Interview with Novi Reporter - Srpska

"Novi Reporter" (New Reporter) from Banjaluka, capital of Republic of Srpska. Republic of Srpska is Serb predominant entity in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

I was interviewed for the above magazine, here's the questions and answers.

Question:

In February this year Albanian leaders in Kosovo unilaterally declared independence from Serbia. That decision, by this time, approved about 30 countries. United States of America and some countries from European Union claim that Kosovo is isolated case and can not become a blueprint for similar situations in other countries. What is your opinion about these claims?

Answer:

I think that since Kosovo was supported by the UN as a semi-seperate state from Serbia it was inevitable that it would declare independence. I also believe all declarations of independence should be respected as this is the primary basis of international law. Kosovo's independence appears to have been objected to by a coalition of the guilty, Russia who are blocking Chechnya's independence, China who have militarily occupied and effectively annexed Tibet and Spain who are busily outlawing every left/radical organisation or independence supporting party in the Basque country. With friends like these, Serbia does not want for enemies! I think Kosovo is an unusual case and I don't think it is particularly relevant to other countries.

Q. Serbian part of Bosnia and Herzegovina - Republic of Srpska, but also some areas in Bosnia with Croatian majority, shows intention to split from the country where Muslim population is in majority. Independence First insists on the right to self-determination in the issues between Scotland and England. Is it possible to apply same right in Bosnia and Herzegovina?

A. It depends if a majority of the population in these areas are determined to support independence. Yugoslavia was a false state and the remnants of it are still trying to come to terms with their proper boundaries. We certainly support the right of self determination in all cases but nonetheless there should be some historical justification and clear territorial boundary involved. Independence is about the best interests of the people living in a specific country. If an ethnic form of nationality is pushed it can obviously have racist connotations.

Q. How would you explain to the people outside of Scotland and England the differences between Scottish and English national identity? And also explain a need for Scotland to decide by itself, independently from London about his destiny?

A. Scotland is a historic country which has a recorded history stretching back well over one thousand years. We have our own culture, two indigenous languages seperate from English (though English now predominates for obvious reasons) our own law and education system and we now have our own devolved Government led by the independence supporting SNP. While it took a lot of campaigning to get a devolved parliament, this is not sufficient for us as most major decisions are stull taken in the Westminster parliament where our MP's are outvoted 10-1. Scotland needs our own seat at the UN and independent representation in Europe as well as full control over broadcasting, taxation, foreign affairs and defence.

Q. In the media with the global influence, often we can read and watch that majority in Scotland do not support independence from the Great Britain. Is this truth?

A. Polls on this tend to be very mixed. Just before the last election a number of polls showed the largest percentage of support was for independence however the polls are now saying that figure has dropped. I would say there is probably around 35-40% strong support for independence with perhaps 30% support for the union and 30% undecided. It's somewhere around there. Recent polls have indicated that for instance if the UK Government deliberately cuts the Scottish Governments finances a lot more people will support independence. Most people certainly support more powers for the Scottish parliament and a referendum on independence. Independence is the logical end of the home rule journey and we believe that if the positive argument is made for independence in a referendum campaign against the usual scaremongering against it by the unionist parties the positive case will win.

Q. How much you did so far in achieving your political goals? Regarding that, what are political differences between Independence First and the Scottish National Party?

A. Independence First is a campaign purely for an independence referendum and as such it has no political policies. We have a number of SNP members in our ranks as well as members of the Greens, SSP and many others from no party. We are of course supportive of the SNP Government's plans to hold a referendum in 2010. With regard to our own actions we have organised two political rallies for a referendum here in Edinburgh, we have ran a petition through the Scottish parliament for a referendum and we have managed to get detailed answers from the British Government which suggest they are ignorant of the concept of the sovereignty of the Scottish people.

Q. Can we talk about increase of secessionism in England? And about possibility that we, in near future see a politician, south from the Hadrian Wall who will be ready to talk with Scotland about your independence?

A. This is still quite far off I think though it might theoretically be advantagous to the British Conservatives to lose a country where they tend to get heavily defeated on a regular basis at the ballot box. There is a growing movement towards self determination for England but it is rather young and politically immature at this point, tending to be led by perceived grievance rather than genuine political principle.

Q. Is it possible that religion differences in Scotland (Protestants and Catholics), slow down your road to independence? Regarding that, what is your opinion about long chronology of conflict in Northern Ireland, where factor of religion plays important role?

A. There is a sectarian problem in Scotland though it is nowhere near as bad as Northern Ireland. It tends to be inflamed by football rivalry (Glasgow Celtic is a traditionally Irish team and in reaction their Rangers rivals wrap themselves in the colours of the British Union Jack). Also the anti-Catholic Orange Order while small and mostly irrelevant still appears to have some support in some towns in the West of Scotland. These people do oppose Scottish independence as well as Irish independence and have now started marching against independence for Scotland specifically. However such bigots represent a tiny minority of the population. Most people in Scotland are not particularly religious at all and most practising Protestants and Catholics have no conflict of interest whatsoever, in fact both religions enjoy a good relationship at local level.

I expect Scottish independence to bring Irish unity closer as I think the Unionists have more attachment to the idea of Britain rather than England and with independence for Scotland the British state would come to an effective end. At the moment the unionists are working together with Irish nationalists at Stormont and they may see their future as being more appropriately tied to Dublin than London eventually. At the end of the day though that is a decision for the people of Northern Ireland not the people of Scotland.

All the best,

Joe Middleton (Press Officer, Independence First).

A new Desperation from Daily Mail?

While I have written a fair amount of letters to the Daily Mail over the
years I have rarely found myself in political agreement with their
editorials or their journalists. Of course in a democracy all honest
opinions are obviously welcome even if one deplores the ideas behind
them.

Nonetheless there is a fine line between fair comment and libel and the
article entitled 'a New Racism' (Daily Mail 19/04/2008) in which the
Mail's James Grant accused all nationalists of racism crossed that line.

Claiming there was some significance in the fact that the date of the
SNP's spring conference was the same as the 40th anniversary of Powell's
infamous remarks about rivers of Blood, Mr Grant went on to claim that
"Scottish nationalism like every other form of nationalism is dangerous
and has its roots in Xenophobia and racism."

His circular argument for this was that because Salmond said "As a
sovereign people the people of Scotland - and we alone have the right to
decide how we are governed", this was somehow racist to the other people
in the United Kingdom!

Let's be clear that all Alex Salmond was asserting was the right of the
people of Scotland to decide their own political destiny. When he says
"we Scots" he means all the people who live in Scotland. This right to
self determination through the sovereignty of the Scottish people was
enshrined in the Declaration of Arbroath and was much more recently
acknowledged by both the Labour and Liberal Democratic parties when they
endorsed the Claim of right for Scotland.

The Daily Mail and their correspondent must be fully aware that there
are two separate and distinctive forms of nationalism.

There is the imperial type where adherents believe in the superiority of
their country to others and attempt to assert their superiority by
conquering or exploiting other nations.

Historically both the British Empire and the Nazis fitted this form of
nationalism. There is also however the civic type where the people of a
country join together in a common democratic cause. Mr Grant admits this
when he remarks that "nationalism has often been a necessary step on the
road to democracy."

Scottish nationalism is clearly civic and is also clearly not imperial.
The SNP have no plans to invade anyone! Therefore Mr Grant's argument
has no justification whatsoever.

If unionism can only justify itself by making such deliberately false
assertions about its opponents then one can only conclude that the
arguments for the continuation of the union are not strong enough on
their own.

Independence is normality. Independence supporters run our Government
and the cause of independence has strong support across every political
party and at every level of Scottish society. If the Daily Mail wishes
to insult a possible majority of the Scottish population then they can
go ahead but they can also logically expect their readership figures to
drop like a stone.

If they continue in this vein then they should also expect to have their
day in court eventually at which point they would be expected to provide
actual proof of their allegations or pay the compensation required for
attempting to libel both the SNP and all other supporters of Scottish
independence.

A new progressive England?

St George’s Day for an imagined nation? Mark Perryman argues it is time we start thinking about England after Britain (Compass, Wednesday, April 23, 2008)

The first three terms of a Labour government have been constitutionally dominated by devolution. Whilst the English, at the outset of this process, mostly took a take-it-and-leave it attitude, the impact in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland has been much more profound.

http://www.compassonline.org.uk/article.asp?n=1642

This is very good (Alan McCombes recommended it).

I have added a comment.

Independence is normality

Letter to the Editor
Edinburgh Evening News

07/04/2008

Sir,

With regard to the Evening News editorial today 'the US allows separate states to be different' I would remind your paper of the obvious fact that Scotland, like the United States, is a country and not a state.

The idea that all Scots should aspire to is the status of a federal state shows a certain lack of ambition. Just what is it about Scotland that we are judged to be uniquely incapable of running our own affairs? What is wrong with our flag, the Saltire, that it shouldn't fly on its own at the United Nations?

Why should we ever want to swear allegiance to a flag which is clearly designed to represent England's past dominance over Ireland and Scotland (Wales isn't even on it!) with the St George's cross front and centre?

Jack Straw recently admitted that the Empire was basically a device to amplify English power abroad. Yes, Scots played a part in the Empire but most of our ancestors were just as poor at the end of it as we were at the beginning!

The Empire is over, knighthoods and other honours which pretend to membership of a British empire are as absurd and anachronistic as the UK monarch's claim to be 'defender of the [Catholic] faith'.

It is time to wash away this backward looking nonsense and any along with it any innate desire to bully other nations. What we need is equality with other countries, not superiority.
Independence is normality. Scotland is entirely capable of becoming a successful independent modern state and deciding our own policy on foreign affairs and defence.

If unionist opinion is genuinely strong, why was there no celebration whatsoever of the Union of Crowns or the Union of Parliaments? The only organisation which did mark both occasions was the Orange Lodge, who are hardly the most modern of political thinkers.

The union does not suit any country, not Scotland when we are outvoted 10-1 at Westminster, not Wales which is offered sub standard forms of Devolution and not even England who are waking up to the fact that the English identity has been subsumed by a British one which doesn't necessarily represent their views either.

Alex Salmond is right, we should take courage from the US who ended their own remote control by Britain and who like most other countries warmly celebrate their independence day. We have nothing to lose and everything to gain by independence.

At the very least the unionist parties should have the basic politeness after 300 years to ask the Scottish people whether they want the union to continue or not. The fact they desperately don't want to do so, suggests they already know the likely answer!

Raise your game please Evening News and think seriously about what suits our country right now, not 50 or a hundred years ago.

Yours faithfully,

Joe Middleton

Song for the Labour Party

The working class will now be conned
To believe the union is still strong.
For the Scots they want their oil and gas
But we cannot give them what they ask.
The time has come to think again
If Brown's to stay in Number Ten.
But as we don't want Party schism
We won't have changes, just revision.

We can't forget Nye Bevan's ghost
But yuppies votes are uppermost.
We can't indulge in Leftist dreams
We must appeal to Milton Keynes.
The time has come to think again
If Brown's to stay in Number Ten.
But as we don't want Party schism
We won't have changes, just revision.

The people's flag is deepest grey
Because we get more votes that way.
Who gives a damn for socialism
If all looks good on television.
The time has come to think again
If Brown's to stay in Number Ten.
But as we don't want Party schism
We won't have changes, just revision.

(very good!)

Cracking article from Sean Connery in LA times

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-connery5apr05,0,7932603.story

NO OTHER COUNTRY PUTS A PRICE ON INDEPENDENCE

Douglas Fraser: Divorce in haste could give cause to repent at leisure

Memo: to Sir Tom Hunter, tycoon, property magnate, philanthropist and Scotland's richest man. Welcome to the task of writing a political column, and congratulations: your call for a quick "yes-no" referendum on Scottish independence was big on well-timed impact. A tip, though: be careful when you accuse politicians of "posturing, positioning and pontificating". That's uncomfortably close to what we do in writing commentary.

Your views seem to receive more attention than the average bloke on the Broughty Ferry omnibus, but it is worth remembering the nature of elections and referendums is that said bloke's opinion is of the same value as yours. We pay disproportionate attention to folk such as you because of your success and celebrity. We give a special place to our leading entrepreneurs and corporate alchemists. But, with respect, your argument for a snap referendum, quickly getting ourselves up to speed on the issues and then allowing us to invest in whichever future we choose, shows political naivety. (Herald)

Tom Hunters comments were motivated by an honest opinion from someone who is answerable to no-one. Douglas Fraser's regurgitates the usual unionist scare stories under the guise of independent commentary but he's never likely to come to a conclusion that independence is desirable because it would probably cost him his job.

His ultimate conclusion that we must look before we leap is no great leap of insight but ignores the fact these issues have been exhaustively argued over for the entire history of the union (well apart from those times when the British state would have locked you up or deported you for talking about independence of course). Yes we should look but why not leap if the waters look right?

No other country around the world would put a price on their independence. It would rightly be seen as a priceless commodity which is absolutely required in every quarter of their national life.
Unfortunately our history as part of a successful economic Empire (now dead as the dodo) means that some will always cling to that imperial identity as 'better' and 'more important' and find some spurious reason to argue that this is the case.

We cannot get accurate figures about independence. The Westminster Goverment has a history of telling blatant lies about Scotland. We know that from the research in the 1970's which have came to light under the freedom of information act.

Public spending figures exclude various expenditures such as defence expenditure so the information is incomplete. Scotland is geographically large in comparison to England. we have around two thirds of the landmass with only around 10% of the population. A per head ratio of public spending is therefore ridiculous.

Scotland will spend what we can afford after independence. Currently we appear to have enough income to maintain current spending levels if oil revenue is included even on the Governments own figures. (To my mind that probably means we have more money than that in reality. Gordon knows the figures and yet he is desperate to keep us locked in).

If we do in fact ultimately need more money then we will do what every other country does and borrow it. Britain just now has a huge financial deficit but I don't see anyone seriously arguing that it should join the US!

[bold]Independence is normality.[/bold] Scotland is capable of voting for it and our people are not uniquely incompetent to run our own affairs. Those who argue we somehow are would be well advised to take a long hard look in the mirror.

LABOUR REVEAL THEIR REAL HEROES - THE SOVIET UNION!

Ms Alexander said she was not a Gordon Brown puppet

During the web chat, driven by questions from BBC viewers, listeners and online users, she was asked to score herself out of 10 for her performance since being elected leader unopposed in September last year.

"Rising all the time, I think is the answer," said Ms Alexander, adding: "Ten out of 10, 10 out of 10."


And Ms Alexander also dismissed claims of arrogance against Labour politicians and said her party's fight back was under way.


She added: "Frankly, as I look across the other benches in the parliament, I don't think the arrogance is on our side.


"I think that what people are looking for are politicians who are willing to listen, I think you will see this week that conference is listening and learning."


------------------


Brown foresees Alexander as next leader of Scotland

GORDON Brown used a wide-ranging address to Scottish Labour Party delegates today to bash the Nationalists, defend the Union and predict Wendy Alexander as Scotland's next First Minister.


-----------------


Gordon Brown appears to imagine that all countries should be part of larger unions yet I doubt the former countries of the Soviet Union would agree, or Tibet for that matter. Labour's announcements have all the credibility of Pravda.


It is clear that Labour don't support the Claim of Right for Scotland. If they did they would support a referendum on independence. Instead they push Britishness down our throats and expect us to swallow any old lies. It didn't work for the Tories.

The people of Scotland are Scots first and foremost any party which ignores that fact is doomed, deservedly.

EX LABOUR FIRST MINISTER BACKS NATIONAL CONVERSATION

FORMER Labour First Minister Henry McLeish has described independence for Scotland as “a positive option”. In remarks sure to infuriate his Labour colleagues, Mr McLeish said all positive options for Scotland’s future should be considered, including independence.

“The country is looking ahead and it’s important that all political parties do too,” Mr McLeish said. “We need an open and inclusive conversation to discuss our future, one in which all the positive options are included — the current devolution settlement, more powers, independence and also a form of federalism.

“The key thing is these ideas are debated in terms of how they will deliver a better quality of life for everyone who lives in Scotland — better health, housing, economic performance and education.”

The former first minister’s views will come as a major blow to Labour, which has been rallying support from other opposition parties to take part in a rival constitutional convention, that specifically excludes the option of independence.

Mr McLeish’s remarks came in advance of the launch of the second phase of the Scottish Government’s “National Conversation” on the country’s constitutional future on Wednesday.
“The National Conversation and further constitutional development should be the means to these vital ends,” he added.

“I welcome that the process of open debate is under way with the National Conversation, and look forward to the next phase developing with the prevailing mood of Scotland.

“The constitutional debate is vitally important for every Scot and fundamental for the future of our nation. And of course we should never forget that a confident Scotland should have a bigger role on the world stage.”

The news is likely to overshadow this week’s Scottish Labour Party conference in Aviemore, where Scottish parliamentary leader Wendy Alexander will try to convince delegates to support the transfer of more powers from Westminster to Holyrood, while allowing other powers to be returned from Holyrood to Westminster.

BRITISH INDUSTRY GROUP REFUSES TO DISCUSS INDEPENDENCE

"It's oor ba' and we're no playing."

One of Scotland's business figures who has publicly backed the Labour party in the past has criticised SNP ministers for wasting their time pushing a "conversation" on independence when they should be concentrating on growing the economy.

Iain McMillan, the director of Confederation of British Industry Scotland, spoke out as Alex Salmond, the First Minister, prepares for tomorrow's launch of the second phase of his National Conversation, an event designed to involve "civic Scotland" in the discussion about the future government of Scotland.

The CBI chief said he did not want to "snub" the Scottish Government by refusing to take part [but is doing exactly that. JOE]

A spokeswoman for Mr Salmond said the best way forward was "open debate", and this was what the National Conversation was doing. She said: "Questions about our future need to go beyond government, parliament and the media to include individuals, groups, communities and all political viewpoints."

The launch of the second phase of the Scottish Government's National Conversation is designed to involve so-called "civic Scotland" in the process. Ministers have invited representatives from Scotland's churches, trade unions, environmental groups, universities and colleges, women's groups and Scotland's business community to an event at Edinburgh University.

Mr Salmond will make an opening speech and then the guests will be invited to join a series of discussion groups. The groups will focus on the Scottish Government's strategic objectives – a greener, healthier, smarter, safer and stronger, fairer and wealthier Scotland – and individuals can join any group they choose. These workshops are designed to begin a process ministers hope will take place across the country.

Each of the organisations represented is then expected to take on the discussion with its "stakeholders", reporting back with a detailed position for the consultation at a later date.

TEACHERS OPPOSE MOD PROPOGANDA

Teachers have vowed to stop military recruitment campaigns in schools that promote pro-war "propaganda" to teenagers. The National Union of Teachers (NUT) voted to back staff who resist Armed Forces recruitment drives and called for "education for peace" to be embedded in the school curriculum.

Delegates at the NUT's annual conference in Manchester called for a campaign to undermine efforts to enlist new teenage recruits in an attempt to hasten the return of British troops from Iraq. The union backed a motion committing the NUT to "support teachers and schools in opposing Ministry of Defence recruitment activities that are based upon misleading propaganda".

Paul McGarr, a delegate from east London, told the conference: "Personally, I find it difficult to imagine any recruitment material that is not misleading. We would have material from the MoD saying 'Join the Army and we will send you to carry out the imperialist occupation of other people's countries."'Join the Army and we will send you to bomb, shoot and possibly torture fellow human beings in other countries. 'Join the Army and be sent - probably poorly equipped - into situations where people try and shoot you and kill you because you are occupying their countries.'"

When I see the MoD putting out recruitment material saying that, then maybe I won't have a problem with using it in school. Until then, I think that all recruitment material is misleading and should be opposed."

Opinion-poll verdicts on independence are not the full picture

CONSIDER this: the Union – safe in Alex Salmond's hands. The SNP may be miles ahead of Labour but support for independence is sinking like a stone.

Bizarrely, a successful SNP government is helping to cement Scotland's place in the UK by demonstrating how devolution can deliver for the people. Who needs separatism when things are going so well? Former defence secretary George Robertson was right after all – devolution has indeed killed nationalism stone-dead, albeit not in the way he intended.

That's the general suggestion offered in the wake of the latest opinion poll showing support for independence at 23 per cent. There's only one problem with this analysis – it's utter rubbish.

Full article in the Scotsman

Interesting article. Personally I don't believe support for independence is as low as this though I am sure people will be happier with an ambitious devolved Government led by the SNP than a timorous devolved Government led by Labour.

If the unionists really believed that Scots supported the union they would be happy to allow the Scottish Government to hold a referendum on independence. They don't which is why they want desperately to avoid one.

If the positive arguments for normal powers for Scotland were articulated against the usual scaremongering campaign from the unionists (which ultimately failed at the last elections despite mass media support for it) then I have no doubt independence would win. JOE

St Patricks Day - The day everyone sucks up to Ireland

From Google:

Even the 'call yourself British' Daily Telegraph feels it has to change it's logo:

This just goes to show that the independent Irish Republic currently has a lot more international clout than Scotland.

Evening News being hijacked by neo-fascists?

Comments on two stories on the Edinburgh Evening News suggest that the paper's website is now being targeted by neo-fascists:

Gangs put library under siege

http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/latestnews/Gangs-put-library-under-siege.3884348.jp

Terror suspect reunited with family after late reprieve

http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/latestnews/Terror-suspect-reunited-with-family.3884379.jp

Why BritGov can't be trusted on ID cards

This story should be the final straw for the ill fated ID cards project. Losing 11,000 military ID cards goes beyond incompetence.

As you can see from the above letter, full story here:

http://www.geocities.com/joe_middleton_sco/ID_Cards.htm the Government has already admitted that ID cards would not "have a significant effect in combating terrorism in the United Kingdom."

This didn't stop them repeating this misleading allegation on numerous occasions after issuing the above letter however! Later on they admitted they were lying but still they have tried to link the two issues in the public mind.

The British Government cannot be trusted to tell the truth about ID cards. They cannot be trusted to hold the information they would contain and they cannot be trusted to keep their word that the scheme will not be compulsory. In the above letter they said it wouldn't be, later on it would be and now supposedly it isn't apart from for students and asylum seekers!

It's time to end this crazy project altogether. No-one should be forced to carry a plastic laminated Union Jack ID card in their pocket and have their eyeballs and fingerprints scanned on a regular basis.

I will refuse to take an ID card if they do come to pass and I urge everyone else to do the same, and don't trust the Government if they pretend they are giving up on it either. This scheme has been killed off and revived more times than Dracula!

Mass Petition Planned For Scottish Independence Referendum

(Swans - March 10, 2008) Recently I attended an international advisers meeting in Barcelona to help organise the next CONSEU (Conference of Stateless Nations in Europe) and it occurred to me that Scotland has a great many advantages in its drive towards independence.

Full article here:

http://www.swans.com/library/art14/joemid05.html

LET SCOTLAND DECIDE - SIGN THE PETITION

WALES AND BERWICK ACT - 1746

This is mentioned in Wendy Wood's autobiography Yours Sincerely for Scotland on p 210 and 211:

With regard to the Royal Charter of 1604 given by James VI Berwick, like Calais was at that time an occupied town, held by another nationality. If it had not still been part of the realm of Scotland it would not have had the English officials as Calais had. King James abolished these officials for he could not as King of England claim occupation of his possession as King of Scots So Berwick, the capital town of its County is in Scotland and belongs to Scotland.

Up to the 16th century Berwick was specially mentioned as 'my' or 'our' town of Berwick in all Royal Proclamations and Statutes but by the Wales and Berwick Act of 1746 'It is declared and enacted that in all cases where the Kingdom of England or hath been or shall be mentioned in any Act of Parliament the same has been and shall henceforth be deemed and taken to comprehend and include the dominion of Wales and Town of Berwick upon Tweed.'

With this bald statement it is quite reasonable to doubt if the Treaty of 1707 was anything more than a complete farce.

So if Berwick has been legally part of England 'for over 500 years' as the media assures us why is the British parliament passing an act claiming it as part of England (along with Wales!) just over 250 years ago?

I contacted Christine Graham MSP of the SNP (who has been asking Questions about Berwick in the Scottish Parliament) and she is now looking into this.

‘MAKE OR BREAK’ TIME FOR INDEPENDENCE MOVEMENT

Joe Middleton of Independence First, the campaign for a referendum on independence has claimed that the new petition for a referendum on independence represents a “make or break” time for the independence movement.

He commented: “We need to have a massive public response to this petition. 80% of the public say they want a referendum based on opinion polls but now we need to convert that into a widespread popular response to the new Let Scotland decide petition. If the Independence movement fails on this we will lose considerable authority. It’s make or break time now. It is urgent that we deliver a massive petition to show the public is actively demanding a referendum on independence.”

Independence First are backing the petition which has been launched by the Scottish Independence Convention and have organised a working conference on Saturday 1st March 2008 to help organise the new petition on the ground.

The working conference of civil representatives from across Scotland will be held in the STUC offices in Glasgow at 1pm and will be addressed by Elaine C Smith and Isobel Lindsay of the Independence Convention. Lloyd Quinan and Eric Canning of Independence First will also speak.
Isobel Lindsay commented “The Scottish public need to be active players in the debate on Scotland's future not stuck on the terraces. Whether we have independence or not is a choice for all of us not a decision for elites. This petition gives us a chance to engage people in the central democratic issue of whether Scotland should be content with existing powers or whether we should have the right to make our own policies on war and peace, on social security, on the big economic issues.”

Contact Carol Roscoe (National Secretary) for more information on: 01259219945 or 07983208352 for more information or visit our website at www.independence1st.org

Freedom for the Stateless Nations of Europe : CONSEU

BROWN SAYS BRITAIN MIGHT TRY AND TAKE POWERS BACK

Report in Scotsman

Devolution review 'may lead to loss of Holyrood powers'

GORDON Brown yesterday backed a review of Scottish devolution – but suggested it could mean the return of some powers to Westminster.

The Prime Minister gave his public support for the first time to the Scottish Constitutional Commission, the body which will be set up to look into Scottish Parliament's powers.Mr Brown accepted there might be a case for some financial controls, including new tax-raising powers, to be handed over to Holyrood from Westminster.But he also said the review would examine whether Holyrood should lose control in some areas, particularly over terrorism or agricultural diseases, to Westminster.

Report in Herald

We should be very wary of allowing the UK Government to revisit the Scotland Act. The Welsh Act has already been re-visited by BritGov and they took the opportunity at that point to fiddle the election system to stop people standing on the FPTP and PR Lists, a clear attempt to weaken the smaller parties and strengthen Labour who tend to do better FPTP.

Powers over 'anti-terrorism' are already held (and abused) by the UK Government. This is a chimera behind which GB can try and take over other inconvenient powers such as say the right to refuse planning permission to new nuclear power stations. Any process of delivering greater powers for Scotland has to be led from here because the UK Government simply cannot be trusted to act honestly.

The Scottish Constitutional Convention (devolution version) called for powers over broadcasting and was supported by the scottish branches of Labour, Lib dems and Tories yet mysteriously when we actually got to the bill those powers were removed.

If we want to guarantee the significant extra powers that we need ie foreign affairs and proper control over all our finances then the obvious answer is to demand independence.

Taking more powers along that process seems logical but it possibly encourages the idea that the UK could be trusted not to interfere in other areas. As we can see from these comments we CANNOT trust Labour or the UK Government one iota and that has effectively been our experence of British rule for the last 300 years.

BARCELONA CONSEU MEETING

I have had the honour of being invited to Barcelona this weekend as part of an International Advisers Council set up by CONSEU, which is the annual conference for stateless nations.

We'll be looking at ways to help make the next CONSEU conference even more effective and also discussing the situation with the various other independence movements in Europe. My Independence First colleague Lloyd Quinan is probably the main expert we have in Scotland on this as he keeps tabs on a lot of developments amongst other stateless nations in Europe.

Lloyd has mentioned CONSEU and their parent body (which receives funding from the Catalan devolved Government) on a number of occasions so I am very pleased to get the chance to make this trip. It will be a bit odd going abroad without my other half but it will also be exciting to discuss the experiences of other nationalists.

I know that the Basque country is having a particularly hard time just now with two more political parties banned recently and some Basque activists being given ridiculous prison sentences for the 'crimes' of organising political rallies. What the Spanish Government does is claim that the activists actions have been ordered by the armed Basque group ETA. They don't offer any evidence of this, they don't need to. Batasuna, the left wing political party has been completely banned and most of it's leadership have been arrested by the Spanish Government and are now being tried on trumped up offences. It is a very difficult situation and I think people are quite pessimistic about what will happen next.

The PNV (a sort of right of centre pro business Basque nationalist party and the only one which is allowed to campaign) are in power in the Basque parliament and are campaigning on the prospect of holding a referendum on independence. Some observers doubt whether this will actually happen however as they could have done this some time before. The worry is how the Spanish army might react to such a plan, we can tell from recent pronouncements that Spain is not particularly interested in other countries rights to self determination and the Spanish army has carte blanche under the Spanish constiution to protect the existing state.

Catalonia is also of course moving slowly but surely towards independence. Hopefully I will get a better idea on my trip exactly what stage they are at.

Closer to home of course we have Wales (moving forward at a similar rate to Scotland, although Britain cheekily provided them with an inferior devolution package Plaid Cymru are in power with Welsh Labour and have gained cross party agreement on greater powers for their Assembly) and Cornwall whose case has unfortunately been completely ignored by the British Government. Some Cornish activists have been in touch recently, apparently the local police are giving them some harassment by making dubious use of new anti Terrorism powers. some more information about Cornwall is available here and I will be updating this page within the next few weeks.

It should be a very interesting trip. I'm taking my video camera so look for a video on youtube fairly soon. Shortly after I get back Independence First will be organising a conference (on March 1st) to help push the new independence petition which has been launched by the Independence Convention.

Sadly the media completely ignored the recent launch (not a shock but still annoying) so we will have to rely on word of mouth and knocking the doors to get the signatures in. It will be difficult but it will also be worth it. I hope all the Scottish parties and pro independence activists will pitch in on this, certainly IF locally will try and do our part.

I had a chat with Lloyd this week about CONSEU as he has attended previous gatherings, when I get back we'll have to get together with Kev, Ray, Simon, the two Kens, Chris, Eric, Anja and the other local IF guys and figure out own own strategy on the ground. Hopefully I'll be able to get an article or at least a few letters in the press prior to the Glasgow working conference.

This is a bit different from my usual postings of opinion bits but it's been all right so expect the odd post from 'real life' in future!

Cheers, JOE

CONVERSATION IS TRICKY WITH CLOSED LABOUR MINDS

"Conversation should be more than a whisper"

Of course the SNP is playing for time. It has no hope of getting a referendum bill through Parliament and there must be a sporting chance that eventually the opposition parties will fall out among themselves. Yet surely the electorate deserves something more concrete than a website.

http://news.scotsman.com/opinion/Conversation-should-be-more-than.3775918.jp

The SNP Government have published a White paper on independence, not just put up a website, though no doubt the Scotsman hacks haven't bothered to read it!

Unfortunately to have a conversation it takes both sides to be willing to debate and logically consider all the options. The SNP did this, their paper made a serious attempt to look at the other options short of independence that the Scottish people might be interested in.

The unionists however have spat out the dummy, decided that normal power for scotland is out of the question and have retreated to London only to be told by Gordon Brown (and his mouthpiece David Cairns) that no significant powers will be coming to Scotland whether the public want them or not!

It's all just "the McChattering classes" the Scottish public still love Labour and the union, which is why they gave the SNP their first ever victory and Labour's poll figures are in freefall!

Wendy is showing that she is as much of a puppet as Jack McConnell and Labour are actively proving that they have learnt nothing from the election result and are maintaing the contemptuous attitude towards scottish aspirations that they maintained when in power.

As long as they ignore the logical option of independence those who have some ambition for Scotland will have a conversation without them, we might not get much arguments but let's face it we've heard all their scaremongering rubbish against independence many times before. It didn't wash with the scotiish public in the last election and I very much doubt it will work in any future independence referendum either.

That's why the unionists don't want to give us a referendum, they know their arguments aren't working and they could easily lose it.

Unfirtunately for them, the argument has moved on. The question must now be, why no? Who not have the normal powers every other country has, the seat at the UN the individual voice in the EU and control of our own natural resources?

Why allow ourselves to be used as a military base when we don't want nuclear weapons, why not decide our own future free of control by people who clearly despise their own country and think we are all second rate cretins who can't tie our own shoe laces without England?

There's no good reason to not go for it ourselves.

I believe we can and we will and eventually the SNP positive message will convince all Scots of the virtues of normal powers. Labour's day is done, a bit like the tired British union and the tatty flag which goes along with it.

SCOTLAND: OUR CONFIDENCE IS GROWING

We are in a difficult situation in Scotland, even though we weren't technically a colony and although we played a large part in the workings of the Empire, in fact Britain has also treated us like a colony or at least an occupied country in many respects.

Certainly our original languages have been deliberately disparaged and there was even a concerted attempt to wipe out our national identity altogether and rename us as 'North Britain'. This project obviously failed (probably due to the actions of Scottish patriots like Walter Scott and Robert Burns) but there is an underlying current of imperial racist attitudes towards anything Scottish.

This isn't often entirely obvious but it manifests itself in both the 'we can't do it by ourselves' poltics of unionism and the 'I don't like my own accent' cringe. This has been identified in other countries and the answer to it is to build our confidence by taking back what's ours.

I think our national confidence has grown with the new Government and we are very close to making the logical decision to support normal powers.

"Sovereignty will come only when the final step is not seen as a vital break with the past, but rather as a natural one."

- Scotsman article

I think that the above time has almost come and if the Scots do eventually get the opportunity of a vote on independence, I think they would actually go for it. We've now heard the scaremongering of Labour on numerous occasions and it's no longer working.

The last election proved that. Labour's contribution to Scottish constitutional politics is to contemptously claim it's just waffle from "the McChattering classes". Jack McConnell was never treated as anything other than a joke by his bosses in London and it's pretty obvious they don't listen to Wendy very much either.

Since Labour are so awful and the Tories and Lib Dems in this regard are not much better, Hobson's choice is the SNP. While the SNP rule in the parliament Scotland's confidence will only increase.

LET SCOTLAND DECIDE - INDEPENDENCE PETITION LAUNCHES

The petition is launched at the Scottish parliament, Margo MacDonald Independent MSP signs watched by SNP First Minister Alex Salmond and other SNP MSP's and Elaine C Smith of the Independence Convention (who are co-ordinating the petition).

Deacon Blue at the SIC's Burns night party which celebrated the event. Andy Gray, Dougie MacLean, Jimmy Reid and others were also involved.

You can download the petition form at:
http://www.scottishindependenceconvention.com/

GAME ON!

Independence First are holding a working conference to help co-ordinate the petition on the ground. Details are as follows: Working Conference, Saturday 1st March 2008, STUC premises, 333 Woodlands Road, Glasgow, 1pm – 4pm (registration 12.15pm onwards)

Guest speakers from SIC include Convenor Elaine C Smith, who will be opening the conference, and Isobel Lindsay. All groups are entitled to send a maximum of 2 delegates, cost £5 per organisation. For individuals attending the fee is £2. Tea, coffee and biscuits will be available on the day.

For further information and to register for the event please email Independence First National Secretary Carol Roscoe secretary@independence1st.com, or telephone 01764 684446.

Salmond outlines his vision of Scotland as world peacekeeper

An independent Scotland could become a global peacemaker, First Minister Alex Salmond suggested yesterday. He believes Scotland could play a significant role in international conflict resolution, building on the sense of goodwill towards the nation from around the globe.

"Real leadership is not just about winning conflict, it is about having a strategy to defuse it," he said in the inaugural talk on Scotland in the World Forum series being organised by Aberdeen University.

"Resolution of conflict is harder, more subtle. More difficult. But it is an area where Scotland can excel. One only needs to look to the efforts of our Nordic friends in a range of such conflict situations to see the extent of what can be achieved," he went on.

He said global citizenship was about commitment to safety and security around the world.
"For me, therefore, Scottish independence is not just an opportunity to move Scotland forward but a chance for Scotland to give something back - to meet our global responsibilities."
In a separate launch yesterday, the government said it wanted to encourage more overseas firms to use Scotland's legal brains. Business and legal experts meeting in Edinburgh have been asked by Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill to find ways of making Scotland "the jurisdiction of choice" for solving disputes and going to court.

http://www.theherald.co.uk/politics/news/display.var.2018196.0.0.php

Well said Alex Salmond. We need to get our seat at the UN and independent representation at the EU. We need independence not any form of devolution where Britain still runs our foreign affairs.

Scotland has potential and we now (for the first time) have a First Minister who has positive energy and believes in our country. That's a lot better than trying to pretend we have an Empire by sooking up to the new imperialist element in the USA.

Scotland could lead by example to Wales, Cornwall, the Basque country and Catalonia by getting our independence first, we then have the potential to be a positive rational voice in the world community but we won't get there if we are led by people who still hark back to the Empire like Prince Andrew or Gordon Brown.

We can do a lot better.

IS UK TREASURY TRYING TO MURDER THE SCOTTISH BANK NOTE?

HOLYROOD and Westminster clashed yesterday over the future of Scottish banknotes, with a claim from Alex Salmond that the Treasury is trying a “smash-and-grab” cash raid and a dismissal from Labour that the First Minister was “scaremongering”.

Mr Salmond’s attack voiced fears Scottish banks may be forced to stop issuing their own notes if proposed Treasury rules are put into effect. UK Government Chancellor Alistair Darling last week launched a consultation on measures aimed at improving financial stability and protecting depositors in the wake of the Northern Rock crisis.

This included the level of deposits banks are required to lodge with the Bank of England. The SNP leader claimed the changes could sharply raise costs for Scottish banks, as well as those in Northern Ireland, that issue their own notes and the possible cost could reach £100m a year – making the distinctive banknotes uneconomic.

In Scotland, three banks are allowed to issue their own notes: Clydesdale Bank, Royal Bank of Scotland and Bank of Scotland, which has been issuing notes since 1695. No other country allows commercial banks to issue branded notes. Under current laws, the banks have to lodge funds with the Bank of England to cover the value of their notes, but only for three days of the week. On the other four it can be invested elsewhere, gaining millions in interest.

However, the new proposals would require funds to be lodged with the Bank of England for the entire week. Mr Salmond yesterday claimed the changes were “the greatest threat” to Scottish notes since 1845, the year the Banknotes Scotland Act was introduced to regulate the procedure.

The First Minister said: “This is a real dagger at the heart of Scottish banknotes, which are a proud tradition in Scotland and hugely popular with the Scottish public. It would remove any advantage from issuing notes. I am certain one or more of the banks would stop the note issue.”
Mr Salmond also launched an attack on the Treasury and Mr Darling: “Under the cover of a consultation on financial stability, the Treasur y is launching a smash-and-grab at the Scottish note issue. What makes this particularly underhand and shabby is to cloak it in a document about financial stability.”

A spokesman for Clydesdale Bank said it was “very concerned” about the potential impact of the proposals and was seeking a meeting with the Treasury. He said: “If this were to go ahead it would force us to consider whether issuing banknotes would be viable, a position we do not want to be forced into.”

Britain's splitting headache

NINE days ago, Scottish drawing rooms echoed with the glorious, phlegm-sodden sounds of Robert Burns poems, recited loudly and at length. Burns Night takes place every year on January 25, the presumed birthday of the adored Scottish poet. A haggis supper is optional, but recitation of Burns' most famous poem, the feisty Address to a Haggis, is not.

In it, he hails the "great chieftain of the pudding race", which is sneered at by the anglicised upper class but keeps the Scot strong: "The trembling earth resounds his tread."
Burns died in 1796, but his patriotic poem has more resonance than ever. Despite last year celebrating 300 years of its union with England, Scotland, along with parts of Wales and Northern Ireland, is restless.

The Scottish National Party, whose goal is Scottish independence, has won government for the first time ever, and there is talk of a referendum on the subject. Wales, which occupies a place in the English heart similar to that of Tasmania in Australia, also has its own independence movement. And despite a recent power-sharing agreement, the voices of nationalism in Northern Ireland are stronger than ever. Which leaves a very lonely England looking vulnerable as the last vestiges of its old empire are threatened.

Read whole article here:

http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/britains-splitting-headache/2008/02/02/1201801099008.html

Muslim anger at report MP was bugged

LONDON (Reuters) - Muslim groups reacted with anger on Sunday to claims that an MP had his private conversations with a constituent secretly bugged by Scotland Yard anti-terrorist officers.
They said the allegations could damage relations between the Muslim community and the police.
It is public policy that law agencies cannot eavesdrop on politicians since a bugging scandal involving Harold Wilson's government.

But the Justice Secretary was forced to order an immediate inquiry after allegations in the Sunday Times claimed that electronic listening devices were used to tap two conversations between Sadiq Khan, MP for Tooting, and Babar Ahmad, being held on remand while awaiting deportation to the United States.

Ahmad is accused of running Web sites supporting terrorism and raising funds for Muslim militants in Chechnya and Afghanistan, and with urging Muslims to fight a 'holy war'.
The Muslim Council of Britain called for urgent meetings with the Home Secretary, Jacqui Smith, and Straw, to ask for clarification on the "disturbing news".

"Today's revelations are simply appalling and raise a whole range of vital issues to do with confidentiality and how to hold to account the improper behaviour of senior police officers," Dr. Muhammad Abdul Bari, secretary-general of the Muslim Council of Britain, said in a statement.
"This kind of behaviour cannot but do immense damage to the level of trust between Muslim communities and the police."

Hizb ut-Tahrir, an organisation Britain threatened to ban after the 2005 attacks on London, said the allegation was indicative of the country's ever increasing draconian security measures.
"Is it any surprise that many Muslims believe Britain is becoming a police state for our community?" it said in a statement.

Downing Street 'Lost Letter' on bugging

The Conservatives are accusing Number Ten of losing a letter warning Gordon Brown an MP may have been bugged. Labour whip Sadiq Khan was apparently recorded by police while visiting a terror suspect in prison.

Downing Street staff say they never received the letter from David Davis but the Shadow Home Secretary insists it was delivered. A spokeswoman said: "We have received a number of letters from David Davis since the beginning of December, on matters such as the Humber Bridge, the Security Industry Authority and licensing laws.

"But having conducted a detailed check, we have no record of receiving a letter about the bugging of MPs. Consequently the Prime Minister knows nothing about this letter."

Human rights group condemns UK/US hypocrisy

The fact that promises of humane treatment from state torturers are inherently
untrustworthy and have not worked in a number of cases does not seem to bother
London

The US, UK and other western nations are ignoring flawed or rigged elections in some countries for the sake of political convenience, Human Rights Watch charged today in its annual round-up of rights abuses around the world.

While publicly espousing the cause of democracy, Washington, London and others were happy to deal closely with "despots masquerading as democrats" such as Pakistan's president, Pervez Musharraf, Russia's Vladimir Putin and the Egyptian leader, Hosni Mubarak, the US-based group said.

Separately, HRW singled out the UK government as a concern for its policy of deporting terrorism suspects to countries with repressive regimes if assurances are given the detainees will not be tortured or otherwise mistreated.

This "handy device" had now been borrowed by the US to justify renditions, while Russia and other nations were also happily trying it out, the group said.

The report detailed human rights abuses in more than 75 countries and territories, covering perennial rights pariahs such as North Korea, Burma and China as well as the US and EU.
It additionally criticised Israel for blockading Gaza in response to rocket attacks, describing this as "collective punishment of Gaza's civilian population in violation of international humanitarian law".

But HRW's primary target this year was what it views as the hypocrisy of western nations condemning democratic violations only when expedient.

"Rarely has democracy been so acclaimed yet so breached, so promoted yet so disrespected, so important yet so disappointing," HRW's executive director, Kenneth Roth, said in an introduction to the 569-page document.

This "pseudo democracy" had seen leaders in countries such as Egypt, Nigeria and Ethiopia recognised abroad for their popular mandates despite elections plagued by fraud, intimidation or other flaws.

"It seems Washington and European governments will accept even the most dubious election so long as the 'victor' is a strategic or commercial ally," Roth said, calling the promotion of democracy "a softer and fuzzier alternative to defending human rights."

President Bush had even praised Musharraf, who seized power in a 1999 coup, for placing Pakistan "on the road to democracy", Roth noted.

"If, unlike human rights law, 'the road to democracy' permits locking up political opponents, dismissing independent judges, and silencing the independent press, it is easy to see why tyrants the world over are tempted to believe that they, too, might be eligible," he said.

In Africa, Roth said, the current violence in Kenya prompted by the seemingly rigged election on December 27, which returned President Mwai Kibaki to power, could be traced back to overseas reluctance to challenge a similarly flawed poll in Nigeria 10 months earlier.

"Nigeria's leader came to power in a violent and fraudulent vote, yet he has been accepted on the international stage. It's no wonder Kenya's president felt able to rig his re-election," he said.
In a separate section of the report, HRW castigated the UK for its pioneering policy of allowing terrorism suspects to be transferred to the care of brutal regimes on receipt of what the group termed "empty promises of humane treatment".

"The fact that promises of humane treatment from state torturers are inherently untrustworthy and have not worked in a number of cases does not seem to bother London," it said. "The goal is to deport terrorism suspects, no matter what - and if brokering unreliable, unenforceable agreements with states that torture is what it takes, then so be it."

The UK had sought such assurances from "a veritable A-list of abusive regimes", among them Algeria, Egypt and Libya, HRW said, with other countries now following its lead.
Russia, the report noted, happily accepted such diplomatic assurances from Uzbekistan, "a notorious practitioner of torture".

Bye Bye Peter MacMahon!

So it's bye bye to Peter MacMahon, moved over to the Scotsman's business desk from the politics. That the Scotsman imagined this guy was a suitable political editor when he was previously working directly for the Labour party says a lot about the paper.

They were never interested in genuine political journalism, instead they preferred to get an Ex Spin Doctor to spin lies and half truths about the SNP. Now it appears even they are sick of him, maybe they think their new Lib Dem supporting hack is more subtle, who knows?

Good riddence to MacMahon anyway, you won't be missed.

Festival is (not) key terror target

This from the hootsman:

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/scotland/Festival-is-key-terror-target.3723328.jp#2425482

Headline: Festival is key terror target

Actuality: "I don't have specific intelligence that Edinburgh is going to be the next target."

This is typical of the dishonest reporting of this newspaper. If there needed to be a headline at all it would have been much more accurate (but less deliberately alarming) to say:
"Policeman warns of possible threat to Festival"

There is a very thin line between warning of possible dangers and actively encouraging it.

Unfortunately since the Glasgow attempt it is obvious that we are a target but it is also equally obvious that we shouldn't be since foreign policy is not controlled in Scotland. Until we are an independent country that can make our own voice heard internationally we will continue to pay the price for intemperate actions and language by senior politicians in the UK and US.

This claim which has no obvious basis in reality is designed to stoke up fear and encourage people to agree to further removal of human rights and democratic safeguards. It's a bit like the UK Government who have in writing admitted that ID cards have nothing whatsover to do with combatting terrorism yet despite this regularly suggest that they might do so.

This British Government is a disaster, it doesn't represent the views of most Scots and without independence we will always be in danger both from terrorists and from right of centre politicians who are desperate to grab more police powers.

Scotland has to fight for a fair deal on new oil negotiations

by former SNP leader Gordon Wilson (writing in the Sunday Herald)

ON THE face of it, this was very good news. After losing the benefits of the oil in the North Sea, Scotland could have a second chance in the eastern Atlantic. Until recently, this has been legally impossible; only the Continental Shelf could be developed. Now the UN has opened up new frontiers in deeper waters - provided the adjoining nations agree.

If Scotland were independent, we would be negotiating the division of 162,935 square miles of sea bed forming the Rockall/Hatton Basin, deemed to be oil-rich. But Scotland is not a negotiating party along with Ireland, Iceland and Denmark (acting for the Faroe Islands) who all have claims. Our seat is occupied by the British government in London. So what's the problem? Surely it will look after Scotland's interests?

But will it? The evidence is that the British government has a habit of ignoring the interests of the Scottish people if they clash with imperial priorities. In the early 1970s, the Heath government sacrificed the needs of the Scottish fishing industry to get into the Common Market. The Common Fisheries Policy surrendered Scottish waters to European competitors. Ever since, Britain has treated fishing as an unimportant British issue.

Evidence from government records, recently issued after 30 years, shows that Westminster governments conspired to deceive the Scottish people as to the value of Scotland's oil, in order to retain the oil revenues for the British Treasury.

Be careful Scotland! We can't trust the Foreign Office to look after our interests. The four negotiating countries are not bound by law on the setting of boundaries, and can mutually agree deals - deals which may not benefit Scotland. As with fishing, Scotland can be ignored. And didn't Downing Street recently do a deal on prisoner transfers to Libya without consulting the Scottish government? Yet we're asked to trust them.

We'd be mad to do so. I have written to Alex Salmond about these negotiations, advising that the Scottish government become involved. We must know what's been agreed in our name and hire lawyers and oil experts so we can ensure any deal is fair. If he is blocked by London, it should be made clear that independent Scotland will not accept a damaging treaty.

Mr Salmond should alert the Danish, Irish and Icelandic governments. I am sure the Faroese, represented by Denmark, will be consulted and this will be a powerful argument for the Scottish government to use.

Gordon Wilson is former director of the It's Scotland's Oil campaign

http://www.sundayherald.com/oped/opinion/display.var.1945357.0.0.php

Plot to damage support for Scottish independence

I believe that the so called Scottish National Liberation Army (SNLA) is a mythical organisation invented to damage the cause of Scottish independence. Any Scots supporter of independence would be aware that any terrorist action would and could only damage our cause which is reliant on convincing the majority of Scots to vote for normal powers for Scotland.

It seems more than likely that this bizarre plan did not emanate from any person who lives north of the border. Someone unknown has recruited a nutter from England to attempt to damage our cause. Any Englishman who wants to kill his fellow Englishmen is quite clearly mad and he has obviously been manipulated by someone else.

I suspect the hidden hand of the British secret service in this plot and in all the other activies by the one man letter bomber Matt Busby which have been reported at convenient times over the years (ie any time support for independence is on the rise). Mr Busby seems to be allowed to act as an extremely convenient bogey man despite the fact he could have been arrested quite easily by Britain years ago.

Man accused of poison plot for Scottish independence
Press Association
Monday January 7, 2008

An Englishman sent poisoned drinks to public figures as part of a plot to try to force the British government out of Scotland, a court was told today. Wayne Cook, 45 also threatened to kill English people "with no hesitation or compunction" by poisoning water supplies, Manchester crown court heard. Cook, of Tyldesley, Greater Manchester, is charged with two counts of using noxious substances or things to cause harm and intimidate, under anti-terrorism legislation.

Americans will welcome Scottish independence

It was a pleasure to see Floyd McKay address the historic events unfolding in Scotland ["Scot free," guest commentary, Jan. 6].

Last spring, Scots elected the first government in 300 years that wants Scotland to rejoin the international community as an equal and independent partner.

Perhaps more importantly, First Minister Alex Salmond is the country's first leader who trusts the people to decide Scotland's future in a referendum.

McKay correctly wrote that "there is little question that Scotland is capable of handling its own affairs." There is no need to use negative words like "separation" or "breakup," however, when far more apt words would be "independence" and "international engagement."

The democratic deficit always struck me, as an American who worked at the Scottish Parliament and government, as curious. Scotland is an immensely wealthy nation — rich in education (with first-class universities), natural resources (including much of Europe's oil), and industry (with enviable financial and biotech sectors). Why shouldn't Scots consider independence, just as their neighbors, Ireland, Iceland and Norway, have done?

If Scots choose independence at the ballot box, Americans should welcome an old friend to the community of nations. After all, independence has worked well for us.

— Jennifer Erickson, Washington, D.C.

From the Seattle Times
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2004120603_sunlets13.html

Peter MacMahon - The backstabber who worked for Labour

Here's a few interesting archive articles about Peter MacMahon who despite working for the McLeish Labour administration, the Scotsman still thinks we should listen to his opinions as a journalist. Just how thick do they think we are?!

In fact MacMahon still tries to put his most positive spin on everything Labour does and attacks the SNP at every turn. Is he inspired by guilt? Taking the Scotsman's 5K to rat on his old boss who despite his faults still actually appeared to have some small ambition for his own country something which was obviously lacking in his successor Jack McConnell. It was amusing to read of McConnell being abused in London by his political masters but it also showed the contempt they have always had for the office of First Minister (Brown has only ever phoned Alex Salmond ONCE it was revealed this week). no doubt McLeish's job was hardly helped when wee Wendy used to go above his head to Gordon Brown, nor no doubt was he helped by being advised by Peter MacMahon!

Ian MacWhirter lays out the facts:

The backstabber; It was the ultimate kiss and tell. Peter MacMahon's

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4156/is_20020127/ai_n9626593

and the Sunday Herald's opinion on it:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4156/is_20020127/ai_n9626608

Who knows, who cares if MacMahon's slavish pro Labour pieces are due to guilt over his past actions, what's very clear is that Peter MacMahon is in no way a non biased journalist (if he ever was one in the past) and as long as the Scotsman employs him they show that they have as little interest in the truth as he has.

Happy New Year!

The idea that Scotland is well served by the union is an absurd one. The fact is that (as Wendy Wood once memorably pointed out) England is far larger than Scotland and has far more Westminister MP's and if the analogy was a football match then England would have over 100 players to our eleven!

Our unionist 'friends' appear to believe that's just dandy that it's some kind of honour and privilege to have a poor rate of growth in the economy and to give up taxes on oil revenues, that it's great to be a nuclear target and have nuclear weapons that Scotland does not want or require to prop up a relationship with the US which benefits only one side. Brown's Britain might psychologically require a nuclear virility symbol to maintain delusions of grandeur but Scotland does not need or want such rubbish, what we do need is the international representation that membership of the UK denies to us.

There is a clear choice nowadays between those who want normal powers for our country and those who want to see a situation continue where we have a pocket money parliament which lacks crucial political powers. Between those who want no Scottish representation at the UN or the EU and those who want proper representation.

Between those who want to hold a conversation about self government and those who just want to provide the bare minimum of powers that won't upset their party leaders in London.We know where Labour stand and it's not in Scotland's corner. If they are getting cuffed in the polls then it is well deserved.

When the Tories ignored Scottish opinion they achieved long term pariah status. labour deserve the same and their former junior partner the risible undemocratic liberal party deserve to go down as well.

Happy New Year all!

Last year was the year when for the first time the largest group of Scots voters voted for a party that believes in Scotland. I'm very proud of that achievement particularly when the press coverage was so ridiculously biased against the SNP.

Express Group to back Scottish Independence!

Recent Daily Express headline highlighting a readers poll which showed massive support for Scottish independence. According to the Guardian the whole Express group of papers are about to declare their support for normal powers for Scotland.

This is welcome move by the 'Scottish' Daily Express. Though London owned and controlled the fact that the owners see a commercial benefit in making this political move suggests the independence cause is being treated more seriously by the British media.

Like the Sun we can no doubt expect a later return to unionism, however it's still better to have one paper on our side than none. My late grandmother read the Express as do many older people so hopefully this move will encourage some older voters to be less resistant to the general idea of independence. (It would be great if the Sunday Post could adjust it's line as well).

Recent polls suggest that Labour's harsh scaremongering tactics (backed up by a compliant media) have, as they were designed to do, put a short lived scare into older people (and women) over independence. Luckily the sight of a Scottish Government doing a more effective job than the British Government and standing up for our interests (Salmond delivered a great talk tonight about supporting Gaelic broadcasting) will convince a majority throughout Scotland to support independence in a future referendum.

---------

Extract of article from the Guardian (full version here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2007/dec/19/dailyexpress.pressandpublishing?gusrc=rss&feed=media )

Once one of the most widely-read papers in Scotland, the paper's sales have been suffering. It has been sold as the Scottish Daily Express for decades, long before other London titles launched dedicated Scottish editions, and commanded substantial loyalty among its readers.

The Audit Bureau of Circulations put Daily Express sales in November in Scotland at 80,454, against 127,759 for the Daily Mail. Desmond's other titles - the Daily Star, which sells 91,668 copies a day in Scotland, and the Sunday Express, selling 44,472 - are also expected to join the pro-independence push. Last weekend, the Sunday Express carried an opinion piece by Alex Salmond, setting out the case for independence.

This new editorial stance is a minor coup for First Minister Salmond. Although the Sun briefly flirted with nationalism in the early 1990s, Scottish daily papers have traditionally been neutral or firmly pro-union. At the last Scottish parliamentary election in May, the Scotsman declared itself tentatively pro-SNP but opposed independence, while only Sunday papers boldly embraced the nationalist party.

Daily Telegraph pleads 'call yourself British' - Game Over 4 unionists

I find it tremendously amusing that the Daily Telegraph are so desperate to prop up the failing concept of Britishness that they are now running a campaign for English people to call themselves British!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2007/12/10/dl1001.xml

This is because even according to their own polling most English people prefer to call themselves English rather than British.

When the only part of the UK that got any benefit from the British union can't even be bothered terming themselves by their past imperialist identity it shows that the union is well past it's sell by date and suits no-one. The Telegraph's campaign won't work any more than Brown's plans for a British national day or a new 'national' anthem.

The Scots and English have outgrown the British identity, we don't need it and we don't want it.

It's almost as funny as 'call me Dave' lecturing the Scots on Britishness (to a hand picked gathering of Tory party activists of course, he wouldn't want to hear from any real people in Scotland, the Tories ignored our views for their entire term in power!) :

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/12/10/nbrits410.xml

"an English politician in a Scottish city saying clearly today and for all time that Britain comes first"

What a shock! We really thought the Tories might have an interest in standing up for Scotland? Aye right! The puppets are still firmly attached to their strings.

Mr Cameron waxes lyrical about the enlightenment and yet during that period if any enlightened soul criticised the British union they were put in irons and sent to Botany Bay!

The enlightenment wasn't a political enlightenment, it was a time of severe political oppression and also the time when the Brits tried to remove Scottish identity altogether.

Luckily for us enough of our historic contemparies were as fond of the idea of 'North Britain' as most of us are today and the concept was (eventually) given the bum's rush.

It's a pity Tory leader David Cameron cannot realise that in Scotland people are most proud of being Scottish, and in England most people consider themselves to be English. We CAN have an equal relationship - when both our countries are independent and we are NOT locked into a union with a country ten times our size.

Get hame to yer bed 'new boy David' and leave Scottish politics to those that have a genuine interest in it!

Melanie Reid's bile against Scotland doesn't become her

10/12/2007

Letter to the Editor
The Times

Sir,

If I was Melanie Reid's doctor I would be seriously concerned. Her article about St Andrew's day 'wake me up I'm trapped in a wee nightmare' suggests she is in imminent danger of choking on her own bile.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/melanie_reid/article2988408.ece

What annoys me about unionists is that while they seem to hate Scottish nationalism they at the same time ignore all the flaws in British nationalism. Thus people like Billy Connolly can shower scorn on the SNP while being proud of his status as 'a Commander in the British Empire'. Isn't that a ridiculous imperialist ostentation? Isn't the SNP's civic form of nationalism more admirable than Gordon Brown's attempts to invent a British national day?

Melanie Reid thinks the height of Scottish culture is masquerading in a Russ Abbot style 'see you Jimmy' wig, that says nothing about Scotland but it says a lot about her contempt for her own country. Does Reid wince like a scalded cat when she sees a Saltire? Does her heart beat with horror when the Scotland football team play?

I believe that Reid is a victim of the British cringe. An inability to see the worth of her own nation because someone sold her on the idea of Britishness as a kid.

That big map with the pink bits showing Britain's imperial extent has left her jealous that anyone else might have some justifiable pride in Scotland on our national day.

Sad for her, not so sad for the rest of us.

Yours faithfully,

Joe Middleton

Just what the doctor ordered

Great article - quite frankly I'm surprised the SoS printed it as it's well above their usual standard. JOE

by DANI GARAVELLI (from Scotland on Sunday)

IMAGINE you are suffering from asthma. Your GP has recommended you take salbutamol and beclomethasone, but you can't really afford two prescription charges this week, so you toss up and opt for salbutamol. As a result, you have a severe attack and end up at A&E in the early hours of the morning - a visit that costs the NHS much more than the £6.85 you just saved.

Or perhaps you are suffering from depression that has been kept at bay by a mixture of drugs, but it's Christmas and you've presents to buy so you decide to skip your medication for a couple of weeks and find yourself unable to cope. How much does your inability to pay for your prescription cost the country in terms of arranging foster care for your children and loss of productivity? Then there is the anomaly of cancer patients who receive drugs free in hospital, but have to pay once they go home to their families.

Wherever you stand ideologically on prescription charges - and since the NHS is supposed to be free at the point of use it is easy to argue they should never have been introduced in the first place - the way the system is currently administered is a mess. Not only are they an inefficient form of taxation (they are costly to process and 90% of them are free), but the system of exemptions is arbitrary and unfair: the cut-off point for those eligible for free prescriptions on the grounds of low income is so sharp that those who are just above it often end up worse off than those who are just below it, and the list of those exempted on the grounds of chronic conditions has not been updated since the Sixties, before conditions such as HIV existed and before asthma was so widespread.

Those not exempted can benefit from a Prescription Prepayment Certificate (PPC), a three-month, six-month or 12-month pre-payment or "season" ticket which will save them money. But this adds to the bureaucracy and is not widely publicised. A recent survey by the National Association of Citizens' Advice Bureaux (Nacab) found 27% of those who could have benefited from PPCs did not even know of their existence.

Last week, the Scottish Executive tried to address these inequities by pledging to reduce the charges steadily every year until 2011 when they will be scrapped altogether. Instead of being lauded, they found themselves facing criticism, both from those who believe those who can afford to pay should continue to do so, and those who believe the party should have kept to the letter of its manifesto promise -which was to scrap prescription charges for those chronic conditions immediately.
But it seems to me the party has walked a tightrope between ideology and fiscal prudence with considerable agility. Research shows a direct link between prescription charges and the failure to manage drug regimes properly.

A survey carried out in 2001 showed around 50% of those who had received a prescription in the past year (and about two-thirds with long-term health problems) found it difficult to meet the charges, while Nacab estimates about 100,000 of its clients fail to make full use of their prescriptions. For the government of a country with a low life expectancy that supports improving access to health services to allow this situation to continue would have been unthinkable.

Yet almost two years ago, the Labour executive did precisely that, voting against the Scottish Socialist Party Bill with a fraction of the backlash the SNP is now facing. One option the new executive could have considered was to extend the number of exemptions, but instigating a sweeping review of which chronic conditions should be included would have been time-consuming and expensive, and many people felt it would be unfair to keep charging a smaller and smaller proportion of the population.

As for the SNP's decision not to axe prescription charges for those with chronic conditions sooner, it is unfortunate, but it would be particularly wasteful to launch a review expected to take until 2009 to complete when prescription charges will cease to exist in four years' time.

The party has already pledged to reduce the cost of prescriptions - to £5 next year and by a further £1 a year to 2011, and could easily help ease the burden on those who need regular medication by advertising the "season ticket" option more widely.
Those who oppose the scrapping of charges say they are necessary as a barrier to demand; that if they were abolished patients would seek prescriptions for drugs such as paracetemol that they would previously have bought over the counter. Some doctors have recommended the imposition of a token charge of say £1: small enough not to jeopardise people's access to medication, but enough to remind them that drugs are not free and should not be sought frivolously.

Early studies of the situation in Wales - where prescription charges were scrapped in April - however, suggested no perceptible change in GPs' prescribing habits and only a slight rise in the number of patients asking for prescriptions for over-the-counter medicines. There, patients are reaping the benefits of not having to worry about whether or not they can afford to take the drugs they need and administration has been reduced.

You really have to be the kind of person for whom the glass is always half empty to berate the SNP for "reneging" on a tiny part of its manifesto pledge, when what it has actually done is to commit to a socialist policy that Scottish Labour bodyswerved for a decade.

The fear of Scottish independence that unites historic enemies

A couple of superb letters from the Herald:

Scotland's parliament, after years in the doldrums, has sprung to life following the May elections. Not only has the minority SNP government been extremely active, but now the three big opposition parties are uniting in a "historic" cause to improve and develop the powers of the Scottish people. Historic enemies such as Labour and the Tories have put aside their differences to work in common cause for the Scottish people. How wonderful, so what has driven them together? I can only just remember the last time it happened, when Nazi aircraft were bombing us. So what force is driving them together now?

Well, it is obvious to me that the enemy which now confronts them, and which drives them into each other's arms, is the pressure from the Scottish people demanding more power for the Scottish Parliament, and their fear that this will result in Scottish independence. Which Labour has been trying to ignore until now.

Their urgent odd-fitting coalition is designed to stop this at all costs. As usual, they all know what they don't want but they are far from certain about what they do. They reject any common ground with the SNP government. They reject the ideas of Canon Kenyon Wright, who wants this debate to be inclusive.

Their belated recognition that Scotland must have a greater say in how its people and resources are used, is welcome. However, their attempt to divert us from getting the power we need to stop our young people from being killed in an illegal war in Iraq, or to stop nuclear weapons being based in our country, is futile.

They have entered into the debate, which they are most welcome to do, but they do not have, and cannot have, the right to control or direct it.

Andy Anderson, 22 Earlish, Nr Portree, Isle-of-Skye.

It is interesting to see the timely parallels between Kosovo's battle for independence, and the ongoing debate on our own nation's constitutional future.

For months the future of the Serbian breakaway province of Kosovo has been uncertain, and after 120 days of negotiations between Serbian and Kosovo Albanian leaders, sponsored by a troika comprising US, Russia and the EU, no conclusion has been reached.

Following this failure, Kosovo's Albanian leaders are expected to declare independence, creating Europe's newest nation, a declaration that is expected to be recognised by the UK Government.
Contrast this with the Constitutional Commission devised by the opposition parties in the Scottish Parliament and supported by their London masters, which is to review the devolution settlement and the powers of the Scottish Parliament, but will stop short of independence.

It is rather ironic that while, on the one hand, we see London Labour approve Kosovan independence, it denies the Scottish people a say on their own constitutional future through a referendum, failing even to include the option of independence in their own commission.

Alex Orr, Flat 8, 35 Bryson Road, Edinburgh.