The true origins of Britain and Britishness

This relates to a discussion with someone on Twitter who declared that Britain as a geographical entity existed long before Scotland.

The modern state of Britain was deliberately named after the ancient Roman colony of Britannia (ie the Roman name for England) and this state which was created in 1707 has no actual connection with the ancient Britons (who were in fact Celtic Gaels who eventually ended up pushed into the ancient countries of Cornwall and Wales) and is in fact an attempt to impose a false identity on modern Scotland, Wales and Ireland.

Even in Roman times Scotland (Caledonia) and Ireland (Hibernia) were recognised as seperate geographical entities from England and the islands were occupied by our ancestors for a long time before the Romans tried to conquer and take notice of us. So why should we be currently dominated by their terms for what they would have considered barbarian tribes?

Britannia is in fact their slave name for an area they conquered.

Britain and the 'British Isles' is described in these terms today because of the historical dominance of the Union over the last 300 years and the name was chosen deliberately to hark back to the terminology used by the Romans.  

My debator believes that it is a geographical term with no political significance whatsoever, however I say that if Scotland and England's fortunes were reversed then we would now be sitting in a Scots dominated state called Greater Caledonia and only the most gullible Englishman would think that this state was representative of England or the English!

This may seem a small point but I think it cuts to the quick of British propaganda and the constant talk of ancient and stone age Britain is a slight of hand which defies the truth, that Britishness is and was a false identity imposed upon the true identities of the Scots and Welsh and Irish and it has only actually genuinely existed (in historic terms) in a comparitively recent period.

Here are some facts:

With the Roman conquest of England the Latin term Britannia was used for the island of Great Britain, and later Roman occupied Britain south of Caledonia.

In this post-Roman period, as the Anglo-Saxons advanced, territory controlled by the Britons became confined to what would later be Wales, Cornwall and North West England.

The Historia Brittonum claimed legendary origins as a prestigious genealogy for Brittonic kings, followed by the Historia Regum Britanniae which popularised this pseudo-history to support the claims of the Kings of England.

During the Middle Ages, and particularly in the Tudor period, the term British was applied to the Welsh people.

King James VI and I advocated full political union between England and Scotland and on 20 October 1604 proclaimed his assumption of the style "King of Great Britain" though this title was rejected by both the Parliament of England and the Parliament of Scotland and so had no basis in either English law or Scots law.

Despite opposition from much of the Scottish and English populations a Treaty of Union was agreed in 1706 that was then ratified by each parliament passing Acts of Union 1707. With effect from 1 May 1707, this created a new sovereign state called Great Britain.

After 1707, a British national identity began to develop though initially resisted—particularly by the English —the peoples of Great Britain had by the 1750s begun to assume a "layered identity", to think of themselves as simultaneously British and also Scottish, English, or Welsh.

(Note that this wasn't long after 1745 so the population had just been brutally ethnically cleansed of Catholics, Gaelic Highlanders and other Jacobite Scots independence supporters. It is also notable that for the first fifty years of union our economy had actually declined, so much for an instant age of prosperity!)

It is also forgotten that for much of our history Scotland was effectively a police state and those who argued for political reform were sent to Botany Bay. Thomas Muir is an obvious example, while some of the rebels of 1820 who marched under the Banner 'Scotland Free or a Desert' were actually hung by the state. There was also a vast network of informers and bribery led by the Dundas brothers so for some considerable time it wasn't exactly easy to state any opinion against the status quo!

Particularly in the 19th century, "North Britain" or "N.B." was widely used for postal addresses in Scotland, a fact which annoyed Robert Louis Stevenson:

"Don’t put N.B. on your paper; put Scotland and be done with it. Alas, that I should be stabbed in the house of my friends! The name of my native land is not North Britain, whatever may be the name of yours."

from a letter written by Robert Louis Stevenson in April 1888

Britishness became "superimposed on much older identities", of English, Scots and Welsh cultures, whose distinctiveness still resist notions of a homogenised British identity.

- Colley, Linda (1992), Britons: Forging the Nation, 1701–1837, Yale University Press, ISBN 978-0-300-05737-9

So what does it matter if the state we live in is effectively called Greater England? It matters because politically that is precisely what it is. A false state which amplifies English power internationally at the expense of the individual identities of Scotland and Wales. This fact has already been admitted by Jack Straw:

“historically England called the shots to achieve a union because the union was seen as a way, among other things, of amplifying England’s power worldwide.

A broken-up United Kingdom would not be in the interest of Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland, but especially not England. Our [England’s] voting power in the European Union would diminish. We’d slip down the world’s GDP tables. Our case for staying in the G8 would diminish and there could easily be an assault on our permanent seat in the UN.”

Scotland is not British and Britishness has never represented our interests. It is a false identity which has been imposed by politicians who want to ignore us so yes names matter and we should not be afraid to shout the fact that we are not 'British' and never have been.

In actual fact the reverse of the simplistic British view of history are true and in fact England was once part of a larger Celtic Alba according to Dr Alex Woolf (who lectures in medieval history at St Andrews:

"When the Romans occupied the island they gave the name Britannia to their province, with its fluctuating boundaries, and it is probably their failure to gain any lasting foothold in Ireland that gradually led to that island becoming ‘less British’ than this one.

The two islands had their own names, Iwerijo for Ireland, and Albijo for the larger island. These names survive as Eire and Alba, the Gaelic names for Ireland and Scotland respectively."

Excellent letters in Scotsman today

Hidden options in referendum report

Published on Wednesday 13 February 2013 00:00

The No Campaign’s press conference on Monday emphasised that its expert opinion concluded that the UK would continue as an existing state, holding on to all the benefits, and that Scotland would have to be created as a new state, with all the disadvantages that this could bring.

The media followed this line in their reporting. It now appears (your report, 12
February) that the expert opinion offered three scenarios, not one. The second was that two new states would be formed, and the third was that Scotland would be resurrected as the state that existed before 1707. Why were these options hidden? 
It is clear that the Westminster government would prefer the first option.

It may profess great respect for Scotland, and a strong 
desire for us to remain in the Union; but as soon as the 
status quo is threatened it will try to take all the benefits for itself and positively work to make things difficult for Scotland.

Those who are timorous about voting Yes, and are hoping for a form of devo-plus following a No vote, should realise that once England has seen off the threat of independence the devolutionary process will come to a shuddering halt.

Westminster will continue to work and legislate for the majority, English, voter. We have been warned!

Alison Halley
Newbattle Abbey Crescent
Edinburgh
As Scottish Secretary Michael Moore proclaims the benefits to Scotland of staying in the UK with the launch in the first of a series of UK government information reports, one has to ask some fundamental questions: is 
anyone naïve enough to 
believe that significant 
information which undermines this proposition will not be withheld if possible, especially given the UK government’s non-disclosure of the true status of North Sea oil reserves prior to the referendum on devolution?

If unsure, is the UK Government’s reluctance to seek clarification from the EU on Scotland’s possible position in the event of a positive vote in the referendum not at odds with any sincere desire that the Scottish people base their decision on facts, not fiction?

Does anyone actually believe that those parties, which so recently endorsed the recommendations of the Calman Commission as being a great deal for Scotland (with some Tories expressing the view that perhaps devolution had gone too far), will immediately work together after a negative vote in the referendum to deliver substantially increased powers for Scotland (“devo-Moore”), whatever the result of the UK elections in 2015 and whatever is contained in their
manifestos?

Those with short memories should note that these same parties unashamedly reneged on key promises such as reform of the House of Lords and a referendum on the UK’s membership of the EU.
Has anyone such little understanding of basic economics and politics that they think that whatever benefits Scotland would still derive as a member of a Union whose influence around the world has dramatically declined would come without paying a considerable price for sustaining the bureaucracy around an increasingly 
redundant Westminster parliament, never mind the social cost of further governments pursuing policies not in tune with the wishes of the people of Scotland?

Hopefully now that we are entering a period of more serious debate on Scotland’s independence that will determine the prospects we 
bequeath future generations, more people will make the effort to look objectively 
beneath the surface of what is presented by the UK Government and a media predominantly committed to the constitutional status quo.

Stan Grodynski
Longniddry
East Lothian

I am not an expert on international law, unlike the respected professors James Crawford and Alan Boyle of Cambridge and Edinburgh Universities, who have provided legal advice to the UK Government on the legal implications of Scottish independence (your report, 11 February), but there appears to me to be a fundamental misconception of the position of the two countries, England and Scotland.

The Treaty of Union 1707 was an agreement between two sovereign independent states to form a political union. If Scotland elects to secede from that union, then the two countries, Scotland and England, revert to being two separate countries.

England would not continue to be the “rest of the UK”, as that entity would not exist. Wales and Northern Ireland are part of the English state by military conquest. There would be no question of a “continuing state”, as England and Scotland would be newly restored independent states.
The examples quoted of new states are quite different from the position of England and Scotland, being mainly the result of the break up of empires.

Interestingly, the three Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, on becoming independent of the USSR in 1991, were admitted to the United Nations without any question.

George I M Chapman
Moor Road
Glasgow

AND THE NO CAMPAIGN SPEAKS OUT TOO:

Big questions

Published on Tuesday 12 February 2013 00:00

I write as a disillusioned observer of proceedings at First Minister’s Questions in the Scottish Parliament.

Donald Dewar, advocate of the concept of the Scottish Executive, would have been appalled at the behaviour of certain SNP politicians within the debating chamber in today’s parliament.
The Labour leader, Johann Lamont, was completely justified recently, during First Minister’s Questions, when she accused SNP backbenchers of braying when opposition leaders put quite valid questions to Alex Salmond.

She also made the point that most questions asked by SNP members are so well vetted by their leader that they become irrelevant to the debate.

First Minister’s Questions is appallingly awful – Salmond makes every attempt to ridicule, in turn, the points made by the Labour, Tory and Liberal Democrat leaders. In this ploy he gets full support from the rows of “hyenas” on his back benches.

Also one of these days, John Swinney, in his usual state of misplaced mirth, is quite likely to fall off his chair, which is usually perched precariously on just two legs.

As 2014, the referendum year, approaches, let us reflect on the status quo – what the UK has achieved, and will continue to achieve: stability in an even more complex political and economic scenario; under very difficult circumstances, maintenance of a strong voice in the EU; a continued special relationship with the USA.

So prithee, what will Alex Salmond’s concept of an independent Scotland really achieve? I really do feel that we Scots deserve more than he is capable of providing.

Just some of the pitfalls of his policies/assertions are obvious: Scotland would certainly have to apply to join the EU, and join the queue; if Scotland, as a new state, did gain entry eventually, it would require to adopt the euro; how effective would Scotland be within Nato? (its much reduced level of armed forces and weaponry might be unacceptable to other members); as would the SNP’s rejection of the established Faslane submarine base.

Then, of course, terms would have to be negotiated with the Bank of England – perhaps more difficult if Scotland is admitted to the EU and has to accept the euro as its currency.

So think carefully, fellow Scots, before casting your vote in the Scottish referendum.

If you make the wrong choice then you and your family might regret it forever.

Robert I G Scott
Ceres
Fife

Translation: "I write as a biased Brit who has no interest in his own country and is content to  be ruled from England. While Westminster is a shambles where Scots are outvoted by a margin of 10-1 I prefer to criticise the Scottish Government for having political debates and Alex Salmond for winning them.

It is far better to be bitter together with Tory England than have the gross effrontery to imagine that the Saltire could fly in Europe and the UN and that we could rule ourselves. Don't vote for equality or we will all be D-O-O-M-E-D and S-K-I-N-T. We need London to rule us as we are too wee and too dumb to ever rule ourselves."

Another positive message from the NO YOU DON'T! campaign. Gee thanks Mr Scott!

British Union has always been about amplifying England

Letter to the Editor
The Scotsman

11/02/2013

Dear Sir/Madam,

If the UK state is legally the same without the Scots in it as the British Government is now claiming then this proves that Britain (Britannia?) has always been a 'greater England' and not an equal union at all.

Jack Straw MP said in an interview with the BBC that "Historically, England called the shots to achieve a union because the union was seen as a way, among others things, of amplifying England's power worldwide." *

Not only has Scotland been effectively internationally invisible within the union we are now told that every action by the UK Government and every treaty organised by it had nothing to do with us at all!

What this means logically is that Scotland has never been part of any true union just a convenient fiction which has justified England claiming a larger international profile than it deserves.

Ending the union will mean for the first time that our flag will fly at the United Nations and the Olympic Games. I suspect the European Union will be desperate to keep us within it but if they do not want us then we could easily join EFTA and still have a trading relationship with Europe.

Why should we stay a part of Britain when Westminster officially says we are an irrelevance to its continuing status?

 Unionists say that Scotland and England are equal within the union but the reality is that we are no more equal than the UK would be if it was attached to a larger nation like China or Russia or the USA.

Scotland can do better. Independence is normality for almost every other nation and there is no country that has been unable to negotiate independence. Britain seems to officially imagine that Scotland is uniquely incapable of either ruling our own affairs or of negotiating independence.

Any Scot who supports such a dismal view of their own country should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves.

Yours faithfully,

Joe Middleton

* full interview with Jack Straw is here:

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

POLITICAL RALLIES NEED TO INCLUDE EVERYONE

As someone who has been involved in helping organise such events in the past (through Independence First) I very much hope that this new rally on Saturday organised by http://www.independenceforscotland.com/ is a success and leads to victory in the referendum in 2014.

Obviously the website is very professional and the organisers have made good use of social networking to publicise and advertise the rally. They have also apparently attracted wide support from across the political spectrum with some very famous faces lined up to speak at the rally including the First Minister himself.

Nonetheless banning the Scottish Republican Socialist Movement (SRSM) from events (based on the opinions of someone like Jim Murphy) is entirely counter productive. 

The story is here: http://www.scotsman.com/scotland-on-sunday/scottish-independence-snp-under-fire-over-extremists-at-rally-1-2529585 and was also reported in the Glasgow Herald.

As a current member of the SNP and a former member of the SRSM I obviously have an interest in these developments.

Scottish republicanism is a legitimate political position to take which is supported by somewhere around 50% of the Scottish people. The British Queen has as much interest in Scotland as the Spanish King has to Catalonia and he made it clear where his loyalties lie this week. At the height of the devolution debate in the 70's 'our' Queen similarly distanced herself from Scotland and I'm sure would do the same again. Given the contemptuous title of England's Queen Elizabeth II it has always been clear where her personal loyalty has lay.

The British flag is a symbol of imperialism, racism and divide 'n' rule politics. Showing contempt for that flag by burning it is a legitimate political response and more honest than smiling wanly while it is thrust down our throats during sporting events where Scotland is excluded from participating as ourselves.

Brittania was the Roman name for England and Wales, not Scotland. Great Britain was always a device for expanding English power (a fact which was admitted by Jack Straw MP) at the expense of Scotland and Wales and it remains precisely that today.

All groups who support independence should have been made welcome at the rally. Past organisations (like IF) which organised events were deliberately set up on an entirely non-political basis so they could be made bullet-proof from divide 'n' rule style stirring by the British unionists and their allies in the press.

Radical elements are all part of what makes independence movements tick. The SNP is a broad church but it won't enthuse everyone by promoting a pro-European and pro-monarchist position or by watering down it's opposition to nuclear weapons. That radicalism needs to come from groups outside the SNP and the SRSM have always been 100% committed to Scottish independence and a republic in the tradition of John MacLean. He wasn't popular with the establishment either but his name lives on while most of his Brit loving supposed 'international socialist' contemporaries are deservedly gathering dust.
 
In his early years Salmond was a republican and part of the '79 group. Without the fire in his belly of those early experiences it is unlikely he could have risen to the position he holds today. The SNP should realise that it does not speak for everybody and welcome support from outside its ranks. Any group organising a rally needs to do the same thing otherwise it will ultimately be dictated to by a unionist lobby which ultimately includes low lifes like the BNP and the Orange Lodge (guess who organised the only jubilee street party in Glasgow!). Given the company they keep and the war mongering actions of the state they represent British unionists have no right to criticise any element of Scotland's independence movement.
 
If we want to gain the mass support recently demonstrated by activists in Catalonia then we need to widen our ranks to include every supporter of independence from the right to the left of political thought in Scotland. If we don't do that then we are very unlikely to win independence in 2014.

BRITISH POLICY: CONTEMPT FOR SCOTLAND AND WALES

British Petroleum has been in the news a lot recently. A massive eleven billion loss will decimate pension funds for future generations. Strangely enough though a similar sum can be found for the London Olympics. Yes this mass extravaganza will be entirely wonderful for everyone (well everyone in London anyway) and please don’t question the enormous cost because we all know that it’s the London metropolis that keeps all us beggars on the outer fringes afloat. The fact that the facts don’t agree? You’ll never get that through the media.



The thing I think about most when I consider the London Olympics is Lord Sebastian Coe (see above) who when asked about what Britain should do if Scotland and Wales didn’t want to be part of Britain’s football team. His answer? F*** ‘Em! Strangely enough however despite this comment being picked up in the press Lord Coe is still fronting the London Olympics and to my mind that fact represents a two fingered salute to every other country in Britain outside England.
Of course all has changed recently. We have a wonderful new coalition Government. Yes the new Conservative Government has added a dash of Liberal Democrats and we are now supposed to accept their drastic monetarist cost cutting medicine as inevitable and indeed entirely just. After all that nice Mr Clegg would hardly get himself involved in any shenanigans would he? Oh, no! The coalition Government has a new found lovey dovey respect for Scotland and Wales which lasted oh, two whole weeks before things returned to business as usual.
The pleasant Mr Clegg decided that the best thing for us Scots and Welsh was to have our national elections at the same time as his AV referendum bill. Thus ensuring a big British campaign which can drown out all those irrelevant local issues like who is going to run our countries for the next four years. After all didn’t that work well at the last election? Scotland and Wales ignored and only the big English parties getting equal TV coverage. Just to be on the safe side the 2015 elections for Scotland and Wales will be on the same day as (you guessed it!) the next Westminster elections.
Yes the respect agenda is alive and well. We get told what to do and are given less money and are expected to get on with it. Strangely enough the new coalition bears a startling resemblance to a Conservative Government. Every big post, Foreign Secretary, Home Secretary, Defence Secretary and Prime Minister are all held by the Tories. Mr Clegg became the new John Prescott while Vince Cable is the new Lord Mandelson. If Mr Clegg says the Iraq war is illegal he can be ignored as speaking for himself yet if a Conservative minister makes an announcement then that is party policy. I think I can see how this works.
Of course Mr Clegg didn’t give up the Liberal Democrats votes for nothing. Oh no! He got that aforesaid Alternative Vote (AV) referendum which was what he had always wanted. Well no, he said during the election AV was a waste of time. Which it is, marginally better than First Past the Post but by no means proportional, unlike STV (Single Transferable Vote). Personally I would have supported AV as a small step in the right direction however given that Mr Clegg has stuck it right in the middle of Scotland and Wales election campaigns Plaid Cymru and SNP would be both amply justified in telling him exactly where to stick it.
Still the Liberals did get another wondrous prize, yes the post of Secretary of State for Scotland, the cabinet post that the LD’s said should have been abolished during the election is now the greatest thing since sliced bread. You can tell that by the fact that Danny Alexander wanted to hold on to it for oh, weeks before rushing off to bigger and better things. We now have a new puppet Michael Moore who will no doubt regularly tell us that the Tories are right and that we Scots can survive on less money.
The sepulchral figure of Jim Murphy was of course our last SoS for Scotland. Murphy had a very simple law, if you are comparing Scotland with other nations make sure you never mention anyone with oil. After all that’s utterly irrelevant. Norway? No! Finland? Yes! Still voting Labour will definitely keep the Tories out. We did, but strangely enough we got ‘em. It makes you think that perhaps there is another country ten times our size who has rather more influence on the UK than Scotland. Still I’m sure thin Jim will get his reward some day with a job in the House of Lords or as I like to call them, the House of Losers. Yes, it doesn’t matter how incompetent you were as a politician or how you made no useful contribution to public life. So long as you were in the British cabinet you get a guaranteed spot in a plush retirement home with a nice new ermine red coat.
That real working class hero John ‘two jags’ Prescott has been punted up to the Lords. John Reid the man who did so much for British rule in Ireland and was rewarded with the chairmanship of a supposedly Irish nationalist football club has had a further ‘promotion’. Joining him is Helen Liddell (another SoS) various other Labour non-entities and Jack McConnell. Yes McConnell the former First Minister was considered to have been such a decent suck up that he didn’t even have to wait to lose his seat in the Scottish parliament before receiving his ‘just desserts’. The thought of this detritus of politics joining the ranks of such illustrious political hate figures as Lord Ian Lang and Lord Michael Forsyth makes me feel that what goes around comes around. Nonetheless, where is Guy Fawkes when you really need him? He could cut public expenditure at a stroke and no-one would be the worse for it.
William Hague is the new British foreign secretary, well he was but now it appears David Cameron prefers to make the rounds of other countries on Britain’s behalf. Mr Cameron doesn’t let the facts get in the way of sucking up to America. Oh, no he’ll re-write history and insult past generations if his supple tongue requires it. What’s that sir? You want Turkey to forgive Israel? Count on me!
Foreign policy for Britain is about asking America just how high they want us to jump. Don’t think of irrelevant stuff like the human rights of the Kurds or that silly old Turkish annexation of half of Cyprus, no think only of Uncle Sam and the rights of Israel to commit acts of terrorism that will ensure world respect.
Personally I would like to see Turkey in the EU. But only after they have relinquished half of Cyprus and improved their record on human rights. Strangely enough that is what the EU wants as well but it would be mad wouldn’t it to think we have a common interest with those European types. No far better to maintain an irrational xenophobic dislike of all Johnny Foreigners. Those mad continental types don’t even speak the Queen’s English.
BP’s trouble in the USA has led to the Americans taking a sudden interest in Scottish affairs. Of course Mr Cameron did the decent thing when asked to explain BP’s dodgy dealings. Don’t look at me he said look at Scotland who let out the mad terrorist Al Megrahi! It is of course true that Kenny MacAskill showed compassion for a dying man. It is also probable that the man in question had no connection whatsoever with the Lockerbie bomb. The US demanded to hear from the lowly Scots in person and were amazed to find that our Government had learnt a word which no British diplomat had ever used in recent recorded history: ‘No’.
There was indeed a ‘deal in the desert’ BP did in fact lobby a foreign Government. However it was the last Labour British Government, not the Scottish one. Mr MacAskill decide to grant compassionate release to a dying man. This has put those lovely types from the tabloids and the unionist politicians together in a basket in which they each hold a stopwatch and guess how long he’s got to go.
The fact the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission reckoned his conviction was ‘unsafe’. Who cares? The indisputable fact he’s dying of cancer? What does that matter? What matters is he is not dying in three months like he should have done!
I joined a US website a while back because I wanted to leave a comment re an inaccurate report about Scotland. Since then I have received numerous mail shots. If they are anything to go by the art of politics has died in America in favour of pathetic idiotic semantics. America might have the power the money and the secret agents but in terms of moral authority or fresh political ideas it has nothing. An independent Scotland and Wales would be far better throwing their lot in with the rest of Europe. The fact UKIP, the BNP and most of the Tories all want us to disengage from Europe gives us an idea of the right and wrongs of the issue!

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