Blair has an unhealthy infatuation with the rich and famous

Letters (Glasgow Herald)

JIM Sheridan, MP, either had too much at the bells, is naive or he thinks the people are if he expects us to swallow his line about Tony Blair and Joe Public being at one when staying at friends' homes (Letters, January 1). TB's freebie holidays cannot be divorced from politics; he is the Prime Minister after all.The concern many have is that this sleaze-ridden New Labour government, and Blair in particular, seem infatuated with the rich and famous. People have a legitimate concern about the influence the super-rich seem to have over him as he craves their company. Maybe Blair's policies have created the ever-widening gap between rich and poor that attracts them to each other. But, hey, that's getting political. Sorry about that, Jim.

Thomas Morrison, 105 Alderman Road, Glasgow.

JIM Sheridan, MP, attempts to defend Tony Blair's free holiday by saying, "Well, we have all stayed with friends for a break, haven't we?" Yes, Jim, once or twice, but Tony Blair is a serial, indeed obsessive, offender. Since he became Labour leader, has he ever paid for a holiday?
I would estimate he has enjoyed £750,000 in benefits for himself and his family, often including large travel subsidies from the British taxpayer for his travel costs.These holidays were given by "friends" such as Silvio Berlusconi who expected and got political favours in return. Cliff Richard and Robin Gibb will be pleased that Mr Blair is now an ardent advocate to extend copyright protection of ageing rock stars. There is no such thing as a free holiday, just like a free lunch. But the wider question is what does this serial freeloading tell us about the man and the party he leads? In my 20 years of watching (inside and outside) the rise of Blair and the decline of socialism in Labour, I have concluded that his major preoccupations are power and wealth, preferrably for himself.

Hugh Kerr, 31 Melville Street, Kilmarnock.

"Provided there is no proven impropriety or misuse of taxpayers' money, it is none of our business." So, presumably, unproven impropriety is none of our business, like the ongoing investigation into cash for honours? It is good to see the rule "Thou must not get caught" printed in black and white, straight from Jim Sheridan, MP.

Alan Ritchie, 2 Carolside Avenue, Clarkston.

GUESS what, Jim Sheridan, MP, I care and I'll wager a million or so other Scots with their brains engaged, do also. What actually were you suggesting in your silly little letter? It read to me as: "Look, we were hanging Saddam so that Tony could sneak off and schmooze with a rich celeb without too much hassle." Didn't the big bad press spin it like should? Saturday night fever, indeed. See you at the ballot box.

Colum K Buchanan, 9 Greenlaw Avenue, Paisley.

Scotland has ignored oil opportunities

Your Letters (Herald) January 03 2007

In 1974 I went to the Middle East to work as a civil engineer. I had been a lecturer at Strathclyde University, and had actively supported the SNP. I authored the 1972 booklet, The Reality of Scotland's Oil, which drew attention to the potential benefits that an independent Scotland could expect from the great oil wealth discovered in the North Sea. Of course this booklet, and the SNP's own well-researched economic claims in their It's Scotland's Oil campaign, were roundly rubbished by the unionist press (including The Glasgow Herald).

We now know that even in the 1970s our unionist politicians knew the truth of the SNP's claims but were determined to hide this from voters.

In 1975, the Middle East was a fairly undeveloped area with little in the way of infrastructure and services. That is why I, and thousands of other British engineers, were going there. The region's oil wealth had risen greatly in value after the 1973 Arab/Israeli war, and this was now being invested frantically in the construction of roads, ports, water and drainage schemes, power stations, desalination plants, hospitals, schools and universities. Later, it became luxury hotels, shopping malls, apartment blocks, libraries and museums, business parks and theme parks; now even the world's tallest building. The tangible fruits of their oil wealth are there for all to see. Their worldwide investment portfolios are even more impressive. Millions of people now go to the Gulf countries on holiday and are no doubt astonished at what they find in cities such as Dubai, Abu Dhabi, Muscat, Doha and Bahrain. Not as astonished as I am, since I first saw all these places in the 1970s.

In all this, where stands Scotland, itself a major oil producer for 30 years? World oil production is around 0.6 tons/year/head of world population. The figure for the US has averaged 1.2 tons/year/head. But the vast majority of countries are at nil or less than 1.0.Over the past 10 years (and for a good number of years before that) Scotland has produced an average of around 20 tons of oil/year/head of population. For comparison, let us look at the mega-rich Arab Gulf countries. For Kuwait and the UAE, the figure is around 55; for Saudi Arabia, it is 23. The Norwegian figure is way up there with the big boys at around 30 tons/year/head, which helps explain how they have managed to build up a heritage fund in excess of £100bn for future generations, while still being now Europe's most prosperous country. So you can see that Scotland has been (in oil production terms at least) in the big league.

So where has Scotland gone wrong? Why are we the only country in the world whose population has stayed static for the past 50 years while the world's population has soared from 2.5 billion to 6 billion? Why have we had, at 1.8%, the lowest average GDP growth in western Europe over the past 30 years? Why is it that, of all the countries of western Europe, only in Scotland is male life expectancy still below 70 years? It is the same with indicators such as the percentage of people either unemployed or not in employment through incapacity, our car ownership rate and other measures of economic wellbeing.

All that oil wealth we produced, oil wealth that transformed the Gulf countries and Norway, has simply passed us by. We even suffer the annual indignity of being taunted by our unionist leaders about how much we are indebted to a subsidy from England for our very survival as one of western Europe's poorest countries. I used to think that there was something wrong with Scottish voters that so many could be so easily fooled and deceived, election after election, especially by the Labour Party. But at least they had an excuse – like those who voted for the war in Iraq. I now see that the real "dummies" in Scotland have been our own business and commercial people.

They have, for 30 years, totally failed to see the economic opportunities that would have arisen in an independent oil-rich Scotland. A trip to the Middle East would soon put them right. The economic opportunities, and the best oil-related jobs, were snapped up by London and the south-east, where control of our industry lay, and they didn't notice.

Scotland still has a lot of oil left to be produced and it has become very, very valuable. In this coming year, "energy security" will come to be recognised as an important quality for a country to have. Scotland will have that in spades. Perhaps in 2007 our business leaders, and even the voters, will finally get the message.

Nick Dekker, 1 Nairn Way, Cumbernauld.

RECORDS REVEAL REVOLT OVER WILSON DEVOLUTION PLANS

Prime Minister Harold Wilson was warned his 1970s gamble on devolution would lead to Scottish independence if it failed, official documents made public today reveal.

Secret government papers from 1975/76 unearthed by The Herald newspaper show the extent of internal opposition to the then-Prime Minister's flagship policy of devolution for Scotland and Wales, as well as concern among the policy's own supporters.

The files have been accessed at the National Archives in London under the 30-year-rule.
Wilson was behind efforts to devolve power to both Scotland and Wales as economic crises raging across Britain in the 1970s.

But according to The Herald, papers clearly indicate that some senior ministers thought the devolution project was politically mad and should be dropped.

The measure is described by the Treasury as a "firebreak" to stop SNP momentum in the mid-1970s, the paper says. Nationalist representation at Westminster reached a high point after the
1974 General Election when the party won 11 seats on the back of SNP's "It's Scotland's Oil" campaign.

One memo seen by The Herald quotes Commons leader Ted Short telling the Prime Minister that there was "fairly widespread misgiving" on the Labour back benches about the plans for Scottish and Welsh assemblies, and that it was "disappointing so many of our supporters are reluctant to see the merits of our scheme".

According to the paper, Mr Short wrote: "If our present policy does not carry the day, the direction in which we shall be forced will not be back towards the status quo or less devolution.
"The possibility of a separate state north of the border (bringing, incidentally, a permanent shift of political balance south of it) is not far-fetched."

The number of Labour anti-devolutionists was said to include Labour luminaries such as Tam Dalyell, Neil Kinnock, Robert Kilroy-Silk, and Dennis Skinner, as well as future New Labour ministers Robin Cook and Brian Wilson, The Herald said.

The newspaper also discovered comments from Wilson Cabinet member Harold Lever, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who declared that the government's constitutional strategy for Scotland and Wales "cannot work".

In a memo of June 1975 to the PM seen by the Herald Mr Lever argued it would cause "serious friction" between London and Edinburgh with the Labour-run Scottish Executive handing over "more and more money and more and more independence" to appease the SNP.

Labour pursued its devolution proposal for Scotland and Wales, eventually seeing votes take place in 1979.

The Scots narrowly said yes to devolution ? 52% to 48% ? but did not meet the necessary 40% population threshold, while the Welsh voted no overwhelmingly, 80% to 20%.
According to the Herald, the documents also reveal Labour ruled out a referendum on independence as it feared it might not win.

A memo by Sir John Garlick, head of the government's constitution unit, reportedly said: "The underlying idea of a referendum on independence for Scotland is to secure a firm No and thus weaken the Nationalists by being able to dismiss their policy ... at best, the move works only if there is a clear no with a high poll.

"Many factors might mitigate against this. The Nationalists might go for abstention, people might not turn out, there might be tactical voting, eg a significant yes element designed simply to convey a demand for more devolution. Or perhaps worst of all, there might be a significantly large and genuine yes vote."

Commenting on the disclosures, an SNP spokesman said today: "Just as 30-year papers have revealed that London governments covered up Scotland's oil wealth, these new papers reveal how Labour's commitment to Scottish self-government was lukewarm at least. And just as the Tories are prepared to prop up Labour in the Scottish Parliament, they also reveal how Labour connived with the Tories to stall devolution.

"These papers' revelations only show why more and more people distrust the London parties and are turning to the SNP as we approach the elections in May."

Support Cornish Rights (please!)

Happy New Year everyone,

I hope some of you will take a few minutes to sign the petition at the end of this post. Cornwall's situation is similar to Scotland's, only worse!

While we were joined with England in an act of union Cornwall was simply annexed. Cornwall has no Euro seat of it's own, no university, no development agency, no TV stations, an even more biased press than ours (!) and no sporting recognition.

Cornwall is effectively treated as an English County and is not officially recognised by the UK in any way (apart from the Prince of Wales who leeches his personal finances from Cornwall), even though it has a historic right to it's own parliament and a rich history and culture and language.

Cornwall has none of the political rights that we Scots and Welsh take for granted. It's important that we try and help pressurise the UK to give Cornwall more rights and to recognise Cornwall's status as a fellow Celtic country.

Mebyon Kernow, the party of Cornwall the Cornish equivalent of the SNP and Plaid Cymru are fighting a long and difficult political fight. Despite 50,000 people, an enormous chunk of the Cornish population signing a petition for a Cornish Assembly recently Cornwall has been completely ignored by the British Government.

In this historically relevant year of 2007 when we might actually win our own vote for independence I hope you will all take a few minutes to support another nation's rights to self determination (and also at the same time turn up the pressure on BritGov from another source!).

More information about Cornwall is here:

http://www.scottishindependence.com/cornwall.htm

Please sign the petition here:

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/CornwallDuchy/

All the best - JOE

Still an English Brit Nat?

I see 'Tommy Eng-er-lish' isn't adverse to using the Union Jack when required! I thought these English nats wanted to break the British union up?



http://in-ger-land.blogspot.com/2006/12/better-off-out.html

AXE SCOTTISH OFFICE SAY SNP

The leader of the SNP has called for the Scotland Office to be abolished and for the money saved to be invested in the health service. Alex Salmond said its £6.4m annual budget would be better used improving accident and emergency services. He said that since Labour came to power in 1997, Scotland had lost eight A&E services. However, former Scotland Office minister George Foulkes said the department had strengthened devolution.

Mr Salmond said: "By getting rid of this office in London we could free up millions of pounds each year that could be used instead to protect the vital services at Ayr and Monklands, now threatened by a Labour and Liberal Democrat Scottish Executive.
"It's time to focus on the people's priorities and spend less on jobs for the Labour boys in London and more on keeping health care in Scotland local."

However, Lord Foulkes said: "This proves Alex Salmond's ignorance on two counts. "First he clearly knows nothing about how government works."Secondly, it shows he doesn't recognise the role of the Scotland Office plays in arguing Scotland's corner in government and strengthening devolution - two things the SNP are entirely opposed to with their dangerous plans to break up Britain." [Planet Earth calling George Foulkes! - JOE]

Divisions rage despite the Union

by Brian Taylor Political editor, BBC Scotland

So just how should we commemorate the Act of Union - whose tricentenary falls next year?

Perhaps you favour a special coin? Maybe an exhibition at Holyrood and Westminster? Both are in train. Then again, perhaps we might mark 300 years of political marriage between Scotland and England by filing for divorce - and abolishing the Union.

Such an option will be on offer to Scots at elections next year, albeit indirectly.

First, though, the celebrations that are already in hand.

The exhibition and related school projects will, apparently, "inform and stimulate debate about the legacy left by the Act of Union 1707" (Source: the Scottish Executive).
Alternatively, it will amount to "a few half-baked parties about a Union that is past its sell-by date" (Source: the Scottish National Party).

What about that coin, then? Chancellor Gordon Brown announced that he had obtained the
approval of Her Majesty the Queen to issue a £2 coin in honour of the treaty which conjoined the parliaments of Scotland and England.

Rest of article is here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/6199275.stm

Tories Will Prop up Union to their Last Gasp

Interesting article but dubious conclusions. Also why ignore the SSP and Solidarity? Either might do better than the discredited Tories. The SNP would be mad to get into bed with the Tories no matter what garbage they were spinning. The main hope for independence is if the Scottish parties can form a coalition.

We should ignore all the unionists, Lib Dems included, they are part of the problem not the solution. The Tories will of course prop up their fellow British right wingers in the Labour party and indeed they have already promised to do so. JOE

Tories could be saviours of the Union
Robert Kilgour (Herald)
December 27 2006

Could Scotland be hurtling towards independence by the backdoor? Could Tony Blair's much vaunted legacy be the break-up of the United Kingdom?

Could the three hundredth anniversary of the union of the parliaments in 2007 coincide with their final fracture? These are the crucial questions facing Scottish voters as we move inexorably towards the Holyrood elections in May.Scots are every bit as hacked off with Tony Blair and Labour as voters elsewhere in the UK, but unlike England, the main opposition party north of the border is the SNP. If opinion polls are anything to go by then the Nationalists look set to gain the most seats at next year's polls. They will still be far short of an overall majority and will be searching for coalition partners. [Not necessarily, according to the polls it's a lot closer than that and remember there are forty odd independence supporting MSP's at the moment. JOE]

The Greens, also tipped to do well, will be an obvious choice. They, too, favour independence and have already touted Robin Harper for ministerial office in an SNP/Green coalition. Even then, most [biased] political commentators doubt if Salmond and Harper could muster enough seats to form a majority government.

Meanwhile, the LibDems, although always quick to prostitute themselves to anyone offering them a seat at the top table, appear to be playing hardball with the Nats. Nicol Stephen has ruled out any coalition deal with Alex Salmond unless the SNP drops its manifesto pledge to hold a referendum on independence within 100 days of taking power at Holyrood. Needless to say, this has become a major obstacle to further talks, driving the LibDems back into the arms of their current bed-mates – Jack McConnell's motley Labour crew.

Although the LibDems are making their traditional anti-Labour noises as they attempt to define some wiggle-room between themselves and their coalition partners prior to the polls, this remains the most likely scenario. So, Scotland will find itself following the elections in May with the SNP and Greens confronting Labour and the LibDems, with neither having sufficient seats to form an administration.

Enter Annabel Goldie and the Scottish Tories who will, in these circumstances, hold the balance of power. But are they ready to shoulder such a responsibility? Certainly, the David Cameron effect has not filtered north of Manchester, and in Scotland, while opinion polls indicate that the majority would prefer him to Gordon Brown as the next UK PM, the "Cameron bounce" has not benefited Goldie's beleaguered Scottish Tory party. Although Tory MSPs claim to have embraced devolution, they have still not embraced the voting system by which the Scottish Parliament is elected. As Struan Stevenson MEP pointed out in an article in The Herald last year, it is the only party going into the Holyrood elections with the slogan "vote for us, we want to be in opposition"! Albeit now Annabel Goldie has refined this message to "principled opposition", it still looks as if the Scottish Tories are determined to prop up a minority administration rather than actively seek power in a coalition.

Clearly, propping up a lame-duck Lab/Lib coalition that has effectively lost the election next May, would not be popular with voters seeking change. Nor will it be applauded by David Cameron, who will hardly enthuse about his party keeping Labour in power in Scotland while he seeks to oust it from power in England.

[That is what they WOULD do though, their attachment to the Union Jack is much stronger than any interest in democracy in Scotland- JOE]

Far better, then, that Goldie should bite the bullet and join a rainbow coalition with the Nats and Greens. This would provide the Scottish Tories with a meaningful role. Not only would they be in power, but they would be the guardians of the Union, threatening to bring down the coalition if any attempt were made at wrecking Scotland's traditional partnership within the UK.

Of course, the Tories would have to agree to the referendum on independence, but they would do so on the condition that they would use their ministerial positions and influence to campaign for a No vote. Also, they would insist such a referendum could only be con-sultative. There could never be a Referendum Bill, as constitutional affairs are reserved. Indeed, even the funding of a consultative referendum could be challenged in the courts. In the unlikely event that a majority of Scots voted for independence in any referendum, Gordon Brown, assuming he is by then Prime Minister, would face a classic political dilemma.

If he acceded to the demands of a majority of Scots and allowed Scotland to become an independent nation, it would destroy his own career, abolish his own con-stituency and deny Labour the chance ever again to form a government at Westminster, so reliant is it on the army of MPs elected in Scottish seats. On the other hand, if he ignored the result and refused to acknowledge the desire for independence, he could risk fomenting civil unrest in Scotland.

Exciting stuff, and it is ironic that the Scottish Tories may end up hold-ing the jackets during this classic con- frontation. Let's hope that Annabel Goldie's principled opposition melds into a bid for power. There is no-one else that we can rely on to save the UK from political disintegration.

ThinkScotland is a new right-of-centre online think-tank, chaired by Scottish global entrepreneur Robert Kilgour, focusing on European affairs from a Scottish perspective.

Scottish independence argument is now unstoppable

By Joe Middleton

As I opened the Scotsman the other day it was obvious that nothing had changed with the unionists arguments against independence. 'A Black Hole of 11.2 billion pounds with independence!' shouted the headline complete with a starry field mock up, the message is that independence will lead to total economic disaster.

Conveniently the politically motivated GERS report referred to by the Scotsman completely ignored oil revenues and other inconvenient statistics which might refute Labour's scaremongering.

The next article promised to wonder if Scotland can 'remain afloat' with North Sea Oil as if our massive oil reserves are in danger of pulling us below the surface!

As Jack McConnell has himself admitted recently there is no evidence whatsoever to indicate that Scotland would be in economic difficulties after independence. Our economic situation post independence is reliant on a wide range of factors and would rely chiefly on the economic policies pursued by an independent Scotland.

Of course the Tories and Labour are well aware of that and in the same edition of the paper Katie Grant conservative columnist makes the obvious jump in logic for the Tories, ie to embrace independence and suddenly their anti-Scottish label (entirely justified) might disappear.

The traditional unionist arguments are failing fast. Either they are right and Scotland is in such a terrible shape that we require generous England to keep us going (which would appear to be the basic message) in which case they are obviously failing to help Scotland achieve our economic potential.

Then again if we are really as prosperous as they occasionally pretend we are then why couldn’t we afford to go it alone? After all an independent Scotland would not be paying for nuclear weapons and would have the considerable benefit of North Sea Oil revenues. (Labour's internal papers have recently revealed that we have at least thirty years supplies left at the same time as they are pretending that it is about to run out!)

The problem for Labour and the Tories is that independence can mean anything to anyone and the social democratic vision of the SNP is only one vision of independence amongst many.

On the harder left there could be a democratic Scottish workers republic achieved with high investment in services and higher taxation on business, this is what the Tories accuse the SNP of secretly wanting, but people like Jim Mather and Alex Neil don’t say this at all.

Those who do, like the SRSM or the SSP however are unswerving in their support for independence because Scotland does enjoy the potential of becoming a much fairer society.

All the Scottish parties support removing nuclear weapons from our soil so the feeling on Trident is pretty universal and reflects the public mood.

Blair’s utterances on this issue show him up for what he is, a tool of the United States who is desperate to keep alive the US/UK alliance by buying expensive and unusable weapons of mass destruction.

Of course Jack decided shortly after that, after much soul searching (a few hours and a quick chat with Tony) that he was in favour of keeping the nuclear deterrent, so they could be bargained away later! So he's opposing nuclear weapons by supporting having them, good one Jack!

Leaving aside the 'wee sleekit timorous beastie' the cause of independence is simply becoming much too strong to be ignored. The left of centre argument for a fairer Scotland reflects the values of most of the people and the SNP are right to support that as it continually exposes Labour’s permanent lack of vision and political principle.

There are other valid arguments for independence as well. Scotland is currently over regulated and has three tiers of Government where only two are required. The Scottish Office and the British Government it represents are entirely unnecessary, getting rid of those layers would bring an independence dividend with a smaller Government and a Scottish Government could also much more easily court business with lower taxation.

The SNP have moved in on this ‘independence action’ as well but along with an even more aggressive tax cutting policy it can easily be tailored to Scottish orientated Conservatives like Katie Grant.

There is also the historical and cultural argument that Scotland requires freedom to flourish on a cultural level and that respect for our ancestors and their fights for independence from England should lead us to the logical conclusion that the union is no longer in our interests (if it ever was).

This is the most emotionally powerful argument, it reverbrates down the centuries and the more people look into the history of the union the more we realise it was a shotgun marriage of convenience for England which almost wiped out our nation altogether in favour of a new sub-English state called North Britain.

Current opinion polls are also leading to the most modern argument for independence. Democracy and Scottish human rights. A union with a country ten times our size is simply not democratic and the denial of a direct democratic vote on the union is an infringement of our collective Scottish human rights under the United Nations Charter.

It was to highlight this democratic deficit that the non party political referendum campaign Independence First http://www.independence1st.com was formed. Independence First as an organisation has no political policies whatsoever and it is purely about garnering support for a referendum on independence. Because it bypasses any possible political disagreements it has succeeded in gaining support from members of every single pro- independence group and it's membership is open to absolutely every independence supporting individual.

Recently IF presented an epetition to the Scottish Parliament for a democratic referendum on Scottish independence. Despite the fact that the petitions system is supposed to provide a balance to the parliament and a voice for the people the 1300 strong petition was swiftly rejected with Labour and Liberal Democrat MSP’s voting it down before the parliament as a whole even had a chance to consider it.

This undemocratic act went almost completely unnoticed in the media despite a substantial piece being filed by the Scottish Press Association. When a legitimate news story of this type is buried by the press the level of unionist bias becomes much more obvious. It is a disgrace that such a decision can happen without any comment or reaction from any of the Scottish papers.

The Committee claimed that this issue would be conclusively settled by the next Scottish elections. In fact people vote for political parties for a variety of different reasons. Independence is supported by individuals on the left and right of politics and some of those people support Labour, Tories and Lib Dems as well as the independence supporting parties based in Scotland.

The only way therefore to get a clear view about support for independence is to have a democratic vote on the issue called by the Scottish Parliament. This is precisely what Independence First called for on the 15th of November. Unfortunately it would appear that this executive not only ignored the views of over 1300 Scots but also the majority of the Scottish population who opinion polls suggest support independence.

Incredibly there is also majority support for Scottish independence in England and most English people want to break up the British union altogether as do the public in Wales. The unionists are therefore fighting a cause that represents no-one and is respected by no-one. They have might on their side in terms of a highly biased press but you can only feed the public so many lies before they get sick.

The signs are that the people of Scotland are getting very sick of all the unionists lies and that is why the Scottish Independence Convention and Independence First along with the Scottish parties can win an election for independence next year, if they continue to work together. We only need around a million votes for independence next year to win an election which is well within our collective capabilities.

Joe Middleton is the creator of the Scottish Independence Guide http://www.scottishindependence.com and the Press Officer for Independence First http://www.independence1st.com the referendum campaign.

Labour slips up on length of oil reserves

by Jason Allardyce (Sunday Times)

LABOUR has been accused of misleading the public in the debate over independence after one of its own policy documents revealed North Sea oil reserves will not run out for “at least 30 years”.

While the party has claimed publicly that an independent Scotland would face economic catastrophe because of dwindling oil reserves, the internal Labour document says the industry will continue to flourish for decades to come.

The disclosure comes after government figures suggested last week that, without the tax revenues generated by oil, an independent Scotland would face an £11 billion black hole.

That led Labour to claim the SNP would be forced to raise taxes or cut public spending if they win power next year and Scotland becomes independent.

Last week Wendy Alexander, the former enterprise minister who is leading Labour’s attack on the SNP’s economic strategy, described North Sea oil as a “decreasing, volatile resource”.

In an article she said: “Oil production is already down one third, is due to fall further and could be exhausted by 2030. So not only will the Union dividend have gone but so will oil revenues — long before many Scots are picking up their pensions.”

The attack was the latest in a series by senior Labour figures after opinion polls put the SNP on course to win next May’s Scottish election and showed that most Scots support independence.

However, the policy document, produced by Labour’s Scottish policy forum last month and signed off by Jack McConnell, rejects Alexander’s suggestion that oil could run out within 24 years, and claims: “There remains at least 30 years of oil and gas in the UK continental shelf.

“Given our technical and academic excellence, opportunities exist for Scottish expertise to develop clean technology for continued use of fossil fuels in our energy mix.”

Alex Salmond, the SNP leader, said the paper had “blown a hole” in Labour’s argument. “Labour has been caught out saying one thing in private while they try to scaremonger Scotland in public,” he said.

GERS was conceived as a political exercise - Salmond

December 19 2006 (Letters page, Herald)

I MUST be ever-present in Wendy Alexander's thoughts (December 16) these days, having been mentioned by name no fewer than seven times in the same letter! Let me see if I can return the compliment and in so doing cast some light into Labour's "black holes".

Ms Alexander accuses the SNP of traducing civil servants by attacking the basis of the Government Expenditure and Revenue for Scotland (Gers) analysis. Unlike her, I have been a civil servant (ie, a real one, not a special adviser) and know full well the parameters in which they work.

Gers was conceived as a political, not as a statistical, exercise. We know this because the original correspondence from the then Secretary of State, Ian Lang, was leaked some years ago – he wanted it to "undermine the other parties", saying "this initiative could score against all of them".

The civil servants involved have several times tried to pull it back from its more blatant political exploitation by Tory and Labour politicians. The economist in charge, Dr Andrew Goudie, has noted that "Gers tells us nothing about the situation under independence". So why do Ms Alexander and her even less numerate friends misuse it as the basis of their anti-independence attack?

The problems with Gers are twofold and very obvious. It publishes a non-oil headline figure and takes no account of UK borrowing. Thus, it is used by the Tories to talk of subsidies or Labour of black holes. The first is as ludicrous as taking the financial sector out of London finances while the second places the debate in an artificial context. The UK has a budget deficit this year of £34bn, a non-oil deficit of £45bn, and accumulated debt of £500bn.

In Wendy's looking-glass world, this UK black hole should be immediately filled by swingeing tax rises, or does her brand of logic only apply to Scotland? Gers is also two years out of date, and merely by adjusting for this year's oil revenues, which have doubled to more than £10bn, and allowing for the UK deficit, the "subsidy" flows in 2007 from north to south. That is before making any other corrections – for example, the clear counting of English-only departmental expenditure as part of the Scottish total.

Wendy should stop claiming that "oil revenues are falling", since the pre-budget report shows them rising from just more than £10bn to almost £12bn over the next five years. Nor should she pretend that it is running out – Labour's internal policy documents suggest more than 30 years of supply. Of course, there is nothing new about the Labour Party systematically and cynically under-estimating Scotland's oil wealth. The secret papers, recently published from the 1970s, show that this is a long-established Labour tradition.

In these papers was the private economic advice that an independent Scotland would be richer than Switzerland. In public, Labour politicians were comparing our economic prospects to those of Bangladesh.

Ms Alexander doesn't go that far, but she does seem to have great trouble in coping with the notion that Scotland could be a normal independent successful country like our near neighbours, Norway, Ireland and Iceland. All three have lessons to teach us if we are open-minded enough to learn. One of these lessons is to use the strength of Scotland's current budget position to improve our competitive advantage and generate growth and revenue for the long term.They pursue three very different social and taxation models but all three are among the top six economies in the world in terms of wealth per head.They also happen to be three of a handful of western countries running an absolute budget surplus. That has happened because they are economically successful.

I have used up my seven mentions of Ms Alexander so let me close on this note. In a world of dodgy dossiers on Iraq and loans for Lords, the black hole she should really worry about is the one where Labour credibility used to be.

Alex Salmond, MP, 17 Maiden Street, Peterhead.

I NOTICE that Wendy Alexander is now taking a swipe at Norway's tax regime as if that should be a disincentive for Scots to vote for independence.Since all tax systems differ the key to the debate is not tax but quality of life. Ms Alexander should know this and acquaint herself with the UN and other internationally accepted institutions which consistently show Norway, Iceland and Ireland way ahead of us on this measure.

Can she produce a single country in the north-west of Europe whose quality of life has been overtaken by Scotland over the last 50 years?

Would she be even more transparent and volunteer to name the countries that have overtaken Scotland during the same period, and why?

Graeme McCormick, Redhouse Cottage, Arden.

SNP's Good Week Compared to Labour's (Herald)

WENDY Alexander started her letter to The Herald on Saturday with the statement "The SNP have had a bad week". As she is obviously in no position to benefit from such a state of affairs and is an unimpeachable barker of truth, I will be gracious enough to believe her.

However, I must let her know that, in common with the rest of the electorate, I failed to notice, as we discovered the Labour Prime Minister had been questioned by police investigating the grubby commercialisation of the honours system. At the same time we learned he had spiked the Serious Fraud Office's investigation into allegations that a major British contract to secure the sale of weapons of mass destruction to a country, a number of whose citizens were largely responsible for the 9/11 atrocities, involved bribery and corruption on a scale running into hundreds of millions of pounds.

In the same week, the war the Labour leader largely initiated saw a death toll between Sunday and Friday of at least 443, with many more kidnapped, missing and injured.

At a Holyrood level, we heard that the Liberal Democrats would not tolerate the prospect of a minority Labour administration, following the Deputy FM's long-held wish to lower Scottish business rates to below those of our competitors being scuppered by the Finance Minister's pledge to retain parity until 2012. I also read a poll which suggested that Scottish Labour were performing so badly that they would continue to control only one solitary local council after May 2007, perhaps as a result of an electorate tired of having a massive deficit and anaemic growth being waved around as a barometer of success. Then again, it may have something to do with the publication of a Culture Bill about which, despite careful scouring of newspapers, websites and broadcast media, I have yet to find a kind word.

If the SNP happened to have had a bad week, as Wendy established, is the fact Labour had an infinitely worse one a result of simple bad luck or fiendish manipulation of the news cycle by Nationalist spin doctors? Perhaps the people should be told. Perhaps not, though.

Alex Cox, Whistlefield Court, Bearsden

WENDY Alexander starts her partisan pro-Labour letter on Saturday with the assertion that it has been a bad week for the SNP. Where has she been all week when the rest of us have heard of Tony Blair's interview with the Met, the surrender of the UK government to Saudi blackmail and that a majority of Scottish MPs would appear to be against the renewal of Trident? These are matters of morality and amount to a far worse week for Labour than the politicking of which she accuses the SNP.

She boasts that she lived through the transformation of Labour (not, I note, New Labour) to an organisation that answers tough questions convincingly (not, I note again, truthfully). Such a pity they lost their moral compass in the process of that change.

Fred Allardice, Hillside, Grange of Lindores, Cupar

WHAT on earth political cloud-cuckoo land does Wendy Alexander occupy? In a week which has seen a Labour Prime Minister and a Labour government almost overwhelmed by sleaze and corruption, she suggests it was the SNP that has had the bad week. It takes a particularly virulent intellectual myopia to be able to write something like that.

Alan Clayton, Westfield, Letters Way, Strathlachlan

I SEE that senior Labour opinion-formers are advising that to beat David Cameron a slightly shop-soiled Gordon Brown may have to be skipped in favour of someone from the younger generation to lead them into the next election. At this interesting moment in the music-hall of politics, who could fail to be amused by the contributions of the Alexander Twins as ambitious Wendy presses an accordion on eager Douglas, crying, "Play, brother, play!" until the strains of Land of Hope and Glory echo around the manse.

Frederic Lindsay, 28 The Green, Pencaitland, Tranent

Why Scotland can do better with independence

By Alex Salmond

Scotland is underperforming. We have the lowest long-term growth in the European Union and over the past 10 years – the Gordon Brown era – our growth has been almost 30 per cent lower than that of the UK as a whole. Growth is the key to a flourishing country. We only have to look to Ireland to see the transforming effect of annual growth rates averaging almost 8 per cent – four times the Scottish rate.

The result is that too many new businesses in Scotland struggle to survive, average wages are lower, households have less money to spend and each year 25,000 young people leave home to find work and opportunities elsewhere.

Twenty-five years ago, Ireland was the poor relation of these isles. However, with the Dublin government free to choose the right policies to give Ireland an economic edge – lower corporation tax, full engagement with the EU and a national investment in skills and education – it has soared past the UK to become one of the world’s wealthiest half-dozen nations. Last month, Ireland was judged the fourth best place in the world to live by the United Nations, leaving Britain (and Scotland) trailing.

Sustainable growth is the central objective of economic policy for any country and it is Mr Brown’s proudest boast of his record as UK chancellor. By the same measurement, he has failed miserably in his home country.

The devolved government in Edinburgh is unable to move the most important economic levers. It cannot lower corporate tax rates like Ireland or effectively husband our huge natural resources like Norway. It is powerless to make the necessary improvements that could see Scotland join the premier league of successful countries.

What frustrates me most about Scottish Labour politicians is their insularity, illustrated by their depressingly low ambition for our nation. They seem proud when growth figures almost touch the UK average, but over the cycle leave Scotland trailing each of our near international neighbours. They boast of high employment, but seem to forget that includes more low-wage, low-skill, part-time positions. They claim, wrongly, that Scotland is subsidised by the generosity of the London Treasury, euphemistically describe it as a “dividend” and seem content with that state of affairs.

Never have so many people spent so much time desperately attempting to “prove” that their country is subsidised. In the Labour looking-glass, world oil revenues are “falling”, the oil price is about to collapse and the resource is about to run out. In reality, oil revenues are rising (even in the pre-Budget report), we are only about halfway through the North Sea oil revolution in resource terms and the expectation is for a continuing rise in prices over the medium term. The Scottish National party’s approach to oil is to control the resource for the long term – as Norway has done through a capital investment fund – not the grab everything you can, “boom and bust“ attitude of the chancellor.

Scotland’s economic performance today is not good enough for any self-respecting Scot. We urgently need a new management and a new, fresh approach. We can be more successful: we can create a wealthier, fairer and more dynamic nation.

All around us, we have examples of successful independent countries. The human development index is a measurement by the UN that looks at both the performance of a nation’s economy and the success of its society. To our west is Ireland, the fourth most successful country in the index; to our north, Iceland, the second; and to our east Norway, for the sixth year in a row the top country for quality of life. These nations, all also in the top six in terms of gross domestic product per head, form an arc of prosperity that Scotland must aspire to join.

Scotland has as much talent, energy and enthusiasm as these nations. Our people are as skilled; our geography, if anything, offers more advantages. Only Norway could claim to match Scotland in terms of natural resources.

Why are these nations powering ahead, while Scotland’s economy slumbers? I believe independence is the key. Norway, Ireland, Iceland, Finland, Denmark and Sweden are all comparable nations to Scotland, each with the freedom to find the best way to enable their economy to compete.

Not one would leave their success to another nation or tolerate the whining defeatism that is the miserable excuse for unionism in Scotland – the extraordinary proposition that somehow Scotland is uniquely incapable of managing a successful economy. We have tried devolution and, after almost eight years, we know its shortcomings. It is time for Scotland and England to be equal, independent partners, neighbours and friends.

Nuclear Chain Reaction could Break up Britain

Opposition to Trident could trigger a win for the SNP, which in turn could generate a push for independence and the euro.

John Palmer (Comment is Free - Guardian)

The increasingly desperate-sounding calls from Labour leaders to the party faithful in Scotland to prepare for a life-or-death struggle against the Scottish National party comes on the heels of the cabinet's decision - come hell or high water - to drive the modernisation or replacement of Britain's Trident nuclear weapons system through his party and parliament. It is difficult to think of something better calculated to play into the hands of the SNP. As Iain Macwhirter reminded us, the vast majority of Scottish people do not want Trident and demand that the nuclear base at Faslane is removed from Scottish soil. As matters stand Labour is heading for a humiliating defeat in its traditional Scottish heartland next May. According to the latest YouGov poll, the SNP already enjoys a substantial lead over Labour among Scottish voters.
A convincing win for the SNP in the elections to the Scottish parliament next year would generate new momentum behind the demand for independence. With an ICM poll in the Sunday Telegraph showing a clear majority of English voters in favour of dismantling the United Kingdom the London establishment could find it much harder this time to win the case for union.

It is true that the SNP will need to find coalition partners to take office in Edinburgh. The Scottish Greens would certainly back the SNP in demanding an end to the Trident nuclear base at Faslane. Although Tommy Sheridan's anti-Trident, pro-independence Solidarity party will need time to recover from the split among the Scottish socialists, it may yet win seats next May. As Iain Macwhirter points out, more leading Scottish Tories - the latest being Michael Fry - have now come out for independence.

The most likely coalition partners for the SNP are the Liberal Democrats. They will not be keen to agree to a full-blown referendum on independence during the life of the next Scottish parliament. But they will not have missed the opinion poll evidence showing a small - but measurable - majority support for Scottish independence. They will also know that the Blair government's obsession - no matter what the expense - to maintain and enhance Britain's capacity to unleash nuclear devastation will strengthen the move of public opinion flowing towards independence.

The shape of a future independent Scotland remains unclear. But getting there will involve negotiations not only between Edinburgh and London but also between Edinburgh, London and Brussels. If Scotland is to become an independent state in the European Union, the consequences for the UK state within the EU will be very far reaching. The number of votes the UK is entitled to cast within the EU council of ministers would be sharply reduced - and the balance transferred to the new Scottish state. Mind you, a reduction in the powers of the UK to block EU decisions will cause few tears elsewhere. Scotland would also - subject to future treaty changes - be entitled to nominate a member of the European commission.

A common complaint heard in Scotland is that its economy needs lower interest rates than are being set by the Bank of England. If and when independence within the EU comes to be negotiated this could open the debate on whether an independent Scotland should join the euro. After all real interest rates (nominal rates adjusted for inflation) just now are lower in the euro zone than in the UK. In this event a political border between Scotland a rump British state might also become a currency frontier between sterling and the growing number of countries in the euro area.

Even short of outright independence, the polarised political atmosphere in Scotland after the next Scottish elections may make an eventual closure of the Faslane nuclear base inevitable. A new home would then have to be found for Trident - almost certainly somewhere in England. Wales and Northern Ireland are most unlikely to volunteer to house the new system. The consequences of the Blair government's determination to turn its back on nuclear non-proliferation will last much longer than ministers seem to understand. The ultimate irony is that Blair's Iraq war and Trident bequests to his Labour successors may now help set the scene for the break-up of the UK.

Scotland's Strong Independence Movement is Hardly a 'Faint Blip'

I don't have a subscription to the Wall Street Journal unfortunately however this article certainly begins on a very positive note:

Scotland's Strong Independence Movement Is Hardly a 'Faint Blip'
Word Count: 629

Scottish and English readers were probably surprised to read Quentin Letts's assertion that Scottish independence is a "faint blip" on the political radar ("Scot Free," editorial page, Dec. 8). After all, the latest numbers show 52% of Scots and 59% of English people are in favor of Scottish independence. Mr. Letts may call this a "faint blip," but in democracies the more appropriate term is "majority."

It is a certain type of critic who takes issue with the basic principal of self-governance, and I am pleased to say that they are in the minority in the United Kingdom.

Scotland's destiny is in our own hands

Letter to the Editor
11/12/2006

Dear Sir,

Not many people realise it but after the treaty of union Scotland's official designation was North Britain, and people used to write NB at the bottom of a letter rather than Scotland.

We know that this upset some of our historic contemporaries like Robert Louis Stevenson who complains in a letter to a friend "Don't put `NB' on your paper, put Scotland and be done with it ... the name of my native land is not North Britain, whatever may be the name of yours."

Robert Burns was similarly concerned about his country's identity writing "Alas, I have often said to myself what are the boasted advantages which my country reaps from a certain Union that counter balance the annihilation of her Independence, and even her name!"

Sir Walter Scott said "All must center in London... What are we esteemedby the English? Wretched drivellers, incapable of understanding our own affairs; or greedy speculators, unfit to be trusted? On what ground are we considered either as one or the other?"

However Hugh MacDiarmid probably summed it up best when he wrote"Without it's own culture, Scotland will remain a slave."

We owe a great debt to MacDiarmid, to Sir Walter Scott, Burns and the rest for defending our identity during the height of the Empire and beyond and itis probably true to say that without the actions of patriots like them our identity as Scots could have been snuffed out. Of course we can also look back to the heroic deeds of Sir William Wallace and King Robert the Bruce who fought England to a standstill and guaranteed our national independence for four hundred years.

Today most Scots according to the opinion polls support full self government for Scotland. Devolution, though it was a hundred years delayed, and denied undemocratically for twenty years has encouraged us to realise we can have normal powers for Scotland whenever we choose to vote for it.

We have a historic opportunity next year to vote to resume our proper place in the world as a proud independent nation.

Let's go for it.

Joe Middleton

www.scottishindependence.com

MCCONNELL 'HAS MIND MADE UP FOR HIM' ON TRIDENT

[Excellent attacking stuff by Sturgeon. JOE]

First Minister Jack McConnell today came under fire from the SNP and his Liberal Democrat coalition allies for backing plans to keep Britain's nuclear deterrent. In clashes at Question Time, SNP Holyrood leader Nicola Sturgeon accusedhim of being out of touch with the majority of Scots on the issue - and with the majority of his own party.

The Question Time clash began with Nicola Sturgeon recalling that MrMcConnell had previously refused to give his views on replacing theTrident nuclear missile system. On Monday morning his office said he still had an open mind - but on Monday evening he said he agreed with the Government's decision to replace Trident, she told MSPs."What were the compelling arguments that turned the First Minister from don't know to gung ho in seven hours?" she demanded.

Mr McConnell told her: "It's easier to comment on a decision after it has been made than before it's made."Miss Sturgeon may find it easy to have a preconceived position regardless of the evidence or analysis or proper discussion, but I takea far more serious approach to my responsibilities and to the defence of the nation."

He said he believed the decision announced by the Westminster Governmentwas right on two grounds. He did not believe in "unilateral action" to disarm Scotland or the UK -and he also believed it was right to announce that the number of Trident warheads would be reduced, along with reductions in the number ofsubmarines on duty."I also believe it was right to indicate that in the next UK Parliamentthere will be a further decision to be made on the future of the warheads themselves," said Mr McConnell."On all of those bases, I believe the decision was right for the moment,while offering further opportunities for multilateral disarmament in the future - and this is right for Britain and right for the world."

But Ms Sturgeon retorted: "What happened on Monday was that the Prime Minister told the First Minister what his view was to be, and the First Minister complied."She demanded of Mr McConnell: "Doesn't the Government's White Paper make nuclear proliferation more likely, not less likely?"She said Tony Blair had described nuclear weapons as the "ultimate insurance" and a vital element of national security, and had also said he would be prepared to use them in a first-strike attack.

"What does the First Minister say to other countries that cite their national security and their need for an insurance policy as justification for developing nuclear weapons of their own?"

McConnell said he welcomed the Government's decision to reduce thenumber of warheads by 20%, the number of submarines if possible by 25%,and moves allowing a future parliament a decision on whether the warheads should be renewed."I think that's the right decision for multilateral disarmament worldwide, the right decision in an uncertain world - and a decision the SNP could never take because they are not serious about government or the defence of the nation - and they're certainly not serious about being in Britain." [What a shock! JOE]

Ms Sturgeon said: "Just one nuclear warhead can wipe out entire populations - that's why they are morally wrong."She continued: "The decision to replace Trident, publicly backed onMonday by the First Minister, represents the most appalling hypocrisy and robs the UK of any moral authority in arguing the case for non-proliferation." The First Minister is out of touch not only with the majority of Scots on this issue, but also with those in his own party who say in aparliamentary motion tabled yesterday that there is convincing military, economic and political case for the non-renewal case of Trident."And she urged Mr McConnell to have "the courage and honesty" to make the case against new weapons of mass destruction instead of "meekly following Tony Blair's line".

Mr McConnell told MSPs she appeared to be arguing the world would be safer, and it would be morally right, for only other countries to have nuclear weapons in a dangerous world."I believe, as I have said consistently in this chamber for at least six months now, that the only way to reduce the nuclear arsenal worldwide is through multilateral action, and certainly not through weakness," he said.

And it was "essential" that Britain continued along the path first set by Tories, and followed by the Labour Government, of continuing to reduce Britain's nuclear arsenal.He said of the Government's announcement last Monday: "These are the right decisions for multilateral disarmament, the right decisions forthe security of our nation - and the right decisions in an increasingly uncertain and dangerous world."

Ms Sturgeon told MSPs there were eight countries with nuclear weapons but 180 countries without them."I want Scotland to be in the majority," she said.She went on to argue that the difference between Mr McConnell and theSNP was that he was happy to see £25 billion "wasted" on nuclear bombs, while the SNP wanted it spent on better health, education and pensions."

He's for weapons of mass destruction, we stand for building a better Scotland for all - isn't that why more and more people want to see an SNP government?" she said.

Former Herald Editor Signs up For Independence

A former editor of The Herald newspaper has joined a campaign calling for a referendum on Scottish independence. Harry Reid, author of a recently-published history of the Scottish press, Deadline, has signed up with the Scottish Independence Convention, saying: “I’ve been a ‘fellow traveller’ for a year or so now, yet somehow I’ve never quite faced up to what both my heart and my head have been telling me: that an independent Scotland could – and almost certainly would – be a better Scotland.”

An author also of books about the Church of Scotland and Scottish football, Mr Reid was editor of The Herald when it was urging a yes-yes vote during the 1997 devolution referendum.He continued: “I further believe that the Union is finished, and that England could benefit greatly from rediscovering itself by going through the potentially positive process of becoming English rather than British.“And then my old friend and colleague, [The Herald’s former political editor] Murray Ritchie, bludgeoned me into writing this short piece [for the Convention’s website].

So, let me come out and scream it: I believe in, and now I earnestly desire, an independent Scotland.”The war in Iraq is one of the reasons for Reid’s decision. “This man Blair – surely the worst British leader in living memory – has been responsible for the worst thing I can recall the British state doing. That is, the reckless and illegal invasion of a sovereign foreign country, Iraq.”

Continues Reid: “And what has this to do with an independent Scotland? It is quite simple. An independent Scotland would never ever misuse its power in this manner. I could never imagine, in a thousand years, an independent Scotland sending its army to invade a far-off country on such phoney pretexts.”

http://www.allmediascotland.com/spike/628/05122006/former_herald_editor_signs_up_for_independence

http://www.scottishindependenceconvention.com

Smearing Drivel on the Daily Record Forum

This appeared on the daily Record (moderated) forum:

You should grow up and be less of a bigot again. The only reason the bigots and
Ayattollahs at the SNP are riding high in the polls is because Blair's social
policies are a disgrace. The SNP should depart to Iran or Syria etc given thier
love for Islamic fundamentalism. We dont need racists here [plus other rubbish].

I replied:

What on earth is this garbage? Is this the new Labour line, waffle a lot of crap about the SNP being in favour of Islamic Fundamentalism? Completely desperate stuff.

Britain seems to believe it is still a world power which is why it feels it should have it's virility symbol of nuclear weapons. Scotland doesn't need Nukes, it doesn't need England fan Gordon Brown and it doesn't need Labour. Labour are noi better than the Tories and there scaremongering garbage that Scotland would fall to bits with independence is beneath contempt.

ID cards have nothing to do with terrorism (as the Home Office have admitted) so John Reid is talking rubbish about this as well.

Scotland WOULD be less of a target to international terrorists if our government wasn't involving themselves in illegal wars in the middle east and denying others the nuclear weapons that Tony Blair seems to love so much.

The SNP are right to want to leave NATO and get rid of unusable nuclear weapons and the fig leaf of 'a nuclear defence' when really we are just an aircraft carrier for the US.

Scotland doesn't want to spend money on unusable nuclear weapons, we don't want or need them and if England wants to buy them from the US they should do so theirselves and base them in England, not Scotland.

Scotland does not need to interfere in the middle east or prop up despotic dictatorships, we need to have our own foreign policy and our own independent representation in the UN and the EU.

Toryism whether Blair style Pink or new style with call me Dave is equally as bad. It's time for a socialist/social democratic Scotland and an SNP/SSP/Green coalition.

As for Brown, get a grip! He's no different to Blair and like Blair he puts England first, even to the extent of supporting their football team!

Free Scotland Now!

www.scottishindependence.com

Poll predicts Labour council wipe-out (Ha ha ha!)

SCOTTISH LABOUR are set to lose almost half of their councillors as well as the control of 12 local authorities next year, according to a new opinion poll. If the figures are reflected in May's council elections, First Minister Jack McConnell's party would only have a majority of seats in North Lanarkshire.

It would be Labour's worst result in a local authority election and signal the end of the party's domination of local government politics in Scotland. The figures are contained in a YouGov poll commissioned by the SNP. Around 1000 people were asked in November about their voting intentions for next May's council elections.

Alex Salmond's SNP polled 28%, up 4% from the last local authority election in 2003, while Labour slumped to 27%, down six points from three years ago.

The Liberal Democrats were shown to be up marginally to 16%, while the Conservatives were down 1% from 2003 to 15%. Another category, marked "Independent/Others", gathered 15% support. But it is the 5% swing away from Labour to the SNP that will worry election strategists in McConnell's party.

Labour were expecting to lose dozens of councillors next year because of the introduction of proportional representation, but a dip in the party vote would be a double disaster.
An analysis of the poll findings found that a 5% swing would result in a "near wipe-out" of Labour-held councils next year. Labour currently has more than 500 councillors and controls 13 of Scotland's 32 local authorities.

Such a result would see Labour lose overall control of 12 councils, including Glasgow, Edinburgh, South Lanarkshire and North Ayrshire. McConnell's party would have to consider forming coalitions with others if they still wanted to control these local authorities. Only North Lanarkshire would remain in Labour hands.

The SNP report claims the poll indicates a "revolution in Scottish local government bringing to an end decades of Labour domination". It adds: "Due to proportional representation and low Labour poll ratings Labour seem ready to crumble at local level."

Another YouGov question on the council election, this time based on those "certain to vote", was even better for the SNP.

The poll found support for the Nationalists at 30%, up 6% on 2003, while Labour trailed in second place at 26%, down seven points from three years ago.

If reflected in the council election result next year, the SNP would end up with 385 councillors, a gain of 211. Labour would be left with 319 local government politicians, down 190 from 2003. This would mean the Nationalists winning more council seats than Labour for the first time in their history.

The Liberal Democrats, on 14%, have been predicted to gain 18 council seats, while the Tories would lose two compared with the 2003 election.

The heavy losses have prompted Labour's local bosses to start coalition talks with other political groupings ahead of next year's poll.

Already the local parties in Edinburgh and Glasgow have reportedly been in talks with the Liberal Democrats to see if a post-election pact would be viable.

SNP leader Salmond said the poll was further evidence of a Labour meltdown in Scotland.
"One of the final bulwarks holding the Labour Party in Scotland together is their domination of local government. That now, too, is coming to an end. The very foundations of Scottish Labour are collapsing," he said.

A spokesman for Labour Party yesterday dismissed the local election poll: "The dogs in the street were laughing at the last discredited poll when it was published well before Labour's successful conference in Oban. It's time the Nationalists started publishing information like how they would pay for their wild spending pledges."

[That 'successful conference' would be the 'bash SNP' farce where Labour showed they didn't trust Jack McConnell and drafted in Tony Blair, England fan Gordon Brown and other True Brits to waffle a lot of utter cr*p about the prospects of an independent Scotland would it? Despite every other country managing their own independence, Labour's message is that Scots are uniquely incapable of running their own affairs and the sky will fall in with independence. If this is the best argument they can come up wth then the SNP must be rubbing their hands with glee. JOE]

http://www.sundayherald.com/news/heraldnews/display.var.1054760.0.0.php