Bye Bye Peter MacMahon!

So it's bye bye to Peter MacMahon, moved over to the Scotsman's business desk from the politics. That the Scotsman imagined this guy was a suitable political editor when he was previously working directly for the Labour party says a lot about the paper.

They were never interested in genuine political journalism, instead they preferred to get an Ex Spin Doctor to spin lies and half truths about the SNP. Now it appears even they are sick of him, maybe they think their new Lib Dem supporting hack is more subtle, who knows?

Good riddence to MacMahon anyway, you won't be missed.

Festival is (not) key terror target

This from the hootsman:

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/scotland/Festival-is-key-terror-target.3723328.jp#2425482

Headline: Festival is key terror target

Actuality: "I don't have specific intelligence that Edinburgh is going to be the next target."

This is typical of the dishonest reporting of this newspaper. If there needed to be a headline at all it would have been much more accurate (but less deliberately alarming) to say:
"Policeman warns of possible threat to Festival"

There is a very thin line between warning of possible dangers and actively encouraging it.

Unfortunately since the Glasgow attempt it is obvious that we are a target but it is also equally obvious that we shouldn't be since foreign policy is not controlled in Scotland. Until we are an independent country that can make our own voice heard internationally we will continue to pay the price for intemperate actions and language by senior politicians in the UK and US.

This claim which has no obvious basis in reality is designed to stoke up fear and encourage people to agree to further removal of human rights and democratic safeguards. It's a bit like the UK Government who have in writing admitted that ID cards have nothing whatsover to do with combatting terrorism yet despite this regularly suggest that they might do so.

This British Government is a disaster, it doesn't represent the views of most Scots and without independence we will always be in danger both from terrorists and from right of centre politicians who are desperate to grab more police powers.

Scotland has to fight for a fair deal on new oil negotiations

by former SNP leader Gordon Wilson (writing in the Sunday Herald)

ON THE face of it, this was very good news. After losing the benefits of the oil in the North Sea, Scotland could have a second chance in the eastern Atlantic. Until recently, this has been legally impossible; only the Continental Shelf could be developed. Now the UN has opened up new frontiers in deeper waters - provided the adjoining nations agree.

If Scotland were independent, we would be negotiating the division of 162,935 square miles of sea bed forming the Rockall/Hatton Basin, deemed to be oil-rich. But Scotland is not a negotiating party along with Ireland, Iceland and Denmark (acting for the Faroe Islands) who all have claims. Our seat is occupied by the British government in London. So what's the problem? Surely it will look after Scotland's interests?

But will it? The evidence is that the British government has a habit of ignoring the interests of the Scottish people if they clash with imperial priorities. In the early 1970s, the Heath government sacrificed the needs of the Scottish fishing industry to get into the Common Market. The Common Fisheries Policy surrendered Scottish waters to European competitors. Ever since, Britain has treated fishing as an unimportant British issue.

Evidence from government records, recently issued after 30 years, shows that Westminster governments conspired to deceive the Scottish people as to the value of Scotland's oil, in order to retain the oil revenues for the British Treasury.

Be careful Scotland! We can't trust the Foreign Office to look after our interests. The four negotiating countries are not bound by law on the setting of boundaries, and can mutually agree deals - deals which may not benefit Scotland. As with fishing, Scotland can be ignored. And didn't Downing Street recently do a deal on prisoner transfers to Libya without consulting the Scottish government? Yet we're asked to trust them.

We'd be mad to do so. I have written to Alex Salmond about these negotiations, advising that the Scottish government become involved. We must know what's been agreed in our name and hire lawyers and oil experts so we can ensure any deal is fair. If he is blocked by London, it should be made clear that independent Scotland will not accept a damaging treaty.

Mr Salmond should alert the Danish, Irish and Icelandic governments. I am sure the Faroese, represented by Denmark, will be consulted and this will be a powerful argument for the Scottish government to use.

Gordon Wilson is former director of the It's Scotland's Oil campaign

http://www.sundayherald.com/oped/opinion/display.var.1945357.0.0.php

Plot to damage support for Scottish independence

I believe that the so called Scottish National Liberation Army (SNLA) is a mythical organisation invented to damage the cause of Scottish independence. Any Scots supporter of independence would be aware that any terrorist action would and could only damage our cause which is reliant on convincing the majority of Scots to vote for normal powers for Scotland.

It seems more than likely that this bizarre plan did not emanate from any person who lives north of the border. Someone unknown has recruited a nutter from England to attempt to damage our cause. Any Englishman who wants to kill his fellow Englishmen is quite clearly mad and he has obviously been manipulated by someone else.

I suspect the hidden hand of the British secret service in this plot and in all the other activies by the one man letter bomber Matt Busby which have been reported at convenient times over the years (ie any time support for independence is on the rise). Mr Busby seems to be allowed to act as an extremely convenient bogey man despite the fact he could have been arrested quite easily by Britain years ago.

Man accused of poison plot for Scottish independence
Press Association
Monday January 7, 2008

An Englishman sent poisoned drinks to public figures as part of a plot to try to force the British government out of Scotland, a court was told today. Wayne Cook, 45 also threatened to kill English people "with no hesitation or compunction" by poisoning water supplies, Manchester crown court heard. Cook, of Tyldesley, Greater Manchester, is charged with two counts of using noxious substances or things to cause harm and intimidate, under anti-terrorism legislation.

Americans will welcome Scottish independence

It was a pleasure to see Floyd McKay address the historic events unfolding in Scotland ["Scot free," guest commentary, Jan. 6].

Last spring, Scots elected the first government in 300 years that wants Scotland to rejoin the international community as an equal and independent partner.

Perhaps more importantly, First Minister Alex Salmond is the country's first leader who trusts the people to decide Scotland's future in a referendum.

McKay correctly wrote that "there is little question that Scotland is capable of handling its own affairs." There is no need to use negative words like "separation" or "breakup," however, when far more apt words would be "independence" and "international engagement."

The democratic deficit always struck me, as an American who worked at the Scottish Parliament and government, as curious. Scotland is an immensely wealthy nation — rich in education (with first-class universities), natural resources (including much of Europe's oil), and industry (with enviable financial and biotech sectors). Why shouldn't Scots consider independence, just as their neighbors, Ireland, Iceland and Norway, have done?

If Scots choose independence at the ballot box, Americans should welcome an old friend to the community of nations. After all, independence has worked well for us.

— Jennifer Erickson, Washington, D.C.

From the Seattle Times
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2004120603_sunlets13.html

Peter MacMahon - The backstabber who worked for Labour

Here's a few interesting archive articles about Peter MacMahon who despite working for the McLeish Labour administration, the Scotsman still thinks we should listen to his opinions as a journalist. Just how thick do they think we are?!

In fact MacMahon still tries to put his most positive spin on everything Labour does and attacks the SNP at every turn. Is he inspired by guilt? Taking the Scotsman's 5K to rat on his old boss who despite his faults still actually appeared to have some small ambition for his own country something which was obviously lacking in his successor Jack McConnell. It was amusing to read of McConnell being abused in London by his political masters but it also showed the contempt they have always had for the office of First Minister (Brown has only ever phoned Alex Salmond ONCE it was revealed this week). no doubt McLeish's job was hardly helped when wee Wendy used to go above his head to Gordon Brown, nor no doubt was he helped by being advised by Peter MacMahon!

Ian MacWhirter lays out the facts:

The backstabber; It was the ultimate kiss and tell. Peter MacMahon's

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4156/is_20020127/ai_n9626593

and the Sunday Herald's opinion on it:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4156/is_20020127/ai_n9626608

Who knows, who cares if MacMahon's slavish pro Labour pieces are due to guilt over his past actions, what's very clear is that Peter MacMahon is in no way a non biased journalist (if he ever was one in the past) and as long as the Scotsman employs him they show that they have as little interest in the truth as he has.

Happy New Year!

The idea that Scotland is well served by the union is an absurd one. The fact is that (as Wendy Wood once memorably pointed out) England is far larger than Scotland and has far more Westminister MP's and if the analogy was a football match then England would have over 100 players to our eleven!

Our unionist 'friends' appear to believe that's just dandy that it's some kind of honour and privilege to have a poor rate of growth in the economy and to give up taxes on oil revenues, that it's great to be a nuclear target and have nuclear weapons that Scotland does not want or require to prop up a relationship with the US which benefits only one side. Brown's Britain might psychologically require a nuclear virility symbol to maintain delusions of grandeur but Scotland does not need or want such rubbish, what we do need is the international representation that membership of the UK denies to us.

There is a clear choice nowadays between those who want normal powers for our country and those who want to see a situation continue where we have a pocket money parliament which lacks crucial political powers. Between those who want no Scottish representation at the UN or the EU and those who want proper representation.

Between those who want to hold a conversation about self government and those who just want to provide the bare minimum of powers that won't upset their party leaders in London.We know where Labour stand and it's not in Scotland's corner. If they are getting cuffed in the polls then it is well deserved.

When the Tories ignored Scottish opinion they achieved long term pariah status. labour deserve the same and their former junior partner the risible undemocratic liberal party deserve to go down as well.

Happy New Year all!

Last year was the year when for the first time the largest group of Scots voters voted for a party that believes in Scotland. I'm very proud of that achievement particularly when the press coverage was so ridiculously biased against the SNP.

Express Group to back Scottish Independence!

Recent Daily Express headline highlighting a readers poll which showed massive support for Scottish independence. According to the Guardian the whole Express group of papers are about to declare their support for normal powers for Scotland.

This is welcome move by the 'Scottish' Daily Express. Though London owned and controlled the fact that the owners see a commercial benefit in making this political move suggests the independence cause is being treated more seriously by the British media.

Like the Sun we can no doubt expect a later return to unionism, however it's still better to have one paper on our side than none. My late grandmother read the Express as do many older people so hopefully this move will encourage some older voters to be less resistant to the general idea of independence. (It would be great if the Sunday Post could adjust it's line as well).

Recent polls suggest that Labour's harsh scaremongering tactics (backed up by a compliant media) have, as they were designed to do, put a short lived scare into older people (and women) over independence. Luckily the sight of a Scottish Government doing a more effective job than the British Government and standing up for our interests (Salmond delivered a great talk tonight about supporting Gaelic broadcasting) will convince a majority throughout Scotland to support independence in a future referendum.

---------

Extract of article from the Guardian (full version here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2007/dec/19/dailyexpress.pressandpublishing?gusrc=rss&feed=media )

Once one of the most widely-read papers in Scotland, the paper's sales have been suffering. It has been sold as the Scottish Daily Express for decades, long before other London titles launched dedicated Scottish editions, and commanded substantial loyalty among its readers.

The Audit Bureau of Circulations put Daily Express sales in November in Scotland at 80,454, against 127,759 for the Daily Mail. Desmond's other titles - the Daily Star, which sells 91,668 copies a day in Scotland, and the Sunday Express, selling 44,472 - are also expected to join the pro-independence push. Last weekend, the Sunday Express carried an opinion piece by Alex Salmond, setting out the case for independence.

This new editorial stance is a minor coup for First Minister Salmond. Although the Sun briefly flirted with nationalism in the early 1990s, Scottish daily papers have traditionally been neutral or firmly pro-union. At the last Scottish parliamentary election in May, the Scotsman declared itself tentatively pro-SNP but opposed independence, while only Sunday papers boldly embraced the nationalist party.

Daily Telegraph pleads 'call yourself British' - Game Over 4 unionists

I find it tremendously amusing that the Daily Telegraph are so desperate to prop up the failing concept of Britishness that they are now running a campaign for English people to call themselves British!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2007/12/10/dl1001.xml

This is because even according to their own polling most English people prefer to call themselves English rather than British.

When the only part of the UK that got any benefit from the British union can't even be bothered terming themselves by their past imperialist identity it shows that the union is well past it's sell by date and suits no-one. The Telegraph's campaign won't work any more than Brown's plans for a British national day or a new 'national' anthem.

The Scots and English have outgrown the British identity, we don't need it and we don't want it.

It's almost as funny as 'call me Dave' lecturing the Scots on Britishness (to a hand picked gathering of Tory party activists of course, he wouldn't want to hear from any real people in Scotland, the Tories ignored our views for their entire term in power!) :

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/12/10/nbrits410.xml

"an English politician in a Scottish city saying clearly today and for all time that Britain comes first"

What a shock! We really thought the Tories might have an interest in standing up for Scotland? Aye right! The puppets are still firmly attached to their strings.

Mr Cameron waxes lyrical about the enlightenment and yet during that period if any enlightened soul criticised the British union they were put in irons and sent to Botany Bay!

The enlightenment wasn't a political enlightenment, it was a time of severe political oppression and also the time when the Brits tried to remove Scottish identity altogether.

Luckily for us enough of our historic contemparies were as fond of the idea of 'North Britain' as most of us are today and the concept was (eventually) given the bum's rush.

It's a pity Tory leader David Cameron cannot realise that in Scotland people are most proud of being Scottish, and in England most people consider themselves to be English. We CAN have an equal relationship - when both our countries are independent and we are NOT locked into a union with a country ten times our size.

Get hame to yer bed 'new boy David' and leave Scottish politics to those that have a genuine interest in it!

Melanie Reid's bile against Scotland doesn't become her

10/12/2007

Letter to the Editor
The Times

Sir,

If I was Melanie Reid's doctor I would be seriously concerned. Her article about St Andrew's day 'wake me up I'm trapped in a wee nightmare' suggests she is in imminent danger of choking on her own bile.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/melanie_reid/article2988408.ece

What annoys me about unionists is that while they seem to hate Scottish nationalism they at the same time ignore all the flaws in British nationalism. Thus people like Billy Connolly can shower scorn on the SNP while being proud of his status as 'a Commander in the British Empire'. Isn't that a ridiculous imperialist ostentation? Isn't the SNP's civic form of nationalism more admirable than Gordon Brown's attempts to invent a British national day?

Melanie Reid thinks the height of Scottish culture is masquerading in a Russ Abbot style 'see you Jimmy' wig, that says nothing about Scotland but it says a lot about her contempt for her own country. Does Reid wince like a scalded cat when she sees a Saltire? Does her heart beat with horror when the Scotland football team play?

I believe that Reid is a victim of the British cringe. An inability to see the worth of her own nation because someone sold her on the idea of Britishness as a kid.

That big map with the pink bits showing Britain's imperial extent has left her jealous that anyone else might have some justifiable pride in Scotland on our national day.

Sad for her, not so sad for the rest of us.

Yours faithfully,

Joe Middleton

Just what the doctor ordered

Great article - quite frankly I'm surprised the SoS printed it as it's well above their usual standard. JOE

by DANI GARAVELLI (from Scotland on Sunday)

IMAGINE you are suffering from asthma. Your GP has recommended you take salbutamol and beclomethasone, but you can't really afford two prescription charges this week, so you toss up and opt for salbutamol. As a result, you have a severe attack and end up at A&E in the early hours of the morning - a visit that costs the NHS much more than the £6.85 you just saved.

Or perhaps you are suffering from depression that has been kept at bay by a mixture of drugs, but it's Christmas and you've presents to buy so you decide to skip your medication for a couple of weeks and find yourself unable to cope. How much does your inability to pay for your prescription cost the country in terms of arranging foster care for your children and loss of productivity? Then there is the anomaly of cancer patients who receive drugs free in hospital, but have to pay once they go home to their families.

Wherever you stand ideologically on prescription charges - and since the NHS is supposed to be free at the point of use it is easy to argue they should never have been introduced in the first place - the way the system is currently administered is a mess. Not only are they an inefficient form of taxation (they are costly to process and 90% of them are free), but the system of exemptions is arbitrary and unfair: the cut-off point for those eligible for free prescriptions on the grounds of low income is so sharp that those who are just above it often end up worse off than those who are just below it, and the list of those exempted on the grounds of chronic conditions has not been updated since the Sixties, before conditions such as HIV existed and before asthma was so widespread.

Those not exempted can benefit from a Prescription Prepayment Certificate (PPC), a three-month, six-month or 12-month pre-payment or "season" ticket which will save them money. But this adds to the bureaucracy and is not widely publicised. A recent survey by the National Association of Citizens' Advice Bureaux (Nacab) found 27% of those who could have benefited from PPCs did not even know of their existence.

Last week, the Scottish Executive tried to address these inequities by pledging to reduce the charges steadily every year until 2011 when they will be scrapped altogether. Instead of being lauded, they found themselves facing criticism, both from those who believe those who can afford to pay should continue to do so, and those who believe the party should have kept to the letter of its manifesto promise -which was to scrap prescription charges for those chronic conditions immediately.
But it seems to me the party has walked a tightrope between ideology and fiscal prudence with considerable agility. Research shows a direct link between prescription charges and the failure to manage drug regimes properly.

A survey carried out in 2001 showed around 50% of those who had received a prescription in the past year (and about two-thirds with long-term health problems) found it difficult to meet the charges, while Nacab estimates about 100,000 of its clients fail to make full use of their prescriptions. For the government of a country with a low life expectancy that supports improving access to health services to allow this situation to continue would have been unthinkable.

Yet almost two years ago, the Labour executive did precisely that, voting against the Scottish Socialist Party Bill with a fraction of the backlash the SNP is now facing. One option the new executive could have considered was to extend the number of exemptions, but instigating a sweeping review of which chronic conditions should be included would have been time-consuming and expensive, and many people felt it would be unfair to keep charging a smaller and smaller proportion of the population.

As for the SNP's decision not to axe prescription charges for those with chronic conditions sooner, it is unfortunate, but it would be particularly wasteful to launch a review expected to take until 2009 to complete when prescription charges will cease to exist in four years' time.

The party has already pledged to reduce the cost of prescriptions - to £5 next year and by a further £1 a year to 2011, and could easily help ease the burden on those who need regular medication by advertising the "season ticket" option more widely.
Those who oppose the scrapping of charges say they are necessary as a barrier to demand; that if they were abolished patients would seek prescriptions for drugs such as paracetemol that they would previously have bought over the counter. Some doctors have recommended the imposition of a token charge of say £1: small enough not to jeopardise people's access to medication, but enough to remind them that drugs are not free and should not be sought frivolously.

Early studies of the situation in Wales - where prescription charges were scrapped in April - however, suggested no perceptible change in GPs' prescribing habits and only a slight rise in the number of patients asking for prescriptions for over-the-counter medicines. There, patients are reaping the benefits of not having to worry about whether or not they can afford to take the drugs they need and administration has been reduced.

You really have to be the kind of person for whom the glass is always half empty to berate the SNP for "reneging" on a tiny part of its manifesto pledge, when what it has actually done is to commit to a socialist policy that Scottish Labour bodyswerved for a decade.

The fear of Scottish independence that unites historic enemies

A couple of superb letters from the Herald:

Scotland's parliament, after years in the doldrums, has sprung to life following the May elections. Not only has the minority SNP government been extremely active, but now the three big opposition parties are uniting in a "historic" cause to improve and develop the powers of the Scottish people. Historic enemies such as Labour and the Tories have put aside their differences to work in common cause for the Scottish people. How wonderful, so what has driven them together? I can only just remember the last time it happened, when Nazi aircraft were bombing us. So what force is driving them together now?

Well, it is obvious to me that the enemy which now confronts them, and which drives them into each other's arms, is the pressure from the Scottish people demanding more power for the Scottish Parliament, and their fear that this will result in Scottish independence. Which Labour has been trying to ignore until now.

Their urgent odd-fitting coalition is designed to stop this at all costs. As usual, they all know what they don't want but they are far from certain about what they do. They reject any common ground with the SNP government. They reject the ideas of Canon Kenyon Wright, who wants this debate to be inclusive.

Their belated recognition that Scotland must have a greater say in how its people and resources are used, is welcome. However, their attempt to divert us from getting the power we need to stop our young people from being killed in an illegal war in Iraq, or to stop nuclear weapons being based in our country, is futile.

They have entered into the debate, which they are most welcome to do, but they do not have, and cannot have, the right to control or direct it.

Andy Anderson, 22 Earlish, Nr Portree, Isle-of-Skye.

It is interesting to see the timely parallels between Kosovo's battle for independence, and the ongoing debate on our own nation's constitutional future.

For months the future of the Serbian breakaway province of Kosovo has been uncertain, and after 120 days of negotiations between Serbian and Kosovo Albanian leaders, sponsored by a troika comprising US, Russia and the EU, no conclusion has been reached.

Following this failure, Kosovo's Albanian leaders are expected to declare independence, creating Europe's newest nation, a declaration that is expected to be recognised by the UK Government.
Contrast this with the Constitutional Commission devised by the opposition parties in the Scottish Parliament and supported by their London masters, which is to review the devolution settlement and the powers of the Scottish Parliament, but will stop short of independence.

It is rather ironic that while, on the one hand, we see London Labour approve Kosovan independence, it denies the Scottish people a say on their own constitutional future through a referendum, failing even to include the option of independence in their own commission.

Alex Orr, Flat 8, 35 Bryson Road, Edinburgh.

Welsh Leader seeks SNP link

LABOUR'S Welsh First Minister Rhodri Morgan wants to work with Alex Salmond to find a common approach to working with Westminster. The two men held talks yesterday at Mr Salmond's official residence, Bute House in Charlotte Square.

Later, Mr Morgan delivered a lecture at Edinburgh University in which he argued that both Scotland and Wales were moving on to "Devolution Mark Two". Mr Morgan said: "Alex Salmond and I come from very different political traditions, but that doesn't mean we can't find things to work together on."

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

Good news! Wales and Scotland have had a very similar experience of British rule and Mr Morgan is currently in an alliance with Plaid Cymru in the Welsh assembly.

How much are the papers worth to unionists?

According to the ever more laughable Scotsman the SNP bought the last election because Brian Souter gave them a donation:





I must have fell asleep during the election campaign, because what I remember is the newspapers giving regular huge ridiculous headlines to the idea that Armageddon would happen if anyone dared vote SNP!

How much was that worth to the Labour party and their fellow unionists? How much is the extraordinary blatant bias of the Daily Record (which is now handed out for free on the streets of Edinburgh) and the Scotsman worth?

Much of the Scottish press can't get over the fact they all told people to vote against the SNP and yet the party still won the elections. In fact the SNP are now riding higher than ever in the opinion polls despite the continued efforts of the Britman which even managed to concoct a negative headline out of the fact revealed yesterday than the SNP is committed to removing prescription charges over the course of the parliament- a change which the Scotsman campaigned for!!!

Increasingly no one believes one word of the Scotsman or the Daily Record with their ridiculous bias, if a new paper was set up now which offered an alternative to these papers (ie some fair reporting of the news) it would potentially clear up.

SCOTSMAN CHOPS WENDY ALEXANDER/PETER MACMAHON LETTER

Well the Scotsman printed my letter:



No comparison to be made


Peter MacMahon attempts to compare the illegal donation to Wendy Alexander's leadership campaign with Professor David Bell's research that some council tax payers might lose pennies on their benefits if the SNP's council tax freeze goes ahead (Opinion, 4 December).


If there are no increases in council tax then common sense indicates that all tax payers will be better off than if there had been an increase.


If your council tax is currently paid by benefits agencies then you will see no difference in your income whatsoever.


If the government pays out slightly less council tax relief then this is a saving of pennies for the government not a serious hit on the incomes of low earners and it is quite frankly an insult to suggest otherwise.


JOE MIDDLETON
Wardieburn Place South
Edinburgh




http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/letters.cfm?id=1901652007



Sadly they chopped all the decent bits, full version is below:



Come on, come off it!


Sir,


I know Peter MacMahon is an ex-Labour party spin doctor but his latest attempt to spin Labour out of difficulty beggars belief 'SNP in no position to claim moral high ground' Scotsman 04/12.
MacMahon attempts to compare the illegal donation to Wendy Alexander's leadership campaign with the Scotsman's research that some council tax payers might lose pennies on their benefits if the SNP's council tax freeze goes ahead.


If there are no increases in Council Tax then common sense indicates that all tax payers will be better off than if there had been an increase. If your council tax is currently paid by benefits agencies then you will see no difference in your income whatsoever.


If the Government pays out slightly less Council Tax relief then this is a saving of pennies for the Government not a serious hit on the incomes of low earners and it is quite frankly an insult to suggest otherwise.


Mr MacMahon's new found concern about the pennies of the under classes is as unconvincing as Ms Alexander's explanations that she didn't know her donor was off shore despite writing to him at his home address!


Yours faithfully,


Joe Middleton

WENDY SCUPPERS HER OWN DEFENCE

This was reported in the Scotsman today:

"But Ms Alexander has a series of e-mails, between herself and Charlie Gordon, the Labour MSP who solicited the donation on her behalf, in which she asks Mr Gordon about the legality of the donation."

This suggests that Ms Alexander KNEW or at least SUSPECTED that the donation was dodgy before she wrote to the donor's Jersey address thanking him for the money. Up to now she has claimed that she didn't know she had done wrong, but now we know in fact she did but was willing to accept dubious assurances from Charlie Gordan MSP (who has been set up as a sacrificial lamb, watch for a by-election defeat from the SNP shortly).

Open mouth insert foot - this email trail will haunt Alexander in the future.

'KEEP CRUSHING THOSE SCOTS' SAYS BROWN

British Prime Minister Gordon Brown has rejected calls to amend the British national anthem 'God Save the Queen' which refers to 'rebellious Scots to crush' a reference to the Jacobite uprising.

The national anthem is not inclusive and should perhaps be changed, Lord Goldsmith, the former attorney general now leading a citizenship review for Gordon Brown, has suggested.
He said that there were problems with some of the later verses of the anthem, which refer to "rebellious Scots" being crushed.

Lord Goldsmith said: "Part of it is not actually that inclusive, but that's if you go on to the later verses. "Some people have suggested we might think about whether there are different words that might be put in place which would be more inclusive."

But last night, Number 10 made clear that Lord Goldsmith's plan was not backed by Gordon Brown, himself a Scot representing a Scottish constituency. A Downing Street spokesman said: "This does not reflect the Government's views. We are proud of our national anthem and the traditions it represents."

Lord Goldsmith's suggestion also brought an immediate rebuke from a Tory MP who warned that such a change could lead to the "unravelling all sorts of things". Andrew Rosindell, MP for Romford in Essex, told the Daily Telegraph: "I don't think we need to change the national anthem. It's an historic anthem."

Mr Rosindell, who two years ago complained that the national anthem was no longer played at the end of main programming each night on BBC1, also dismissed calls for the Welsh Dragon to be added to the Union flag.

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

Who cares about the Scots and Welsh, that's the 'inner meaning 'of this story. The British flag with it's St George's Cross dominating the front and with the saltire to the rear shows the relative powers within the union. Wales flag is too different so they don't even bother including it.

Dump the anthem, dump the union and dump Gordon Brown a Scot who doesn't even have the bottle to object to his fellow Scots being crushed in the British national song! You can imagine his instinctive response: Mr Brown felt it might be too embarassing (for him) to change the national anthem. "As a Scot I find it a privelege to be crushed by Britain."

Scots Wha Hae should be our national anthem after independence but up till then the people's choice 'Flower of Scotland' must prevail. 'We can still rise now and be a nation again' is a sentiment which has genuine relevance.

Britain and England can have whatever anthems they like because they have no relevance to us anyway, just don't expect us to sing 'em.

Who benefits from move to 'De-Tox' Scots Tories?

The Conservatives. It doesn't help the SNP one iota but it does suggest that the SNP are daft enough to believe David Cameron's cynical rebranding exercise.

I hope the SNP activists prove to be wiser than SNP MSP's and vote to maintain the complete bar on working with the Conservatives. The ban shows the party's rightful disdain for the Conservatives who have a long history of being both anti-Scottish and of completely ignoring Scottish views.

The Tories are the party of Thatcher. Cameron's 'Mr nice' persona doesn't fit with the grassroots of his party. The SNP should do nothing to help the Tories get back involved in the Scottish mainstream, they are irrelevant to Scotland like ALL their fellow unionists.

The SNP is a democratic party so despite the fact that this is being raised there is no guarantee that it will be passed. I think the SNP activists will be likely to decide that continuing to keep the Tories at arms length is a good idea and will vote accordingly.

Des Browne - I give very little time to Scotland job

Des Browne the Defence Secretary has admitted that he hardly gives any time to his Scottish Secretary job and claims he spends most of his time on defence matters (he is joint Defence and Scottish Secretary).

Browne has admitted he carries out his duties as Secretary of State for Scotland in his spare time as he attempts to fight claims he is a "part-time" Defence Secretary. His dual mandate at the Ministry of Defence and the Scotland Office has sparked anger from former military chiefs and opposition MPs, who say he needs to devote his entire time to defence matters.

But Mr Browne yesterday insisted the armed forces should not feel insulted by his juggling act, as he spent the same amount of time on defence as he did before he was landed with the Scotland Office portfolio in June.

His admission came after the Tory leader, David Cameron, called on Gordon Brown, the Prime Minister, to appoint a full-time defence secretary on the back of a row sparked by five former military chiefs. Although Mr Browne was in Glasgow yesterday attending a conference on regenerating the city, he made clear that defence took up most of his diary.

"I would put my record on commitment and delivery up against anyone's," he said. "The amount of time that [the job of Scottish Secretary] takes comes out of what was my private life, my family's life and my constituents' time."

Mr Browne added: "I devote as much time to being Secretary of State for Defence as I did in the time that I was not Secretary of State for Scotland. "I have been with more regularity into the operational theatres than any secretary of defence ever has been, and when I go out and talk to troops they don't raise these abstract issues about what other title you may have. They look to see what I do. And if you have some criticism about a part of the job I should have been doing and I'm not doing, I will answer it."

The Conservatives were quick to blame the dual mandate on the Prime Minister. Mr Browne was already Defence Secretary when the Prime Minister added the Scotland portfolio to his workload nearly six months ago.

In a letter to Mr Brown, Mr Cameron said: "At a time when our forces are engaged in two highly dangerous missions in Iraq and Afghanistan, the need for the Defence Secretary to be able to concentrate full-time on his role is surely a matter of plain commonsense.

"People do not understand why you have chosen to combine the job of Defence Secretary with Scottish secretary at such a crucial time."

Liam Fox, the shadow defence secretary, said Mr Browne was "having to spend time fighting the SNP and the Taleban", calling this "an insult to the men and women of our armed forces".

----

What utter contempt for Scotland. We don't need Des Browne, we don't need a Scottish Secretary or a Scottish Office, what we do need is independence, soon.

Determination's Coull is still desperately attacking IF

Had the misfortune to go on Our Scotland website and came across this thread:

http://ourscotland.myfreeforum.org/sutra51431.php#51431

...where my former colleague in Independence First (now part of 'Determination') Dave Coull is trying (and failing) to tarnish another IF member (Kevin Williamson)'s reputation.

Contrary to Mr Coull's interpretation of events, it was his own nit picking and dubious approach to debate which led to IF closing down our member's forum. If he wants to blame anyone for it he can blame me and not Kev who wasn't at the meeting who decided it (and indeed objected to the decision afterwards).

Members at the meeting which decided to close the forum felt it would be better (and politer) if any grievances were addressed at meetings face to face rather than through an online forum which tended lend itself to pedants who wouldn't let any point go and would waste everyone's time.

This has proven to be the case. Of course this was not the real reason Dave Coull and others left to form Determination, the real reason was that their pal Neal Caple was bumped as Convenor in a democratic vote and replaced with our current convener, Eric Canning.

They've bumped their gums about Canning's membership of the Communist Party of scotland (which supports independence) yet have overlooked Canning's massive experience as a former Vice Chair of the Scottish Constitutional Convention. Sadly they could not accept democracy when it didn't go their way and even had the cheek to mis-use our database to send out their propaganda.

Independence First has organised two rallies for an independence referendum, we have also organised an online petition for a referendum and have received answers from the British Government (unsatisfying answers but answers nonetheless).

The departure of Coull and his friends has left us with less activists, however at least we don't have to put up with the childish behaviour of Mr Coull and can ignore most of his outbursts.

Independence First is now working with the Independence Convention to create a new and stronger petition demanding an independence referendum. We believe that after 300 years the Scottish people need to have a direct say on the self determination of their country.

The fight goes on and anyone who wants to join Independence First should come to the Wash bar in Edinburgh tonight at 6.30pm.