The Remains of the Day (novel) by Kazuo Ishiguro

This is a bit outside the normal preoccupations of this blog but I thought I would share it with you all anyway. I managed to get my first tutor marked assessment done today so I am quite pleased. This isn't related btw, it is a posting/review to my OU group.

I thought I might share with the group a recent experience of reading a novel which indicates to me personally what might be achievable when writing.

I had a transatlantic phone call some time ago with my brother in Virginia. He mentioned that he had recently seen the film ‘The Remains of the Day’ with Anthony Hopkins. I think he might have said he had watched it again, because I seem to remember him talking about it before.

“It’s a wonderful film” he said. “Hopkins is fantastic in it, he subtlely seems to portray a sort of reserved inner sorrow. Emma Thompson is wonderful as well.”

He said more of course than this, but such is my memory of the incident.

“Oh yes,” I said “I have the book. I think you mentioned it before, I’ll have to see it sometime.”

At that point I meant to obtain the film and indeed I might have, or I may have just seen the trailer. I can think of the characters, and I can think of a number of incidents from it however I have just read the book and now I am no longer sure!

I had been to an interview yesterday. It was for a job I have always wanted and my preparation was quite intense. I have no idea if I will be successful, certainly I hope so but it is the nature of interviews to be confusing and I have my doubts. The field was cut from sixty two to ‘twelve strong candidates’, all of whom are being interviewed and one out of twelve is not the best odds!

Anyway, that doesn’t really have much bearing on my story, however I was lying in bed, sweating a bit, the temperature seemed to have changed and I turned my pillow as it was wet. Sharon was turning over, and said sleepily:

“Are you all right?”

“I think I’ll get up”, I said “I feel a bit restless.”

I had actually been lying awake for some time mulling things over, the past interview and other related ideas.

Anyway I jumped up, pulled on a pair of jeans and a T-shirt and wandered through to the living room. There I sat and looked around and my eye was drawn to the book ‘The Remains of the Day’ by Kazuo Ishiguro.

I took it down from the bookcase. I had bought it some time ago from a second hand shop for a few pounds. Perhaps it was before seeing the movie, perhaps it was afterwards, I only know that for a while as I read the book the faces of Anthony Hopkins and Emma Thompson would swim into mind as I read the dialogue.

I’ll give it a go I thought, as I settled onto the couch, I was intrigued by the subject matter and that the writer was of Japanese origin, given that the story is about the inner machinations of an English butler.

[Strangely enough I reached this point in writing and suddenly stopped, I thought I’ll just read my emails! I think this would have interrupted my flow fatally so I will carry on regardless! The emails can wait.]

The story is of a butler named Stevens and his relationship with his employer and fellow staff in a large English mansion from the 1920’s onwards. Stevens prides himself on his professionalism and his decorum, his essential ‘dignity’ which he believes marks him out as a true gentleman’s gentleman. On a road trip to meet up with an old colleague Stevens looks back at his time in service and reflects on his life and his theories about being a great butler.

He relates his story in the first person and we gradually realise that in amongst his colourful reminiscences there is more than meets the eye. How this is revealed is very subtle and the descriptions of the surrounding characters are quite extraordinarily well done.

Stevens’s father in particular is very ably portrayed. He is an uptight emotionless man who nonetheless Stevens is tremendously proud of and who he imitates, to his own folly. Stevens relates one incident in particular which gives the audience a measure of his father’s character and it is perhaps my favourite part of the book, relying as it does on action to illustrate the man.

There are many such moments however. I started the book in the early hours of this morning and I had finished it by about 11am with a break of a few hours sleeping in between.

The quality of the prose is really quite lovely and the only thing to touch it to my mind is George MacDonald’s Fraser’s ‘Mr American’. That novel is very different but it is also beautifully written with a tug of nostalgia towards a forgotten age (in this case the American west) and is superior in my mind to his wildly successful ‘Flashman’ novels, even though I do rather enjoy them as well.

The Remains of the Day contains timeless themes, of love, of regrets, of a sense of wasted opportunities and it really is a quite marvellous novel. On the face of it Stevens is a blinkered fool and his boss is a deluded Nazi puppet, but when one understands the background to their characters a much more complex picture emerges.

Stevens’s employer, Lord Darlington, can’t quite understand anti German feeling. He sees the Germans as honourable foes who were harshly treated after World War one was over. So far so good, but later he extends this sympathy and sense of decency towards the later German state and fails to realise the real threat that Hitler poses.

[Another film which covers similar themes of war, honour and modernity and is also quite fantastic is Michael Powell and Emeric Pressburger’s ‘The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp’. All their films are superb but Blimp is particularly satisfying.]

Stevens’s convictions that “great affairs must be left to great men” is entirely outside what we believe to be correct in the modern age. His class bound ethos blinds him to the poor treatment he receives personally and to the faults of his employer while his emotionless behaviour restricts his life. Stevens’s father works in the same household and their attitudes to each other are revealing.

Nonetheless, he does appear to have a great personal dignity (many of the people he meets on his travels mistake him for a landed gentleman himself) and we sympathise with his behaviour because we can see that the son has followed in the footsteps of the father. Stevens is a real character and his actions are utterly consistent with that character. He is completely and utterly believable and he holds the entire novel together.

It occurs to me that this is what we should aspire to as writers. To create a work which is utterly gripping, which may be quite outside our normal experience, but nonetheless is recognisably authentic on both an emotional and practical level.

The amount of research that must have gone into this book has to have been absolutely tremendous yet it flows effortlessly and there is not a word within it that seems to be superfluous. Little nuggets of humour add to the whole experience. It is a quite tremendous feat and even if we don’t achieve such heights ourselves nonetheless the example provided here is very inspiring.

15 Years on - What was the impact of Braveheart?

IN THE basement screening room of a New York hotel, a small group of international journalists – Scots, Russians, Japanese, Germans and Australians – is waiting for Mel Gibson to arrive. We've just watched Braveheart (a Blu-ray version will be released on 2 November, exactly 15 years after the original), witnessing Gibson's William Wallace slashing and burning his way through English subjugation and straight into the heart of Scotland's iconography.

http://news.scotsman.com/entertainment/Interview-Mel-Gibson.5762142.jp

Mel's interview is interesting. He doesn't add much to the story that we don't already know but Scottish nationalism undoubtedly owes his film a debt of gratitude of some sort.

Not because it was historically accurate (it wasn't, the battle of Stirling Bridge, is missing er... a bridge) but because it raised the profile of William Wallace Scotland's greatest historic hero who laid the way for Robert Bruce's ultimate victory at Bannockburn.

Is that still relevant? Yes, because if we had been beaten then, then the union would have been brought forward by 400 years and it wouldn't have been a union but a total annexation. We might now be sitting in a country called England.

The viewpoints at the end are disappointing, my remarks are in brackets:

Viewpoint Pat Kane: Musician and writer

Is Scottish independence worth it if its narrative is face-painted blue, bares its collective arse at all critics, dreams fondly of its own guerrilla movement and renders the English as collectively either doltish, sadist or effete?

(Yes, independence is worth it no matter what any film says and to imagine that the film in any way reflects modern Scottish nationalism is both absurd and ridiculous. It's a piece of entertainment and yes it reflects a crude sense of humour at times but so what? The political boost was raising awareness of our history and historical figures. Yes at times in our history Scots had to fight to gain independence. Without that win, there would have been no Declaration of Arbroath and possibly less civil rights around the world. For the first time Scotland said, we are in charge, not the King. Considering the times it was declared this is utterly remarkable.)

Every time the SNP does one of its dumb appropriations of Mel Gibson's neo-fascist tartan epic, even an independence supporter like me sinks lower in his chair.

Gibson has subsequently shown himself to be one of the weirder Hollywood movie-makers, seemingly in love with blood sacrifice, one way or another. Isn't it time we consigned the brutal dualisms of this movie to the dustbin of Scottish memory?

It's no surprise that European and American neo-Nazis take it as an inspiration. And as Scottish independence – if and when it comes – will be a matter of mastering the complexities of politics, law and economics, the last thing we need is the stench of Gibson's macho and xenophobic version of national liberation in our nostrils. Sorry, compatriots: Braveheart no more.

(To compare today with any historical movie is absurd, and it is just a film, after all. Let's remember that the real William Wallace was fighting for Scotland in very different times and he actually died for our nation. Mel's film might not entirely reflect the man but it does offer a moving tribute to his spirit. It deserves some respect for that.)

Viewpoint T M Devine: Sir William Fraser professor of Scottish history and palaeography, University of Edinburgh

One thing is certain, the movie has dramatically raised Scotland's international profile and place on the world map, for good or for ill. The Wallace Monument at Stirling, for decades neglected and virtually ignored, is now one of the nation's star tourist attractions. drawing visitors from across the globe. Americans may be still uncertain about where Scotland actually is, but they do know it is the land of Braveheart, which has now become as famous a part of the Scottish iconography

Then there is the extraordinary impact of Braveheartism in Europe. Scottish festivals abroad have become a veritable growth industry, booming from almost zero activity in 1990, from Moscow to Amsterdam. An event in the German city of Leipzig draws nearly 20,000 people annually. For the first time, in 2007 thousands of Russian 'Scots' paraded in full Highland dress in front of the Kremlin. The most recent count suggests that there are now at least 160 of these fantasy events scattered across Europe.

Not all this of this has come about only because of Braveheart, but who can deny that the movie has done much to renew the remarkable world-wide romantic appeal of a fictitious Scotland. Mel as the successor to Ossian and Scott?

Viewpoint Neil Davidson
Senior research fellow, University of Strathclyde

Freedom is a noble thing, but what kind freedom did Braveheart offer us? In a telling scene, Edward I throws his son's gay lover to his death. Edward is the pantomime villain – he hates Scots and gays: boo, hiss. But here's the point; the scene is played for laughs, and the audience does laugh.

As this suggests, the politics of the film are those of the right-wing, rifle-wielding backwoodsmen who think Barack Obama is a Kenyan commie and the NHS exists to kill your granny. Is this the kind of freedom we want for Scotland?

(So one scene means the whole film represents modern American politics right down to their current views on the NHS? Mr Davidson hates Scots independence, that is his political agenda.)

The film famously ends on the eve of Bannockburn, but long before then, before Wallace's death even, the Wars of Independence had become a struggle to see which gang of French-speaking, Latin-writing feudal banditti would exploit the Scottish peasantry. "Our" side won: fantastic. But freedom? As the Eagles used to sing: that's just people talking.

(It's a strange type of Scot that couldn't care less who won at Bannockburn. Yes 'our side' won, Scotland!)

Viewpoint Hannah McGill
Director, Edinburgh International Film Festival

Braveheart's position in Scottish film culture is as wobbly as Mel Gibson's on-screen accent. It has more sentimentally invested in the idea of Scottishness than any other film, but its own racial profile is notoriously all over the place: Australian star/director, American screenwriter, English leading lady and – most controversially of alI – some Irish locations.

(I think it's international flavour is actually its greatest strength. I don't think anyone else would have made it, it needed an Australian to look at Scotland's past and see the potential for a blockbuster.)

So, is it invalid as an icon of Scottish cinema? Not if you view it as what it is: one of the few big, fat, populist films to take Scotland as a subject, and as cross-bred, cobbled together, cynical and inconsistent as big fat populist films almost always are. Along with its more obviously 'authentic' contemporary, Rob Roy, Braveheart lent Scotland a presence in Hollywood as an inspiration and as a location. If Ireland got some temporary business out of Braveheart, Scotland – for better or worse – got its own permanent movie myth.

(I think this probably genuinely sums up the impact of Braveheart, certainly it helped put Scotland on the map internationally. It had obvious flaws but most big budget blockbuster films do. It also had confidence however and was unambiguous in supporting Scots independence. Something no film did before or since. I find the only people who really detest the film are British nationalists who would prefer no-one had ever heard of William Wallace and would prefer Scotland had no voice on the international stage at all. JOE)

If Salmond is 'irrelevant' then so is Scotland

British Conservative leader David Cameron's remarks again show his party's irrelevance to Scotland. If Alex Salmond and by extension the SNP are "irrelevant" to a British general election then this shows up the fact that Scotland does not count within the current setup.

The SNP are currently Scotland's most popular party. They won the last Scottish election and the last Euro elections with the largest share of the popular vote. The Tories on the other hand have one MP in Scotland and might soon have zero. The SNP however could realistically under FPTP increase their numbers to 20-30 seats.

That makes the SNP a huge player in Scotland. If David Cameron continues to push this line then what he is actually saying is that no party in Scotland counts and that whatever way we vote does not matter in a UK election.

If that is so then the only logical option for Scots is independence, because otherwise he is right and we don't count at all within the UK setup where we are outvoted 10-1.

If the BBC go ahead with a debate and show it in Scotland without the SNP's participation then they will be wide open to legal action. It may be David Cameron's opinion that the SNP don't count but in reality it is his party that is the irrelevance to all Scots.

In Scotland this election is between Labour and the SNP. Who wins will have relevance to whether we move forward to independence or have a future of right wing rule. Cameron knows he is not popular up here and he also knows he has no hope of winning any election but he has no right to decide the scottish people's vote in advance of te actual election, nor has he any right to declare that the SNP are irrelevant when they have an excellent chance of winning the elections in Scotland!

--------

David Cameron has branded the Scottish National Party leader Alex Salmond "an irrelevance" in the upcoming general election. His comments came after Mr Salmond predicted England would be "dancing to a Scottish tune" if the election delivers a hung Parliament with SNP MPs holding the balance of power.

But Mr Cameron insisted the only options for voters casting their ballot in any part of the UK was between continued Labour rule and a switch to Conservative government.

The Making of A History of Scotland

The Making of A History of Scotland: a debate presented by The Open University in Scotland in this year's Edinburgh Lectures series ¦ Wednesday 11 November 2009, 6.30 pm ¦ The Hub, Castlehill, Edinburgh EH1 2NE

A History of Scotland is a landmark ten part television series for BBC1 Scotland, co-produced with The Open University. The series, presented by the writer and archaeologist Neil Oliver, is being transmitted in two parts throughout the UK in 2008 and 2009.

In this debate, presented by The Open University in Scotland, BBC producers Neil McDonald and Richard Downes, and series historian Mark Jardine will be joined by historian Catriona Macdonald to discuss the issues involved in presenting Scotland’s history. Chaired by journalist and broadcaster Ruth Wishart, the discussion will be illustrated by clips from the television series.

Tickets must be pre-booked and are available from Hub Tickets, The Hub, Castlehill, Royal Mile, Edinburgh (Mon-Fri, 10am-5pm). Tel: 0131 473 2000. www.hubtickets.co.uk. There is a £3 per ticket non-refundable booking fee.

This debate is part of the Edinburgh Lectures series 2009/10 which runs from 1 October 2009 to 23 February 2010. For further info on this debate and all 2009/10 Edinburgh Lectures visit www.edinburghlectures.org.

National Conversation comes to Dalkeith

The National Conversation comes to Dalkeith
Monday 26 October 2009 – 7.00 pm to 8.00 pm
Dalkeith Schools Campus, 2 Cousland Road, Dalkeith, EH22 2PS

The National Conversation is the debate on options for Scotland’s future, including independence. The Scottish Government is keen that as many people as possible have a chance to take part in the debate. That is why Government Ministers are holding meetings across Scotland to let you have your say. You can find out more on the National Conversation website.

The event will be chaired by Alex Neil, Minister for Housing & Communities and will feature a presentation from Kenny MacAskill, Cabinet Secretary for Justice on the options for constitutional change. This will be followed by an open question and answer session.

Refreshments will be available from 6.30 pm, but in any case it would be helpful if you could aim to arrive by 6.45 pm. There is no charge to attend, but you do need to register in advance. I would be grateful if you could indicate whether you can or cannot attend this event by emailing nationalconversation@scotland.gsi.gov.uk or calling 0131 244 1893 during office hours.

Please also let us know if you have any dietary, access or other requirements. You are welcome to nominate someone else to attend. If you are nominating someone else please pass on their name and contact details, including their e-mail address.

You should note that this event may be recorded and video and audio coverage of the event may appear on the Scottish Government website
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/a-national-conversation or on broadcast media.

Time for media to ignore this clown

It was a daft decision by the BBC to show the BNP on question time at all, but the media now needs to show some sense.

His squeals of political bias, whether by him or his merry band of skinheads from the English 'defence' league should be ignored.

This tube consorts with the KKK yet thinks a few questions equates to a lynch mob!

All parties should have maintained a boycott. Either that or pelted him with eggs, he should certainly not be chased around by reporters as if his band of bigots actually matter.

Campaign for English Parliament (CEP) is deliberately misquoting SNP

Scilla Cullen
Chairman
Campaign for an English Parliament

Dear Mr Cullen,

http://www.politics.co.uk/opinion-formers/press-releases/legal-and-constitutional/-england-to-dance-to-scotland-s-tune-says-salmond-$1335371$479240.htm

Your headline says 'England to dance to Scotland's tune' says Salmond yet you must be aware that Mr Salmond said nothing of the sort.

The relevant part of his speech is here:

"Votes for the SNP will turn all these noes into yeses from the London government. A Scottish bloc of MPs will unblock Westminster."

"We shall use voting power to make London dance to a Scottish tune."

Full transcript:
http://www.epolitix.com/latestnews/article-detail/newsarticle/salmond-scotland-has-what-it-takes/

London Government is a reference to Westminster which is the British parliament.

I look forward to an apology and a retraction on the epolitics site.

Adjusting politicians speeches to give an inaccurate account of what they said is simply not acceptable and is poor politics.

If you want to attack the Scottish National Party (I wonder why when logically the British state is the obstacle to international recognition for England!) then do so on the basis of what they actually say.

This kind of silly headline based on inaccurate remarks is no way to gain credibility for your campaign.

Yours faithfully,

JOE MIDDLETON

David Cameron's Conservatives are treating Scots with contempt

You have to laugh at the contradictory messages currently coming from the British media. On the one hand David Cameron is trying to dictate whether Alex Salmond gets an invite to the proposed TV debates:

David Cameron calls for Alex Salmond to be barred from TV debates

David Cameron has said Alex Salmond should be barred from a series of televised general election debates between the main party leaders despite Scottish National Party threats of legal action.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/scotland/6251864/David-Cameron-calls-for-Alex-Salmond-to-be-barred-from-TV-debates.html

On the other hand the Times pretends that he is desperate to woo Scotland, aye right! (Even Angus Mcleod can't quite believe it!).

David Cameron desperate to ‘seal the deal’ and win over the Scots

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/scotland/article6867080.ece

So it's a kick from a boot and a simpering smile and words of encouragement as well.

David Cameron's local puppet the pantomine dame Annabel Goldie tried to bring in her brand of comic relief:

"I have been delighted at the response to the message in my speech on Monday that the approaching General Election is a British election, for the British Parliament, for a British Prime Minister

"People are saying to me at Conference that that message is resonating beyond Scotland."

Only if your head is wedged firmly in the sand at Berwick! Poor old Goldie appears to be delusional.

She goes on:

"The SNP are irrelevant at a British General Election. Their influence on the British economy is virtually nil."

So is Scotland relevant? Not to Goldie it isn't.

"As a sideshow Alex Salmond, and he is a sideshow in the British General Election..."

"... I shall do all I can to persuade people in Scotland that at this British General Election they should be voting for a British Prime Minister."

So what relevance does your Scottish position hold then? Why on earth should we listen to Ms Goldie when both her and her leader treat our country with utter contempt.

http://www.scottishconservatives.com/news_press/speeches/annabel_goldie_speech_to_the_scottish_fringe-conservative_party_conference_manchester_2009.aspx

Speech to the 'Scottish fringe' that just about sums up the importance the Tories think Scotland has.

But let us not forget those organs of the British press determined to spread light and truth around the planet, well everywhere apart from Scotland obviously, for us it's spin, lies and distaste.

Gillian Bowditch: Allow Gaelic to thrive without taxpayers’ cash

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/scotland/article6869384.ece

Scottish Gaelic our once proud national language is just a figure of fun to Anglo-centric commentators, what a disgrace.

David Cameron has no right to dictate the relevance of the SNP. That is up to the people of Scotland to decide. He has no right to demand a rigged TV debate either which excludes our most important political party.

Scotland will not stand for politicians who ignore our opinions and our interests.

The fact the Tories have one solitary MP should give them cause to consider before trying to dictate our future to us.

Britain is busted and independence is normality. David Cameron has nothing to offer as a political Tweedle Dum to Labour's Tweedle Dee. Scotland does not want or need a pompous Tory boy who looks like he needs someone to skelp his lug. Tony Blair was bad enough and no other smirking opinion poll driven power mad spinner is required.

Excluding SNP from TV debate proves Scotland does not matter

I am pleased to hear that UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown is going to appear in a Prime Time TV debate. Unfortunately it also appears that broadcasters are attempting to exclude the most popular party in Scotland from that debate! This simply cannot be fair and must be inconsistent with the BBC's position as a politically independent broadcaster.

The idea that Scotland's views are irrelevant to a UK parliamentary election are a direct consequence of being in an unequal union with a country ten times our size. If the fiction that Scotland and Wales do indeed share an equal place in Britain is to be maintained then the SNP and Plaid Cymru must have an equal voice in this debate. Scotland is not a part of the cozy British three party consensus and to suggest that Scotland has no say whatsoever in picking the next Prime Minister is to indirectly prove the pointless of Britain as a political concept.

Those TV channels who allow such a blatantly discriminatory situation to exist are opening themselves up to legal action. They are also hastening their abolition since they are showing themselves up to be ignorant of the Scottish national interest. In such circumstances why retain a BBC if it is prepared to entirely ignore Scotland during a UK election where for the first time ever the SNP are amongst the leading contenders?

The choice is clear. Either include the SNP Government and maintain a semblance of political democracy or ignore Scotland altogether and hasten the end of both the BBC and the British Union.

Answers to Scotlands Future about Scottish independence

I have decided to answer some of the Questions from someone calling themselves ScotlandsFuture on Twitter about Scots independence:

1) Discussion of Scottish independence in chatrooms and forums is always shut down by extreme SNP supporters

That's not my experience, quite the reverse. British unionists own the papers and can block pro-independence comments. I find that the independence side tends to provide a logical argument ie that independence is normality and most countries are independent. The unionist case depends upon the illogical assumption that Scotland is incapable of independence and often it descends into abuse against 'sweaty socks' (Jocks) etc I could point you towards loads of such comments on youtube and in fact I've made a film about it here!

2) It seems they can't answer valid questions so they mount ad-hominem attacks, calling people traiters, anti-Scottish, Labour stooges etc

No Questions yet but more witless allegations.

3) But I want those questions out in the open. I want people to really think about the consequences and implications of independence

In other words I want to scaremonger and put people of, yet no questions yet

4) Maybe there are good answers and I have nothing to worry about. I would very much like to hear some answers from decent SNP supporters

You'll get them but I doubt you will listen!

5) So I'll use this account to ask some of those questions. Who knows, maybe someone will answer...

Maybe they will, get on with it!

6) Here goes - How much would an independent Scottish government have to spend on services and how would it compare to the current arrangement?

This is impossible to answer because we don't know what the economic situation will be when we are independent. We do know from GERS that Scotland puts more in than we get back out, that Labour wasted hundreds of billions and lied about Scotland's economic prospects with independence in the 1970's. But just as Gordon Brown can't accurately predict the British budget in ten years time I can't forsee the future either, what a shock eh, bet you're really disappointed.

7) SNP want to reduce voting age in independence referendum. A cynical attempt to manipulate the result?

No. The SNP have had this policy for years to reduce the voting age to 16. It's not new and it wasn't arrived at recently.

8) How can the SNP find the money for a bill which won't get through parliament when they're cutting spending on everything else?

As you should be aware the Scottish parliament as a devolved parliament exists on a financial settlement provided by Westminster. Within that settlement the SNP can choose to use the money as they see fit. The pary has already produced a draft bill. They have also extended the debate through the National Conversation. The unionists didn't want to discuss independence and set up the Calman commission and filled it with various worthies whose only qualification was that they were willing to ignore independence. That cost money, produced a report and then it was kicked into the long grass because the Tories (who are likely to form the next Government) didn't like its conclusions.

All they suggested was a 10p unusable tax rather than 3p unusable tax but the Conservatives prefer as little power as possible going to Scotland (as they proved in office last time) Calman was a costly sham.

Labour have said they support a referendum on independence and would vote for it. That was when Wendy was leader, unfortunately she didn't clear it with Gordon (her boss) so the policy has always been confused.

Despite the SNP coming up with the only possible question which reflects the current powers of the Scots parliament Labour like to pretend the question is 'rigged' (they are experts in this area themselves after the 1979 referendum) and now pretend that because of the recession we can't have a referendum. Yet they caused the recession by following Conservative gospel on deregulation and it is obvious we need power over our own economy. So I'm sorry this bill would be cheap, it is important and yes we can and should be able to consult the people on their future.

The SNP are working within a lower financial settlement in real terms but so far they are not 'cutting spending on everything else' this is simply inaccurate.

9) Assuming an independent Scotland dumps the pound, what effect will exchange rate fluctuation and conversion charges have on our businesses?

SNP Policy is actually to retain the pound for as long as required then move to the Euro when it is economically appropriate. Some of your other questions relate to this point.

10) If we did adopt the Euro wouldn't that take financial decision making even further away from Scotland than it is already?

Well your question admits that financial decision making is far from Scotland just now and indeed it is. If we are in the Euro then we have a common currency with much of the EU. This makes trade easier. It also means we would have a more stable currency, as the pound fluctuates violently against other currencies at the moment.

Yes the European Central Bank would take decisions on interest rates etc for the good of the EU as a whole but in the interests of financial stability I think that makes better sense.

However it is important to remember that the ultimate decision on whether to stay in the EU or adopt the Euro or keep the Queen as head of state will be made by our own Government after independence. The SNP have a policy on these things and it right that they have but that does not mean that is what will happen after independence.

11) Would those who vote against independence be stripped of British citizenship and forced to adopt Scottish nationality against their will?

Since Britain would no longer exist there would ultimately be a choice between English and Scots nationality, however Mike Russell has indicated that there might be some interim arrangements with the rump UK state for as long as that exists.

12) What would happen to Scots living in England and Wales who become unemployed? Would they be paid benefits by Scotland, Britain or neither?

For those who live In England and Wales it would be paid by the Governments there. In Scotland it would be paid by the Scottish Government

13) What about the 10% of Scotland's population who were born in England? Will they be forced to choose between Scottishness and Englishness?

No, those who live in Scotland will be treated as Scots, those who think of themselves as Scottish or were born in Scotland could also apply for Scottish citizenship if they chose.

14) Will the 800,000+ Scots living in England and Wales be forced to choose between Scottish and British citizenship?

Ultimately yes because Britain won't exist any more but as I say the Scottish Government is open to suggestions for an interim arrangement.

15) Our remaining shipywards are only surviving because of large orders from the UK navy. What would happen to them after independence?

Well there isn't many of them left but those that do have a contract which wil run its course. Afterwards Scotland will require a Navy and under EU rules they could also apply for English military contracts on an equitable basis.

16) The (Scotland's conversation) website doesn't answer the key questions around currency or finance nor can it guarantee how the EU and UK will react.

No that's correct, we can't guarantee how the EU or rump UK will react to independence because it hasn't happened yet! British unionists like to pretend that the EU will reject Scots membership however our opinion (unsurprisingly) is that the reverse is true. If we do have to re-negotiate membership we might well end up with a better deal or Scotland's independent Government might decide that it prefers to stay out of the EU altogether. That is the ultimate beauty of independence the Scots will decide what we want to do in Scotland! The UK/British state as it stands will not exist however we do know that because without Scotland there is no Britain.

Anyway, 'Scotlandsfuture' you can no longer say that no-one has answered your questions. You might not like the answers but you have got them.

Personally I think you should remove your Union Jack tinted specs and genuinely think about Scotland's future. Unlike the UK or Britain, Scotland is a country and we deserve better than the sterile status quo or right wing Government whether that be from Labour or Tories.

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