Labour don't put Scotland first

Letter to the Editor

The Scotsman

24/09/2011

Dear Sir,

Your interview with former Secretary of State for Scotland Jim Murphy which

was printed today (http://tinyurl.com/3vey85t) was illuminating on a number of points.

Firstly his comment: "We need to be where most Scots are - Scottish first,

British second." is unlikely to be popular amongst his fellow unionists but

it has the whiff of realism about it.

Unfortunately for Labour they do not have a history of putting Scotland

first and in any contest of patriotism with the SNP they are likely to fall

far short.

Mr Murphy regrets his own lack of input to the last Scottish elections and

according to the article writer appears to suggest that MSPs will never be

left alone again to run their own campaign. This suggestion rather

undermines the supposed plan for operational independence from London which

has been reported recently in the Scotsman.

As far as his own ambitions go it is clear that the future of Labour in

Scotland is not Mr Murphy's main priority. He prefers to pretend to be a

Defence Minister in London. Being Scotland's party leader might be of some

interest in the future, but only after twenty years!

So long as Labour sees Westminster as the most important parliament and

their top politicians are openly declaring that their own personal

priorities lie outside Scotland it is no wonder that the Scottish people

will prefer a SNP that places Scotland first.

Yours faithfully,

Joe Middleton

Scotland - Referendum Campaign say YES to independence

Still true today.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qWNmoCFZ3Io

Don’t rule out odd alliances as election campaign hots up

Interesting article in the Herald. Certainly the Scots Conservatives would benefit from cutting the ties from London and a change of name. It is their attachment to the union however which is genuinely holding them back. From the nationalist perspective it would help our cause to have more than one party which advocates independence. To have it advocated from both a left and right perspective might be useful because the reality is that no-one can accurately forsee what policies would prevail in an independent Scotland. JOE

If, as the song has it, it’s a long, long time from May to December, then the opposite is also true.

Either way, by the end of September the days are growing very short indeed, politicians of all parties feel, and it’s time to start making preparations for what they’ll be doing in six months.

So we had Iain Gray giving his broadest hints yet that Labour might attempt to form a minority government if, as the polls suggest at the moment (though remember, again, it’s a long, long time etc), the party has the largest number of seats but falls short of a majority in Holyrood.

It is worth noticing, however, that he did not rule out coalition with the Lib Dems, even though the party is in coalition with the Tories at Westminster. Meanwhile, we had Annabel Goldie declaring that polling analysis put the Scottish Conservatives in “a strong, clear and consistent second place”. Well, it is the business of politicians to maximise their options and talk up their prospects.

One interesting aspect of Westminster having discovered (some time after Scotland) the realities of coalition government, and the way in which apparently odd alliances can lead to more imaginative and productive policies, is that there is almost no possible configuration of government which one could rule out at Holyrood with certainty.

Even the most bizarre pairing, a Labour/Tory coalition, is very remotely conceivable, in circumstances where a referendum on independence became the urgent, dominant political issue. But that seems unlikely. The equally strange prospect of the Tories shoring up a Nationalist administration is, however, one which has a good deal to recommend it, for both parties.

The Scottish Conservative party needs to do something imaginative. The Conservative blogger Tim Montgomerie suggested yesterday that it should cut its ties with the national Tory party altogether.

Mr Cameron’s attempts to remove the “toxic brand” aspect of Conservatism failed completely here, though it is a policy which won round much of Middle England – a position which, furthermore, may well be consolidated if Ed Miliband’s leadership moves Labour leftwards. The “Respect for Scotland” agenda did no good at all.

There has been no electoral return for the Scottish Tories from the support they have given the Scottish Government on a range of issues (diverging from the party’s national stance), whether it was backing free care for the elderly or opposing tuition fees. Nor have they profited from the measures they have secured by this pragmatism – extra police officers, a new approach to drug rehabilitation, further cuts in business rates, a £60 million town centre redevelopment fund.

It may simply be impossible to sell anything with the Conservative label on it north of the border, though the paradox is that many of the party’s current priorities emphasise localism, devolution of powers and grass-roots initiatives, all of which ought to appeal to supporters of greater Scottish autonomy.

If Mr Cameron is serious about the existence of a “new politics” ushered in by the Westminster coalition, he might welcome the solution once suggested by Murdo Fraser, and content himself with support in the House of Commons from an entirely separate, distinctively Scottish, centre-right party.

There used, of course, to be such a thing. It was the Unionist party, and it is possible to track the decline of support for the centre-right in Scotland not – as is the usual analysis – from the election of Margaret Thatcher in 1979, but from the moment that the nomenclature was abandoned, and the Conservative label adopted. As late as the 1950s, some little time after the Red Clydesiders now held to be the fons et origo of “natural Scottish political sentiment” (ie, a whining, slavish dependency on the state), there was a natural centre-right majority in Scotland.

Until that point, too, there was – despite the name – a considerable strain of Nationalist sentiment amongst Unionists; the sort of attitude embodied by figures such as John Buchan. There was then, too, a good deal of centre-right support for the SNP; I suspect that there still is, particularly in areas such as Perthshire and Angus.

Of course, the Nationalists are now an avowedly left-of-centre party, but they would be wise not to rule out some form of co-operation with the Conservatives, and not merely for the fairly compelling reason that it might allow Alex Salmond to continue as First Minister even if Labour wins the largest number of Holyrood seats.

I admit that it’s unlikely that the SNP membership could bear the thought of being in a full coalition with the Scottish Conservatives (though a name change and full autonomy from the UK party might just make it less unthinkable). But the party has made much of dissociating itself from knee-jerk opposition to anything English, and it may be time for it to realise that an automatic opposition to anything which happens to be advocated by Conservatives is equally infantile.

Because the truth is that the proposed reforms of the welfare state which have been hammered out between Iain Duncan Smith and George Osborne are likely to do more to help the poor than the indiscriminate profligate spending of the Labour party, which made the gap between the richest and poorest the widest ever, and left Scotland with a GDP per capita considerably lower than the EU average.

The practical lesson of having formed the government should also have impressed on the SNP leadership one overwhelming truth: that it is the Labour party’s reckless endangerment of the UK’s finances which now makes it financially impossible for Holyrood to maintain many of the distinctive policies that Scots might prefer. Though the Conservatives, Liberal Democrats and Nationalists may now all, in their various coalitions and governments, be imposing cuts, they are in reality the Labour party’s responsibility.

The main priority for all other political parties should be ensuring that these lunatics, who nearly bankrupted us all, should never govern again.

That may mean radical realignments of normal politics. For Scotland, the slogan “Together, in the national interest” at the Tory conference may mean an arrangement with the Nationalists which is far from conservative.

By Andrew McKie

BRITISH PARTIES REFERENDUM REFUSAL INDICATES THEIR FEAR

Quality letter which hits the nail on the head. JOE


Referendum role (Recent letter in the Scotsman)


The dropping of legislation to hold a referendum on Scottish independence (Comment, 6 September) can surely not be a setback for SNP credibility.


Rather, it must be interpreted as terror on the part of the Unionist parties.


Otherwise, why should they show their fear by opposing the chance to allow the Scottish people the opportunity to show they preferred independence to continued London rule?


Were this not so, they would be eager to back a referendum that would allow the Scots to oppose a second Battle of Bannockburn that would win their freedom again.


ANDY MACPHERSON


Trinity Crescent
Edinburgh

Tories: When in doubt kick the poor

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/aug/10/chris-grayling-defends-plan-credit-rating-agencies-benefits

The above article in the Guardian features a Conservative party election poster from the UK elections this year. These things were pasted up all over.

In fact however people who refuse work ALREADY would get their benefits removed under existing legislation. So why on earth launch such a misleading and factually inaccurate poster?

Who would realistically want to live on the abysmally low income of the benefits system if they could find a job easily? The Conservatives and their right wing allies at the Daily Mail deliberately dig up individuals who exploit the system to tar all those who require to claim benefits.

This is part of the Tory strategy to blame the unemployed for being unemployed during a worldwide recession. When in doubt kick the poor. That's why the Tories were rejected in Scotland, shame on those who voted them in elsewhere.

Of course anyone who is fraudulently claiming benefits should have them removed but the Conservative party should never have ran the misleading advert shown above and they should in fact have some compassion for those whose life has been ruined by the train wreck of the British economy.

A large amount of the unemployed get benefits for six months only.

Those who get benefits for a more prolonged period only get them because they have been means tested ie they are required. I believe those who receive benefits should get them in a civilised society.

Chase your tax dodging pals Cameron and then I might believe you had any real interest in fairness.

Salmond sets the record straight in Glasgow Herald Letter

From The Herald, Monday June 28, a letter from Alex Salmond:

Your report on my interview with another newspaper was headlined, in quotation marks, “Independence is not key aim’” (Herald, June 26), despite the fact that no-one – least of all myself – actually said this, and the reference to independence “no longer” being the SNP’s central aim was just silly.

I was in fact making exactly the opposite point – that the centre of gravity in Scottish politics is shifting towards independence not away from it.

A generation ago it was for an Assembly, then for a Parliament, then for Calman, now for fiscal responsibility, which is currently galvanising a range of opinion across Scottish society.

At each stage in that road, the SNP campaigned in favour of more powers for Scotland as well as pursuing the independence campaign. There has never been any contradiction in doing that – nor is there now.

Indeed, one of the essential ingredients of gaining more power for Scotland is the vigour of the independence campaign. It is the engine which fires the debate.

The publication of the Government Expenditure & Revenue Scotland report – showing in 2008/09 a Scottish current budget surplus of £1.3 billion, compared to a UK current budget deficit of £48.9 billion – is a strong illustration of the argument which both increases the urgency of fiscal responsibility as an alternative to a dismal decade of Westminster spending cuts, and also shifts the centre of gravity in Scottish politics towards independence.

Alex Salmond, Edinburgh

The Reality of Union: Scotland invisible!

I was watching the BBC programme Dinner with Portillo some time ago (it was discussing Scots independence) and some of the reactions of the English guests were instructive. Rod Liddle initially tried to doubt the existence of Scotland at all, but later admitted that he was really worried an independent Scotland would take away all the Scots Labour MP’s from Westminster. As a leftist of sorts he thought this might not be in his interests as England would become a permanent Tory zone.

Portillo himself seemed to imagine there would be no consequences whatsoever for England, with London remaining the centre of the universe, he was therefore quite happy for the Scots (and Wales) to become independent because essentially we don’t really count.

An Oxford academic worried about how England might change without the influence of Scotland and Wales and might become a less tolerant country as a result. None of them were particularly interested in the effect independence might actually have on Scotland, an omission which perhaps perfectly illustrates the nature of the union!

On the ‘other side’ Hardeep Singh Kohli, who appears to have wangled a berth for himself as a TV expert on Scotland, proved his own ignorance by declaring that a separate military presence for Scotland was impossible and also bizarrely claimed that he didn’t even know the SNP’s policy on nuclear weapons.

He seemed to imagine Scotland as a jealous lover, spurned by those nasty English types who don’t care for our affections! In fact a battered wife might have been a better analogy but when people claim ‘the English’ as a whole believe a certain thing they are generally on a hiding to nothing and this was clearly the case with Mr Kohli.

Former Labour party First Minister Henry McLeish could have enlightened him on SNP policy no doubt but perhaps couldn’t be bothered, he was more interested in whether the RBS should be considered a British bank rather than a Scots one.

Meanwhile historian Michael Fry made some decent points but his political analysis seemed to be that we would be so skint with independence that we would have to slash public spending (as a Tory he liked the sound of that) even though the actual evidence is that Scotland puts more money into the union than we receive!

I mention this programme because it indicates the kind of mish mash which passes for serious commentary on Scots independence through the British prism of TV news.

Anyone watching this programme would have been no wiser about Scots independence at the end than they would have been at the start, yet the case is very clear and easily described.

As long as Scotland and Wales are outvoted by a factor of 10-1 and 20-1, in the important arenas of defence, foreign affairs and other important areas like pensions and social security, within the British parliament, then we do not live in a genuine democracy and our views are easily and effectively ignored.

So what moves are being made towards holding a referendum on independence and what is the current situation of the SNP Government?

Recently the SNP were being attacked by the ‘Scottish’ press for various imaginary sins. Possibly to deflect attention from actual fraud at British parliamentary level by Jim Devine MP, the press decided that an auction for a lunch with Alex Salmond was the height of corruption. The fact that the individual who bought the lunch, could have made the same donation directly to the SNP, and that there were no policy implications escapes our journos.

No, the most important issue for them is that the SNP might have used the parliamentary canteen (parliamentary facilities!) for the lunch in question… If it sounds pathetic, it is.

Nicola Sturgeon was also dunked into luke warm water for the heinous crime of representing a constituent. Yes, because Nicola wrote a letter asking a court to consider that a custodial sentence might not be advisable for a benefit fraudster with ten kids this was seen as a shocking lapse of judgement.

The Edinburgh Evening News claimed “the honeymoon is finally over for SNP”. This claim that the SNP’s popularity was a ‘honeymoon period’ was always designed to be a stick to beat them with, however given that the SNP won the elections in May 2007 it’s been a hell of a long honeymoon! The unionists have yet to hit the SNP with a charge that will stick. In reality they have governed extremely well, a fact which sticks in the throat of many a biased journalist.

The unionists attempted to kill the SNP’s referendum bill by trying to arrange one of there own flunkies as committee chairman. Margo MacDonald’s assisted suicide bill which should have went to the health committee was instead given to a newly created ad hoc committee with a view to ensuring a unionist chair on the proposed referendum bill which was expected to follow it.

In fact however the SNP neatly sidestepped this abuse of parliamentary procedure by publishing the Bill in draft form meaning that they can delay its actual implementation to a more opportune time.

The SNP plans to hold the referendum in late 2010, after the result of the UK elections and at a point where any new Government will have revealed its hand in respect of Scotland. Labour and Liberals might find it more difficult to deny a choice on independence in the face of a hostile Conservative UK Government!

At the moment however all the unionists are pledged to deny Scots a choice and to publish a bill would simply hasten its demise. Timing in this case is everything, and the SNP have organised through their national conversation a proper consultation with the public. SNP ministers have travelled up and down all of Scotland and held numerous public meetings to properly consider independence.

The ill fated Calman commission, designed to scupper independence without actually going as far as considering it, has given its findings which have subsequently been entirely ignored by both Labour and Conservatives. So called devolution max, is actually devolution minimal as no unionist party is willing to countenance any actual financial level of independence.

Without the purse strings of course a devolved assembly remains effectively controlled by central Government, a fact they are all well aware of. Calman was designed to outflank the national conversation, however because it ignored independence all it has done is reveal the poverty of ambition for Scotland of all unionists. Job well done!

What this means is that the line between independence and devolution remains clearly drawn. When the referendum happens the Scots will get a choice which is clear between those who want the best for Scotland and those who don’t.

The unionists can delay that vote but ultimately they cannot deny it. If the SNP needs to spend more time talking to the public and dealing with actual political issues then I’m sure they are happy to do this. If they have to fend off ill aimed allegations without much actual weight then they seem entirely capable of that as well.

According to opinion polls many people in Scotland remain unconvinced by independence, probably because the actual issues are rarely properly addressed through the British media. Those issues will only be properly addressed by those who believe in independence making a case for it. This is what the SNP is attempting to do and gradually they are moving towards their ultimate objective.

Scotland must finally be given a choice and when that choice is properly debated through a referendum campaign their patient groundwork through the national conversation will hopefully pay off.

As I write this the UK General election has just happened. If you lived in England you might well believe that there are no other countries in the British union since it was dominated by coverage of the three unionist parties. These elections are always unfair to pro-independence parties because the UK parties get a double dose of election coverage. They are featured in UK-wide coverage but also in the so called ‘regional’ broadcasts where there branches pretend to be Welsh or Scottish parties in their own right.

As the TV broadcasts were extremely prominent in the campaign the SNP and Plaid Cymru were able to make the point that this is unfair and the BBC’s response to their complaints highlighted that unfairness. Effectively the BBC decreed that only those parties which could potentially elect a Prime Minister ie those parties who could get a majority in the UK parliament deserved a seat at the debates. What this means effectively is that only the parties that contest seats in England are considered relevant. This is an effective comment on the union because it relies on Scotland and Wales remaining invisible for it to work.

In the event a hung parliament emerged while in Scotland and Wales the situation was unchanged. Both gave back large numbers of Labour MP’s both had a reduced rump of Conservatives and a handful of nationalist MP’s. It appears that the Liberal Democrats will either be in coalition with the Conservatives or will prop up a Conservative Government. Luckily Scotland and Wales both have our devolved parliaments to protect us from that dismal prospect. Also, given the continued pariah status of the Conservatives in Scotland, this result should provide a boost to the pro-referendum cause.

Published in Carn the magazine of the Celtic League.

Lib Dems need to speak to Tories about Fiscal Autonomy

Scotsman: Lib Dems seek SNP deal

http://www.scotsman.com/news/Lib-Dems-seek-SNP-deal.6329080.jp

Tavish fears that his new coalition Government will prove as popular as poison with Scots voters so he obviously now wants to re-position himself and his party.

If the unionists set up a "no independence" group ie Calman then it cannot by definition be big enough for the SNP. It was in actual fact an attempt to undermine the SNP national conversation which was designed specifically to discuss all options for Scotland including fiscal autonomy (FA) and independence.

FA has been a logical SNP demand for years as a stepping stone to independence. Calman wanted to take powers back from Scots and provide some unusable powers in exchange (along with a few irrelevant ones).

The Liberal Democrats signed up for this deal with the devil. Scotland was never first in their priorities.

If more powers are on offer then we should take them but we should not give any back nor should we accept anything which ultimately weakens our position within the current set up.

If Tavish wants Fiscal Autonomy then the people he needs to convince are his new Tory pals. The SNP already have a lot more ambition for Scotland than he does or ever will.

Scotsman: Alastair Campbell's diaries: Cardinal attacked Blair 'in Papal bid'

http://www.scotsman.com/news/Alastair-Campbell39s-diaries-Cardinal-attacked.6329107.jp

Mr Campbell shows himself to be a bit of a plonker here. Not everyone is as obsessed with political power as him! Cardinal Winning would have said these things because he had principles and believed in them, something quite foreign to Labour. New Labour was ultimately a failure because it had no principles at heart and they therefore wasted their years in office.

BRITAINS 'ASYLUM' POLICY IS INHUMAN AND BARBARIC

Now asylum children face 'even worse prison than Dungavel'

Scotsman report: http://www.scotsman.com/news/Now-asylum-children-face-39even.6306713.jp#5240497

In my opinion if someone asks for political asylum they should live in the community until their application is properly processed and be allowed to work and/or claim benefits during that period.

Sticking them into prison is barbaric and misses the whole point of political asylum. Better to not offer it at all (and accept that Britain is more xenophobic and heartless than any other nation in Europe) than treat these refugees in this disgusting and humiliating fashion.

Give Scotland the powers over asylum and immigration that the UK currently holds and I'm sure we could come up with a better and fairer system than this.

LABOUR DEMANDED CUTS DURING UK ELECTIONS

At UK Government level Labour fought the 2010 election on making "deeper and tougher" cuts than Margaret Thatcher.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/mar/25/alistair-darling-cut-deeper-margaret-thatcher

Guardian: Alistair Darling admitted tonight that Labour's planned cuts in public spending will be "deeper and tougher" than Margaret Thatcher's in the 1980s, as the country's leading experts on tax and spending warned that Britain faces "two parliaments of pain" to repair the black hole in the state's finances.

The Institute for Fiscal Studies said hefty tax rises and Whitehall spending cuts of 25% were in prospect during the six-year squeeze lasting until 2017 that would follow the chancellor's "treading water" budget yesterday.

Asked by the BBC tonight how his plans compared with Thatcher's attempts to slim the size of the state, Darling replied: "They will be deeper and tougher – where we make the precise comparison I think is secondary to an acknowledgement that these reductions will be tough."

These cuts would have begun at UK level and filtered down to local level.

The SNP are proposing giving slightly more money to Scottish councils but are expecting them to effectively freeze their expenditure in consequence. This is not easy for councils and it might have been easier for the SNP to say, "we'll allow councils to raise more cash if they want."

However it is probably logical in the current climate as under the Tories pressure will certainly come down upon the total Scottish Government budget. If the SNP can prove that all the Scottish councils are making the best use of their allocation of public spending then they can make a better case for maintenance of the current Scottish block grant post-Barnett formula.

Labour want to raise local taxes, cutting the amount of money the public have in their pocket, to keep council services at roughly the same level. Yet they were saying during the elections "cuts must be made" and the SNP were being selfish in asking Britain to protect the Scottish budget.

So where would Labour's cuts have come from? Wouldn't a Labour Government have been squeezing public expenditure? I suggest they would and that if they needed to make an enormous 25% cut in spending they would have aimed some of that at the SNP Government.

The SNP are forcing the Scottish councils to be careful with their finances but are still offering a decent grant to them all in difficult times.

If Labour were serious about wanting to make "deeper and tougher" cuts than Margaret Thatcher" they cannot pretend now that they do not support encouraging better use of public money. Well they can but it is utterly hypocritical and I don't expect the public to swallow it.

Next Labour? Oh dear! Not Labour is more accurate.

When Gordon Brown stepped down as Prime Minister he left both new and old Labour as a busted flush. Still retaining some loyalty in Scotland and Wales but disliked throughout the rest of the UK.

Next Labour? New Labour signalled a sell out to Conservatism. Sticking another adjective in front will just show that Labour still hasn't a clue what the hell it stands for.

What we do know is that it is not Labour ie the working classes that they represent so "Not Labour" would probably be the most honest re-branding of all.

My cynical prediction for next Labour leader is Andy Burnham. I think that Labour will want someone who can challenge the Tories and Liberal Democrats on their own turf. That means they need a blandly handsome individual with no particular political ethos.

Ed and David are bland but they are not handsome and to be brutally frank they come across as oddballs on TV. They inherited some political good will and credibility from their principled father. Unfortunately in actual action they have been less successful.

While it is unfair to judge a person based upon their looks, if you bear a resemblance to a gasping goldfish unfortunately that becomes a factor. The older Miliband looked out of his depth at the foreign office and the USA did not take him seriously. Who could? He looked like a serious young lad who was up past his bedtime and was playing at being a serious politician.

This worked out for Gordon Brown who wanted to remain the main figure in his Government. After his 'warfare' with Tony Blair (which probably was very useful to the Labour Government as a distraction from political issues) he was no doubt nervous of promoting anyone into such a potentially powerful position who might have been able to use it as a platform. No, it was no doubt thought better to promote an ambitious follower rather than a future leader. Of course later on Mr Miliband tried to oust Brown but his actual credibility was no match for Mr Brown's even at the fag end of his administration.

Brown was always a 'big figure'. As a unionist his first loyalty was never to Scotland and therefore I have never had much regard for him, however it has to be said that he was a much more substantial figure than Tony Blair and David Cameron. Gordon Brown's main fault was to be a Scot at a time where Scotland had began to retain some of its power through devolution. If he had called an election shortly after taking over as PM he might have managed to win over England.

As it was the caricature of a "Brown Bottler" became his trademark. The public (well actually the tabloid press) decided they were sick of his face and wanted an election. From that point he was a dead duck Prime Minister. Unfortunately Labour (as we now see very clearly) had no alternative leader in the wings. In Scotland probably most people (and where the tabloids have less direct influence) felt he should be given a chance to prove himself, in England that was not the case.

David Cameron might be best described as another Tony Blair, while Nick Clegg might be seen as a Tony Blair twice removed or even a David Cameron copy.

Cameron was the product of a long search for Tory leader in which every variation was tried. Eventually it was decided that the whole brand was toxic and the Tories needed someone who could pretend he had sort of drifted into Conservatism by mistake. If Cameron had failed then I suspect Boris Johnson would have been the next candidate.

Cameron is a true Tory with true Tory instincts (ie a dislike for the poor) but who is also a PR man who can pretend otherwise. It is true he has changed politics. He was the man who became what Blair wanted to become, the true heir to Blair. A man with a better smile and with even less political principle.

Unfortunately for him at the point he was elected, Blair himself had outlasted his usefulness and was now something of a liability. Along with Blair's fall a distrust of spin persisted.

That is why Cameron failed to win the election outright, however Nick Clegg has proven to be a perfect ally because they are birds of a very similar political plumage.

Clegg was brought in when Ming Campbell was removed. Campbell, another clever Scot, proved to be too old and decrepit to challenge the new boy David. So it was the more handsome Clegg rather than the smarter Chris Huhne who became the Liberals leader. (Huhne was lining himself up for Home Secretary, the only big job the Libs would have had. I suspect it was Nick Clegg rather than David Cameron who decided he shouldn't get it).

[Any rational analysis of the new Government by the way suggests some brilliant negotiation by the Conservatives and some disastrous errors by the Liberal Democrats. Every major post is held by the Tories and the LD's have effectively sold out their 'big idea' Proportional Representation. AV is not true PR and a referendum on that is likely to lead to a continuation of FPTP. Welcome to the political wilderness Liberals. Your old party will get stuffed very shortly and deservedly, leaving UK politics back with the big two.]

So where is Labour now? Well I think it is fair to say that at the moment they are floating dead in the water and the antics of the Milbands are being treated, not unnaturally, as the last gasps of a corpse.

Their published views so far indicate that the Milly boys are not leaders with their own political judgement. What they actually are is mouthpieces for a discredited political party whose mouths are still opening and closing on reflex.

They are the entrée dishes and the main course has yet to be served. The real fight will be between Alan Johnson and Andy Burnham. Johnson is a credible candidate but I suspect in this PR obsessed time his age will be a factor. Burnham (or someone similar) will win but his party will still be moribund and politically irrelevant.

I expect the future leader (whoever it is) to fail against David Cameron (who will not need the Lib Dems post the next election). I suspect at UK level the people will see at least a decade and probably much more without another Labour Government.

At that point a new leader may arrive who will move Labour back to the political left. However by then it will be far too late.

Despair then? Hardly. Scotland has an opportunity to escape the bland faces of British politics with relative ease and the SNP will fight the next elections in Scotland from Scotland which makes all the difference.

Superb poster from SNP

Classic!

Party Matcher - UK Elections 2010 - Yahoo! News UK

This is 'great' you can have any party as long as its a British unionist one! Some democratic choice.

Party Matcher - UK Elections 2010 - Yahoo! News UK

TV debate farce is an undemocratic disgrace

There is a lot of anger about this on Twitter and other social networking sites. No wonder, it is an undemocratic disgrace that the political views of Scotland, Wales and Cornwall can be completely and utterly ignored.

Disgusting Labour attacks on poor and sick highlight wasted years in power

Letter to the Editor

12/04/2010

Dear Sir/Madam,

Labour have decided to cut unemployment benefit by restricting all claimants to a maximum claim of two years according to reports at the weekend.

In actual fact vast numbers of the unemployed are denied benefit already. Everyone who has paid their full share of NI gets the princely sum of £64.30 a week, but only for six months. After that point, if they have a partner who works, whether or not they have a low income, this benefit is removed.

Those who do get income based JSA are means tested and have no other income.

It is a fact that the unemployed do want to work and that no-one actually enjoys the pathetic income which the benefits system provides. Labour appear to have forgotten that we are in the midst of a major recession at least partially caused by their own failure to regulate the financial system. The actual amount of jobs available is extremely low and it would be in practice impossible to provide every claimant with an immediate job. What Labour are actually doing is deliberately stigmatising the people at the sharp end of the depression.

This disgusting proposal sums up Labour's utter failure in office. The people's party has actually worsened the gap between rich and poor something which should have been utterly inconceivable after the efforts of Mrs Thatcher.

If threatening the unemployed and disabled (who have also been targeted shamefully by Labour) is all that this pointless party can come up with then they deserve to lose the next election. Sadly their 'official opposition' is no better.

It is long past time for Scotland to decide our own benefits system and treat ordinary working people with the basic respect they deserve.

Yours faithfully,

Joe Middleton

BBC are colluding with Brit parties to exclude SNP/PC

16/03/2010

Dear Sirs,

Thanks for your reply. The problem is that you are providing the UK wide parties with a political advantage over those parties which are only active in one country within the UK.

Nonetheless all the UK has an interest in the future independence of any part. Excluding arguments over independence in Scotland and Wales means an important political dimension of the UK general election has been ignored. This suits the unionists but it does not suit the peoples of Scotland and Wales whose potential political choice is being ignored.

Yes there will be 'regional debates' but Scotland is a country not a region and in these debates the local branches of the UK parties will be there as well. That means they get two bites at appealing to the electors while SNP get just one. Is that fair?

Post devolution much of the proposed debate will be irrelevant to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

You should therefore have had seperate debates for England with the three main English/UK parties and seperate debates including Plaid Cymru (to be shown in Wales) SNP (to be shown in Scotland) and the NI parties (for Northern Ireland).

The SNP is fighting every seat in Scotland and could potentially have 30 or more MP's. In a hung parliament (as is likely given the fact all the UK parties are politically indistinguishable) the SNP could hold the balance of power. The SNP are relevant therefore to the whole of the UK.

By treating the SNP as functionally irrelevant within the UK system you have proven that the UK is too inflexible to represent the views of Wales and Scotland. While this is no bad lesson to learn the BBC should still be ashamed of allowing the UK parties to easily portray their nationalist opponents as irrelevant.

I received a letter from Nick Clegg today, I quote: "And when it comes to Westminster elections, the SNP are irrelevant - too small to change anything."

Isn't that what your 'explanation' implies as well?

Clearly you take the British part of your name very seriously but you see your requirements for ensuring equal share of TV coverage as much less important. I am not impressed and I will personally argue for the removal of the license fee in future.

You have failed Scotland and ignored our politics, shame on you!

Joe Middleton


----- Original Message -----
From:
To:
Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2010 11:53 AM
Subject: BBC Complaints [T2010031602N3S060]


> Thanks for your e-mail.
>
> We note that you're unhappy that the Scottish Nationalist Party has not been invited to take part in the planned Prime Ministerial Debates.
>
> Televised debates between those party leaders who aspire to be Prime Minister of the UK have never taken place before, despite some evidence that the electorate would welcome such a development. The BBC - along with ITV and Sky - put forward proposals aimed at establishing in principle that such debates would take place during the coming General Election campaign for the Westminster Parliament.
>
> It was announced on December 21st that the three largest parties at Westminster had agreed, in principle, to the broadcasters' proposal.
>
> The broadcasters also made it clear that each - individually - would put forward additional proposals to ensure due impartiality across the UK. The BBC will hold election debates between the largest parties in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
>
> The details of the BBC's UK-wide debate have now been agreed in full. You can read more in the following blog by the BBC's Chief Adviser, Politics, Ric Bailey:
>
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2010/03/prime_ministerial_debates.html
>
> Further information on the Prime Ministerial debates and the leaders debates in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are also available on the BBC Press Office website:
>
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2010/03_march/02/debates.shtml
>
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2010/03_march/02/debates2.shtml
>
> For all other parties, the BBC will also bring forward proposals to ensure that there are opportunities for their views to be given appropriate coverage in the context of the UK-wide debate.
>
> For the Westminster Parliament, that context is the aspiration to form a government and to become Prime Minister. The Scottish National Party and Plaid Cymru, each fielding candidates in only one part of the UK, do not aspire to win a majority of the seats in the House of Commons. The party leaders do not aspire to be Prime Minister of the UK.
>
> On the basis of the 2005 General Election, the number of seats held by the SNP and Plaid is a fraction of those held by the Liberal Democrats.
>
> It is entirely appropriate and consistent, therefore, for the BBC's Prime Ministerial debate to include the three largest UK-wide parties. Other parties, including the SNP and Plaid, will have the opportunity for their views to receive appropriate coverage, both in national debates in Scotland and Wales and additional coverage across the BBC in response to the UK-wide debate.
>
> However, we would like to assure you that we've registered your complaint on our audience log. This is a daily report of audience feedback that's circulated to many BBC staff, including members of the BBC Executive Board, channel controllers and other senior managers.
>
> The audience logs are seen as important documents that can help shape decisions about future programming and content.
>
> Thanks again for taking the time to contact us.
>
> Regards
>
> BBC Complaints
> ________________________________________________
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/homepage/

Labour have failed to regulate financial system

Letter to the Editor(s)

Dear Sir or Madam,

Given that the UK central bank, the Bank of England, has cut interest rates
to 0.5% one might imagine that our bailed out banks would have passed on
this change in interest rates to their customers. They certainly have in
respect of savings accounts. Most people will have found that their interest
rates in that respect have been drastically cut. On mortgages they have
reduced slightly, but not by much. It also still costs a fortune to arrange
a fixed rate mortgage.

Meanwhile the interest rates on loans, credit cards and overdrafts remain
extortionately high. The average yearly rate for a credit card is currently
18.8%. Why? If the base rate is reduced then that reduction should have been
passed on throughout the banking system. That way borrowers could afford to
spend more, boosting the economy and ending the economic depression.

The government should have forced a wholesale reduction in interest rates at
the point they offered tax payers money to prop up the financial system.
They could still do so for the semi-nationalised banks today. If the
political will was there.

I witnessed a TV advert this morning that encouraged customers with debts to
avail themselves of an internet based loans system at quickquid.co.uk. The
only catch? An eye watering interest rate of 2356% APR!

It is blatantly obvious that Labour have failed to put in effective
legislation to control lenders and that the banks themselves are happy to
extort horrendous sums from borrowers. Clearly proper regulation is
required. Unfortunately the main 'opposition' the Conservatives are in a
large part to blame for the 'big bang' of de-regulation in the first place
which ultimately led to this mess.

This upcoming British general election offers no choice between two parties
which are equally as awful as each other. Both want to drastically slash
public expenditure while allowing the banks to bully their own borrowers.

Surely we can do better? Proportional representation, independence for every
country in the UK, removal of the House of Lords and the end of the
undemocratic oath to the Queen are all measures which could and should have
happened long ago.

Old Britain is bust and we need to try something radically different.

Yours faithfully,

Joe Middleton

Complaint to BBC: UK TV leaders debates are unfair to Scots

BBC Complaints Department (submitted online)

05/03/2010

Dear Sir/Madam,

As a Scottish voter I am deeply concerned that the proposed 'leaders debates' will unfairly exclude the SNP from UK general election coverage.

The fact the SNP will only be in regional debates while the Conservatives, Labour and Lib Dems will be featured in both national (UK) debates AND regional debates suggests a clear unfairness.

The SNP form the Scottish Government and are in contention to win the UK General Election in Scotland. To provide their London based rivals with a debate which excludes the party is unfair and ignores Scottish interests.

While there will be so called 'regional' debates, this suggests that Scotland is a region, it's not. It is a country, unlike the UK, which is technically a union of countries. Labour (and other UK parties) will have two seperate opportunities to address the electorate in Scotland.

Scotland (and Wales and NI!) are also being treated as somehow an afterthought, that it doesn't matter if the SNP are excluded from a 'national' debate (even though the SNP obviously see Scotland as a nation) and devolved policy which will be irrelevant to Scotland (as our devolved parliament controls them) and policies/promises only affecting England will be presented as UK policy.

Similarly the SNP's policies on reserved powers (ie foreign policy and defence, amongst others) will be ignored yet these policies are directly relevant to Scotland in a UK general election, as they cut to the heart of independence ie SNP oppose Trident for example and always have done, yet only with independence can Trident be removed from Scotland. The Lib Dems will be able to present themselves as the anti Trident party even though they have only recently adopted this policy!

This whole situation is clearly unfair and I appeal to the BBC to refuse to show any debate in Scotland which entirely excludes the SNP.

Please show English orientated debates featuring London based parties only in England. Anything shown in Scotland or Wales or NI should represent all the relevant parties standing in the election in our country.

If you do not do so you will be breaching the spirit if not the law of broadcasting guidelines and will directly affect the election results in Scotland in favour of the UK parties over the SNP. This should not be your role in a healthy democracy in a multi-part state.

The SNP won both the European and Scottish elections and deserve a level playing field at the UK elections as well.

If this does not happen then by your own actions you are actually proving that the Union is not flexible enough to include Scots opinion fairly and you are also allowing the UK parties to treat Scots as if our country does not exist.

Since we pay our TV license fee in Scotland and are effectively joint shareholders in the BBC this is simply not acceptable.

Please make a representation to the BBC Trust on my behalf indicating this complaint if you are unable to address this issue directly.

Please urgently address this issue before these unfair debates happen.

Yours faithfully,

JOE MIDDLETON

Independence referendum moves forward

by Joe Middleton

I was watching the BBC programme Dinner with Portillo the other day, which was discussing Scots independence, and some of the reactions of the English guests were instructive. Rod Liddle initially tried to doubt the existence of Scotland at all, but later admitted that he was really worried an independent Scotland would take away all the Scots Labour MP’s from Westminster. As a leftist of sorts he thought this might not be in his interests as England would become a permanent Tory zone.

Portillo himself seemed to imagine there would be no consequences whatsoever for England, with London remaining the centre of the universe, he was therefore quite happy for the Scots (and Wales) to become independent because essentially we don’t really count.

An Oxford academic worried about how England might change without the influence of Scotland and Wales and might become a less tolerant country as a result. None of them were particularly interested in the effect independence might actually have on Scotland, an omission which perhaps perfectly illustrates the nature of the union!

On the ‘other side’ Hardeep Singh Kohli, who appears to have wangled a berth for himself as a TV expert on Scotland, proved his own ignorance by declaring that a separate military presence for Scotland was impossible and also bizarrely claimed that he didn’t even know the SNP’s policy on nuclear weapons.

He seemed to imagine Scotland as a jealous lover, spurned by those nasty English types who don’t care for our affections! In fact a battered wife might have been a better analogy but when people claim ‘the English’ as a whole believe a certain thing they are generally on a hiding to nothing and this was clearly the case with Mr Kohli.

Former Labour party First Minister Henry McLeish could have enlightened him on SNP policy no doubt but perhaps couldn’t be bothered, he was more interested in whether the RBS should be considered a British bank rather than a Scots one.

Meanwhile historian Michael Fry made some decent points but his political analysis seemed to be that we would be so skint with independence that we would have to slash public spending (as a Tory he liked the sound of that) even though the actual evidence is that Scotland puts more money into the union than we receive!

I mention this programme because it indicates the kind of mish mash which passes for serious commentary on Scots independence through the British prism of TV news.

Anyone watching this programme would have been no wiser about Scots independence at the end than they would have been at the start, yet the case is very clear and easily described.

As long as Scotland and Wales are outvoted by a factor of 10-1 and 20-1, in the important arenas of defence, foreign affairs and other important areas like pensions and social security, within the British parliament, then we do not live in a genuine democracy and our views are easily and effectively ignored.

So what moves are being made towards holding a referendum on independence and what is the current situation of the SNP Government?

Right now the SNP are being attacked by the ‘Scottish’ press for various imaginary sins. Possibly to deflect attention from actual fraud at British parliamentary level by Jim Devine MP, the press have decided that an auction for a lunch with Alex Salmond is the height of corruption. The fact that the individual who bought the lunch, could have made the same donation directly to the SNP, and that there were no policy implications escapes our journos.

No, the most important issue for them is that the SNP might have used the parliamentary canteen (parliamentary facilities!) for the lunch in question… If it sounds pathetic, it is.

Nicola Sturgeon has also been dunked into luke warm water for the heinous crime of representing a constituent. Yes, because Nicola wrote a letter asking a court to consider that a custodial sentence might not be advisable for a benefit fraudster with ten kids this is seen as a shocking lapse of judgement.

The Edinburgh Evening News claims “the honeymoon is finally over for SNP”. This claim that the SNP’s popularity was a ‘honeymoon period’ was always designed to be a stick to beat them with, however given that the SNP won the elections in May 2007 it’s been a hell of a long honeymoon! The unionists have yet to hit the SNP with a charge that will stick. In reality they have governed extremely well, a fact which sticks in the throat of many a biased journalist.

The unionists attempted to kill the SNP’s referendum bill by trying to arrange one of there own flunkies as committee chairman. Margo MacDonald’s assisted suicide bill which should have gone to the health committee was instead given to a newly created ad hoc committee with a view to ensuring a unionist chair on the proposed referendum bill which was expected to follow it.

In fact however the SNP neatly sidestepped this abuse of parliamentary procedure by publishing the Bill in draft form meaning that they can delay its actual implementation to a more opportune time.

The SNP plans to hold the referendum in 2010, after the result of the UK elections and at a point where any new Government will have revealed its hand in respect of Scotland. Labour and Liberals might find it more difficult to deny a choice on independence in the face of a hostile Conservative UK Government!

At the moment however all the unionists are pledged to deny Scots a choice and to publish a bill would simply hasten its demise. Timing in this case is everything, and the SNP have organised through their national conversation a proper consultation with the public. SNP ministers have travelled up and down all of Scotland and held numerous public meetings to properly consider independence.

The ill fated Calman commission, designed to scupper independence without actually going as far as considering it, has given its findings which have subsequently been entirely ignored by both Labour and Conservatives. So called devolution max, is actually devolution minimal as no unionist party is willing to countenance any actual financial level of independence.

Without the purse strings of course a devolved assembly remains effectively controlled by central Government, a fact they are all well aware of. Calman was designed to outflank the national conversation, however because it ignored independence all it has done is reveal the poverty of ambition for Scotland of all unionists. Job well done!

What this means is that the line between independence and devolution remains clearly drawn. When the referendum happens the Scots will get a choice which is clear between those who want the best for Scotland and those who don’t.

The unionists can delay that vote but ultimately they cannot deny it. If the SNP needs to spend more time talking to the public and dealing with actual political issues then I’m sure they are happy to do this. If they have to fend off ill aimed allegations without much actual weight then they seem entirely capable of that as well.

According to opinion polls many people in Scotland remain unconvinced by independence, probably because the actual issues are rarely properly addressed through the British media. Those issues will only be properly addressed by those who believe in independence making a case for it. This is what the SNP is attempting to do and gradually they are moving towards their ultimate objective.

Scotland must finally be given a choice and when that choice is properly debated through a referendum campaign their patient groundwork through the national conversation will hopefully pay off.

Dirty Tricks as Charles Portrait Declared a Fake?

Gallery admits portrait isn't Bonnie Prince Charlie

http://www.scotsman.com/scotland/Gallery-admits---portrait.5910975.jp

This story in the Britman raises some doubts in my mind. Let's be clear that Charles was a pivotal figure in British and Scottish history and the present British state have an interest in besmirching his memory by any means possible.

Suggesting his most famous portrait is false and thereby restricting imagery to depictions of him as a little boy helps in legitimising their current puppet on the British throne.

According to the original aticle itself:

http://www.dnhdesign.com/BAJwebsite/BAJ-BG-HenryIX.pdf

The La Tour pastel of Charles was exhibited in the Paris Salon of 1748, as ‘Prince Edouard’.
After Charles was forcibly ejected from Paris in December 1748, the pastel remained in the possession of his banker, Waters, until at least March 1752, when Charles requested it
be ‘packed up carefully by La Tour himself ’.

So we are to believe that a portrait which was attributed as Charles while he was still alive and formed part of his estate is less reliable than a copy which was later attributed as being his brother, probably based on it's likeness to the picture of Charles himself?

This doesn't seem too likely to me. The same article claims that other portraits of Henry should be discounted as they seem to look like someone else!

Perhaps the establishment prefer pictures which show Charlie as a foppish boy rather than as a grown man as it makes it easier to bury his memory.

Charles had a legitimate claim to the throne of Scotland and immediately declared Scotland independent when he took power, prior to his ultimate defeat. Shortly afterwards the British parliament decided to declare that both the Scottish county of Berwick and the whole country of Wales were now part of England. A verse was also added to the British national anthem (God Save the King) boasting of crushing rebellious Scots.

Lord, grant that Marshal Wade,
May by thy mighty aid,
Victory bring.
May he sedition hush,
and like a torrent rush,
Rebellious Scots to crush,
God save the King.

The current monarch is controlled by the British parliament (from the second family drafted in for the purpose) and has no legitimate claim to the Scots throne whatsoever.

Who cares? No-one, perhaps, however the Queen remains the head of the British Government and with the House of Lords and Commons makes up the triumvirate of British rule.

The House of Commons is banned for any republican (ergo it is not properly democratic) and the House of Lords is made up of appointed lackeys.

The first past the post system ensures that two almost identical sets of political chancers maintain a corrupt system between them that should have been reformed centuries ago but never will be. This is the reason why they were able to deny Scotland devolution for a century (despite numerous votes by Scots MP's in the British parliament) and was the basis of their abusive rule of Ireland which they annexed in an act of international banditry with a ridiculous 'Union' in 1801 .

Britain obviously detests the memory of the Prince and various papers have repeated this assertion that the picture might be the Prince's brother so often that the National Portrait Galery has obviously decided that it can't be bothered defending it as an original portrait.

This same picture has been used in most biographies of the Prince however and by casting doubt on its origins based on some pretty controversial theorising it appears that doubt can be easily cast over all research on him.

If the Gallery has concern for its reputation (it may well see all publicity as good publicity, who knows?) it will mention that there are some contentious theories about the picture however most reputable sources believe it to be exactly what it purports to be, an original picture of Charles Edward Stuart.