GORDON BROWN'S LATEST FAN - NORMAN TEBBIT!

Labour's traditional supporters will surely love this, not! Not only has Brown grasped Mrs Thatcher to his buxom, now he is embraced by the grotesque Norman Tebbit, with friends like these and slogans like "Real jobs for Real Britains" Brown has proven that he is not only out of touch but like David Blunkett he'll use the race card when required. If Tebbit is supporting him, and former top Tories are welcomed at their conference, Labour must realise in their heart of hearts that they have lost their way.

Norman Tebbit - Right wing loon who invented the 'Cricket Test' which suggested that people shouldn't be allowed to stay in Britain unless they supported England at cricket.

A right wing former Tory minister praised Gordon Brown and attacked David Cameron today as the party geared up for its conference next week. Lord Tebbit, the former Conservative party chairman, said that voters believed that Mr Cameron was out of touch and had "no experience of the world". By contrast, he praised Gordon Brown's "courtesy and political nous" in inviting Lady Thatcher to No 10 at a time when the Tory leadership was attempting to distance itself from her.

In an interview with the Times, Lord Tebbit said that Mr Brown was a "very clever man and I have considerable regard for him", adding that the prime minister was not "tacky" in the manner of his predecessor, Tony Blair.

Lord Tebbit, who served in Lady Thatcher's cabinet, said that the former prime minister knew exactly what she was doing when she was photographed in Downing Street with Mr Brown earlier this month.

"I'm quite sure that Margaret Thatcher knew exactly what she was doing," he said.
"She's, first, too well-mannered to rebuff the prime minister and, second, of course, the present Conservative leadership has been at great pains to distance himself from her - and she is, after all, a woman."

He said that the present Tory party "lack somebody of the standing of Margaret". He said that the prime minister's invitation to Lady Thatcher was "Gordon Brown at his very best, a wonderful mixture of his courtesy and his political nous".

He added: "After all, Cameron described himself as the 'heir to Blair'. It's only natural that Brown should make himself the 'heir to Thatcher'. It's the perfect response, isn't it?"

LABOUR'S LOVE FOR BRITAIN WILL BE THEIR UNDOING

Alexander says sorry for letting SNP gain power at Holyrood - Wendy Alexander has apologised to the people of Scotland for allowing the SNP to be victorious over Labour in the May elections (reports the Britman).

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1531252007

How can Wendy Alexander apologise "to the people of Scotland" for "allowing Labour to be defeated"? The fact is that the people CHOSE the SNP because they had a positive uplifting message and faith in their own folk something Labour will never understand in a million years.

While Wendy actually apologies to her Labour chums (when in fact they should be grateful the Scots have given them the benefit of the doubt for years) and pleads for help to defeat the SNP, her boss tells us exactly why Labour will never deserve another vote from a Scot again:

Quote from the Scotsman's front page article: "And that nation, as ever, is Britain, an identity the Prime Minister again made clear he believes must come before and above those of the constituent parts of the United Kingdom."

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1531142007

Aye well there's the rub, if Brown doesn't care about Scotland and puts Britain first as he so clearly does, why should we care about him? The more Brown trumpets his love for Britain the more Scots will flush his party down the toilet of history. His hingers on like the Alexanders will enjoy the u-bend right beside him.

CHANGE THE RECORD WENDY- YOU'RE FOOLING NO-ONE

The difference between the SNP and Labour is that the SNP believe the Scots are equal to any other people on the planet and that we have the same right to rule our own affairs, while Labour are stuck to a union which suits their party politically but is long past it's sell by date.

Independence is normality and the SNP are right to call for it just as all the other parties based in Scotland support it as well.

Ms Alexander comes across like another self interested glove puppet of No. 10 Downing Street.

She is only slightly more appealing than her brother, one of the most irritating individuals ever, a puffed up little tick whose career has been based on sooking up Broon's backside and who has obviously never given even an idle thought to the best interests of the people of Scotland.

That Wendy Alexander can only come up with this dreadful response to the SNP's national conversation reveals what everyone already knows, that there is no enthusiasm for continued union or for the low level aspirations for Scotland that Labour has.

The pumped up Britishness of Gordon Brown, clearly designed to cover up his scottish identity and fool the English UK majority is both transparent and pathetic. The SNP have nothing to fear from this crowd. The time is right for independence.

LIBERAL DEMOCRATS CONTEMPT FOR SCOTS LEADER = CONTEMPT FOR SCOTLAND

From 'secret weapon' to Lib Dem fringe act (Scotsman)

A YEAR ago, Nicol Stephen made his battle cry for the Scottish elections on the main stage at the Liberal Democrats' conference, billed as the party's "secret weapon", ready to be deployed against the SNP. Yesterday, for his sole appearance at the Brighton conference, Mr Stephen and the Scottish Liberal Democrats were, literally, relegated to the fringe.

http://news.scotsman.com/scotland.cfm?id=1492352007

Interesting article from the Britman about the Lib Dems, it transpires that the Lib Dems are now demanding some of the oil money for Scotland (a move in the right direction) but the British party conference won't even let them say it on their main stage! It doesn't say much for their influence or relevance down south does it?

This reminds me of the treatment of Jack McConnell during the last election. Basically Jack went down to London, explained his plans for the Scottish elections which were ripped up and laughed at by Blair and Brown (or Bwown as he now prefers to be known) and then he was told how it would be run, and yet he was supposed to inspire respect as First Minister of the Scottish Government...!!

I just watched Nicol Stephen on Newsnight Scotland (the one Jeremy Paxman doesn't want us to have even though he's never actually watched it) and he was ripped to bits by Gordon Brewer who is hardly the finest interviewer on the TV, he's more of a friendly puppy than an attack dog, yet even he, an arch unionist, was flabbergasted at the Lib Dem's hypocrisy.

Do you want a referendum on the EU, 'oh yes' says Nicol 'because we believe in the EU and we want the chance to put our case for it', do you want a referendum on the minimal new powers at Westminster proposed by Gordon Brown, 'oh yes the British people should have a choice on this important change in the powers of the Government'.

'So you want a referendum on the EU but you don't want to have a referendum on Scottish independence? You don't want to make a positive case for the union?' says Brewer.

'Oh no! We don't believe in independence' says Mr Stephen. (So they will only hold referendums they think they can win and suit their party, a great attitude to Democracy.)

A referendum on independence gives the SCOTTISH PEOPLE a choice on independence. Nicol claimed that the people had the chance to vote for independence in the Scottish elections and the UK general elections, yes they did and they also had a massive campaign of lies and misleading statistics led by a biased media against independence. They also were voting on party manifestos and local issues, so it was NOT a direct vote on independence, as he well knows.

Of course Nicol claimed he had came back to Scotland for important discussions with his new best pals the leaders of the Labour and Tory parties. Their humiliating conclusion? That they now need to GO BACK DOWN TO LONDON to get advice on exactly what powers Britain might decide to advance to Scotland!

There we have again if proof was ever required that the Liberal Democrats have no interest whatsoever in what the Scottish people might desire, all they want is to stop any move towards self determination, what a sad day for a once proud actively campaigning Scottish political party which held to the Claim of Right for Scotland. I imagine their could be some screams of anguish at their next Scottish conference, IF they have any principled members left.

When the Scottish Liberal Democrats get humped in Scotland in the upcoming British general election they will only have themselves to blame.

Independent Scotland would have to apply to join EU CLAIMS the Scotsman

http://news.scotsman.com/scotland.cfm?id=1497442007

The 'meat' of the 'story' is here: "On the issue concerning Scotland's independence, that's not my competence to assess or to evaluate..."

IE this person is not competent to make a judgement so this is yet another attempt by the scotsman to cast doubt on the SNP's position without foundation.

The European Commission retained its neutral position yesterday. A spokeswoman said: "It is not customary for the commission to state its views on matters which, as things stand, are purely hypothetical."

Scotland joined the EU as part of Britain. If Scotland becomes independent then the British state as enshrined in the Act of Union no longer exists. There will be a rump state of England and allies (possibly terming itself the UK but without any foundation to that because 'the Kingdom' ie the state would not in fact be united anymore).

It is unlikely that it will last for long as logically Wales would follow Scotland to independence and NI might see less prestige in being part of England rather than Britain.

However when Britain breaks up there will be at least two seperate new states created, they will either both have to apply for EU membership or both will be automatically accepted, I suggest the latter is more likely to be prudent given our resources and our history as an EU member.
If in fact we do have to re-apply for membership then many people would argue that Scortland would be better off outside anyway so this won't necessarilly affect Scots prospects of voting for independence as much as the Scotsman hopes.

The most important body we need to join is the UN, the others are negotiable.

http://www.scottishindependence.com/

A VIEW FROM ENGLAND

Quite a good article with some interesting comments appended. JOE

If Scotland got its vote, then so should we
Beware, Mr Brown, the English are proud patriots too
William Rees-Mogg (The Times)

After three centuries, this seems likely to be the year of Scotland’s revenge. In 1707 the last Scottish Parliament of the old order dissolved itself and Scottish sovereignty was transferred from Edinburgh to London.

In their hearts many Scots never accepted this English predominance. They rebelled in 1715 and 1745, but it was not until May of this year that they elected, with a plurality of only one seat, a Scottish government committed to Scottish independence. I admire Alex Salmond’s achievement as leader of the Scottish National Party.

In a month’s time in Lisbon, Gordon Brown, who is a Scottish Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, will go to the European summit to approve a treaty that will transfer many of the remaining powers of British sovereignty to the European Union.

Although the Scottish people were given two constitutional referendums to establish Scottish devolution, no such consideration will be given to the British people, if the Prime Minister can avoid it. Certainly, the English people, however much they might object to becoming one of the western provinces of a European empire, will be allowed no chance to decide the matter for themselves.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/william_rees_mogg/article2469067.ece

SCOTLAND BEWARE AS BROWN WOOS ENGLISH TORIES

'Not so New' Labour: Does this man represent our interests and our values?

(from Washington Post) Gordon Brown and Mrs Margaret Thatcher's meeting at Downing Street came after the current leader praised Thatcher, still a hugely divisive figure in British politics and amid an apparent campaign by Brown to appeal to supporters of her party, the main opposition Conservatives.

In recent weeks, Brown has appointed two Conservative lawmakers as advisers to his government and hired the opposition party's ex-deputy treasurer as an environmental consultant.

Brown, who must call a national election before mid-2010, has also tapped Thatcher's former advertising agency to handle Labour's looming campaign.

Unionist Arguments Against Independence Are Desperate Rubbish

Letter to the Editor (Metro)

14/09/2007

Dear Sir,

Proponents of Scottish independence should perhaps be pleased as the arguments against it seem to have become ever more desperate over the years. The latest assertion by 'Robin' that "Scottish independence is nothing more than a label to hide behind for hatred of the English" is perhaps the nastiest assertion yet, though most unionists have sang some variation on this theme at some point.

Let's be absolutely clear. A belief that Scotland has a right to the normal political powers that almost every other country enjoys is about simple democracy not any imagined feeling of superiority.

It is ironic that those who hark back to the so called golden times of the British Empire - which was in fact based upon a philosophy of imperialism and superiority to other cultures - try and turn the argument against Scotland for wanting the same freedoms that most former colonies now enjoy.

Modern civic based nationalism is about changing Scotland for the better and it attracts support from every nationality and ethnic minority living in Scotland. It is about improving things for everyone who lives here.

'Nick' from Edinburgh says nationalists are all right wing thereby attempting a variation on the other great lie that fascism and nationalism are somehow linked. Not all nationalists believe in the superiority of their culture over others, those who do are imperialist nationalists like Hitler or the BNP.

The SNP are quite different. They are a genuine democratic left of centre inclusive political party, however 'Nick from Edinburgh' probably knew that already just as his pal 'Robin from Glasgow' is no doubt aware that more Scots fought in the Spanish civil war per head of population than any other outside nationality.

If more people had followed our example we might have avoided World War II altogether! It is a totally grotesque insult against every Scot who fought in the second world war to claim that if we were independent at that time we would have taken no part in it.

If British unionism is based on both blatant lies and deliberately twisting our past shared history (and it is surprising how often these 'arguments' come up) it is no wonder that increasing numbers of Scots see the British union as redundant and want a better life for them and their children as a free and independent state.

Yours faithfully,

Joe Middleton

Unsettling changes (for Labour and the Media)

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/mike_small/2007/09/unsettling_changes.html

A cracking article and some very interesting well thought out comments appended to it.

Waffle from Wendy? Or are Labour going to back a referendum?

Ruaridh Nicoll in the observer:

At the Apex, Alexander hinted at how she might be prepared to call Salmond's bluff. 'There will be a referendum in 2010,' she told the delegates.

That's quite a statement. Why must there be a referendum? Her certainty was odd, for there is no need for one. The SNP have not got the votes in Parliament to call it. Could she be planning to have Labour back this call? Her advisers were not forthcoming, beyond encouraging speculation.
'There will be a referendum in 2010 and the SNP will lose,' she told the delegates.

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,2165514,00.html

UNIONIST BLOC TRYING TO HOODWINK SCOTS OUT OF INDY

United call for new Holyrood powers

SCOTLAND'S three main Unionist parties joined forces last night to launch a joint bid for more powers for the Scottish Parliament. Scottish Labour, the Scottish Conservatives and the Scottish Liberal Democrats announced plans for their own "national conversation" to rival that launched by Alex Salmond, the First Minister, earlier this month to push for independence.

http://news.scotsman.com/scotland.cfm?id=1370472007

Labour and the Liberal Democrats were in power for the last two parliaments. If they had any genuine desire for more powers for the Scottish parliament they would have articulated that desire during their time in power. Although it was not properly reported prior to the election the independence movement as a whole was never more united than at the last election. All the major scottish parties (SNP, Greens, SSP, Solidarity) are agreed on political strategy (ie through a referendum and also delaying a final decision on the EU and monarchy till after independence to ensure maximum unity now) and all were actively working together within the Independence Convention and the referendum campaign Independence First.

In the past Labour and the Lib Dems lined up against the Conservatives for devolution (also motivated by a desire to outflank the SNP). The Conservatives were like King Canute, telling the waves of support for devolution to stop, before being washed away electorally. Now Labour and the Lib Dems have joined forces with the Tories and now effectively speak with one unionist voice bellowing NO to a Scottish public which wants a referendum. 'This far and no further' they effectively told the Scottish people at the last election, Devolution was 'good enough'.

Labour subsequently got cuffed by the SNP. Since the elections Labour, Tories and Lib Dems have started issuing joint statements and are now having secret meetings supposedly to call for 'more powers' but actually to decide the absolute minimum of power they think Scotland will be satisfied with. The message that there is no difference whatsoever between these parties is now ringing out very loudly and very clearly.

Most polls prior to the election showed a narrow MAJORITY for independence (if don't knows were excluded (see Independence First's website for more info) which explains why the unionst bloc is actually unwilling to countenance a referendum, they might well lose it!
If the unionist parties supported the 'Claim of Right for Scotland' which was the moral basis of the Scottish constitutional Convention in the 1980's then they would respect the Scottish public's desire for a referendum on independence (support for that is at between 60 and 80% according to the polls).

In fact they do not. All are London owned and controlled branches of larger British parties which require the status quo on the union to continue to allow them to gain power at Westminster. The more they act together the more the Scottish public will see who they can trust and who they can't to represent Scottish interests. It's not hard now we see a home grown Scottish party in power to see the difference in political ambition between the current administration and the last.

No doubt mistakes will be made by the SNP but no one can doubt their desire for more power for their fellow Scots. On the other hand one can easily see the moves by the unionists to call for 'more powers' are an obvious and pretty cynical last ditch attempt to hoodwink their fellow Scots out of the natural normal powers of independence.

SNP: KEEP SCOTS IN THE DARK OVER INDEPENDENCE

The usual garbage from the retard, only they could spin the logical idea that scots must take our own decisions AFTER independence into this:

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/news/tm_headline=keep-scots-in-the-dark-nats&method=full&objectid=19603978&siteid=66633-name_page.html

Still the fact they are attacking this aspect of the convention shows they recognise the danger (for unionists) of a united pro independence campaign.

WHY FLYING OUR FLAG MATTERS

Gordon Brown's attempt to foist the Union Jack upon everyone has backfired. Jack Straw has been forced to admit that Scotland can choose to fly any flag we want and Christine Grahame has taken up the cudgels with the SNP hoping to get the Saltire flying everywhere all the time.

No doubt some will think this is a fuss over nothing, some will claim it doesn't really matter what flag flies and that the Scottish parliament should be doing something more constructive.

This attitude misses the point, Scotland has our own flag, while the union continues we will no doubt have to put up with seeing the union flag flying occasionally but we should not be forced to have our national flag flown in a subservient position, as current rules dictate, nor should our flag be demoted just because Gordon Brown want's everyone in England to forget he's a Scot!

The saltire is a symbol for all Scots. The union flag on the other hand has a blood stained history as a symbol of imperialism over a huge chunk of the planet. Not for nothing has it been termed 'the Butcher's Apron'. It's possible that England's own flag the St George's Cross can become a welcoming symbol for all England's people, it's equally certain that the British flag cannot because of it's history.

Billy Bragg's comments on this were disappointing, particularly given his recent book. Many people in Scotland have no regard for Britishness whatsoever and would be entirely happy to see the union flag put in the dustbin of history. The flag is dominated in it's centre by the St George's Cross and it represents effective English dominance over Scotland. There is no way the vast majority of people in Scotland will ever be proud to fly the union flag no matter how much Gordon Brown wishes they would.

England has their own flag, it's time for the English to adopt some pride in it and stop attempting to get everyone else to love a flag which has lost all relevance to Scots and represents a discredited racist imperial past. That tarnished history which has seen the union flag adopted by skinheads across the globe and neo fascists in this country (not to mention deluded anti Europeans in UKIP) means it can never properly represent any true AND GENUINE civic natonality.

Since Scotland and Wales have acheived a measure of devolved power the English have rediscovered their flag and have begun to wave it with pride. this is a positive natural development and should be welcomed and encouraged (though in Cornwall, which is also historically a Celtic Country, like Scotland, Ireland and Wales they naturally want to wave their own flag and are gradually voting for Mebyon Kernow their equivalent of the SNP).

The union flag represents an unequal union which has seen Scotland, Wales, Ireland and Cornwalls rights subsumed within an unrepresentative and unequal alliance of convenience which for many years benefited England and contrbuted to England's vast trading Empire (which was largely established before the union of parliaments) but has long since ceased to benefit anyone else. The Empire is over and the flag that represented past British/English power and imperial arrogance is no longer relevant.

Our flag however the Saltire has no such baggage and is a proud symbol of all Scots who live in Scotland, no matter when they arrived. That's why the SNP are right to promote the Saltire at every opportunity and why the Scottish people as a whole should resist any attempts to force the British flag upon us.

LABOUR ADMITTED SELLING HONOURS SOME TIME AGO

This from the Guardian:

Police had arrested Labour's chief fundraiser Lord Levy, another close No 10 aide and a millionaire donor during the inquiry but yesterday they were told by the CPS that there was an unrealistic prospect that the evidence would lead to a conviction. Senior Scotland Yard figures were said to strongly disagree.

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/funding/story/0,,2130916,00.html

So in other words the Police had collected enough evidence to prosecute but the CPS has been nobbled. We know that Labour are guilty because early on Frank Field admitted as much however he said it was OK because “everybody does it.”

In an interview with The Daily Telegraph, Mr Field, a former social security minister, said the selling of honours "needs to be seen in context"."It has always gone on and probably always will. Most people know that for the best part of two centuries that honours were appropriated by money," he told the newspaper.'In the 18th century honours and cash for political parties were in effect the constitution. It is a different relationship now. But of course it is still going on today.'

http://www.politics.co.uk/News/domestic-policy/constitution/honours-system/honours-have-always-been-sold-$458742.htm

From the Mail on Sunday:

There is no doubt that British political parties (and not just Tony Wright's own New Labour) are basically corrupt and have been for many years. All of them are bankrupt and have, at times, sought to make good their cash shortfall by offering favours to party donors. In some cases, as in the Ecclestone scandal over tobacco advertising for Formula One racing, they change government policy in order to help out their donors. On other occasions, they offer meetings with ministers or senior politicians in return for hard cash.

But the practice of exchanging honours for money, either in the form of donations or loans, is most common of all. Both Tories and Labour have raised scores of millions of pounds in this way. A recent piece of research showed that a Labour Party donor was 7,000 times more likely than a non-donor to receive a peerage, and 1,600 times more likely to receive some other kind of honour.

It's long been an open secret that honours were for sale, so much so that the former Downing Street policy chief Geoff Mulgan once remarked that "in later years, the scarcely concealed sale of peerages to wealthy party donors, and the appointment of the party's top donor - Lord Sainsbury - to ministerial office, did little to restore public confidence in the Government".

http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/pages/live/articles/columnists/columnists.html?in_article_id=469858&in_page_id=1772&in_author_id=382

SCOTS HAVE BEEN BRAINWASHED FOR YEARS

In a week where we found out via Alistair Campbell that our former Prime Minister Tony Blair considers Scots to be "Whingeing Jocks" here is a typical example of biased reporting by the Press Association which then filters through other media. Various claims are made but very little evidence is there to back them up!

The raw figures are that the vast majority (76%) of people think of theirselves as Scottish first and only 23% are very proud of Britain, however the report seems to draw very different conclusions.

Let's face it our 'Scottish' education system has always been geared towards a rosy coloured British viewpoint of history and it's not so long since every classroom had a huge map with pink parts all over the world denoting the extents of the British Empire. For a long time Scottish history was not taught at all and even now it is marginalised and limited (kids were beaten for speaking in Scots for years). This classroom bias has a huge long term cultural effect.

We have also been awash with pro British propaganda and various British themed TV since the beginning of the BBC. Every day seems to provide a new documentary about WWII and outside Football and Rugby we have no independent representation (not even in Eurovision never mind the Olympics!), given that it would be strange indeed if there was no one who had some residual feelings (what does 'some pride' mean anyway?) about Britain, whether based on reality or not.

Our education system is also geared towards a rosy coloured British viewpoint of history and it's not so long since every classroom had a huge map with pink parts all over the world denoting the extents of the British Empire.

What's most obvious is that Scottish identity is on the rise despite all the above factors.
The report claims: "Scots, even those who say they are 'Scottish not British' are not hostile to the idea of Britain, its history, or its empire, and are happy to think of it in cultural unifying terms."

There are also plenty of people around who are Scots not British and believe the Empire was a racism fuelled international embarrassment and that the British state has long outlived it's usefulness to both Scotland and England.

This view is the one which is genuinely on the rise for obvious reasons.

-----Original Message-----
From: mediapoint.scotland@pa.press.net

SCOTS 'STILL HAVE SENSE OF BRITISHNESS'
SOCIAL British

12 Jul 2007 - 16:49
By Katrine Bussey, Political Reporter Scottish Press Association

Scots still have a sense of being British, despite an increasing sense of Scottish national identity, academics said today.
Edinburgh University researchers Frank Bechhofer and David McCrone studied issues surrounding national identity.
And they found that despite a strengthening sense of Scottishness over the past 30 years, there is still a widespread sense of being British both north and south of the border.
The proportion of people identifying themselves as Scottish has risen from 65% in 1974 to 76% in 2005.
But the academics, from the University's Institute of Governance, say that while people are more likely to identify themselves as being Scottish rather than British, most are not opposed to Britain.
Their paper is published in the current edition of The Political Quarterly just weeks after Gordon Brown - who has made repeated calls for greater pride in the British identity - took office as Prime Minister.
The researchers state that while levels of pride in Britain are higher among the English than the Scots, there is a "clear majority" in Scotland who take some pride in Britain.
The SNP formed a minority administration in the Scottish Parliament following its election victory in May.
The survey asked people how proud they were of being British, with 41% in England describing themselves as "very proud" compared to 23% of Scots.
At the same time in England, 79% expressed some pride in being British, compared to 64% in Scotland.
The authors concluded that the data is "certainly not compatible with a strong rejection of being British".
They added: "The dominant impression is that a majority of people in Scotland take some pride in being British.
"Scots, even those who say they are 'Scottish not British' are not hostile to the idea of Britain, its history, or its empire, and are happy to think of it in cultural unifying terms."
The study also looked at politics and national identity, with the researchers stating that a person's sense of national identity was only "loosely associated" with their political preferences.
Among supporters of the Conservative Party - traditionally the most unionist of the parties - 76% described themselves as being at least as Scottish as they are British.
And among SNP supporters, only 51% reject any idea of Britishness, describing themselves as 'Scottish not British'.
Further it is only among people who regard themselves as being Scottish and not British that there is a majority of support for Scottish independence, with 51% of this group backing such a move.
Professor McCrone said: "The relatively weak association between identity and party political support or even views on independence suggests it is difficult to mobilise national identity in a straightforwardly political way."

SCHOOLS ARE NOT THE PROBLEM - BIGOTS ARE

SNP 'is open to idea' of state schools for Muslims

THE SNP government has signalled it is willing to consider having separate Muslim state schools in Scotland. A spokesman for Education Secretary Fiona Hyslop said ministers were "open" to proposals about such a move.

http://news.scotsman.com/politics.cfm?id=1081232007

The survival of Catholic schools owes a lot to the fact that despite being almost completely integrated within society Catholics still see themselves as being under some level of threat. The large amount of Orange lodges and Orange parades proves that this threat is not imaginary.

The Act of Settlement with its various bigoted clauses also gives the impression that discrimination against Catholicism is institutional and until this is removed or adjusted that is actually the case.

There are also other shady groups like the Masons who deliberately exclude Catholics from their membership and which have an insiduous influence within society. The constant requests from the Orange lodges for Catholic schools to be closed actually guarantees their continued existence.

They are also guaranteed under law because the Catholic church used to run their own schools themselves and their right to have seperate schooling is enshrined in the legislation which set up comprehensive education.

Catholic shools will continue until Catholics feel they are 100% integrated. This has almost happened but given the above factors has not actually quite completed as yet.

If Muslim schools are introduced it will be done for progressive positive reasons. However it might prove to be a backward step eventually that will cause even more problems because it will indicate that a further group feels under threat from the community at large, which is a great pity.

Cultural 'divisions' between Muslims and 'Christians' (in fact most people are not genuinely interested in religion at all) are already exacerbated by a divisive foreign policy by the British Government and various attempts like citizens ceremonies to push a false British identity upon us all. We should be asking why Muslims feel the current schools system does not suit them.

In Scotland we seem to historically have had a mature approach which is based on respecting the rights of others however it is probably true to say there is still insufficient understanding of other religions and what they actually represent.

The real problem is that non-demoninational schools are not actually seen as genuinely non-denominational, for many they are Protestant schools which reflect the dominant religion of this country. As long as this persists people will want to opt out of the status quo and the only logical answer would seem to be to remove religious education entirely from all schools.

Unfortunately this won't cure bigotry which is not actually induced at school but at home and is ultimately based on ignorance.

Unionist MPs are motivated by self-interest (Herald)

[Excellent letter from new SNP MSP Jamie Hepburn. Jamie, Bill Wilson, Aileen Campbell and Bob Doris are all new MSP's and are all declared supporters of the Independence First referendum campaign along with Sandra White, Alex Neil, and Stewart Maxwell so we have a few new friends in high places].

Unionist MPs are motivated by self-interest

Malcolm Bruce suggests that the new SNP government is trying to provoke the Westminster government. Among the examples he cites are the abolition of the graduate endowment fund and the denial of this benefit to English students.

This is a bizarre claim to make. First, I seem to recall that his party also included the abolition of the graduate endowment fund in its manifesto at the Scottish Parliament election. Was this an act of provocation, too? Or does Mr Bruce's attitude suggest that this was a LibDem promise that was never to be fulfilled in the first place?

Secondly, far from it being the SNP that denies English students the same entitlements as Scottish students, it is he as a Unionist who does so. Mr Bruce knows fine well that if Scotland were an independent member state of the EU, then English students would be entitled to the same as Scots-based students. Our status as a sub-state nation within the EU denies us this opportunity. It is being part of the UK that stops English students from being entitled to the same benefits as Scottish students.

Mr Bruce then goes on to spout the old Unionist rubbish about Scotland suffering reduced influence in the world with independence. His statement that "our combined influence in the world" would be weakened with independence is nonsense.

Indeed, his claims don't stand up to scrutiny, given that we are presently in the throes of seeing Scotland's number of representatives at the European Parliament cut from seven to six, while Lithuania, with a population of some 1.5 million fewer than Scotland, has 13 members of that body.

The fact of the matter is that Scotland presently has no distinct voice of its own in the world and only independence will rectify that.

Mr Bruce almost comes clean as to his real concerns when he writes about Scots being no longer eligible for influential careers with independence. This is, of course, by and large total garbage. Scotland will have its own civil service and diplomatic corps and there will be many opportunities for our citizens as part of this.

One area of employment may be cut off, however. The 59 Scottish MPs who are presently elected to Westminster will no longer be able to sit in that institution and draw their salaries or expenses.

Mr Bruce is, of course, one of these individuals. It is his career he is really worried about, and not those of anyone else. It is this self-interest that is so evident in the Unionist politician that holds our country back from making real progress with independence.

Jamie Hepburn MSP,
Scottish Parliament.

BROWN'S EMPTY CABINET - CRETINS AND SOOKS PROMOTED

Even though the media are officially sooking right up Brown's b*ckside at the moment, he's not going to last long because England is officially sick of Scotland.

To distract attention from this uncomfortable fact he's giving a few fresh faced boys top jobs in the cabinet, even if (like Douglas Alexander) they are way out of their depth, as long as they can say "yes sir, thank you sir!" they can work for Brown. Ed Miliband is getting his prize (Foreign Secretary) for not challenging Gordon even though he's not quite left school yet.

A previously unknown woman becomes Home Secretary so we won't mind so much when she reduces our civil liberties, while various Lords have been given various daft jobs and Jack Straw has been made 'Lord Chancellor' even though he's not a Lord at all.

He's also today announced new 'Secretary of States' for the English regions, a daft idea which will achieve as little as our own Secretary of State, a part time (and totally unnecessary) post which is now tacked to any old cabinet post as long as a Scot has it.

Des Browne the accident prone former defence secretary becomes the new 'Scottish Secretary' and is going to 'fight' Alex Salmond, great plan Gordon, but I thought the point of a Secretary of State was supposed to represent 'us' in government?!

I look forward to Salmond slapping this fool's chops live on TV. Brown clearly has contempt for his own nation to send in this proxy buffoon (he's 'too busy' at the moment to have any interest in his own country apparently) and I'm sure that's the message the Scottish public will hear loud and clear.

TOO LITTLE TOO LATE - ENGLISH WANT US OUT OF UNION

A very interesting article in the Times by Magnus Linklater, bear in mind that Magnus is a died in the wool unionist but even he is apparently sick of Scots being unfairly labelled as subsidy junkies.

Before you start laying into those subsidy junkies . . .

Defending the Scots against English bile

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/magnus_linklater/article1991123.ece

Even more illuminating are the nasty xenophobic remarks underneath it...!

Magnus isn't the only Unionist Scot to begin to chafe at the anti Scottish tone of much of the English media even Peter MacMahon (yes, the ex Labour spin doctor himself) felt obliged to set the record straight:

Don't blame Alex Salmond - blame the whingeing from Unionists
PETER MACMAHON

THE Union is in peril. The very idea of the United Kingdom is under threat. The spectre of separatism haunts the land. And we know who is to blame. Alex Salmond, of course. Well, no. The greatest threat to the Union could be from Unionists. Take the exchanges this week in the Upper House at Westminster, where the noble Lords Forsyth and Baker...

http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=1124&id=975322007

The truth is of course that McMahon, Linklater and all those of their ilk have been castigating their own people for years and pretending that we are sooking away at England's teat because it suited their political purposes. England, not unnaturally has swallowed the lies and thinks "well b*gger off then".

Now of course it's not actually true. When North Sea Oil is taken into account we don't just pay our own way we pay a hell of a lot more and we don't get most of the spending either. However the English aren't going to believe it after all these years of lies from Labour/Tories/self serving unionists from Scotland and if they don't like the thought of 'paying for Scotland' they won't like dear old Brown either, oops!

CONSULTATION PROCESS IS KEY TO SUCCESSFUL REFERENDUM

Within a hundred days of the new Scottish Government the SNP will produce a bill setting out the benefits of Scottish independence and calling for a referendum on the issue. The SNP plans to hold this referendum in 2010 (possibly after a Conservative Government victory at Westminster).

I hope there will be a large public response to the consultation process and all organisations which support Scottish independence should do their best to make sure this is the case.

It would be a massive boost to this process if the SNP and other parties were willing to fund a leaflet setting out the basics of the bill and asking for comments. Of course it would be preferable if the Scottish Government itself paid to advertise the process, after all if the unionist parties can use the SP budget to insult our intelligence about washing our hands, some advertising about Scotland's constitutional future seems appropriate (including TV and bus adverts), however if this is not felt to be possible our parties should fund a leaflet themselves, with a view to doing something bigger prior to the actual vote.

The reason for this is to stimulate a massive public response to the SNP's bill that will dwarf all past public consultations. This will generate massive positive publicity for the independence referendum cause.

In those circumstances if the unionists then turn around and say no to a referendum in the Scottish parliament then I believe there could be a substantial public outcry. If that happens then we are in Scotland United territory with the mass demos for devolution which forced the British Government (eventually and grudgingly) to finally legislate for a devolved parliament.

The SNP could then site legitimate public interest in independence and hold a referendum on independence as soon as is required (possibly in conjunction with COSLA or other public bodies who might be willing to share some of the costs).

Obviously we (in the independence movement) want to win a referendum and the timing of it will be important however lets remember that most polls before the election showed large support for independence and it is still far higher than the unionist media are trying to claim.