP and very bad news for the British government of Tony Blair and his successor, Gordon Brown. What was not covered was the momentous significance for Scotland. This marks the first time in 50 years that the Labor Party has lost an election in Scotland. Fifty years is a long time -- in politics, it is a virtual eternity.

Scare tactics often work in elections, and with the Labor Party contemplating defeat, it was willing to throw all the negativity it could into this campaign. People in Scotland heard it all: Labor conjured up descriptions of plague and pestilence if Scots voted for the SNP and a new and different government.

And I'll tell you this: It didn't work. In fact, it backfired badly on Labor.

Scots voted for optimism. They voted for change. They voted for progress. And that is why they voted for the SNP.

Polls show that the SNP is the most trusted party in Scotland. And by a margin of five to one, people think that Alex Salmond cares more than Tony Blair does about making Scotland successful. As for the SNP's position that it makes good democratic sense to ask Scots to decide their own constitutional future in a democratic referendum, a whopping 80 percent of the Scottish public agrees.

My politics come from a simple belief: that my country, Scotland, should have equal status with the nearly 200 other independent countries around the world.

Independence is a concept that Americans inherently understand. After all, the sentiments for freedom in the Declaration of Independence echo those from the Declaration of Arbroath that Scots penned in the 14th century. (We said nothing about the pursuit of happiness, however, a fantastically American addition.)

The debate on an independence referendum is one for another day, and I firmly believe the answer will be yes. This month's election was about a new government. Alex Salmond will be a new kind of first minister for Scotland, a man who answers not to a party in London but to the people of Scotland.

The Scottish public first became aware of Salmond 20 years ago, when, as a young member of the British Parliament at Westminster, he interrupted the chancellor's budget -- the most televised day in British politics -- to protest the government's unfair, regressive tax policies. The House of Commons proceedings ground to a halt as the speaker ejected Salmond. He exited to the waiting cameras outside and the commentators asking who was this young guy with the nerve to interrupt the British chancellor of the exchequer.

In Scotland we saw the picture through a different lens -- we saw someone giving the country a voice and standing up for what he thought was right.

Two decades later, Salmond is leading a new kind of government. Quoting Scottish author Alasdair Gray, he pledged that his government will work as if living in the early days of a better nation.

The exciting thing is that in Salmond, Scotland will have a leader for the first time who both governs well and trusts the people to choose their own future.

No doubt the queen and her first minister had a lot to talk about.

SHEER HYPOCRITES

(Thanks to mediawatch for these pics.)

Huge Support for Independence (Herald)

In the context of the recently oft-repeated assertion that a majority of the people of Scotland voted for Unionist parties on May 3, the letter from Danus Skene (May 14) is highly significant.

To be a LibDem supporter, a Tory or a Labour supporter and to support Scottish independence is perfectly compatible and, as we were told often enough, the election we just experienced was not about independence but mainly about a wide range of issues, many of them to do with the day-to-day governance of Scotland within the limitations of our parliament's devolved status.

In common with thousands of political activists across Scotland, I was recently involved in a huge canvassing effort and I have the details of the about 2000 returns on a survey of about 22,000 voters across Argyll and Bute.

Of those returning the survey who identified themselves as intending to vote LibDem around 60% ticked "yes" for independence, were we to have such a referendum; for Labour supporters it was over 75% and even 28% of Tories expressed support for Scotland going it alone.

The other highly significant feature of the returns was that the SNP amassed more second preferences than the others put together - an indication of intent that was fully realised when one looks at the list voting patterns across the country at the election. To a considerable extent the survey return was a self-selecting one and it is likely that those more inclined to independence were more inclined to return it; nevertheless, it clearly demonstrated the possibility of a huge independence vote in a referendum from many who do not at present vote SNP.

This, I suspect, is why our Unionist parties are so opposed to a referendum. They know it would divide their support and they know they might well lose the vote.

Confused, contradictory and ambiguous positions on the Irish Home Rule question destroyed the Liberals in the early years of the last century. Similar puzzling behaviour on the Scotland question is threatening to reverse the modest LibDem revival of recent years and destroy the party as an electable force in Scotland for the foreseeable future. The constitutional question - which will now dominate Scottish politics - is eating away at the support of the Tory and Labour parties also and the old left/right polarisation is becoming much less important than the nationalist/unionist one. My guess is that the LibDems will be the first party to divide on the issue (as it did on the Irish question) and it will serve them right.

Their constitution is quite clear. It reads: "We believe that sovereignty rests with the people and that authority in a democracy derives from the people. We therefore acknowledge their right to determine the form of government best suited to their needs." (Unless we don't like it, that is.)

David McEwan Hill, 1 Tom Nan Ragh, Dalinlongart, Sandbank, Argyll.

Suspicion remains

I am pleased Christopher Mason, leader of the LibDem group on Glasgow City Council, has attempted to explain why the LibDems were willing to do a coalition deal with Labour but not with the SNP (May 14). However, his letter does not explain their absolute opposition to a referendum on independence.

It would be perfectly reasonable for the Liberal Democrats to maintain their support for a federal UK while supporting a referendum on independence. After all, a referendum is simply a choice. If the Liberal Democrats still support the Claim of Right document for Scotland which they signed up to during the devolution debate, then they must logically subscribe to the position that the Scottish people have a sovereign right to choose their own political destiny.

Those who are unwilling to do so can make any excuse they like, but the suspicion must remain that the only reason they don't want the question to be asked is because they also don't think they will like the answer.

Joe Middleton, Independence First, 1/4 Wardieburn Place South, Edinburgh.

Do the Scottish Liberal Democrats still support the 'Claim of Right'?

Letter to the Editor
15/04/2007

Sir,

The Scottish Liberal Democrats have refused to countenance any referendum on independence, despite the fact that polls show a massive majority for a referendum being held.

The fundamental question they must ask themselves is, do they still support the Claim of Right for Scotland? This document, which was signed by Labour, the Liberal Democrats and various civil groups and individuals said clearly that sovereignty lies with the Scottish people and that they and only they have an absolute right to decide the future of their country.

In 1997, Tony Blair refused to endorse the Claim of Right, declaring "Sovereignty remains with me as an English MP and that is the way it will stay."

We also know that the British Government does not officially believe in the Scots right to self determination either. In answer to an official letter by our organisation, Independence First, calling for a referendum on independence, they wrote: "It is worth noting that in the UK political system the UK parliament is sovereign and it is for Parliament to decide whether or not to hold a referendum on any particular issue - and what the terms of any referendum should be."

The basic question for the Scottish Liberal Democrats is do they support the British Government's position? Do they also believe that only a parliament based in London can decide Scotland's constitutional future?

If they don't and they do still believe in the sovereignty of the Scottish people then they must also support giving the Scots a vote on independence when according to the most recent polls 60% of our people desire one.

If they refuse such a vote then they cannot in truth describe themselves as Democratic. Given the fact that their party is clearly controlled by London, and they are happy for our country to be denied any say on its future they can hardly claim to be Scottish either.

Yours faithfully,

Joe Middleton
Press Officer
Independence First
www.independence1st.org

Maybe Lib dems don't want to know what the people think!

Sir,

I am pleased that the leader of the Liberal Democrat Group on Glasgow City Council has attempted to answer the question of why the Liberal Democrats were willing to do a coalition deal with Labour and not with the SNP (14/05), however his letter does not effectively explain their absolute opposition to a referendum on independence.

It would be perfectly reasonable for the Liberal Democrats to maintain their support for a federal UK while supporting a referendum on independence, after all a referendum is simply a choice.

If the Liberal Democrats still support the Claim of Right document for Scotland which they signed up to during the devolution debate, then they must logically subscribe to the position that the Scottish people have a sovereign right to choose their own political destiny.

During the election campaign a poll by the Daily Telegraph specifically asked the following question: There has been much debate on whether Scotland should be independent. The SNP has proposed calling a referendum on this issue. Leaving aside your own views on whether or not Scotland should be independent, would you support or oppose a referendum being being held on this issue?

I support holding a referendum on independence 60%

I oppose holding such a referendum 28 %

Don’t know 12 %

Since the vast majority of the Scottish population seem to support holding a referendum on independence, any democrat, whether they are a unionist or not should be willing to ask the public their opinion on the future of their country.

Those who are unwilling to do so can make any excuse they like, but the suspicion must remain that the only reason they don't want the question to be asked is because they also don't think they will like the answer.

Joe Middleton
Press Officer
Independence First
www.independence1st.com



--------

No mandate for an independence referendum

I have been a member of the Liberal Party since 1962 and I have no difficulty in supporting the Liberal Democrat MSPs' position on coalition with the SNP.

As I understand it, Alex Salmond invited the Liberal Democrats to discuss joining a government which would be committed to preparing a white paper on independence and to putting a Bill before parliament to provide for a referendum on the issue. If discussions had led to the formation of a coalition government on those terms, all the Liberal Democrat ministers would have been bound by collective responsibility to support the white paper and the Bill, and Liberal Democrat MSPs would have been expected to vote for the Bill in parliament.

The Liberal Democrats are a federalist party, not a separatist one. Why is it supposed that Liberal Democrats have some kind of moral duty to support an important policy to which they are opposed? And can anyone explain why the Liberal Democrats have that duty, but not the Labour or Conservative parties? Or why the Liberal Democrats ought to have wasted everybody's time by discussing a coalition that was not going to happen so long as Mr Salmond insisted (as was his right) that his government's programme must include a commitment to his policy on a referendum?

The thing that astonishes me is that there has been so little public discussion of the soundness of Mr Salmond's decision, before the election campaign started, to insist that any government led by him must be committed to a referendum. What was the point of the policy? If the election had resulted in a parliamentary majority for the pro-independence parties, why would the new Scottish government have needed a referendum before starting independence talks with Westminster? But as things have turned out, the referendum was a big issue in the election and the Scottish voters elected a parliament with a clear majority of members opposed to a referendum. The election results, and opinion polls, also show that a clear majority of Scottish voters are opposed to independence. So how is it that the SNP strategy for achieving independence still kicks off with a referendum Bill, which would not be passed by parliament, leading to a referendum that the SNP would lose? Perhaps some long-term member of the SNP, such as Mr Salmond, could give us the answers to these questions.

Christopher Mason, Leader of the Liberal Democrat Group, Glasgow City Council.

CANADIAN PAPERS BEGIN TO PANIC ABOUT SCOTTISH INDEPENDENCE

Ill informed commentaries about Scottish independence seem to be popular in Canadian papers just now, desperate to play down the fact that the SNP have just won a historic victory. The reason of course, Quebec. If Scottish independence happens, perhaps Quebec will decide that maybe independence would suit them after all.

I was pleased to have the opportunity to speak on Canadian news just before the election about the situation here in Scotland. We obviously appreciate international interest from all countries here in Scotland and obviously there are huge amounts of Scottish ex pats in Canada.

Let's not forget however that Canada was once linked to the British Empire as well and chose to go for independence. If Canada can be independent, so can Scotland.

Perhaps Quebec and Scottish nationalists should begin to compare notes, because it sounds like Quebec is as much a victim of biased media as we are here in Scotland.

Check this set of headlines out:

Scotland: the road to nowhere

An independent Scotland as likely as a separate Quebec

Scottish independence unlikely

Just ask Quebec - Scottish independence the road to nowhere

Scottish independence not on SNP's agenda now

These are all actually the SAME article (with assorted negative headlines), the last one being the worst since it pre-emptively (and completely wrongly) suggests the SNP have given up on independence. All by a london based journalist named Gwynne Dyer, yet obviously this version of events suits the Canadian press, who have given his analysis blanket coverage.

America (who judging on the hits on my Scottish Independence Guide website have a very strong interest in Scotland and Scottish independence) gets in on the act as well:

A Scottish Guddle
By Neal Ascherson

For the first time in their history, the Scots have voted in such numbers for a pro-independence party. In elections for Scottish parliament last Thursday, the Scottish National Party, or SNP, emerged as the largest party and is preparing to govern in Edinburgh. The SNP wants to make Scotland a separate nation-state within the European Union, linked with England only by a common Queen.

Scottish politics won't be the same again. But independence isn't coming soon. Most Scots, first of all, don't think it's necessary. As in Quebec, voting for an independence movement isn't the same as voting for independence. ...

(More comparisons with Quebec, maybe the good old USA has a vested interest in Quebec staying under Canadian control as well.)

DOUGLAS ALEXANDER BLAMED FOR BALLOT CHAOS

Confusion over ballot papers predicted nine months ago
http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=709282007

"Four voters put one cross on the paper; three put two crosses in the same column," the researchers reported. "This sort of mistake suggested a lack of understanding of the election format (ie, that there were two separate votes)."

Crucially, they went on: "The separate papers were less likely to give rise to these types of mistakes; because they were on separate sheets, it was clearer to voters that each column required a cross."

--- Who's to blame then? Mr Alexander (the Scottish Secretary, Wendy's brother). Also who lied when he said "it was Jack McConnell's campaign" on TV and yet (as revealed in the Sunday Herald) McConnell's ideas were ripped to shreds by Blair and Brown and he was told what his campaign would be! Mr Alexander again, the full story is here:

http://www.sundayherald.com/news/heraldnews/display.var.1379934.0.how_labour_lost_it.php

The bitterness infecting the Labour campaign turned septic at a strategy meeting early this year in London. Attended by McConnell, Brown and Blair, as well as their advisers, it was meant to iron out the differences in approach hampering the pre-election planning. According to one insider, McConnell made a presentation in which he called for a positive campaign strategy based on education, rather than focusing on independence. He also wanted to replace McTernan, then knee-deep in cash-for-peerages, as campaign chief.

The initial response to McConnell's pitch, said one Labour source, was "total silence". Blair is said to have "taken apart" the presentation, while Brown picked at the bones of the first minister's speech. Gould is understood to have winced at McConnell's "humiliation".

...

The views on McConnell from within the Labour camp are brutal. One senior campaign aide said his TV performances were "bloody awful", and added: "There was contempt for him within the team. People were pretty open about it. He was just no good."

Part of this antipathy stemmed from McConnell's perceived inability to stick to Labour's anti-independence line. According to one member of the inner circle, the first minister failed to carry out the instructions agreed by his party's fragile coalition.

"He would go on radio or whatever and just not be convincing about the Nationalists' case. He would want to talk about his so-called achievements, which were almost non-existent," he said.

THIS frustration was keenly felt by the Westminster-based campaign chiefs, McTernan and Alexander. By the end they resorted to an old trick to keep McConnell out of the way: pack him off on the Labour battle bus. A tactic used to marginalise Donald Dewar in 1999 was recycled in 2007.

LET THE PEOPLE DECIDE ON REFERENDUM

"The result of the election shows there is no demand or mandate for independence" said Nicol Stephen, the Liberal Democrats' leader in Scotland. "Therefore the group agreed unanimously that we will not support a referendum on independence."

There is a hell of a lot more evidence for enthusiasm for independence than there is for the union! Let's remember that a referendum on independence could go either way and the traditional unionists who are opposing a referendum are opposing asking the people of Scotland what their choice is.

If the case for the union is strong why are the unionist political parties unwilling to hold a referendum on it? The SNP have won the election while the Lib Dems have fell into fourth place behind the Tories. Clearly there is substantial interest in independence despite enormous negative campaigning against it.

Independence must be a question for the people of Scotland, not the political parties. The real question for the Liberal Democrats is do they support the sovereignty of the Scottish people or not? If they do and they still support the principles of the Claim of Right then they must support giving the Scottish people a choice on independence.

Tomorrow and Tomorrow and Tomorrow

By Ian Hamilton

This blog is too superior a blog to bother telling Alex Salmond what to do. He is a historian and knows that the best generals win by delaying. A minority government is the best type of government. Let the Libdems rot on the back benches and die there. They are now a mere whimper from the past. It matters little to the great juggernaut car of history what they do. History is on the side of independence and it cannot be stopped...

See the rest of this article at the excellent ‘a drunk man looks at the thistle’ blog:
http://www.ianhamiltonqc.com/wordpress/

Nice one!

Saw this on Gus Abraham's blog 1820 http://1820.org.uk/

SCOTTISH PEOPLE SHOULD DECIDE ON INDEPENDENCE NOT LIB DEMS!

Given that anywhere between 60% and 80% according to opinion polls support a referendum on Scottish independence and given that the SNP have won the Scottish elections, while the Liberal Democrats have been beaten into fourth place by the Tories, the moral legitimacy of a referendum being held on independence has now been won.

The SNP and pro-independence parties did not win an overall majority of the Scottish Parliament. The SNP in those circumstances cannot make any direct moves forward to independence and everyone accepts that fact. However it is clear that the Labour party made independence the central plank of this Scottish election and that their negative campaign which flowed unimpaired through a compliant media has been rejected by the voters.

If the unionists believe in their case for the British union they should be willing to put the straight question of Scottish independence to the Scottish voters. If not, why not? Is it that they don't trust the public to decide in their favour? Labour have already tried to launch legal action to overturn the result of the elections, despite the fact it was their own decisions on the ballot papers that left the voters confused!

The fact is that independence support crosses all parties, including people in the traditional 'unionist' parties and their voters. The Liberal Democrats have no right to deny the Scottish people a democratic choice on independence. An independence referendum does not guarantee independence, it only guarantees that the Scottish public will decide on the future of their nation.

What's wrong with that?!

L'independentisme creix a Escòcia

Great Catalan Vid about Scottish Independence.

VOTE FOR HOPE: SCOTTISH INDEPENDENCE

Scotland goes to the polls tomorrow for the most important election for a generation. We have a golden opportunity after 300 years of unequal union to vote for normal powers for our country and set in motion a democratic referendum on independence.

The alternative is to let Labour's scaremongering tactics win and retreat 'defeated and feart' and accept the status quo as 'good enough'.

Labour have wasted their years in power, they have sold their soul to English Conservatism, they have ruined Britain's international reputation and they have signed Scotland up for billions of pounds worth of new nuclear weapons that we don't want and our Scottish MP's voted against.

It's now or never. If we want the freedom of normal powers for our country, we need to vote for hope and against fear. I urge every elector who considers themselves Scottish first rather than British to use your vote to back a Scottish party in this election.

Choose Scottish Freedom not British imperialism

MCLEISH BLASTED FOR BACKING PRO-UNION ADVERT

Tartan Army’s fury over manager’s remarks

By Gordon Blackstock

http://www.dcthomson.co.uk/MAGS/POST/news2.htm

THE SFA has had complaints from the Tartan Army about Alex McLeish backing a campaign to keep Scotland in Britain. Last Monday the Scotland boss, with 14 other Scots football legends including Ally McCoist, Graeme Souness and Walter Smith, put his name on an advert supporting the Union.

The full-page ad, sponsored by Glasgow company Lynnet Leisure, appeared in two newspapers, urging “every patriotic Scot to help maintain Scotland’s place in the United Kingdom”.

In a subsequent interview, McLeish was reported as saying, “I support the Union. I think it has benefited us.”But his comments sparked fury among the rank and file Tartan Army, who accuse 77-times capped McLeish of using his position to give weight to a political campaign.

Stuart Darling, who attends most of Scotland’s home and some away matches, said he had formally complained to the SFA. In a letter he said, “I think it is a shocking misuse of his position that he should be so public about his feelings. “I feel he should apologise for these comments and remove his name from the campaign. To suggest a Scotsman could only be patriotic if they vote for a pro-Union party is appalling.

Patriotism

“In effect he is questioning the patriotism of a large section of the Tartan Army.”Alan Duncan, chairman of the North of Scotland Tartan Army, said, “It’s been a hot topic of discussion this week and most of us think he’s made a monumental blunder. Football should be kept separate from politics.

“I think he’s been ill-advised and his comments show a surprising degree of naivety. He needs to realise he’s not just Alex McLeish, but Alex McLeish, Scotland manager. And that carries a huge responsibility.

“He should realise it was largely Jack McConnell’s pro-Union government who threw away our chances of hosting the forthcoming European Championships through mismanagement of the bid. However, we don’t think it’s going to endanger his job as Scotland manager.”

SFA spokesman Andy Mitchell said, “We’ve received a number of e-mails and letters complaining about Alex McLeish’s involvement in the advert. “The opinion expressed is a personal one and is not endorsed by the Scottish FA.”

Last night Alex McLeish refused to comment. But he’s understood to have told friends he regretted the comments and thought he was merely passing on his individual political views. He’s believed to be upset that he could have alienated a large section of the Tartan Army. No-one from Lynnet Leisure was available to comment on the ad, but head of the company, James Mortimer, is known to be a vocal supporter of the Union.

Science could blossom under independence (Herald Letters)

Your front-page lead on Saturday: "Leading Scottish scientists have given support for the Union." Perhaps this should more honestly have read: "Some leading Scottish scientists" - for there are many Scottish scientists who fully support independence and see advantages to science in doing so.

Our nearest neighbour, Norway, which obtained independence from Sweden in 1905 (few Norwegians would want to return to that union) is a good example. Its Nobel Prizes are the ultimate international accolade which many scientists aspire to. Unlike the UK, where successive Unionist governments have squandered oil revenues for three decades to bolster our economy, Norway's national fund from oil, now worth billions of pounds, is being used to support vital research. Much of this is aimed at solving social and economic issues that will arise when the oil has gone. Fisheries research, in particular, has received a vital boost.

Other small countries have excellent, well-funded science bases. One of Finland's leading scientists has recently been awarded an honorary fellowship by Scotland's major national academy. Iceland's fishery research is thriving and has provided a scientific foundation for successful and sustainable commercial marine and freshwater fisheries. Of course, science is not the only element in the soul of a nation. The land of Sibelius (which has successfully become independent from both Sweden and Russia) has 15 symphony orchestras. How does a small independent country manage that?

Finally, social conscience. Hand on heart, I wonder how many of the scientists who signed Saturday's letter (organised by Professor Willie Russell - a long-time Labour member and friend of Gordon Brown) have read the manifestos of those parties committed to independence? How can any socially responsible person, scientist or not, vote for either of the main Unionist parties, both of which supported the entry of this country into a war which has used up billions of pounds which could have been devoted to research and has caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent people and created international turmoil?

Professor Peter S Maitland, Fish Conservation Centre, Haddington.

The liberal philosopher, J S Mill, wrote that "the English are the fittest people to rule over barbarous or semi-barbarous nations such as those of the East", including India, which he helped govern. He'd have been horrified at the thought of the "child-like" natives gaining full control of its universities. Likewise, the distinguished signatories to Saturday's letter on science funding in a future independent Scotland recoil in horror at the idea of the natives here gaining control over their universities. Despite a university tradition going back nearly 600 years, one which, while still relatively autonomous, produced Clerk Maxwell and nurtured Kelvin, research will not flourish, it seems, except under London control.

No-one can guarantee science funding in an independent Scotland inside the EU will match or surpass current levels. But to suggest that independence will "inevitably lead to . . . detrimental consequences" for research is nonsense and, coming at this juncture, a blatantly political act of scaremongering. Sadly, some scientists, when they venture forth from the labs into the political arena, leave behind more than their white coats. They leave behind their reason, too, substituting, in this case, ancient chauvinistic prejudices akin to Mill's.

Professor Alan Weir, Department of Philosophy, University of Glasgow.

I fear for the future of Scottish science but not because of the growing prospect of independence. Rather, I am gravely concerned by the lack of evidence for their views from the prominent scientists predicting doom from independence.

All of them surely accept that such views should be evidence-based, yet all we are offered is an assertion that things will get worse. If such prominent and accomplished figures are to advise us on politics, perhaps they might provide a few facts. Was their letter subject to peer review or was it written in New Labour HQ?

Ken Ferguson, High Street, Newburgh.

Until this election, I hadn't realised we had become such a nation of fearties. All sorts of doom and gloom scenarios have been painted by politicians, and now 62 scientists have signed a letter confessing their timidity, frightened they may be cut off from the UK apron strings.

The signatories are concerned that "the separation of Scotland from the Union" will break their ties with the UK science infrastructure, and lose them funding. But surely the collaboration and sharing of information about scientific developments and discoveries now takes place on a global basis?

Over the past two centuries or more, Scotland has gained a deserved international reputation for the many advances and innovations it has provided in engineering, scientific and medical research. Does our fearful group seriously believe an independent Scotland would be perverse and stupid enough to destroy such a vital part of its resources by refusing to provide adequate funding?

If the scientific research carried out in Scotland is of sufficient merit, the pharmaceutical companies will continue to support such research in their own interests. I'm certain that if the UK funding agencies withdrew financial support (the funds for which at present come at least partly from Scottish taxpayers' money), that support would continue to be provided by bodies set up in Scotland.

Iain A D Mann, 7 Kelvin Court, Glasgow.

60% OF SCOTS SUPPORT A REFERENDUM ON INDEPENDENCE

A recent poll in the Daily Telegraph has revealed that 60% of Scots want a referendum on independence. If the unionists were confident of their case (and their recent estimates that only a quarter of Scots actualy want independence) they would be happy to grant one.

In actual fact they know that when secondary issues are removed (such as references to leaving the UK which suggests a republic or to staying in or leaving the EU) that there is a clear majority for independence and this is why they are running scared of letting the people decide.

A referendum is a matter of simple democracy. It will happen and must happen as soon as possible. The Liberal Democrats cannot block the people on this issue and they will lose votes by trying to do so.

LABOUR'S BRANKIN LIES ABOUT BUS PASSES

I have it on good authority (the mother of a friend) that Labour's Rhona Brankin MSP (for Midlothian) told a group of pensioners at the Mayfield Labour club that if the SNP won they would lose their bus passes!

I think this is an excellent example of just how low Labour will go to get elected and it reflects their national campaign which has been entirely about scaremongering and lies about the supposed consequences of independence.

In fact independence simply means the normal powers that every other country on the planet takes for granted. Shame on you Rhona Brankin, let's hope you receive the reward you deserve at this election.

INDEPENDENCE 'COULD FUEL RECORD GROWTH'

INDEPENDENCE could lead to record economic growth and leave the average Scottish family thousands of pounds better off, a free market economic think-tank claimed today. A research paper published by the Adam Smith Institute, said that Scotland could emulate Ireland's recent economic success if the same policies are followed.

Instead of current growth rates that trail the rest of the country, Scotland ten years into independence could out-perform the UK, the report claimed. The paper, Independent Scotland: The Road to Riches by international economist Gabriel Stein of Lombard Street Research, found that from 1992 to 2004, Scotland's gross value added growth was only 87 per cent of that of the UK.

If an independent Scotland reduced taxes, cut spending and created a business-friendly environment, the country's growth rate over a five-year period could move from 4.7 per cent to Ireland's 7 per cent, he said.

The paper claimed that a further five years of Scottish growth at that level, and before diminishing returns set in, would lead to a more than two-thirds increase in GDP. Mr Stein said that by contrast the rest of the UK would grow by just over one-quarter.

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]