GOOD RIDDENCE TO POMPOUS IRRELEVANT BRIT MING

Steve Bell summed up Ming's political future with this cartoon.

In a media obsessed age any personal faults are magnified. Ming might have been clever but he came across as pompous and his love for the Britain that he represented at the Olympics was out of place in modern Scotland.

His leadership has led the Scottish Lib Dems into the political wilderness with their undemocratic disdain for a referendum on Scottish independence, while at the same time demanding one on the EU. (the Tories are hypocrites in this area as well).

Dynamic politicians have charisma and earn respect no matter what their age is. Age might have been the excuse to get rid of him but the reality was that Campbell wasn't an effective leader of his party. Also, his own attempts to draw attention away from his age - claiming recently that he had 'married a young turk himself' were cringeworthy.

Since Labour have moved to the right and the Tories have moved to the left (marginally) both are attempting to occupy the voter friendly, politically muddled ''centre ground'.

In this situation the Lib Dems become irrelevant because they can't seriously compete with the 'big two'. In Scotland the SNP are a much more logical alternative to Labour and the Tories.

This leads to the question, what is the point of the Lib Dems? The answer is not a lot and they would be as well to throw their lot in entirely with the Labour party who they kept afloat in Scotland for many years. Those genuine home rulers who would balk at Labour's unionism (there doesn't seem to be a lot of them left given the non-reaction to the blocking of an indy referendum) could then move over to the much more relevant SNP.

SNP ARE RIGHT TO BACK SCOTS FARMERS

The SNP did the right thing. Scottish farmers were promised compensation and then cynically denied it. If Labour had still been in power then this would have been swept under the carpet.
Instead the SNP tried to talk to the UK Government about it but when they refused to listen they made the only possible choice and backed our farmers interests and demanded that the Goverment pay the planed compensation.

The Scotsman has become used to a supine boot licking Labour Executive which meekly follows orders whether they are in Scotlands national interest or not. We now have a Scottish Government which is prepared to fight our corner, that is a fact to be welcomed by all who have ambition for our country.

BROWN BOTTLES ELECTION AND SHOWS HIS TRUE COLOURS

Mediawatch have it absolutely right.

'Wha' will fill a cowart's grave?'

'Wha sae base as be a slave?'

'Let him turn and flee!'

Sums up Gordon Brown. The man who writes voluminous books about courage and heroism saw a couple of positive opinion polls for 'call me Dave' Cameron's Tories and ran like a big fat scared rabbit!

Brown feels 'we need some time to get to know him' yet we already know him! We know his fake bluster about Britishness and his new dodgy accent are designed to cover up his Scottishness. We know his new found love for the England team and his love for Gazza's goals are either a fabrication or an act of treason against his home country, we know he was up to his neck in the 'New Labour' project and is just as responsible ultimately for the Iraq debacle as Tony Blair.

Brown bottled it when he had the chance to defeat Blair for the leadership, he sat in the sidelines moaned and griped to journos but kept schtum while Blair sold the Labour party's soul. Now he has a chance against just as light weight a contender, against a simpering boy from the home counties and he can't even face up to him.

This individual is not fit to be British Prime Minister, he's hardly fit to be a Scottish MP, he has sold out everything and he is now sitting on borrowed time, a lame duck PM, fearful to go to the electorate because he knows he'll get humped. Good riddance Brown, you've muffed your chance and you won't get another.

LET SCOTLAND DECIDE

Isn't it ironic that the first genuinely Scottish Prime Minister we have had in some time sounds more like a 'Little Englander' than any of his predecessors? Gordon Brown has adopted the language of the far right, threatening deportations and shouting for "British jobs for British Workers". He has even embraced Margaret Thatcher's legacy and is now being given warm praise by people like Norman Tebbit.

The question is what priority does Scotland have in Brown's vision of Britain? The obvious answer is not much. Ever since James VI and I moved his court to England in 1603 we have been ruled by people who may be nominally completely Scottish but whose first thought has been to their new adopted home in England's green and pleasant land.

Who speaks for Scotland in London at the moment? Certainly not Des Browne our 'Scottish Secretary' who doesn't even listen to Wendy Alexander. It seems to be nobody at all, apart from the small current SNP Group in Parliament. If a General Election is called the Scottish people may well decide that to increase that group would be a very smart option.

As for David Cameron's Conservatives their call to 'Let the People Decide' on Europe is fair enough but it is also somewhat hypocritical when they and their fellow unionist parties are blocking a referendum on independence in Scotland. Why not let Scotland decide?

I believe that increasingly the UK parliament will be seen for what it is, an unnecessary obstacle in the path of Scotland's people which is preventing us from moving towards the type of free and social democratic state most Scots would prefer.

BOOM! MacWhirter shoots down Brown and Labour

Excellent piece from Ian MacWhirter in the Sunday Herald:

Getting the blues from Brown’s conference spin

IT'S THE eyes that are the give-away. In the sci-fi comedy Men In Black, you could tell the aliens who had stolen the bodies of Earthlings because their eyes always behaved in inhuman ways. Well, the Brownite young Turks have similar oracular ataxia: think of the thousand-yard stare of Ed Balls; the manic gleam in the eyes David Miliband; or Douglas Alexander's cross-eyed glaze, which makes the development secretary look as if he is too exhausted to see straight.

Everyone has praised Gordon Brown's conference for its unity, cleverness and presentation. How he has shafted the Tories by stealing their clothes. But there was something alien about this Labour conference, a strange look in its eyes. They behaved a little like The Stepford Wives, or some religious sect. Come to think of it, the last time I saw someone looking like David Miliband they were trying to sell me a copy of The Watchtower...

There were 81 references to "B-word" [British] in Brown's speech. He was using techniques of repetition drawn from American advertising, but it sounded neurotic, insincere, protesting too much. Then there was the ham-fisted celebration of John Smeaton, have-a-go hero of Glasgow airport. It was all so clunkingly, transparently manipulative. As Brown got up to speak, the colour of the conference stage backdrop changed from red to Tory blue to make sure TV viewers got the message.

Read full article here:

http://www.sundayherald.com/oped/opinion/display.var.1724139.0.0.php

GORDON BROWN'S LATEST FAN - NORMAN TEBBIT!

Labour's traditional supporters will surely love this, not! Not only has Brown grasped Mrs Thatcher to his buxom, now he is embraced by the grotesque Norman Tebbit, with friends like these and slogans like "Real jobs for Real Britains" Brown has proven that he is not only out of touch but like David Blunkett he'll use the race card when required. If Tebbit is supporting him, and former top Tories are welcomed at their conference, Labour must realise in their heart of hearts that they have lost their way.

Norman Tebbit - Right wing loon who invented the 'Cricket Test' which suggested that people shouldn't be allowed to stay in Britain unless they supported England at cricket.

A right wing former Tory minister praised Gordon Brown and attacked David Cameron today as the party geared up for its conference next week. Lord Tebbit, the former Conservative party chairman, said that voters believed that Mr Cameron was out of touch and had "no experience of the world". By contrast, he praised Gordon Brown's "courtesy and political nous" in inviting Lady Thatcher to No 10 at a time when the Tory leadership was attempting to distance itself from her.

In an interview with the Times, Lord Tebbit said that Mr Brown was a "very clever man and I have considerable regard for him", adding that the prime minister was not "tacky" in the manner of his predecessor, Tony Blair.

Lord Tebbit, who served in Lady Thatcher's cabinet, said that the former prime minister knew exactly what she was doing when she was photographed in Downing Street with Mr Brown earlier this month.

"I'm quite sure that Margaret Thatcher knew exactly what she was doing," he said.
"She's, first, too well-mannered to rebuff the prime minister and, second, of course, the present Conservative leadership has been at great pains to distance himself from her - and she is, after all, a woman."

He said that the present Tory party "lack somebody of the standing of Margaret". He said that the prime minister's invitation to Lady Thatcher was "Gordon Brown at his very best, a wonderful mixture of his courtesy and his political nous".

He added: "After all, Cameron described himself as the 'heir to Blair'. It's only natural that Brown should make himself the 'heir to Thatcher'. It's the perfect response, isn't it?"

LABOUR'S LOVE FOR BRITAIN WILL BE THEIR UNDOING

Alexander says sorry for letting SNP gain power at Holyrood - Wendy Alexander has apologised to the people of Scotland for allowing the SNP to be victorious over Labour in the May elections (reports the Britman).

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1531252007

How can Wendy Alexander apologise "to the people of Scotland" for "allowing Labour to be defeated"? The fact is that the people CHOSE the SNP because they had a positive uplifting message and faith in their own folk something Labour will never understand in a million years.

While Wendy actually apologies to her Labour chums (when in fact they should be grateful the Scots have given them the benefit of the doubt for years) and pleads for help to defeat the SNP, her boss tells us exactly why Labour will never deserve another vote from a Scot again:

Quote from the Scotsman's front page article: "And that nation, as ever, is Britain, an identity the Prime Minister again made clear he believes must come before and above those of the constituent parts of the United Kingdom."

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1531142007

Aye well there's the rub, if Brown doesn't care about Scotland and puts Britain first as he so clearly does, why should we care about him? The more Brown trumpets his love for Britain the more Scots will flush his party down the toilet of history. His hingers on like the Alexanders will enjoy the u-bend right beside him.

CHANGE THE RECORD WENDY- YOU'RE FOOLING NO-ONE

The difference between the SNP and Labour is that the SNP believe the Scots are equal to any other people on the planet and that we have the same right to rule our own affairs, while Labour are stuck to a union which suits their party politically but is long past it's sell by date.

Independence is normality and the SNP are right to call for it just as all the other parties based in Scotland support it as well.

Ms Alexander comes across like another self interested glove puppet of No. 10 Downing Street.

She is only slightly more appealing than her brother, one of the most irritating individuals ever, a puffed up little tick whose career has been based on sooking up Broon's backside and who has obviously never given even an idle thought to the best interests of the people of Scotland.

That Wendy Alexander can only come up with this dreadful response to the SNP's national conversation reveals what everyone already knows, that there is no enthusiasm for continued union or for the low level aspirations for Scotland that Labour has.

The pumped up Britishness of Gordon Brown, clearly designed to cover up his scottish identity and fool the English UK majority is both transparent and pathetic. The SNP have nothing to fear from this crowd. The time is right for independence.

LIBERAL DEMOCRATS CONTEMPT FOR SCOTS LEADER = CONTEMPT FOR SCOTLAND

From 'secret weapon' to Lib Dem fringe act (Scotsman)

A YEAR ago, Nicol Stephen made his battle cry for the Scottish elections on the main stage at the Liberal Democrats' conference, billed as the party's "secret weapon", ready to be deployed against the SNP. Yesterday, for his sole appearance at the Brighton conference, Mr Stephen and the Scottish Liberal Democrats were, literally, relegated to the fringe.

http://news.scotsman.com/scotland.cfm?id=1492352007

Interesting article from the Britman about the Lib Dems, it transpires that the Lib Dems are now demanding some of the oil money for Scotland (a move in the right direction) but the British party conference won't even let them say it on their main stage! It doesn't say much for their influence or relevance down south does it?

This reminds me of the treatment of Jack McConnell during the last election. Basically Jack went down to London, explained his plans for the Scottish elections which were ripped up and laughed at by Blair and Brown (or Bwown as he now prefers to be known) and then he was told how it would be run, and yet he was supposed to inspire respect as First Minister of the Scottish Government...!!

I just watched Nicol Stephen on Newsnight Scotland (the one Jeremy Paxman doesn't want us to have even though he's never actually watched it) and he was ripped to bits by Gordon Brewer who is hardly the finest interviewer on the TV, he's more of a friendly puppy than an attack dog, yet even he, an arch unionist, was flabbergasted at the Lib Dem's hypocrisy.

Do you want a referendum on the EU, 'oh yes' says Nicol 'because we believe in the EU and we want the chance to put our case for it', do you want a referendum on the minimal new powers at Westminster proposed by Gordon Brown, 'oh yes the British people should have a choice on this important change in the powers of the Government'.

'So you want a referendum on the EU but you don't want to have a referendum on Scottish independence? You don't want to make a positive case for the union?' says Brewer.

'Oh no! We don't believe in independence' says Mr Stephen. (So they will only hold referendums they think they can win and suit their party, a great attitude to Democracy.)

A referendum on independence gives the SCOTTISH PEOPLE a choice on independence. Nicol claimed that the people had the chance to vote for independence in the Scottish elections and the UK general elections, yes they did and they also had a massive campaign of lies and misleading statistics led by a biased media against independence. They also were voting on party manifestos and local issues, so it was NOT a direct vote on independence, as he well knows.

Of course Nicol claimed he had came back to Scotland for important discussions with his new best pals the leaders of the Labour and Tory parties. Their humiliating conclusion? That they now need to GO BACK DOWN TO LONDON to get advice on exactly what powers Britain might decide to advance to Scotland!

There we have again if proof was ever required that the Liberal Democrats have no interest whatsoever in what the Scottish people might desire, all they want is to stop any move towards self determination, what a sad day for a once proud actively campaigning Scottish political party which held to the Claim of Right for Scotland. I imagine their could be some screams of anguish at their next Scottish conference, IF they have any principled members left.

When the Scottish Liberal Democrats get humped in Scotland in the upcoming British general election they will only have themselves to blame.

Independent Scotland would have to apply to join EU CLAIMS the Scotsman

http://news.scotsman.com/scotland.cfm?id=1497442007

The 'meat' of the 'story' is here: "On the issue concerning Scotland's independence, that's not my competence to assess or to evaluate..."

IE this person is not competent to make a judgement so this is yet another attempt by the scotsman to cast doubt on the SNP's position without foundation.

The European Commission retained its neutral position yesterday. A spokeswoman said: "It is not customary for the commission to state its views on matters which, as things stand, are purely hypothetical."

Scotland joined the EU as part of Britain. If Scotland becomes independent then the British state as enshrined in the Act of Union no longer exists. There will be a rump state of England and allies (possibly terming itself the UK but without any foundation to that because 'the Kingdom' ie the state would not in fact be united anymore).

It is unlikely that it will last for long as logically Wales would follow Scotland to independence and NI might see less prestige in being part of England rather than Britain.

However when Britain breaks up there will be at least two seperate new states created, they will either both have to apply for EU membership or both will be automatically accepted, I suggest the latter is more likely to be prudent given our resources and our history as an EU member.
If in fact we do have to re-apply for membership then many people would argue that Scortland would be better off outside anyway so this won't necessarilly affect Scots prospects of voting for independence as much as the Scotsman hopes.

The most important body we need to join is the UN, the others are negotiable.

http://www.scottishindependence.com/

A VIEW FROM ENGLAND

Quite a good article with some interesting comments appended. JOE

If Scotland got its vote, then so should we
Beware, Mr Brown, the English are proud patriots too
William Rees-Mogg (The Times)

After three centuries, this seems likely to be the year of Scotland’s revenge. In 1707 the last Scottish Parliament of the old order dissolved itself and Scottish sovereignty was transferred from Edinburgh to London.

In their hearts many Scots never accepted this English predominance. They rebelled in 1715 and 1745, but it was not until May of this year that they elected, with a plurality of only one seat, a Scottish government committed to Scottish independence. I admire Alex Salmond’s achievement as leader of the Scottish National Party.

In a month’s time in Lisbon, Gordon Brown, who is a Scottish Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, will go to the European summit to approve a treaty that will transfer many of the remaining powers of British sovereignty to the European Union.

Although the Scottish people were given two constitutional referendums to establish Scottish devolution, no such consideration will be given to the British people, if the Prime Minister can avoid it. Certainly, the English people, however much they might object to becoming one of the western provinces of a European empire, will be allowed no chance to decide the matter for themselves.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/william_rees_mogg/article2469067.ece

SCOTLAND BEWARE AS BROWN WOOS ENGLISH TORIES

'Not so New' Labour: Does this man represent our interests and our values?

(from Washington Post) Gordon Brown and Mrs Margaret Thatcher's meeting at Downing Street came after the current leader praised Thatcher, still a hugely divisive figure in British politics and amid an apparent campaign by Brown to appeal to supporters of her party, the main opposition Conservatives.

In recent weeks, Brown has appointed two Conservative lawmakers as advisers to his government and hired the opposition party's ex-deputy treasurer as an environmental consultant.

Brown, who must call a national election before mid-2010, has also tapped Thatcher's former advertising agency to handle Labour's looming campaign.

Unionist Arguments Against Independence Are Desperate Rubbish

Letter to the Editor (Metro)

14/09/2007

Dear Sir,

Proponents of Scottish independence should perhaps be pleased as the arguments against it seem to have become ever more desperate over the years. The latest assertion by 'Robin' that "Scottish independence is nothing more than a label to hide behind for hatred of the English" is perhaps the nastiest assertion yet, though most unionists have sang some variation on this theme at some point.

Let's be absolutely clear. A belief that Scotland has a right to the normal political powers that almost every other country enjoys is about simple democracy not any imagined feeling of superiority.

It is ironic that those who hark back to the so called golden times of the British Empire - which was in fact based upon a philosophy of imperialism and superiority to other cultures - try and turn the argument against Scotland for wanting the same freedoms that most former colonies now enjoy.

Modern civic based nationalism is about changing Scotland for the better and it attracts support from every nationality and ethnic minority living in Scotland. It is about improving things for everyone who lives here.

'Nick' from Edinburgh says nationalists are all right wing thereby attempting a variation on the other great lie that fascism and nationalism are somehow linked. Not all nationalists believe in the superiority of their culture over others, those who do are imperialist nationalists like Hitler or the BNP.

The SNP are quite different. They are a genuine democratic left of centre inclusive political party, however 'Nick from Edinburgh' probably knew that already just as his pal 'Robin from Glasgow' is no doubt aware that more Scots fought in the Spanish civil war per head of population than any other outside nationality.

If more people had followed our example we might have avoided World War II altogether! It is a totally grotesque insult against every Scot who fought in the second world war to claim that if we were independent at that time we would have taken no part in it.

If British unionism is based on both blatant lies and deliberately twisting our past shared history (and it is surprising how often these 'arguments' come up) it is no wonder that increasing numbers of Scots see the British union as redundant and want a better life for them and their children as a free and independent state.

Yours faithfully,

Joe Middleton

Unsettling changes (for Labour and the Media)

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/mike_small/2007/09/unsettling_changes.html

A cracking article and some very interesting well thought out comments appended to it.

Waffle from Wendy? Or are Labour going to back a referendum?

Ruaridh Nicoll in the observer:

At the Apex, Alexander hinted at how she might be prepared to call Salmond's bluff. 'There will be a referendum in 2010,' she told the delegates.

That's quite a statement. Why must there be a referendum? Her certainty was odd, for there is no need for one. The SNP have not got the votes in Parliament to call it. Could she be planning to have Labour back this call? Her advisers were not forthcoming, beyond encouraging speculation.
'There will be a referendum in 2010 and the SNP will lose,' she told the delegates.

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,2165514,00.html

UNIONIST BLOC TRYING TO HOODWINK SCOTS OUT OF INDY

United call for new Holyrood powers

SCOTLAND'S three main Unionist parties joined forces last night to launch a joint bid for more powers for the Scottish Parliament. Scottish Labour, the Scottish Conservatives and the Scottish Liberal Democrats announced plans for their own "national conversation" to rival that launched by Alex Salmond, the First Minister, earlier this month to push for independence.

http://news.scotsman.com/scotland.cfm?id=1370472007

Labour and the Liberal Democrats were in power for the last two parliaments. If they had any genuine desire for more powers for the Scottish parliament they would have articulated that desire during their time in power. Although it was not properly reported prior to the election the independence movement as a whole was never more united than at the last election. All the major scottish parties (SNP, Greens, SSP, Solidarity) are agreed on political strategy (ie through a referendum and also delaying a final decision on the EU and monarchy till after independence to ensure maximum unity now) and all were actively working together within the Independence Convention and the referendum campaign Independence First.

In the past Labour and the Lib Dems lined up against the Conservatives for devolution (also motivated by a desire to outflank the SNP). The Conservatives were like King Canute, telling the waves of support for devolution to stop, before being washed away electorally. Now Labour and the Lib Dems have joined forces with the Tories and now effectively speak with one unionist voice bellowing NO to a Scottish public which wants a referendum. 'This far and no further' they effectively told the Scottish people at the last election, Devolution was 'good enough'.

Labour subsequently got cuffed by the SNP. Since the elections Labour, Tories and Lib Dems have started issuing joint statements and are now having secret meetings supposedly to call for 'more powers' but actually to decide the absolute minimum of power they think Scotland will be satisfied with. The message that there is no difference whatsoever between these parties is now ringing out very loudly and very clearly.

Most polls prior to the election showed a narrow MAJORITY for independence (if don't knows were excluded (see Independence First's website for more info) which explains why the unionst bloc is actually unwilling to countenance a referendum, they might well lose it!
If the unionist parties supported the 'Claim of Right for Scotland' which was the moral basis of the Scottish constitutional Convention in the 1980's then they would respect the Scottish public's desire for a referendum on independence (support for that is at between 60 and 80% according to the polls).

In fact they do not. All are London owned and controlled branches of larger British parties which require the status quo on the union to continue to allow them to gain power at Westminster. The more they act together the more the Scottish public will see who they can trust and who they can't to represent Scottish interests. It's not hard now we see a home grown Scottish party in power to see the difference in political ambition between the current administration and the last.

No doubt mistakes will be made by the SNP but no one can doubt their desire for more power for their fellow Scots. On the other hand one can easily see the moves by the unionists to call for 'more powers' are an obvious and pretty cynical last ditch attempt to hoodwink their fellow Scots out of the natural normal powers of independence.

SNP: KEEP SCOTS IN THE DARK OVER INDEPENDENCE

The usual garbage from the retard, only they could spin the logical idea that scots must take our own decisions AFTER independence into this:

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/news/tm_headline=keep-scots-in-the-dark-nats&method=full&objectid=19603978&siteid=66633-name_page.html

Still the fact they are attacking this aspect of the convention shows they recognise the danger (for unionists) of a united pro independence campaign.

WHY FLYING OUR FLAG MATTERS

Gordon Brown's attempt to foist the Union Jack upon everyone has backfired. Jack Straw has been forced to admit that Scotland can choose to fly any flag we want and Christine Grahame has taken up the cudgels with the SNP hoping to get the Saltire flying everywhere all the time.

No doubt some will think this is a fuss over nothing, some will claim it doesn't really matter what flag flies and that the Scottish parliament should be doing something more constructive.

This attitude misses the point, Scotland has our own flag, while the union continues we will no doubt have to put up with seeing the union flag flying occasionally but we should not be forced to have our national flag flown in a subservient position, as current rules dictate, nor should our flag be demoted just because Gordon Brown want's everyone in England to forget he's a Scot!

The saltire is a symbol for all Scots. The union flag on the other hand has a blood stained history as a symbol of imperialism over a huge chunk of the planet. Not for nothing has it been termed 'the Butcher's Apron'. It's possible that England's own flag the St George's Cross can become a welcoming symbol for all England's people, it's equally certain that the British flag cannot because of it's history.

Billy Bragg's comments on this were disappointing, particularly given his recent book. Many people in Scotland have no regard for Britishness whatsoever and would be entirely happy to see the union flag put in the dustbin of history. The flag is dominated in it's centre by the St George's Cross and it represents effective English dominance over Scotland. There is no way the vast majority of people in Scotland will ever be proud to fly the union flag no matter how much Gordon Brown wishes they would.

England has their own flag, it's time for the English to adopt some pride in it and stop attempting to get everyone else to love a flag which has lost all relevance to Scots and represents a discredited racist imperial past. That tarnished history which has seen the union flag adopted by skinheads across the globe and neo fascists in this country (not to mention deluded anti Europeans in UKIP) means it can never properly represent any true AND GENUINE civic natonality.

Since Scotland and Wales have acheived a measure of devolved power the English have rediscovered their flag and have begun to wave it with pride. this is a positive natural development and should be welcomed and encouraged (though in Cornwall, which is also historically a Celtic Country, like Scotland, Ireland and Wales they naturally want to wave their own flag and are gradually voting for Mebyon Kernow their equivalent of the SNP).

The union flag represents an unequal union which has seen Scotland, Wales, Ireland and Cornwalls rights subsumed within an unrepresentative and unequal alliance of convenience which for many years benefited England and contrbuted to England's vast trading Empire (which was largely established before the union of parliaments) but has long since ceased to benefit anyone else. The Empire is over and the flag that represented past British/English power and imperial arrogance is no longer relevant.

Our flag however the Saltire has no such baggage and is a proud symbol of all Scots who live in Scotland, no matter when they arrived. That's why the SNP are right to promote the Saltire at every opportunity and why the Scottish people as a whole should resist any attempts to force the British flag upon us.

LABOUR ADMITTED SELLING HONOURS SOME TIME AGO

This from the Guardian:

Police had arrested Labour's chief fundraiser Lord Levy, another close No 10 aide and a millionaire donor during the inquiry but yesterday they were told by the CPS that there was an unrealistic prospect that the evidence would lead to a conviction. Senior Scotland Yard figures were said to strongly disagree.

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/funding/story/0,,2130916,00.html

So in other words the Police had collected enough evidence to prosecute but the CPS has been nobbled. We know that Labour are guilty because early on Frank Field admitted as much however he said it was OK because “everybody does it.”

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

From the Mail on Sunday:

There is no doubt that British political parties (and not just Tony Wright's own New Labour) are basically corrupt and have been for many years. All of them are bankrupt and have, at times, sought to make good their cash shortfall by offering favours to party donors. In some cases, as in the Ecclestone scandal over tobacco advertising for Formula One racing, they change government policy in order to help out their donors. On other occasions, they offer meetings with ministers or senior politicians in return for hard cash.

But the practice of exchanging honours for money, either in the form of donations or loans, is most common of all. Both Tories and Labour have raised scores of millions of pounds in this way. A recent piece of research showed that a Labour Party donor was 7,000 times more likely than a non-donor to receive a peerage, and 1,600 times more likely to receive some other kind of honour.

It's long been an open secret that honours were for sale, so much so that the former Downing Street policy chief Geoff Mulgan once remarked that "in later years, the scarcely concealed sale of peerages to wealthy party donors, and the appointment of the party's top donor - Lord Sainsbury - to ministerial office, did little to restore public confidence in the Government".

http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/pages/live/articles/columnists/columnists.html?in_article_id=469858&in_page_id=1772&in_author_id=382

SCOTS HAVE BEEN BRAINWASHED FOR YEARS

In a week where we found out via Alistair Campbell that our former Prime Minister Tony Blair considers Scots to be "Whingeing Jocks" here is a typical example of biased reporting by the Press Association which then filters through other media. Various claims are made but very little evidence is there to back them up!

The raw figures are that the vast majority (76%) of people think of theirselves as Scottish first and only 23% are very proud of Britain, however the report seems to draw very different conclusions.

Let's face it our 'Scottish' education system has always been geared towards a rosy coloured British viewpoint of history and it's not so long since every classroom had a huge map with pink parts all over the world denoting the extents of the British Empire. For a long time Scottish history was not taught at all and even now it is marginalised and limited (kids were beaten for speaking in Scots for years). This classroom bias has a huge long term cultural effect.

We have also been awash with pro British propaganda and various British themed TV since the beginning of the BBC. Every day seems to provide a new documentary about WWII and outside Football and Rugby we have no independent representation (not even in Eurovision never mind the Olympics!), given that it would be strange indeed if there was no one who had some residual feelings (what does 'some pride' mean anyway?) about Britain, whether based on reality or not.

Our education system is also geared towards a rosy coloured British viewpoint of history and it's not so long since every classroom had a huge map with pink parts all over the world denoting the extents of the British Empire.

What's most obvious is that Scottish identity is on the rise despite all the above factors.
The report claims: "Scots, even those who say they are 'Scottish not British' are not hostile to the idea of Britain, its history, or its empire, and are happy to think of it in cultural unifying terms."

There are also plenty of people around who are Scots not British and believe the Empire was a racism fuelled international embarrassment and that the British state has long outlived it's usefulness to both Scotland and England.

This view is the one which is genuinely on the rise for obvious reasons.

-----Original Message-----
From: mediapoint.scotland@pa.press.net

SCOTS 'STILL HAVE SENSE OF BRITISHNESS'
SOCIAL British

12 Jul 2007 - 16:49
By Katrine Bussey, Political Reporter Scottish Press Association

Scots still have a sense of being British, despite an increasing sense of Scottish national identity, academics said today.
Edinburgh University researchers Frank Bechhofer and David McCrone studied issues surrounding national identity.
And they found that despite a strengthening sense of Scottishness over the past 30 years, there is still a widespread sense of being British both north and south of the border.
The proportion of people identifying themselves as Scottish has risen from 65% in 1974 to 76% in 2005.
But the academics, from the University's Institute of Governance, say that while people are more likely to identify themselves as being Scottish rather than British, most are not opposed to Britain.
Their paper is published in the current edition of The Political Quarterly just weeks after Gordon Brown - who has made repeated calls for greater pride in the British identity - took office as Prime Minister.
The researchers state that while levels of pride in Britain are higher among the English than the Scots, there is a "clear majority" in Scotland who take some pride in Britain.
The SNP formed a minority administration in the Scottish Parliament following its election victory in May.
The survey asked people how proud they were of being British, with 41% in England describing themselves as "very proud" compared to 23% of Scots.
At the same time in England, 79% expressed some pride in being British, compared to 64% in Scotland.
The authors concluded that the data is "certainly not compatible with a strong rejection of being British".
They added: "The dominant impression is that a majority of people in Scotland take some pride in being British.
"Scots, even those who say they are 'Scottish not British' are not hostile to the idea of Britain, its history, or its empire, and are happy to think of it in cultural unifying terms."
The study also looked at politics and national identity, with the researchers stating that a person's sense of national identity was only "loosely associated" with their political preferences.
Among supporters of the Conservative Party - traditionally the most unionist of the parties - 76% described themselves as being at least as Scottish as they are British.
And among SNP supporters, only 51% reject any idea of Britishness, describing themselves as 'Scottish not British'.
Further it is only among people who regard themselves as being Scottish and not British that there is a majority of support for Scottish independence, with 51% of this group backing such a move.
Professor McCrone said: "The relatively weak association between identity and party political support or even views on independence suggests it is difficult to mobilise national identity in a straightforwardly political way."

SCHOOLS ARE NOT THE PROBLEM - BIGOTS ARE

SNP 'is open to idea' of state schools for Muslims

THE SNP government has signalled it is willing to consider having separate Muslim state schools in Scotland. A spokesman for Education Secretary Fiona Hyslop said ministers were "open" to proposals about such a move.

http://news.scotsman.com/politics.cfm?id=1081232007

The survival of Catholic schools owes a lot to the fact that despite being almost completely integrated within society Catholics still see themselves as being under some level of threat. The large amount of Orange lodges and Orange parades proves that this threat is not imaginary.

The Act of Settlement with its various bigoted clauses also gives the impression that discrimination against Catholicism is institutional and until this is removed or adjusted that is actually the case.

There are also other shady groups like the Masons who deliberately exclude Catholics from their membership and which have an insiduous influence within society. The constant requests from the Orange lodges for Catholic schools to be closed actually guarantees their continued existence.

They are also guaranteed under law because the Catholic church used to run their own schools themselves and their right to have seperate schooling is enshrined in the legislation which set up comprehensive education.

Catholic shools will continue until Catholics feel they are 100% integrated. This has almost happened but given the above factors has not actually quite completed as yet.

If Muslim schools are introduced it will be done for progressive positive reasons. However it might prove to be a backward step eventually that will cause even more problems because it will indicate that a further group feels under threat from the community at large, which is a great pity.

Cultural 'divisions' between Muslims and 'Christians' (in fact most people are not genuinely interested in religion at all) are already exacerbated by a divisive foreign policy by the British Government and various attempts like citizens ceremonies to push a false British identity upon us all. We should be asking why Muslims feel the current schools system does not suit them.

In Scotland we seem to historically have had a mature approach which is based on respecting the rights of others however it is probably true to say there is still insufficient understanding of other religions and what they actually represent.

The real problem is that non-demoninational schools are not actually seen as genuinely non-denominational, for many they are Protestant schools which reflect the dominant religion of this country. As long as this persists people will want to opt out of the status quo and the only logical answer would seem to be to remove religious education entirely from all schools.

Unfortunately this won't cure bigotry which is not actually induced at school but at home and is ultimately based on ignorance.

Unionist MPs are motivated by self-interest (Herald)

[Excellent letter from new SNP MSP Jamie Hepburn. Jamie, Bill Wilson, Aileen Campbell and Bob Doris are all new MSP's and are all declared supporters of the Independence First referendum campaign along with Sandra White, Alex Neil, and Stewart Maxwell so we have a few new friends in high places].

Unionist MPs are motivated by self-interest

Malcolm Bruce suggests that the new SNP government is trying to provoke the Westminster government. Among the examples he cites are the abolition of the graduate endowment fund and the denial of this benefit to English students.

This is a bizarre claim to make. First, I seem to recall that his party also included the abolition of the graduate endowment fund in its manifesto at the Scottish Parliament election. Was this an act of provocation, too? Or does Mr Bruce's attitude suggest that this was a LibDem promise that was never to be fulfilled in the first place?

Secondly, far from it being the SNP that denies English students the same entitlements as Scottish students, it is he as a Unionist who does so. Mr Bruce knows fine well that if Scotland were an independent member state of the EU, then English students would be entitled to the same as Scots-based students. Our status as a sub-state nation within the EU denies us this opportunity. It is being part of the UK that stops English students from being entitled to the same benefits as Scottish students.

Mr Bruce then goes on to spout the old Unionist rubbish about Scotland suffering reduced influence in the world with independence. His statement that "our combined influence in the world" would be weakened with independence is nonsense.

Indeed, his claims don't stand up to scrutiny, given that we are presently in the throes of seeing Scotland's number of representatives at the European Parliament cut from seven to six, while Lithuania, with a population of some 1.5 million fewer than Scotland, has 13 members of that body.

The fact of the matter is that Scotland presently has no distinct voice of its own in the world and only independence will rectify that.

Mr Bruce almost comes clean as to his real concerns when he writes about Scots being no longer eligible for influential careers with independence. This is, of course, by and large total garbage. Scotland will have its own civil service and diplomatic corps and there will be many opportunities for our citizens as part of this.

One area of employment may be cut off, however. The 59 Scottish MPs who are presently elected to Westminster will no longer be able to sit in that institution and draw their salaries or expenses.

Mr Bruce is, of course, one of these individuals. It is his career he is really worried about, and not those of anyone else. It is this self-interest that is so evident in the Unionist politician that holds our country back from making real progress with independence.

Jamie Hepburn MSP,
Scottish Parliament.

BROWN'S EMPTY CABINET - CRETINS AND SOOKS PROMOTED

Even though the media are officially sooking right up Brown's b*ckside at the moment, he's not going to last long because England is officially sick of Scotland.

To distract attention from this uncomfortable fact he's giving a few fresh faced boys top jobs in the cabinet, even if (like Douglas Alexander) they are way out of their depth, as long as they can say "yes sir, thank you sir!" they can work for Brown. Ed Miliband is getting his prize (Foreign Secretary) for not challenging Gordon even though he's not quite left school yet.

A previously unknown woman becomes Home Secretary so we won't mind so much when she reduces our civil liberties, while various Lords have been given various daft jobs and Jack Straw has been made 'Lord Chancellor' even though he's not a Lord at all.

He's also today announced new 'Secretary of States' for the English regions, a daft idea which will achieve as little as our own Secretary of State, a part time (and totally unnecessary) post which is now tacked to any old cabinet post as long as a Scot has it.

Des Browne the accident prone former defence secretary becomes the new 'Scottish Secretary' and is going to 'fight' Alex Salmond, great plan Gordon, but I thought the point of a Secretary of State was supposed to represent 'us' in government?!

I look forward to Salmond slapping this fool's chops live on TV. Brown clearly has contempt for his own nation to send in this proxy buffoon (he's 'too busy' at the moment to have any interest in his own country apparently) and I'm sure that's the message the Scottish public will hear loud and clear.

TOO LITTLE TOO LATE - ENGLISH WANT US OUT OF UNION

A very interesting article in the Times by Magnus Linklater, bear in mind that Magnus is a died in the wool unionist but even he is apparently sick of Scots being unfairly labelled as subsidy junkies.

Before you start laying into those subsidy junkies . . .

Defending the Scots against English bile

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/magnus_linklater/article1991123.ece

Even more illuminating are the nasty xenophobic remarks underneath it...!

Magnus isn't the only Unionist Scot to begin to chafe at the anti Scottish tone of much of the English media even Peter MacMahon (yes, the ex Labour spin doctor himself) felt obliged to set the record straight:

Don't blame Alex Salmond - blame the whingeing from Unionists
PETER MACMAHON

THE Union is in peril. The very idea of the United Kingdom is under threat. The spectre of separatism haunts the land. And we know who is to blame. Alex Salmond, of course. Well, no. The greatest threat to the Union could be from Unionists. Take the exchanges this week in the Upper House at Westminster, where the noble Lords Forsyth and Baker...

http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=1124&id=975322007

The truth is of course that McMahon, Linklater and all those of their ilk have been castigating their own people for years and pretending that we are sooking away at England's teat because it suited their political purposes. England, not unnaturally has swallowed the lies and thinks "well b*gger off then".

Now of course it's not actually true. When North Sea Oil is taken into account we don't just pay our own way we pay a hell of a lot more and we don't get most of the spending either. However the English aren't going to believe it after all these years of lies from Labour/Tories/self serving unionists from Scotland and if they don't like the thought of 'paying for Scotland' they won't like dear old Brown either, oops!

CONSULTATION PROCESS IS KEY TO SUCCESSFUL REFERENDUM

Within a hundred days of the new Scottish Government the SNP will produce a bill setting out the benefits of Scottish independence and calling for a referendum on the issue. The SNP plans to hold this referendum in 2010 (possibly after a Conservative Government victory at Westminster).

I hope there will be a large public response to the consultation process and all organisations which support Scottish independence should do their best to make sure this is the case.

It would be a massive boost to this process if the SNP and other parties were willing to fund a leaflet setting out the basics of the bill and asking for comments. Of course it would be preferable if the Scottish Government itself paid to advertise the process, after all if the unionist parties can use the SP budget to insult our intelligence about washing our hands, some advertising about Scotland's constitutional future seems appropriate (including TV and bus adverts), however if this is not felt to be possible our parties should fund a leaflet themselves, with a view to doing something bigger prior to the actual vote.

The reason for this is to stimulate a massive public response to the SNP's bill that will dwarf all past public consultations. This will generate massive positive publicity for the independence referendum cause.

In those circumstances if the unionists then turn around and say no to a referendum in the Scottish parliament then I believe there could be a substantial public outcry. If that happens then we are in Scotland United territory with the mass demos for devolution which forced the British Government (eventually and grudgingly) to finally legislate for a devolved parliament.

The SNP could then site legitimate public interest in independence and hold a referendum on independence as soon as is required (possibly in conjunction with COSLA or other public bodies who might be willing to share some of the costs).

Obviously we (in the independence movement) want to win a referendum and the timing of it will be important however lets remember that most polls before the election showed large support for independence and it is still far higher than the unionist media are trying to claim.

HAVE TORIES BEGUN TO PUT SCOTLAND FIRST?

Ha ha ha, no of course not, though it would be an interesting thought.

I was amused to read about the Scottish Conservative Party supporting a referendum 'to shoot the nationalist fox' however I suspect the real reason some Tories want a referendum is because they instinctively realise that Scotland would be a lot better off with independence! (They are not alone btw a large number of Labour and Lib Dem voters also support independence).

Old stick in the mud Annabel Goldie has already slapped down this enterprising suggestion however it is good to see support for a referendum from any quarter (Both the Scotland on Sunday and Evening News are supporting the Tories short lived argument) even if it is for the wrong reasons.

Ultimately the Scottish people will demand a vote on independence and when they do anyone who opposes that logical democratic demand will be annihilated at the Ballot box. The Tories were on the wrong side of the devolution debate, no doubt most will be on the wrong side of this one as well but at least some of them are thinking that the Scottish people deserve a vote on independence.

A pity the 'party of home rule' (the 'Scottish' Liberal Democrats) have completely turned their back on the aspirations of the Scottish people, I can guess how their poll ratings are going to go, f-l-u-s-h! and it will be richly deserved.

WHY SCOTS HAVE AN ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO A REFERENDUM ON INDEPENDENCE

Unionist arguments against a referendum are not constitutionally valid.

Firstly no matter what Tony Blair wrote in his devolution bill Scotland has a right to self determination under international law.

This was accepted by all parties in the Constitutional (devolution) Convention which incidentally proposed a far stronger Assembly (including broadcasting powers) which was watered down by the London Labour Government in their eventual bill.

The aforementioned bill cannot legislate away our right to self determination, no national Government has the right to do that, no matter what bill they pass.

Let's remember that we are outvoted 10-1 at Westminster so any bill they pass is hardly likely to represent the views of the people of Scotland!

Secondly the Scottish parliament has the capacity to hold a referendum if it chooses. It may choose to do so in conjunction with another body like COSLA, but if our parliament really wants to hold a referendum and that decision is supported by a majority of our MSP's the UK could not interfere to stop it without ultimately adding to its eventual success.

The position of the UK Government is that it is sovereign and only it has the right to decide on constitutional matters. This is not technically the case the Scottish people are sovereign and this is universally accepted by most politicians in Scotland.

If the people are sovereign we have a RIGHT to a referendum on independence and that referendum should ask simply "do you want independence (or 'normal international powers' or 'self determination') for Scotland", anything else is not acceptable and the Scottish SNP Government should call the UK Labour Government's bluff and put this simple question to the Scottish people.

BILLY CONNOLLY LOVES 'HONOURS' MORE THAN DEMOCRACY FOR SCOTLAND

Billy Connolly recently commented (on the election results and the prospect of independence) :

"I don't like it. I don't like chauvinism, I don't like nationalism. I think history proves it to be an incredibly dangerous thing. I think it's time in the world for getting together, not separating."

So Connolly doesn't like nationalism even when it's of a civic type like Scotland's. Strangely enough however in the same interview he adds that he is very proud of his CBE which entitles him to the title of 'Commander of the British Empire' and a place in Burke's peerage.

So Scottish nationalism is bad, but British nationalism is A-OK! Clearly Mr Connolly loves the idea of posing as an imaginary Commander in a long dead and fundamentally racist British Empire but is rather less keen on the idea that his own country might like to run their own affairs.

It's rather sad that just because people have a comfortable lifestyle with the status quo, they feel threatened and alarmed by change even when that change reflects an important democratic advance. While Connolly is entitled to his opinion it is grossly hypocritical to wax lyrical about an honour from the Queen that represents Britain's imperial past and at the same time claim to dislike nationalism!

Connolly obviously quite likes jingoistic nationalism of the British type, even though this is exactly the type he affects to despise. The civic nationalism of the SNP and others however is somehow worthy of contempt. While one is tempted to suggest that Mr Connolly suffers from a post colonialist mindset, I think perhaps its simpler than that.

The British state has bought Connolly cheaply with a second class honour (he's not even a Sir) and now his head is so big that he thinks he can look down on Scots who want something more for Scotland.

In fact he should realise exactly what he is - a hypocritical court jester who laughs at his own folk and sneers at their ambitions. In this regard he has a lot in common with his fellow celebrity Brits, Michelle Mone, Alex McLeish (if the British state had got their way completely there would be no Scottish team for him to manage!) , Ian Rankin and Duncan Bannatyne. Comfortably rich they all want to keep their pot of money and want 'no change'.

What they all share is a stifling lack of ambition for their people and their country. Independence is normality. Scotland is no better than any other country and nor are our people. However we should be EQUAL to every other nation and we have the absolute right to demand that equality at every opportunity.

The people are entitled to have their voices heard

Excellent article in the Herald which backs up what Independence First have been saying for some time.

http://www.theherald.co.uk/features/features/display.var.1463766.0.0.php

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.)