PHENOMENAL WIN FOR SNP IN EURO ELECTIONS

Ian Hudghton - returned with Alyn Smith as SNP Euro MP's as SNP reach a historic high in terms of the popular vote.

from the Scotsman

SNP 321,007 (29.06%)

LABOUR 229,853 (20.81%)

CON 185,794 (16.82%)

LD 127,038 (11.50%)

GREEN 80,442 (7.28%)

LABOUR suffered a mauling at the hands of the SNP as disastrous European election results across the UK dealt another shattering blow to Gordon Brown's insistence that he will not step down as Prime Minister.

After all but one of the results had been declared, the SNP was heading for about 29 per cent of the popular vote in Scotland, well ahead of Labour, which had around 21 per cent. However, Labour held on to its two seats.

The SNP also took two seats, with the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats on one each.

Full results are here

From the Daily Record

SNP claim Euro victory after humiliating Labour in elections
Jun 8 2009

THE SNP beat Labour into a humiliating second place in Scotland today in the European elections.

The final results gave the parties two seats each, while the Tories and Liberal Democrats each picked up one.

But the full scale of the Labour reverse was shown in the percentage share of the vote. The SNP secured 29.1% of Scottish votes, with Labour on 20.8% and the Tories on 16.8%.

The Liberal Democrats achieved 11.5%, the Greens 7.3%, and the UK Independence Party (Ukip) 5.2%.

The BNP trailed on 2.5%.

It is the first time the SNP has topped the poll in a European election in Scotland and comes two years after the Nationalists secured power in the Scottish Parliament.

On the basis of the European Parliament voting figures, the SNP would come first in 22 Scottish council areas, the Tories in four, the Liberal Democrats in three - and Labour also reduced to just three.

The Scottish results were announced on the city's historic Royal Mile where candidates gathered on the Mercat Cross outside the city chambers.

Newly-returned SNP MEP Ian Hudghton welcomed the "fantastic result".

He told supporters: "The SNP said the target was to win the election - we've won the election.

"This is a fantastic result for the SNP and a ringing endorsement of our success in government.

"It's a vote of confidence in our record speaking up for Scottish interests in the European Parliament."

The party won 22 of the 32 local authority areas in Scotland, Mr Hudghton told activists on the Royal Mile.

"We've won in the south, east, west, north and central belt," he said.

"Communities across Scotland have stood up and given us their confidence in our ability to lead Scotland forward."

He pledged to work with the Nationalist Government at Holyrood as well as businesses and communities throughout Scotland to promote the country's interests in Europe.

He added: "We will also work to take Scotland to the normal status of independence for this nation."

LABOUR COUNCIL ELECTION WIPE OUT IN ENGLAND

While we await the news of the European elections on Sunday, the council elections in England make interesting reading:

LOCAL ELECTION RESULTS

Party Councillors

LAB 176 (-273)
CON 1476 (+233)
LIB DEM 473 (-4)
OTH 167 (+ 37)

Labour now control no councils in England, so what was the point of their move to the right 'to convince middle England'? Clearly all Brown's faux British efforts including dressing the England football team in a Union Jack for the Olympics hasn't helped him one bit.

English Democrats move rightwards

The English Democrats (who support a English parliament, and some rather unsavoury right wing policies it looks like from their website) also picked up a Mayor and a few council seats.

Here's their 'policies':

Immigration

England is the third most densely populated country in the world and the most densely populated country in Europe. We don't have space or resources to permit more large scale immigration. We say mass immigration must be ended. We would deport illegal immigrants and all those who are extremists, terrorists and criminals. We would get control of our immigration systems by leaving the EU!

English Identity

We demand the right to enjoy and celebrate our Englishness. We say that pride in our Country and community is healthy and natural. This is why we call for an English First Minister, Government and Parliament with at least the same powers as the Scottish ones!

EU

English Democrats advocate withdrawal from the European Union (EU) and rejoining the European Free Trade Association (EFTA) , which will guarantee free trade with the EU but will free us from EU political rule and save us its £63 billion per year cost!

Political Correctness

It is time common sense prevailed. The various quangos promoting political correctness should be closed and those laws promoting political correctness repealed. We want English freedoms and values, not multiculturalism.

Shades of UKIP and the Tories it sounds like, if not the BNP with that last bit. A progressive English nationalist party looks a long way off but that is hardly a shock.

Neither Labour nor Tories really want reform

David Cameron is simply not credible as reform champion

Dear Sir,

So David Cameron thinks that suddenly we will believe he intends
genuine political reform? I'm sorry, but the Conservatives have been
on the wrong side of any political reform for their entire history as a
political party. The clue is in their name.

Mr Cameron may think that simply because he has proved more popular
than his immediate incompetent predecessors as Tory leader he has
acquired 'street cred' with the public but he is very wrong.

What has actually happened is that our political establishment and most
of the media have swung behind this Tony Blairite clone as the logical
continuation of a right wing consensus which has throttled reformist
politics during the Labour years.

Cameron doesn't want to change anything significant. Yes, some
slight changes at the edges might be vaguely considered but the big
questions have already been ruled out.

Labour and Conservatives have nothing to choose between them. Both
have MP's who have been guilty of fiddling their expenses and both share
the same right wing agenda. Both support the pointless Trident II and both
believe that being the puppet of America makes Britain great.

In my opinion four basic points are required to begin genuine reform of
Westminster:

1) Embracing genuine electoral reform. The first past the post system
inevitably leads to untouchable, unreachable, unpopular Government.

2) Abolish or elect the House of Lords

3) force MP's to drop all outside interests as soon as they enter parliament

4) Remove the oath that stops honest republicans from entering the British
parliament.

David Cameron wants none of these, nor does his rival Gordon Brown, so
where's the difference?

Scotland can do better and we would do with independence.

If we can't reform Westminster we can remove it's influence.

Yours faithfully,

JOE MIDDLETON

and shorter version:

Neither Labour nor Tories really want reform

Sir,

Like a modern Wolfie 'Citizen' Smith David Cameron thinks all he needs to do is raise his fist and shout 'Power to the People!' and we will all believe he wants to reform parliament.

I'm sorry, but the Conservatives have been on the wrong side of any political reform for their entire history as a political party. The clue is in their name!

Labour and Conservatives have nothing to choose between them. Both have MP's who have been guilty of fiddling their expenses and both share the same right wing agenda. Both support the pointless Trident II and both believe that being the puppet of America makes Britain great.

In my opinion four basic points are required to begin genuine reform of Westminster:

1) Embracing genuine electoral reform. The first past the post system inevitably leads to untouchable, unreachable, unpopular Government.

2) Abolish or elect the House of Lords

3) force MP's to drop all outside interests as soon as they enter parliament

4) Remove the oath that stops honest republicans from entering the British parliament.

David Cameron wants none of these, nor does his rival Gordon Brown, so where's the difference?
We in Scotland can do better and we would do with independence.

If we can't reform Westminster we can remove it's influence.

JOE MIDDLETON

So why is he still in it?

Bob Thomson paints a truly terrible (and accurate) picture of the state of the Labour party in Scotland in this month's Scottish Left Review

Here's a sample:

Then I was at the Scottish Labour Party Conference in Dundee in March.
There were few MPs (perhaps not so surprising) but there were also few MSPs and indeed few ordinary party members present. If it hadn't been for Trade Union
delegates the conference could have been held in a side hall. In debate after
debate I was struck by the hypocrisy of front bench speakers attacking the SNP
for not implementing policies Labour failed to implement over eight years in
power such as teacher and police numbers and student debt. And since the party
isn't exactly bursting with front-bench talent they don't even do it well.

There was no serious analysis of why Labour lost the Scottish Parliament
election and why we were failing to make an impact in opposition. Most trade
unions act and think as Labour loyalists when in fact they were being New Labour
apologists. On PFI/PPP the platform, except the trade unionist Chairman,
continued to support this disastrous policy while rubbishing the SNP's only
slightly better Scottish Futures Trust alternative. The three UK Cabinet
Ministers who spoke did not address the Scottish dimension or provide any
Scottish solutions.

We lost because of the neo liberal economic and war policies of UK
Labour government. Scottish Labour failed - unlike the Welsh Labour Party - to
put 'clear red water' between them and New Labour. The people who inhabit the
Labour Party bureaucracy either don't know about devolution or more probably
arrogantly ignore it. I am constantly getting emails about policy initiatives
which only apply in England but fail to say this. When I point this out, I
receive no reply.

and from there it gets worse, Labour have no organisation, no ideas, no competent people... etc, etc, etc...!

Obviously this is highly amusing for any nationalist, and it is undoubtedly accurate. It begs the question though, if Labour are as bad as this, and you know it, why on earth would anyone still be a member?

I presume Mr Thomson thinks facing up to the truth might get Labour to buck up their ideas.

My own experience of politics is that 'shoot the messenger' is much more likely however. No political parties ever like hearing bad news even if it's based on obvious evidence.

Parties are only as good as their ideas. When their ideas fail they have failed their purpose and Labour are I think a dead party walking. With Blair as leader a bullet was put into the brain of the party or at least it's social conscience. The process had begun some time before that though.

Thomson writes perceptively:

The unions ought to have been helping Labour to realise its situation and find a
way out of the hole. They haven't. In fact, the main thing the unions have done
is to cover the party's backs while it just kept on digging. And in ten years
Labour has had almost nothing to do with all the other political movements in
Scotland (such as the anti-war movement) and so have just been written off by
most. The Party has no friends to have a quiet word in its ear.

Their real problem isn't the numerous arguments enumerated here though, that's the symptoms, but it's their unthinking support for a disastrous union which has ultimately killed their credibility.

As mediawatch pointed out today, Brian Wilson also attacked the party in the Sunday Times but my guess is that he saw Thomson's article and wanted to have his own spin on it. His article has some similar observations but according to him it's all Labour's own fault for creating a Scottish parliament. Yes the democratic demand never comes into it for Brian, the wasted years of Thatcherism, who cares? The Scots could have been ignored in his eyes.

He's a man who has sold his soul to unionism and nothing else will do.

What shocks me is that an honest (or at least straight talking) man like Thomson would share a party with the likes of Wilson. Surely he could do a damn sight better.

GERRY HASSAN SIMPLY DOES NOT UNDERSTAND SNP

I think what is coming across from this article [review of Break up of Britain book here] is that Mr Hassan does not understand the SNP and his past allegiance to Labour has left him with an irrational hatred and fear of all nationalism.

I also don’t recognise the description provided of the book ‘Eclipse of Scottish Culture’. This in fact argued that Nairn was to an extent viewing Scotland unfairly through a British/Marxist prism of understanding while still agreeing with his ultimate conclusions that the British state deserved to break up!

The SNP are a principled left of centre party. In UK terms they and Plaid Cymru are considerably to the left of Labour as indeed are Sinn Fein.

Isobel Lindsay (who has been a member of both Labour and SNP) in the current issue of Scottish left review analyses the SNP programme in office and comes to this overall conclusion.

The few right wing twitches which she does identify are very few and far between. The position on the 48 hour week (not advocating the cut off in working hours) is unfortunate and is a fair example.

If this issue was discussed at a party conference however I have little doubt it would be adjusted the other way and I suggest that insufficient internal debate have allowed the SNP's MEP's to take such a stance.

Finishing off an uncompleted motorway is not a betrayal of leftist values however but a logical end to a half done job! The reduction in rates for business is an attempt to equalise an area where Scots business had been paying a traditionally higher rate. It has been party policy for ten years to do this so it is not a change in direction.

Overall the SNP as a minority Government have did the best they can despite a unionist opposition which has worked together when required.

Labour in London denied them funds with a lower than normal block grant and Labour, Tories and Lib Dems all banded together to force through the expensive Edinburgh trams project. This has left the SNP vulnerable to attacks that they have not fulfilled their entire manifesto by those same parties who deliberately denied them the funds to do so!

Nonetheless they did remove Tuition fees and have taken what progressive measures they can within a restricted budget.

I am looking forward to reading the full book but certainly the chapters I have read have been a valid and indeed important contribution to the ongoing debate. Kev's concentration on the culture of nationalism is I think a lot more important and relevant than any person within the current British establishment would like to admit.

It is a cultural fight and onslaught we face with a constant stream of British flag waving entertainment (much of it trivial but the underlying jingoism is there) and a deliberate campaign to ignore Gaelic and our other national language, Scots.

Those who have championed the Scots language like Kelman and Welsh have therefore engaged Britain at a level where it is most vulnerable and the cultural connection is extremely important to understanding the state we are in today. It is also crucial to providing the confidence to vote us out of it.

Letter to the Editor of the North Edinburgh News

25/05/2009

Dear Mary,

I was browsing the BBC iplayer the other day and happened to stumble upon
some coverage of our Scottish parliament in action. The motion in question
was about student debt and was sponsored by Labour and the Tories with
support from the Liberal Democrats.

This unionist triumvirate, who have been jointly responsible for scrapping
the grant system of education and the principle of free education along with
it had the gross cheek to lambast the SNP for failing to 'dump the debt' of
students!

Sadly most of these parties MSPs weren't even in the chamber to listen to
their own debate! I suggest this indicates the actual priority they give to
student debt.

Labour and Tories appear to now wish students to have the power to borrow
more ie saddle them with even more debt, albeit delayed till the day they
earn the princely sum of 15K a year. Such an attitude is unlikely to
encourage anyone of modest means to enter university but let's face it the
days when Labour supported anyone outside the ranks of the middle classes
are long over.

Manifesto commitments are important for all political parties and they
should never be undertaken lightly, however in a devolved pocket money
parliament like ours the money is only available if Westminster provides it.
The SNP are a minority government. While this makes it more difficult for
them to govern it also (rightly) reflects the narrow nature of the election
result. It also means that they are, to an extent, reliant on the other MSP's
in parliament acting in a mature fashion and not deliberately obstructing
them for the sake of it.

The unionist parties deliberately forced through the unpopular Edinburgh
tramworks proposals which slashed hundreds of millions of pounds from the
money the SNP had to work with. The British government furthermore provided
the tightest financial settlement since devolution began. In those
circumstances the fact that the SNP have managed to remove tuition fees is
fairly extraordinary. The fact that they have increased financial support to
poorer students is also pretty praiseworthy.

If student leaders are willing to sup with the Liberals, Labour and even the
Tories and attack the SNP Government on this issue then they are either
suffering from total collective amnesia or they need new leadership which is
not puppeteered by our unionist UK establishment.

I trust that if the SNP Government are in power long enough they will
eventually rid students of all debts. We know that Labour would never
consider such an action by their own actions in the British parliament which
they currently control.

Are we really supposed to imagine that the same New Labour who were bribed
by F1's Bernie Ecclestone over fag advertising to the tune of one million
pounds, covered up a bribery scandal involving BAE systems and who
themselves introduced the Graduate endowment fee and the student loan are
really serious in Scotland about student debt?

Aye right!

Labour's priority in recent years has been to feather their own nest and
sell their soul to the political right. If they lose this election they will
leave a legacy of a near bankrupt Britain represented by UKIP and (god help
us) possibly the BNP in Europe while Scotland will have no distinct voice
and a lot less than half our rightful share of Euro MP's.

David Cameron's Conservatives are an extension of the Thatcherite project,
he might have a nicer smile than Tony but he represents the same old clapped
out 'let business handle everything' political philosophy that has entirely
wasted Labour's years in power.

What happened with reform of the House of Lords? The independent hereditary
toffs got turfed and were replaced by a bunch of new Labour puppets. Great!
No actual meaningful reform there then.

The electoral system which hands huge power to one party and helped Scots
suffer under Thatcher? That's staying the same as well because Labour want
to make sure they get another bite (one day) at the cherry. No electoral
reform means the British Government will always be sheep led by shepherds.
Whether it is Labour sheep or newly grown Tory sheep makes no difference, at
all.

We Scots have one chance of saving our country and that is by choosing
independence when we get the chance. There are no urgent issues in Scotland
which are better off being decided 300 hundred miles away!

Yours faithfully,

JOE MIDDLETON

By-election in Glasgow imminent as Speaker Martin resigns

So Michael Martin has caved into pressure and decided to resign. Martin's position became untenable when a number of MP's proposed a motion of no-confidence. Martin himself has not been blameless in terms of his own expenses and his wish to pass his Glasgow North East seat onto his son Paul suggests he thought he could treat the voters as an afterthought.

No doubt Brown will be pleased to see a sacrificial goat served up on the basis that this might take the heat off him, however things won't work out that way if the SNP thrash him in the now upcoming by-election.

As the speaker is seen as being a non-political figure none of the unionist parties stand against him. Their party machines (outside Labour) will therefore be rather dormant in the area and Labour's activists in Glasgow are unlikely to be that motivated to save face when the original plan for the seat was to have a royal type change over from father to son.

This behaviour shows why 'the people's party' is now the rich people's puppet party and the fact that speaker Martin tried desperately to cover up the expenses scandal rather than try and reform the House of Commons shows the measure of the man.

Still I'm sure like every other failed and disgraced cabinet minister the Speaker will find himself with an automatic ticket into the House of Lords. Whether his son will join dear daddy on the greasy pole of success now looks a lot less likely however though Labour perhaps have enough of a brass neck to stick him forward.

Whoever stands for Labour will represent a Government which has lost its moral compass and is drowning under a sea of contempt. In these circumstances the SNP have an excellent chance for another breakthrough by-election win.

Breaking Up Britain: Four Nations after a Union

Breaking Up Britain: Four Nations after a Union

New book by Kevin Williamson and others.

Information from website:

'This brilliant book helps us understand what Scots, Welsh, Irish and English neighbours, freed from an unhappy Union, might look like.'

Billy Bragg

May 2009 will be the tenth anniversary of the first elections to the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly. This was the beginning of a decade of change - which now includes the restoration of powers to Stormont - that is showing every sign of being an irreversible process.
Breaking Up Britain is a unique collection of English, Scottish, Welsh and Irish contributors, featuring key political activists from the nationalist parties, commentators and campaigners, academics and journalists. Each writer explores the change that the break-up demands in their own nation, but also discusses its impact upon the whole.

This dialogue of differences is essential reading for anyone interested in the shape of politics and culture after a Union.

Contributors:

Gerry Adams, Arthur Aughey, Gregor Gall, John Harris, Michael Kenny, Peadar Kirby, Guy Lodge, Inez McCormack, John Osmond, Mike Parker, Lesley Riddoch, Richard Thomson, Vron Ware, Charlotte Williams, Kevin Williamson, Leanne Wood and Salma Yaqoob.

You can read Kev Williamson's chapter here and Mark Perryman's here and there is an online discussion of the book here. A couple of other chapters are available from the website as well.

It looks very interesting and relevant and from the sample chapters provided it is obviously a work of real quality. I will do a proper review once I get a hold of a copy.

20 Questions with a fellow blogger

A guy called Paul Burgin got in touch with me for an interview on his blog and it appears here for anyone who is interested:

20 Questions for a fellow Blogger

Diomhair - Excellent Gaelic documentary about British attempts to undermine Scots independence

I have just watched the excellent BBC Alba documentary Diomhair (Secret). This programme goes into great detail about British efforts to undermine the Scottish independence and home rule movements.

Well worth watching and available here.

FAKE SIG WEB SITE

As many of you will be aware I run a website called the Scottish Independence Guide at http://www.scottishindependence.com/

It came as something of a shock therefore to receive an email asking me to put a link up to a new pro-Scottish independence web site at http://www.scottish-independence.com/

Now obviously the similar domain name is fine for a pro independence site, but the email also included my site logo (below). Even worse when I went to the site it had it plastered over the front page!

A search on google has unearthed the culprit, a Chad West from Aberdeen, who appears to be a fellow nationalist. Hopefully Chad will find his own logo in the near future!

Bullied by the Brits, but old Alf remained loyal

I see Alf Young (in the Herald) has confessed that he was bullied into giving up on a referendum on independence in the 70's. It's only taken him thirty years to admit it, pity about his actions since then!

SALMOND CALLS FOR OPTIMISM IN HOMECOMING YEAR

Alex Salmond has used his new-year message to appeal to Scots to show a “spirit of optimism” that would help to pull the country through the difficult economic times ahead in 2009. The First Minister, in a clear reference to the SNP’s core policy of independence, also expressed the hope that the same optimistic spirit would lead to Scotland “taking its rightful place in the world” as well as boost the Homecoming 2009 initiative by encouraging expatriate Scots to return.

Mr Salmond said that the Homecoming – with its 300-plus events across the country – would help Scotland turn a threatened tourism downturn into a visitor boom. Mr Salmond’s message was recorded at the National Library of Scotland in Edinburgh, which is hosting the Paths of Robert Burns exhibition until February, before it is taken on tour to venues throughout Scotland for the rest of 2009.

While the Homecoming initiative has been sparked by next month’s 250th anniversary of the birth of Burns, Scotland’s national poet, it has mushroomed into an all-Scotland promotion of all things Scottish and aimed at expatriate Scots.

Mr Salmond, speaking as he viewed the original manuscript of Auld Lang Syne in the National Library, said that the song was a masterpiece that was sung by hundreds of millions of people around the world to welcome each and every new year.

He added: “For many people, 2009 will be an enormous challenge, with the full impact of the economic downturn starting to bite. At times like this, therefore, it is even more important that we pull together as a nation. The economic storm clouds are gathering. But I know that we will weather this storm – and emerge even stronger, and well placed to prosper. We need to ensure Scotland becomes a more successful country, mitigating the downturn and leading the recovery.

“Homecoming is a chance for Scotland’s international family, and all who feel an affinity for our nation, to come back and reconnect with our heritage while also learning what being a citizen in Scotland in the 21st century actually means. I believe there is a spirit of optimism abroad that will pull us through the hard times, that will see Scotland take her rightful place in the world.”

A British business organisation (CBI) attempted to attack Salmond for remaining committed to a fairer taxation system as they claimed it might discourage investment, they also supported the British Governments position on nuclear power stations.

WHITEWASH ON MENEZES MURDER - BRITISH JUSTICE?

Jury forced to give meaningless 'open' verdict or 'lawful (!) killing'

When a wholly innocent man is shot dead by armed police in a panic without warning and with numerous gun shots the only logical verdict is murder or at the least 'unlawful killing'. By removing this option the process has became a complete mockery. JOE

Brutish injustice

The jury at the inquest into the death of Jean Charles de Menezes will not be able to consider a verdict of unlawful killing, the coroner has said. Sir Michael Wright said that having heard all the evidence, a verdict of unlawful killing was "not justified".

Mr de Menezes, 27, was shot dead by police at Stockwell Tube station in south London after he was mistaken for one of the failed 21 July 2005 bombers. The jury may now return either an open or lawful killing verdict.

Sir Michael's ruling came as he began his summing up of the case on Tuesday. "In directing you that you cannot return a verdict of unlawful killing, I am not saying that nothing went wrong in a police operation which resulted in the killing of an innocent man," he told the hearing.

But in narrowing down the choice of verdict, he added: "All interested persons agree that a verdict of unlawful killing could only be left to you if you could be sure that a specific officer had committed a very serious crime - murder or manslaughter."

Sir Michael also warned jurors that they must not attach any criminal or civil fault to any individuals. The 11-strong jury has heard from 100 witnesses since the inquest began at the Oval Cricket Ground in September. Among them were the two firearms officers who shot Mr de Menezes, known only as C2 and C12.

The coroner told the jury that the verdict they chose depended on whether they felt that those two officers honestly believed the Brazilian represented an imminent, mortal threat and whether lethal force was justified in those circumstances.

Jury - no choice

Reminding them that the Brazilian's mother, Maria Otone de Menezes, had heard much of the evidence, Sir Michael said: "I know that your heart will go out to her. "But these are emotional reactions, ladies and gentlemen, and you are charged with returning a verdict based on evidence. "Put aside any emotion - put them to one side."

In 2007, the Metropolitan Police was fined £175,000 over the shooting of Mr de Menezes, after it was convicted under the Health and Safety Act of "endangering the public". But the trial concluded that police chief Cressida Dick, who led the operation, bore "no personal culpability", and Sir Michael told the inquest jury that their verdict could not be inconsistent with that decision.

The jury was also given a series of questions to consider based on what they have heard.
These included whether C12 shouted a warning - "Armed police" - before opening fire, and whether Mr de Menezes stood up and moved towards officers as they approached.
Jurors were also asked to consider which of a number of factors contributed to the Brazilian's death.

Among those were:

The pressure on police after the 7 July London bombings

A failure by police to ensure that Mr de Menezes was stopped before he reached the Underground

The innocent behaviour of Mr de Menezes increasing suspicion

Shortcomings in the communications system between various police teams involved in the operation

Main story from BBC NEWS

Labour hold Glenrothes despite large increase in SNP vote

Peter Grant - sadly the competent candidate lost!

Well after the extraordinary result in Glasgow East earlier this year everyone in the national movement had hoped the SNP might have a repeat performance. Unfortunately it wasn't to be and despite a superior candidate and an excellent campaign by the SNP Labour have held the Glenrothes Westminster seat in today's by-election.

The SNP vote rose by 13% while Tories and Lib Dems lost their deposits. Unfortunately it wasn't enough to defeat Labour who fought a dishonest campaign about supposed cuts in council services (the SNP candidate was the Council leader).

Still, our day will come. Independence is normality and we will get there.

[The on screen fawning bias towards Labour was shocking by the way but we have come to expect such treatment from the BBC. Kenny MacAskill fought the SNP's corner well but he was outnumbered on the night.]

Brainwashed by Britain? Labour's plans for 2012 Olympics

Here is what one Labour think-tank has to say about 2012 (thanks to Ray Bell for this - JOE)

Quote:

"Sport is one of the most powerful tools available to policy makers seeking to entrench the best of British identity. In its elite and mass forms, it reaches into the lives of many millions of people. In the run-up to the 2012 Games, with their focus on children, children are going to be increasingly involved with sporting activity that is explicitly British rather than English, Scottish or Welsh."

Opinion Leader Forum Report, It's the Taking Part that Counts, Opinion Leader Forum 2007, p23

Scottish Chess - Rampant Chess

A bit 'off topic' this but I thought I would mention this new book by Geoff Chandler and Keith Ruxton. Rampant Chess - Over 60 Great Games by Scottish Masters

‘Rampant Chess’ is a collection of games played by 13 Scottish Masters annotated with an eye to humour and entertainment value which so many games collections lack. This book sets a style which others are bound to mimic as its approach makes it easy to read and understand.
This is the first time that such a ‘Scottish’ collection of seriously good games have been put together into a book and as such make it eminently collectable. The authors annotation avoids reams of variations but focuses rather on ensuring that the reader understands what is going on and is drawn into the game being discussed. This book is as much an experience as a read. It is there to be enjoyed.

Geoff and Keith are both Edinburgh players connected to Sandy Bells club (who I play for, in the II team). The book sounds excellent and can be ordered from here:

http://www.newinchess.com/Rampant_Chess-p-1731.html

Norway replies (in Daily Mail) to Salmond attack

The article "Salmond Slapped down by Norway Minister" in the Daily Mail on 29 October contained several incorrect and misleading statements attributed to Norway's Foreign Minister, Jonas Gahr Støre.

Firstly, there is no "growing anger in Norway" over comparisons made between Scotland and Norway during the debate in the United Kingdom against the backdrop of the current global financial crisis.

Secondly, no accusations have been made by Mr Støre against Mr Salmond, as alleged in the article. In the interview, the Foreign Minister merely pointed out factual similarities and differences between the challenges presently faced by Scotland and Norway. Inferring from this that Mr Støre is of the view that Mr Salmond has in any way lied or mislead the public, is simply incorrect.

In short, the Norwegian Foreign Minister did not intend to criticise either side in this debate, which is a domestic political discussion. What he strongly emphasised in the interview with the Daily Mail and which, sadly, was simply omitted from the article, was his sincere appreciation of the warm ongoing relationship between Scotland and Norway.

Yours sincerely,
Bjarne Lindstrøm
Ambassador of Norway

Why the British Union doesn't work

Since a British u is attacking my arithmetic here is my reply:

Total Number of British MP's at Westminster: 646

Scots MP's: 59

England on it's own has 529 MP's.

This means that English MP's heavily outweigh all the other countries in the British state and it means that the union is highly unequal as a result.

A majority of Scottish MP's voted against Trident but the British Government is pushing ahead anyway. If we were independent we would have our own direct voice in the EU and UN. We would have a seat in the Council of Ministers, we would have our own European commissioner and we would have more Euro MP's.

Most importantly our flag would fly at the United Nations and we would have our own seat there. We would control our own defence, foreign policy, benefits policy, broadcasting and pensions which are currently controlled by Westminster.

So if we voted against Trident it wouldn't happen and we wouldn't be wasting billions on an unusable deterrent which is intended to prop up the old fiction of Britain being a world power.

Scotland doesn't want to be a world power but we do need to have the same powers as every other country around the world and that can only happen with independence.

If the Scots in the cabinet worked in Scotland's interests that might be an advantage but it is obvious that they don't. Look at the HBOS takeover for a current obvious example.

Scotland would benefit if HBOS remained an independent bank based in Scotland. Brown wants it to be merged with Lloyds TSB which is likely to result in the HQ moving south and the loss of thousands of Scottish jobs.

To do this he is using Billions of borrowed pounds, much of which will be raised from future taxation on Scotland. So we're paying for the wrong decision to happen to our bank with the added rider that Mr Brown believes this indicates that Scotland is too poor to have independence and has the cheek to compare oil rich Scotland with tiny Iceland which was in part destabalised by the actions of the British Government! So much for the 'union dividend'.

----

I've printed the whole post below with my replies to each point:


Joe,

Good morning. It’s actually about 10:1 (587:59 MPs). But the exact ratio is largely irrelevant.
I don’t accept your notion that Scotland is “outvoted”. There’s no anti-Scottish bloc voting against our interests. Scots are no more “outvoted” than any other identifiable subgroup: elderly people, non-Caucasians or gay people, for example. Geography is only one distinguishing factor. But I’ll use inverted commas around the word “outvoted” and tackle you on your own terms.

Scotland is a country and represents the people who live in Scotland. Scottish MP's are recognised as a group within the British Parliament and they actually meet occasionally as a group (the Scottish Grand Committee).

Now obviously there are a variety of MP's from different parties, well two kinds actually, the Trident supporting right wing Brits ie Labour, Lib Dems and Tories and the SNP. The SNP are the only party which is based in Scotland and represents Scottish interests but nonetheless MP's elected in Scotland can fairly be described as Scottish MP's even when their first loyalty is not necessarily to Scotland.

Consider this: there being about 70,000 voters in the Glenrothes constituency, each individual is massively “outvoted” when it comes to electing the local MP.

Not really. everyone gets a vote and the winner wins. PR is fairer than FPTP as a system and we have that in the Scottish parliament and would likely have that in an independent Scottish Government but the voters of Fife have a democratic choice at the moment.

Even within the Kingdom of Fife, Glenrothes is only one of four Westminster constituencies, so could perhaps be said to be “outvoted” by a factor of 3:1.

Not really I think you will find that MP's in Fife are likely to work together, particularly when they are all Labour as they are currently.

And Fife itself is “outvoted” by a factor of 642:4 (about 160:1) in the UK parliament.

Fife is not a country. It is part of Scotland but the country of Scotland as a whole is indeed outvoted by a factor of 11-1 in the UK parliament.

Being “outvoted”, as you put it, is in the nature of representative democracy.

English MP's are not outvoted, the other countries are.

So why are you seemingly unconcerned about Fife being in such a position, but telling anyone who will listen that Scotland is “outvoted by a factor of 11-1” within Britain?

Because it's the truth.

I would suggest that your nationalism, rather than any argument about democratic representation, is at the root of your thinking. You see Scots (not Fifers) as separate, are outraged that we aren’t, and so that nationalistic tail wags your political dog.

After all, Scots – unlike Fifers – form a “nation without a state”, not unlike the Sioux, Bretons, Tamils, Sardinians and many others. Can you see yet where your argument breaks down? Should they all be independent? Should the USA, France, Sri Lanka, Italy and other nations cease to exist in their current forms as a result? But I digress.

You're not getting anywhere with your misleading arguments. Brittany has a right to independence and France and Spain as ex-imperial states could be further broken down. The Basque and Catalan countries are obvious examples and are moving towards independence. Sardinia also has an independence movement. The USA is large but it is obviously seen as a distinct country and at this point there is no serious movement to break it up.

The Sioux are a conquered people unfortunately, but their original ownership of America (with the rest of the native Americans) is a historical fact which should not be ignored.

In your terms, Britain is similarly “outvoted” in the European Parliament – by a factor of 9:1 (in fact 707:78). But do you see me fretting about that? Of course not, because I’m a Unionist!

That is a problem, which has led to the creation of UKIP. The UK is already independent actually, but UKIP are British unionists (nationalists) like yourself. Scotland would be outvoted in the EU but no one country is large enough to dominate the whole EU which makes a difference.

Not a British nationalist. I’ll leave that to those on the fringes: to the likes of UKIP.

It's the same thing. Britain as currently constituted is a nation so the supporters of British nationhood are nationalists and (some are imperialists as well such as the BNP). If you fly the Union Jack then you are a British nationalist by definition.

But a conviction Unionist. So I’m Pro-Scotland, pro-Britain and pro-Europe.

But you are less pro Scotland than I am because you are happy to see our interests subverted to Britain's, I'm not.

That means I’m at ease with the idea of distributed sovereignty. I’ll consider what powers might best be exercised at Scottish, British or European levels not just on the basis of uncritical subsidiarity, or what’s thought to be best only for “us” (however defined).

Yes we Scots can do that as well and that is the problem, Britain stops us from making these decisions for ourselves. Post independence we might choose to work together with England on certain things but that would be our democratic choice.

Rather, the Unionist ideal is to pool resources, to come together whenever, on balance, it serves our common good. And if at times that cuts across narrow ideas of “our” versus “their” interests, then so be it – even for your hobbyhorse issues of defence and foreign affairs.

Yes, well unfortunately what actually happens is that Scotland's voice is entirely ignored altogether and Britain's voice is the only one that is heard. On Trident we don't want it, Britain does, so we get it.

Anyway, we already cede some such powers to the EU, NATO and UN (and even to the US) and while you and I could probably bicker all day about the appropriateness of the current distribution, the internationalist principle is an important one which nationalist doctrines inevitably undermine.

Yes the US controls the missiles which makes them rather pointless.

And that’s why, as David Cameron rightly said, unionists will win this battle of ideas. Your rhetoric may be pithier, but our vision is far more forward-looking, generous and inclusive.

But of course, in our relations with the rest of the world, Scotland’s and Britain’s interests are our primary focus, and there’s no contradiction between that statement and the foregoing. The distribution of sovereignty, rather like the decision-making dynamic within a healthy marriage, must work to all its parties’ net advantage, if not to each individual partner’s in every respect.

And on that score your argument falls apart completely. An independent Scotland would be “outvoted” in the European Parliament probably by 771:14 (roughly 55:1).

So again I’ll ask: why doesn’t that vex you? Where’s your consistency? Why is being “outvoted” 10:1 in Britain such a concern, but being “outvoted” 55:1 in Europe such a welcome prospect?

It's pretty obvious. Within Britain if there is a conflict of interest between what suits England and what suits Scotland and Wales then it's pretty obvious whose argument will win within the London parliament. The numbers are clear to see.

In terms of the EU yes there is also a problem there because we would be outvoted by a large factor. However no one country dominates the EU and therefore it is possible to work together on a common agenda. Also, if we are independent and we don't like the direction of the EU we would have the power to leave it, we don't have that at the moment.

STONE OF DESTINY - EXCELLENT TRIBUTE TO SCOTS PATRIOTS

The young patriots celebrate their triumph with John MacCormick (Robert Carlisle)

Ian Hamilton QC is something of a legend in nationalist circles. In recent years he has been a highly entertaining and controversial blogger and he enjoyed a sparkling legal career as an advocate but his ultimate moment of triumph was his 1950's heist (with other young Scots nationalists) of the Stone of Destiny.

This action of civil disobedience caught the imagination of a generation and has inspired all future Scottish independence activists. It's sheer audacity and ambition remains incredible today and it must have been utterly startling in 1950's Scotland.

Charles Martin Smith (a co-star with Sean Connery and Kevin Costner in Brian de Palma's 1987 classic The Untouchables like Mel Gibson before him (with Braveheart) has brought an outsiders enthusiasm to Scottish history.

The film based on Ian Hamilton's own book is excellent from start to finish. 1950's Scotland and London is convincingly portrayed and there are some wonderful supporting turns by Robert Carlyle as nationalist leader John MacCormick (father of Neil (SNP Euro MP) and Iain (SNP MP)and founder of the Scottish National Party), Brenda Thricker as his housekeeper and Lord of the Rings star Billy Boyd as a reluctant co-conspirator.

The main cast are also superb, the young actors who play Ian and his friend (and possible romantic interest) Kay Mathieson are particularly good (Charlie Cox and Kate Mara) and Peter Mullan is superb as the proud but stern father of Hamilton.

The film begins with the frustration of the Scottish Covenant, the two million strong petition for Home Rule which is completely ignored by the UK Government. In one scene a bitter drunken man reflects on the dreadful position Scotland finds itself, as North Britain a mere adjunct of the British state.

The young Hamilton realises that only an audacious act of rebellion can shake up the torpor of Scotland's resentful acceptance of the union even when (as with the Covenant) it is blatantly obvious that her interests are completely ignored.

He hatches a plan to steal the Stone of Destiny. The ancient 'seat of the Scottish kings' had been stolen by England in 1296. Rebellions initially led by William Wallace and the eventual victory of Robert the Bruce at Bannockburn managed to guarantee Scottish independence for hundreds of years but the theft of the Stone of Scone was a huge historic injustice. For years the Stone had been welded into the bottom of the UK King's coronation chair and it represented England's ancient dominion over Scotland.

(Some claim by the way that the stolen Stone was in actual fact not the real stone at all and that the actual stone had been hidden. A view that the current leader of the SNP, Alex Salmond endorses.)

The Stone was considered a potent symbol of Scotland's rights to political independence and the repatriation of the stone proved to be a massive rallying point for the Scottish nationalist cause.

The film highlights the fear and uncertainty of the young gang but also their undiminished passion for their country and there determination to get the job done. It proves extremely difficult but eventually they are successful leading to a massive wave of patriotic pride which cannot be underestimated in its effects on the national cause.

Ian Hamilton and the others gave themselves up but were denied their day in court (the authorities realising that it would only give further publicity to the cause). Hamilton is a deserved hero and the story of him, Kay and his compatriots Alan Stuart and Gavin Vernon (played in the film by Ciaron Kelly and Stephen McCole) is a fitting tribute. Hamilton himself has a cameo and it must have thrilled him to see his efforts so lovingly recreated on the big screen.

Sadly the film has been subject to a number of scathing reviews which no doubt are in reaction to it's uncompromising Scottish nationalist stance, however this is a brilliant, funny and passionate portrayal of a crucial event in Scotland's past.

PS: Hamilton also has another notable claim to fame. As a young advocate his refusal to swear an oath to the monarch as her title was inaccurate (The Queen styles herself Elizabeth II even though her correct title should be Elizabeth I as there has only been a Queen Elizabeth I of England not Britain or Scotland) prompted the society to change their rules. The British state (under Winston Churchill) was also forced to indicate that in future all Kings would be 'known by the higher number' of either Scotland or England. A rather ridiculous decision which shows that the British state knew that Hamilton was right and that the Queen's position was legally untenable.

Scots need control of our own destiny

14/10/2008

Dear Sir,

I note that all the usual suspects in the media have decided that the current world financial crisis presents definitive proof that Scottish independence is now a hopeless cause. Given that none of them believed in independence in the first place this is no great shock.

What has actually happened is that the British parliament has used it's superior financial muscle to buy our banks out and move control directly from Edinburgh to the city of London. As an independent nation this definitely would not have happened.

Whether it was a brilliant idea or a disastrous financial mistake is the question. In truth it is likely to be a bit of both. It may well help stabilise the UK economy but it will undoubtedly undermine Scotland's long term financial prospects.

No country around the world is looking for political control to be taken away from them in the midst of this financial crisis. Quite the reverse.

Iceland was in part brought down by the British Labour Government's illegal appropriation of 4 billion pounds of funds held by Icelandic banks under 'anti-terrorism' legislation. Iceland described this as an 'extremely unfriendly' act.

At the same time the new Scottish Secretary has deliberately insulted all our near neighbours by claiming they share an "arc of insolvency" despite the fact that Norway and Ireland have both acted more swiftly than the UK and with better effect.

The UK might be pleased to hear that they do share a political set of values with one Government however. Yes, Robert Mugabe's Zimbabwe is trying to convince his political opponent that control of foreign policy, defence and home affairs is best left in his capable hands. A deal that Morgan Tsvangirai says 'only an idiot' would accept. Sounds familiar? Well isn't that the 'great deal' that British unionism offers for Scotland!

Independence is normality and nothing in the current financial crisis suggests a long term problem for small nations. It does however show very clearly the problem of being ruled by a political union where your country is outvoted 11-1.

Yours faithfully,

JOE MIDDLETON

Ireland is still a success story – and Scotland could be, too

Scotsman - 14 October 2008

MARC COLEMAN claims Scottish Secretary Jim Murphy was wide of the mark with his 'arc of insolvency' remarks

I DON'T know which is more shocking about Jim Murphy's recent comments on Ireland's economy. As Secretary of State for Scotland, presumably carrying a degree of responsibility for managing Scotland's economy, the incompetence is staggering. More shocking still is the use of megaphone diplomacy – for the most selfish of political reasons – at such a sensitive time, when loose talk by politicians can do damage.

Last week, Mr Murphy accused the Scottish Government of making "petty, part-political jibes" about the global crisis. He said: "Now look what's happening to those countries – Ireland in recession, Iceland really struggling. The UK is the fourth-largest economy in the world. We get great strength from that and these other countries the SNP try to compare Scotland to – Ireland, Iceland and others – they're struggling remarkably."

But let me put my native pride aside and get down to the real issue: the economic illiteracy revealed in Mr Murphy's comments.

In contrast to Alex Salmond, the SNP leader, and George Osborne, the Tory shadow chancellor – both of whom have visited Ireland to look at our economy – Mr Murphy hasn't bothered to study what is going on in Ireland, nor in his own country.

Equating Iceland with Ireland is very wide of the mark. There may only be one letter of difference in the spelling, but Mr Murphy should look behind that to spot some very important differences.

Three Icelandic banks have been declared bankrupt, leaving UK depositors in dire straits. In Ireland, swift and decisive action by Ireland's government has protected our bank deposits, but also those with UK Post Office Savings Bank, which is owned by Bank of Ireland, not to mention the Irish subsidiaries or arms of five other UK-based banks.

At 25 per cent, Ireland's debt-to-GDP ratio is the second-lowest in the European Union. At most, recapitalising our banks will add seven percentage points to that, bringing it to perhaps the fourth-lowest. If there is one thing Ireland isn't, it's insolvent.

Unlike Iceland, Ireland's euro membership protects us from exchange-rate pressures and limits the risk premiums paid on government debt. EU and euro membership, plus a business-friendly tax regime, makes Ireland a world beater in foreign direct investment and a home to leading high-technology multinationals. Add a booming indigenous traded services sector to that, and we have a very different story to our colder island neighbour to the north.

But even if Iceland faces problems, which independent nation doesn't from time to time? Isn't it better for a nation to make and correct its own mistakes, rather than remain in a state of permanent policy dependency on others?

The answer to that question depends on how confident you are in yourself. Scotland's genius has given the world the television, the telephone, penicillin, much modern industrial practice and, of course, the science of economics. The idea that this nation cannot successfully manage its economic interdependency with the rest of the world is, to me, laughable.

Far from there being an "arc of insolvency", the real arc here is an "arc of indifference", encompassing Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. In Northern Ireland, and despite both nationalists and unionists wanting the republic's corporation tax rates (if not its republican government), Westminster imposes policies designed for the south of England. Scotland and Wales suffer the same. England also suffers through overcongestion and a huge tax subsidy.

Putting Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland on a viable footing – letting them manage their economies – would not, of course, be in the political interest of politicians like Mr Murphy, who depend for their career advancement on the supplication and marginalisation of Scotland and Wales to Westminster. But it would be right for the people.

As for Ireland's recession, Mr Murphy is, again, clueless. After 15 years of record-busting growth, some froth is being blown off the Guinness. But the glass remains very much almost full: Ireland's economy grew by almost 90 per cent in the past ten years, four times faster than the EU and three times faster than countries in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).

Yes, we've had a property bubble – a bad Anglo-Saxon habit we're in the process of kicking. When that's done, by 2010, Irish GDP will have fallen four percentage points, but Ireland's average economic performance in the first decade of the millennium will remain streets ahead of the EU, OECD and UK.

How did we do it? Following Labour's disastrous management of the UK economy in the 1970s – which saw a once-proud Britain crawl cap-in-hand to the IMF – Ireland decided to embark on a strategy of monetary independence coupled with greater international economic interdependence. We broke the link with sterling and, while maintaining strong and friendly trading links with the UK, began to diversify our economic base more widely.

Membership of the euro in 1997 gave us access to a common currency area of 300 million people, a number now grown to more than 400 million. Since then, our population has increased from three million to 4.3 million. In my book The Best is Yet to Come, I draw a sad contrast between Ireland, where the all-island population will rise from more than six million to more than eight million by 2058, and Scotland, where population levels are falling and set to go below five million in the next few decades.

As well as increasingly positive interaction between its north and south, Ireland now enjoys excellent relations with the peoples of England, Scotland and Wales. The reason for this is the same as the reason why, even after our recession is over, we will remain one of Europe and the world's richest nations: we don't allow Westminster to appoint the likes of Mr Murphy to run our affairs.

• Marc Coleman is a former economist at the European Central Bank. He is economics editor of the Dublin radio station Newstalk.

DESPERATE TACTICS FROM REPUBLICANS SIGNAL OBAMA WIN

Sarah Palin. Has went way too far by linking Obama with terrorism.

I won't confess to having much interest in the US Presidential elections. There is very little difference between the Republicans and Democrats and whoever gets elected is unlikely to substantially change US policy worldwide.

The ignorant buffoon Bush has made America unpopular worldwide and yet he was elected for two terms, his folksy idiocy which the rest of the planet viewed with horror seemed (for the most part) to be just an indication that he was one of America's own.

I now confidently predict that Barack Obama will win the White House. The fairly smart and celebral McCain in an attempt to improve his image chose a young, inexperienced but attractive running mate to boost his credibility and give him the common god fearin' touch which served Bush well.

Unfortunately Sarah Palin is also a loud mouthed ignorant bigot. Her lack of knowledge of the outside world has been painfully obvious in her TV interviews and her harsh but carefully crafted sound bites haven't covered up her basic incompetence.

McCain had signalled that he was going to move into personal attack territory. However Palin has now severely overstepped the mark. Calling a presidential candidate a friend of terrorists is just too desperate to work.

This is the end of the McCain challenge as is forcefully argued here much of his appeal was that he seemed a bit different from the rest of the discredited Republican machine (people had became sick of Bush and his party eventually) but now his campaign has shown he will do and say anything to get elected. He's lost it and will now lose the election.

Comgratulations Obama. I hold no hope that you will do anything great but you can't be much worse than the last one.

KNIVE BROWN QUICK PETER AND DO US ALL A FAVOUR!

LABOUR became complacent about its power north of the border and should not have created a 'two jobs' Scottish Secretary, according to the new holder of the post. Jim Murphy, who was appointed to the Cabinet job on Friday, said Gordon Brown made a mistake when he hitched the job onto another Cabinet position...

http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/uk/Brown39s-39mistake39-over-Scottish-role.4559852.jp#3304121

Technically the Scottish Secretary post is supposed to be about representing Scotland's views in the cabinet. In fact it is actually a sort of colonial governor general type post where the UK Government tells the Scottish parliament it has it all wrong. Previously the Tory incumbents used to give the exact same message to the entire population and we know how that went down eventually.

Murphy clearly has a closed mind already. Was it ever open? Probably not. The SNP should avoid any meetings with this puppet of the desperate Brown. There is no need for a Scottish secretary post devolution. It's an utter irrelevance and could and should have been abolished some time ago.

Ex minister David Cairns always came across as a rather pompous squeaky puppy on newsnight while Des Browne (though a fairly normal human being in person) was effectively invisible in Scotland. He's now been dumped (one less Jock in the cabinet) and the desperate Murphy has been promoted well beyond his competence. I expect he will recycle all Gordon's garbage until he loses his seat at the UK elections. He certainly won't have any relevance to either the SNP or the Scottish people.

The return of Mandelson (soon to be followed by his fellow failure Blunkett, yes really!) shows that Brown is utterly desperate. Mandy will choose his moment to knive Gordon again and usher in a new English Tony, but one cannot say that this time Gordon won't deserve it.

He's had his chance and has used it to undermine his own country, basically made a complete fool of himself and wasted the last opportunity to turn Labour into a credible alternative to Toryism. I say a permanent good riddence to Brown and all his ilk. Knive him quick Peter and do us all a favour.

BETRAYAL OF BANK OF SCOTLAND CAN BE REVERSED

So the media would have us believe that HBOS (Halifax Bank of Scotland) was about to do a Northern Rock and collapse. It needed 'White Knight' Gordon Brown to ride in on his white horse and 'save' the bank by selling it at a tenth of it's value to one of it's major rivals.

I'm sorry but I just don't buy it. Luckily it's not over yet. Shareholders can save Bank of Scotland by rejecting this deal. HBOS share price would have recovered. It is actually a bigger more effective bank than Lloyds TSB with a larger market share. The Halifax merger may have weakened it but it had retained most of it's independence and the HQ was controlled in Edinburgh.

Instead we are looking at a new massive bank which will reduce competition be based in London (not Edinburgh) and will kill the Bank of Scotland's legacy as our only Scottish bank which has survived since the days of independence.

Brown brokered this 'deal' without regard to the Scottish national interest but I hope shareholders will feel differently about the future of the most important bank to the Scottish economy. I have my bank account, pension and mortgage all with the Bank of Scotland. If this deal goes through I will move the lot to RBOS and many others will do the same.

Banks 'belong' to the depositors and the staff not just the shareholders. The chief executive no doubt needs to go but the bank itself can and should survive. I feel nothing but disgust for the treatment of this ancient institution by BritGov, it will be remembered for a long, long time if this betrayal of Scotland goes through.

Count on it.

MEDIA BLACK OUT OF DISGUSTING 'F*CK 'EM' LORD SEB COE COMMENT

"The creation of the team [GB] has been opposed by the Football Associations of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland who are concerned it may compromise their individual status within Fifa.But he said the BOA, which selects teams for the Games, has decided to press ahead with a football squad despite the opposition.When asked last night about the opposition from the Welsh and Scots, Coe replied bluntly: “F*** em!”

==============================

See also the Tartan Army Board

http://taboard.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=82111

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

Thanks to Ray B. for passing on the above information. This story has been removed from the website of the paper concerned and Lord Coe has threatened legal action however since it appeared in the print media it seems unlikely that the paper simply invented it. Perhaps Coe made the remarks 'off the record' and trusted the journalists to keep schtum.

What is perhaps most surprising is that this story has not made the TV media AT ALL.

The whole issue has been blacked out despite the story appearing in both The London Paper and The Metro. Obviously if it turns out that the journalists concerned have made up the story then Coe will escape censure however an urgent investigation needs to happen immediately because if true it is clear that his position is completely untenable.

The Scottish and Welsh national football teams are functionally independent. Since both are completely opposed to a British team neither the English FA nor the British Government can force through a British Olympic Football Team under those circumstances. To do so could seriously compromise future Scottish and Welsh involvement in The World Cup and European Championships. (Is this actually the game plan of 'the Anti-Scot' Gordon Brown?).

Lord Sebastian Coe seems to think that not only can a team GB be forced through against our own FA's express wishes but that he can insult Scotland and Wales with impunity. Clearly his alleged remarks have been blacked out of the British media altogether which suggests that the powers that be believe this story is just too embarassing to break.

Luckily the power of the internet is such nowadays that this won't work. Personally I believe that Coe has reacted as reported. No doubt he didn't mean his remarks to be widely circulated as it would inevitably mean his job however the almost imperialist attitude that Scotland and Wales simply DO NOT COUNT are the political consequence of joining in an unequal union with a country that in our case is eleven times larger and in Wales case 20 times.

Brown forgets Scotland and HBOS in conference speech

Given that this guy is an ultra unionist this is a damning indictment of Gordon Brown's relevance to Scotland:

Brown has forgotten his Scottish roots

by Angus Macleod, Scottish Political Editor (Times)

Anyone in Glenrothes watching Gordon Brown's big speech yesterday might have been excused for wondering what it had to do with them. Granted there were touches of the well-worn pulpit-thumping Brown style familiar to all Scots, but equally there were large swaths of the speech, on crime and health policy for example, which, because of devolution, had absolutely no relevance to the good citizens of the Fife town or anywhere else north of the Border.

Free universal check-ups for the over-40s? Extension of nursery places? No prescription charges for cancer patients? A commissioner for victims of crime? More children connected to the internet? All England and Wales only, I'm afraid.

It was a speech that underlined just how wide the domestic policy divide between Scotland and England is nowadays, especially when the party in charge in Edinburgh is different from the government in London.

Whereas Scots already have cheaper prescriptions for all, England gets free prescriptions for cancer patients in a year's time. While Scotland already has free personal care of the elderly, England, the Prime Minister pledged, is to get more financial protection for the vulnerable elderly.

The only policy initiatives mentioned by Brown yesterday that could truly be said to be UK-wide was his promised future restoration of the link between state pensions and earnings and his never-ending fight against child poverty.

On flexible opening of GPs' surgeries and new targets for curbing carbon emissions, Brown is actually catching up with the SNP administration at Holyrood.

Indeed, this very Scottish Prime Minister, apart from one glancing reference, hardly mentioned Scotland at all. He also completely ignored Alex Salmond and the SNP as if they didn't exist. Unfortunately for him, they do - and right now only the most optimistic Labour fan of Brown would bet against the Nationalists inflicting another crushing and possibly politically terminal by-election defeat on both him and Labour in a Scottish by-election in a few weeks' time.

Having said that, there were many in Labour in Scotland who will feel uplifted by Brown's rhetoric and his sermon on “fairness”. It could hardly be otherwise, perhaps. Morale in Labour north of the Border is on the floor. But the “new settlement for new times” theme of the speech will be a difficult message to sell in Glenrothes after 11 years of a Labour Government dominated by Brown and Blair, when the big issues remain food and fuel bills.

These Labour troops in Scotland will have been thrilled as much as activists in England by Brown's assault on David Cameron and the Tories. The trouble is that north of the Border, Cameron's Tories are little more than also-rans.

Nor was there any specific mention of the travails of HBOS, a strange miss given that Brown, by at last ditching his dithering last week and taking decisive action to override competition rules, could make a fair case for having saved the day for the bank. Maybe he's keeping that for a rainy day in Glenrothes. Of course, that's if he decides to go there and campaign, as an increasing number in his party in Scotland believe he must.

A failure to do so would be seen not only by his own party but also by the wider Scottish public as a complete failure of leadership from a Prime Minister who only yesterday told us that he was the right person to lead Britain through the present economic jungle. It would be a Godsend for the Nationalists who could start contemplating the size of their majority. Prime ministerial convention that the office-holder does not get his hands dirty in a by-election campaign is one thing. Prime ministerial survival is quite another. Absence will not make the hearts of Glenrothes voters grow fonder of Brown.

SHAREHOLDERS CAN STILL SAVE OUR BANK

Listening to the podcast of the exchanges in the Scottish Parliament on Thursday (18/09) it was obvious that there was wide spread shock and dismay across all parties at the possible final elimination of Bank of Scotland as an independent bank.

This process began of course with the merger with Halifax to create HBOS but the Bank had survived that and despite dubious financial speculation by some it remained a powerful player.

Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling have been at pains to deny any efforts to save Scottish jobs, not that this was ever in doubt. Personally I believe that Mr Brown welcomes the demise of Bank of Scotland, in fact he believes he deserves substantial credit for engineering the takeover! This shows a certain mindset where the Union Jack is all important and Scottish interests are subsumed to the 'greater good' of the British economy.

The rules have been changed to stop 'short selling' but it is too little to late and one wonders why it was not felt necessary to do so before this potential disaster for the Scottish economy had happened.

The Bank of England are also seemingly happy with the deal but any shareholder or employee of the Company must be deeply disappointed, not to mention HBOS's millions of depositors!

Mr Brown has inadvertently illustrated the urgent need for Scottish independence. An independent Government might not have saved this national bank but they would certainly have tried to do so, rather than cheering this disastrous deal.

Luckily the Bank can still save itself. If only 25% of their shareholders hold their nerve and reject this insulting offer then HBOS will survive as a separate entity.

If they do then the long term prognosis is good despite the panic and hypocrisy of the Bank of England and the British Government who appear to believe this well funded well capitalised bank was on the brink of collapse even though their own Financial Services Authority completely disagreed!

IMPORTANT NOTICE: INDEPENDENCE FIRST DEBATE

IMPORTANT NOTICE: Independence First are organising an important debate about the case for and against Scottish independence with MSP speakers from the SNP, Greens and Labour and leading Scottish academics. The debate will be held at the STUC premises, 333 Woodlands Road, Glasgow on Saturday the 13th of September, 1pm - 4pm (registration 12.30pm onwards). Contact Carol Walker for more information.

British Citizenship did nothing for Gary McKinnon

A Scots computer hacker, Gary McKinnon is being deported to the US. McKinnon who suffers from Asbergers syndrome is likely to receive 70 years for 'terrorism' offences.

In actual fact all he did was expose some lapses in US security in his search for cover-ups on alien encounters. As a British citizen you would expect McKinnon would receive some support from his home Government.

No, Britain decided that it couldn't care less about the Scot. The US was much more important to them and they couldn't care less if his rights to a fair trial were breached.

Sadly that attitude was also shared by the European Court of Human Rights.

It's clear that in McKinnon's case British citizenship was worth nothing.

Perhaps it's time to give Scotland a shot at representing Scots abroad.

Chris Hoy: Proud to be part of a Scottish Olympic Team

Exclusive: Scotland can stand alone at Olympics.. with enough investment, says Chris Hoy

Aug 27 2008 By Joanne Curran (Daily Record)

TRIPLE gold medal hero Chris Hoy last night said he'd be proud to be part of a Scottish Olympic team. The Edinburgh cyclist rubbished reports that he thought the idea was "ridiculous".

Speaking exclusively to the Record, he told of his pride in his home country. And he said he believes Scotland could form a world-class team - with the right investment in sports.

Chris was given a hero's welcome when he landed back in Britain on Monday after winning three golds in Beijing. But the 32-year-old said: "I feel a bit upset that I have been quoted as saying the idea of a Scottish Olympic team is ridiculous.

"If and when a Scottish team was put together, I would be delighted to represent Scotland in the Olympic Games. But before that happens, so much needs to be done for the athletes to be able to compete at the highest level. As a cyclist, there isn't a facility in Scotland where I can train throughout the year and that's why I have to base myself outside Scotland."

"I am proud to be Scottish, but at the same time it's not feasible to think we can compete as a nation without the right facilities."

Chris - on his way home to an emotional reunion in Edinburgh with lawyer girlfriend Sarra - said major investment would be needed to make a Scottish team successful. He said: "Right now, around £20million a year is being invested in British cycling so there would be a huge investment required in Scotland."

He backed the campaign to save Edinburgh's Meadowbank stadium, where he trained as a young athlete. Today, crowds will line Edinburgh's Royal Mile to salute Chris and Scotland's other medal-winners - cyclist Ross Edgar, 25, rower Katherine Grainger, 32, and canoeist David Florence, 26.

A proud moment from political Olympic history

At the 1906 Athens Games, the Irish Gaelic Athletic Association sent a national Irish team, including Peter O'Connor, whose world record in the long jump stood for 20 years. But when they got to Athens, the British objected to having separate Irish representation and the party were allowed to compete only as part of the British team.

However, O'Connor, an Irish patriot, got his own back. At the medal ceremony for the long jump, he scaled the flag pole, pulled down the Union flag, and hoisted the green flag of Eire. Officials who tried to stop him were held off by Irish and Irish-American athletes and supporters.

This is from an interesting article from George Kerevan it was up in full but sadly the people at the Scotsman are now excluding it from public view.

Lazy assumptions about John Mason don't add up

"The SNP man in Glasgow this time is one John Mason, a local accountant and councillor who has been dubbed John "Whatever-his-name-is" owing to his unimpressive demeanour."

Ian MacWhirter, writing in the Guardian.

What a shame Ian MacWhirter repeats the same rubbish about John Mason that his colleagues in London have written. Unlike the bitter careerist Curran (whose TV manner is truly awful by the way) Mason has a track record of service to the area as a Councillor which is second to none. Margo MacDonald and Jim Sillars [who MacWhirters refers to as a comparison] are both tremendously talented individuals, unusually so and far more competent than any existing Labour MP, however Margo has already stated that Mason is an excellent candidate and in fact she claimed the SNP was holding him back (still as an independent you might expect her to say that).

I find it rather sad that MacWhirter would join the London hack pack dazzled by the celebrity of Alex Salmond and ignore the fact that Mason has answered all questions honestly and succinctly. Unlike Curran he has made no gaffes. His opinion on a referendum is shared with every other member of the SNP and any leader who ignored his view would not be leader for long.

Salmond is a powerful asset and the SNP are right to use him upfront in their campaign, anything else would be distinctly odd but their candidate is entirely competent and obviously honest. That will be a rarity for Glasgow East given the expenses scandal which was about to engulf their last MP. David Marshall was good at keeping his money and expenses within his immediate family but he was less successful in standing up for the interests of the people in the area. (There are obviously pockets of deprivation however when I went there on Saturday I don't think it seemed substantially different from any other area in Scotland, certainly no worse than where I live just now. I have tended to live in Labour supporting seats all my life, and from my own experience their vote is soft because it is based on a mistaken assumption, that Labour care what the working classes think, when in reality they don't).

These grim coupons say it all!

Margaret Curren lied about living in the East End all her life. She put out a letter to her proposed future constituents that she didn't even bother to read! She hypocritically says she can do two jobs after attacking Salmond for his own joint role. (I'm sure as Labour leader, which she will no doubt be rewarded with if she wins she will find it handy to get her orders from London based Labour MP's and then take them back to her MSP colleagues).

She pretended she was standing beside a 93 year old war veteran when in fact it was a Labour activist. Her only celebrity endoresement is a man who bwelieves the UK is dead and buried. Her campaign has been utterly disastrous and Labour have lied about having two thousand activists on the street when in reality they can barely muster 200.

If this is a great campaign with a competent candidate give me some of the drugs you are on Ian! If Labour win it will be because they have successfully pulled the wool over the people's eyes yet again but you can't fool al lthe people all the time. Their day of reckoning will come.

John Mason said there was no difference between Gordon Brown and David Cameron, how right he was. Both Labour and Tories want to stigmatise the unemployed and make them scrub the streets and pick up litter! Socialist values? Labour don't know the meaning of it and they haven't done for years. The best jobs they can provide are making their biometric ID cards so repressive regimes across the world can spy on their citizens. Wow!

The SNP are well to the left of Labour and they are proudly Scottish. When Labour attack Mason (by putting his face on their leaflets, which suggests despite their spin they do regard him as a serious candidate) for saying he wants to break up the UK they should realise that most people in Glasgow East are not actually as proud of the union as they are. In fact at the last census no less than 96 per cent chose to say they were Scottish rather than British, more than in any other Scottish constituency! Britishness is dead just like the 'socialist principles' of Nu Labour. Hopefully Glasgow East's voters will give Labour the kicking they deserve at the ballot box on Thursday.

If however the worst happens, Curran scrapes through and wins and is subsequently elected Labour's Scottish Leader I can't imagine a greater gift for Alex Salmond. The press can maintain she is wonderful all they like but the reality is that Wendy was at least personable on TV even if she was a poor tactician.

The abysmal attacks in this by-election on the SNP (which have all the hallmarks of being dreamt up by a delusional David Cairns MP) would be easily slapped down in the Scottish parliament. SNP are tartan Tories, oh really! SNP want independence, what a shock! SNP would keep trying after a referendum, good God I thought they would all go home!

This is political ABC and shows that Labour thinks the voters in glasgow are thick as mince. They are not and this rubbish can't sustain any serious politician and one who doesn't read her own leaflets isn't serious or committed to any genuine change. "I will phone Alastair Darling and ask him to change policy!" Gee, Maggie don't you have a phone in your MSP's office?
The reality is Curren would be lobby fodder just like David Marshall. Marshall voted against greater financial transparency at Westminster (what a shock!), he was in favour of ID cards despite saying "I remain concerned about the compulsory nature of the scheme and the cost. People living on benefits are genuinely poor and are unlikely to be able to afford the costs" yet he still voted for it. What a surprise! He also supported the Government over foundation hospitals, top up fees and 42 days detention.

Want an MP with a spine? Vote SNP!

Labour have sold out their traditional supporters

Letter to the Editor (Daily Record and others)

Sir,

Isn't it ironic that in the same week the Labour party savaged the SNP's John Mason for daring to suggest that there is little difference between their party and the Tories they themselves have provided the direct evidence?

Labour have now decided that the long term unemployed should be treated as criminals who must be sent out in work gangs to pick up litter and clean up chewing gum. This 'bright idea' was originally drawn up by David Cameron's Conservative party.

David Cameron is the same man who recently told the voters of Glasgow East that the poor and sick (and fat people, just for good measure) only had themselves to blame.

New Labour don't support the poor or the working classes or trade unionists. They are the tools of the rich and powerful, just like the Conservatives. Anyone who believes otherwise is either completely foolish or deliberately deluding themselves or both.

Wake up Scotland! We can do a lot better than this bunch of soulless hypocrites or their Tory pals but we need normal powers over our own country to do it.

Yours faithfully,

JOE MIDDLETON

The reality and the lies of Glasgow East by-election

Fantasy

East Enders will rewrite the script

http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/opinion/Kenny-Farquharson-East-Enders-will.4306214.jp

Glasgow East is not about independence (he hopes! by Brian Wilson)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/07/20/do2005.xml

Reality

They would have employed a Monkey (inside Labour's campaign - brilliant!)

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article4362917.ece