Steven, with guys like you on board the good ship Freedom, Scotland’s future is indeed in safe hands.

I cannot really argue with the point you make because I believe it to be fundamentally sound. However, the thinkers say that perfection can only be achieved through an imperfect frame of reference and just maybe the joint goal of independence and a republic, to be achieved simultaneously, is that kind of scenario.

For me personally, at 43, I would be content for our nation to achieve independence with the present Queen remaining as head of state. Queen of Scots as Alex nicely puts it. But I am also aware that the revolution you refer to might turn out to be evolutionary and that we both might die happy in a Republic of Scotland just the same.

And, as an interesting aside – during a recent visit to Scone Palace with my young daughter I was surprised to learn that the present Queen’s roots, through her mother, can be traced back to auld Kenny McAlpin! So, whilst not perfection – good enough for this particular Scot. 

Steven, if that's one of your rubbish poems It's Time you put a collection together.

The Scottish Flower

NOW sleeping Caterpillar,
Of the Caledonian clan,
Join and form as long as you can.

As sunken hearts hold pearls in union,
Buoyant threading breeds the Scots’ reunion,
One heart, same will, does growth inflate,
Compelled these years mere jewellery state.

In times gone by, it could be said,
That Wully’s courage cracked Bobby’s head,
The Spider’s will was strong claimed he!
That spun a yarn for me and thee.

Our Declaration for Scots’ does suit,
Don’t settle for less than a hundred foot,
A ‘Hairy Wully’ with a Saltire mask,
This VISION to promote, that is our task.

The ‘Scottish Flower’ is within U.C.
Will’s Butterfly reborn from you and me,
One day, they’ll say, canny Scots kept tryin’,
Clever Spiders willed a Caterpillar to Flower without Diein’.

By Will U.C. Flower

Steven, if that's one of your rubbish poems It's Time you put a collection together.

Would it be safe to assume that very few people who wish for Scottish independence want to keep the monarchy?

I understand why Alex Salmond had his pleasant talk with the current Queen - if we seem like we're going to change too much too fast it'll be easy for the unionists (The Sun specifically, I'm thinking) to brand us 'radicals' or 'revolutionaries' or something else which makes us sound like hardline Bolsheviks. Another way to cut support for nationalism which wouldn't include 1.Sound arguement or 2.Any basis in reality.

In my opinion, for a modern state to be truly independent it has to have elected its own head of state.

I may only be 19, but I feel fairly confident in saying I'll die a happy man if I've lived a single day in the Republic of Alba.

In the meantime, I'm having plenty of laughs watching 'Gordon and Wendy go to Fantasy Land' on the news. It's like Punch & Judy, but with Scotland's constitutional future at stake.

Actually, strike that last part. As I've said before, Scotland's future will be decided by her people. And long may that continue!

The Woe of the Union

The Empire of old,
Which once conquered the waves,
Ancient Alba forgotten,
As it made its graves;
Watch, watch!
It falls, it falls!

All over the world
They feared us so;
The Scots! The Scots!
Union banner and foe!

But no more for those days,
For all the world has changed.
The Union is weakened,
Its leaders deranged.

Here come the days
Where we open our eyes;
Stand side by side,
And look to the skies!

Ancient is Scotland,
And sacred our freedom,
Hold true to the Cause;
Independence is wisdom.

- rubbish poem by me.

When Wendy Alexander first came out with her "referendum now" demand, like many folk I thought "surely she must have cleared it with Gordon first". But it is now looking like a divide has opened up between her and Gordon. In fact, the divide could be even bigger than that. Wendy's fellow Labour MSPs have backed her new policy, while Labour MPs representing Scottish constituencies at Westminster are horrified. The divide is not just between two leaders, but between two different groups of Labour representatives. And which way will the constituency Labour parties in Scotland jump? My bet is that they will back their MSPs, rather than their MPs.

Since there is now definitely going to be a referendum on independence, the focus needs to shift from campaigning FOR a referendum, to campaigning on the form that this referendum should take, and also to campaigning IN that referendum.

The referendum should be on a simple, straightforward, independence-yes-or-no question, to be decided by a majority vote of those on the electoral roll in Scotland. And there must be no repeat of the sheer incompetence which characterised the Scottish Office's running of the last parliamentary election, in which one hundred and forty thousand folk in Scotland were disfranchised.

Speaking of the electoral roll, huge numbers of folk (probably at least as many again as those whose votes were discounted at the last election), young people, students, people who have moved, are not on the electoral register. There are also folk who aren't on it because they say "politicians are all the same". Well, maybe they are. But in a referendum you aren't electing any politician, you are simply answering "yes" or "no" to an important question. We need an electoral registration drive, to urge folk not to miss THEIR opportunity to take part in this historic vote.

The proof is not in the making alone it is in the eating together said my Grandmother, and I suspect a lot of Grandmothers have uttered a similar line once or twice! And since Wendy & Co are in an understandable rush they want us to eat now before the pudding has had all the correct ingredients added – such is the sheer desperation to avert a Better Scotland.

In my opinion previous Holyrood leaders have genuinely been tormented with the dilemma of being forced to dance to the Westminster jig of the status-quo at any cost. A defensive jig that allows no steps out of line because the union would prefer to underachieve as a whole rather than admit defeat to anything new and progressive. And more, I see it clearly now as a poorly built unionist damn that is finally leaking the truth, a truth that I am pleased to say will at last embody an irresistible cast iron WILL.

So, Wendy has built her wooden horse (sorry house) in an attempt to stop positive and rewarding progress for Scotland. Wendy, when the anvil is ready to be struck it will indeed be prepared – make no mistake – and for the time we have given to add good ingredients, neither will ALL the peoples of Scotland.

The official reason for not pressing ahead with a referendum NOW is that "people are entitled to judge the SNP on their performance in government first". But the whole point of a referendum is that it gives people the chance to answer a single question, without committing themselves on a hundred other questions. In a referendum, they can vote for independence without committing themselves one way or the other on plans for large golf parks in the North East of Scotland. In a referendum, they can vote for independence without thinking that a local income tax is the best idea since sliced bread. A referendum is about whether we should be independent, NOT about which political party should form the government of an independent Scotland.

Some months ago myself and a few colleagues held a small demonstration at the Scottish Parliament, demanding "REFERENDUM  NOW  -  INDEPENDENCE  -  YES OR NO". I could scarcely believe my eyes when I read that Wendy Alexander has abandoned her earlier opposition and come round to supporting this demand. I can still hardly believe it's real, but it's a fact that, on taking office at Westminster in 1997, the Labour Party did manage to organise a referendum on a Scottish parliament within a few months. It would be ironic indeed if the Scottish Government allows itself to get into a position of appearing to be the ones favouring delay  -  and it would be even more ironic if campaigning groups such as the Scottish Independence Convention should get themselves into a position of appearing to go along with this.

There is going to be a referendum on independence. That is now pretty much a certainty. There will be arguments about the timing. There will be arguments about the wording of the question. There may be attempts to add conditions. But it is looking like, sooner than some had thought possible, a referendum bill could get through the Scottish Parliament.

This creates an entirely new situation. Both the National Conversation sponsored by the SNP government and the Calman Commission backed by the Labour Party now look as if they are struggling to have very much in the way of a purpose.

In this new situation, we have to reconsider our priorities.

It now becomes vitally important to ensure that the referendum question is not loaded. We have to keep up the pressure for a simple, straightforward, independence-yes-or-no type question.

We also have to insist that the result of the referendum should be based on a simple majority. None of that counting the dead but still on the Electoral Register as “no” votes, as happened in 1979.

We also have to start thinking about what part, individually and collectively, we will be playing in the actual campaign for the “yes”, or pro-independence, vote in the referendum itself.

Dave, With all due respect most of this has been taken into account. No launch exists in a vacuum. The streetwork following the Dundee launch, for example collected 249 signatures in an hour. The Convention has attended two party conferences and the activists are well aware of the need to contact the non-aligned. They are already on the job with streetwork, doorstep work and attendance at events. They are aware of the need for all party members to sign and again are on the job.

Constructive criticism and ideas are always welcome but please contact someone first to see what is actually being done and build your suggestions on that.

A lot of the posts here boil down to "independence is a good idea". Yes, of course it is, and of course supporters of the Scottish INDEPENDENCE Convention think so. Having agreed that, the question is, what do we DO? Specifically, how do we get that petition presented to the Scottish Parliament as soon as possible, and ensure we get a referendum as soon as possible?

I believe the SNP alone claims a membership of twelve and a half thousand. If each of those SNP members was to fill up one petition sheet (15 signatures, their own signature and 14 others, not impossible given that most folk could raise half a dozen signatures just from their own family and close friends) that would give a total of 175,000 signatures. However, in my view, relying on the SNP (or any other political party) ALONE to organise the petitioning could be
self-defeating. The reason is that, if it was widely known that this was what was happening, then opponents of a referendum on independence would dismiss the petition before it was even presented, as merely a party-political stunt. In my view, a petition of 100,000 signatures, collected on a genuinely non-party-political basis, would carry far more weight than a petition of 200,000 signatures collected by a political party. ANY political party.

I am doubtful of the strategy of holding "rolling launches" in different areas consisting of public meetings with prominent folk speaking. If there are prominent supporters of the petition in a particular area, then, instead of them giving speeches, get both them and their listeners out on the streets with clipboard, pen, and petition forms, asking folk for their signatures on a petition. THAT would be worth a photo in the local paper, and if it's worth a photo, it's worth a news story. Thus achieving two things, getting more signatures, and getting more publicity at the same time also.

As the Summer approaches, it could be worth organising, spread out over two or three of the less-chilly months, some door-to-door collection of signatures. It would be impossible to knock on every door in Scotland, but what I'm suggesting is TARGETED canvassing, in specifically chosen areas of each of Scotland's four main cities, plus SELECTED other places.

Another thing I'd like to propose is that we ask active supporters of the campaign to each, individually, collect a minimum of at least 100 signatures for the petition. In an hour and a half on a Dundee street I collected 30  signatures, so it wouldn't take too many efforts like that to achieve this target. Let's suppose that there are one thousand people prepared to put in a not-too-strenuous bit of effort to collect signatures on this petition. (This doesn't seem like an unreasonable assumption to me. So far as the SNP, Green Party, SSP, Solidarity, are concerned, if even just one party member in twenty shows sufficient commitment, plus a somewhat higher percentage of members of some other organisations, plus a few non-aligned individuals, that could easily add up to a thousand.) If 1,000 people collect 100 signatures each, that's 100,000 signatures. So, what I propose is, that we ask INDIVIDUALS to commit themselves to collecting 100 signatures. Not their parties, not their organisations, but them as individuals. I suggest doing this on the basis "I WILL, IF YOU WILL, SO WILL I". If people know that other people are also committing themselves to do this, then they are much more likely to do so themselves, and they will encourage each other
to keep the commitment. Of course there could be no way of verifying people's individual totals, but, nevertheless, asking for an individual commitment is likely to have a more positive effect than just relying on the political parties.

Now, of course the political parties were involved, as such, in the SIC right from when it was started. I am certainly not suggesting trying to keep members of political parties out of the petitioning, far from it. The category of "individual" includes all political party activists, but the category of "political party activist" does not include all individuals. A political party is composed of individuals, but sometimes this simple fact can get lost sight of when it functions as a party machine. It is a fact that, for a great many years, a large number of members of the Labour Party have been against nuclear weapons, in favour of peace, etc etc; and yet the party machine of that party has persistently supported nuclear weapons, war, etc, against the wishes of many individual members. So far as all parties are concerned, it's a fact the party as a machine can have different priorities from many of the individuals of
whom it is comprised. The party as a machine may be more-or-less solely geared to the next election, whereas an individual member might think it worth aiming AS SOON AS POSSIBLE to collect 100,000 signatures on a petition for a referendum on independence and to get this petition presented to parliament. Because of this possible difference in timing, in priorities, between some individual party members and the party machine, the SIC itself should seek out its active, individual, political party supporters. Yes, of course, the SIC members best placed to do this will themselves be party members. The point is, encourage individual initiative, rather than relying solely on the party machine.

In my view, by adopting the approaches outlined above, there is no reason why 100,000 signatures could not be collected, on a non-party-political basis, within six months, and I would certainly be willing to play my part in this. Let's get that petition presented, and debated by parliament, in the Autumn of this year.

Upon reading through the various comments and posts regarding independence, the one thing that strikes me is that people still refer to Scotland as a nation being 'better off' within the Union. A Nation that for the past 300 years has been in growing prosperity.

This simply isn't true.

Now, I am fairly new to serious independence discussions, however, any small amount of Scottish History can teach us that Scotland was not, and very rarely ever was a poor nation right up UNTIL it joined the Union.

Over the last 100 years Scotlands economy, which was tied to its industry, has been stealthily 'moved' outwith this Country. People continue to rave about how much the union gives to Scotland and how the ratios are unfairly balanced in Scotlands favour, ignoring the fact that somewhere in the region of £170 BILLION in oil revenue has been pumped into the UK economy, with a somewhat modest return for a below-UK-average-growth Scotland.

As for political clout - we, as Scots, have always been well known and well liked for the way we express ourselves. We used to be a powerhouse of intellectuals, artists, manufacturing etc.... what could possibly make anyone believe that we could not be once again? Its disturbing to see people refer to us as  the 'poor neiighbour', given our heritage. Afterall - our heritage is the one thing that has eroded more slowly through the last 300 years.

Scottish National spirit seems to have proven an easier target.

May I suggest a book - its actually the one that got me started in the independence debate but it surely one of many out there. It's titled "The Road to Independence? - Scotland since the Sixties" by Murray Pittock

I long for Independence, even if only to show that everyone who said we would fail, was wrong and to restore some sort of national pride.

Having been an election agent (twice)for SNP candidates, I was careful and professional enough to read electoral law particularly when it changed in recent years. The rule book was never far from my side.

So it is with continuing incredulity that we hear Wendy & Co saying "we didn't know" or "it is very complex".The rules are NOT complex and it certainly is NOT rocket science. Harriet Harman and Wendy Alexander are paying lip service to the electorate at large by hanging on thus far. So is Peter Hain who resigned only after wriggling for a long time. Now this week we hear that the Electoral Commission don't know what to do next!

It will be a pleasure to sign the Referendum Petition and encourage many others to do so--the quicker we rid of ourselves of tainted politicians and ineffective electoral quangos and get on with becoming independent the better.

Where are the nerves coming from about being a separate country? I think the Union left us, and Wales for that matter, in the role of the very poor relations and barely acknowledged by England. We were the scroungers remember? England paid our way? I think we especially have so much to be excited about for the future and starting to backtrack isn't a good thing. It sort of implies we aren't sure.

I will tell you one think I would like to see tho Murray in any new set-up: I want clear rules to say that any MSP in Ms Alexander's present situation need to stand down at once while they are subject to an immediate investigation by the Scottish Parliament Standards Commission, the Electoral Commission and the Police. I would also want them charged with bringing the Scottish Parliament into disrepute. No wonder people are switching off from politics with the level of sleaze around. It is a sewer and the stench around Scottish Labour is overpowering at times.

We are hearing today that Ms Alexander intends to go the "We didn't know." route. It won't wash. The Labour Party, who actually created this legislation on political donations, cannot be permitted to do that and if they are it will be because the Electoral Commission are doing them a favour. That would surely be collusion by the Electoral Commission which is surely also against the Law?

Could an ordinary person go to court having committed a crime and say simply, "But I didn't know." and expect to get away with it? I think not.

This pantomime has gone on long enough. A great many eyes are watching the Electoral Commission on this one because of the many rumours circulating that there are people there who will indeed save Alexander. Well I do hope they don't, not with the evidence: Labour actually took a considerable sum of money from the public purse to "educate" their people on "legal" donations. So how can they say they didn't know the rules and what did they do with the money? Did Alexander and her team phone in sick the day the seminars were on? What about the other donation on the list which was to be "transferred" to another name? What about the emails leading back to Ms Alexander's husband's computer? Not to mention her personal letter of thanks?

The bottom line here is that the Law is the Law and no politician is above it. A crime under the new law for political donations was committed, Ms Alexander admitted it and she is the regulated donee involved. The buck stops with her. If she gets away with this then the Electoral Commission will have done the people of Scotland a grave disservice and Labour sympathisers there will themselves be guilty of shielding those whom they know have broken the law. If that happens then what is the point of being active within the political scene when politicians will not be held to account by the very bodies set up to ensure they toe the line? I will wholeheartedly embrace apathy if she gets away with this!

A final thought: if there are indeed Labour sympathisers on the Electoral Commission they should actually be furious with Alexander and her colleagues for being part of the collapse of a Party that once was trustworthy and once represented the people and cared about the people. They, and others in old AND new Labour destroyed real Labour and they should never be forgiven for that either.

It seems to me that there is a lot of scaremongering about what may or may not happen if Scotland becomes independent from the UK. It is interesting to me, as a young Irish man, to read here about the attitudes prevalent when the Irish free state formed, when some said, "Give them a year and they will be pleading to be part of the United Kingdom again".

In the 1980s people were saying similar things, that the Irish republic was a failed political entity in that we were near bankrupt with a huge unemployment and emigration problem. Nowadays, of course, the Irish republic outperforms almost every other EU state in terms of economic growth, GNP per capita, average earnings, rate of population growth etc. Of course there are still huge problems, such as with income disparity, with the health service etc., but it is a far cry from the way things were in the pre 1990s when the prejudice among UK people, at least, was that Northern Ireland was very much more prosperous than we (lazy) southerners were! Nowadays, we are net investors in Northern Ireland and there is a significant number of Northern Irish employed in the south, especially in the computer software sector and construction industries.

I believe the single biggest reason for our success is precisely our independence and the fact that we can manage our economy without (too much) interference from outside. Remember that we have no oil to speak of either! (I don't understand the obsession with Scottish oil, the Irish model shows that oil isn't necessary for tremendous economic growth; management and innovation are. Of course, if Scotland has that much oil and becomes independent then perhaps it should do what the Norwegians do and stay out of the EU!)

One (perhaps the most significant) area which we have control over, but as far as I know you Scots don't have yet, is in setting corporation tax rates. We have perhaps the lowest in Europe and it is for this reason that many American, Japanese etc. companies chose to have Ireland as their Europe hub. Also, the fact that we speak English, or at least a form of it(!), have a fairly educated workforce, and are part of the Euro zone is attractive to these companies, especially American.

Being a sovereign state (with a small population) within Europe gives us more clout than if we were part of some federation, I would say. Remember the way in which we held the Nice treaty ratification up because most of our population voted against it in a referendum? We have our own EU commissioner and have negotiated financial help from the EU, which has helped enormously with our infrastructure.

Ian Paisley and the Northern Ireland executive are at present negotiating with Gordan Brown to reduce Northern Irish corporation taxes. I think they will have a hard time doing this; if the Scots, Northern Irish and Welsh can begin to control their own taxes then what will the state of the Union be then? I think, if the Irish republic is anything to go by, that Scotland would benefit more in the long run from independence. It might be difficult at first; however, it would be very sad if, after a mere 300 years of political domination of Scotland by London, the thousand years of Scottish independence beforehand couldn't be recovered simply because of fear.

Also, having political control over your own affairs doesn't mean that the economic interdependencies of the British Isles is going to disappear over night. Ireland's biggest trading partner is still the UK, but this is paradigm now shifting. Our trade with other EU nations has, to our benefit, increased enormously over the past decade. We are no longer so dependent on trade with the UK and this is a very good thing.

I feel a tremendous sense of pride in my nation, and especially because it is independent. I also feel pride now that the future is much brighter for everyone on the Island of Ireland and, despite being independent, I personally feel closer kinship with an Ulsterman, a Scot, a Welshman or an Englishman than with any other EU national. But, as Ian Paisley said of being in power with Sinn Fein, I don't want a "love in", I want a "work in".

Forgive me for not agreeing with Edward or you about how to best respond to Michael Hunter and Alison Chorley's remarks.

It is one thing to disagree and protest people's comments, it's another
thing to damage the National Trust for Scotland by withholding, suspending or cancelling payments. Moreoever I think we live in a new atmosphere in Scotland, an atmosphere where we can have dialogue and respectful disagreement, in place of the previous culture which was one of polarised perspectives and often deeply personal enmity.

Keep up the good work.

Cheers,
Martin

I have sent this to the National Trust for Scotland. I am however copying it around. I suggest that if you are a member that you withdraw your subscription for this year.

Dear Sir

I have just returned from the bank where I have been cancelling my direct debit to the National Trust of Scotland. I will not therefore be renewing my membership when it runs out at the end of August.

I am doing this in protest at the statement by Michael Hunter supported by Alison Chorley, that the Battle of Bannockburn was a battle between two kings, not between England and Scotland.

I quite appreciate where the thinking behind this statement is coming from. Even today it is the Queen who commissions officers and the armed forces are “her” forces. It could on this logic be argued therefore that the title for the First World War of the “War between the cousins” is absolutely accurate, that it was merely a war between the Kings of Europe who were all inter related. It could equally be argued that the medieval wars in northern Europe were merely a Norman family tiff.

It is all very well to push the politically correct idea that war is between the leaders of nations, and without the malevolent influence of the leaders, the people would live in peace and brotherhood. I am not sure that history confirms that pleasant fantasy.

The fact is that at least one of the results of the Battle of Bannockburn was that Edward of England was weakened in terms of his Scottish policy, and that Bruce, whom I’m not actually sure Edward accepted as a brother King, had his position as King of Scots infinitely strengthened.

At the end of the Twelfth Century and the beginning of the Thirteenth, the previously independent nation of Scotland was fighting the attempts of England to take her over, – yes a simplification of the situation, but true. Bannockburn ended the military threat to Scotland and although it took ten years the Independence of Scotland was ultimately recognised. Scotland remained an independent country for almost the next 400 years until the leaders of Scotland decided that they would give up that independence.

Today 300 years later the question of the nature of the Parliamentary Union which was established in 1707 is very much to the fore of the minds of many in Scotland. If the National Trust for Scotland is to carry out its task for caring for the heritage of Scotland it is important that it cares for the emotional heritage. When I read the report in the Scotsman about the meeting and further heard comments about the meeting from those who were there, I decided that for this year at least, in protest at the attitude which has been demonstrated that I would withdraw my support from the organisation and encourage other people to do the same.  JEA
 
Only by recovering prophetic and objective modes of preaching, in faithfulness to the gospel of Christ crucified and in contradiction to society’s profane habits and priorities, can we truly challenge our dying culture and reveal to it its own possibilities for resurrection.

Alan E Lewis. “Between Cross and Resurrection. A Theology of Holy Saturday” Eerdmans 2001 p 377

Within a hundred days of the new Scottish Government the SNP will produce a bill setting out the benefits of Scottish independence and calling for a referendum on the issue.

The SNP plans to hold this referendum in 2010 (possibly after a Conservative Government victory at Westminster).

I hope there will be a large public response to the consultation process and all organisations which support Scottish independence should do their best to make sure this is the case.

It would be a massive boost to this process if the SNP and other parties were willing to fund a leaflet setting out the basics of the bill and asking for comments. Of course it would be preferable if the Scottish Government itself paid to advertise the process, after all if the unionist parties can use the SP budget to insult our intelligence about washing our hands, some advertising about Scotland's constitutional future seems appropriate (including TV and bus adverts), however if this is not felt to be possible our parties should fund a leaflet themselves, with a view to doing something bigger prior to the actual vote.

The reason for this is to stimulate a massive public response to the SNP's bill that will dwarf all past public consultations. This will generate massive positive publicity for the independence referendum cause.

The SNP are also planning a petition in support of the bill, Independence First launched a petition during the last parliament and it gained significant support
(despite no coverage of the fact it was happening n the media) however it was ruled out by the Public Petitions Committee.

I think a new petition is a great idea. Who-ever starts it off (possibly the Convention) we all need to get behind it and make sure it is successful as possible.

A target of 100,000 has been suggested I think this is both ambitious and achievable of we work together.

If there is a big response to the public consultation and a massive petition for a referendum then in those circumstances if the unionists turn around and say no in the parliament to a referendum bill then I believe there could be a substantial public outcry.

If that happens then we are in Scotland United territory with the possibility of mass demos like we had for devolution which forced the British Government (eventually and grudgingly) to finally legislate for a devolved parliament.

The SNP could site this massive public interest in independence as legitimate grounds to hold a referendum as soon as possible (possibly in conjunction with COSLA or other public bodies who might be willing to share some of the costs).

Obviously we (in the independence movement) want to win a referendum and the timing of it will be important however lets remember that most polls before the election showed large support for independence and it is still far higher than the unionist media are trying to claim.

It's entirely possible support for independence may have taken a dip with the ridiculous and irrational scaremongering against it during the election campaign but equally the election of a new SNP led Scottish Government will have given the pro independence cause a huge shot of confidence.

The new Government should do it's own independent polling on this issue to get a true picture of support for independence, it may be much larger than we realise. 

Aileen Campbell
30/12/06

I enjoyed reading Murray Ritchie’s article about there being no newspaper explicitly backing the SNP or the SNP’s ultimate aim of independence.  It is, I agree, a frustrating situation.  However, Mr Ritchie stated that there has never been a newspaper to champion independence.  He is wrong because, although it only lasted for around seven editions, the Scottish Standard did try to venture into the cut-throat world of the Scottish press as a paper supporting national freedom.  It was an audacious attempt to right a wrong and despite ultimately failing, was an experience I thoroughly enjoyed.

Unfortunately, the journalists that worked on the paper had to return to jobs where they had to toe the editorial line i.e. pro-union.  But surely there is someway in an age where the internet and computer rules, that journalists like Murray Ritchie, Harry Reid, the Scottish Standard alumni plus many more can unite and broadcast their opinions that does not rely on an a proprietor, printing presses, or deep pockets?

Getting the message to the masses via the internet, digital broadcasts/Podcasts today is easier than it’s ever been.  The excellent Deadline programme on BBC Scotland concluded that newspapers will have to come to terms with new media in order to survive.  This should and could be our niche.  We need to think out of the box and find ways to utilise technology to further our goal of independence.  An updated news service that can rival BBC online or gets the cult following of Indymedia should be
a reality.  Within the youth wing of the SNP I know there are many talented and able people with the resources to make such a project happen.

A meeting of minds is needed because we cannot wait for the editors of the established press to switch their allegiances.  If being a member of the SNP has taught me anything, it¹s that no one is out there to do us any favours and that we have to rely on our own resources and talent.

But imagine a news resource that could be accessed across the globe by ex-pats, interested followers and folk who are just a wee bitty curious? You know, it’s not such a scary prospect and might, just might actually work!  I’ve heard anecdotal stories about Radio Free Scotland, this project could be our 21st century equivalent!

One thing is for sure is that it would need to be credible and not just merely a platform for the SNP.  It should have international news, giving a Scottish perspective to events that are missing from the Onational’ news at present.  Technology has democratised the media and we need to capitalise on it.  But it needs established journalists like Murray Ritchie and Harry Reid to lead help lead the way.

Blair’s ethnic minority ‘integration’ speech may have some relevance in parts of England although his typically sanctimonious and patronising tone is unlikely to have changed any hearts or minds.  In relation to Scotland it is quite irrelevant to our interests.

As a small nation, Scotland can benefit from an active network of international links, not just at the state level but, more effectively, in the form of ‘people’s diplomacy’.  Through short-term and permanent residence by people from many different countries, Scotland gains personal contacts and good-will.  We become more ‘wired-in’ internationally. Of course, in some cases we will be offering a home to people who are in opposition to their own governments but the historical evidence is that those in opposition today may be in government to-morrow; think of South Africa.

To maximise our advantage from this, we should not be pressurising people to give up their identity and culture.  We should be positive in encouraging dual identity because if our various groups of in-migrants, be they from Poland or Pakistan, keep formal and informal links with their countries of origin, this creates pathways with real potential for our economic and cultural development.  This is something our universities have recognised in promoting a ‘deep links’strategy with a range of overseas countries.

Our various public authorities should be encouraging ethnic minority (yes, that includes the Australians and Americans) organisations here to maintain distinctive identities and contacts with their countries of origin as part of our own programme of national development.

Let’s leave Little Britain to Little Westminster.

The Labour Party conference in Oban at the end of November was a weird performance. It was not a party conference in the ordinary sense with debates and votes on party policy, but a series of impassioned speeches. Ministers from the Scottish Parliament spoke mainly about their policies for the Scottish administration, but Westminster ministers, Blair himself, Gordon Brown, John Reid and Douglas Alexander made violent and almost hysterical attacks on the SNP and their proposal for the recovery of Scottish independence. This is presumably how they propose to fight the Scottish election next May.
These attacks, often in very fanciful and exaggerated language, made four main points, all of them at variance with the facts. The first was that the idea of Scottish independence was out of date in the modern world which is increasingly interdependent. It is true, of course, that we are all closer together with globalisation and the increasing role of international organisations such as the European Union. But this has developed simultaneously with the break-up of the old empires and multinational states into their component parts, such as Ireland, Norway, Finland and more recently Estonia, Slovenia and so on. All of these new states are much more prosperous and contented as independent countries than they were as parts of a larger state. It is Scotland, the oldest nation in Europe, which is now out of date by not yet asserting its independence.
Secondly, these labour orators talk about the “break-up of the United Kingdom”, separation and such like as if it were proposed to build a new Hadrian’s Wall along the border. Gordon Brown even in a wild moment spoke about the need for a passport to travel between the two. Blair said: “We are two open countries, England and Scotland – open to each other, open to the world”. So we shall remain when Scotland regains its independence. The whole of the European Union is open between its member’s states and Scotland and England would both remain members. Both Scotland and England as independent countries would remain as open to the world as they are at present.
Then, thirdly, they tell us that independence would be bad for our economy. The experience of so many other small European countries which have become independent suggests the opposite. At present virtually all decision on economic policy are in the hands of the Westminster Parliament and the City of London. Naturally, and properly from their point of view, they are influenced by the needs of South-East England which are very different from our own. The consequence is that control and wealth are drawn irresistibly to that part of the world.  At the end of the 19th century Scotland was a major industrial country with its industries almost entirely owned and managed in Scotland. Now ownership and management of virtually our whole economy have almost completely migrated to the South. We have to be able to take our own decisions on taxation and all other aspects of economic policy.
It is not only in the economy that it is untrue that “we are stronger together and weaker apart”. The Union places us in even more hazard in matters of defence and foreign policy. In England there is a persistent nostalgia for the days when they were the major power in the world. In spite of his Scottish birth and education, Blair is a firm convert to this idea, and from that follows his invasion of Iraq and his desire to renew his weapons of mass destruction, the nuclear-armed submarines on the Clyde. Countries with such aspirations disturb the peace of the world; not the small countries which are mainly concerned with their own affairs.
Fourthly, Blair talks about “policies of grievance”. There are, of course, many reasons for a sense of grievance in the semi-impotence of the Devolution constitution, and in England as well as Scotland, as the opinion poll in The Sunday Telegraph of 26 November demonstrates. With both countries independent most of these would disappear. As members of the European Union we should probably agree on most issues and give each other mutual support. Where we have different views or interests (as over fishing, for example), Scotland would be able to argue its own case, which we cannot do until we are a member state.
All of these Labour orators are intelligent and well informed. I do not suppose that they are deluded enough to believe their own arguments. What then are their real reasons for their hysterical reaction to the idea of Scottish independence? In the first place of course, is their need to oppose the threat of an SNP victory in the Scottish election next May. Scottish members of the Westminster Parliament will loose their jobs when Scotland becomes independent. Then no Government ever willingly surrenders power or territory. Scotland has the important asset of North Sea oil which they have succeeded in taking over. Scotland has resources of water and the possibilities of carbon-free renewable energy which will become more valuable as global warming proceeds. But I suspect that the main point which troubles Blair is his nuclear submarines. They have built an expensive base at Faslane. Where would they put the submarines when Scotland becomes independent? No English constituency is likely to welcome them.

This is a tale of two nations.  Norway is to host an international conference to try to get a global treaty banning cluster bombs, the appalling weapons that kill so many civilians.  This follows the sabotage last week of the UN attempt to ban these weapons. Nine countries succeeded in blocking an agreement and, of course, the UK was one of these.

So Norway, a small nation similar to Scotland, is in a position to take an initiative which may build sufficient momentum to make it difficult for those deviant governments to resist.  Meanwhile Scotland is trapped within the morally bankrupt British state.

The First Minister tells us that we mustn’t risk the uncertainty of further constitutional change.  Well, Jack, most Scots don’t want the certainty of being dragged into disastrous wars or the certainty of being the base for nuclear weapons for the next fifty years or the certainty that the interests of the arms trade will be promoted before any humanitarian concerns.  These are the certainties that the British state has offered Scotland.

We need change so that Scotland can be known for its contribution to international peace and justice rather than as a major nuclear base, a convenient stopover for rendition flights and a source of young men and women as fodder in aggressive wars.