Lazy assumptions about John Mason don't add up

"The SNP man in Glasgow this time is one John Mason, a local accountant and councillor who has been dubbed John "Whatever-his-name-is" owing to his unimpressive demeanour."

Ian MacWhirter, writing in the Guardian.

What a shame Ian MacWhirter repeats the same rubbish about John Mason that his colleagues in London have written. Unlike the bitter careerist Curran (whose TV manner is truly awful by the way) Mason has a track record of service to the area as a Councillor which is second to none. Margo MacDonald and Jim Sillars [who MacWhirters refers to as a comparison] are both tremendously talented individuals, unusually so and far more competent than any existing Labour MP, however Margo has already stated that Mason is an excellent candidate and in fact she claimed the SNP was holding him back (still as an independent you might expect her to say that).

I find it rather sad that MacWhirter would join the London hack pack dazzled by the celebrity of Alex Salmond and ignore the fact that Mason has answered all questions honestly and succinctly. Unlike Curran he has made no gaffes. His opinion on a referendum is shared with every other member of the SNP and any leader who ignored his view would not be leader for long.

Salmond is a powerful asset and the SNP are right to use him upfront in their campaign, anything else would be distinctly odd but their candidate is entirely competent and obviously honest. That will be a rarity for Glasgow East given the expenses scandal which was about to engulf their last MP. David Marshall was good at keeping his money and expenses within his immediate family but he was less successful in standing up for the interests of the people in the area. (There are obviously pockets of deprivation however when I went there on Saturday I don't think it seemed substantially different from any other area in Scotland, certainly no worse than where I live just now. I have tended to live in Labour supporting seats all my life, and from my own experience their vote is soft because it is based on a mistaken assumption, that Labour care what the working classes think, when in reality they don't).

These grim coupons say it all!

Margaret Curren lied about living in the East End all her life. She put out a letter to her proposed future constituents that she didn't even bother to read! She hypocritically says she can do two jobs after attacking Salmond for his own joint role. (I'm sure as Labour leader, which she will no doubt be rewarded with if she wins she will find it handy to get her orders from London based Labour MP's and then take them back to her MSP colleagues).

She pretended she was standing beside a 93 year old war veteran when in fact it was a Labour activist. Her only celebrity endoresement is a man who bwelieves the UK is dead and buried. Her campaign has been utterly disastrous and Labour have lied about having two thousand activists on the street when in reality they can barely muster 200.

If this is a great campaign with a competent candidate give me some of the drugs you are on Ian! If Labour win it will be because they have successfully pulled the wool over the people's eyes yet again but you can't fool al lthe people all the time. Their day of reckoning will come.

John Mason said there was no difference between Gordon Brown and David Cameron, how right he was. Both Labour and Tories want to stigmatise the unemployed and make them scrub the streets and pick up litter! Socialist values? Labour don't know the meaning of it and they haven't done for years. The best jobs they can provide are making their biometric ID cards so repressive regimes across the world can spy on their citizens. Wow!

The SNP are well to the left of Labour and they are proudly Scottish. When Labour attack Mason (by putting his face on their leaflets, which suggests despite their spin they do regard him as a serious candidate) for saying he wants to break up the UK they should realise that most people in Glasgow East are not actually as proud of the union as they are. In fact at the last census no less than 96 per cent chose to say they were Scottish rather than British, more than in any other Scottish constituency! Britishness is dead just like the 'socialist principles' of Nu Labour. Hopefully Glasgow East's voters will give Labour the kicking they deserve at the ballot box on Thursday.

If however the worst happens, Curran scrapes through and wins and is subsequently elected Labour's Scottish Leader I can't imagine a greater gift for Alex Salmond. The press can maintain she is wonderful all they like but the reality is that Wendy was at least personable on TV even if she was a poor tactician.

The abysmal attacks in this by-election on the SNP (which have all the hallmarks of being dreamt up by a delusional David Cairns MP) would be easily slapped down in the Scottish parliament. SNP are tartan Tories, oh really! SNP want independence, what a shock! SNP would keep trying after a referendum, good God I thought they would all go home!

This is political ABC and shows that Labour thinks the voters in glasgow are thick as mince. They are not and this rubbish can't sustain any serious politician and one who doesn't read her own leaflets isn't serious or committed to any genuine change. "I will phone Alastair Darling and ask him to change policy!" Gee, Maggie don't you have a phone in your MSP's office?
The reality is Curren would be lobby fodder just like David Marshall. Marshall voted against greater financial transparency at Westminster (what a shock!), he was in favour of ID cards despite saying "I remain concerned about the compulsory nature of the scheme and the cost. People living on benefits are genuinely poor and are unlikely to be able to afford the costs" yet he still voted for it. What a surprise! He also supported the Government over foundation hospitals, top up fees and 42 days detention.

Want an MP with a spine? Vote SNP!

Labour have sold out their traditional supporters

Letter to the Editor (Daily Record and others)

Sir,

Isn't it ironic that in the same week the Labour party savaged the SNP's John Mason for daring to suggest that there is little difference between their party and the Tories they themselves have provided the direct evidence?

Labour have now decided that the long term unemployed should be treated as criminals who must be sent out in work gangs to pick up litter and clean up chewing gum. This 'bright idea' was originally drawn up by David Cameron's Conservative party.

David Cameron is the same man who recently told the voters of Glasgow East that the poor and sick (and fat people, just for good measure) only had themselves to blame.

New Labour don't support the poor or the working classes or trade unionists. They are the tools of the rich and powerful, just like the Conservatives. Anyone who believes otherwise is either completely foolish or deliberately deluding themselves or both.

Wake up Scotland! We can do a lot better than this bunch of soulless hypocrites or their Tory pals but we need normal powers over our own country to do it.

Yours faithfully,

JOE MIDDLETON

The reality and the lies of Glasgow East by-election

Fantasy

East Enders will rewrite the script

http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/opinion/Kenny-Farquharson-East-Enders-will.4306214.jp

Glasgow East is not about independence (he hopes! by Brian Wilson)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/07/20/do2005.xml

Reality

They would have employed a Monkey (inside Labour's campaign - brilliant!)

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article4362917.ece

LABOUR HYPOCRISY DESERVES DEFEAT IN GLASGOW EAST

One begins to wonder just how stupid the Labour party think the electors of Glasgow East are. Are they really expected to swallow the enormous lie that Labour are still socialists despite the fact that Labour's every move in Government has been designed to appeal to traditional Conservative voters?

The SNP's John Mason said there was little difference between Gordon Brown and Mrs Thatcher, given the idolisation of the latter by the former this is a statement of simple fact. The Labour party try and translate this into the SNP being Conservative supporters. One can't accuse them of originality since they have been attempting to stick the SNP with a Tartan Tory Tag since the 1970's.

Their other big idea is that the SNP are extremist nationalists. Why? Because the SNP believe in full self determination for the people of Scotland. Wait a minute aren't the Labour party also nationalists? Are they not absolutely desperate to maintain the British union? British nationalists are still nationalists they just think it's OK for their countrymen to be outvoted 10-1 at Westminster, probably because their parties are all completely controlled from inside the city of London.

Mason's support for independence (which is the same as every other member of the SNP) makes him supposedly a 'hard liner' ie an extremist. No, he's not a member of the IRA or the BNP but he might decide to keep campaigning for independence after an unsuccessful referendum. What a shock!

Yes, everyone no doubt imagined the SNP would just give up if a future referendum failed didn't they, after all didn't the devolutionists do just that when Labour swindled Scotland out of devolution despite a vote in favour in 1979?

The only policies the SNP have co-operated with the Conservatives on have been those previously contained in the SNP manifesto. Labour on the other hand have destroyed the principle of free education by introducing student loans and tuition fees and voting against the latter's removal. They are in the process of creating a new internment for potential islamic terrorists and have already realised plans to snoop on every person's individual correspondence and telephone conversations.

Pointless ID cards, part privatisation of the NHS in England, new nuclear power stations and most importantly wasting billions on new nuclear weapons show exactly where Labour's loyalies lie and it is not towards their former working class supporters. Their support for the discredited Council tax over a system based on ability to pay and their removal of the 10 pence tax band proved that Labour could not care less about the poor, unless of course they are in a by-election in Glasgow and then they pretend they are redder than John MacLean.

I'm sorry but it just won't wash. Labour should expect to pay the logical price for their hypocrisy on the 24th of July. If they however survive and their gaffe prone candidate becomes their new Scottish leader then don't expect the SNP to lose any sleep. The bitter illogical rubbish which has been generated by this campaign will not sustain any serious politician and will certainly provide no serious threat to Alex Salmond.

Fiscal Autonomy vs Unionism vs Independence

If Labour had ever wanted to introduce fiscal autonomy they would have done it already. In fact without oil 'fiscal autonomy' would be worthless and would probably be less advantageous than Barnett (even though it is actually designed to squeeze our expenditure not increase it).

If you have Oil then it's independence. FA is a useful tool whereby you pretend you want more powers but in fact you would be happy to see Scotland get less money (while being swindled out of our rights to the Oil and Gas revenues). Wendy was in that camp, her own recent paper acknowledged it.

The fact is as well that Labour and not going to win the next GE so we would be reliant on the Tories to give us a fair financial settlement. This will not happen because the Conservatives support is in England and as such they don't care particularly how they are seen in Scotland (when in Government that is, as we saw last time). They are always more pleasant out than they ever are when they are in, prior to Thatcher they pretended they wanted 'stronger devolution' than Labour but they showed their true unionist colours eventually.

Their comments in Glasgow East were revealing, if you are poor it's your own fault. This from a public school boy who went to Eton and Oxbridge! Don't trust anything a unionist says and you will never go wrong.

Independence is normality so logical arguments against it are few and far between. All are flawed.

We would lose our seat in the UN security council.

We might but since it doesn't represent Scotland in any shape or form who cares? Rump England would remain a nuclear power if they had somewhere to put the weapons so they might remain part of the bullies council, but it doesn't matter to us. Scotland needs an ordinary seat in the UN with our flag flying at it. Until we have that we have nothing else.

Scotland would have a lesser voice in Europe.

Same as above we have no voice at the moment so independent membership, a seat in the Council of Ministers and improved representationin the parliament would be a significant step up.

The EU doesn't want you.

The EU wants everyone else (if they are democracies) and given the amount of natural resources like fish and Oil we have they would be daft to try and pull anything. In fact the EU is a mixed blessing anyway so this argument is losing it's teeth. (The EU are trying to make a mediterranean union btw behind the scenes which will infuriate the arab world, Libya is right on this). There's hasn't been a word about it in Scotland, so the truth is we are out of the loop in a lot of areas.

We would be out the G8.

Britain would yes (because it relies on the GDP of Scotland to make it one of the 8 richest nations) but apart from a fancy dinner Britain doesn't get much out of it anyway. Russia and China have poor human rights records so the body will never do anything significant anyway.
Scotland would however be eligible for membership of OPEC along with Norway which is the powerful group the G8 was set up to imitate!

We would also be members of numerous other world bodies, we would have consular representatives in all the nations in the world we wanted them. At the moment we have no influence world wide because on every maor issue the British Government represents their interests and it's not the same as ours.

Scotland could have an effect in a number of areas. We could increase the percentage of GDP we give to third world countries. We could reach free trade agreements which help open markets (but without strings attached) we could help towards world conflict resolution.

As for we're too poor/daft/incompetent to rule ourselves, if anyone believes that they should consult a psychiatrist because they have a colonised midset through reading too many biased British newpapers!

Others are simply disinterested/demotivated and say 'I'm not interested in politics, they are all the same' or 'why bother with change it's too much hassle let's settle for what we've got'. Why bother living at all then? Everything in life worth getting is worth risking something and if the only risk is having faith in your fellow Scots it shouldn't be that hard.

We have plenty of opportunity but we have to be able to see them and as the ex SNP MSP Cambell Martin said "for the unionists to see clearly they have to first get up off their knees."
Some people like it down there though they have their wee bit money and their big hoose and they don't give a damn about their fellow Scots.

CAMPAIGN STEPS UP A GEAR IN GLASGOW EAST

The SNP have swamped the Glasgow East by-election with activists and are asking even more people to attend and/or donate money to the campaign if they can.

Find out more at http://www.snp.org/

WEDDING OF THE YEAR - DOUGIE & TRACEY

Congratulations to my good pal Dougie Blackie on his wedding to Tracey Ballantyne on 5th July 2008. It was a great day and many of my fellow Scots nationalists were there to see Dougie get hitched.

Dougie is a great guy and his new wife is a lovely lass. His wee lad James was running about at some speed as well! Congratulations mate. All the best Dougie. JOE

SAOR ALBA!

Does the David Davis by-election matter?

Davis stood down to force a by-election on the Labour Governments decision to extend pre-trial detention to 42 days. The Liberal Democrats supported his line and did not stand. Labour decided they weren't going to bother standing either. A craven decision which showed their cowardice and their lack of faith in their own position.

Has David Davis succeeded in bringing 42 days to the attention of the general public? The answer is that it's too early to say. However Davis has shown that he has guts and political principles thereby marking him out as unusual in an era of spin and stealing the opponents philosophy.

David Cameron on the other hand has resorted to kniving the poor and sick and thereby showed quite clearly that the Conservatives remain the nasty party that they have always been.

He will no doubt win in England but he won't get in in Scotland or Wales. We don't want Conservatism and Brown and Blairs New Labour/Rosey Toryism has frankly been a complete waste of time.

There is an alternative and the SNP are proving highly credible in Government.

If it's a choice between Scotland and the SNP or Britain under either Blair or Cameron we are going to choose independence. Funnily enough at that point a freed Tory party which is Scottish in its outlook may do better, but it would have to get over it's current addiction to being British.

Modern TV is rubbish! Scotland can and should do better

I was watching a couple of TV dramas the other night by Dennis Potter and it occurs to me that if TV ever had a Golden age it is well over.

There are no challenging dramas today that come even close to the brilliance of Potter. It's all reality TV, news programmes (usually pretty biased and leading) or bad cop shows, bad hospital shows and shitty soap operas.

If we had control over our own broadcasting (as Labour and Lib Dems recommended in the Scottish Constitutional Convention for devolution!) we could make programmes here by local authors that reflect our people's reality here in Scotland. I don't want to watch news about mad plans to put a curfew on kids in England, I want to see strong stimulating educational interesting TV dramas, relevant documentaries and news from Scotland and I want an international perspective that nonetheless puts Scotland and Scotland's interests front and centre.

We can do a lot better. The new Scottish licence fee and a proper set of guidelines for the proper TV channels could bring our broadcasting back to the educational innovative standard that at one time the BBC and ITV were famous for.

We can definitely do better, we can't possibly do worse. When talented artistic individuals like the great John Byrne are being refused commissions by BBC Scotland to make distinctive Scottish drama it shows that something is deeply wrong. Going our own way can only make sense when British TV is so absolutely and utterly awful.

Romanov should consider putting Scotland first!

Could Romanov support Scotland and reject the Brit establishment which is attacking him? Why not? It's a win, win strategy and many Hearts fans are already supporters of Scottish independence.

I am not a football supporter as such. I really enjoy seeing internationals if Scotland are playing and most importantly if they win (sadly they don't that often though I live in hope!) but club football doesn't interest me much and English club football not at all.

I have vague allegiance towards Hibs or at least that's what I say if asked but it isn't really strongly defined it's more 'it's an Edinburgh team, it's not a Glasgow team', it's not anti-Catholic which Hearts seem like they vaguely might be (I'm an atheist but I was born and raised a Catholic so I am ultra sensitive towards anti-Catholic bigotry).

I attended the last Scottish Cup Victory for Hearts. My pal Brian (who is a Hearts fan) was going and I went along, I suppose I wanted them to lose but I wasn't really that bothered either way.

I had expected to see a sea of Union Jacks (as Hearts are supposed to be the 'unionist' team) but there wasn't actually any that I could spot! I was pleased to see that, because to me the Edinburgh teams seem a bit like pale copies of the Old Firm and unfortunately it is bigotry that keeps Rangers (and to a lesser extent Celtic as they tend to be a bit more 'political') going.

It was good to sea that Hearts seemed to have lost interest in waving the British flag and in point of fact I know a number of Hearts fans and they are all die hard Scottish nationalists!

Alex Salmond is a Hearts fan as well so the traditional political divide which perhaps existed in the past probably does not actually exist at all (I can say the same for Hibs of course as my other political fellow Scots republican travellers are Kev Williamson and Lloyd Quinan who are committed Hibernian fans and strong supporters obviously of Scottish independence).

If there is one team I do detest it's Rangers, their Union Jack waving turns my stomach and their connection with orangism and unionism I find revolting. I don't mind Celtic but I can't work up any enthusiasm for an 'Irish' team either. In fact I think many Celtic fans are holding our country, Scotland, back by giving their loyalty to another country without worrying more about their own. [Also, it annoys me that Celtic fans can't pronounce their own club's name, the word Celtic pronounced Keltic is a genuinely proud description and could represent BOTH Ireland and Scotland but it can't if people pronounce it as 'Seltic', like Cecilia!].

Even though I'm supposed to be anti-Hearts I just can't join in the universal condemnation of Vladimir Romanov the Hearts owner. I don't think it's a good thing that he tries to pick the team and his decision to sack George Burley was a dire mistake (though it has been to Scotland's international team's ultimate gain).

But even though in some ways Romanov is a bit strange he did save Hearts from going under and selling Tynecastle for that reason he deserves some credit (and ultimately gets some) from the Hearts fans.

Where he does have a real bitter enemy is in the Scotsman group of newspapers which own the Evening News and Scotsman and who in turn are owned by Johnston Press but still hate Scottish independence as much as they did when they were ran by Andrew 'Brillo pad head' Neil and the tax dodging Barclay Brothers.

The Scotsman detests Romanov and I wonder why. Why shouldn't they want Hearts to become a threat to the old firm? Why shouldn't Hearts challenge the west coast monopoly. Romanov has money, and Hearts unfortunately now owe him a lot of money but he does have ambition and that is where I think the Scotsman's jealousy resides.

After all the Scotsman is a unionist rag. It's agenda is to keep Scots down and their criticism of 'mad, bad blodsucking vlad' is racist and imperialist in it's nature. The underlying theme is that Lithuania isn't a decent place, that Lithuania is second class to Britain (though perhaps it might seem given the Scotsman's name that their racism emits from Scotland, but of course it actually doesn't).

This anti-Lithuanian colour of the Britman (that's what it SHOULD be called) might explain some off the more bitter utterances by Romanov about Scotland to the general media. However Vlad should think about who the man is who stabs him in the back most regularly. Step forward the quisling George Foulkes who hates Scottish independence with a passion and now appears to hate Romanov almost as much.

According to the Art of War the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Vlad should therefore consider throwing his financial weight behind Scottish independence. There is indeed a 'Scottish mafia' but it's called the Labour party and it doesn't have Scotland's interests at heart.

The Scotsman will still hate your guts Vladimir but it will at least show that politically you know your own enemies! After all I somehow doubt that you would want Russian control of Lithuania so why should YOU necessarily support the subjucation of Scotland in every area of public life by Britain and the London based Government which includes Lord Foulkes?

Get it right up them Vlad! Come out for Scottish independence and watch the Scotsman howl! well, one can but hope.

Unionists conduct shows a cynical lack of respect

Labour's decision to hold a crucial by-election during the traditional Glasgow holiday shows that they prefer to have elections without any candidates and even without any voters if it suits their purposes. If you don't want to be disenfranchised and live in Glasgow East, get a a postal vote.

Labour's Margaret Curran strongly attacked Alex Salmond for serving in two parliaments. No doubt they had a fair point at the time (though no doubt like Ian Paisley FM Salmond finds it handy to make the occasional visit to Westminster) but it seems a tad hypocritical that they are now rushing to do the same thing after all the genuinely local candidates ran for the hills.

Labour's own internal rules didn't allow dual roles. That is until they had an emergency meeting of their NEC and changed them. Suddenly it's quite OK to spend time in both parliaments, no doubt it will be a positive advantage by the end of the campaign.

Of course the media are taking their usual impartial stance with their coverage heavily in favour of Labour and constant pictures of Ms Curran (though given her miserable coupon that might not be the best idea!). During the proposed TV debate however I think we will see the true nature of Labour and their unionism. We got a taster with their other Glasgow MSP suddenly welcoming a 7 day festival devoted to the Orange Order. Great! Unless you are a Catholic or simply not a bigot.

Of course these issues are not crucial but they tend to suggest Labour will do anything to get re-elected. Luckily it's not up to them but to Glasgow's voters.

SNP Candidate John Mason, can he 'do a Govan' and get ripped into Labour's candidate on live TV? Let's hope so.

The only fundamental question in this by election for those voters is: 'Are you happy with what Labour have done with your area and their conversion via New Labour to a pseudo Conservative party?'

If not, then you have nothing to lose by kicking them where it hurts on the 27th July.

Why not give the Scottish party a chance? Why shouldn't Scotland run our own affairs? Labour have never explained what makes us uniquely incompetent among the peoples of the world in this area.

With independence we could revitalise Scotland, we certainly couldn't do any worse than the UK Labour Government which will soon be returning to the usual shade of Tory blue.

Of course it's that nice Mr Cameron, not the nasty Mrs Thatcher.

Er no, not any more he isn't. In this by-election Cameron decided to turn extremely nasty and had a kick at the poor, and just for good measure, fat people! Saying that they deserve all they get. Don't help, just ignore them.

The Tories have always blamed the poor and praised the rich but to pop up and spit on the locals is pretty unusual behaviour for a party which are supposedly campaigning for votes!

Then again it's not any real surprise because just like Labour the Tories only care about that bit of Britain where the most votes are, and it's not Scotland. That's why in a parliament in London where we are outvoted 10 to 1 the only sensible thing to do is to leave it but before then we need MP's who put Scotland's interests first.

Flush Gordon - could well be the result of Glasgow East!

Spotted this on another blog, ha ha ha!

Why should Murray want to be English?!

Post on the Scotsman:

The Scotsman has claimed that Murray has given up on Scotland but it's not actually true. They've said he's a new 'British bulldog' - don't make me boak. Is the Scotsman that desperate to create a pro-British story? Just because he got pictured with a flag? (probably handed to him by some Unionist hack desperate to get that pic!)Why does he have to make loads of humiliating declarations about how much he loves the English when he should just be concentrating on his game? Why is it even an issue? The last time he was at Wimbledon everyone cheered for the English players and after they went out they cheered for him, that was with his saltire armbands.

This year some supposedly 'quality' papers would prefer it if he forgot about being Scottish altogether! Sad, sad very sad and it says a lot about the Scotsman that it won't allow any Scot to be a success without the frankly sickening garbage of claiming them as a British bulldog, fair enough mention he's British if you MUST (for the moment anyway) but this cr*p is well OTT.

Brown has hurt Scotland by becoming PM, we won't get another and his boot licking of England and the Union Jack now means that England expects everyone to do it. Murray should have told them all to f*ck off. When we are independent our sportsmen will be treated with respect and won't be put through this obstacle course of abasing themselves before the glory of greater England. It's pathetic and it's not based on any actual remarks by Murray who said he would NOT be wearing any 'union jack head bands' which suggests that he remains a Scot first and foremost even if the sad hacks want to pretend otherwise.

Come out for independence Andy and kick everyone's a*se next year - even if everyone in 'SW1' hates your guts. It worked for McEnroe. - JPM

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

The disgusting remarks about Murray have reached their zenith with this sh*te from Tony Parsons. I don't think for a moment that Murray desires to be English, why the hell should he? However you can see that the hacks are confused since they can't tell the difference between Britishness and Scottishness themselves, don't worry Tony it will be spelt out politically soon enough.

Opinion: Tony Parsons on why Andy Murray doesn't represent England

Mirror columnist Tony Parsons wrote he wouldn't be supporting Andy Murray at Wimbledon after the Scot's anti-English remarks during the last World Cup. But would witnessing Murray's astonishing performance at first hand change his mind?

As fate would have it I was at Centre Court on Monday when Andy Murray staged one of the greatest sporting comebacks of all time against highly strung Frenchman Buster le Gasket.
Some say that the French have surrender in their bones, but this is grotesquely unfair to Andy Murray. Like several million other Englishmen I have never warmed to the dour Scot who they call Gordon Brown's lovechild.

However nobody should take anything away from what Murray did in the twilight of a Wimbledon day. He was awesome, he was magnificent, but I can't pretend I've suddenly fallen in love with the fiery Scot. His anti-English remarks cannot be forgotten so easily. No doubt there are other Englishmen and women who will feel differently because everyone loves a winner but despite his incredible performance on Monday I still can't confuse him with Bobby Moore.

I started that five set marathon cheering for the Frenchman and I ended up cheering for Murray. It would have been churlish, petty and mean-spirited to do anything else.
What I can't do is pretend Andy Murray represents me and my country.

I don't think that his remarks about England in the World Cup, when he said he would support anyone but England, were a joke I think he still feels that way and I think there are millions of people that still feel that way.

There are some people who just don't like the English, and I believe in my marrow that Murray is one of them. That's fine. Wimbledon is not really about flagwaving. Ultimately a tennis player represents no one but himself. They are as lonely as boxers.

Murray has already had an incredibly successful Wimbledon.

Whatever happens against Nadal he can be proud of himself, Scotland can be proud of him and Britain can be proud of him. But that doesn't mean we have to like him. Murray is the best thing we've seen in years in what is the most English of sports.

I am sorry that he made those stupid and insensitive remarks earlier in his career, and though he'd never admit it, I bet he is too. Viva Espana.

--- What is incredible is that this w*nker feels everyone must *automatically* support England at football! We Scots don't expect England fans to support us, or French Fans or United States fans. Then again we are not imperialist supremacists. That's the difference. To Parsons we are colonials - well it won't be for ever buddy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This article aptly sums them up:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mark Lazarowicz must resign over Labour's new internment policy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Unconvincing arguments against Scottish independence

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dear Wendy, what happened to the Claim of Right?

(sent through Wendy's blog)

Dear Ms Alexander,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yours sincerely,

Joe Middleton

Economic 'argument' against Scottish independence is pathetic

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

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

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

‘David Burch’ said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

VICTORY FOR INDEPENDENCE MOVEMENT - REFERENDUM IS COMING

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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