Scotland Alone (by Michael Fry)

Devolution was meant to give Scotland the ability to solve its own problems. But since getting its own parliament, Scotland's dependency on England seems to have increased. A former Scots Tory explains why he has come to see independence as the solution—and why it would benefit England too.

Michael Fry

Michael Fry is a historian and the author of "The Union: England, Scotland and the Treaty of 1707" (Birlinn)

The latest opinion poll in Scotland shows a slim majority, 51 per cent, now supporting independence. No need to get too excited, perhaps. We have been here before. The last time was in 1998, when the imminent resurrection of the parliament in Edinburgh brought support for independence to 56 per cent on a wave of nationalist euphoria.

Scottish nationalism has always risen and fallen in waves. Once the parliament was actually established, that earlier wave of euphoria splashed harmlessly against the rocks of Scottish unionism. But in recent months, support for the SNP has been edging up from its usual 25 per cent, thanks it seems to disillusionment with the Labour/Liberal Democrat coalition that has governed Scotland since 1999—and even with the parliament itself. Far from sorting out all of Scotland's problems, as it was meant to, the parliament does not even appear to have made the Scots feel better about themselves. Subterranean tremors from deep inside Scotland can be sensed once again.

http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=7973

More Stupidity from BritGov!

Brown to ‘lower bar’ for race-hate law

By James Cusick, Westminster Editor (Sunday Herald)

The promise by Gordon Brown to revisit Britain’s race-hate laws is further evidence that the Cabinet and Tony Blair already regard the chancellor as Britain’s prime minister-elect.
Following the acquittal of the British National Party chairman, Nick Griffin, and the party’s publicity chief, Mark Collett, on charges of stirring up race hate, Brown has already alerted senior Cabinet colleagues and advisers to begin preparing the legal ground for a “resurrection” of measures that the government failed to push through parliament earlier this year.

One ministerial adviser said: “The bar was raised to ensure there would only be limited prosecutions in special cases. With the acquittal of the two BNP men, we now know this was a mistake. The remedy is simple. We will simply lower the bar again.”

Brown has already said that the preaching of religious of racial hatred offends mainstream opinion in Britain. “We have got to do what we can to root it out, from whatever quarter it comes. If that means we have to look at the laws again, we will have to do so.”

Given Brown’s new-found authority in his co-premiership with Blair, his call to arms to revisit the contents of the failed bill from February this year is already being met with action.
The February bill was watered down following a campaign led by the comedian and actor Rowan Atkinson, who claimed the original planned legislation would effectively outlaw even the most basic religious joke.

The government had wanted a tougher law to protect offences against Christians and Muslims,
who are not accounted for in laws which focus on specific protection.

After the effective Atkinson campaign, which resulted in the Lords rejecting the government’s plans, the likelihood of a successful criminal prosecution was limited by making only “threatening” words or behaviour, not abusive or insulting remarks, a fully criminal offence.
Prosecutions would be brought only if there was a case to answer on an intent to stir up hatred. “Recklessness” would be deemed insufficient for a guilty verdict.

After the failure of the Griffin- Collett case, those close to the process claimed it had been a politically motivated action, doomed to failure and was likely to turn Griffin into a freedom fighter and hero-martyr.

If Brown does indeed revisit the law and attempts to set the bar lower in race-hate cases, he may have the parliamentary power to do so. A full three-line whip, even with a marginal Labour rebellion, could be enough.

The government lost the full force of its bill earlier this year due to a mis calculation by the whips, who allowed 15 Scottish Labour MPs to miss the Commons vote.

However, it remains certain that rights campaigners will again mount another campaign to keep the law as it stands, regardless of the Griffin case, in which the BNP men were secretly filmed as they addressed a meeting calling Islam “a wicked, vicious faith”.

The backbench Labour rebellion may also be lessened if Brown focuses on the potential of the BNP to take votes away from Labour.

John Cruddas, who will be a deputy leadership contender when John Prescott steps down with Tony Blair, said people in Labour’s heartland political territory were losing hope and turning to the BNP in protest at events in mainstream UK politics.

Cruddas, a former Downing Street adviser, said the debate over Muslim veils, the language of the war on terror and “tough” talk on immigration had made things worse and “played into the hands of the extremists”.

12 November 2006

[The British Government are total hypocrites. Their own dubious remarks on race issues are causing a rise in support for lunatic neo-fascist groups like the BNP. Removing the right to free speech and daft laws outlawing criticism of religion (which frankly needs more criticism not less) will not help. Let's have independence soon and remove ourselves from this regime of incompetents. JOE]

SCOTTISH INDEPENDENCE MOVEMENT UNITED AROUND REFERENDUM DEMAND

TONY BLAIR has said independence would be "disastrous" for Scots however the truth is somewhat different as was revealed recently by Blair's cabinet colleague the former Foreign Secretary and current leader of the House Jack Straw in an interview with the BBC.

Straw is quoted as saying: “Historically, England called the shots to achieve a union because the union was seen as a way, among others things, of amplifying England's power worldwide. And the reverse would certainly be true. A broken-up United Kingdom would not be in the interests of Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland, but especially not England.

He adds "Our [England’s] voting power in the European Union would diminish. We'd slip down in the world league GDP tables. Our case for staying in the G8 would diminish and there could easily be an assault on our permanent seat in the UN.” [security council]

We should perhaps be grateful to Straw for his honesty. What he is effectively saying is that countries like Scotland and Wales are expected to give up their unique voices in the international community so England can enjoy ‘amplified’ ie undeserved international status.

The case for union then is simple if, like Gordon Brown, you support England’s interests over Scotland’s then as Straw says there is an excellent case for retention of the union because it was designed to amplify England’s voice and it still does today. If however you support Scotland’s right to have our unique voice heard then the only logical choice is independence.

Independence is of course now the most popular constitutional option for the Scottish people. This has became more and more obvious since devolution has been established and is part of a consistent trend of upwards support for independence.

It is obvious that the Scottish parliament has not got strong enough powers to get to grips with the Scottish economy or to tackle issues like immigration or defence. Most people in Scotland want more powers for their parliament and the only way those powers will be delivered is by voting for independence.

Return to direct rule from London is not a possibility and therefore support for independence has soared. This trend was the main reason behind the formation of the non party-political referendum campaign, Independence First (http://www.independence1st.com).

Analysts may wonder why independence support dwarfs SNP support. It’s simply that the independence movement has grown larger than the SNP. A great many groups now supportindependence. The Scottish Green Party, the Scottish Socialist Party and Tommy Sheridan's Solidarity all support independence, as do smaller parties such as the Free Scotland Party, the Scottish Independence Party, the Scottish Enterprise Party and the Communist Party of Scotland.

The Celtic League, the James Connolly Society, the SRSM and others also support independence. All these organisations also support Independence First and its call for a democratic referendum for the people of Scotland.

The diverse organisations supporting IF were on display at our successful rally on 30 September this year. We also ran an e-petition on the Scottish Parliament’s website which attracted over 1400 signatures. We are currently waiting — though hardly with bated breath — to see how far this petition will go through the unionist-controlled Parliament. Whatever the fate of this particular endeavour, with opinion polls showing a majority in favour, a referendum on independence will happen eventually.

Britain’s motto has always been “divide and conquer”, and, in the past, the Scottish independence cause has been divided, with various factions attempting to fight for control of the SNP. Nowadays, although there are many more groups supporting independence, those who believe in independence are more united than ever before.

Groups, like IF and the new Scottish Independence Convention, have allowed the independence movement room to breathe and the opportunity to properly prioritise the independence cause.
While the Independence Convention is aimed at resolving potential tactical differences between the Scottish parties and designing a constitution for an independent Scotland, Independence First is attempting to maximise support for independence by uniting the Scottish people around our campaign for a democratic referendum.

Anyone who supports independence would also support a referendum on it. While some might be uncertain if such a referendum could be won at this time, all have accepted that there is no other route to independence and that, after devolution, the public would logically expect a further vote, on an even bigger constitutional change.

The fact that Scottish politics is now equally divided between Westminster elections and the Scottish elections has focused the media more on Scotland, despite the papers remaining largely unionist-orientated and hostile to the arguments for independence. (That not one of the major newspapers reflects majority public opinion on this issue is a cause for concern in our supposedly democratic society.) Nonetheless, this increased focus on Scottish politics has undoubtedly helped the Scottish-based parties, and these Scottish-based parties all favour independence.

Even at the last election, while the SNP's vote fell sharply, the overall level of independence support and the number of independence-supporting MSPs actually increased.

The smaller parties tend to be marginalised in UK-wide opinion polls and, even in Scottish polls, with a margin of error of ± 3% it is pretty much impossible to determine exactly what the vote for the Greens or the SSP is likely to be.

What we do know is that these parties tend to poll higher than their opinion poll results, and we also know that the SNP's support is much higher than ever before. The new parties, like the right-of-centre Scottish Enterprise Party, or the anti-EU Free Scotland Party or Tommy Sheridan's Solidarity party, may well pick up further votes for independence as well.

The possibility is there then for a pro-independence coalition which could project Scotland to independence.

Independence First has achieved a number of important objectives in the last year.

Firstly, we have clarified the position of the UK and Scottish governments on constitutional matters relating to referendums. We recently wrote to both the UK government and the Scottish Parliament asking for a democratic referendum for the people of Scotland on independence.

The Scottish Parliament responded: "Schedule 5 to the Scotland Act 1998 defines matters reserved to the UK Parliament. [According to this] the government of the United Kingdom is responsible for considering fundamental changes to the devolution framework."

The Scottish Office in London stated: "... the UK Parliament is sovereign and it is for Parliament to decide whether to hold a referendum on any particular issue — and what the terms should be."

Obviously the Scottish Parliament wants to pass the buck, while Westminster does not recognise Scotland's proper constitutional position. In England, Parliament may be sovereign, but in Scotland and Scottish law it is generally recognised that it is the people of Scotland who have the right to decide their own destiny.

It makes logical sense that any referendum on independence for Scotland should be organised here by our devolved parliament and the UK Government approached to dissolve the union after a vote in favour of independence by the people of Scotland.

Secondly, we have united the independence movement behind our campaign, and we are expanding fast. We are launching a new branch in Glasgow later this month and we already have branches in place in Dundee and Edinburgh.

Thirdly, we have came up with a structure which will be resistant to any attempt by British unionists to undermine it by playing on political differences. IF have decided that since no important political objectives can be achieved without independence we will not argue about political issues before then.

Beyond independence, Independence First has no policies whatsoever: we believe any decisions on the EU or the monarchy or anything else must be made by our national parliament after independence. This non-political position means we are flexible enough to include every single political group and individual who supports independence for Scotland.

Our ultimate task is a big one, it is to encourage a massive groundswell of people on the scale of Scotland United to demand a referendum as a matter of urgency. We have calculated that around a million Scots voters need to vote for independence in both the first and second ballets to win an election. Current opinion polls shows over half the people of Scotland already support independence and a further substantial chunk are undecided.

We believe one million votes is well within the independence movement's grasp. We also believe that once the Scottish people realise just how close independence potentially is then they will vote for it en masse next year.

Joe Middleton, Media Officer, Independence First

Polls Reveal a Renewed Desire for Scottish independence

By Tom Hundley
(Chicago Tribune)

EDINBURGH, Scotland - After 299 years of marriage, Scotland is thinking about a divorce.
Perhaps it's just a passing midlife crisis, but two new polls found that for the first time a majority of Scots say they would prefer independence to remaining part of Britain.

In an ICM poll published this month by The Scotsman newspaper, 51 percent of Scots said they favored independence and 39 percent said they preferred keeping things as they are. Ten percent were undecided.

Another poll, conducted for The Sunday Times newspaper by YouGov, found that 44 percent of Scots favored independence and 42 percent were against. The number favoring independence has nearly doubled since 2000, when YouGov asked the same question.

"This is hugely significant," said Angus Nicholson, a member of the Scottish National Party, which is dedicated to Scottish independence.

Nicholson, a local councilor from a rural district in the Outer Hebrides, attributed the surge in separatist sentiment to a combination of disenchantment with Prime Minister Tony Blair's Labor government and a real yearning for independence.

"We'd like to see a Scotland that stands on its own two feet, not blaming anybody else when things go wrong," he said.

What is officially known today as the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland first came into being in 1707, with the Act of Union between England and Scotland. Since 1999, however, Scotland has enjoyed a kind of quasi-independent status after it was granted a parliament of its own and control over most of its internal affairs under a process called devolution.

Many politicians and analysts thought devolution would put an end to calls for full independence. Instead, a taste of self-governance seems to have left the Scots hungry for more.

Although they number only 5 million, Scots have long had a powerful sense of national identity, something the English, who represent 83 percent of Britain's 60 million citizens, have generally lacked.

The Scottish identity is unusual in that it is not based primarily on a shared ethnicity, language, culture or religion.

"It's territorial," said David McCrone, a political scientist at the University of Edinburgh. "A lot of it is defined by the map of Scotland. The Scots are people who live in Scotland. It is more of a civic identity."

When researchers recently asked Scots how they identify themselves, 2 out of 3 said "Scottish, not British," or "more Scottish than British." Similar surveys in England produce much more ambiguous responses.

"Britishness has to do with war, the threat of invasion, religion - mainly anti-Catholicism - and empire. When none of these factors is present, Britishness begins to lose its pull," said Neal Ascherson, a Scottish writer who was born in Edinburgh and lives in London.

"The ruling class, those who went to the same (elite) public schools, spoke with the same cut-glass accents and belonged to the same clubs - they were Homo Britannicus. And it was in the 1960s, when Britain emerged from its postwar torpor, that Homo Britannicus began to disappear," he said.

In his place, the English middle and working classes began to develop a sense of "English" identity. That first became apparent in 1997 with the death of Princess Diana when most mourners carried the English flag - the red and white cross of St. George - rather than the more familiar Union Jack.

Since then, English soccer fans have adopted the St. George's flag as their banner, and in the words of Ascherson, the Union Jack is now seen as "slightly naff," slang for tacky. Along with this burgeoning English nationalism has come a faint whiff of Scotophobia, fueled by gripes about excessive Scottish demands on the "English" treasury.

All of this is bad news for Gordon Brown, the chancellor of the exchequer and the man universally expected to become prime minister when Blair steps down sometime next year. Brown's thick Fifeshire accent immediately identifies him as a Scot.

In recent days, Brown has gone out of his way to emphasize his "Britishness." He even went so far as to declare his fealty to the English soccer team although most fans suspect he'd be hard-pressed to name the starting lineup.

The real problem is that under devolution, Brown and other Scottish members of Parliament can vote on legislation that applies to England and Wales but does not affect Scotland.
The Conservatives, whose electoral strength is in southern England, see that as a potential wedge issue.

"I'm beginning to think it is almost impossible now to have a Scottish prime minister because it would be at odds with the basic construct of the British constitution," Alan Duncan, a senior figure in the Conservative Party, recently told the British Broadcasting Corp.

Never mind the Scottish-sounding name, Duncan represents Rutland and Melton, a rural constituency well south of the border.

Until now, it has been easy to fudge this constitutional problem because the Labor Party controls both the Westminster Parliament and the Edinburgh Parliament. But in the not-so-unlikely event that Conservatives regain power in Westminster and the Scottish National Party takes control of the Scottish Parliament, the stage could be set for the big divorce.

"I would be very happy and proud to see an independent Scotland. I would happily apply for my Scottish passport," Ascherson said.

"But how would it come about? I don't think it's a matter of huge crowds gathering on (Edinburgh's) Princess Street, demanding freedom. More likely, it will result from an obscure squabble between the Scottish Parliament and the English treasury . . . and they will tell us, `Just go away,'" he said.

"I think it might all be rather inglorious," he said.

Divorce usually is.

© 2006, Chicago Tribune.

WHO NEEDS THE UNION?

Notification from the Scottish Independence Convention
http://www.scottishindependenceconvention.com

As part of our mission to create discussion during the 300th anniversary ofthe Union of 1707, we are sponsoring a debate "WHO NEEDS THE UNION" at Stirling MacRobert Playhouse Theatre, on Friday 10th November, at 6pm.

The following speakers are confirmed

Mike Russell SNP candidate.

Harry Reid, former Editor of the Herald.

Anne McGuire Labour MP.

Murdo Fraser Conservative MSP

The speakers will all speak for approx 10 minutes after which Chairman Murray Ritchie will invite questions from the floor. The venue is small and only holds a maximum of 80 so please come early to avoid disappointment.

Reinforcing the case for Independence

Reinforcing the case for independence
Your Letters (Herald)
November 08 2006

THE latest ramblings from Tony Blair on why Scotland should not be independent reveal more arguments for independence. He declares that because we share a currency we shouldn't be independent – does that mean Germany and France are one country since they both share the euro?

He then goes on about sharing armed forces – yes, we've noticed how all the Scottish regiments were amalgamated and seem to serve more time fighting Blair's illegal wars than any other troops. Is he not aware that most people in Scotland are against wasting £25bn on a replacement for Trident?

And as for sharing a social security system – how is this a benefit when one in four pensioners are living in poverty yet the gap between the rich and the poor has increased since Blair and Brown took over?

So thanks, Tony, for reinforcing the argument for independence.

Kenny MacLaren, 2 Avondale Drive, Paisley.

It seems that sinister strings are already being pulled from above in the battle for Holyrood next year. After his mild remarks along the lines that independence might not mean the end of civilisation, Cardinal O'Brien pops up again after "briefings" with leading Labourites, to question the cost of taking our country back.

Then the supposedly neutral US Consul, Lucy Vickers, claims that an independence referendum would be held in 100 days of the SNP taking power. The only other figure claiming this is Tony Blair, so it is obvious where this nonsense comes from.

SNP policy is to publish a bill for a referendum within 100 days and to let people choose independence or not in a referendum after a national debate. Aren't the UK and US supposedly in Iraq and Afghanistan to establish exactly this type of freedom of choice?

What are they afraid of?

Gavin Fleming, 517 Webster's Land, Edinburgh.

[Good letters - JOE]

LABOUR ARM TWISTING OF CARDINAL PAYS OFF

Cardinal forced to reconsider home rule

Labour Party pressure on Cardinal Keith O'Brien to re-think his sympathetic views on independence appeared to have paid off yesterday.

The leader of Scotland's Roman Catholics stressed what he said would be "the tremendous amount of money" required for Scotland to split from the UK.

The comments follows several meetings with high-level Labour figures, including Chancellor Gordon Brown, and Jack McConnell, First Minister. There had been alarm in Labour ranks that the cardinal's comments last month, that he would be "happy" with independence if that is what people want and forecasting independence would come "before too long", could damage Labour.

Cardinal O'Brien said yesterday that the constitutional issue was not about morality: "There are reasons why Scotland could become independent, so politicians and the people have to weigh up other reasons why it should not be independent. "One thing is the tremendous amount of money which would have to be raised for an independent Scotland" he added.

[What a shameful sight, a religious leader effectively forced to recite Labour's typical scaremongering rubbish after making the obvious point that Scotland had a right to independence and that many other nations had flourished after doing so. Perhaps Gordon will go to hell for telling the Cardinal bare faced lies. As an atheist I doubt it but it would be appropriate. This is the man who says his favourite goal is Gazza's against Scotland, and yet he has the brass neck to bully the Cardinbal for telling the truth. A pity O'Brien didn't tell him to get st*ffed! JOE]

SCOTTISH INDEPENDENCE WOULD BE DISASTROUS [FOR ENGLAND] - BLAIR

Scottish independence would be "disastrous" for Scots, Prime Minister Tony Blair said today.
And he said the "folly" of the SNP, and the advantages of Scotland's union with England, would become clear as public debated unfolded.

Mr Blair made the claim at his monthly Downing Street press conference, hard on the heels of an opinion poll which last week suggested 51% of Scots now favour independence.

The same poll put the SNP ahead of Labour in constituency voting intentions for next May's Holyrood elections.
Mr Blair said the poll showed people had to be persuaded of the case against independence.
"You have to engage with people, you have to persuade them - that's what politics is about," said Mr Blair.

The United Kingdom was of "enormous benefit" both to Scotland and England, through trading links, a common currency, and shared armed forces and social security systems.
"There are enormous benefits," said the Prime Minister.
"You rip Scotland out of the UK, which is the SNP policy, and you will lose those benefits and end up with an uncertain economic future with less power for people in Scotland to affect the big changes that are happening in the world."
He accused the SNP and others of claiming people could only be "truly Scottish" if they were arguing the case for independence.
"But that's rubbish - the question is, what is in the best interests of Scotland," said Mr Blair.
"And what's in the best interests of Scotland is to have a strong Scotland within the United Kingdom where you have the benefit of devolution."
That entailed devolved decision-making in areas like law and order, education and health while having the benefit - "as we do in England" - of being part of the UK.
Mr Blair, born and educated in Scotland, ducked a question about whether he considered himself Scottish.
"I don't particularly look at it that way or not because I have lived all my life in England," he said.
And Scots could be both Scottish and British, he went on, citing a speech by Chancellor Gordon Brown - "I actually think Gordon put it very well in his conference speech."
Mr Blair said: "This is the debate that's going to happen, and the great thing about the democratic process is that there is going to be an election and it's not going to be decided by an opinion poll - it's going to be decided by an election in Scotland."
He continued: "I think when you look at the issue of independence, the sensible way to resolve these things round the world today is to have a constitutional settlement in which the things that obviously should be decided down at the level of the Scottish Parliament are decided by them."
These, said Mr Blair, included health, education, schools and local government.
But he went on: "To end up having a separate Scottish currency, separate Scottish armed forces, separate Scottish economy when we are so integrated together would be disastrous for people.
"I think that when this debate progresses, it's not just that people will realise the folly of the SNP position.
"I think and I hope - this is up to us to make the argument - they will realise the positive benefits to the United Kingdom.
"Through the United Kingdom we are all stronger together - including in England, incidentally."

SNP leader Alex Salmond said later: "The more the Prime Minister attacks independence, the more popular it becomes. "I urge him to continue in a similar vein.
"Labour's negative smears and fears campaign simply isn't working in the face of the SNP's positive case for Scottish independence."

He also accused the Prime Minister of referring to the Scottish Parliament in a "derogatory" manner. "It was as if Mr Blair was addressing a town council rather than a national Parliament," he said. "The Prime Minister is obviously out of touch with public opinion in Scotland."

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

We already have the unvarnished truth on this from Blair's cabinet colleague Jack Straw. What they are really worried about is a decline in England's position after Scottish independence ie the loss of 'their' seat in the security council and 'their' place in the G8.

Scotland and Wales must stay silent internationally so glorious England can enjoy inflated international status that it doesn't deserve. Aye right!

Here it is: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/question_time/5388078.stm

JOE

USA tries to interfere in Scottish independence debate

US consul questions wisdom of Scottish independence

By Paul Hutcheon, Scottish Political Editor

THE US government has made a dramatic intervention into Scottish politics after a senior diplomat said the Bush administration would “probably” prefer independence not to happen. [headline is misleading, probably is not a definite remark.] Lisa Vickers, the new US consul in Scotland, questioned the effect of separation on American energy firms and criticised the SNP’s anti-Nato policy. She also speculated about whether an independent Scotland would become a member of the European Union.

The official’s comments are controversial because independence looks set to be one of the key issues during next year’s Holyrood election campaign.

An opinion poll last week found a majority of Scots favoured breaking up Britain and revealed the SNP was ahead in the popular vote.

The Nationalists’ flagship policy is to hold a referendum on independence during their first four-year term in government. Their election hopes were boosted in recent weeks by a £100,000 donation from businessman Sir Tom Farmer and encouragement from the leader of Scotland’s Catholics, Cardinal Keith O’Brien, who said he expected independence “before too long”.
But the independence debate has taken an unexpected turn in the light of the comments made by Vickers, the US government’s “voice” in Scotland.

In an interview with the Sunday Herald, she said the US would “probably” prefer the UK to remain united and insisted there were “various elements” of the SNP’s independence policy that had not been fully explained.

“Would an independent Scotland be a member of Nato? They don’t know. [actually SNP policy is that they would leave] Would they be in the EU? They don’t know,” [again SNP policy is that they would remain in the EU] she said. “I don’t think the SNP is willing to say with 100% confidence and security that ‘this is what will happen with independence, and this is how you will be, and this is what will belong to you.’”

She added: “I think there are a lot of questions. And I think that, right now, there are not a lot of answers.”
Vickers also said the consequences of a “yes” vote in a plebiscite were unclear: “Even [the] referendum does not say definitely and conclusively, ‘if you vote for this referendum in this first 100 days, Scotland will be an independent nation again after a period of time’. That’s not what they are saying at all.” [the bill will be published within the first 100 days and the referendum will be held during the term of the parliament with a yes vote triggering independence]
In remarks likely to irk the SNP, Vickers claimed independence was not being seriously discussed by ordinary Scots.
“They may find that, as an article I read in the press a couple of weeks ago quoted, people are not sitting down to breakfast and hotly debating ‘should Scotland be independent?’. It’s sort of an idea in the back of the mind that comes up at cocktail parties,” she said.
However, her most pointed criticisms were reserved for the SNP’s defence policy, which is for an independent Scotland not to be a member of Nato.
The US consul said: “I don’t think it’s nearly that simple. I don’t think you just wake up one morning and say ‘we are going to pull out of Nato’. It doesn’t work like that. There are just so many different questions that would have to be answered. I don’t believe there are any countries that have pulled out of Nato.” [It can be done.]
Vickers also claimed Alex Salmond’s anti-Nato stance may not be “set in stone”. She said: “No good politician is going to tell you ‘this is absolutely what we are going to do’. They are going to tell you that ‘this may be what we would like to do, if it seems the prudent thing to do’. [Obviously Ms Vickers doesn't listen as is obvious from her ill informed remarks- JOE]
On the future of US energy companies in a separate Scottish state, she said: “Would their situation change were Scotland independent?”
The official’s comments provide insights into the US government’s view on constitutional politics in Scotland. Although Vickers said there were “pros and cons” to separation, [ah but this isn't reflected in the article what a shock!] the US is not thought to favour independence because it would involve the break-up of its main international ally. [There's the rub, the US know if Britain breaks up they can't count on a poodle to follow their bidding. An argument in favour of independence if ever there was one. - JOE]
Such constitutional change could diminish the UK’s case for staying in the G8 and weaken the argument for a permanent seat in the UN Security Council. [If that's the price of Scottish independence then good. This seat is not used in Scotland's interests in any shape or fashion anyway. JOE]

SNP leader Alex Salmond accused Vickers of “inexperience” and criticised her comments.
“I am sure the US consul doesn’t have to be reminded of diplomatic protocol. It’s a curious position to put so much stress on your own country’s self- determination, and not to think it is important for other people. Maybe it’s time for her to get out of the cocktail party circuit and around the country.
“We have had some good American consuls in the past. I am quite sure that once she gets up to speed, then she will know a bit more of Scottish politics.”

George Foulkes also waffled a lot of irrelevant tripe, as usual.

British Union suits England not Scotland

Letter to the Editors

31/10/2006

Sir,

In a recent interview former foreign secretary Jack Straw made some revealing remarks about the British union.

Straw is quoted on the BBC website as saying: “Historically, England called the shots to achieve a union because the union was seen as a way, among others things, of amplifying England's power worldwide. And the reverse would certainly be true. A broken-up United Kingdom would not be in the interests of Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland, but especially not England.

Our [England’s] voting power in the European Union would diminish. We'd slip down in the world league GDP tables. Our case for staying in the G8 would diminish and there could easily be an assault on our permanent seat in the UN.” [security council]

We should be grateful to Straw for his honesty. What he is effectively saying is that countries like Scotland and Wales and other potential independent states such as Cornwall or the Isle of Mann are expected to give up their unique voices in the international community so England can enjoy ‘amplified’ ie undeserved international status.

The case for union then is simple if, like Gordon Brown, you support England’s interests over Scotland’s then as Straw says there is an excellent case for retention of the union because it was designed to amplify England’s voice and it still does today.

If however you support Scotland’s right to have our unique voice heard then the only logical choice is independence.

If the ‘cost’ of that decision is the loss of Britain’s (as Straw points out effectively England’s anyway) seat in the UN security council, which the Blair government currently uses to back George Bush’s lunatic foreign policy, then I’m sure that is a price well worth paying for any internationally minded Scot.

Yours faithfully,

Joe Middleton

[Note: Full interview is available here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/question_time/5388078.stm]

MAJORITY BACKS SCOTTISH INDEPENDENCE

The SNP today welcomed an opinion poll suggesting a majority of Scots now favour independence. Nationalists are also on track to win more constituency votes than Labour in next May's elections, according to the poll.

SNP Holyrood leader Nicola Sturgeon claimed the ICM poll for The Scotsman showed Labour "floundering" and her party gaining momentum. But Labour downplayed the findings and said SNP support would slip back.

The poll findings are said to be the first time since 1998 that support for independence has passed the 50% mark. It puts it at 51%, compared to 39% against and 10% don't knows.

On voting intentions, the poll puts the SNP ahead of Labour, at 32% compared to 30%, for the constituency vote.

Both parties are level-pegging at 28% for the list vote. The Liberal Democrats and Tories come 15% and 14% respectively in constituency voting intentions, and 17% and 14% on the list vote.
The Greens score 3% in the constituency vote and 6% in list voting, while the SSP is at 4% in both.

The pollsters calculate the figures would given the SNP 37 seats to Labour's 41, the Liberal Democrats' 25, and the Tories' 17, and the Greens 5.

Nicola Sturgeon said "This election is a two-horse race between the tired, rudderless Labour Party under Mr McConnell and a fresh-thinking SNP with Alex Salmond as our candidate for First Minister.

"There is much for us to do before the election next May, but it's clear that the Scottish people are increasingly convinced that it's time for a change in Scotland, and the SNP are the only party that can deliver the progress people here are crying out for."

She said the poll also showed the failure of Labour's "tired scaremongering" on independence.

"While McConnell and Brown are busy wrapping themselves in the Union Jack, more and more Scots believe that it's time for the Parliament in Holyrood to have the same powers as the parliaments of successful independent counties such as Norway and Ireland," said Ms Sturgeon.

Labour MSP Duncan McNeil commented: "The choice voters will face is between investment in schools and the NHS with Labour, or separation and isolation with the Nationalists. It is difficult to see how levels of support for the SNP can remain at this level."

Jack Straw: ENGLAND would lose by end of union.

This is from an interview on the BBC website: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/question_time/5388078.stm

Question from Stephen, London: As Leader of the Commons, how can having two Scottish MPs as the front runners for PM be democratic? Powers for most agencies including health, education etc have been devolved in Scotland, yet Mr Reid or Mr Brown would set the agenda for solely English matters when they represent Scottish constituencies.

Jack Straw: English MPs control all the money which Scotland receives - is that 'fair'?

England constitutes 85% of the UK's population and 87% of its wealth. It was English MPs who agreed to devolve some powers to Scotland in a Westminster Act of Parliament; but year by year controls over public spending levels for all of the UK continue to be exercised by Westminster. And power devolved is power retained, not ceded.

While the current Tory cry of "English votes on English laws" has a simplistic appeal, it is in reality unworkable, undesirable and dangerous. It would create a two-tier system of "ins and outs" that would be so complex and confusing as to be unworkable. How is it possible, for example, to distinguish between English "bits" of legislation and UK "bits"?

It isn't. The territorial extent of the clause in a bill - or part of a clause - cannot be conclusive, as so many "England only" decisions have plain implications for Scotland as well.

Hence, Vernon Bogdanor, perhaps the foremost constitutional expert in Britain, has claimed that the Tory proposals would "destroy the principle of collective responsibility, according to which government must stand or fall as a whole, commanding a majority on all the issues that come before Parliament, not just a selection.

It is difficult to see how Britain could be effectively governed in such circumstances." Moreover, it is difficult to see how the UK could remain united. The outcome of a break-up of the union would be calamitous. The United Kingdom - Great Britain and Northern Ireland - is a union which works to the equal benefit of all four nations of the union. The whole is greater than the sum of the parts.

Historically, England called the shots to achieve a union because the union was seen as a way, among others things, of amplifying England's power worldwide. And the reverse would certainly be true.

A broken-up United Kingdom would not be in the interests of Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland, but especially not England.

Our [England's] voting power in the European Union would diminish. We'd slip down in the world league GDP tables. Our case for staying in the G8 would diminish and there could easily be an assault on our permanent seat in the UN. [security council]

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

[Straws remarks reveal the truth. Firstly the British union then and now is a device for amplifying English power and without that union England's position will be substantially undermined internationally. Secondly Scotland and Wales voices in the UN and EU must remain silent to allow England to have a larger international role than it actually deserves. JOE]

LABOUR ARE 'WEE FEARTIES' - SALMOND

First Minister Jack McConnell tonight claimed Scotland had "the best of both worlds" under the present devolved system. He called on politicians to make "the fullest possible use" of Holyrood's existing powers before demanding more. And he declared the improvement of education to be the most important task facing politicians.

Mr McConnell set out his argument for the constitutional status quo in a lecture in Haddington, East Lothian. The lecture was in honour of Labour MP and devolution campaigner John P. Mackintosh, who died in 1978, just before Labour denied Scotland devolution despite a majority vote in favour.

The speech was the usual rubbishing of the SNP's case for independence, coupled with a dubious warning of the perils of letting Scotland sink into a collective "inertia" by continuously debating more powers for Holyrood.

Mr McConnell's lecture came as the SNP claimed that renewed calls for greater fiscal autonomy showed a positive political tide turning towards independence. Former Presiding Officer Lord Steel last night called for greater power for Holyrood to raise the cash it spends.

A think-tank set up by the Tories called last week for Holyrood to get more tax-raising powers and two leading economists today re-stated their case for greater fiscal freedom. But in a TV interview today, Mr McConnell insisted: "My job as First Minister and leader of the Labour Party in Scotland is to say what's right, and not necessarily is the current fad."

In his lecture tonight he argued that the most important task for the third Scottish Parliament was to take the necessary steps to improve Scottish education. "Scotland has the best of both worlds - a democratic home rule Parliament and a union dividend from the UK," he said.
"Government is about priorities. And my first priority must be to act in the interests of Scotland."

"That interest is best served now and in the future by a united national effort to create the best education system in the world."

Mr McConnell came under immediate attack. SNP leader Alex Salmond said his party trusted Scots and a referendum would offer the chance to choose "a new and better relationship with Britain."

Mr Salmond went on: "Labour, on the other hand, run scared of such a debate. They are the wee fearties of Scottish politics. Their unionism is backward looking and inward looking.
"Labour want Scots to believe the incredible proposition that we are the only country in the world that isn't capable of flourishing with independence."

The First Minister has also been arguing the bizarre notion that Scotland receives "a union dividend" in the form of higher public spending and in areas like family connections, business, and the universities and a shared aim of abolishing child poverty by 2020.

"We can put the governance of Scotland in the hands of those who, in their desperation to go it alone, will happily countenance years, even decades, of constitutional upheaval - with all the divisiveness, rancour and strife such upheaval is bound to bring," he said.

"My appeal to Scots everywhere, is to reject the old arguments from those who want a separate Scotland, regardless of the consequences; but also to end talk of subsidies and dependence."

Mr McConnell seemed to happily ignore the fact that by arguing that a 'union dividend' meant higher public spending he was in fact making the same argument that Scotland was subsidised himself! Are family connections anything to do with the British union? Perhaps child poverty could be changed quicker with the normal powers of independence!

Blunkett 'gave order to gun down rioters'

You couldn't make this up. If ever anyone required absolute proof that David Blunkett was unfit for his job, here it is:

Blunkett 'gave order to gun down rioters'

FORMER Home Secretary David Blunkett told the Prison Service to machine gun rioters at Lincoln jail, it was claimed today. Martin Narey, who was director general of the service at the time, said a "hysterical" Mr Blunkett told him he did not care about any loss of life after inmates took over the prison in 2002.

Mr Blunkett has denied the claims, but today the former prisons chief stood by his allegations. He said if Mr Blunkett had insisted on retaking the prison without care about possible deaths, he would have resigned.

Mr Narey described Mr Blunkett as being "reckless not positive" during a furious late-night telephone call. And he said the only reason he had published his account was to rebut Mr Blunkett's claims that he was "dithering" over the riot and that he and his staff were not up to it.
Mr Narey said: "He shrieked at me that he didn't care about lives, told me to call in the Army and 'machine gun' the prisoners and - still shrieking - ordered me to take the prison back immediately.

"I refused. David hung up."

(from the Scotsman)

LET'S TRUST THE VOTERS

Scotland's leading Catholic, Cardinal Keith O'Brien, made headlines by saying that he would be happy if Scots backed political separation from the rest of the UK. Here, in his own words, he explains his point of view (from the Daily Record.)

WITH one small act the late John Paul II united the Scottish nation, Catholic and non-Catholic alike.

It was the 1982 Papal visit and Pope JP II descended from his plane.

Reaching the tarmac he simply knelt down and kissed the ground.

With one subtle but historical kiss he reminded the world that Scotland is a nation among nations.

This memory has never left me and has had a profound effect on how I view our country.

It is not my place to get too involved in the politics of independence. However I am happy that, if it is the wish of the people, Scotland becomes an independent country.

In my travels I have had much experience of small countries and Ihave seen what benefits independence can bring.

We need only look across the Irish Sea to feel the vibrancy of the Celtic Tiger. The recent flourishing of Ireland is also matched by the confidence and success of the various Scandinavian states.

In my experience there is an increasing move towards independence in Scotland. The people and the Members of the Scottish Parliament have increased control but not all the power they would wish for. I have just been involved in a protest against nuclear weapons, many of which are based here. I am constantly asked: "Why are we not able to say what we want in Scotland?"

Among many other things, that makes me think independence is coming, perhaps not in the next few years, but within the seeable future. One has to trace back 700 years to learn of the support of the Catholic Church for Scottish autonomy.

It was then that Pope John XXII accepted the sentiments within the Declaration of Arbroath and acknowledged the independence of our Church and our country.

One of the 'honours of Scotland' preserved in Edinburgh Castle is the 'Sword of State' presented by Pope Julius II some 500 years ago - this presentation being a recognition of Scotland as an independent country.

And post-Reformation, the independence of the Catholic Church in Scotland has been recognised throughout the world since the Restoration of the Hierarchy, our Conference of Scottish Bishops, in 1878.

I myself have just returned from Russia and a meeting of 34 heads of Bishops' Conferences in Europe.

I would also say, with respect, that the Catholic leadership in England is often perceived as part of the Establishment, whereas we are not.

In fact I think I can go further by saying we do not particularly want to be. We value our independence, which gives us the freedom to take (if needs be) a legitimate 'swipe' at the establishment.

Two obvious recent examples are the Act of Settlement and Trident.

Recently I was delighted to get a letter from Cardinal Martino, the President of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace.

He wrote praising the Scottish Church's position on Trident and stated we clearly reflected the teaching of the Church.

Scotland's bishops set a lead on this issue previously in 1982.

I would like to think also that the Long Walk for Peace from Faslane to the Scottish Parliament, led by the Moderator, with Archbishop Conti and myself also taking part with many other people of goodwill, in some ways reflected the magnificent Make Poverty History Campaign of 2005.

Then on July 2, Scotland's voice was again heard loudly and clearly from 250,000 people. Our responsibility is to be a voice for the voiceless both here in Scotland and abroad.

This responsibility is at the local parish level when we give direct help to those people who have been harmed by the ruthlessness of modern-day society.

It is also on a national level when bishops have to give a courageous lead against the creeping forces of atheistic secularismwhich is consuming and trying to destroy our Christian society.

The Church traditionally has a deep fondness for Scotland.

She recognises the distinct heritage of the nation. The country has a long and noble story to tell, a proud national narrative.

After 300 years of union the Scottish identity is alive and well.

The people are aware they are an equal partner within it. It is up to the democratic will of the people whether they decide to remain within the union or to make their country a state.

Think again of that greeting from Pope John Paul II on his arrival from England - I cannot think of a greater endorsement of nationhood than that simple act at Edinburgh Airport.

DIVIDE BETWEEN RICH AND POOR IN BRITAIN CONTINUES TO GROW

Despite ten years of Labour rule at UK level and Labour domination of almost every council and their control of the Scottish Executive (with the Lib Dems) the gap between rich and poor continues to grow ever larger.

Labour have failed to make any difference in the situation of the working class because they have sold out to Conservatism. The Blair Government was more right wing than the John Major Government and spent considerably less on health and education. Labour have failed to deliver any improvement in the circumstances of the poor throughout the UK, and have made no impact whatsoever in Scotland.

As the figures released today by the Scottish Executive reveal the situation has actually got worse. The obvious answer isn't the Conservatives under David Cameron (Tony Blair mark II with a nicer smile but the same right wing policies).

No, the answer is independence and a fairer socialist or at least social democratic Government afterwards.

REAL CELTIC CONNECTION IS MUTUAL DESIRE FOR INDEPENDENCE

Presiding Officer George Reid has said (today at the Royal Irish Academy in Dublin) that devolution within the UK and EU provide the mechanism for more direct and mutually beneficial "Celtic connections" between Ireland and Scotland.

This kind of misses the point.

The real Celtic connection is of course that independence has benefited Eire despite the British state illegally stealing a large slice of Ireland. It would obviously benefit Scotland as well to end British rule here.

Ireland will benefit from Scottish independence when it happens because the end of Britain will no doubt herald the end of British rule in Northern Ireland as well.

Scotland, Wales, Ireland and Cornwall should work together for our mutual and complete freedom from England and the English dominated Westminster Government. JOE

CAMERON BACKS FELLOW BRIT BROWN

"Don't judge Brown by his accent" says Cameron as unholy Labour/Tory alliance continues.

Tory leader David Cameron has insisted that voters should not judge Gordon Brown on his Scottishness at the next General Election. [He might as well have added, don't think about Scotland at all! - JOE]

He said the Chancellor would replace Tony Blair as Prime Minister and that electors should judge the Kirkcaldy & Cowdenbeath MP on what he says rather his accent. [Judging by what he says he's a plonker who supports the English football team, he's desperate for power and would be no better than Tony Blair - JOE]

Speaking on BBC1's The Politics Show, he said: "I think people should, will judge politicians on what they say, what they do. I think the British public are pretty good at working out who does what, who says what. That's what they should do with Gordon Brown and that's what they should do with me."

Mr Cameron, who is to make a speech in Edinburgh, said he would prove to people that the Tory Party had changed for good.

"This party is in the centre ground, that's where it's going to stay," he said. "The old policies, the old approach are not coming back and people need to know that change is for good. I think people see a politician changing his party and they want proof. They want to see it's for real and I'm going to prove it's for real."

The Tory leader said London-based politicians often made the mistake of coming north of the border and boring Scots with speeches about "institutional architecture" such as devolution or the Barnett formula, when voters cared much more about the state of their public services.

Mr Cameron said he would show Scots that he led a party which shared all of their concerns.

He continued: "And when they see that I think we've got a real opportunity because you've got the big failure of Labour and the Liberal Democrats and the independence option, which is the 'stop the world, I want to get off', which I don't think most people in Scotland want."

[Funny but he sounds just like every other UK Conservative politician and he himself was slagging Brown off a few weeks ago for saying his favourite goal was Gazza's . When push comes to shove though, he supports his fellow Brit. What a hypocrite. JOE]

Professor John Curtice, of Strathclyde University, told the BBC1 show Mr Cameron had equivocated over the matter.

He said: "If you're going to argue that you're now committed to Scotland and the Scottish Parliament, to equivocate on the number of MSPs doesn't necessarily indicate a clear sensitivity towards Scottishness and demonstrate that the Scottish Conservative Party is committed to devolution."

EVEN SELL OUT BROWN IS TOO SCOTTISH!

Gordon Brown has been trying to stress his pride in being British, but he is viewed very much as Scottish

Anti-Scottish feeling laid bare over question of next Prime Minister

Story in full GORDON Brown is facing a vociferous English backlash in his bid to become Prime Minister, according to a poll published today. The ICM survey reveals a majority of English voters believe the Labour Party would be less appealing with a Scottish leader.

The Chancellor has worked hard over the past year to project himself as a British, not a Scottish, politician, stressing his commitment to the Union and his pride in being British.

But he is seen by the public as a Scottish MP who wants to become Prime Minister and, after the devolution settlement and the problems that has caused in England, this has led to resentment.
The poll, for the More 4 show Starkey's Last Word, provides the first real evidence of just how strong anti-Scottish feelings are in England.

A total of 59 per cent of English voters said they would be "influenced" at the next election by the presence of a Scottish Labour leader. Of these, an overwhelming 93 per cent said they would be influenced in a negative way, and only 7 per cent said the influence would be positive.
The anti-Scottish feeling was even more pronounced among older people. Of the English pensioners who would be influenced by a Scottish Labour leader, 97 per cent said that influence would be negative.

Mr Brown is well aware that he cannot afford to lose the votes of any wavering voters in England. Of the 75 Labour marginal seats - defined as those where the party's majority is less than 10 per cent - 71 are in England.

The backlash has been caused, in part, by what is seen as the unfairness of the devolution settlement, which allows Scottish MPs to play their part in imposing domestic policies on England that are not imposed on their own constituents.

This so-called West Lothian Question, and the perception that Scotland does better financially than England, have caused resentment. But it is not only Mr Brown who would suffer from the anti-Scottish backlash. John Reid, the Home Secretary, has been named as a potential contender for the Labour leadership when Tony Blair retires. As a Scot and a Lanarkshire MP, he would have the same problem as Mr Brown.

[This proves that Scots are not considered equal within the British union. It's taken the absurd actions of carpet bagger Brown to show this up but obviously post devolution the English don't want a Scots PM even if he's willing to sell his soul, pretend to admire Gazza and waves the Union Jack till his fingers bleed.

If they react like this to a sell out Scot like Gordon Brown how would they react if one who was actually proud to be Scottish had a chance of becoming British PM?

Time for the sharp exit. JOE

PS: If Brown does have his ambitions dashed as PM because of his Scottish identity I wouldn't be surprised if he had the brass neck to suddenly embrace the Saltire and go for wee Jack's job. I would also not be surprised if he eventually changed his tune on independence - this is a man for whom ambition is everything, and he knows the real figures about who subsides who. It will be very interesting to watch his reaction when his fellow Brits tell him to p*ss off. If these polls continue then that is what's going to happen.]

SCOTTISH CATHOLIC LEADER BACKS INDEPENDENCE

THE leader of Scotland's Roman Catholics last night backed independence from the UK, declaring he would be "happy" if Scots wanted self government. Cardinal Keith O'Brien, in remarks that will cause shockwaves north and south of the Border, said nations such as Ireland and Denmark benefited from the "prosperity which self-determination can bring".

The 68-year-old cleric also voiced his frustration with the Scottish Parliament and predicted independence is coming "before too long".

O'Brien's comments have caused deep dismay in Labour ranks, with party sources expressing disappointment the Cardinal has chosen to stray on to such controversial political ground months before the Holyrood elections.

But there was predictable delight among the SNP, who closed their party conference yesterday in buoyant mood, convinced they can persuade Scots of the benefits of full independence at the ballot box next May.

O'Brien's remarks appear in an interview with the Catholic Herald newspaper and St Andrews University philosopher John Haldane.

Asked if the Church could be indifferent to a move towards independence in Scotland, he declared: "I would not get too involved in the politics of independence, but I am happy that, if it is the wish of the people, Scotland becomes an independent country."

He added: "In my travels I have had much experience of small countries and I have seen what benefits independence can bring.

"There is currently some frustration among the Scots about the say they have over what happens here, and that is part of what is pushing the independence movement. I can see this coming, perhaps not in the next few years, but before too long."

O'Brien concedes that, as the leader of a Scottish church which is itself independent from England, "it is difficult to argue that ecclesiastical independence is acceptable but political independence is not".

Asked by Scotland on Sunday to expand on his views, O'Brien talked up the advantages other small countries have experienced since getting independence.

He said: "Ireland would be an example of a country which has prospered since achieving independence. Additionally, other northern European countries such as Norway and Denmark exemplify the prosperity which self-determination can bring."

O'Brien also acknowledged the growth of nationalism across the nations of the UK. "I am aware of a growing sense of nationhood and national identity in England, exhibited recently during the World Cup campaign and reflected in the increasing appearance of the St George Cross at such sporting fixtures and other gatherings. In this context, Scottish national identity has always been strong. Ultimately multinational identities are harder to express than national ones."

He also picked out the current debate over the future of Britain's nuclear deterrent. O'Brien recently joined the Moderator of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland in condemning plans to replace the UK's Trident system as "iniquitous, irrational and absurd".

He said: "The recent debate on Trident is instructive. The groundswell of feeling in Scotland against the Trident missile system has highlighted a deep sense of frustration among many Scots. We have no wish to pay for or host these evil weapons, yet we have no power to remove them."

SNP leader Alex Salmond said last night: "Scotland's Cardinal is a man of vision and stature. Obviously he avoids party politics, but I am delighted that he has issued such favourable signals about independence and self-determination for the nation."