Andy Murray: "He's a Brit if he wins, a Scot if he loses."

This article (see below) shows the ripe old hypocrisy of the English press. It's conclusions are probably true, Murray will never be truely loved by Britain's tennis fans for the simple fact that he's a Scot first and foremost.

That's entirely in his favour. I think it is astonishing that he has to defend himself against accusations of being ant-English (even though as he has felt forced to point out, sad in itself, his coach is English, his girlfriend is English and much of his family is English).

Murray is a potentially great tennis player, potentially a world champion. He is also a Scot who likes to wave the Saltire. That doesn't make him anti-English, it just makes him pro Scottish.

He has played in British teams in the Davis cup, sometimes risking his personal health to do so but for little reward.

It is obvious that the English would have preferred 'one of their own' like Henman to win Wimbledon, even if ultimately he just didn't have the talent. If Andy manages it they will no doubt try to drape him in a UJ and claim him as the 'best of British' but in reality they would just as easily drop him, if he loses.

Andy is Scottish, he is a source of pride for our country. If the discredited union leads some to be jealous of him and unwilling to cheer him for his talent, that makes them anti-Scottish but it does not make him anti-English.

Good luck Andy and if in the future you lose, don't worry about it because you have plenty of time and the ultimate talent to be world No. 1 not just British No. 1.

You have a long lustrous career ahead of you and on current probability most of it will be within a proudly independent Scottish state. So if some people won't clap you or support you ignore them because they are just plain jealous.

This article aptly sums them up:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2008/jun/29/andymurray.wimbledon1

Murray's a winner - but not yet a heroTim Adams watches as Andy Murray advances to the next round at Wimbledon but fails to inspire Henman-style hysteria
Tim Adams The Observer, Sunday June 29, 2008 Article historyThough Andy Murray overcame the occasionally stubborn challenge of German Thomas Haas at Wimbledon yesterday to advance to the fourth round of the tournament for the second time, 'Andymonium' has yet officially to break out in SW19. Partly, this looks like a question of flags. Outside Centre Court there was not a Union Jack to be seen except as a detail on the caps of a contingent of Aussies 'jeez mate-ing' loudly about paying forty-eight quid for a tray of Pimm's.

This evidence of the slow disintegration of the union seemed to be gathering pace by the big screens. Nobody was making their way to Murray Mound; Henman Hill, it seems, will be forever English. Perhaps there was something in the air: forget Scottish independence, this week has seem something of an assertion of devolution for the Home Counties. First there was the by-election at Henley in which the party of the Scottish Prime Minister was outflagged by the BNP; now there was this comparative apathy toward the progress of Murray - a living embodiment of the Midlothian question. (It seemed somehow symbolic that as he took to the court, Labour's Scottish leader, Wendy Alexander, 'bring it on' challenger to Alex Salmond, resigned her post.)

The Wimbledon crowd, anyhow, had not forgotten how to respond to one of their own: before Murray's match the very-nearly-14-times-champion Tim Henman was introduced to the crowd from the Royal Box, and the response on his eponymous hill were the discreet whoops that pass for mania in Dorking. The emergence of Murray provoked a more muted kind of murmur.

Wandering among the crowd I eventually come across some red, white and blue draped around the shoulders of Rebecca Lynch, up from Brighton. She had camped out overnight with her mate, Melanie Cole, who had confused the issue of identities by bringing out her full St George's Cross attire - a relic, she admits from her decade supporting Henman. Murray's Scottishness isn't a problem for them, 'though he is a bit miserable'. 'I'm half Scots anyway,' Melanie suggests, from beneath her bowler hat. 'Let's just say if he wins he's British; if he loses he's a Scot.'

Others are more robust in their opinion. 'He's a f**** moaning Scot who hates the English, but he's the best we have,' offers Charlie Robson, who has just done his A levels in Twickenham. That's pretty much a general feeling, though expressed more genteelly elsewhere. 'He's a bit scruffy,' says Christine from Oxshott, 'and he looks permanently in pain'. I glance up to the screen where Murray is warming up. It is hard to argue with this assessment. Practising his serve, he wears the look of a man regretting a pre-match pickled herring.

The resultant absence of jingoism is quite a pleasant surprise. Though Murray is playing a German, and we are enjoying a long afternoon in the sun, there are no Dambuster refrains; a stag-nighter in an afro wig who climbs on to a table to conduct a chorus of Rule Britannia ends up singing solo before falling off.

Some of this ambivalence, I'm repeatedly told, goes back to the throwaway remark Murray made the last time he played here in 2006. When asked who he was supporting in the World Cup, he replied 'anyone but England'. After he made that original remark he was shocked to hear a woman on her mobile phone exclaim: 'That Scottish wanker Murray has just walked past!' As a result he launched a cross-border charm offensive at the outset of this year's tournament. He was, he said, a quarter English through his gran; his physiotherapist was English, and, despite the name, so was his coach, Miles Maclagan.

'My girlfriend's English, too,' he went on, in some desperation, 'and I live in London. I'd have qualified to play football for England but probably wouldn't have got into the team!' Despite his efforts, the offensive doesn't seem to be working.

Far more patriotic excitement was garnered by Chris Eaton earlier in the week, with his tales of driving up from Surrey to the tournament in a sports car held together with duct tape. Eaton's appearance at the tournament excited not only a high-pitched entourage of fans, but also a lively correspondence in the Telegraph, the house journal of Surrey sports-car-with-duct-tape drivers; one observer seemed to voice the opinion of many when he noted: 'How nice to see a player that actually enjoys his tennis and showed true deference to the traditions of Wimbledon, rather than the truculence and downright rudeness of Andrew Murray and his appalling family! Well done, Eaton, see you next year. Here's hoping we see the last of the miserable Murrays in the next round!'

For a while in the second set against Haas, which he chucked away, it seemed possible that that particular wish would be granted; but, in the end, Murray won with some style. Maybe that's the other reason, beyond the state-of-the-union issues, that Andymonium has yet to ignite here. Murray has not yet put us through the wringer enough times to excite general national neurosis. Though he makes a gesture toward the style of tennis that British Wimbledon fans have come to expect of their heroes - the sublime touch followed by the embarrassing mis-hit - in general he is far too much in control to count yet as a national treasure. He's winning too easily; he just hasn't suffered enough and neither have we. No doubt in the coming week all of that will be put right.

Mark Lazarowicz must resign over Labour's new internment policy

I must register my complete disgust, firstly with the Labour Government who have now introduced effective internment for modern terrorists by agreeing potential detention periods of up to 42 days and completely ignored the effect of this policy in the past in Northern Ireland.

Secondly, with the BBC's newsnight Scotland program who rather than treat the subject with the respect it deserved preferred to have Gordon Brewer giggle with Brian Monteith and Lorraine Davidson over the fact that the Conservatives David Davis had saw fit to resign and force a by-election.

It is incredible that no genuine Scottish response to this measure could be found. What an insult to the people of Scotland this abysmal half-hearted add-on of a programme is.

However even the antics of the above pale into insignificance behind the total idiocy of my local MP. A Scottish paper reported that: Mark Lazarowicz, the Labour MP for Edinburgh North and Leith, had grave reservations about the proposal and had considered rebelling, but said: "I was given assurances that they do not expect the powers to be used."

Thanks very much Mr Lazarowicz, vote for effective internment even though you apparently don't believe in it but you are foolish enough to believe an utterly desperate Prime Minister!

No legislation is ever passed that is not intended to be used. If Mr Lazarowicz disagreed with the proposal he should have voted against or at the very least abstained. Instead his Government has provided an effective recruiting sergeant for future suicide bombers by ripping up the rule of law. Detention without charge or trial is simply not acceptable in any modern democracy and certainly should not be happening in Scotland.

I respectfully suggest that Mr Lazarowicz should do the decent thing and resign and allow someone to become our MP who is actually fit to do the job and vote on such issues on principle. His actions simply are not good enough and are an embarassment to all the constituents he is supposed to represent.

Unconvincing arguments against Scottish independence

LONDON CALLING! CONFUSION NOW REIGNS OVER WHETHER LABOUR WILL SUPPORT 2010 REFERENDUM

London has called and Labour's support for an independence referendum is now looking decidedly dodgy.

Let's be clear about this the British Government DOES NOT support the sovereign right of the Scottish people to choose independence. The proof is here:
www.independence1st.com/comment/not_acceptable.shtml

Up till recently it seemed that the Scottish branches of Labour, Tories and Lib Dems didn't either because all refused to countenance a referendum on independence and yet this is the only point of genuine conflict.

Scottish Labour (if there is such a beast) in the shape of Wendy Alexander seemed to have changed their tune for a brief moment but they have rapidly returned to form with Brown now clearly pulling the strings.

All the parties would supposedly support more powers for the parliament, I say supposedly because the Tories simply cannot be trusted in this area as their last period in Government showed quite clearly.

If all parties support more powers then the SNP can easily accept the Calman commissions recommendations whenever they are published, but as they will still be far short of independence this won't resolve a thing.

We would also then have to rely on Westminster implementing any changes and not fiddling with the powers of the parliament in a detrimental fashion. In fact Labour have already fiddled the electoral system in the Welsh parliament so they can't be trusted in this respect either.

Gordon Brown has already signalled that he wants a number of inconvenient powers removed forom the Scottish Government, an obvious example would be planning rules which allow the Scottish Government to block new nuclear power stations.

The Blair Government ignored elements of the last broad based Scottish Constitutional Convention (this body which included the Liberal Democrats and 'Scottish' Labour recommended broadcasting powers be returned to Scotland but this power was removed at Westminster, also the bill suddenly gained lots of new bits where it was explicitly claimed that Westminster had full power over any future change to the constitution in Scotland even though this violates international law and specifically Scotland's rights to self determination).

Given that episode Westminster can easily ignore their own hand picked cabal of safe unionists whatever froth is recommended (in fact they are so pro-Government they will probably say the status quo is just fine!).

The only way to guarantee as much power as the parliament requires is by voting for independence. Those who oppose that choice don't support the sovereign right of the Scottish people to decide their own destiny and as such don't deserve one vote in Scotland.

Dear Wendy, what happened to the Claim of Right?

(sent through Wendy's blog)

Dear Ms Alexander,

Does your party still support the Claim of Right for Scotland? Gordon Brown and his followers appear to think power resides with the UK parliament, not the Scottish people (see below for the proof of that statement).

That was always the view of the Conservatives and that was why they acted the way they did while in office. Yet Labour along with the Liberal Democrats signed the Claim of Right and also demanded control of Scottish broadcasting from London.

Now it appears that your own leader thinks Scotland's views can be ignored:

Put that if Alex Salmond took Wendy Alexander's advice and held a referendum on independence, it would take place before the Calman Commission reported, the PMS said that for there to be a legally binding referendum, it would require legislation in the UK Parliament.

Asked if the PMS was suggesting that the Prime Minister would seek to block an early referendum after saying that any binding referendum would need legislation in the UK Parliament, the PMS replied that he was not suggesting anything; he was setting out a factual position.

My organisation, Independence First wrote to the last Scottish Executive and British Government seeking their views, what returned was illuminating and alarming.

The Scottish Parliament replied: “The Scotland Act 1998 sets out the statutory framework for the Scottish devolution settlement. Schedule 5 to the Act defines matters which are reserved to the United Kingdom Parliament.”

“The devolution settlement and constitutional matters generally are reserved matters under the Act. The Government of the United Kingdom is responsible therefore for considering any fundamental changes to the existing devolution framework in Scotland.”

The Scottish Office in London replied “It is worth noting that in the UK political system the UK parliament is sovereign and it is for Parliament to decide whether or not to hold a referendum on any particular issue - and what the terms of any referendum should be.”

http://www.independence1st.com/comment/not_acceptable.shtml

Yours sincerely,

Joe Middleton

Economic 'argument' against Scottish independence is pathetic

I am enjoying the various reactions to Wendy's U-Turn, check out this from the Scotsman:

Also the blogs are pretty unanimous in their laughter/delight.

Unfortunately I noticed this rather sad contribution on John Redwood's blog (not his comment, one of the follow ups) and I felt moved to reply.

‘David Burch’ said:

“What has not been explained is to the Scots and the Welsh is without English support through taxcation they weill be weaker than England. No fair well as from my English point of view it look fine but I am not sure that point has been laboured.”

Oh it’s been ‘laboured’ all right and it now sounds very laboured indeed. I find it very amusing that anyone in England actually believes this. Seen the price of oil lately? What does that mean for the relative post independence economic positions of Scotland and England?

The highest public spending in the UK is in London and NI. Scotland has the next highest, however Scotland also has a small population compared to the rest of the UK. This means a per head analysis looks artificially higher than it actually is.

We also pump up the British treasury through North Sea Oil and this more than covers any perceived financial deficit. If we had become independent in the 70’s (according to BritGov’s own secret research) we would have had the hardest currency in Europe. Oil is projected to run till at least 2035.

Our general economic growth is considerably less than the rest of the UK at the moment. Independent analysis suggests however that with the right tax regime Scotland could be potentially one of the most successful countries in Europe!

So please credit us with a little bit common sense. Labour tried the doom ‘n’ gloom approach last time and it failed. The sky didn’t fall in with an SNP Government and it won’t fall in with independence in Scotland or Wales.

Scotland isn’t a colony yet why do people seem to think that both Scotland and Wales can be treated like one? It won’t wash. If England believes it can ’survive’ independence (and I’m sure it could) don’t pretend we can’t. It cheapens the whole debate and shows contempt for your supposedly ‘equal’ partners.

We'll see if my reply gets in. I've had a few contributions blocked by the Telegraph and Daily Mail whose crystal ball is seriously faulty:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=564669&in_page_id=1770

A pity they don't allow a genuine debate, particularly on grossly biased sh*te like this.

The hootsman might be generally rubbish but at least it allows comments (well apart from from me that is as I've been barred for my campaign on the right, though I stil manage to get the odd view in there all the same). :)

VICTORY FOR INDEPENDENCE MOVEMENT - REFERENDUM IS COMING

In a stunning victory for democratic politics and the right of the Scottish people to rule theirselves the Scottish Labour party have declared that they WILL support a referendum on Scottish independence.

http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/news/display.var.2246882.0.0.php

Congratulations to all my colleagues in Independence First and the Scottish Independence Convention and the SNP, Greens and SSP etc for moving us to a place where the unionists can no longer stop an Independence Referendum.

There remain questions, will Labour try to run their own rigged referendum? Will Wendy do another U Turn?

The Lib Dems and Tories must have severe egg on their faces now. After all the Libs said they wouldn't get in Government with the SNP because of a referendum (on Brown's orders delivered by Sir Ming), yet here's their auld pals going for it!

Similarly the Tories have joined with Labour in a commission which refuses to discuss independence and rules it out as an option and yet suddenly Labour pull the rug out from under it and say not only is independence an option (a message from back benchers, UK MP's and the STUC conference) that there will definitely be a vote on it before the Wendy Commission even brings forward any proposals.

Fantastic stuff. As I say congratulations to everyone who was on the right side of this debate in the past. Our goal has come much closer, I for one will be having a few drinks tonight to celebrate.

Independence vs dependence? Normal powers against an outdated unloved undemocratic union? We can't lose.

CHURCH OF SCOTLAND JOINS NATIONAL CONVERSATION

Scotland's churches must continue to make their voices heard in the debates that affect all our lives, Minister for Parliamentary Business Bruce Crawford said today.

Speaking ahead of a Church of Scotland organised event to discuss the National Conversation on Scotland's constitutional future, Mr Crawford applauded the Church for upholding its tradition of 'helping shape the conscience of the nation'.

He said: "We recognise that decisions about Scotland's future are too important to be left to the political parties alone. For that reason during the second phase of the National Conversation we are talking to the main civic institutions of Scotland - and the Church of Scotland is one of the main voices of Scottish society.

"The Church cares about people and is not afraid to speak out on the issues that affect the people of Scotland and further afield. The Church was a keen supporter of devolution even when it was unfashionable. More recently it has been steadfast in its opposition to Trident and in speaking out against the unfair treatment of asylum seekers at Dungavel. It is no exaggeration to say that the Church has helped shape the conscience of the nation.

"This is just part of an impressive track record that makes their contribution vital to our ongoing National Conversation. That is why I am delighted that the Church has organised this event to talk about how Scotland might look if it had responsibility for areas currently reserved to Westminster - issues like employment, taxation and the economy, benefits, international development and foreign affairs.

"Around our shores, in Ireland to our west, Iceland to our north and Norway to our east we have three of the most successful nations in the world - countries that sit at the very top of world wealth and quality of life league tables. These nations, using their own wit and talents, have become rich countries and rich societies. Independence has been central to their success and I have no doubt that an independent Scotland would more than match them.

"I like the fact Norway is free to choose to invest more than the UN-recommended amount in international aid. I respect the role the Irish play in UN and EU peace keeping efforts across the globe. These are just a couple of the reasons why I believe that Scotland should embrace the positive, internationalist independence that Norway, Ireland and others enjoy.

"It is clear the status quo is no longer an option and the people of Scotland and all political parties support change. The only proper way to allow Scotland to move forward is through letting the Scottish people choose in a referendum. We are clear independence is the best future for Scotland - it is now time for others to state their position and put both options to the test."

The seminar to discuss the national Conversation has been organised as part of the 'Church Without Walls' event being held by the Church of Scotland.

It is on May 3 and 4 at Ingliston showground in Edinburgh.

A progressive nationalism for England?

Billy Bragg makes an excellent contribution to the debate here:

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/billy_bragg/2008/04/a_different_strand_of_socialism.html

The SNP has managed to unashamedly be both proud of their country and progressive. Their 2007 manifesto for the Scottish election was available in Polish, Urdu and Cantonese, yet they are a nationalist party.

Their patriotism has driven them to ensure that old people get free care, students don't have to pay tuition fees and prescriptions get cheaper in Scotland, even as they become more expensive in England. This is nationalism as a positive social force, uniting people around the implementation of progressive policies in the name of Scottish self-determination.

Yet the same sense of pride that the Scots have used to move their national agenda to the left of New Labour, we in England are only too eager to surrender to the far-right. Unable or unwilling to distinguish between xenophobia and progressive patriotism, some on the left are destined to fight old wars in which class is the single defining characteristic. In the post-ideological period in which we live, national identity has become more significant than class or religion. For the English, this process has been exacerbated by a programme of devolution that many believe has treated them unfairly.

During the next election, there is a strong possibility that the issue of England will be a prominent feature on the agenda, if only because the Tories hope to use it to embarass our Scottish prime minister. If a Conservative government hostile to Scotland's social spending is elected, the momentum for Scottish independence will increase. Should the Scots decide to break with the union, there is every likelihood that the English will suddenly find themselves independent too.

Scots lawyers must have liberty to attack injustice

The trial of Aamer Anwar for contempt of court which begins tomorrow at the High Court in Edinburgh has huge implications for the type of society that we wish to live in.

This case takes place in the shadow of a war in Iraq which was carried out without the sanction of the United Nations. It happened in revenge for an unconnected act of violence which was in itself blowback for various intelligence operations which failed. Osama Bin Laden was a CIA asset trained to fight the soviets in Afghanistan who eventually realised that the US was as large an enemy to his and his fellow rebels interests as the Soviets.

His network believes it is fighting an all out war against the military occupation of the Middle East, a modern crusade by Christianity against Islam. The war is real, the consequences are real and the threat to our civil liberties in this country is very real as well. Already the right to a fair trial (Habeus Corpus) has been undermined with a pre trial dentention period of one month during which time anyone can be held on suspicion. Not content with the longest period of detention in the western world Labour wants to extend this to 42 days.

ID cards are being pushed through the UK parliament on the back of terrorist threats yet the Goverment has admitted in correspondence that they would have no significant effect on terrorism whatsoever!

On the front line of often badly drawn and regressive legislation which can give suspects an effective life sentence for publishing seditious material on the internet are the human rights lawyers. One in particular, Aamer Anwar is treading the balance between what is right to protect society and the human rights of his client. Sadly the state has decided that it not only doesn't like the actions of his clients, it doesn't like what he says in defence of them.

This is extremely worrying. To ensure our justice system works effectively all lawyers must have complete liberty to attack any decision which they believe adversely affects their client or is injurious to civil rights in general. this should particularly apply in the case of lawyers fighting high profile human rights cases based on new legislation.

In Scotland we like to believe we have a decent respect for human rights. Sadly that respect is not shared by the British Government which has been extremely cavalier about European human rights legislation and has in consequence experienced a whole series of judicial reverses because of badly framed legislation and attempted abuse of executive powers.

If this case is successful then in the future lawyers might rightly fear the consequences of pursuing difficult cases and fully expressing their opinions if they are going to be threatened with a subsequent appearance in the dock themselves once their trials are over. If even a popular, widely celebrated and respected Scottish lawyer like Aamer Anwar can be convicted on these charges in a Scottish court then in future the truth will only be what the British state says it is.

That's not good enough in these dangerous and volatile times.

Interview with Novi Reporter - Srpska

"Novi Reporter" (New Reporter) from Banjaluka, capital of Republic of Srpska. Republic of Srpska is Serb predominant entity in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

I was interviewed for the above magazine, here's the questions and answers.

Question:

In February this year Albanian leaders in Kosovo unilaterally declared independence from Serbia. That decision, by this time, approved about 30 countries. United States of America and some countries from European Union claim that Kosovo is isolated case and can not become a blueprint for similar situations in other countries. What is your opinion about these claims?

Answer:

I think that since Kosovo was supported by the UN as a semi-seperate state from Serbia it was inevitable that it would declare independence. I also believe all declarations of independence should be respected as this is the primary basis of international law. Kosovo's independence appears to have been objected to by a coalition of the guilty, Russia who are blocking Chechnya's independence, China who have militarily occupied and effectively annexed Tibet and Spain who are busily outlawing every left/radical organisation or independence supporting party in the Basque country. With friends like these, Serbia does not want for enemies! I think Kosovo is an unusual case and I don't think it is particularly relevant to other countries.

Q. Serbian part of Bosnia and Herzegovina - Republic of Srpska, but also some areas in Bosnia with Croatian majority, shows intention to split from the country where Muslim population is in majority. Independence First insists on the right to self-determination in the issues between Scotland and England. Is it possible to apply same right in Bosnia and Herzegovina?

A. It depends if a majority of the population in these areas are determined to support independence. Yugoslavia was a false state and the remnants of it are still trying to come to terms with their proper boundaries. We certainly support the right of self determination in all cases but nonetheless there should be some historical justification and clear territorial boundary involved. Independence is about the best interests of the people living in a specific country. If an ethnic form of nationality is pushed it can obviously have racist connotations.

Q. How would you explain to the people outside of Scotland and England the differences between Scottish and English national identity? And also explain a need for Scotland to decide by itself, independently from London about his destiny?

A. Scotland is a historic country which has a recorded history stretching back well over one thousand years. We have our own culture, two indigenous languages seperate from English (though English now predominates for obvious reasons) our own law and education system and we now have our own devolved Government led by the independence supporting SNP. While it took a lot of campaigning to get a devolved parliament, this is not sufficient for us as most major decisions are stull taken in the Westminster parliament where our MP's are outvoted 10-1. Scotland needs our own seat at the UN and independent representation in Europe as well as full control over broadcasting, taxation, foreign affairs and defence.

Q. In the media with the global influence, often we can read and watch that majority in Scotland do not support independence from the Great Britain. Is this truth?

A. Polls on this tend to be very mixed. Just before the last election a number of polls showed the largest percentage of support was for independence however the polls are now saying that figure has dropped. I would say there is probably around 35-40% strong support for independence with perhaps 30% support for the union and 30% undecided. It's somewhere around there. Recent polls have indicated that for instance if the UK Government deliberately cuts the Scottish Governments finances a lot more people will support independence. Most people certainly support more powers for the Scottish parliament and a referendum on independence. Independence is the logical end of the home rule journey and we believe that if the positive argument is made for independence in a referendum campaign against the usual scaremongering against it by the unionist parties the positive case will win.

Q. How much you did so far in achieving your political goals? Regarding that, what are political differences between Independence First and the Scottish National Party?

A. Independence First is a campaign purely for an independence referendum and as such it has no political policies. We have a number of SNP members in our ranks as well as members of the Greens, SSP and many others from no party. We are of course supportive of the SNP Government's plans to hold a referendum in 2010. With regard to our own actions we have organised two political rallies for a referendum here in Edinburgh, we have ran a petition through the Scottish parliament for a referendum and we have managed to get detailed answers from the British Government which suggest they are ignorant of the concept of the sovereignty of the Scottish people.

Q. Can we talk about increase of secessionism in England? And about possibility that we, in near future see a politician, south from the Hadrian Wall who will be ready to talk with Scotland about your independence?

A. This is still quite far off I think though it might theoretically be advantagous to the British Conservatives to lose a country where they tend to get heavily defeated on a regular basis at the ballot box. There is a growing movement towards self determination for England but it is rather young and politically immature at this point, tending to be led by perceived grievance rather than genuine political principle.

Q. Is it possible that religion differences in Scotland (Protestants and Catholics), slow down your road to independence? Regarding that, what is your opinion about long chronology of conflict in Northern Ireland, where factor of religion plays important role?

A. There is a sectarian problem in Scotland though it is nowhere near as bad as Northern Ireland. It tends to be inflamed by football rivalry (Glasgow Celtic is a traditionally Irish team and in reaction their Rangers rivals wrap themselves in the colours of the British Union Jack). Also the anti-Catholic Orange Order while small and mostly irrelevant still appears to have some support in some towns in the West of Scotland. These people do oppose Scottish independence as well as Irish independence and have now started marching against independence for Scotland specifically. However such bigots represent a tiny minority of the population. Most people in Scotland are not particularly religious at all and most practising Protestants and Catholics have no conflict of interest whatsoever, in fact both religions enjoy a good relationship at local level.

I expect Scottish independence to bring Irish unity closer as I think the Unionists have more attachment to the idea of Britain rather than England and with independence for Scotland the British state would come to an effective end. At the moment the unionists are working together with Irish nationalists at Stormont and they may see their future as being more appropriately tied to Dublin than London eventually. At the end of the day though that is a decision for the people of Northern Ireland not the people of Scotland.

All the best,

Joe Middleton (Press Officer, Independence First).

A new Desperation from Daily Mail?

While I have written a fair amount of letters to the Daily Mail over the
years I have rarely found myself in political agreement with their
editorials or their journalists. Of course in a democracy all honest
opinions are obviously welcome even if one deplores the ideas behind
them.

Nonetheless there is a fine line between fair comment and libel and the
article entitled 'a New Racism' (Daily Mail 19/04/2008) in which the
Mail's James Grant accused all nationalists of racism crossed that line.

Claiming there was some significance in the fact that the date of the
SNP's spring conference was the same as the 40th anniversary of Powell's
infamous remarks about rivers of Blood, Mr Grant went on to claim that
"Scottish nationalism like every other form of nationalism is dangerous
and has its roots in Xenophobia and racism."

His circular argument for this was that because Salmond said "As a
sovereign people the people of Scotland - and we alone have the right to
decide how we are governed", this was somehow racist to the other people
in the United Kingdom!

Let's be clear that all Alex Salmond was asserting was the right of the
people of Scotland to decide their own political destiny. When he says
"we Scots" he means all the people who live in Scotland. This right to
self determination through the sovereignty of the Scottish people was
enshrined in the Declaration of Arbroath and was much more recently
acknowledged by both the Labour and Liberal Democratic parties when they
endorsed the Claim of right for Scotland.

The Daily Mail and their correspondent must be fully aware that there
are two separate and distinctive forms of nationalism.

There is the imperial type where adherents believe in the superiority of
their country to others and attempt to assert their superiority by
conquering or exploiting other nations.

Historically both the British Empire and the Nazis fitted this form of
nationalism. There is also however the civic type where the people of a
country join together in a common democratic cause. Mr Grant admits this
when he remarks that "nationalism has often been a necessary step on the
road to democracy."

Scottish nationalism is clearly civic and is also clearly not imperial.
The SNP have no plans to invade anyone! Therefore Mr Grant's argument
has no justification whatsoever.

If unionism can only justify itself by making such deliberately false
assertions about its opponents then one can only conclude that the
arguments for the continuation of the union are not strong enough on
their own.

Independence is normality. Independence supporters run our Government
and the cause of independence has strong support across every political
party and at every level of Scottish society. If the Daily Mail wishes
to insult a possible majority of the Scottish population then they can
go ahead but they can also logically expect their readership figures to
drop like a stone.

If they continue in this vein then they should also expect to have their
day in court eventually at which point they would be expected to provide
actual proof of their allegations or pay the compensation required for
attempting to libel both the SNP and all other supporters of Scottish
independence.

A new progressive England?

St George’s Day for an imagined nation? Mark Perryman argues it is time we start thinking about England after Britain (Compass, Wednesday, April 23, 2008)

The first three terms of a Labour government have been constitutionally dominated by devolution. Whilst the English, at the outset of this process, mostly took a take-it-and-leave it attitude, the impact in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland has been much more profound.

http://www.compassonline.org.uk/article.asp?n=1642

This is very good (Alan McCombes recommended it).

I have added a comment.

Independence is normality

Letter to the Editor
Edinburgh Evening News

07/04/2008

Sir,

With regard to the Evening News editorial today 'the US allows separate states to be different' I would remind your paper of the obvious fact that Scotland, like the United States, is a country and not a state.

The idea that all Scots should aspire to is the status of a federal state shows a certain lack of ambition. Just what is it about Scotland that we are judged to be uniquely incapable of running our own affairs? What is wrong with our flag, the Saltire, that it shouldn't fly on its own at the United Nations?

Why should we ever want to swear allegiance to a flag which is clearly designed to represent England's past dominance over Ireland and Scotland (Wales isn't even on it!) with the St George's cross front and centre?

Jack Straw recently admitted that the Empire was basically a device to amplify English power abroad. Yes, Scots played a part in the Empire but most of our ancestors were just as poor at the end of it as we were at the beginning!

The Empire is over, knighthoods and other honours which pretend to membership of a British empire are as absurd and anachronistic as the UK monarch's claim to be 'defender of the [Catholic] faith'.

It is time to wash away this backward looking nonsense and any along with it any innate desire to bully other nations. What we need is equality with other countries, not superiority.
Independence is normality. Scotland is entirely capable of becoming a successful independent modern state and deciding our own policy on foreign affairs and defence.

If unionist opinion is genuinely strong, why was there no celebration whatsoever of the Union of Crowns or the Union of Parliaments? The only organisation which did mark both occasions was the Orange Lodge, who are hardly the most modern of political thinkers.

The union does not suit any country, not Scotland when we are outvoted 10-1 at Westminster, not Wales which is offered sub standard forms of Devolution and not even England who are waking up to the fact that the English identity has been subsumed by a British one which doesn't necessarily represent their views either.

Alex Salmond is right, we should take courage from the US who ended their own remote control by Britain and who like most other countries warmly celebrate their independence day. We have nothing to lose and everything to gain by independence.

At the very least the unionist parties should have the basic politeness after 300 years to ask the Scottish people whether they want the union to continue or not. The fact they desperately don't want to do so, suggests they already know the likely answer!

Raise your game please Evening News and think seriously about what suits our country right now, not 50 or a hundred years ago.

Yours faithfully,

Joe Middleton

Song for the Labour Party

The working class will now be conned
To believe the union is still strong.
For the Scots they want their oil and gas
But we cannot give them what they ask.
The time has come to think again
If Brown's to stay in Number Ten.
But as we don't want Party schism
We won't have changes, just revision.

We can't forget Nye Bevan's ghost
But yuppies votes are uppermost.
We can't indulge in Leftist dreams
We must appeal to Milton Keynes.
The time has come to think again
If Brown's to stay in Number Ten.
But as we don't want Party schism
We won't have changes, just revision.

The people's flag is deepest grey
Because we get more votes that way.
Who gives a damn for socialism
If all looks good on television.
The time has come to think again
If Brown's to stay in Number Ten.
But as we don't want Party schism
We won't have changes, just revision.

(very good!)

Cracking article from Sean Connery in LA times

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-connery5apr05,0,7932603.story

NO OTHER COUNTRY PUTS A PRICE ON INDEPENDENCE

Douglas Fraser: Divorce in haste could give cause to repent at leisure

Memo: to Sir Tom Hunter, tycoon, property magnate, philanthropist and Scotland's richest man. Welcome to the task of writing a political column, and congratulations: your call for a quick "yes-no" referendum on Scottish independence was big on well-timed impact. A tip, though: be careful when you accuse politicians of "posturing, positioning and pontificating". That's uncomfortably close to what we do in writing commentary.

Your views seem to receive more attention than the average bloke on the Broughty Ferry omnibus, but it is worth remembering the nature of elections and referendums is that said bloke's opinion is of the same value as yours. We pay disproportionate attention to folk such as you because of your success and celebrity. We give a special place to our leading entrepreneurs and corporate alchemists. But, with respect, your argument for a snap referendum, quickly getting ourselves up to speed on the issues and then allowing us to invest in whichever future we choose, shows political naivety. (Herald)

Tom Hunters comments were motivated by an honest opinion from someone who is answerable to no-one. Douglas Fraser's regurgitates the usual unionist scare stories under the guise of independent commentary but he's never likely to come to a conclusion that independence is desirable because it would probably cost him his job.

His ultimate conclusion that we must look before we leap is no great leap of insight but ignores the fact these issues have been exhaustively argued over for the entire history of the union (well apart from those times when the British state would have locked you up or deported you for talking about independence of course). Yes we should look but why not leap if the waters look right?

No other country around the world would put a price on their independence. It would rightly be seen as a priceless commodity which is absolutely required in every quarter of their national life.
Unfortunately our history as part of a successful economic Empire (now dead as the dodo) means that some will always cling to that imperial identity as 'better' and 'more important' and find some spurious reason to argue that this is the case.

We cannot get accurate figures about independence. The Westminster Goverment has a history of telling blatant lies about Scotland. We know that from the research in the 1970's which have came to light under the freedom of information act.

Public spending figures exclude various expenditures such as defence expenditure so the information is incomplete. Scotland is geographically large in comparison to England. we have around two thirds of the landmass with only around 10% of the population. A per head ratio of public spending is therefore ridiculous.

Scotland will spend what we can afford after independence. Currently we appear to have enough income to maintain current spending levels if oil revenue is included even on the Governments own figures. (To my mind that probably means we have more money than that in reality. Gordon knows the figures and yet he is desperate to keep us locked in).

If we do in fact ultimately need more money then we will do what every other country does and borrow it. Britain just now has a huge financial deficit but I don't see anyone seriously arguing that it should join the US!

[bold]Independence is normality.[/bold] Scotland is capable of voting for it and our people are not uniquely incompetent to run our own affairs. Those who argue we somehow are would be well advised to take a long hard look in the mirror.

LABOUR REVEAL THEIR REAL HEROES - THE SOVIET UNION!

Ms Alexander said she was not a Gordon Brown puppet

During the web chat, driven by questions from BBC viewers, listeners and online users, she was asked to score herself out of 10 for her performance since being elected leader unopposed in September last year.

"Rising all the time, I think is the answer," said Ms Alexander, adding: "Ten out of 10, 10 out of 10."


And Ms Alexander also dismissed claims of arrogance against Labour politicians and said her party's fight back was under way.


She added: "Frankly, as I look across the other benches in the parliament, I don't think the arrogance is on our side.


"I think that what people are looking for are politicians who are willing to listen, I think you will see this week that conference is listening and learning."


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


Brown foresees Alexander as next leader of Scotland

GORDON Brown used a wide-ranging address to Scottish Labour Party delegates today to bash the Nationalists, defend the Union and predict Wendy Alexander as Scotland's next First Minister.


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


Gordon Brown appears to imagine that all countries should be part of larger unions yet I doubt the former countries of the Soviet Union would agree, or Tibet for that matter. Labour's announcements have all the credibility of Pravda.


It is clear that Labour don't support the Claim of Right for Scotland. If they did they would support a referendum on independence. Instead they push Britishness down our throats and expect us to swallow any old lies. It didn't work for the Tories.

The people of Scotland are Scots first and foremost any party which ignores that fact is doomed, deservedly.

EX LABOUR FIRST MINISTER BACKS NATIONAL CONVERSATION

FORMER Labour First Minister Henry McLeish has described independence for Scotland as “a positive option”. In remarks sure to infuriate his Labour colleagues, Mr McLeish said all positive options for Scotland’s future should be considered, including independence.

“The country is looking ahead and it’s important that all political parties do too,” Mr McLeish said. “We need an open and inclusive conversation to discuss our future, one in which all the positive options are included — the current devolution settlement, more powers, independence and also a form of federalism.

“The key thing is these ideas are debated in terms of how they will deliver a better quality of life for everyone who lives in Scotland — better health, housing, economic performance and education.”

The former first minister’s views will come as a major blow to Labour, which has been rallying support from other opposition parties to take part in a rival constitutional convention, that specifically excludes the option of independence.

Mr McLeish’s remarks came in advance of the launch of the second phase of the Scottish Government’s “National Conversation” on the country’s constitutional future on Wednesday.
“The National Conversation and further constitutional development should be the means to these vital ends,” he added.

“I welcome that the process of open debate is under way with the National Conversation, and look forward to the next phase developing with the prevailing mood of Scotland.

“The constitutional debate is vitally important for every Scot and fundamental for the future of our nation. And of course we should never forget that a confident Scotland should have a bigger role on the world stage.”

The news is likely to overshadow this week’s Scottish Labour Party conference in Aviemore, where Scottish parliamentary leader Wendy Alexander will try to convince delegates to support the transfer of more powers from Westminster to Holyrood, while allowing other powers to be returned from Holyrood to Westminster.

BRITISH INDUSTRY GROUP REFUSES TO DISCUSS INDEPENDENCE

"It's oor ba' and we're no playing."

One of Scotland's business figures who has publicly backed the Labour party in the past has criticised SNP ministers for wasting their time pushing a "conversation" on independence when they should be concentrating on growing the economy.

Iain McMillan, the director of Confederation of British Industry Scotland, spoke out as Alex Salmond, the First Minister, prepares for tomorrow's launch of the second phase of his National Conversation, an event designed to involve "civic Scotland" in the discussion about the future government of Scotland.

The CBI chief said he did not want to "snub" the Scottish Government by refusing to take part [but is doing exactly that. JOE]

A spokeswoman for Mr Salmond said the best way forward was "open debate", and this was what the National Conversation was doing. She said: "Questions about our future need to go beyond government, parliament and the media to include individuals, groups, communities and all political viewpoints."

The launch of the second phase of the Scottish Government's National Conversation is designed to involve so-called "civic Scotland" in the process. Ministers have invited representatives from Scotland's churches, trade unions, environmental groups, universities and colleges, women's groups and Scotland's business community to an event at Edinburgh University.

Mr Salmond will make an opening speech and then the guests will be invited to join a series of discussion groups. The groups will focus on the Scottish Government's strategic objectives – a greener, healthier, smarter, safer and stronger, fairer and wealthier Scotland – and individuals can join any group they choose. These workshops are designed to begin a process ministers hope will take place across the country.

Each of the organisations represented is then expected to take on the discussion with its "stakeholders", reporting back with a detailed position for the consultation at a later date.