COMPASS - THE LAST LABOUR GOVERNMENT

Compass think-tank warns that a Cameron victory could mean political oblivion for Labour

Tory plans for fewer MPs, reforms cutting Labour's link to the unions and Scottish independence would be 'final blow' to the party

by Toby Helm [Whitehall editor The Observer, Sunday 27 September 2009]

Gordon Brown could be leading the last-ever Labour government unless he offers people a chance to change the voting system at the next general election, a prominent leftwing pressure group warns today.

In a doom-laden assessment of the party's prospects ahead of this week's Labour conference in Brighton, the influential thinktank Compass predicts that a Conservative victory would be just the first disaster David Cameron's party would inflict on Labour.

Armed with new polling evidence, it argues in a report to be released at conference that the party would face a triple assault under the Tories that could slash its number of seats at Westminster from 349 at present to a rump of around 130 in opposition.

The collapse of its Westminster representation, Compass argues, is likely because of a greater chance of Scottish independence if the Tories, who are less popular north of the border, came to power.

At a stroke, Scottish independence would strip Labour of its 41 Scottish seats in Westminster. It also predicts the loss of up to 45 more Labour seats as a result of Cameron's plan to cut the overall number of MPs by 10%.

The final blow to its viability as a governing party of the future would come as a result of likely Tory reforms to party funding, which Compass believes would break the historic link between Labour and the trade unions and further destabilise an organisation which is heavily in debt and has a sharply declining membership base.

The report, entitled "The Last Labour Government", says: "These three factors could then combine to ensure that an already intellectually and organisationally weak party fails to ever recover."

Polling conducted for Compass by YouGov to accompany the report shows that, if the Conservatives win power, 34% of the Scottish electorate will be more like to vote Yes in the referendum on independence promised by the SNP by the end of 2010.

The polling shows that 31% of Scots would currently back independence and 53% oppose it. But the extra 34% who say they might be swayed to support a split if the Tories came to power could tilt the balance in favour. "This could be enough to see a Yes vote through," Compass argues.

It predicts that Tory plans to cut the number of Westminster seats by 65 will hit Labour hardest of all the main parties because the biggest reduction will be in areas which have seen population flight, including Labour strongholds in Wales and the industrial heartlands.

Compass argues that the only hope of avoiding catastrophe would be a referendum on voting reform, which could be a "game changer". "It is now the only way for the party not just to avoid crushing defeat but the strong chance that it will never govern again."

It says the offer of a fairer voting system would draw people to Labour and allow it to paint the Tories – who are strongly opposed to ditching "first past the post" – as opposed to reform of a political system severely discredited by the scandal over MPs' expenses: "A referendum moves the party from zero chance of the Tories not losing next May to striking distance of a hung parliament and Labour being the biggest single party. The decision could decide not just Labour's future for one or two parliaments, not even for a generation, but for ever."

Brown is known to be considering offering a referendum on voting reform, possibly in the party's election manifesto. While some senior cabinet ministers, including home secretary Alan Johnson, are pressing the case strongly, others such as Ed Balls, the schools secretary, have serious reservations.

In particular, Balls and chief whip Nick Brown oppose the idea of holding a vote on the same day as the general election, arguing that it will look like gerrymandering, confuse voters and distract from the government's central election message on the economy. Ratcheting up the pressure on Brown, Compass says that Labour desperately needs a "game changer; a policy that wakes up the electorate".

A recent survey by YouGov for the Electoral Reform Society showed that around 30% of Liberal Democrats and 30% of Labour-inclined voters would be more likely to plump for Labour if a referendum on electoral reform was promised.

"Now everyone who wants the party to win, or at least to keep out the Tories, must be able to see the prize of backing a referendum and the dangers of refusing to do so: potential political oblivion," says Compass chairman Neal Lawson.

On party funding, the report says: "The party is already heavily reliant on the unions and could be more so if in opposition. But the Tories, with a healthy majority and a fresh mandate, could easily introduce new funding rules to cut off union funds while allowing business and personal funding to flow and they will be much harder to regulate. The evidence is there that this is exactly what they will do.

"The Conservative argument has been that a donation cap of £50,000 is necessary to restrict influence of companies, individuals and trade unions. Under current legislation, trade union affiliation payments – the collective membership payment of ordinary members – are counted as donations to the party. For the purposes of a donation cap, each trade union would be treated as a single individual within the cap.

"This could end the ability of trade unions to affiliate to the party, ending the relationship that has sustained social progress throughout the last century. Labour without a secure funding basis would find it almost impossible to renew itself."

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

Published on the first day of Labour conference 2009, this report argues that the current Labour Government could well be the very last and argues only a referendum on the electoral system can save Labour now.

Download it here.

I added the following comment:

All I can say is good! Labour have wasted their years in power and an independent Scotland will be able to escape from the stifling right wing consensus which exists in Britain. With Britain gone Wales would emerge as an independent country and Cornwall would move in that direction with perhaps devolution initially. NI is unlikely to want to be part of England though one never knows but the chances of re-unification with Eire would be more likely.

Without Britain's imperial pretensions and Scotland's Oil an independent England would likely drop Trident (the Scottish people don't want nuclear submarines and an SNP Government would ask for them to be removed.)

England would initially get the right wing Government which they will get anyway under Britain and have suffered to an extent under Labour anyway, but the pendulum might shift back again and this time there might be an actual socialist party in existence ready to make reforms. There isn't one at the moment as Labour are a busted flush who rely on the House of Lords for their ministers and whose MP's are almost as corrupt as the Tories.

Yes to electoral reform but no Labour won't go for it and in any case Scotland has a much brighter future without the obstacle of Britain.

Scotland isn't at the next climate change conference 'because that is the way it has always been done', things need to change. Joe Middleton, Edinburgh.

Cornwall is a Country

Why Cornwall (Kernow) deserves it's independence just like the other Celtic countries. Some might wish to settle for devolution but devolution only ever get's offered if you put the foot on the pedal for independence. Ignore the most logical option of independence and Britain will give you nothing.

Freedom for the Stateless Nations of Europe : CONSEU

This is one of a number of vids where the sound was muted due to a copyright issue, I challenged this and sound has returned, at least for the moment! It's about an international conference for stateless nations and it was very interesting and educational to hear about other countries experiences.

Scottish Independence - Think About It...

I did this video a while ago, soon it will have been viewed by 7000 people.

Scotland Independent? Joe Middleton on BBC Radio (Part one)

Panel discussion on BBC Radio 5 live just after last elections.

Scotland: Joe Middleton on our right to vote for Scots Independence

Britain (UK) is History. Scotland forever! Independence Now!

The New Video!

Speaking Our Language Episode 1 part 1 - Learn Gaelic

I didn't realise this excellent programme was on youtube, but it is! Until the DVD comes out (or you can hunt up an elusive VHS tape) this is the best option to learn Gaelic.

Mandy's daft remarks are no dafter than his position!

Peter Mandelson's description of himself as 'a Kindly Pussycat' (various reports today) is certainly absurd and ridiculous, however it is no more absurd or ridiculous than a supposed 'Labour' Government using the honour system to advance people above their own elected MP's!

Bonnie Prince Charlie was in Scotland's corner

Over the years there have been many letters to the Scotsman claiming that the Jacobite rebellion had no connection whatsoever to the struggle for Scottish independence. The facts are however that Charles Stuart and his followers fought under the Saltire while his opponents fought under the Union Jack.

Charlie is also remembered for uttering the memorable phrase "I hereby declare the union between Scotland and England dissolved."

We also know that the line about crushing "rebellious Scots" was added to the British National anthem shortly after the Jacobite rebellion and the same year England's parliament suddenly decided that it now owned both Berwick and Wales!

No doubt there were some who called themselves Scots who welcomed the actions of the British Army at Culloden and the butchery and oppression (wearing Tartan was banned for 36 years!) that followed their victory but then again we know that today there are still those who put their own country last.

That does not mean they can re-write history however. Yes, Charles Stuart was interested in his father's English throne as well as the Scots one but he was also determined to restore Scottish independence.

It was on that basis that our Gaelic ancesters followed him and it is why he retains an affectionate niche in Scots history. Charlie might have failed but at least he was on the 'right side'. That's more than the 'Scotsman' can say today!

SCOTTISH PARLIAMENT MOTION SALUTES MEBYON KERNOW SUCCESS

An SNP member of the Scottish Parliament (MSP) has proposed a motion in the Scottish Parliament congratulating Mebyon Kernow, the Party for Cornwall on their election result in the local authority elections.

Kenneth Gibson, a member of the Scottish Nationalist Party (SNP) representing the constituency of Cunninghame North, introduced the motion on the 9th July 2009.

The motion also supports MK's call for the establishment of a Cornish Assembly.

The full text of the motion can be found below.

S3M-04321 Kenneth Gibson (Cunninghame North) (Scottish National Party):

Mebyon Kernow, The Party for Cornwall

"That the Parliament congratulates Mebyon Kernow (MK), the Party for Cornwall, on winning three seats in the 4 June 2009 local authority elections, three more than the Labour party; considers Cornwall to be a unique and historic nation with its own culture, traditions and Celtic language, Kernowek, now undergoing a revival; considers that MK is a progressive party campaigning for greater Cornish self-government and a just, fair, sustainable, prosperous, more confident, inclusive and outward-looking Cornwall; supports MK's call for the establishment of a Cornish assembly, and wishes it every success in fighting for a better deal for all the people of Cornwall."

It Takes a Nation of Millions to Hold Us Back

Bella Caledonia on a 'British' Football Team.

"England will run out at Hampden Park representing ‘Britain’ in 2012. What a depressing end to Gordon Browns dreadful attempt to stoke up Britpop-New Labour and the Imperial End Game at the fag-end of Blighty. Thatcher, Blair and now Brown are the haggard smokers outside the pub still heaving away at the last fag of British identity. This is the last shameful wheezzie gasp, achievable only by the self-colonisation and collusion of the Scottish Football Association."

The full article from the above link is excellent. Highly recommended. JOE

Calman shows the limitations of British rule

Letter to the Editor
The Scotsman

11/06/2009

Sir,

So Sir Kenneth Calman's unionist commission has decided the future of
devolution. Rather than have a 3p rate that no-one wants to use, instead
we will get a 10p rate that no-one wants to use. What a visionary man
Sir Kenneth must be!

As we all know Calman's commission was set up by the unionist parties to
preserve the status quo. That is exactly what this proposal is intended
to achieve.

Is this is the best deal Britain can offer Scotland? If so it shows the
limitations of a continued union between three and a quarter countries
with very different political positions.

We Scots will eventually have a choice on the one logical option that
Calman has desperately tried to avoid. That choice is the normal
national and international powers of independence.

Calman's commission has proven that there is not one iota of national
pride or genuine Scottish interest in any of the British parties.

While this won't come as any shock to anyone, it will not stop the
ongoing rise of the SNP who are much clearer about the country whose
interests they represent.

Yours faithfully,

JOE MIDDLETON

SNP plan for independence is the only chance to avoid Tory Government

Letter to the Editor
The Herald

11/06/2009

Sir,

I note that in today's edition of the Herald, when reporting on the SNP
and Plaid Cymru's call to dissolve the UK parliament, that your reporter
claims that Labour's Peter Hain "scored a direct hit" on the SNP's Pete
Wishart when he claimed the real SNP agenda was to get a Tory
government.

You report: Mr Wishart said the last thing Scotland wanted was a
Conservative government. "Is he then saying he prefers a Labour
government?" asked Mr Hain.

If this represents a 'direct hit' it is on the logic of your paper's
pro-union position not on the policies or position of the SNP.

The SNP support independence for Scotland. Labour support the Union. It
is very clear from the English local elections and the European
elections that Labour cannot possibly win against The Conservatives in
England.

We are therefore looking at the almost certain prospect of a UK
Conservative Government, even if they actually have a minority of
support.

This is partly because Labour has upheld the discredited First Past the
Post system but mainly because they have wasted their entire term in
Government by pandering to the rich rather than supporting their 'ain
folk'.

Independence offers an opportunity to escape right wing Government from
England whether by the Labour or Conservative party. Mr Hain is a
hypocrite and his party is dead in the water.

This new situation is something your paper might want to wake up to if
it wishes to remain relevant to the people of Scotland.

Yours faithfully,

Joe Middleton

MEBYON KERNOW OUTPOLL LABOUR IN CORNWALL

Mebyon Kernow polls 7% in Cornwall and pushes the Labour Party into sixth place

Mebyon Kernow – the Party for Cornwall has achieved its best-ever ‘national’ election result in the elections to the European Parliament. MK polled 11,534 votes (7% of the total) in the Cornwall part of the South West Euro-constituency, pushing the Labour Party into sixth place in the Duchy.

In many places in Mid and West Cornwall, MK was polling over 10%. When votes from the Isles of Scilly, Gibraltar and throughout the massive South West seat (including Bristol, Devon, Dorset, Gloucestershire, Somerset and Wiltshire) were added in, the MK total finished at 14,922.
Party Leader Cllr Dick Cole, who has just been elected onto Cornwall Council, described the result as a fantastic one for MK. He said: “Achieving 7% of the vote in Cornwall and out-polling the Labour Party is a truly fantastic result for Mebyon Kernow and we would like to thank the thousands of people who voted for the Party for Cornwall.

“MK fully accepts that the odds were heavily stacked against us in this contest. But we are a party of principle and we stood in this election because we wanted to give local people the opportunity to vote for Cornwall.

“We are even more pleased with the result given that we were denied fair access to television broadcasts and there was a general lack of election coverage in the local press in Cornwall.”
In order to be allowed party election broadcasts, MK would have had to stand candidates in nine regions. Due to this unfair arrangement, MK were denied media coverage, though many minor parties including the BNP, Christian Party, the Jury Team, Libertas, No2EU and Socialist Labour were allowed coverage.

The Green Party and UKIP were both allowed two European election broadcasts, as well as one each for the local elections. MK had more local election candidates than the Greens and UKIP but were not allowed coverage because we do not stand outside of Cornwall.

At the same time, there was very little coverage of the European election in local newspapers and MK had little opportunity to feature on reports on local television.

Mebyon Kernow – the Party for Cornwall can also confirm that it will be making representations to recover the £5,000 deposit that it was forced to pay to stand in the Euro-elections.

Cllr Dick Cole added:

“Parties polling over 2.5% of the vote automatically get the deposit back. As a Cornish Party, we only campaigned in Cornwall and polled 7% of the votes cast in Cornwall, though in the massive South West seat this equates to 1% of the overall poll.

“We are a unique party and it is hardly our fault that we have to stand in a massive constituency of which Cornwall makes up only 10%.

“As we only distributed literature within Cornwall, we believe that there is a strong moral case for the money to be returned to MK to support our ongoing campaigns for a better deal for the people of Cornwall.”

The main results of the European Election in Cornwall was as follows:

Conservative Party 46,589
UKIP 39,954
Liberal Democrats 29,436
Green Party 13,361
Mebyon Kernow 11,534
Labour Party 8,483

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.