A Scottish Voice?

Today's papers are full of reports about a new political party in Scotland. Archie Stirling, "famous" for having once been married to Diana Rigg, has established Scottish Voice as a new right wing party. I say they are right wing because this has how they have been popularly ascribed in the mainstream press, but as today's reports so succinctly describe, Mr Stirling has been rather quiet on detailing any form of policy for his new party (see http://www.theherald.co.uk/politics/news/display.var.1223456.0.0.php.theherald.co.uk/politics/news/display.var.1223456.0.0.php). His reticence means that Scottish Voice are rather short on details as to what policies they will put before the electorate, making it quite difficult to accurately place them anywhere on the political spectrum. I suspect that the press have tagged this new party as being right of centre given Mr Stirling's history of donating to the Conservatives, which he equates with donations he has given to "save the whale" (a quite unfair comparison Archie, saving the whale is a noble cause, the Tories less so).

I had to laugh though at the reported comments of Archie Stirling who was reported in the Herald as saying, "I believe there is a genuine dissatisfaction with Holyrood and people seem to react favourably to the idea that a group of people, if elected, would hold them to account." Doesn't Mr Stirling realise that if he and his cohorts were elected as Scottish Voice candidates (admittedly this is a highly unlikely prospect, of which more later) then they would become part of "Holyrood"? Who would hold them to account for holding the others to account.

Mr Stirling seems to be tapping into what is a perceived dissatisfaction with the existing political parties. I cannot deny that such exists, although I think this is exacerbated by 24/7 media that perpetuates itself in being cynical about all people who involve themselves in politics. However, the answer is not blithe and anodyne comments - for that is all that Mr Stirling has offered us. The answer is to actually empower the Scottish Parliament so that it can make real differences to the people of Scotland. The only way to really achieve this is with independence, but apparently the raison d'être of the founding of Scottish Voice is to oppose constitutional change.

It is pretty ironic then that this party has chosen the name Scottish Voice given they seek to deny any form of distinctive voice for Scotland in the international community.

At any rate, I rather suspect that Scottish Voice will gather more headlines than votes. They remind me all too much of the Scottish People's Alliance that contested the Scottish Parliament election in 2003, which beyond providing a platform for a couple of Tory MSPs who had slipped down their party's rankings achieved next to hee haw. I firmly predict a similar outcome for Mr Stirling's new party.

If you fancy a gawp at the website of this new "force" in Scottish politics (and it won't take you long as there is precious little there to read) then go to http://www.scottishvoice.net/

Meanwhile, in the real world, today's Scotsman reports continued strong polling for the SNP in their latest ICM opinion poll (http://news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=311452007) which all indicates to a fantastic election night for my party. I won't be resting on my laurels though. Still plenty of campaigning to be done in Cumbernauld and Kilsyth in the remaining 64 days till polling.

Not in the Letters Page

After a good start where I posted pretty much every day I have been particulary slack in updating my blog over the last week. In my defence it has been a pretty hectic week as the campaign steps up a gear as 3rd May gets ever closer.

So to ease myself back in I thought I would just put up a short posting today to bring to people's attention the existence of a new website that a friend has established. It is called "Not in the Letter's Page" and can be found at http://notintheletterspage.wordpress.com/

The premise of the site (if the name hasn't already given it away) is to allow a few likeminded individuals who are regular writers to the newspapers but who for one reason or another seem to find it hard to get their letters published (and yes, I am one of these said individuals).

It often seems that the papers prefer the regular same old faces getting their letters onto their pages. My friend was getting pretty cheesed off by this. His and other likeminded individuals seeming inability to get their letters taken prompted his decision that the only way to have them published was starting up the website. Pop by and have a look at what he describes as "what the Glasgow Herald don't want you to read".

Confederation of British Unionism

Sometimes the cliche can be the best way for describing a situation. So the old phrase "just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you" seems an appropriate way to describe things at the moment.

Today's papers are full of reports about the Confederation of British Industry (CBI) demanding answers to eleven questions from the SNP about independence. (Take a look at http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/news/display.var.1204270.0.0.php) This story gets my blood boiling in various ways.

Firstly, there is the fact that the SNP have already answered these questions. The CBI's query had already reached the SNP and they did the organisation the courtesy of responding outlining their position in relation to each question posed. So for the CBI to then release a story to the press that they are demanding answers to these same questions strikes me as more than a little bit snide.

Secondly, the CBI are claiming that they are seeking a meeting with Alex Salmond, with more than a hint in their spin on this "story" that he is being uncooperative in arranging this meeting. It is my understanding that in actual fact Alex Salmond offered to meet with the CBI in the SNP's response to them. Again, this is just a snide claim by the CBI.

The CBI are quite entitled to participate in the body politic by seeking to represent the interests of their members. However it seems to becoming quite the habit for the CBI to focus their energies on attacking Scottish independence and less on making any form of positive case for business interests.

In this way they are becoming less an organisation equipped to fight for those business interests in Scotland and more a fully feldged arm of the unionist body. And the irony is that they are doing business a great disservice in doing so.

The SNP has repeatedly set out its business credentials - not because we want to become in thrall of the business community, but because we recognise their role in ensuring a revitalised Scottish economy that can go some way to lifting people out of poverty and getting the unemployed off the dole and into work. In other words because we see not only the economic need in being pro-business but the social need as well.

The party has made clear commitments to abolishing business rates for the 120,000 smallest businesses in Scotland and for reducing rates for a further 30,000. Whilst this might not directly benefit many of the members of the CBI themselves, the SNP pledge to reduce corporation tax from 30% to 20% certainly would. These policies, along with many others put forward by the SNP would allow business to much more readily flourish in an independent Scotland than in devolved Scotland. So in attacking independence - as this story was undoubtedly designed to do - they are doing business absolutely no favours.

Its seems then that the CBI is less the Confederation of British Industry and more the Confederation of Bristish Unionism. This is nothing new though. This is the same CBI Scotland that in 1997 opposed devolution (see http://www.bbc.co.uk/politics97/news/09/0908/scotland.shtml) and this is the same CBI Scotland that has for the past few months done nothing but pour scorn on the independence movement.

Iain McMillan, the Chief Executive of CBI Scotland, has been busy in the last few months in an exchange of opinions in the various letters pages of our media with both Alex Neil MSP and Jim Mather MSP. For some reason he seems to think it is his business to be an ardent unionist despite there being a weight of evidence that independence can benefit the business community in Scotland. Doutbless there is an MBE or some other bauble in the post for him. But he and his organisation, by their strident opposition to independence are doing the people they claim to represent - the business community - absolutely no favours. They are doing our country none either.

The Nice Guys of Politics?

Before I come to deal with the idiocy of Jamie Stone let me firstly say that today I spent a very productive day campaigning in Cumbernauld Town Centre to publicise the SNP campaign for smaller class sizes and then continuing the work of surveying the residents of Balloch on their opinions on the important matters of the day. I then returned home to catch a rerun bit of Nicol Stephen's leader's speech to the Liberal Democrats Scottish conference. For the bit I managed to stay awake to listen to I managed to catch some banalities about how negative Labour have been in the campaign (in all fairness to Nicol this is quite true) and how negative the SNP has been (not true) and how wonderfully positive his Scottish Lib Dems have been.

No surprises there then. As you might expect from a leader of a party, he talked up his own party and talked down the others. All in all, Nicol Stephen was trying to perpetuate that greatest myth of the body politic - that the Lib Dems are basically decent nice guys. However, just as he was making his claims of Liberal Democrat positivity one of his colleagues was making perhaps the most negative attacks of the campaign thus far - even nastier than anything thus far claimed by the Labour Party.

Jamie Stone MSP apparently claimed in an interview on television that the SNP are a party fuelled by "xenophobia". This outrageous remark sits in stark contrast to any claims by Nicol Stephen of a positive campaign and even Brian Taylor doing the interview clearly thought it was ludicrous. It also happens to be fundamentally untrue.

Xenophobia of course means the hatred of foreigners. Any reasonable person analysing the SNP's position will of course realise that this is far from the party's motivation for any of its priorities. Just because we seek independence for this country does not mean we hate people from other countries.

Indeed one of the strengths of the SNP is the breadth of people who are in it and who support it. I know of a number of people who moved to Scotland from elsewhere, choosing to make it their home who have come to realise the need for independence for the country. Many of them have in fact joined the SNP - some will be candidates for the party this May.

If we were a xenophobic movement would these people support us? Would they join us?

Would the gentleman who I spoke to today in Cumbernauld Town Centre who moved to Scotland from England nine years ago be a staunch SNP supporter and a firm believer in independence?

Hopefully people will see that Jamie Stone is talking through the proverbial hole in his heid. Hopefully they will also just see that the Liberal Democrats aren't quite the cuddly toy or nice guys they so love to make themselves out to be too.

More Comic Cuts from the Daily Record

More scaremongering drivel from the Daily Record today I am afraid. Today's edition of the paper carried an article "The Salmond Broadcasting Corportation" based around the ludicrous claims made by Tessa Jowell. You would think that given it was Ms Jowell who has presided over a balooning of the costs of the 2012 London Olympic Games would have meant that any of her claims might have been treated with caution. But let's remember that Tessa is Labour, and that means that even when she mumps her gums you can rely on the Record to print her claims as the truth.

Tessa Jowell's claim is that because the TV license costs around £250 in Iceland then somehow it will cost £250 in an independent Scotland. Eh? Where is the logic in this claim? In what way can anyone reasonably claim that because the license costs so much in one country it would somehow automatically cost that much in another? Do you realise that Iceland has glaciers too? Does Tessa Jowell argue that once we become independent Scotland will be afflicted with these as well? That is the extension of her warped logic. Such a claim is virtually as ludicrous as the one she has made.

This bizarre outburst was reputedly accompanied by Tessa's claim that "high quality Scottish dramas, such as Monarch of the Glen, would be left on the scrapheap" with independence. This will be the same programme that has been chucked onto the scrapheap by the BBC already will it?

She also went on to say that programmes such as Eastenders and Doctor Who would no longer be readily available in Scotland. Interesting that, given that in the Republic of Ireland you can actually watch the BBC as one of their main channels and watch Eastenders and Doctor Who as easily as someone in London can. Why would it be any different for Scotland?

The fact of the matter is in actual fact that of the £250million plus that Scots pay in license fees at the moment, only some £161million is provided to BBC Scotland. This almost £90million gap indicates that in reality a seperately run independent Scottish broadcaster would have more money to spend on programming than BBC Scotland has at present. Far from threatening the quality of programmes we can have in Scotland, independence means we can invest in improving them.

If you fancy a laugh then go to the following link to read the nonsense being spouted in today's Record:

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/tm_headline=the-salmond-broadcasting-corporation&method=full&objectid=18623572&siteid=66633-name_page.html

My musings on the musings of a young Tony Blair

A friend of mine sent an interesting e-mail yesterday. Attached was the election address of a then young Labour candidate for the Sedgefield constituency in the 1983 general election, a certain Anthony Charles Lynton Blair.

That's right folks, Tony Blair the discredited and worn out Prime Minister of the UK we all know and love.

The document makes for interesting reading. Included in it are statements such as "the incompetent Tories got us into the Falklands War - now the Falklands fortress is costing us billions". Hmm...as my friend was quick to point out isn't this interesting coming from the same man who has now bungled us into the Iraq War which has costs thousands of soldiers and innocent civillians their lives as well as lumbering the UK with a bill somewhere in the region of £6billion? I think it might just be the one and the same Tony Blair.

The leaflet also says "the Tories would rather spend £10billion on Trident missiles than try to stop the growing nuclear arms race". Only £10billion you say Tony? Sounds like a snip compared to the possible £100billion cost that you want to burden the taxpayer with for a replacement to Trident! Come to mention it, what do you make of the statement contained within your 1983 leaflet that "we don't need dangerous and costly Trident and Cruise missiles". What's changed?

Just goes to show how far travelled the young Tony Blair has gone to become the reactionary and conservative figure that he is today. I wonder what 1983 Tony would make of today's incarnation of himself. Chances are he probably wouldn't like what he saw.

To see the leaflet yourself please press on the images below for a larger image:

Costs go Nuclear

Yesterday's Sunday Herald (11th February 2007) carried an interesting piece that indicates the already gargantuan cost of renewing the Trident nuclear weapons system has further increased to a possible £100million bill. We were already facing the colossal fee of around £25million to replace Trident and a further £50million or so to maintain this replacement, but as if such a fee was not bad enough it seems that latest estimates have increased the price further.

A greater waste of money I find it hard to think of than by spending this money on nuclear weapons. We are constantly being told that the greatest threat facing us today is terrorism. If that is the case then why invest all this money in nuclear weapons that can never be used to stave off this threat. After all, you can't launch nuclear missiles at terrorists can you?

Furthermore, in a climate whereby we are being told that Iran is actively seeking to build the bomb (although there was an interesting article by John Pilger recently that argued this is not the case, see http://www.countercurrents.org/iran-pilger100207.htm) does it make sense to invest in proliferation of weapons when we want others not to? Doesn't it seem hypocritical to argue on the one hand that one nation should not possess weapons of mass destruction whilst simultaneously constructing our own? Doesn't the British government then lose the legitimacy to argue for other nations not to engage in weapons programmes.

Doubtless there will be those who claim we need the nuclear deterrent. Is this really the case though? Who do we actually think wants to destroy Scotland? Who is the bad bogeyman out to get our collective hides?

Let us follow the example of South Africa, a former nuclear power that rejected these abhorrent weapons and decommissioned all its missiles years ago. Then we will have billions of pounds to invest in schools, hospitals, international aid, policing our streets and all the other real necessities here in Scotland.

See Sunday Herald article at: http://www.sundayherald.com/news/heraldnews/display.var.1185412.0.replacing_trident_system_to_cost_100bn.php

Bonfire of the Fiefdoms

Last night I attended an SNP event in Glasgow to launch the campaign for the council elections that will coincide with the Scottish Parliament election on 3rd May. A fantastic turnout of well over a hundred people was there to see all the council candidates introduced by Nicola Sturgeon MSP, Sandra White MSP and Councillor John Mason, the current leader of the SNP group in Glasgow.

Many of my friends are standing for the SNP in these elections and I look forward to seeing them elected. At the last council elections in Glasgow (when I was actually a candidate there) the SNP managed to get around 20% plus of the vote, but only 3 out of 79 councillors, roughly 4% of the total.

This democratic defecit will now come to an end. At long last proportional representation, in the shape of the Single Transferable Vote, has been introduced for local government elections and this will mean that the days of single party rule in the Scottish central belt are over. This is a tremendous step forward for local democracy. When one party can totally dominate local political control then this rapidly turns into political fiefdoms with complacent leadership. This won't happen in the future and that can only be a good thing for our local councils.

It's Time for Free Education

Ten years ago I was at university. At that time one of the battles I was engaged in as a student nationalist was against the Labour government's plans to abolish student maintenance grants and introduce tuition fees. We lost that battle and as it turned out I was part of the last generation of students in Scotland to have their fees paid by the state (much to the chagrin of my younger sister who started university a year later and was lumbered with an annual bill of £1,000 a year for the privilege).

Now you may have heard it said that in Scotland we no longer have tuition fees. The Labour-Liberal run Scottish Executive make great play of this "fact" and much noise is made by the English press about the fact that students here don't pay for their education whilst students in England do.

This is all nonsense of course. Fees are very much alive and kicking in this country. Sure, they have had a makeover and no longer are they called "tuition fees", and certainly liability for payment has been deffered from an up front basis till after graduation. But, what is the so called graduate endowment if it isn't a tuition fee. The graduate endowment is a mandatory charge (sounds like a fee doesn't it) levied upon an individual for a period of education they have undertaken (this seems remarkably like tuition to me).

If it looks like, smells like and feels like a tuition fee, it is a tuition fee. The battle for free education I was engaged in around a decade ago is still alive. It was ever thus.

Sadly the principle of free education has been successively eroded over many years. My father was the first person in the Hepburn family ever to go to university, back in 1963. At that time students not only had their fees paid, they received a generous grant, had no loans to take out and were able to claim benefits when it wasn't term time. By the time I was at university, whilst a more generous package was available than those who followed, grants were not as generous and had to be supplemented by loans, beginning the culture of student debt which has seen the level of indebtedness amongst Scotland's students grow from an average level of £2,500 in 1999 to around £11,000 today.

Personally, I think it is ludicrous that we lumber so many young people with such a level of debt at such an age. This has big knock on effects for society as well. Rather than being able to spend money on goods and products in the Scottish marketplace, boosting our economy and keeping people in work, young graduates must service ridiculous levels of debt. The bizarre thing is, this actually costs the state money to do so.

Student loans when introduced were envisaged as becoming self financing within a set time frame. This has never happened, and the Scottish Executive continues to pay money to create and service this colossal student debt at a rate higher than repayments are made. It would then actually be cheaper for the Executive and the taxpayer to pay what they are as loans as maintenance grants instead.

Not only would this save us money it is more just as well. It ends the culture of debt for students that puts off so many from entering Higher Education (one only needs to look at application figures recently which have been down to see this as a problem) and it reinstates the principle that as we all benefit from having a highly educated population then we all pay for it.

I have never bought the idea that as people who attend university gain a benefit from having done so theyt should pay for the privilege. Certainly I accept that I benefited from attending university, and that most who do so benefit. We benefit socially and materially. I accept that there appears to be a statistical correlation between attending university and earning capacity.

However, if someone earns more then they will pay more, but this shouldn't be by fees or a graduate endowment, but by the extra taxation they will pay as a consequence of that earning potential.

Also, don't we all benefit by university education even if we don't go through the experience ourselves. I know that at various stages in my life I have benefited from there being teachers, doctors, nurses and so on provided by our society. All these people will have been educated at some stage in university. I am happy to pay for their training as I know the societal benefit of doing so.

Thankfully the SNP propose the return to the principle of free education. I look forward to campaigning for this over the coming weeks, and to helping to implement it should I be fortunate enough to be returned at the election in May.

Doubtless there will be those who say that Scotland can't do this.

This lack of ambition I cannot accept.

I have a friend who went to university in Oslo where his course was not only taught in English to a wide variety of nationalities, but was in fact paid for by the Norwegian government.

If Norway can pay for my Scottish friend to go to university in Oslo, then we can certainly afford to pay for the education of our own people.

Text4Scotland

The Young Scots for Independence (http://www.snpyouth.org) have for almost the past year been running a "text referendum" on the issue of independence for Scotland. I believe that this referendum will shortly come to an end, so I would urge everyone to take part before it closes.

It is really easy to take part. If you support independence then text "SCOT YES" to 60999, and if you don't (why not, what's wrong with you?) then text "SCOT NO" to the same number. Visit http://www.txt4scotland.com/ for more information.

I urge everyone to take part and make your opinion known. This scheme is really innovative and follows the successful example set by Plaid Cymru's youth wing (http://www.cymrux.org/) in Wales who previously ran a similar type referendum.

Lies, Damned Lies and the Daily Record

You can tell the election is nearing when the Daily Record ratchets up the level of vitriol it has for the SNP. The normal snide remarks are beefed up to a full assault, and the facts of the matter are usually the first casualty in their style of reporting. This is especially the case when the SNP are doing well in the opinion polls - as we are just now.

The edition of the paper from 8th February carried a full two page article with the alarmist headline "SNP's £8billion Spree". Of course the paper is entitled to print what it likes, but this particular report had me more than a little cheesed off. Firstly, it was the way that the paper has carried this claim, made by Labour, as fact, rather than as an allegation made by the Labour Party. They proceeded to reel off a list of SNP spending promises, with Labour's price tag attached without any analysis by their reporters to see if these prices are in fact correct.

In this way the paper is acting as little more than a mouthpiece for the Labour Party as we enter the business end of the Scottish Parliamentary election campaign. What they failed to do was investigate these claims. What they also failed to do, was offer any form of balance what so ever. For instance, where was the critique of the Labour Party's support for the renewal of Trident nuclear weapons? It has been estimated that this will cost the taxpayer some £75billion over the long term, of which I imagine we can reasonably estimate that at least £7billion would be Scottish revenue. Where was it reported by the Daily Record that the Labour Party supports the introduction of ID cards which may cost up to £19billion over 10 years according to some experts? Where was it reported that the Labour Party supports the creation of a new generation of nuclear power stations - which would cost billions to construct themselves - when the Nuclear Decommissiong Authority has estimated that clean up costs from the current generation of power stations may cost us £70billion?

The answer is, of course, that the Daily Record mentioned none of these things. They would rather just blithely accept whatever dross spoon fed them by the Labour Party and accept it as fact. The reality is that of course, the commitments made by the SNP will have a price tag attached to them. Indeed, some of the prices quoted in the Record are not that far off the mark, but some are rather wild indeed. Take for example the suggestion by Labour (quoted in full by the Record of course) that our plans to abolish the graduate endowment and to replace student loans with grants will cost over £2billion over four years. This is utter nonsense. The SNP has rigourously costed this proposal which will cost £100million a year. The Labour Party has inflated the price fivefold in an attempt to confuse and scare the electorate.

This is a silly game to play.

Politics should be about presenting a vision to the electorate. The SNP has established a coherent set of policies for this campaign that when implemented will transform the social fabric and the economic performance of our country. The Labour Party wishes to present only negative attacks on independence and scaremongering about the cost of our platform. They offer no vision what so ever as they are unable to come up with any fresh ideas for Scotland after a decade in power.

The fact of the matter is that Scotland is well able to afford the proposals that the SNP sets out. Indeed the real question should be, can Scotland afford not to implement these proposals, which represent a chance for Scotland to radically improve itself.

Sadly I predict more negativity and scaremongering from the Labour Party over the next few months, and even more sadly I predict they will be all too eagerly aided in that by the Daily Record.

Still, I will continue to push forward a positive message in Cumbernauld and Kilsyth. I know people are fed up with the negativity that is all too common in modern politics, so you won't be getting that from me!

85 days and 520 votes to go

Hello and welcome to my blog site. I will try and keep this site as up to date as possible between now and election time. Although I can't promise to post every day, particularly once it gets closer to election day itself on 3rd May. And that day is going to come around remarkably soon.

There are only 85 days to the Scottish Parliament election, less than three months to go! The team of SNP activists in Cumbernauld and Kilsyth have been working hard to try and get the SNP message across to people in the area. We are presently engaged in a big survey of people's opinions about matters of national and local importance. The response we have been getting has been great, with many people telling us that they are fed up after seven and a half years of New Labour-Liberal rule and that it's time for a change, and that it's time for independence. There are only 520 votes between the SNP and Labour in Cumbernauld and Kilsyth, so every vote counts!

Please look out for our survey in your area. We should be calling soon if we haven't been already.