POLITICAL ARTICLES

Political Influences (Introduction)

March for Independence on 30th September

Independence Convention to Launch on St Andrews Day

Taking the lid of Scottish ambition - by Brian Nugent

More Support for Independence First (from Celtic League, Kev Williamson & David Ross)

New Office Bearers for Independence First

Time for Scotland to leave this potential UK police state

Scotland's Republican Voice by Graham Connelly

Scotland has to be taken from the left by Donald Anderson

New SNP Leadership Offers Fresh Start

Labour Government using Terrorism as excuse for ID cards

The time to stop the cards is now - by Kevin Williamson

Campbell Martin MSP Suspended from SNP

Labour's Divide and Rule school closure tactics

Beating Liblaboryism

Time for SNP MSP's to Choose Direction

Scottish Republican Articles (Collected)

Ludicrous Entryist Allegations switch off voters

News Story about Me! - SNP leftist faces party expulsion for News article

Republican Socialist SNP is the way forward

2003 Campaign

Adopting SSP MSP Salary Policy could Revolutionise SNP financial position!

SNP Poster Campaign

Deluded Reid Proves Labour don't listen to Scots

Past Results in Midlothian

Time to Change US policy on the Middle East

News of the World Yellow Ribbon Toilet Tissue Campaign

Not In our Name (by award winning journalist John Pilger)

Murdoch Reveals Real Reason for War - Cheap Oil

Support Freedom for the Basque Country!

London Must Let Go of the Remote (by Kevin Pringle)

Yes, Yes, Yawn, Yawn!

The Truth about Public Spending

SNP Reject Bogus GERS report

Labour McCarthyism

ID Cards Scheme - Attack on Civil Liberties

Scottish Parliament Links

Scottish Media Links

Recent Letters

Want to Email a Newspaper?

Press Releases

SNP Health & Education Policy

SNP Employment Policy

Poverty Amidst Plenty - By Andrew Lumsden & Alex Neil

Independence - Its a Capital Idea

My Uncle Joe as a boy of 15 (on the left) and as I knew him, later in life.

Political Influences

by Joe Middleton

I joined the SNP in 1987 after seeing a party political broadcast. I had, for some time before that, supported both independence and the party. My driving force politically has always been a deep sense of injustice that Scotland has never been treated fairly and while I have Socialist beliefs that have increased the more I have learned, my belief in independence has grown also.

I became a socialist because my great uncle was one. He was also called Joe, Joe Burns, and he had come to believe in socialism after serving, and being wounded 5 times, in world war I as a young man. The suffering he witnessed first hand and the inexplicable reasons for the conflict led him to embark on a process of educating himself, through reading, and as he became more convinced of the worth of Socialism, he joined the Labour party and worked for them for many years.

At that time, the Labour party was built around the trade unions and represented the working class. Inspired by the Bolshevik revolution, Labour proposed a near revolutionary program of social change. They were widely respected for their principles and their willingness to stand up for their own class and this was reflected in the ballot box. The Labour party still enjoys enormous support today but, I would contend, does not deserve it.

My Grandfather, Matt Clayton, was a miner at the Lady Victoria pit in Newtongrange. My father was a postman and my family are practicing Roman Catholics. I'm a natural Labour party supporter, statistically, yet I've never voted for them.

For me independence is a way to change the unjustness in our society but even if it didn't change it substantially for the better I would still want it. My overall driving ambition is for our country to be free. I am a Scottish nationalist and I believe the history of our nations struggles for its freedom are directly relevant to our situation today. (The story of the 1820 uprising is also an interesting and instructive history lesson.)

William Wallace, Thomas Muir, John MacLean, their legacy can and must always inspire us. As for New Labour or New Tories or Rosy Tories, call them what you will, they are a pale pink shadow of a once proud and principled party. The party where once, men like my great uncle who was not a nationalist but was nonetheless a great and principled man, were proud to represent their fellow workers is dead.

New Labour no longer represents our forefathers instead it represents a watered down form of Thatcherism disguised by muddled middle class values, the terrible exploitation of the poor and weak in our society began by Thatcher and continued by Major will not be stopped by Labour.

Labours drastic shift to the right, began by Neil Kinnock to improve their popularity has went so far that there is little or no difference between Labour and the Tories on any issue.

It is up to this party to inform the general public in Midlothian, a working class area, of Labours betrayal of their interests. Andrew Lumsden our PPC in 1992 effectively informed the public of this in a long and hard working campaign which I, as CA convener at the time, was proud to play a major part in.

Andrew ran a campaign around public meetings supported by heavyweight speakers like Jim Sillars and around local issues.

He pre-empted the unpopular closure of Greenhall high school by informing the public of Labours plans to close it.

He supported the Monktonhall Mineworkers consortium in their successful bid to re-open Monktonhall, by holding meetings on their behalf, pushing through support for them at the SNP's national council, lobbied Westminster and even took their case to Europe.

His part in the campaign for Monktonhall was reported at every stage by the Advertiser, often with Photographs of him, his public  meetings were also reported extensively and statements on every  major issue by Andrew and others like myself were reported each and every week.

The reason for this was because we produced an enormous amount of press releases. While Andrew spoke to every area of the constituency and met with local groups, myself, Davie, Brian and others wrote letters and press releases to the press all based around the central message that

A) Labour are just like the Tories and

B) Only independence can achieve real change.

One of the most interesting things on television was the program "the wilderness years" about Labours ongoing process of changing from left to right. While Tony Blair is employing a manic grin and squeakily talking of the great things done by Neil Kinnock, John Prescott smiles wanly like a man who's just had all his teeth pulled out but is trying to put a brave face on things.

Brian Gould and others admitted that their party was wrong to ditch every principle they ever had and that Neil Kinnock was utterly incompetent and a stooge of Peter Mandelson. Tony Benn, who is the only honest and consistent politician Labour have ever produced, hit the nail on the head with his appraisal that Labour are just like the democratic party in the USA and their election to power will make as little difference to Britain as a change of government does in the states.

Since joining the SNP I have met a few individuals who have influenced me strongly. Jim Sillars the party's former deputy leader is a politician of enormous charisma and extraordinary public speaking skills. There are few people who can get a standing ovation at a public meeting in Woodburn community centre but Jim Sillars is one of them.

Mr Sillars, Alex Neil and Kenny MacAskill all came through and spoke at public meetings in our campaign from 1990 - 1992 to try and get our candidate for Midlothian elected, Andrew Lumsden. Both Kenny and Alex are now MSP's in the Scottish parliament.

Andrew is a brilliant politician who it was an enormous pleasure to work with. Shortly after his election as PPC myself and a number of other younger activists took over from the previous office bearers who had resigned en masse.

Andrew believed he had a decent chance to win Midlothian (it required a 25% swing or one in four Labour voters to start supporting the SNP). He was proud to call himself a socialist, which fitted in perfectly with my own political philosophy.

Andrew produced his own press releases with photos while myself, Dave Moyes and others like Brian Archibald, tried to fill out the more general picture and create an image of a well run local organisation. We attempted this by a thorough dissemination of SNP policy through the local press via press releases and Letters to the Editor. As I was Convener of the CA for the duration of the campaign I was in a position to be able to publish a lot of stories in my own name.

Click on the thumbnail (above) to see the larger picture and click back on your browser to come back to this page.

We were acutely aware that ordinary voters didn't know what the SNP stood for on education, employment and the health service so we tried to put forth as much tangible political information on core issues as possible.

We were lucky in that the Advertiser were willing to publish our efforts. I was lucky to have Dave Moyes to dig up local stories which I could then polish up for publication (most of the press releases we did during that time are on this site excepting Andrews which I don't have in computer file format - I may get them scanned later). Most of all we were lucky to have as enterprising a candidate as Andrew who attended numerous public meetings, made a huge attempt to support the re-open Monktonhall campaign (taking the campaign to firstly our party conference then later Westminster and the European parliament) and who dug up the first news of the local councils plans to close Greenhall High School which was to prove of crucial importance in the council elections which followed subsequently.

We were also of course lucky for many years to have Alex Salmond as party leader. Alex's debating skills made our party's presence seem much larger than it actually was. This was tremendously important in terms of political credibility.

Without the brilliance of Alex Salmond the party would not be in the position it is in today. He was helped enormously having Sillars as deputy while the policy of Independence in Europe (largely attributed to Sillars who formulated it in his old Scottish Labour party) made the party seem much more credible and effectively knocked on the head the 'separatist' taunt which Labour had successfully used against us for many years.

Alex Neil's free by 93 policy was run down in retrospect by some, however it was a tremendously exciting idea which helped the party to believe that we could get close to our goal of national independence. It was exactly the right message at the right time for the party.

Nobody in politics ever got anywhere without believing in what they were saying. Alex Neil, Jim Sillars and Alex Salmond's leadership put us in the position of believing ourselves that independence was just around the corner. That belief was what inspired our jump in support in the 92 election.

Our campaign in Midlothian didn't win but we did put across the party's message effectively reflecting the national strategy a direct attack on Labour outflanking them from the left. A substantial swing in our favour was the result of a hard fought three year campaign. Yes it was exhausting, Sillars was probably right that the Scottish people collectively lost their bottle at the last gasp but it was still the most exciting time I can remember being in the SNP and perhaps our most effective time of campaigning.

Currently we have a hugely different situation largely due to the establishment of the Scottish Parliament and (with PR) a massive increase in representation.

Salmond's leadership had lasted a long time and he eventually stepped aside for John Swinney. In the last two elections our vote has declined and John Swinney was recently challenged for the leadership of the SNP by Dr Bill Wilson, a Glasgow activist.

* We only had a handful of MPs at Westminster because of the FPTP (first past the post) system, unfortunately this system is still in place for both Westminster and council elections.

Back to Contents

Marching to independence

by Joe Middleton, of Independence First

Independence First, the non-party political referendum campaign recently wrote to both the UK government and the Scottish Parliament asking for a democratic referendum for the people of Scotland on independence.

The replies were swift. The Scottish Parliament replied: “Schedule 5 to the Act {Scotland Act 1998] defines matters which are reserved to the United Kingdom Parliament. The Government of the United Kingdom is therefore responsible 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.”

Of course these answers are pretty much what we expected. The Scottish Parliament just wants to pass the buck down south, while the Westminster government does not even recognise that there is a problem.

These answers are obviously not acceptable. The question is, what are we going to do about it? In Independence First’s case we plan to do quite a lot, and we hope Voice readers will help us.

While Independence First has probably not impinged on the public consciousness yet, we have been quietly and carefully doing something very important - uniting the entire independence movement behind our campaign. We hope that will be obvious on 30 September when we hold our first march for independence through the centre of Edinburgh, ending outside our temporary parliament.

To attempt to show the enormous latent support for independence we have also launched an e-petition through the Scottish Parliament, calling for a debate on how to ensure a referendum on self determination.

The petition is available at the Scottish Parliament web site here:

http://epetitions.scottish.parliament.uk/view_petition.asp?PetitionID=123

In the expectation that none of these efforts will actually have any effect on the unionist-led executive we will also attempt to influence the actual outcome of the next election. In the next few weeks leading artists, writers and musicians will endorse a ‘1 million pledges for independence’ campaign.

This campaign will call for 1 million Scots to give their support to parties which support independence in both the first and second votes. We believe this is enough to swing the election in favour of independence and is also an amount which is well within the reach of the pro-independence parties.

http://www.independence1st.com

(This article was printed in the Scottish Socialist Voice)

Back to Contents

Taking the lid off Scottish ambition
by Brian Nugent

WEDNESDAY was St Andrews Day and how did you celebrate Scotland's national day?

Probably like most Scots the day passed you by. Scotland does not celebrate its own existence, unlike just about every country in the world, including our neighbours in the North Sea.

The Norwegians celebrate Constitution Day on 17 May as their national holiday, Iceland have their Independence Day on 17 June while the Faroe Islands celebrate Olavasoka on 29 July.

So why is Scotland different? Dennis Canavan, Independent MSP, has put forward a bill in the Scottish Parliament to celebrate St Andrews Day as a national holiday. Hardly a radical proposal you would have thought but the best that First Minister Jack McConnell can come up with is that he had "yet to be convinced" by the merits of the idea.

The denial of a case for a national holiday is one aspect of a political problem for the Unionist parties, having admitted that Scotland exists by setting up a devolved parliament, how do they keep a lid on the bottle of Scottish ambition.

Unionist politicians are always looking over their shoulders to Westminster to work out what will be acceptable to their political masters, they know their careers depend on it. Politicians in Scotland should represent Scottish interests and not the interests of another country.

Labour ran Scotland as their personal fiefdom from the 50s onwards. They were not interested in promoting Scotland among its own population. All Labour wanted and needed was subservient Labour voters at election time.

The lack of a St Andrews Day holiday is but a straw in the wind. Why do 500 members of the Literature Forum for Scotland feel the need to send a petition to the Scottish Parliament to ask that Scottish literature, history and language are taught in Scottish schools? Obviously, they feel that it is not happening currently and that is remarkable.

Peter Peacock, education minister, was suggesting last month that the teaching of history be removed from the curriculum completely. Is there any other country in the world that goes out of its way not to teach its literature, history and language? The Labour establishment in Scotland in charge of the school curriculum did just that, trying to eradicate any aspect of Scottish life, culture, history from the curriculum, a subtle form of ethnic cleansing. Don't take my word for it, ask the Literature Forum for Scotland.

Learning about your own area and country gives you a grounding to be able to appreciate and understand other countries and cultures.

Scotland's problem is that we are in bed with an elephant, England, and that we have to keep selling our own country short for our bigger neighbour and be thankful for getting the odd crumb.

Good luck to London on getting the Olympics but let us not pretend that this is a British event, it is an English event pure and simple. The offer of a football game at Hampden and some rowing at Strathclyde Park smacks of nothing more than beads for the natives. Scotland is being patronised but we will get the opportunity to partly fund the games by Scottish sports funding being cut.

The response of some to the Scottish Football Association's refusal to be part of a UK football team in the Olympics beggars belief. To some extent the Scottish football team has kept the name of Scotland in people's minds the world over. There is considerable pressure on FIFA to merge the UK football teams into one. If Scotland were to join a merged football team for the Olympics that would be like the proverbial turkey voting for Christmas.

Scotland should not be asked to lay down and die at every opportunity but should take every opportunity to promote itself on the world stage.

Why the hysterical response to asking that a Scottish team go to the Olympics? A painless campaign to support surely at www.c-scot.org/SupporttheCampaign.htm but no, Unionist politicians were tripping over themselves to condemn such a move. If Hong Kong can go to the Olympics, why not Scotland?

Unionist politicians are trying to ride two horses at the one time, they are bound to fall off. It is a perverse career indeed that makes them want to denigrate Scotland, and argue against even the simplest acknowledgement that Scotland exists and to do it with such gusto.

Brian Nugent is a lecturer in Further Education at Shetland College and a founder member of the Free Scotland Party. A former SNP member of nearly 30 years standing, he has stood as a candidate at local, Westminster and Holyrood elections.

(From Freescot.com) 

Back to Contents

Independence Convention to launch on St. Andrew's Day

The Interim Forum for an Independence Convention is pleased to announce the imminent formation and launch of an Independence Convention on St. Andrews Day, 30th November 2005.

The objective of the Independence Convention is to create a body for those of all political persuasions and none who support independence and to be a national catalyst for Scottish independence.

The Independence Convention will work to achieve this objective in the following ways:

1. To advance the cause of Scottish Independence and to raise the profile of debate on independence within Scotland and beyond.
2. To provide a forum in which Scottish political parties, civil organisations and individuals can cooperate to that end.
3. To contribute ideas and proposals to political parties on increasing the powers of the Scottish Parliament and the procedures required to establish a fully independent Scottish state.

The Interim Forum has agreed these Governing Principles for participation in Convention:

• Scotland as a nation is entitled to self-determination, and to become an independent state when that becomes the will of the majority of the Scottish people.
• More specifically, the establishment of independence would be subject to the accent of a majority of the Scottish people by national referendum on proposals to establish a Scottish state.
• The Scottish people for this purpose is to be identified in civic, not ethnic, terms: all those who make Scotland their main home have equal rights to participate in the choice for or against independence. Racism is unacceptable in our politics and society.
• Progress toward and achievement of independence must be solely by democratic and peaceful means.
• Human rights, international law, and the role of the United Nations in world affairs must be upheld and respected.

There are three immediate questions the Convention needs to address:

1. What are the specific benefits of national self-determination for Scotland - in social, cultural, political and economic terms?
2. How will the transition between devolution and full independence be managed?
3. What are the principles and values that will underpin an independent Scotland in terms of its relationship with the UK and the rest of the world?

Importantly, three political parties; the SNP, the SSP and the Scottish Green Party, have confirmed their support for the Independence Convention. These parties and other individuals and organisations have been working together with others in the Interim Forum for an Independence Convention for the last two years to achieve agreement on the aims and objectives of the Convention.

The Convention will now look to the public and civic Scotland for the mainstay of it membership and motivation and we have written to hundreds of independence supporting individuals to join this new body.

The first public meeting leading to the establishment of the Independence Convention will take place at 7.00pm on St. Andrews Day, November 30th, 2005 at the Independence Convention launch will take place at Dynamic Earth Conference Centre, Holyrood Road, Edinburgh at 7pm.
 

Official spokesman: John Drummond Tel: 07710 326758
General inquiries: Aileen Orr Tel: 07980 661546

http://www.independenceconvention.org

http://www.freescot.com/news_page.php?story=57

Back to Contents

MORE SUPPORT FOR INDEPENDENCE FIRST

The Celtic League, a leading activist in the Scottish Socialist Party and a Scots historian have all backed Independence First, the campaign for a referendum on Scottish Independence.

The Celtic League, an organisation which promotes co-operation amongst Celtic Nations, passed the following official motion of support for Independence First at their 2005 annual General Meeting which was held in Skye on the 12-14th of August.

RE: INDEPENDENCE FIRST

1.1 The Celtic League supports the aims and objectives of Independence First, the Scottish campaign for a referendum on national independence, and notes that the organisation is both non-party and trans-party.
1.2 Recognises that the UK has never given the people of Alba [Scotland] or Cymru [Wales] the opportunity to vote in such referenda, contrary to UN self-determination guidelines.

1.3 Reaffirms its support for Scottish independence and opposes British moves to hinder its coming about.

Writer and publisher Kevin Williamson, who writes a regular column for the Scottish Socialist Voice, is joining the campaign.

Mr Williamson commented: “Scottish Independence should be the first priority of everyone in Scotland who believes in bringing democracy closer to the people. Westminster has always been a remote, autocratic, medieval, and  essentially anti-democratic Parliament that has never reflected in any shape or form the views or hopes of the majority of people living in Scotland. The break up of the British state into four democratic republics living at peace with each other, and the rest of the world, is long overdue.”

“I'd like to offer my full support to Independence First and encourage others to join as a member and take part in the most important political cause of our lifetime. Wherever a person's political or party loyalties lie, only full Scottish Independence can provide the democratic tools to make those political ideas a reality.”

“Here's hoping that with Independence First's support, Scotland will elect no less that 65 Independence-minded MSPs to the Scottish Parliament on the 1st May 2007 - i.e. a majority - and set in motion the road to democracy, peace and freedom.”

The Scottish historian David Ross who recently completed an extraordinary 700 mile march in remembrance of William Wallace also gave the following message of support to Independence First shortly after the campaign was launched:

"Scotland is a nation state. We owe it to all the generations of Scots yet unborn to deliver a heritage of freedom, of pride, of self determination. For many generations Scots have strived to create the independence that our nation rightly deserves. Let us be the generation to deliver that freedom -and those Scots to come can grow without the burden that weighs so heavily on our shoulders and stops us taking our rightful place, with our flag flying as an equal amongst the other nations of this planet. I therefore support the Independence First campaign and wish it every success."

The endorsements are the latest in a long line for Independence First which has also received supportive messages from SNP & SSP MSP’s and official support from the Scottish Green Party.

Back to Contents

From Free Scot Review Independence First elects New Office Bearers "Campaign is Growing Fast" says new Convener At a recent Meeting of Independence First, the national campaign for a referendum on Scottish independence, two new office bearers were elected. An SNP activist, Neil Caple has replaced Dave Coull as Honorary Convenor, while Joe Middleton was elected Press Officer for the campaign. Mr Caple said "I am very pleased to take up this position. Even though our campaign was only launched two months ago our membership is growing fast." "We have received supportive messages from Scottish Green Party, Scottish Socialist Party and Scottish National Party MSPs and from the Free Scotland Party and the Scottish Independence Party. "Recent polls suggest that a majority of the Scottish public support independence. Independence First wants to give the people the opportunity to express that support in a referendum." Former leader of the SSP, Tommy Sheridan, sent the following message of support to Independence First: "As a socialist I believe passionately in genuine democracy and the right of nations to self-determination." "My party's vision is of an independent socialist Scotland but we absolutely endorse and promote the right of citizens in Scotland to democratically decide now via a referendum if they wish an independent country." "I see the British imperial union as a reactionary barrier to social progress and want that British union dismantled to encourage progressive and democratic ideas to flourish in the individual entities of Scotland, England and Wales. The campaign for an independence referendum deserves support from all socialists and democrats alike." Sandra White SNP MSP said "I'm happy to get behind anything that advances the cause of Scottish independence. I definitely support this grassroots movement, Independence 1st, in their demand for a Scottish referendum on independence. Please keep me informed of any further developments." Stewart Maxwell SNP MSP said "I support the holding of a referendum on Independence as the Scottish people have never had the opportunity to express their opinion on this option. MSPs from the Scottish Green party are hoping to get official support for the campaign from their whole party. Green MSP Mark Ballard has sent a message of support while Green MSP Shona Baird wrote "I welcome the principles of the [Independence First] charter and its commitment to working with people of all parties and none towards independence. This is an issue which will be taken to our next National Council meeting in May and I would anticipate it receiving the party's support. Mr Middleton commented "We are basically trying to achieve as broad a consensus as possible for independence. Under our plans secondary issues like republicanism or EU membership would be left up to the people of Scotland after the initial objective of breaking up the UK through a straightforward 'yes or no' referendum." He added "I hope absolutely everyone who supports Scottish independence will consider supporting this campaign, which is open to members of all political parties and none. A membership form can be downloaded from our website www.independence1st.com." Mr Middleton will speak at the Beith Speakers Club on 15th May on behalf of the campaign and has been selected to be a delegate for IF to the cross-party interim forum for an Independence Convention.   The full list of office bearers is as follows: Neil Caple (Honorary Convenor) Carol Roscoe (Secretary) Niall Aslen (Treasurer) Graham Connelly (Membership Secretary) Joe Middleton (Press Officer) Independence First Charter Independence First demands a Scottish referendum on Independence as our democratic right. The Independence First Association has been formed on a non-party-political basis to campaign for a referendum on independence for Scotland. We include members of different political parties and people who are not in any party. One glaring aberration that remains for democracy in Scotland is that, despite having recently acquired a parliament in Edinburgh, many of the the most important decisions regarding Scotland are still taken in London. Scotland suffers from an unequal union with a much bigger neighbour, which has invariably been to Scotland's disadvantage where matters of contending national interest are at stake. The people of Scotland have never, at any time, been asked to vote directly by a referendum, on whether they agree to this or not. Independence First is aware that opinion polls have usually indicated a strong demand for independence among Scotland's electorate and notes that the UK Government has conspicuously failed to test the electorate's wishes in this matter. As a matter of basic, democratic, self-determination, a referendum on the question of independence for Scotland is long overdue. All who cherish the principle of democracy, even those who call themselves democrats, yet favour continuation of the present constitutional setup, should accept the justice inherent in this claim. Independence First believes that the referendum question should be as simple and unambiguous as possible, such as: "Do you favour Scotland becoming an independent nation?" Followed by 2 boxes, yes and no. The question to be asked should not additionally test, one way or the other, matters such as EU membership (or not) or monarchy (or not). Everybody on the voter's roll in Scotland should be entitled to vote in this referendum. This referendum should take priority over any other referendum on constitutional matters. Independence First demands a Scottish referendum on Independence as a democratic right. We call upon all who value freedom and justice, in Scotland and worldwide, to back this most basic of democratic demands. Copyright © 2005, Independence First

Back to Contents

Time for Scotland to leave this potential UK police state
by Joe Middleton

This article was Web Published in the Free Scot Review

With all the talk of 'U-Turns' and 'climb downs' over the Anti-Terrorist bill one might imagine that common sense had won the day and that the Government had been forced to respect basic civil liberties. In actual fact no such thing has happened.

The only compromise has been the insertion of a clause which means the bill must be renewed within one year, i.e. the next UK Government rather than this one will make the decision. Unfortunately, unless the elections result in a hung parliament (a highly unlikely occurrence under first past the post) and the Liberal Democrats or SNP are in the position to put pressure on a coalition Government - both the Tories and Labour are likely to continue to keep this bill pretty much unchanged.

It is more than likely that the Tories will also decide that locking up people without trial and putting them under house arrest is a useful power once it has become established that the Government can get away with it.

Since 1974 ever more draconian "anti-terror" legislation has been passed,
and with every amendment more 'special powers' are handed to the Government with progressively less regard for the rule of the law and the basic principle of 'innocent until proven guilty'.

Over 97 per cent of those (mostly Irish) people arrested under the original Prevention of Terrorism Act, were never charged. The Guildford Four and Birmingham Six are the most obvious examples of miscarriages of
justice for innocent people who happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

This latest bill will allow Terrorist suspects to be detained indefinitely without trial and without any evidence produced in justification.
Furthermore a draconian system of effective house arrest will be introduced on the orders of a Judge based on the ill informed rumours and suspicions of MI5. Let's not forget that this is the paranoid and unaccountable secret organisation who has bugged numerous serving Government ministers and who according to ex Spy Peter Wright "burgled their way across London" on a daily basis.

The most worrying fact however is that these powers could potentially be used against anyone who opposes the Government. Already the BNP and Animal Rights Activists have been identified as possible targets.

Speaking after the Home Secretary Charles Clarke, announced new laws to control the movements of terrorist suspects, Mr Clarke's adviser, Stephen McCabe, told The Scotsman he saw this extending to other groups suspected of using violence to further their ends. The Labour MP said: "We can envisage this applying to animal rights extremists and the far-Right, for example.

"These people are locked up because we believe they are a genuine danger based on what we think is pretty reliable evidence, even if it cannot be
divulged in a court of law." (1)

In truth, this could affect any political activist who the Government disagrees with. I can't stand the BNP but they are a political party. The Tories are actively playing the race card at the moment, so really there is only a difference in emphasis between the right and far right of the political spectrum.

Who decides who is a threat and who isn't? Who watches the watchers?

MI5 have often considered trade unionists to be a threat to the UK, as have the FBI. In reality they may be a threat to employers but they are an enormous benefit to their fellow workers.

The rules on 'national security' are purposefully vague and cover anyone who is "a threat to the economic interests of the UK" which could easily include Scottish nationalists.

The Scottish Parliament has rejected ID cards outright and it's democratic decision should be respected. However, the Government is prepared to tell any number of bare faced lies over their proposals. In a letter to me dated 12/08/2003, Beverley Hughes, the former Home Office Minister said: "The Government has made clear that it does not consider that an entitlement card scheme would have a significant effect in combating terrorism in the United Kingdom."

In the same letter she also said that the Government would not be consulting on a compulsory scheme. In fact the Governments proposed ID card scheme will be compulsory by 2013.

The Government has also deliberately overestimated the amounts of terrorist suspects in an attempt to scare people into supporting their plans.

"There are several hundred in this country who we believe are engaged in plotting or trying to commit terrorist acts," Mr Blair told Radio 4's Woman's Hour. (2) A similar claim was made by the ex head of Scotland Yard to the down market tabloid 'The News of The World'.

However a 'senior security source' quoted in The London Times newspaper said that these figures were based on numbers of people who traveled to training camps in Afghanistan and Pakistan, prior to September 11.

Of those only 25 or 30 who are known to be in Britain, with some of those in prison in Belmarsh. The source said the Prime Minister's estimates of the scale of the terrorist threat was sloppy. "It is irresponsible and likely to scare people unnecessarily," the source said. (3)

A further major problem of ID cards is that they are likely to increase the police harassment already suffered by ethnic minorities.

Writing in the Scottish Left Review Aamer Annwar pointed out the full extent of the current discrimination against "Muslims and people of middle eastern appearance."

"Home Office figures revealed that stop and searches of Asians under new anti-terror laws soared 302 per cent in a year. The total number of stop and searches under counter-terrorist legislation more than doubled from 8,550 to 21,577. Anti-terror searches of blacks rose 230 per cent, from 529 to 1,745, and of whites 118 per cent, from 6,629 to 14,429.

Some 8,000 people have been stopped under the new anti-terrorism powers. Yet only 170 people have been charged as a result. Just two of those have been convicted. Both were for possession of a small amount of cannabis, which hardly amounts to a 'terrorist threat'." (4)

Given the fact that the vast majority of Terrorist 'suspects' never come to trial and are convicted that means that potentially an enormous amount of completely innocent people are likely to be locked up based on nothing but suspicion.

Anti Terrorist experts doubt that the newest bill will make any improvement in the Government's ability to fight terrorism - however it is clear that they will involve an enormous loss of basic human rights.

Professor Paul Wilkinson, chairman of the Advisory Board of the Centre for the Study of Terrorism and Political Violence at St Andrews University, strongly attacked the proposals recently in an article entitled "Wrong weapon in the battle against terrorists".

He said the proposals were being "rushed through with inadequate time for proper consideration of their implications for civil liberties and their potential efficacy in preventing terrorism."

He added "not only [would the proposals] once again involve the UK in derogating from Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights and would hence be ruled unlawful by the judges, it would also be dangerously counterproductive."

He ends his article by writing "I do not believe we should be passing legislation which undermines a basic civil liberty and which, in any event, is unlikely to make any useful contribution to the prevention of terrorism." (5)

The simple fact is that detention without trial, house arrest and compulsory ID cards are not the actions of a democracy and the Labour Government should be wholly ashamed of themselves for producing these draconian proposals.

That they are not ashamed and are prepared to justify such extreme measures with misleading statistics and blatant lies proves that there is only one way of escaping from this potential UK police state and that is by voting for Scottish independence.

Sources:

(1) 'BNP and animal rights activists face house arrest' (The Scotsman 27th January 2005.

(2) and (3) Times (London) - 1st March 2005

(4) A permanent state of terror? by Aamer Anwar SLR Issue 23.

(5) Wrong weapon in the battle against terrorists by Paul Wilkinson The Scotsman 10th March 2005.

Back to Contents

Scotland's Republican Voice
by Graham Connelly

The Scottish people, particularly the younger generations, are not monarchists; there can be no doubt about that. That the argument for a republican Scotland has already been firmly won, and it has, is all the more remarkable for the fact that it has been won without any substantial public debate on the issue ever having taken place. The mere application of democratic principle and common sense, in a contemporary setting, has been sufficient to defeat monarchism.

Monarchism, based upon hereditary privilege as it is, is anathema to Scottish culture and our way of life. The repugnant fantasy that any one person is of greater worth to society than another, simply because of who their parents happen to be, insults every fibre of our fundamentally democratic being. Monarchy is hereditary elitism; it is the antithesis of the values of equality, democracy, justice and merit - irreconcilable counter-values.

We need only look at the recent opening of the Scottish Parliament to see how awkwardly uncomfortable and out of place the English monarch felt at having to be there that day. It was an affront to democracy that she was invited at all but it was perfectly in character of Her Majesty’s devolved court jesters in Edinburgh to invite her.

Some might reasonably have expected Scotland’s national party, the SNP, to more accurately reflect the mood and wishes of the Scottish people (largely absent from the pomp and ceremony of the day) by joining the peasants on Calton Hill for a good day out instead. SNP activists, including the Young Scots for Independence (YSI), were on Calton Hill but their MSP’s were conspicuous by their absence.

The English monarchy recognises the differing Scottish and English attitudes towards it. In the main, English society fondly identifies with the monarchy. It is, after all, their Queen Elizabeth II of England, and it is probably for that reason they line the streets of England in their droves to pay homage to her at every opportunity.

Contrast that with the attitudes and actions of ordinary Scots who were bemused by the attempt to foist upon them a false sense of grief at the unfortunate death of Princess Diana. On the day of her funeral, our North British televisions beamed images into Scottish homes of swathes of grief-stricken English subjects pounding the queens highways of London, Manchester, and Birmingham - barely an inch of pavement to spare.

Meanwhile, news presenters struggled to conceal their confused embarrassment at the images of the empty streets of Glasgow, Edinburgh, Aberdeen and Inverness. Ordinary Scots were similarly confused as to the reason for all the shops being shut but no doubt thankful for an extra day off work whatever the reason. And this was the people’s princess, the queen of hearts no less.

Being aware of the difficulties that exist for the monarchy in Scotland, it attempts to ingratiate itself with Scots by the use of conspicuous philanthropy and other charitable acts of kindness, all of them bizarrely newsworthy. However, it is mostly in vain because Scots continue to reject them.

Does the Scottish rejection of monarchy make us republicans? Yes, it does, small ‘r’ republicans but republicans nevertheless. Why then do we hear little of republicanism in Scotland and why the unease with the use of the term itself?

Republicanism in Scotland has become almost inextricably linked with the Scottish-Irish community in Scotland, deservedly proud of their Irish heritage and the republican tradition that comes with it. However, this has served to perpetuate the myth that republicanism in Scotland belongs exclusively to a section of the Scottish-Irish community. It does not, we need to challenge and overcome that myth.

This is Scotland, and Scottish republicanism merits a voice of its own. There is no good reason why republicanism in Scotland cannot belong, and be seen to belong, to all in Scotland who subscribe to its democratic principles. For far too long, Scottish republicanism has been subdued into something of a minority activity.

Now, consider the current Scottish political landscape. There has been the emergence of the smaller political parties over the last decade, even successful single-issue candidates. Whether we like it or not, the proliferation of the pro-independence voice is here to stay. But where is Scotland’s republican voice?

Our democratic will and Scottish sovereignty itself are routinely undermined when our parliamentary representatives step forward to swear an oath of allegiance to a monarchical institution at odds with everything that modern, democratic Scottish society stands for. Many of them swear the oath of allegiance under protest but they still swear it. It is time that this stopped. Our democratically elected representatives must begin to take Scottish sovereignty more seriously.

The suggestion that the swearing of the oath of allegiance in private, in another room away from the chamber, would be an improvement is a blatant insult to our intelligence. The oath is an affront to the people of Scotland no matter how or where it is sworn.

It is time that the oath was abolished and a steadfast refusal to swear it may be required to force abolition. Republican and nationalist candidates should decline to swear any oath of allegiance to the monarchy, even if they are threatened with not being allowed to take their seats if elected.

Scottish sovereignty rests with the Scottish people, as made clear in the Declaration of Arbroath. Yet, despite Scotland having had it’s own devolved parliament since 1999, all the Scottish political parties continue to contest elections to the Westminster parliament in England.

Republican and nationalist candidates contesting the next Scottish Parliamentary election in 2007 should issue a clear declaration of intent that they will refuse to swear any oath of allegiance to the monarchy. That declaration of intent should enshrine within it a similarly clear statement that they will continue to contest elections to Scotland’s national parliament in Edinburgh but they will no longer contest elections to the Westminster parliament in England.

The way needs paving for the extraction of the Scottish political parties from the Westminster parliament in England, a parliament in which they do not belong.

Back to Contents

Scotland has to be taken from the left.

Ian Swanson’s article in the Evening News on the SNP’s decision to proscribe the Scottish Republican Socialist Movement on the grounds that the SRSM is affiliated to the SSP was entirely correct and the SNP are entitled to take that position if they wish. Many of your readers would know little of the matter and would probably care less, as would some in the SNP and SRSM.

However, some would care for the sake of mobilising all shades of political opinion towards the immediate goal of Scottish Independence. If Scotland is to be taken then it has to be taken from the left. How anyone can consider Auld and New Labour left of Thatcher is beyond all logic. Nevertheless, they can command electoral loyalty in large parts of Scotland without doing a thing. Even if they battered their voters on the heid wi’ a big stick the night before polling day many would still crawl out to vote for what they wrongly perceive as the inventors of the Welfare State.

The facts are that even the dreaded Tories have a more liberal record than Lords Wilson and Callaghan, who paved the way for Thatcher with their workers pay freezes and cut backs. The Welfare State was agreed by the wartime coalition, with minor differences and Viscount Lord Atlee ratted on most of his promises. His junior secretary resigned when he introduced prescription charges and then put them up when he became Prime Minister himself: yes Lord Harold Wilson the scourge of the Tame Unions.

The SNP, who have always been a radical opposition in Scotland, were unfairly dubbed “Tartan Tories” by Labour’s Union Jack Tories. The British agents in the “revolutionary” left who backed them under the guise of “Towries Aht” also dubbed them “fascist” and “racist” Stands to reason don’t it? Anyone who does not want to be ruled by London must be so.

The original Scottish Labour Party were formed by Home Rule constituent elements such as; the ‘Highland Land League’; ‘The Scottish Home Rule Association’ (Ramsay MacDonald and the Red Clydesiders were in the SHRA), ‘The Scottish Cooperative Society’ (who were closed down in the 70’s and taken over by the English COOP resulting in English buyers emptying the shelves of Scottish produce and closing down factories and farms here) and the ‘Scottish Trade Union Congress’.

All the Scottish Trade unions were closed down in the late 60’s and early 70’s, giving the top Tame Union bureaucrats in Scotland the second top job in the London based Unions. Ironically, the only Scottish Union left is the EIS. John MacLean, as a teacher could not be a member of a union and had to join the SCWS instead. He was vilified by the Great British Left then, as now, for his stance on a Scottish Socialist Republic.

There is a small Scottish gaffer’s Miners Union, with about forty members left, since Labour, not Thatcher, closed down most of the Scottish pits, when that other old Viscount, Wedgie Benn, built nuclear power Stations in Scotland, despite the fact the at we had plenty of water to build hydro dams for our own and other needs. Incidentally that other old sell out, Tom Johnston, is generally credited with Scotland’s Hydropower when the fact is that the War Time coalition under Churchill wanted hydropower for atom bombs.

Shortly after the original Scottish Labour party was taken over from London, their Chairperson and Secretary resigned. RB Cunninghame Graham and Dr Clarke became founder members of the National Party of Scotland in 1928, along with radicals such as Hugh MacDiarmid and Compton MacKenzie, etc. The NPS, later became the SNP after a merger in 1934.

Radicals were expelled from the SNP as part of the 79 Republican Socialist Group in 1979, Including, Alex Salmond, Kenny MacAskill, Roseanna, Cunningham, etc. It ill becomes the SNP, with many radical republican members to break with this tradition and desert the radical tradition built up over the last hundred years. For what? To outflank New Labour from the right? Even the Tories cannot do that.

The ‘Scottish Republican Socialist Clubs’ were a cross party group formed in May, 1974 to unite Scottish Nationalist and the British “left” towards the traditional goal of a Scottish Socialist Republic and influence opinion towards the minimum demand of Devolution and the Maximum demand of a Socialist Republic. Extreme poverty and mass theft of our resources demanded that course. The SRSC decided, unadvisedly, to become a Scottish Republican Socialist Party in 1982, and a cross party organisation, again, becoming the SRSM, affiliating to the embryonic SSP. The dualist nature of the SSP meant that the GB Unionist platforms would inevitably bring us into conflict there, with even demands for our expulsion.

There is nothing more divisive than attempts at unity. Elements in the SNP and SNP are for and against a cross party Independence forum, certainly before the election. The Greens claim that Independence is only another bum of the month issue – way down the list.

By expelling the SRSM members from the ranks of both the SNP and SSP the Unionists will have gained another nail in the door, if not the coffin, of Independence and Labour careerists will be laughing all the way to their Anglified Banks and pension companies.

Donald Anderson, Scottish Republican Socialist Movement

Back to Contents

Back to Contents

New SNP Leadership Offers Fresh Start

On the face of it, left wing members of the SNP should be pleased with the election of Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon to the leadership of the party. Salmond has declared himself to be a socialist in the past and Nicola Sturgeon has a history of left activism, at least in her early days within the YSN.

At that point of course the party was deliberately playing up its left wing credentials to contrast itself with Labour who were rapidly moving towards their holy grail of New Toryism.

The ’79 group, which was eventually to effectively take over the party, sprang from analysis of the ’79 referendum results. The party realised at that point that it was the working classes who were the most enthusiastic for devolution and realised that a left wing shift could potentially undermine (and hopefully replace) Labour amongst the public’s affections. The SSP have also noticed a similar trend on the national question which explains their more recent support for the most radical constitutional option.   

The socialists in the SNP have always been a wing rather than a full bird. The SNP is a broad church and at no point has it ever been willing to fully embrace socialism. However in the nineties under the leadership of former ’79 rebels like Salmond and Kenny MacAskill, almost by standing still, the party was suddenly quite far to the left of Labour. Kevin Pringle’s research unit was producing useful statistics and the nitty-gritty policies were taking a definite turn towards the radical left.

We had a clear commitment to unilateralism, a fully costed plan for full employment and genuine plans for substantial public investment. The whole party strongly favoured the re-nationalisation of the Steel industry and with Jim Sillars as Deputy Leader we embraced a form of internationalism with ‘Independence in Europe’.

At that time, at least in the younger section of the party, socialist views were pretty much taken as a given. Of course many of these old faces are still around occupying different levels of influence. Rob Munn would later get the onerous task of becoming our only councillor in Edinburgh, and now works in the new parliament. (While Munn is probably less vociferous in his views now than he once was, at one point he was so politically correct that he has worried Braveheart would alienate ‘New Scots’ because there were no Blacks or Asians in it.)

When Stuart Hosie (Shona Robison’s now spouse) was standing for Vice-Convener (Youth Affairs) was asked what he meant by saying he was a socialist he retorted “I believe in the nationalisation of means, production and control” and he got elected to that post.

Fiona Hyslop is now an MSP and is still on the left of the modern party. She was a former close associate of Salmond as well and it is probably only the slight age gap between her and Nicola Sturgeon which prevents Hyslop being the current ‘bright young thing’ to Salmond’s elderly uncle.

She is possibly no longer amenable enough however for Mr Salmond, who prefers his assistants to come with strings firmly attached. 

This of course was the basis of the main opposition to Nicola Sturgeon. It was obvious that Salmond had gazed up from London and perceived a potential defeat for his protégé from the irascible Roseanna Cunninghame and decided to step quickly into the breach and take direct control.

Nicola’s decision to take this option by stepping aside at the last minute from her own ambitions and swiftly ditching her lead balloon running mate Kenny MacAskill showed that she had the limited ruthlessness necessary in a potential stand-in leader.

Nicola has always been highly ambitious and she is a clever and astute politician in her own right. In this case she took the smart option which has paid off for her big style. She has now been whipped into the leadership of the Scottish Parliament with a decent majority, albeit by holding onto Salmond’s coat tails and with the benefit of a regular press release in the ‘SNP News’ email list.

The problem for the party is not now the leadership, Salmond is a highly efficient and populist leader, while Sturgeon will I’m sure prove a ruthless stalker of McConnell in the Scottish Parliament. Sturgeon has proved her ability to hold a brief and push it, harrying various unfortunate ministers and is an obviously easier ideological fit with Salmond than either of the other contenders. Whether the leadership in the Parliament should just be a brief is a moot point and one which was not effectively answered during the campaign.    

Personally I would have liked to have seen Christine Grahame as deputy as a more independent balance to Salmond’s views but eventually the result was highly predictable under OMOV.

The new leadership of the party has to be careful to not repeat the mistakes of the previous leadership. In his final year John Swinney attempted the final steps of his Blairite transformation of the party. He had already tried the bland colour analysis and smooth packaging of the Labour electoral machine. Still smarting from a challenge by a party activist he then went further and reduced the internal democracy of the constitution. With OMOV he has forever guaranteed populism will outweigh idealism.

Shortly after this triumph of his will he decided to tackle his lone ‘Militant’ who had been embarrassingly forthright in telling the truth about the party’s dire performance. Campbell Martin was duly suspended, then expelled shortly after.

While John Swinney can’t be blamed entirely for the gradualist experiment and the referendum policy (that was Salmond’s idea) he can be blamed for extending the process to a foolish three year waiting period; guaranteeing an unnecessary propaganda coup for his new socialist rivals for the independence vote.

Compounding this mistake was Jim Mather’s suicidal New Tartan Toryism. Mather changed the SNP’s sensible and not particularly controversial business carrot on Tax (levelling the playing field with English companies) to an ideological obsession which would transform the economy based on the Laffer curve.

His next trick, no doubt inspired by some lunatic American self help manual, was that he got so carried away with the idea of fiscal autonomy (minus independence) that after been winked at a few times by the affable David McLetchie, he eventually started talking of pacts with his new found best friends and even said that a left of centre independent Scotland was “a delusion.” 

Of course he found some friends to support this odd view point (though most activists were horrified). Duncan Hamilton, new found Scotsman hack began to muddy the cause even further with various articles waxing lyrical about England’s green and pleasant cricket fields, warm beer and Rangers FC, leaving people in serious doubt as to what a Scottish nationalist actually was any more.

New ideologically free-pure Kenny MacAskill decided that his old socialist views were holding his political career back and started slicing SNP sacred cows like a maniac butcher, “Let’s stay in NATO!”, “forget Bannockburn!”, “Park Independence!” and “Let’s have a fiscal autonomy convention!” thereby offending every wing of the party and inventing a new style of political campaigning, whereby you stick two fingers up to all your own activists and watch them leave in droves.    

What perhaps sums up the Swinney leadership most is the mess that was made of the RMT debate. The RMT had decided to eventually up sticks from Labour, something the SNP trade union group had exhorted them to do for years. In these circumstances ten years ago the SNP might have played up their anti-privatisation credentials and made a commitment to Re-Nationalisation of the Railways, they would certainly have pushed hard to bring the unions onside.

It wouldn’t be impossible, after all Plaid Cymru have begun to gain union funding in Wales. Under the transport leadership of Kenny  MacAskill however, you don’t even get a cast-iron SNP commitment to re-opening the Waverly Line!

John Swinney did his best, opening negotiations with the RMT leaders, but MacAskill was dismissive - portraying the potential SSP-RMT link as “Scargallist” on TV thereby uniting them together more effectively than if he had called on them to get married. Meanwhile Duncan Hamilton said in the Scotsman that we shouldn’t touch trade union money with a proverbial barge pole, conveniently forgetting that the party was to put it bluntly, completely and totally skint.  

There are some things which can be done now however to bring the SNP back from its current electoral decline. Our problems are not insurmountable. Labour is still weak and the Salmond/Sturgeon leadership offers a potential break from our inconsistent recent political past.  

To do so effectively however all the bad blood must be washed away and the party has to unite. By supporting Alex Salmond after Salmond had deliberately scuppered his own chances Alex Neil proved that sometimes SNP politicians can put the good of the party first before their own ambition. I hope Salmond will likewise make the best use of the political resources available this time around. The first thing to do is realise that mistakes have been made and learn from them.

The party needs at this point to put the gradualist lame duck out of its misery. A wishy-washy  commitment to independence is not good enough for a nationalist party. Gradualism has failed and an alternative more straight forward strategy is required. If we must have a referendum then it has to happen immediately on gaining power not after farting about for three years in the Scottish Parliament.

A definite turn back to the left is urgently required. The SNP will never win independence from the centre right, and it has to be consistently on the left in its full set of policies. 

The party must learn from the SSP and start moving funds from bulging MSP pockets out to their local organisations. Armani Suits and flash cars won’t win independence

The party must forget silly class-divisive anti-smoking campaigns and concentrate on pushing genuine civil rights issues like stopping British ID cards.

The party must look at what issues can highlight the divisions between the British state and the independence movement. Republicanism is an obvious avenue of attack. If the oath isn’t required for Stormont it shouldn’t be required for Holyrood. 

Finally, we should give full wholehearted support to the independence convention and work together with the other Scottish parties to create a left of centre consensus in Scotland.

This article was published in the Scottish Workers Republic and the Free Scot Review.

Back to Contents

Back to Contents

Back to Contents

Back to Contents

Beating liblaboryism

Since the elections there are three main independent Scottish parties.  All are on the left. All support Scottish Independence, all are trivialised by the media, none have any genuine access to the centre of UK power in London.

Lloyd Quinan's move to the SSP has been described by the press as a defection but it is more accurately a realignment. Formerly Scottish left activists who supported independence had one choice of party, now there are three parties and depending on how patriotic, socialist or environmentally aware you feel you are, one of these parties is going to be more attractive than the others.

Lloyd Quinan was one of the most active MSP's in the parliament and one of the most talented. The fact both he and Margo did not rise far through the ranks is an indictment of the SNP leadership. Quinan used to make a living grilling politicians on Trial by Night, it was absurd not to use his abilities at the top of the SNP.

Both Margo and Lloyd are talented campaigners who are willing to grasp the big issues. Both were left politically isolated by the party. I don’t know whether this was due to jealousy of their high public profile or other internal disagreements. Certainly both of these individuals are a big loss for the SNP.

I can easily understand why Lloyd, as a left winger, has moved over to the SSP and I can also understand why Margo decided to stand as an independent. Ultimately however, we need a national movement which is large enough to re-incorporate these two nationalists and bring back to the fold people like Jim Sillars.

Jim Mather is a lone voice. The main strand in the SNP at the moment is the gradualists their argument is that the SNP have achieved a unique level of power (as Scotland's official opposition) and that the party needs to build on this to eventually gain power and build trust to then gain independence.

 It is probably true that constitutional change of the magnitude of independence is unlikely within the next twenty years, that is, if the Scottish parties continue to play the exact same political game.

Any Scottish party fights any Scottish election under enormous disadvantages. The vast majority of newspapers and TV stations, probably all of them, are owned by or ran by non-Scots or certainly non-independence non-socialist non-radical Scots.

The message therefore of the SNP or SSP is never therefore going to force its way through this prism, much as we may like them to. The independence arguments will never be properly aired when the vast majority of TV coverage is highly biased and heavily slanted towards the main UK parties LIBLABORYISM for short (well... not that short obviously).

Liblaboryism is a form of politics which embraces the status quo and the rich. It is funded by business and represents little to no prospect of change.

Oh yes, small tinkering will be done at the edges, slightly to the left very occasionally, but mostly the political spectrum drifts further and further to the right. Real power does not even rest with our unreachable president Tony Blair who is in reality only the latest in a long line of Tory puppets.

Real power lies with international and multinational business and the capitalist world trade organisations. A power bloc also exists in Europe but Scotland has no say there at all, nor any input anywhere else either.

The Scottish Parliament has no genuine powers and no will to use the existing limited powers. The unionist at this point have a lock on power. The SNP view that eventually opposition will become power is deluded. If one wants to see a concrete example of how the parliament really operates have a quick look at the stitch up today over office accommodation. Though this is a trivial matter it is a fact that despite being Scotland's official opposition the SNP have been forced over three floors while the unionist parties are together on a floor each.

Liblaboryism is a powerful organisation when it decides to rule together. The set up of the Scottish parliament also lends itself towards unfairness. The voting system with its FPTP majority element basically guarantees power for unionism.

STV will come in for local elections because central government knows that basically local government is a waste of time. Does anyone know a local council that works better than other in any major fashion? No? I didn't think so.

Essentially another layer of elected apparatchiks (but now on an all party basis rather than the former Stalinist dictatorship of Labour) will fiddle around with silly projects, up the level of council tax and remain entirely subservient to central government.  Labour knows that local councils don't matter and is probably glad to clean out most of their dinosaurs who don't agree with Tony.

No, STV will never reach the actual powerbase, Westminster and it will never reach the Scottish Parliament either (just in case). The Scottish Parliament is controlled by a block grant, we could raise 3p in the pound but it might encourage Westminster to rap our knuckles the next time.

There are two hopeful elements in the Scots body politic however. One is the aforementioned rise to greater prominence of smaller parties due to the proportional element of the Scottish Parliament (not exactly STV but better than nothing). Two is the Scottish independence convention.

The Scottish independence convention offers an opportunity to work together  on the mechanics of independence. Once we nail down the route map to independence,  set up the actual mechanics of a referendum and decide in advance the objectives of independence negotiations it will be much more transparent to the electorate.

The potential of agreement within the Scottish left is much larger than the silly arguments that crop up around election time.

Boo! says Labour ye canny afford independence! Aye we kin! say SNP, other issues tend to be strangled between the phoney debate on these two positions. In reality the economics of independence cannot be proven one way or the other, resting as it does on various sets of figures, a lot of which are unavailable.

We must move on from arguing whether Scotland can afford to be independent, the question is really can we afford not to be? Given the alarming political moves from London all left parties must unite around a move away from Liblaboryism and its elected dictatorship - The House of Commons under our old friend FPTP. FPTP guarantees a majority without a majority of the votes.

Under the stifling nature of Liblaboryism any new and/or progressive or even interesting political ideas are kicked into touch. To give but one example the case for a local income tax has been overwhelming for years but since it was an SNP idea (now adopted by SSP under a different name) Labour cling to the council tax, a system which is for most people a lot worse than the hated Poll Tax it replaced. The truth is the Tories don't want it and Labour just don't have the guts to rock the boat.

So how do we defeat Liblaboryism or ‘Unionism’? The only way is by forming our own movement to defeat it.

The name of this movement doesn't matter but what it must do is involve all Scottish political parties. By this I don't mean Labour, Tories or Lib Dems, all of these parties are irrelevant to a progressive Scottish society. Each is controlled by London, each supports the existing union, each has turned its back on giving any more power to the Scottish Parliament. The Tories interest in fiscal autonomy is as genuine as their new support for the Scottish parliament. The Tories say one thing in power and another in opposition. Does anyone seriously believe the Tories would stop tuition fees or PFI?

The cause of independence will not be won by coffee mornings, cheese and wines, jumble sales or squeezing our own rapidly declining vote into the polling stations. The only way forward is preaching a different agenda on a one to one basis across a door step or even better in a public meeting.

There are lots of people who do want change and who are sick of the existing political system. The decline in the vote shows that the existing political structure, candidates and parties do NOT match peoples expectations.

I suggest we use the convention as the first building blocks towards a permanent alliance of the left. The SNP, Greens and SSP need to start supporting each other in the Scottish parliament. We should share knowledge, meet often and eventually form electoral pacts. That is the only way to win the rigged FPTP elections. The SNP has successfully built considerable support up North, the SSP is beginning to break through in Glasgow and the central belt. The Greens had the greatest breakthrough in the Scottish parliamentary elections and are becoming stronger throughout the EEC.

All parties pretend to be Green at election times. Lets be genuinely green all the time by going through the whole Green manifesto and trying to adopt every policy that might work. The SNP manifesto in 1992 was very green. It can be done and needs to be done. A genuine green agenda slips comfortably into a more socialist philosophy.

The SSP have made a big breakthrough by uniting the general fringe left. Even the SWP, no friends to independence, have joined the SSP along with tiny but important political groups like the Scottish Republican Socialist Party.

Many left wing people have tried and failed to infiltrate the Labour party. While I understand the reasons (if Labour could be turned to independence for example we would get it tomorrow) but ultimately such moves are self defeating.

Labour is only a name. The concept of a Labour party while still relevant must be turned into a newer grouping which moves forwards. Labour voters are doing so not for any love of Tony Blair, it is because of a memory of change. The fact is that none of the other parties have came up with a more relevant political philosophy. Independence is potentially an exciting concept but it does not become relevant to voters until flesh is put onto the bare policy bones. The SNP's main problem is that it has no easily identifiable political direction. As a voter said to me we are "an umbrella" but people want to know what's under it.

The independence convention provides the umbrella that the SNP was supposed to be but has never truly become. As a political party we are too divided. We have to make the convention the start of a process of working together with the new Scottish parties on a general basis.

It is up to individuals if they wish to change parties but ultimately a new and genuine cross party left alliance would be the most fulfilling grouping. The Convention, if properly run, will give rise a to a much greater forum of people united around the cause of independence, the logical next step then is a Scottish independence alliance that can turn the concept of independence into actual reality.

Joe Middleton  was until recently Press Officer for Midlothian SNP

This article was printed in the Scottish Left Review

Back to Contents

TIME FOR SNP MSP'S TO CHOOSE DIRECTION

Yet again Jim Mather has chosen to push a suicidal Tartan Toryism. Quoted in the Sunday Herald he says "We want more millionaires, and any notion that an independent Scotland would be a left-wing country is delusional nonsense."

Most Scots, he said, "have enough experience of left-wing policies to know that they only make matters worse." Quoting the party's own website "The SNP is a democratic left-of-centre political party." Both positions cannot be held in all conscience by any serious political party!

Mr Mather formerly expressed his wish to work with the Conservatives and was promptly told to sling his hook, the Tories knowing their enemy a bit more clearly than the current SNP leadership. SNP policy specifically prohibits such an arrangement.

Its time for our MSP's to give a clear signal about the SNPs future political direction. The right of the party have made their position clear, its time for the left to reassert their credentials.

If we want to defeat Labour and the other unionist parties in Scotland we can only do so by pushing a radically different political agenda.  Brent East proved even the Liberal Democrats can defeat Labour in one of the safest seats in the UK by combating Labours right wing lunacy.

If our MSP's are against the right wing drift of some of their colleagues they must make their position clear now. Bill Wilson's leadership challenge gives them an opportunity to clearly state their case. Sitting on their hands is not an option.

Back to Contents

LUDICROUS ENTRYIST ALLEGATIONS SWITCH OFF VOTERS

In the Sunday Herald last week, Lothian SNP MSP Kenny MacAskill made a quite ludicrous allegation that the challenge to John Swinney's leadership comes from an "entryist cabal" of former Labour Party members  who are trying to disrupt the SNP.

So those who have spent years strengthening the party with their hard work and pushing the parties policies have been doing so just to turn around and ruin the SNP. Yeah right, that makes a lot of sense!

Bill Wilson has made his reasons for standing very clear. He is unhappy with the parties current direction, as are many others, most of whom are not former members of the Labour party! More information about Bills campaign in his own words is freely available from his website www.bill-wilson.com.

Mr MacAskill himself is a former 79 Group rebel who didn't hesitate to try and change the party's direction before in the early 80s and he recalls this in his article. Mr MacAskill is also a former socialist, a former fundamentalist, and a former close ally and close associate of many on the left of the SNP, as such he is aiming these allegations at himself, or at least the man he used to be!

Mr MacAskill claims that the party should be arguing policy inside the party not in "the spotlight of the media". A pity then that he chose to start the current debate off with two controversial articles in the Sunday Times!

Firstly, he suggested that we should "park independence" or at least that was how the paper interpreted it) and accept some kind of regional status, but then he promptly denied this, leaving people wondering "what then was he actually saying?"

For his next trick he suggested that the SNPs Bannockburn rally was "anti-English" and a waste of time and we should all support Tartan Day instead. This was rightly condemned as "political correctness gone mad".

If John Swinney wants to be re-elected as leader of the SNP he should disregard the unhelpful comments of Mr MacAskill and call for an end to any attempts to smear Bill Wilson or Mr Wilson's supporters. It is silly unsubstantiated allegations which put off voters, not a healthy discussion of  political issues and how we get to independence.

SNP leftist faces party expulsion for News article

Evening News - 16/09/2003

AN SNP activist is facing expulsion from the party after he wrote an article in the Evening News calling for a republican socialist Scotland.

Joe Middleton, who is press officer for the SNP’s Midlothian constituency association, used a comment piece to urge the party to emphasise its left-wing policies.

But other activists in the association claimed his description as "press officer for Midlothian SNP" made it look as if his views had been endorsed by the local party.

And at a meeting last week, they voted to remove Mr Middleton from his post and recommend his expulsion from the party.

In his article on August 11, Mr Middleton, an SNP member for 16 years, said: "We must stop drifting to the centre and push our full range of left-wing policies."

And he added: "We must clearly state that a republican socialist Scotland is our aim."

Mr Middleton said party rules meant he could not discuss internal party matters. But a supporter said: "It’s just a few people who don’t like the opinions expressed in the article. They are trying to misrepresent it as a press release whereas it is obviously a personal article.

"Joe is a left-winger in the party and he’s arguing we should be pushing a left-wing agenda. Some people feel a bit threatened by it.

"The whole thing is a nonsense and hopefully the national executive will tell them to get lost." SNP headquarters said they could not comment on internal matters, but confirmed they were "aware" of the situation.

Back to Contents

Republic Socialist SNP is the way forward

The leadership challenge of Bill Wilson should not be taken as a direct attack on John Swinney, rather it is a symptom, a symptom of a party which no longer knows exactly what it stands for. Sadly some of the statements by those who oppose his candidature indicate a certain arrogance by the  leadership.

The SNP is in a crisis. We have had a very bad election result, we are effectively skint, our activists are discouraged and our membership is falling. To pretend all is well is not good enough.

As a constituency level activist who has been in the SNP for approximately sixteen years I believe the party can turn its electoral fortunes around but firstly we need to decide who we are. I believe socialist policies in an independent republican Scotland must be the ultimate aim of the SNP.

If we don’t make a choice about our future direction then we run the risk of becoming irrelevant to the Scottish people. Eventually we might be replaced or defeated electorally by either the Greens or the SSP who are now alternative potential repositories of a nationalist vote.

The SSP in particular are an obvious electoral threat to the SNP. Their use of half their MSP’s salary means they will become progressively better funded as time goes on. The SNP is currently £500,000 in debt.

In the term of the last parliament we received around £7M in individual MSP wages alone. If we followed the SSP and appropriated half of our MSP wages we could still potentially raise around £2.5M in the four years of the current Parliamentary term. We could use devolution to fund the independence struggle and kiss goodbye to the soul sapping begging letters and small time fund raising which demoralises our activists and ensures we never properly fund a national campaign.

With substantial funds we could open professional offices for our members use throughout Scotland, a real step forward for many Constituency Associations. 

Moves are afoot to raise some funds from MSP’s but in my opinion these do not go far enough. I appreciate SNP MSP’s wouldn’t enjoy a 50% pay cut but even half a MSP’s salary is still a very substantial sum and should be enough for true committed nationalist politicians at a time when the party desperately needs more funds.

In terms of the political campaign, it seems obvious that we have picked up on the “youth crime” angle through telephone and doorstep canvassing. There is no doubt that crime is an issue of major concern however the truth is it’s not just a case of employing more police officers. It’s also not just youths who are criminals (most victims are youths themselves) and the real problem is poor educational standards, lack of investment in local communities, unemployment and many other strands.

To suggest we can solve this problem by employing more police made us sound exactly like the Tories, a classic case of shooting ourselves in the foot. Labour sounded very similar to us on this issue so we had the bizarre spectacle of the SNP, Tories and Labour talking tough on crime while it was left to the Liberal Democrats to inject some sense into the debate. We have to ensure our policies are a part of an overall strategy and part of a coherent left wing agenda.

How can people take us seriously as a left wing alternative to Labour and believe us when we say Labour have sold out if we don’t sound any different to Labour? It doesn’t make sense and it is obvious the SSP have used our old message more effectively than we have.

We have to regain the radical ground and portray a vision of a more just society with independence. We have to say what our full policies are and not allow ourselves to be boxed in by debates on what can be achieved within the Scottish parliament. The truth is that re-cutting Gordon Brown’s financial cake will not greatly improve matters and we should admit this fact to the electorate.

The supposed gradualist movement is not one I fully understand. We all want more powers for the Parliament but these are not going to be granted by the UK Government. Only full independence can release the Parliament, independence can only happen with majority support, therefore we need to hold and win a referendum on independence  or win a Scottish election outright.

I don’t think we should wait three years to do this. We should hold it as soon as it can possibly be arranged. If we don’t say this clearly to the electorate we risk giving the impression that the party is basically content with regional powers, this could potentially kill our party and lose activists. 

If we waited three years for a referendum and ran the parliament better than Labour (we could hardly do worse) where is the incentive for the electorate to vote for independence?

I would prefer to see us not stand for the parliament at all than sell our political soul for a share in regional government. The parliament has to be a stepping stone to independence, not an alternative to it.

More powers  would of course be nice but they are not just going to be handed over by the UK. We need to work with the other independence parties on this issue to try and maximise debate on independence and push for a referendum. The Lib-Dems might at some point support such a policy but they are a unionist party and their natural ally is Labour not the SNP.

Rather than admit that the result was poor the party prefers to congratulate itself on winning FPTP seats. Firstly, there was only a couple of wins, secondly they were by people who were already in the parliament via the regional lists and thirdly they were by people who had achieved a high profile in the parliament.

The problem is our disastrous performance throughout most of the central belt at the elections. Labour are progressively becoming less popular but are we offering a inspiring alternative? No, because devolution does not offer any exciting answers to any political questions. It is a constitutional cul-de-sac which traps us into a regionalist way of thinking.

Paying lip service to the UK monarch dilutes our credibility as Scottish nationalists. There is no good reason for an oath to the Queen being a requirement for entry into the Scottish Parliament. If it can be ditched for nationalists at Stormont it can be ditched for Holyrood also. A clear republican policy could be the defining principle which could revolutionise our party.

Why are our activists falling away, why is our membership decreasing? Activists are in politics to win debates, to win arguments, to defeat opponents, to win independence.

Our organisation certainly needs improved and the party is taking steps to improve this but politics is not just about organisation it’s also about inspiration.

To knock a door with conviction and to be inspired you need a message that resonates with the people, you need to illustrate how independence will change their life. You have to point to full employment, a decent minimum wage, better benefits, more pensions.

In devolution all we can say is we’ll slice the devolved financial cake differently. But the cake is still baked by Gordon Brown and the money and powers are not there to change how Scotland is run. No wonder the public see the devolved parliament as irrelevant, it is!

Duncan Hamilton in his Scotsman column has been arguing for a move towards the centre, in other words towards the right. Jim Mather’s call to reconsider working with the Tories shows that he wants a shift to the right as well.

There are three unionist centre right parties already, we need to carve a distinctive consensus from the left, along with the new independence supporting independent Scottish parties, the Greens and SSP.  The unionists right wing agenda is tailored towards England not Scotland and following it can only result in losing both respect and credibility in Scotland.

As a democrat I welcome the fact that Bill Wilson is standing, it will enable the party to discuss our future. It is a sign that democracy is still healthy in the party that such an action can be taken by an SNP activist. It is not unheard of that someone in his position could be elected as leader.

However, to actually change the direction of the party would require an alternative slate of similarly committed individuals, one man is not enough and one change in the leadership wouldn’t necessarily make an enormous difference. Swinney is competent at his job, his main problem as I see it is that he has followed the Salmond style of small team leadership which is not appropriate to a larger and more diverse parliamentary group.

I think Mr Swinney should meet Mr Wilson in a televised debate and prove he is the best leader of the SNP, he should also, as a gesture of fairness, delay his conference leaders speech until the votes are in.

If he does these things then he could well be re-elected with a strong mandate to lead the party. If not, then he has only himself to blame if he loses, or wins with a small and unconvincing margin.

It is the direction of the party rather than our front man however, that we actually need to change. Those in the SNP who believe in a republican socialist future for Scotland must work together and attempt to win the political debate internally.

That is the only way we will make our party a dynamic political force again.

These comments represent the personal views of Joe Middleton and do not in any way express the official view of Midlothian SNP

The above article has appeared in the Edinburgh Evening News, The Free Scot Review and  the Scottish Left Review

Back to Contents

2003 Midlothian Campaign

 In the 2003 election we had a very good candidate, Graham Sutherland, who had a strong knowledge of all issues, who was a talented debater, who produced high quality press releases (and I again fulfilled a back up role with press releases and letters on behalf of the CA) but at the end of the day we lost and our vote declined.

There is no doubt that our local organisation has been better at times in the past though it has never been brilliant. We made money at one point, then squandered it, we had more branches and now we have less. In fact we were in a significantly poorer position recently and credit should go to Dougie Crawford (current CA convener) for drawing us together again and building us back into a unit which still managed a creditable campaign.

In 1999 we achieved our best result in Midlothian since 1974, we hoped to build on this in the next Scottish election and overlooked a rotten result in 2001. Its the UK elections we thought, naturally the SNP will do better in the Scottish elections, yet we didn't.

I've outlined some of the reasons why I think this is the case below, and I put forward a few ideas to improve things. In Midlothian we need to build our local organisation but we will always be at the mercy of the national swing. Therefore an improvement at national level is required to prevent our further electoral decline in the future.

Some thoughts re the Campaign

I think we need to re-evaluate our priorities and work out what we want our party to stand for. Paying lip service to the monarch has never struck me as a good idea, its against what we as a party stand for i.e. the end of Britain! British institutions should be rejected not encouraged.

I think we should adopt a republican stance (no referendums) and say no to the Queen. We can then legitimately refuse to take up our seats in the parliament and should not do so until this ridiculous oath has been removed. If it can be done for Stormont it can be done for Holyrood. Symbols matter.

Strategically, banging on about crime will not get us any votes. The more we identify ourselves with law and order, the more we sound like the Tories. More police officers would possible help but it certainly wont solve anti-social behaviour problems which have their roots in poverty and lack of opportunity. We must tackle the causes of crime and investigate how we can reduce our ridiculously high prison population.

Our education policy was fine. Perhaps more strongly reject all fees. Free equally accessible education for all.

Saying we will recruit more nurses, reduce waiting times etc is not enough. We have to say how we would achieve this. Also most funding & policy comes from London. We must gain control over our own finances first to improve health in Scotland.

Finally as Graham said, our environmental policy used to be "greener than the greens" we must make sure all our policies fit a green agenda. This is very important. We reject nuclear weapons, nuclear power but we must make this clearer to voters and try and push green policies.

Finally our leadership needs to be more inclusive with the best person for each portfolio given it no matter what their position in the party. Also we must make use of all our resources and avoid splitting along meaningless lines (i.e. fundamentalist /gradualists) both strategies must be pursued. We must remain fundamentally in favour of independence but at the same push for any and all gradual improvements in power for the Scottish parliament. More powers for our parliament must be our cry post devolution, we have to recognise different strategies are appropriate at different times but that doers not dilute our support for independence.

Our support for business by reducing rates is right but we must not come across as being interested in business at the expense of workers. We must push our trade union links, try and gain union sponsorship and balance a pro-business with a pro employment rights approach. Otherwise we will sound again, too like Labour & the Tories.

Finally, our leadership needs to be inspiring, not just to our members and supporters but also to the voters. A one man band is no longer needed nor desirable when we have over twenty MSP's.

Adopting SSP MSP Salary Policy could Revolutionise SNP financial position!

A further thought, the SSP's salary policy will put them in a progressively more powerful position because their MSP's are directly contributing half their salary to their party.

This means with 6 MSP's the SSP will receive funding of £144,000 per year or £576,000 in total over the whole parliament. That's a vast sum for a small party.

If the SNP had followed the same policy we would have had a total of additional funding £840,000 per year, or £3.36 Million injected into our party directly from the public purse!

Even now we have a potential £2.7 million we could raise by this policy.

No more begging letters, no more financial appeals, no more scraping around for finance, properly funded local campaigns and money to improve our structure, more offices et all. All by making a principled stance that £24,000 is more than enough for an MSP's salary. (Its also substantially more than the ordinary average wage.)

If we continue with our current policy we will continue to have some very wealthy individuals in the Scottish parliament and an under funded organisation which in many areas cant afford to run a decent campaign to get them back in!

The party has made enormous progress, our campaign this time was vastly more professional than in previous years and we have a bigger and better HQ staff however the fact is we are still skint and if we want to regain the trust of the people (and at the same time properly and easily fund our party) then we should adopt this politically astute policy as our own.

I'm sure there will be many who will claim they are worth their £48,000 and resent giving up half their salary (who wouldn't?) but at the end of the day it is an enormous privilege to be an MSP and this measure would vastly improve relations between our ordinary MSP's and the local party, not to mention the voting public who see MSP's as being under worked and over paid. 

The SSP MSP's will rightly be seen as heroes by their members for funding their party, do we want our MSP's to be heroes as well or not? 

Lets think about it.

Back to Contents

SNP POSTER CAMPAIGN

Click on the picture below to see it full size. I like this!

Back to Contents

Deluded Reid Proves Labour don't listen to Scots

by Joe Middleton

The Labour party's decision to shorten their conference, supposedly due to the war, but in reality because they were desperate to stifle democratic debate, was a cynical and anti-democratic act. All Labour wanted to give their delegates was a question and answer session. That's what Tony has used till now to avoid answering any difficult questions about the war. What they got eventually was an "internal debate". That's a secret discussion where no one will hear any anti-war opinions that might lose Labour votes.

I don't understand why they didn't allow the Scottish Conference to have a long and heated debate and pass a resolution condemning the war. Tony Blair would have completely ignored it just like he and every other Labour PM ignores every other decision by Scottish Labour.

Scottish Labour is an imaginary delusional concept. It allows John Reid to pretend his party is still socialist while its selling hospitals and schools to the private sector. Labour no longer offers free and equal access to education, instead it is intent on ever-increasing fees for going to university. This is a concrete example of how they have sold their traditional supporters out. Mr Reid accused the SNP of "dogma", in reality he should have accused the party of "principles" because this is what Labour now sadly lack.

Mr Reid obviously believes the Scottish public will treat his ramblings seriously and why not? The Trade Unionists still support Labour while it simultaneously stabs them in the back. Bill Speirs STUC leader will presumably always support Labour even when they gag him when his views are inconvenient. Of course, the Scottish Labour conference delegates would like to believe Mr Reid tells the truth and every Rose is still red in Labours garden. In actual fact it is infested with a persistent strain of Thatcherism which has strangled debate and allowed Mr Blair to become Prime Dictator over the House of Commons.

Mr Reid knows his own position in the cabinet, as he admitted in his speech, its sitting in the corner behind Mr Blunkett's dog.  His views are not those of Tony Blair, and it is Tony Blair who rules Britain and who runs the Scottish Labour party as a branch office from London. Scottish Labours views don't count and as long as  Scotland votes Labour, our views will not count either.

Back to Contents

Time to Change US policy on the Middle East

It would be impossible not to have the greatest sympathy with the ordinary people of America who were murdered in the 11th September attack. The uncomfortable fact is however that this attack was directly linked to American interference, whether overtly or covertly, in the Middle East.

Until the Palestinian/Israeli conflict is resolved there will never be peace in the Middle East, subsequently there will never be any democracy and the region will remain a powder keg from which nothing but war, misery and international terrorists will emerge.

The 11th September  terrorists, as far as can be established, came from Saudi Arabia,  a brutal dictatorship run by despots. If democracy is required for Iraq then it should also be good enough for Saudi Arabians.

Only if international law is upheld and respected without regard to nationality and sectarian interests will true peace prevail in the Middle East. Americas use of the CIA shows utter contempt for international law.

Israel's treatment of the Palestinians is a disgrace and yet it continues to be backed financially and unreservedly by the United States. In these circumstances Tony Blair should be pushing America to remove its sticky fingers from the Middle East.

In this time of a global village of ever increasing sources of information and the effective dissolution of national boundaries, an American intelligence led empire is not sustainable nor indeed desirable.

America should use its genuine influence with Israel to end the Palestinian conflict by returning the lands to the Palestinians that are rightfully theirs. It should give up its anti-democratic imperial ambitions and realise that Americans have no right to endless supplies of cheap oil if the price of this is the subjugation and denigration by proxy of almost every native people in the middle east.

The Iraq situation is a sideshow that shows up little else but hypocrisy upon the part of the western powers. Iraq has chemical weapons? Hardly surprising since Britain and the US sold them to them in the first place. In the case of war these weapons if they exist would most likely be used, surely this is not something we should be rushing towards.

According to the academic experts, there is no provable connection between the Iraqi regime and the Islamic Fundamentalism of Bin Laden and Al Quada. Attacking Iraq will not affect the terrorists, however helping the Palestinians would remove a lot of their motivation.

The UN is attempting to disarm Iraq but its efforts are undermined by Blair & Bush. A war in Iraq is in no-ones interests certainly not the Scottish troops who will die in the front line, not the Iraqi people who are already starving under sanctions and would die in colossal numbers in any attack.

Its long past time to walk the walk of international democracy, unfortunately at the moment USA-UK cant even be bothered to talk the talk. True democracy can only be supported by supporting the efforts of the UN and all their resolutions, not just the ones that are convenient.

Tony Blair is trying to march Scotland straight into a unnecessary war that has absolutely nothing to do with us, "North Korea is next!" he tells the UK House of Commons. Its time to end this mans control over our country.

Back to Contents

News of the World Yellow Ribbon Toilet Tissue Campaign

Recently Tony Blair and Geoff Hoon have complained about the accuracy of the Media i.e. in Al-Jazeera's case - too accurate! Most media in this country are highly compliant with the Government during war time (and most other times as well, sadly) using misleading terms like "allies" to raise the memory of WWII when this war is both illegal under international law and immoral.

The killing of Iraqi civilians is best described as murder yet the British media reserve that term for troops killed in action. Its hardly fair or non-biased coverage. They even play the Government trick of making their statements all about the bogey man Saddam rather than the people of Iraq.

The International Community had recognised a possible threat posed by Saddam Hussein, they were in the process of dealing with that threat when Blair & Bush decided just to go ahead and bomb Iraq anyway. Perhaps war was inevitable but before putting Scottish troops in the path of chemical weapons* we should have exhausted all other options.

The failure to follow international law undermines the UN and sets a very dangerous precedent for the whole world, particularly along with the US's scary pre-emptive action doctrine dreamed up by that congenital idiot and his cabinet of cretins in the White House.   

Donald Rumsfeld seriously misjudged the people of Iraq. He thought he could bomb them with impunity, install a puppet regime and guarantee Americas supply for it oil habit. In reality Iraqis prefer to die fighting rather than be invaded and conquered by the US. Who can blame them? How would we react if Bush bombed Edinburgh to save us from Tony Blair? There is not one democratic Government in the Middle East. Bush is not interested in humanitarian concerns, he just wants another thug who will follow his orders. 

So just what kind of news do Blair, Blunkett, Campbell and Hoon actually want? Well, given the fact that Tony Blair supports the News of the Worlds yellow ribbon campaign designed to show their readers pride about the Iraq war, obviously he prefers papers who drown their readers with a regular flush of jingoistic imperialist garbage.

In my opinion the News of the Screws might as well hand out Stars and Stripes T-shirts and Union Jack bog roll, it has roughly the same intellectual honesty. As a follow up no doubt Tony could be prevailed upon to hand out foil medallions (filled with chocolate) which say "my love for Britain is only matched by my poor taste in newspapers".

Seriously though, the News of the World and the Sun are an insult to anyone with at least one brain cell and don't deserve the description of newspaper at all. Its sick, racist garbage that they perpetrate in the supposed name of "our boys" but in reality at the behest of their head honcho Rupert Murdoch who has made clear the reasons for his support for war - $20 a barrel for oil (see below).

Scottish troops should not be in the Gulf at all. If Scotland was independent our troops would not be recklessly put at risk by Tony Blair for US interests (the UK doesn't have any genuine interest either).  Our troops would only be in other countries as part of a peacekeeping role with the sanction of the UN.

*That's if we are to believe Iraq has any left. Q "How do we know Iraq has weapons of mass destruction? A Rumsfeld's still got the receipts."

Back to Contents

Murdoch Reveals Real Reason for War - Cheap Oil

Rupert Murdoch, the most powerful media owner in the world with a total of 175 national newspapers and a readership of forty million (not to mention his interests in TV) has let slip what the real reason is for the proposed war on Iraq.

According to an interview with Mr Murdoch in the Australian magazine, the Bulletin, he believes that deposing the Iraqi leader would lead to cheaper oil. "The greatest thing to come out of this for the world economy...would be $20 a barrel for oil. That's bigger than any tax cut in any country."

He went even further down this road in an interview the week before with Americas Fortune magazine by forecasting a post-war economic boom.

"Once it [Iraq] is behind us, the whole world will benefit from cheaper oil which will be a bigger stimulus than anything else."

(read the full story from the Guardian newspaper)

Back to Contents

London Must Let Go of The Remote

by Kevin Pringle

LONDON rules OK! That’s the blunt message from Westminster Culture Secretary Tessa Jowell to First Minister Jack McConnell, who has twice asked for Scottish representation on the new UK-wide media regulator, Ofcom.

Jack’s effectively been told to push off when it comes to having a Scottish seat on Ofcom, since under devolution broadcasting is a responsibility reserved for Westminster rather than the Scottish Parliament.

That is exactly why the SNP has always demanded that broadcasting should be devolved to Scotland. As a self-governing nation, Scotland has distinctive broadcasting needs which are utterly different from the media requirements of an English region.

Yet decisions on protecting broadcasting quality in Scotland - including on sensitive matters such as mergers and takeovers of media stations like Scottish Television, Grampian and Border - will be taken in London, rather than Edinburgh.

Scotland won’t have a seat at the table. The most that we can expect is an office north of the Border, which is a belated window dressing exercise.

Such an office may be able to make suggestions about broadcasting policy to the powers that be in London. But that can never be a substitute for taking these decisions for ourselves.

Ofcom is being set up under the Government’s Communications Bill, which is just beginning its passage through Westminster. Ofcom will replace the five existing regulatory bodies in the commercial media sector: the Broadcasting Standards Commission, the Independent Television Commission, the Office of Telecommunications, the Radio Authority and the Radio communications Agency.

Without meaningful Scottish representation, Ofcom represents a centralisation of power in London. That can only mean a bad deal for viewers and listeners in Scotland.

It is ridiculous that on such a crucial matter as Scottish broadcasting, the First Minister should be reduced to writing begging letters to London. Mr McConnell may be First Minister in name, but it is clear that he is last in the queue when it comes to winning a real say for Scotland.

As the Communications Bill goes through Westminster, the SNP will propose amendments to seek what Mr McConnell has failed to deliver - a powerful Scottish voice inside Ofcom on the future of Scottish broadcasting.

The Communications Bill is largely about watering down media regulation, and enabling Carlton and Granada to merge south of the Border. But it has major implications for Scotland, and the place of Scottish TV, Grampian and Border.

The Bill effectively paves the way for a single ITV company throughout the UK, and the SNP has great concerns about the consequences of that for programming and production in Scotland.

AS broadcasting powers become more centralised in London, and regulatory obligations to Scottish audiences are removed, the danger is that this Bill will lead to less local programming and high-quality production in Scotland.

And specific Scottish requirements, such as Gaelic broadcasting, and the need to achieve a speedy switch-over from analogue to digital throughout our many remote communities, may well slip off the London agenda. That cannot be allowed to happen. All of Scotland - culturally and geographically - must be included in the new broadcasting era.

Instead of London ministers bouncing changes on broadcasting in Scotland, the flawed Communications Bill is a strong example of why all powers over media regulation should be devolved from Westminster to the Scottish Parliament.

Problems in Scottish broadcasting aren’t just confined to the commercial sector. On the BBC, it is absurd that in post-devolution Scotland, viewers north of the Border are still subject to London-based stories about English health and education - which are very often misleading and inaccurate for a Scots audience - while Scottish health and education issues are ignored.

That is why the SNP has renewed the fight for a "Scottish Six" main evening news bulletin, produced in Scotland and mixing an appropriate blend of Scottish, UK, and international stories.

When the Scottish Six became a big issue in the run-up to the last Scottish Parliament election, it was supported by the Broadcasting Council for Scotland, 51 BBC Scotland journalists, and 69 per cent of Scots in opinion polls.

More recently, a Scottish Consumer Council report confirmed that the BBC is massively biased towards London-based broadcasting output, and they also called for a Scottish main evening news bulletin to be a statutory requirement of the BBC.

New Labour say a Scottish Six would be "parochial", which is an outrageous slur on the professionalism, editorial judgment and abilities of BBC Scotland journalists.

To believe that important things like news broadcasting should be left to the big boys and girls in London, and that only they can be trusted to get it right, is a classic case of the Scottish cringe. And just like the Scottish cringe, London-biased broadcasting should have been dumped in Scotland just as soon as we won a parliament.

The fact of the matter is that TV news bosses in London frequently get it wrong. To take just one example, April’s massive Tartan Day parade in New York was a significant part of the developing relationship between the US and Scotland, and was deemed sufficiently important that both the First Minister and the SNP opposition leader John Swinney were present.

IT was a premier political event for Scotland, as well as an opportunity to promote Scotland and Scottish produce in the States. Yet the London-based TV news ignored it entirely, and BBC Scotland didn’t have an opportunity to broadcast it until 48 hours after the event.

Winning responsibility for broadcasting is a basic requirement of a self-governing nation, and would come automatically with the full powers of independence.

It would also create hundreds of highly skilled jobs and training opportunities in Scotland. In the 1990s, a report by Mackay Consultants forecast that independence would generate an additional 400 to 500 posts in the media industry, many of them in Edinburgh.

Only with a vibrant Scottish broadcasting sector can we interpret Scotland to the world, and the world to Scotland.

Kevin Pringle is head of media for the SNP Westminster Group.

Back to Contents

Scottish Parliament Links

It is now possible to see footage live from the Scottish Parliament at

ScottishParliamentLive.com

Or you can keep up with Jack McConnell's conflicting statements with an archive of First Ministers Question Time answers here

Executive Site Question Time Archive

Regular press releases, audio statements by John Swinney and more are at the SNPs official web site

www.snp.org

Complete copies of the Scottish Parliaments legislation, complete minutes, in depth research papers, full details of agendas and minutes of meetings are all available from the official site

www.Scottish.Parliament.uk

Back to Contents

Scottish Media Links

(See also Scottish News Headlines Page for up to date headlines from the Scotsman and Evening News, a complete listing of online newspapers plus details of online BBC Scotland Programmes.)

You can watch the BBC's Holyrood Live programme on the Web by using the following Links: (they require the Real Player)

Wednesdays programme is here

Thursdays is here 

Back to Contents

Recent Letters

Click on the thumbnails (above) to see the larger pictures and click back on your browser to come back to this page.

There are more letters in the letters archive.

Back to Contents

Press Releases

I was until recently press officer for Midlothian SNP, the following are some of the press releases we have managed to get printed recently in the Advertiser (click on the thumbnails to see the full releases).

Click on the thumbnails (above) to see the larger pictures and click back on your browser to come back to this page.

See all the recent Midlothian Press Releases

There are more press releases in the Press Release Archive

Back to Contents

Yes, Yes, Yawn, Yawn!

by Joe Middleton

It seems that home rule is just around the corner. Ill be voting for it but excuse me if I don't start dancing in the streets if we get it. The respective campaigns are bursting forth with all the enthusiasm of a damp squib. Why? Because we've been here before, if not in person, certainly watching archive footage. I was nine when it was going on the last time but the latest devolution referendum still has a depressingly familiar ring of deja vu to it.

Devolution has stunk of hypocrisy throughout its history. Both Tories and Labour have supported it at different times. In opposition they support it, in Government they fail to deliver it.

If the turn out next month is low then it can only reflect the pointless nature of having another referendum at all. Ignoring the 40% wrecking rule, the last result was a victory, albeit a narrow one in 1979. Since then opinion polls have shown strong support in favour. The only party to oppose any form of self-government is the Conservatives and they've been routed. They have no MPs and control no councils. Basically they're not popular, except amongst employers still enjoying paying low wages of course. The disingenuous rumblings from isolated businessmen and the laughable Think Twice campaign, none of whom can fail to hide their Conservative inclinations, are unlikely to convince anyone, any more than the original Tories managed at the General election.

Scotland rumbled the Tories around the time of the Poll Tax fiasco, wed merely suspected they didn't care about us before that time. After that we knew. Post devolution they will get a few MSP's, they can hardly fail to under PR, but they will remain an irrelevant rump politically. Not to say they wont still have power and privilege, they do represent the establishment after all, but their political influence will be limited to easily impressionable types like Tony Blair.

The Conservatives aren't above supporting tax-varying powers when it suits them. They slagged the last parliament for failing to have them. Their concentration on the negative nature of this power, and a very limited power it is, show they have learned nothing at all from their electoral defeats. In comparison to 14.5 billion, power over 450M is very small potatoes. The tax varying power is only there to give the illusion of power by Labour.

Labour has a mandate from the voters, a pledge of unfinished business to the Scottish voters and no real opposition. Hardly the controversy usually associated with referendums. The only legitimate referendum would be multi-choice. Labour promised this in opposition, but since it was only to the common oiks that formed Scotland United they didn't feel honour bound to carry it out. Why bother? They're in power additionally independence has the virtue of being workable, logical and easy to understand. Against any talking shop with limited powers or the discredited status quo it would probably win. In all probability the referendum is a last ditch attempt by the unionists to throw a spanner in the works. Tony Blair's comments on its powers being subservient to him as an English MP seemed deliberately offensive while the question on tax seems almost designed to fail.

Labour often asked during the election what position the SNP would take on their plans. Obviously they hoped to split the party on the issue. However, it was inevitable the SNP would support any devolution bill for three very good reasons.

Firstly, under the second clause of their constitution the party is pledged to the furtherance of all Scottish interests. Devolution is a measure of power and better half a loaf than none at all.

Secondly, to fail to support the creation of the parliament and then expect to get elected to it is such a politically suicidal course of action that only the long dead Scottish Tories could hope to get away with it.

Thirdly, PR will land the SNP with a large amount of MSP's thereby bridging the party's credibility gap. For the uninitiated this is the age-old problem of independence supporters who fail to support the SNP. Despite the party's rise to fairly high levels of the popular vote it is haunted by a minuscule number of MPs under first past the post.

Those Tories who say devolution will lead to independence will deliver this vote initially to devolution and once set up, will further deliver it to the SNP. Tam Dalyell might be worrying Labour with his claims that devolution is constitutionally unstable but he has the virtue of being absolutely correct. Inevitably frustration will arise when the voters realise that devolution doesn't have the power to affect real change. While it may seem to encompass a wide range of subjects, really it is only more democratic control of existing Scottish Office responsibilities. With fiscal power remaining in Westminster, so also will ultimate power. One only needs to look at existing local authority difficulties to see where real power lies.

Once bitten twice shy, the bitter 79 experience will encourage the electorate to grab any power they can get and vote Yes, Yes, even if its without undue enthusiasm. The Tories are such pariahs that the very fact they oppose it will guarantee success and at that point Labours deeper troubles will only have just begun. Hmmm... I guess I might start dancing after all!

Back to Contents

The Truth about Public Spending

The current debate or more accurately, phoney war about public spending between Labour and the Conservatives is absolutely pathetic and adequately demonstrates what a bad joke British politics is. Both of the major British unionist parties are guilty of enormous public deception, as neither is what it claims to be.

Labour have pretended for years to believe in public investment, just as they pretended to believe in social justice and representing workers. The Conservatives claim to be the party of low taxation and good economic management. This is why they are a bit reluctant to admit there is still a recession and lets face it, its not the first one is it.

The truth is in the pudding or more precisely in the policies which tell rather a different tale, please allow me to explain.

Labour will give a generous fiver to the pensioners and a minimal increase in child benefit and will fund this by a very modest increase in tax for the reasonably rich (earning somewhere over £30,000 per year).

Labour investment in the NHS, Education and job training (or what will loosely fit that description) will await improvements in the economy.

This therefore renders redundant every Labour attack on the Tories by the venerable Mr Robin Cook MP over under funding of the NHS as Labour clearly don't intend to improve the situation at all. The Sick Kids will still be run on a charitable basis.

The Conservatives masquerade as a tax-cutting party despite increasing overall taxation, including VAT. Most people pay more tax under the Tories, except for the rich of course. Their claim that Labour have higher spending plans than that party admits to gives Labour more credit and credibility than they now deserve.

The figures the Conservatives use are not even remotely accurate but then this hardly comes as any great surprise given their record in this respect.

Labour likes to imply it will spend more money but the truth is they are scared stiff of losing votes by raising taxes, sadly principles and promises are less of a priority than they used to be with Mr Kinnock.

As Harry Ewing correctly pointed out recently, Tory forecasts of Labour public spending and tax-raising plans are "fantasy", sadly the public perception that Labour will spend more on the NHS or tackle unemployment is a "fantasy" also.

The SNP in sharp contrast are committed to a 15% increase in spending on the NHS over three years.

Full Employment would be achieved and low wages eliminated with our Action for Jobs plan in a similar timescale. Both these proposals, amongst many others, are fully costed in our budget for an independent Scotland and achievable without any increase in taxation with additional revenue available with independence.

The Scottish people need not vote for Labour or Tory liars. We can choose a much more exciting future by voting for independence not subservience!

The above article was written in 1991 - for further (up to date) information on this issue see the press release below.

Back to Contents

Labour McCarthyism

The disturbing case of Liz Davies of Leeds North East is only the latest example of a long running witch hunting campaign by Labour against its own left wing. Their right wing shift has not only been categorised by a ditching of principles and socialist policies but a purge of principled activists who represent a threat to Blair's New Toryism.

Writing an article for any magazine, whether that be Labour Briefing, Marxism Today, Militant, Liberation or whatever should not be a bar from standing for political office. Furthermore being a socialist should not stop candidates from standing for a party that by its name purports to represent the working class. Having a different opinion to Labours NEC, i.e. believing that copying the Conservatives is a less than effective way of opposing their ruthless attacks on the poor, seems to be a sure way to receive the order of the boot however.

If a constituency picks a candidate after hearing all those on other then it is morally wrong for Labours NEC to overturn that decision just because they don't like that persons political views. It is indicative of Labours jump rightwards that they can joyfully accept Alan Howarth, a former Government minister, a supporter of the Poll Tax and a member of the extreme right wing No Turning Back group but they refuse to support a socialist who had the guts to fight the Poll Tax by refusing to pay it.

It would appear that free speech is a limited commodity in New Labour and it brings to mind questions about whether they can be trusted in Government if they don't extend the most basic rights in this area to their own activists.

During the 1950s Joe McCarthy's anti-communist discrimination and witch hunting left a horrible stain on American history. Subsequently that nation has become effectively almost a one party state. There is practically no difference between the Democratic & Republican parties and anyone who is remotely left is branded a Liberal and isolated from public office.

Most people, around 60% don't bother to vote in their elections because they are such a media manipulated joke. The same process is transforming Britain in the same way. Already there is little to choose between the policies of all three of the unionist parties while Labours born again McCarthyism means there is very little hope of real change in Britain in the near future. New Labour is already a party Thatcherites feel comfortable in, how much more right wing can they get?

In Scotland we have one hope of removing ourselves from the right of centre British unionist alliance and guaranteeing full freedom of speech for all political views. That hope is independence.

Back to Contents

Independence – It’s a Capital Idea

by Kevin Pringle

As Scotland looks forward to the second Scottish Parliament election next May, we need a debate in Edinburgh and throughout Lothian on how our Capital City stands to benefit from the ongoing process of constitutional change.

After nearly 300 years of the Union, Edinburgh has become a centre of political decision making once again.  But most folk in the City feel that the benefits of having the Parliament on their doorstep have passed them by.

New Labour’s foolish decision to ignore the popular consensus in favour of building the parliament at Calton Hill – taken before MSP's were even elected – has certainly added to the sense of disappointment.

But the fundamental reason for the Parliament’s limited impact on people’s lives in Edinburgh is its extremely limited powers.

Holyrood sucks resources in – as we all know from its soaring construction costs alone.  But because virtually all of the key financial powers remain at Westminster, the Parliament doesn’t have the ability to invest in improving the quality of life for people in Lothian and throughout Scotland.

Devolution has given Edinburgh many of the costs associated with having our own parliament, but few of the tangible benefits.

The Scottish Parliament is only able to control a maximum of 6 per cent of its revenue, by deciding the level of business rates and the ‘tartan tax’.  Westminster retains its grip on 94 per cent of Holyrood’s income.

Yet Edinburgh City Council controls 27 per cent of its revenue through the Council Tax – which it rightly regards as an inadequate level of fiscal independence.

In other words, our national parliament has less than a QUARTER of the financial clout than the city in which it is based.  That’s why the story so far has been less what the Parliament has done for Edinburgh, and much more what the people of Edinburgh have given to the Parliament.

Take policing, for example.  Since the establishment of the Scottish Parliament, the number of VIPs and foreign dignitaries visiting Edinburgh has soared, and is now averaging two or three a week – including royal trips and tours by foreign heads of state.  There are also more demonstrations and the number of consulates in Edinburgh – all requiring police protection – is now over thirty.

The extra policing costs amount to some £700,000 a year – enough to pay for 25 extra officers.  But even though this increased price tag is a direct result of the national parliament being in Edinburgh – and should therefore by rights be funded centrally – most of the bill is still picked up locally, by Lothian & Borders Police.  No wonder Edinburgh has one of the highest council taxes in Scotland.

The costs of the Scottish Parliament Police Unit itself may now be met from central funds, but the issue and the expense of extra policing needs in the Capital go far wider than that.

The Met gets more resources specifically to police London as a capital city, and the same principle should apply to Edinburgh.

But Edinburgh will only start to be treated like a Capital City, and make the big gains associated with that status, when it becomes a REAL capital – housing a REAL parliament.  That’s why Edinburgh needs Independence for Scotland.

And that’s why I want the SNP to mount a major campaign in the run-up to the Scots Parliament election, detailing the benefits of Independence to Scotland’s Capital.

“Independence – it’s a Capital idea”.  That sums up the huge boost awaiting Edinburgh by transforming itself into the Capital City of an independent country.

Independence will be good for the whole of Scotland.  But it will be best of all for Edinburgh.

At a stroke, Independence will promote Edinburgh to the premier league of European capital cities.  And unlike devolution, that WILL deliver real social and economic benefits to the people of Edinburgh, and throughout Lothian.

The process of Independence will create thousands of jobs and opportunities in the City and surrounding area.  A look at other European capitals shows the investment that flows in to real decision-making centres.

For example, where Edinburgh has 32 foreign consuls with limited staff and functions, there are 68 fully-fledged embassies and consuls in Dublin, 62 in Copenhagen, and 45 in Oslo – all capitals of nations that are the same size or smaller than Scotland.

With Independence, the economy of Edinburgh and Lothian will gain from a real international diplomatic presence in the City. And many ‘small nation’ European capitals host the headquarters of EU and other international agencies – such as the European Environment Agency and World Health Organisation in Copenhagen Europol and the Europol Drugs Unit in the Hague and the European Centre for Vocational Training in Thessalonica in Greece, which was moved there from Berlin.

All of these institutions generate thousands of highly skilled jobs and training opportunities, and countless spin-offs in private sector employment.

With independent representation in Europe and the wider world, a Scottish Government will have the bargaining power to land a fair share of these top jobs for Edinburgh.

In the 1990s, a report by Mackay Consultants – a leading firm of economic and management experts – estimated that the process of Independence would create up to 11,500 jobs in Scotland.  These would come from powerful government departments, embassies, EU and international agencies, broadcasting, oil industry posts, and the boost that this would all provide to the private sector.

As Scotland’s Capital, Edinburgh stands first in line to secure the benefits of Independence.

Real European capitals also have far better transport links than Edinburgh does, both in terms of internal connections and direct air routes.

Yet as part of the UK, Edinburgh may not even achieve a rail link to the city’s airport until after 2010, under the London-based Strategic Rail Authority’s 10-year plan.

In fact, of the 17 major projects in the SRA plan that are geographically-specific, 15 are located south of the Border, and 11 of these are in London and the south of England.  Edinburgh and Scotland have been left behind yet again.

Edinburgh is a great and beautiful place – but it can only flower and achieve its full potential as the first city of an independent nation.  That’s why the SNP say that Independence is a Capital idea.

Kevin Pringle is head of media for the SNP Westminster Group and was the SNPs candidate for Edinburgh Central in the Scottish Parliament elections.

Back to Contents