Superb poster from SNP

Classic!

Party Matcher - UK Elections 2010 - Yahoo! News UK

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

Party Matcher - UK Elections 2010 - Yahoo! News UK

TV debate farce is an undemocratic disgrace

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

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

Letter to the Editor

12/04/2010

Dear Sir/Madam,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yours faithfully,

Joe Middleton

BBC are colluding with Brit parties to exclude SNP/PC

16/03/2010

Dear Sirs,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Joe Middleton


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


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

Labour have failed to regulate financial system

Letter to the Editor(s)

Dear Sir or Madam,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yours faithfully,

Joe Middleton

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

BBC Complaints Department (submitted online)

05/03/2010

Dear Sir/Madam,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please urgently address this issue before these unfair debates happen.

Yours faithfully,

JOE MIDDLETON

Independence referendum moves forward

by Joe Middleton

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dirty Tricks as Charles Portrait Declared a Fake?

Gallery admits portrait isn't Bonnie Prince Charlie

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

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

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

According to the original aticle itself:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SCOTS INDEPENDENCE - BUILDING A MOVEMENT FOR YES!

Jim Sillars pamphlet on Scots independence

Thoughts on getting to the only sensible choice for Scotland - Independence

by Jim Sillars

The full pamphlet is here:

http://www.scottishindependence.com/jim-sillars.pdf

Building a Movement for Yes!

Saturday 28 November 2009

10.30 – 6.00 @ Out of the Blue

As the plans for a referendum on Scottish independence are announced a gathering looking at why we need a Yes vote and what are the positive visions for an independent Scotland?

Media, Communication and the Union 11.00 – 12.30

Pat Kane on The Democratic Interact: the challenges of social media to Scottish Self -Determination. Pat is a musician, blogger, author, columnist and has been involved in the politics of independence from Scotland United days. More at The Play Ethic.

Joe Middleton on Why Scottish Independence Matters. Joe is a member of the Scottish National Party, the creator of the Scottish Independence Guide website and Press Officer of Independence First, the referendum campaign.

Shona McAlpine on We Can’t Win It Without Them – Enthusing the Under 30s. Shona McAlpine is an SNP activist and manages the Scottish Independence Convention’s website. Professionally she is a Secondary Computing teacher and has also been a nightclub and bar manager.

Peace & Alternative Futures 1.00 – 3.00 pm

Janet Fenton on How Scottish Women Might Disarm the UK Government. Janet started co-ordinating the Edinburgh Peace & Justice Centre after lots of political, feminist theatre, community arts and direct action, and a few years with a community eco-shop/gallery/drop-in project in Portobello.

Justin Kenrick on Self-determination as an assertion of interdependence: restoring resilience to communities, societies and ecosystems. Justin teaches at the Sustainability Institute at St Andrews University and is the co-ordinator of the Holyrood 350 Campaign.

Economics and Outlook with Scottish Left Review & Our Kingdom 3.30 – 5.30 pm
Gerry Hassan on The End of Britain. Gerry is the author of The Modern SNP from Protest to Power (EUP) and is a columnist for Our Kingdom

Robin McAlpine on Imagined Futures. Robin is editor of Scottish Left Review and co-author of Is There a Scottish Road to Socialism?

This event is free – all welcome.




http://bellacaledonia.wordpress.com/

Glasgow North East - Scotland - David Kerr SNP

The latest (and hopefully the best!) Glasgow North East by-election video. It took me a long time to get this version uploaded, if you like it then please pass on the link.

Video description: It's decision time in the Glasgow North East by-election. After 74 years of Labour the voters have a chance to vote for a change. The Scottish National party (SNP) have an articulate and talented candidate in David Kerr. Will Thursday be a great step forward for Scotland? Let's hope so.

74:59 - The Glasgow North East By Election - Scotland

What do the numbers 74 and 59 have to do with the Glasgow North East by-election? Who is David Kerr and what do the SNP stand for? What is the difference between Labour and Tories? Who is best for Glasgow? Who is best for Scotland? All these questions are answered in less than six minutes with the Scottish Independence Guide's overview of the Glasgow North East by-election. (The film uses existing TV footage of the candidates and SNP leader Alex Salmond).

Scotland: Glasgow North East By-Election

The decision of the voters in Glasgow North East will have long lasting implications for the cause of Scottish independence. Glasgow can do better than Labour's Baron Springburn and the SNP deserve their chance to represent the constituency at the UK parliament.

Scotland's party puts Scotland first and a vision of a free and independent country is a lot bettter than sticking with failed bankrupt Britain with it's divide 'n' rule policies and xenophobic attitudes fixed firmly in the past!

LTE: Scotsman needs to report news not invent it

Letter to the Editor
The Scotsman

02/11/2009

Dear Sir,

Your correspondent David Maddox's article on Friday claimed that the SNP have ditched their referendum proposal. Nationalists 'give up' on 2010 referendum (31/10/2009). He has not one attributable quote in support of this but says 'senior figures' have revealed this to him. On the eve of a Liberal Democrats conference specifically to discuss the SNP's proposals is obviously the logical time for high up SNP members to express inner reservations about them! The Evening News recycled the same rubbish: SNP abandons hopes for independence poll (31/10/09).

Today Mr Maddox imagines that the SNP are considering a property based alternative to their local income tax 'E-mail hint of SNP's plans for property tax' (02/11/09).

His 'evidence' for this is that civil servants are currently comparing different types of local taxes. Naturally a desperate Labour spokesman, Iain Gray, their party leader in Scotland, is quick to hoover up this crumb of comfort declaring: "This is not only a sign of the SNP's hypocrisy and incompetence but a complete shambles."

The SNP Government itself explained the obvious: "The request made was for the purpose of assessing other parties' proposals, it is not a government proposal." They add: "There is no question of this government considering any reform to local taxation other than the introduction of a fairer local tax, based on the ability to pay."

In fact the SNP is still firmly in favour of both an independence referendum and a Local Income Tax. Even although the Scotsman has been campaigning for some time for the SNP to drop LIT, they have not actually done so.

Not one other paper is likely to pick up these 'stories' because they are not true news stories at all! The first 'story' on the referendum is pure invention, deliberately timed to undermine the SNP case and encourage the Liberal Democrats. The second is almost as silly and irrelevant as it contains not a shred of evidence that the SNP are actually planning any change whatsoever in their LIT policy.

There needs to be a clear distinction between reporting the news and inventing it. The Scotsman newspaper might have a legitimate difference of opinion with the SNP Government on many issues, obviously the paper has a right to indicate this and to campaign on these issues.

Nonetheless however the SNP are our elected Government and deserve some level of respect. The Scotsman newspaper has no right or remit to invent new Government policy and it should avoid pretending that an imminent political change by the SNP is in prospect without an attributable quote to that effect.

Labour have changed their policy position on an independence referendum on a number of occasions. The SNP however have been politically consistent in demanding a vote on independence. A change in that position would indeed be newsworthy but it hasn't actually happened.

We can hardly complain about a lack of trust in our politicians if newspapers are allowed to invent a new policy position for them ever week!

Yours faithfully,

JOE MIDDLETON

To the Scotsman - Inventing the News is wrong!

Nationalists 'give up' on 2010 referendum
by David Maddox

http://www.scotsman.com/latestnews/Nationalists-39give-up39-on-2010.5783424.jp

SENIOR figures within the SNP have privately accepted that their hopes of securing a referendum on independence in 2010 are dead, The Scotsman can reveal. While SNP MSPs are still pushing publicly for a vote, there is a growing acceptance in the party hierarchy that none of the Labour, Conservative or Liberal Democrat opposition parties will support a poll before the next Scottish Parliament elections in 2011.

Since this 'story' is of no advantage whatsoever to the SNP and in effect seems to be an attempt to take the pressure of the Liberal Democrats, it seems highly unlikely that any genuine spokesman of the SNP would have authorised it.

I reckon its a work of fiction by the Scotsman and the SNP should make it clear that this speculation does not represent its actual view. Why let the Lib Dems and Labour off the hook now when both are clearly split on the referendum issue? What sense does it make to attempt to declare a coalition deal before any elections? It makes no sense whatsoever.

The Scotsman should be aware that its actual job is to REPORT the news, not to try and set the news agenda by fabricating statements from the SNP that fit its own agenda.

This is a new low even for this rag.

The Remains of the Day (novel) by Kazuo Ishiguro

This is a bit outside the normal preoccupations of this blog but I thought I would share it with you all anyway. I managed to get my first tutor marked assessment done today so I am quite pleased. This isn't related btw, it is a posting/review to my OU group.

I thought I might share with the group a recent experience of reading a novel which indicates to me personally what might be achievable when writing.

I had a transatlantic phone call some time ago with my brother in Virginia. He mentioned that he had recently seen the film ‘The Remains of the Day’ with Anthony Hopkins. I think he might have said he had watched it again, because I seem to remember him talking about it before.

“It’s a wonderful film” he said. “Hopkins is fantastic in it, he subtlely seems to portray a sort of reserved inner sorrow. Emma Thompson is wonderful as well.”

He said more of course than this, but such is my memory of the incident.

“Oh yes,” I said “I have the book. I think you mentioned it before, I’ll have to see it sometime.”

At that point I meant to obtain the film and indeed I might have, or I may have just seen the trailer. I can think of the characters, and I can think of a number of incidents from it however I have just read the book and now I am no longer sure!

I had been to an interview yesterday. It was for a job I have always wanted and my preparation was quite intense. I have no idea if I will be successful, certainly I hope so but it is the nature of interviews to be confusing and I have my doubts. The field was cut from sixty two to ‘twelve strong candidates’, all of whom are being interviewed and one out of twelve is not the best odds!

Anyway, that doesn’t really have much bearing on my story, however I was lying in bed, sweating a bit, the temperature seemed to have changed and I turned my pillow as it was wet. Sharon was turning over, and said sleepily:

“Are you all right?”

“I think I’ll get up”, I said “I feel a bit restless.”

I had actually been lying awake for some time mulling things over, the past interview and other related ideas.

Anyway I jumped up, pulled on a pair of jeans and a T-shirt and wandered through to the living room. There I sat and looked around and my eye was drawn to the book ‘The Remains of the Day’ by Kazuo Ishiguro.

I took it down from the bookcase. I had bought it some time ago from a second hand shop for a few pounds. Perhaps it was before seeing the movie, perhaps it was afterwards, I only know that for a while as I read the book the faces of Anthony Hopkins and Emma Thompson would swim into mind as I read the dialogue.

I’ll give it a go I thought, as I settled onto the couch, I was intrigued by the subject matter and that the writer was of Japanese origin, given that the story is about the inner machinations of an English butler.

[Strangely enough I reached this point in writing and suddenly stopped, I thought I’ll just read my emails! I think this would have interrupted my flow fatally so I will carry on regardless! The emails can wait.]

The story is of a butler named Stevens and his relationship with his employer and fellow staff in a large English mansion from the 1920’s onwards. Stevens prides himself on his professionalism and his decorum, his essential ‘dignity’ which he believes marks him out as a true gentleman’s gentleman. On a road trip to meet up with an old colleague Stevens looks back at his time in service and reflects on his life and his theories about being a great butler.

He relates his story in the first person and we gradually realise that in amongst his colourful reminiscences there is more than meets the eye. How this is revealed is very subtle and the descriptions of the surrounding characters are quite extraordinarily well done.

Stevens’s father in particular is very ably portrayed. He is an uptight emotionless man who nonetheless Stevens is tremendously proud of and who he imitates, to his own folly. Stevens relates one incident in particular which gives the audience a measure of his father’s character and it is perhaps my favourite part of the book, relying as it does on action to illustrate the man.

There are many such moments however. I started the book in the early hours of this morning and I had finished it by about 11am with a break of a few hours sleeping in between.

The quality of the prose is really quite lovely and the only thing to touch it to my mind is George MacDonald’s Fraser’s ‘Mr American’. That novel is very different but it is also beautifully written with a tug of nostalgia towards a forgotten age (in this case the American west) and is superior in my mind to his wildly successful ‘Flashman’ novels, even though I do rather enjoy them as well.

The Remains of the Day contains timeless themes, of love, of regrets, of a sense of wasted opportunities and it really is a quite marvellous novel. On the face of it Stevens is a blinkered fool and his boss is a deluded Nazi puppet, but when one understands the background to their characters a much more complex picture emerges.

Stevens’s employer, Lord Darlington, can’t quite understand anti German feeling. He sees the Germans as honourable foes who were harshly treated after World War one was over. So far so good, but later he extends this sympathy and sense of decency towards the later German state and fails to realise the real threat that Hitler poses.

[Another film which covers similar themes of war, honour and modernity and is also quite fantastic is Michael Powell and Emeric Pressburger’s ‘The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp’. All their films are superb but Blimp is particularly satisfying.]

Stevens’s convictions that “great affairs must be left to great men” is entirely outside what we believe to be correct in the modern age. His class bound ethos blinds him to the poor treatment he receives personally and to the faults of his employer while his emotionless behaviour restricts his life. Stevens’s father works in the same household and their attitudes to each other are revealing.

Nonetheless, he does appear to have a great personal dignity (many of the people he meets on his travels mistake him for a landed gentleman himself) and we sympathise with his behaviour because we can see that the son has followed in the footsteps of the father. Stevens is a real character and his actions are utterly consistent with that character. He is completely and utterly believable and he holds the entire novel together.

It occurs to me that this is what we should aspire to as writers. To create a work which is utterly gripping, which may be quite outside our normal experience, but nonetheless is recognisably authentic on both an emotional and practical level.

The amount of research that must have gone into this book has to have been absolutely tremendous yet it flows effortlessly and there is not a word within it that seems to be superfluous. Little nuggets of humour add to the whole experience. It is a quite tremendous feat and even if we don’t achieve such heights ourselves nonetheless the example provided here is very inspiring.

15 Years on - What was the impact of Braveheart?

IN THE basement screening room of a New York hotel, a small group of international journalists – Scots, Russians, Japanese, Germans and Australians – is waiting for Mel Gibson to arrive. We've just watched Braveheart (a Blu-ray version will be released on 2 November, exactly 15 years after the original), witnessing Gibson's William Wallace slashing and burning his way through English subjugation and straight into the heart of Scotland's iconography.

http://news.scotsman.com/entertainment/Interview-Mel-Gibson.5762142.jp

Mel's interview is interesting. He doesn't add much to the story that we don't already know but Scottish nationalism undoubtedly owes his film a debt of gratitude of some sort.

Not because it was historically accurate (it wasn't, the battle of Stirling Bridge, is missing er... a bridge) but because it raised the profile of William Wallace Scotland's greatest historic hero who laid the way for Robert Bruce's ultimate victory at Bannockburn.

Is that still relevant? Yes, because if we had been beaten then, then the union would have been brought forward by 400 years and it wouldn't have been a union but a total annexation. We might now be sitting in a country called England.

The viewpoints at the end are disappointing, my remarks are in brackets:

Viewpoint Pat Kane: Musician and writer

Is Scottish independence worth it if its narrative is face-painted blue, bares its collective arse at all critics, dreams fondly of its own guerrilla movement and renders the English as collectively either doltish, sadist or effete?

(Yes, independence is worth it no matter what any film says and to imagine that the film in any way reflects modern Scottish nationalism is both absurd and ridiculous. It's a piece of entertainment and yes it reflects a crude sense of humour at times but so what? The political boost was raising awareness of our history and historical figures. Yes at times in our history Scots had to fight to gain independence. Without that win, there would have been no Declaration of Arbroath and possibly less civil rights around the world. For the first time Scotland said, we are in charge, not the King. Considering the times it was declared this is utterly remarkable.)

Every time the SNP does one of its dumb appropriations of Mel Gibson's neo-fascist tartan epic, even an independence supporter like me sinks lower in his chair.

Gibson has subsequently shown himself to be one of the weirder Hollywood movie-makers, seemingly in love with blood sacrifice, one way or another. Isn't it time we consigned the brutal dualisms of this movie to the dustbin of Scottish memory?

It's no surprise that European and American neo-Nazis take it as an inspiration. And as Scottish independence – if and when it comes – will be a matter of mastering the complexities of politics, law and economics, the last thing we need is the stench of Gibson's macho and xenophobic version of national liberation in our nostrils. Sorry, compatriots: Braveheart no more.

(To compare today with any historical movie is absurd, and it is just a film, after all. Let's remember that the real William Wallace was fighting for Scotland in very different times and he actually died for our nation. Mel's film might not entirely reflect the man but it does offer a moving tribute to his spirit. It deserves some respect for that.)

Viewpoint T M Devine: Sir William Fraser professor of Scottish history and palaeography, University of Edinburgh

One thing is certain, the movie has dramatically raised Scotland's international profile and place on the world map, for good or for ill. The Wallace Monument at Stirling, for decades neglected and virtually ignored, is now one of the nation's star tourist attractions. drawing visitors from across the globe. Americans may be still uncertain about where Scotland actually is, but they do know it is the land of Braveheart, which has now become as famous a part of the Scottish iconography

Then there is the extraordinary impact of Braveheartism in Europe. Scottish festivals abroad have become a veritable growth industry, booming from almost zero activity in 1990, from Moscow to Amsterdam. An event in the German city of Leipzig draws nearly 20,000 people annually. For the first time, in 2007 thousands of Russian 'Scots' paraded in full Highland dress in front of the Kremlin. The most recent count suggests that there are now at least 160 of these fantasy events scattered across Europe.

Not all this of this has come about only because of Braveheart, but who can deny that the movie has done much to renew the remarkable world-wide romantic appeal of a fictitious Scotland. Mel as the successor to Ossian and Scott?

Viewpoint Neil Davidson
Senior research fellow, University of Strathclyde

Freedom is a noble thing, but what kind freedom did Braveheart offer us? In a telling scene, Edward I throws his son's gay lover to his death. Edward is the pantomime villain – he hates Scots and gays: boo, hiss. But here's the point; the scene is played for laughs, and the audience does laugh.

As this suggests, the politics of the film are those of the right-wing, rifle-wielding backwoodsmen who think Barack Obama is a Kenyan commie and the NHS exists to kill your granny. Is this the kind of freedom we want for Scotland?

(So one scene means the whole film represents modern American politics right down to their current views on the NHS? Mr Davidson hates Scots independence, that is his political agenda.)

The film famously ends on the eve of Bannockburn, but long before then, before Wallace's death even, the Wars of Independence had become a struggle to see which gang of French-speaking, Latin-writing feudal banditti would exploit the Scottish peasantry. "Our" side won: fantastic. But freedom? As the Eagles used to sing: that's just people talking.

(It's a strange type of Scot that couldn't care less who won at Bannockburn. Yes 'our side' won, Scotland!)

Viewpoint Hannah McGill
Director, Edinburgh International Film Festival

Braveheart's position in Scottish film culture is as wobbly as Mel Gibson's on-screen accent. It has more sentimentally invested in the idea of Scottishness than any other film, but its own racial profile is notoriously all over the place: Australian star/director, American screenwriter, English leading lady and – most controversially of alI – some Irish locations.

(I think it's international flavour is actually its greatest strength. I don't think anyone else would have made it, it needed an Australian to look at Scotland's past and see the potential for a blockbuster.)

So, is it invalid as an icon of Scottish cinema? Not if you view it as what it is: one of the few big, fat, populist films to take Scotland as a subject, and as cross-bred, cobbled together, cynical and inconsistent as big fat populist films almost always are. Along with its more obviously 'authentic' contemporary, Rob Roy, Braveheart lent Scotland a presence in Hollywood as an inspiration and as a location. If Ireland got some temporary business out of Braveheart, Scotland – for better or worse – got its own permanent movie myth.

(I think this probably genuinely sums up the impact of Braveheart, certainly it helped put Scotland on the map internationally. It had obvious flaws but most big budget blockbuster films do. It also had confidence however and was unambiguous in supporting Scots independence. Something no film did before or since. I find the only people who really detest the film are British nationalists who would prefer no-one had ever heard of William Wallace and would prefer Scotland had no voice on the international stage at all. JOE)

If Salmond is 'irrelevant' then so is Scotland

British Conservative leader David Cameron's remarks again show his party's irrelevance to Scotland. If Alex Salmond and by extension the SNP are "irrelevant" to a British general election then this shows up the fact that Scotland does not count within the current setup.

The SNP are currently Scotland's most popular party. They won the last Scottish election and the last Euro elections with the largest share of the popular vote. The Tories on the other hand have one MP in Scotland and might soon have zero. The SNP however could realistically under FPTP increase their numbers to 20-30 seats.

That makes the SNP a huge player in Scotland. If David Cameron continues to push this line then what he is actually saying is that no party in Scotland counts and that whatever way we vote does not matter in a UK election.

If that is so then the only logical option for Scots is independence, because otherwise he is right and we don't count at all within the UK setup where we are outvoted 10-1.

If the BBC go ahead with a debate and show it in Scotland without the SNP's participation then they will be wide open to legal action. It may be David Cameron's opinion that the SNP don't count but in reality it is his party that is the irrelevance to all Scots.

In Scotland this election is between Labour and the SNP. Who wins will have relevance to whether we move forward to independence or have a future of right wing rule. Cameron knows he is not popular up here and he also knows he has no hope of winning any election but he has no right to decide the scottish people's vote in advance of te actual election, nor has he any right to declare that the SNP are irrelevant when they have an excellent chance of winning the elections in Scotland!

--------

David Cameron has branded the Scottish National Party leader Alex Salmond "an irrelevance" in the upcoming general election. His comments came after Mr Salmond predicted England would be "dancing to a Scottish tune" if the election delivers a hung Parliament with SNP MPs holding the balance of power.

But Mr Cameron insisted the only options for voters casting their ballot in any part of the UK was between continued Labour rule and a switch to Conservative government.