Anas Sarwar resigns as deputy leader of Scottish Labour party

THE Glasgow Central MP, who will follow in the footsteps of Johann Lamont by standing down, announced his decision at a Labour fundraising dinner attended by Ed Miliband.

Peter A Bell's insight:

I find it quite hilarious that this is being portrayed as some sort of noble, selfless gesture on the part of a man who has never shown the slightest indication of being capable of grasping the concept of nobility and selflessness. It is perfectly obvious that Sarwar has been offered some juicy plum of British Labour patronage in return for stepping aside and allowing an MSP to be appointed as deputy leader of “Scottish” Labour. All of which is intended to smooth the way for Jim Murphy to replace the hapless Johann Lamont.

British Labour and their mouthpiece, the Daily Record, really do take us for fools. Do they seriously imagine that the people of Scotland are unable to see through their clumsy conniving?

What Sarwar’s resignation does is confirm that British Labour’s bosses in London have decided Murphy is to their man. The sole criterion for this being the fact that he is considered to be the best person to carry on the anti-SNP hate-fest which has so crippled “Scottish” Labour over the past decade. They see Murphy as the man who will best serve the interests of the party and the British establishment. The interests of the people of Scotland are not a consideration.

See on dailyrecord.co.uk



via Tumblr http://ift.tt/1xHRVPo

Police charge 32 people following probe into post-referendum violence in Glasgow

POLICE have charged 32 people with 37 alleged offences, including serious assault and carrying an offensive weapon, in connection with loyalist violence the day after the independence referendum.

Peter A Bell's insight:

How unfortunate that the mainstream media were not prepared to expose the ugly face of British nationalist fanaticism during the referendum campaign. But I suppose they were far too busy peddling the anti-independence mob’s propaganda about “cybernats”.

See on heraldscotland.com



via Tumblr http://peterabell.tumblr.com/post/101411472289

Jim Murphy is Scottish Labour's only hope - Spectator Blogs

At the risk of intruding into someone else’s calamity, if you can’t enjoy this what can you enjoy? By this I mean, of course, Scottish Labour’s meltdown. (Suggestions the party…

Peter A Bell's insight:

I was wondering if Alex Massie was genuinely so appallingly shallow as to suppose that Jim Murphy might be the saviour of British Labour in Scotland. Then I got to the update at the end of the article where Massie makes a direct comparison between Alex Salmond’s situation when he was both MP and party leader and the putative situation that Jim Murphy MP would be in were he to become leader of the entirely mythical “Scottish Labour Party”. At this point I realised that I had gravely underestimated Mr Massie’s shallowness.

Clearly, Alex Massie totally fails to understand that “Scottish” Labour’s problem is not, as he seems to suppose, finding somebody with a sufficiently mindless hatred of the SNP. Their problem is the tensions arising from the fact that they are trying to pretend to the people of Scotland that they are a genuine Scottish party while their bosses in London insist that they are no more than an offshoot of British Labour.

Few people represent this London dominance of “Scottish” Labour more than the odious Jim Murphy MP. Appointing him as leader would almost certainly add to “Scottish” Labour’s problems. There is not the vaguest possibility that it would resolve them.

Salmond did not have the problem of theses tensions. There was never any doubt in anybody’s mind (with the possible exception of Mr Massie) that the SNP was an entirely Scottish political party even if it’s leader was at Westminster.

Salmond also had a very capable deputy at Holyrood. Murphy’s deputy would be Anas Sarwar. Another MP almost as widely despised in Scotland as Murphy. And even if Sarwar was persuaded (read “bribed”) to quit as deputy to make way for an MSP, this would still be seen as a stitch-up.

Massie is just about as wrong as he can be. Murphy is not a plausible candidate for the leadership of “Scottish” Labour. What “Scottish” Labour needs is somebody who can remove those quotes from “Scottish”.

The rest of us should be asking ourselves why it appears to suit the British media - which, we must remember, is the voice of the British establishment - that Jim Murphy should be anointed as Lamont’s replacement. We hardly need to ask ourselves whether the interests of the British establishment are likely to be compatible with those of the people of Scotland.

See on blogs.spectator.co.uk

via Tumblr http://peterabell.tumblr.com/post/101338202519

Scottish Labour leadership: Jim Murphy to run

JIM Murphy last night confirmed that he is to run for the leadership of the Scottish Labour Party. The East Renfrewshire MP will make a formal announcement today.

Peter A Bell's insight:

The matter of managing First Minister’s Questions nicely illustrates the systemic defects afflicting “Scottish” Labour. Abysmal failings to which the party bosses in London and “Scottish” Labour’s old-guard are evidently completely oblivious.

The problem as Jim Murphy and his cronies see it is not how to provide functional leadership for the party’s North British branch; and certainly not how to start providing an effective opposition at Holyrood. From the perspective of Murphy and British Labour’s Westminster elite, the problem is entirely one of how to arrange things for the convenience of Jim Murphy.

It never occurs to this arrogant buffoon that he should bend to the demands of democracy and good government. No! The system must be adjusted to accommodate him. As ever, the personal interests and partisan priorities of British politicians takes precedence over the needs of the people of Scotland.

Should Murphy become nominal leader of British Labour in Scotland, he will inevitably be regarded as London Labour’s man. This can only exacerbate the already horrendous difficulties facing those who still cling to the notion of “Scottish” Labour.

Why should I care? Why should anybody be upset by the continuing melt-down of a faux party which has so disastrously failed our country and so casually betrayed the principles of the Labour movement?

Because, like it or not, British Labour in Scotland is a significant force in Scottish politics and is likely to remain so even as it decays. Democracy is ill-served by this significant force being in such parlous disarray. The solution is for “Scottish” Labour to rid itself of the British politicians whose hubris has brought brought them to this pass. It most certainly is not to elevate one of the most odious of those British politicians to a position of leadership.

See on scotsman.com



via Tumblr http://ift.tt/1rCLGYG

What should Scottish Labour do?

There is much talk in the Scottish media about a crisis in Scottish Labour. Some of it is of course froth (is the Scottish Daily Mail where we would seek advice in our best interest?). But some of it is substantial – based on the post-poll evidence, anything between 30-40% of Labour voters voted Yes in the referendum.

Peter A Bell's insight:

Peter Russell nicely illustrates the insanity that grips British Labour in Scotland. For only serious mental defect can explain his claim to be on the side of democracy whilst simultaneously demanding that the people of Scotland should be denied one of the most fundamental democratic rights - the right of self-determination.

Further evidence of Russell’s delusional state can be found in pretty much every paragraph of his demented diatribe. He genuinely seems to believe that the way to win back the 30-40% of labour supporters who voted Yes is to tell them that their opinions are worthless and their aspirations meaningless.

Russell also appears to believe that “Scottish” labour’s problems are merely presentational. It is not that the party needs to change. It is just that the public perception of the party has to be altered. The party is right. The people are wrong.

The problem with British Labour in Scotland is, not that it is seen as “Scotland’s UK party of social democracy”, but that it is not seen as a party of social democracy at all. It is seen as “Scotland’s party of the British establishment”. This is a party which happily allied itself with the Tories in defence of the ruling elites of the British state. A British state which, itself, is increasingly regarded as the very antithesis of social democracy.

Tellingly, Russell sees being “Scotland’s party of Scotland” as a very, very bad thing. There is, to his deranged way of thinking, no worse sin than for a party to seek a mandate from the electorate on the basis of a commitment to serve the interests of that electorate. All of which is explained by the fact that British Labour in Scotland persistently equates its own narrow interests with those of the nation as a whole. What’s good for “Scottish” Labour is good for Scotland. Fewer and fewer people are prepared to accept this partisan arrogance.

See on labourlist.org



via Tumblr http://peterabell.tumblr.com/post/100909259664

Labour in turmoil as Lamont resigns

SCOTTISH Labour are in turmoil this morning after Johann Lamont ended weeks of speculation about her political future and resigned as leader.

Peter A Bell's insight:

All I can take from this is confirmation that British Labour in Scotland is as oblivious of its own parlous state and dire failings as the rest us us already knew it was. Lamont and her supporters appear to genuinely believe that she achieved something in the last three years other than being an embarrassment to herself, her party, the Scottish Parliament and the Nation.

Meanwhile, the real party leaders in London are so detached from reality that they imagine getting rid of Lamont is all it will take to change the party’s fortunes in Scotland. They actually suppose that some cosmetic changes will suffice to turn around a party that is in terminal decline - trusted by virtually nobody in Scotland.

The fact that the odious Jim Murphy is even being considered as Lamont’s replacement tells us all we need to know about the extent to which British Labour in Scotland is out of touch with the political pulse of the nation, looking determinedly inward as if to avoid the sight of the generalised contempt in which the party is now held. Murphy’s appeal is, not to the people who have turned their backs on “Scottish” Labour, but to the party’s Westminster elite.

As ever, no thought is given to Scotland’s needs and priorities. Murphy is a British politician. He is the property of British Labour and the British establishment. He is, in the eyes of the British state, a safe pair of hands dedicated to preserving existing structures of power and privilege at a time when the people of Scotland are increasingly demanding that those structures be dismantled.

There is no redemption for “Scottish” Labour so long as it remains, in reality, a mere offshoot of “London” Labour. As much as Scotland needs to bring its government home, it needs political parties which truly represent the people of Scotland. Parties that we can trust. Parties that we can be confident will put the interests of Scotland’s people above those of of the British state and its ruling elites. British Labour in Scotland not only fails to meet these criteria, there is absolutely nothing to suggest that it ever could.

See on heraldscotland.com



via Tumblr http://ift.tt/1tSZHsA

Electoral Commission unfit for purpose, claims think tank with links to Number 10

The body which oversees elections is “not fit for purpose”, and the list of voters to be used at next May’s general election will contain at least 13m errors, a think tank has warned.

Peter A Bell's insight:

It seems that the Scottish Government was right when it proposed to set up a new Scottish Electoral Commission to oversee the independence referendum.

Many people, including myself, thought the decision to accept oversight by the existing EC was a minor concession made by Alex Salmond in order to secure the Edinburgh Agreement without humiliating Cameron too much. But it seems that it may not have been such a trivial thing after all.

See on independent.co.uk



via Tumblr http://ift.tt/12pE72N

Clegg: Salmond is like a Japanese soldier fighting on after the war has been lost - Telegraph

Deputy Prime Minister urges the First Minister to ‘call it a day’ and accept the result of the independence referendum

Peter A Bell's insight:

I think it is quite generally accepted that, perhaps more than any other individual, Nick Clegg epitomises the duplicitous hypocrisy and brazen dishonesty which pervades the terminally corrupt British political system. That being so, it would be redundant for me to dwell upon these all too obvious character defects. But the very obviousness of these reprehensible traits gives rise to a serious question. Why is it that the British media is so determinedly blind to them?

Why is it left to online/alternative media to point out that, as well as being puerile and unseemly, Clegg’s comments about Alex Salmond’s continued support for the cause of independence and refusal to rule out another democratic referendum are sickeningly two-faced? (I shall not refer to any of these online sources specifically as much of the British media censors any mention of their honest rivals.)

Many readers will be perplexed as to why it is only the alternative media which are able to point to the recently published “Liberal Democrats’ Pre-Manifesto 2014” and the fact that, referring to the AV voting referendum, it says,

"We still believe these are essential changes and will work towards them in the next Parliament."

Many readers will be wondering why the above article makes no mention of the glaring contradiction that this implies in relation to Cleggs infantile sniping at Alex Salmond.

Some may realise that this attack on Salmond is a product, not merely of Clegg’s innate hypocrisy, but also evidence of his total inability to comprehend the concept of an honest, worthy, aspirational principle which is greater than the imperatives of political expediency and personal aggrandisement.

Some may also realise that the reason the British media is not trumpeting the hypocrisy and dishonesty of the likes of Clegg is that, from owners to mercenary hacks, they are part of the same detestable system within which odious creatures such as Clegg thrive.

A month ago, Scotland missed its opportunity to be free of that quagmire. That doesn’t mean we have to be meekly content to accept the consequences.

See on telegraph.co.uk



via Tumblr http://ift.tt/1oq8dNJ

The Blame Game

I am knackered, Bushed, Exhausted, Drained, Burned Out….You name it….I am absolutely gubbed! I have given 3 years of my life to write and fight for Scotland to regain it’s Independence.. Why di…

Peter A Bell's insight:

I was prepared to grit my teeth and put up with the dreadful punctuation and random capitalisation, but the following line told me I should not waste my time reading any further.

"If It were not for the grassroots taking control we would have been absolutely gubbed!"

This one line encapsulates an abundance of ignorance about the nature of the Yes campaign. It was always clear that the anti-independence mob didn’t understand the nature of that campaign. It seems that this incomprehension was not confined to the unionist ranks.

The grass-roots didn’t “take control” of the Yes campaign. The grass-roots WAS the Yes campaign. It was always intended that it should be so. The anti-independence mob always thought of Yes Scotland as a top-down organisation directed by politicians and professional managers. An organisation, in other words, which mirrored Better Together. Other than in the very early days, Yes Scotland was never like this. And it was never meant to be.

Yes Scotland had a well-crafted strategy, the principal element of which was sowing the seeds for a campaign that would grow organically. In the early days, there was a lot of complaints that Hope Street was not providing direction for the nascent groups. That they would arrange a meeting where the skeleton of a group would be formed, and then walk away. While not entirely true - the team at Yes Scotland HQ were always readily accessible for assistance if required - the whole idea was to let these groups find their own level. To let them adapt to local conditions so that they could better communicate with local communities.

To say that this strategy was a “disaster” is complete nonsense that defies the evidence of 45% support for independence and an ongoing campaign that is, if anything, stronger than ever.

I continue to wear my Yes badge with pride. I am proud to have been part of something which has brought so many people together to strive for a common purpose. I am proud to have been part of something that engaged and energised so many thousands of people. I am proud to have been part of a movement which rescued our democracy and reclaimed it for its rightful owners.

Don’t tell me the Yes campaign was a “disaster”. I know this to be a lie every bit as deplorable as the lies which won the anti-independence mob their inglorious victory.

See on auldacquaintance.wordpress.com



via Tumblr http://ift.tt/10hCtiY

New Labour pressure group launches with pledge to listen to voters

JOHANN Lamont’s woes as Scottish Labour leader deepened yesterday with the launch of a new internal pressure group that wants the party to be far more radical than she does.

Peter A Bell's insight:

The problem with all this talk about listening to voters is that we’ve heard it all before. We heard it after the 2007 Holyrood elections, and again in the wake of the SNP’s massive win in 2011. But has anybody actually seen any evidence of this listening? Is there the slightest indication that British Labour in Scotland is even capable of responding to the voice of its own members and supporters, never mind the wider electorate. I don’t think so.

If British Labour in Scotland had been listening to the people it would never have entered into that unholy alliance with the Tories. If it had been at all interested in listening it would have consulted party members in Scotland before opting to oppose independence. Instead, we now have Maggie Curran doing a tour of {former) British Labour strongholds in Scotland telling Labour Yes voters that they were wrong and that they should re-affirm an unthinking allegiance to the party.

The reality is that British Labour in Scotland long since lost any capacity it might once have had for listening to the concerns and aspirations of Scotland’s people. The party elite are so absolutely convinced of their entitlement to power; so utterly persuaded that the interests of the party are synonymous with the interests of the nation that they are quite literally deaf to anything that challenges that world-view.

Lamont, Curran, Murphy and the rest demand a trust that they have abysmally failed to earn. And when that trust is not forthcoming, they insist that it is the voters who have got it wrong.

When British Labour politicians in Scotland talk about listening, what they are actually referring to is an exercise in trying to find a form of words sufficient to persuade people that they are sincere in their intention to reform whilst they get on with the business of preserving the existing structures of power and privilege within which they are embedded.

See on heraldscotland.com



via Tumblr http://ift.tt/1Fm4IwP

Euan McColm: Think-tank gives SNP firepower

WHEN it comes to policies, the SNP has made a little go a long way in recent years.

Peter A Bell's insight:

Of one thing we can be absolutely certain. If - or, more likely, when - this new SNP think-tank is formed there will not be a place for Euan McColm. Why would there be when he clearly doesn’t understand the process involved in developing new policies. According to this buffoon, nobody should ever put forward an idea that is subsequently shown to be impracticable. The very concept of the think-tank is evidently beyond his grasp.



Perhaps if McColm was not quite so smug in his dullness and so misguidedly convinced of his own profound perspicacity, he might have paused to actually ponder the term, “think-tank” and what it implies.



Firstly, and rather obviously, it implies thinking. But, more importantly, it implies innovative thinking. Thinking unfettered by prejudices and preconceptions. Not an area, one suspects, where Mr McColm excels.



Less obviously, the term “think-tank” implies an environment in which innovative thinking is encouraged and facilitated. The environment of the mainstream British media, where Euan McColm makes himself so comfortably at home, does not immediately spring to mind.



Let’s face it! This article had little or nothing to do with examining the idea of a policy think tank that is at least open to the idea of independence. Organisations such as Scottish Global Forum, The Jimmy Reid Foundation and even Business for Scotland are already serving this purpose. Although McColm is either dumbly unaware of their existence or prevented from acknowledging them by his own prejudices.



In truth, this article was nothing more than a contrived excuse for a pitifully inept dig at the SNP. A party which, as most of us will have noted, has done very well out of declining to be guided by the “thinking” of the likes of Euan McColm.

See on scotsman.com



via Tumblr http://ift.tt/1qUol58

SNP deputy candidates back pro-Yes alliance

TWO of the three candidates for the SNP deputy leadership have raised the prospect of a pro-Yes alliance fighting next year’s UK election campaign.

Peter A Bell's insight:

Angela Constance and Stewart Hosie have accurately read the mood in Scotland in the wake of a referendum result which is increasingly difficult to regard as anything more than a temporary set-back for the independence campaign. The type of electoral pact that they are talking about normally faces the major obstacle of opposition from the members of the parties involved. But there are strong indications of widespread support among the rank and file of the three main Scottish parties.

It may be interesting to reflect on the reasons for this unusual enthusiasm for inter-party cooperation. Obviously, there is the motivation of advancing the cause of restoring Scotland’s rightful constitutional status. But there is some thing more, I think. There is confidence among ordinary party members that electoral cooperation would be a worthy exercise.

Normally, it is party big-wigs who pursue such alliances - invariably against the wishes of party members - for the purposes which have more to do with political expediency than any worthy objective. They seek pacts in order to secure power and status for themselves rather than a desirable outcome for the electorate.

The reason people are confident that a “Yes alliance” would be different is that, as a welcome by-product of the referendum campaign, they have a new-found confidence in their own power. They have good reason to feel that they themselves would be in control. That they would be deciding the nature and purpose of the exercise. They don’t feel threatened by other parties because they have already found ways of working together with those parties.

This is all part of the new politics in Scotland. Something the British parties are still in denial about.

See on scotsman.com



via Tumblr http://ift.tt/1sCDNGm

Scottish Labour turns its back on Blair legacy

Labour in Scotland is to ditch the legacy of Tony Blair and return to its “socialist principles” as it seeks to ­counter the rising Nationalist threat and win power next May, one of the party’s most senior figures has said.

Peter A Bell's insight:

The notion of a “leftward shift” by Scottish Labour is as nonsensical as it is dishonest. It is nonsensical for the simple reason that there is no such thing as “Scottish labour”. There is only British Labour in Scotland. And there is no way that the party bosses in London are going to allow their minions north of the border to behave as if they were a real Scottish political party with distinct policies.

It is dishonest because Curran knows damned well that neither she nor any of her cronies who wear a “Scottish Labour” label when it suits them can actually effect any change of direction for what they continue to pretend is a real Scottish political party.

One thing is absolutely clear from what is being aid by the likes of Curran, Gordon Brown and Jack McConnell. It is perfectly obvious that their sole concern is, not the interests of Scotland’s people, but the restoration of British labour hegemony in Scotland and the preservation of the status and privileges enjoyed by British Labour politicians. It’s all about the party, and to hell with the people.

Curran is visiting those ten (former) British Labour strongholds in Scotland, not to listen to the concerns and aspirations of the Labour members and supporters who voted Yes in the referendum, but to cajole and browbeat them into going back to being unthinking party loyalists. It is a measure of Curran’s delusional state that she seriously imagines these people, having found a voice of their own and savoured genuine political power, will ever again be content to let the likes of her speak for them, or surrender their new-found political muscle to the party machine.

And if we wanted further evidence of just how detached from reality these “Scottish Labour” politicians are, we need look no further than McConnell’s ludicrous claim that the media have given the SNP an easy ride.

See on scotsman.com



via Tumblr http://ift.tt/109yODM

Voters trust Sturgeon the most to deliver new powers

MORE Scots trust the SNP and its leader-elect Nicola Sturgeon to deliver extra powers to Scotland than any other party or politician, despite the Yes campaign losing the independence referendum, a survey has found.

Peter A Bell's insight:

That the British parties are generally distrusted - if not actually despised - in Scotland is hardly a revelation. How could it be otherwise after the way they behaved during the referendum campaign and that way they have consistently failed Scotland over far too many years.

Neither is it at all surprising that the SNP should be the most trusted party. They have a proven record in government and, at the very least, have been evidently striving to make good on their promises. Being closely associated with the glorious Yes campaign has also done the party no harm at all.

It may seem overly cynical, therefore, to see some ulterior motive behind the claim that Nicola Sturgeon is trusted to deliver more powers. The reality, of course, is that Sturgeon has no authority to “deliver more powers” for the Scottish Parliament. Those who voted No in September’s referendum decided that they didn’t want the people of Scotland or their elected representatives to decide what powers their parliament should have. 55% of those who voted in that referendum chose to throw away the massive political power that had been won for them by the SNP. They decided that they didn’t want to be sovereign in their own nation.

Worse! They decided that the other 45% were also to be denied their sovereignty.

Those No voters made what most of them would doubtless claim to be an informed and thoughtful choice to forfeit the right of the people of Scotland to decide what powers their parliament should have and hand that decision instead to a small clique of British politicians in London who have no electoral mandate in Scotland.

When the British establishment, as represented by this newspaper, promotes Nicola Sturgeon as the person who will bring more powers to the Scottish Parliament they do so in the full knowledge that she is bound to fail. She is undoubtedly the best person to speak for Scotland in the coming months and years. But when the British parties renege on their panicky pre-referendum promises and the UK Government declines to implement meaningful further devolution, it will not be Nicola Sturgeon who has failed to deliver. It will be the British politicians that No voters opted to trust with this task despite the fact that those British politicians are known to be unworthy of that trust.

See on heraldscotland.com



via Tumblr http://ift.tt/1Di4kgT

Devo deal will bar Scots from being PM - Brown

GORDON Brown has urged Labour to maintain its opposition to the devolution of all income tax to Holyrood because it would create “a constitutional crisis” that would be “a Trojan horse” for independence.

Peter A Bell's insight:

Is anybody listening to Gordon Brown? Is there any reason why they should?

I have long been perplexed by the attention that the nominally Scottish media affords this serial failure. I had attributed the amount of space Brown gets in the media to an admirably efficient press relations team. And some of the comments about him being a “commanding figure” and “highly respected” are very obviously the work of spin-quacks charged with the task of aiding poor Gordon as he pursues his obsession with emulating Tony Blair’s success as a high profile global parasite.

It only lately occurred to me that there might be another explanation for the media affording him such obviously unearned status. It may well be that this is not so much a measure of Gordon Brown’s worth as a reflection of the worthlessness of British Labour’s little clique at Holyrood. Gordon gets the air-time and the column inches, not because he has anything worthwhile to say, but because Johann Lamont is so incapable of saying anything worthwhile.

The nominal leaderette of “Scottish” Labour is such a vapid, voiceless creature that she leaves a vacuum which the media abhors and must fill - even if it is with nothing more than the wind and pish emanating from Gordon Brown.

See on scotsman.com



via Tumblr http://ift.tt/1qHee3L

Nicola Sturgeon: Rallying call from new SNP leader

NICOLA Sturgeon pledged to “build a better country” and ­engage with the cross-party commission set up to deliver more powers to Holyrood after it was confirmed yesterday she will succeed Alex Salmond as SNP leader and First Minister.

Peter A Bell's insight:

It is a testament to the Strength in depth of the Scottish National Party that a leader as outstanding as Alex Salmond can be so readily replaced.

See on scotsman.com



via Tumblr http://ift.tt/1F4lZKN

I vow to thee, my Scotland, a small number of earthly things - Spectator Blogs

Politics is a funny old game. I could have sworn the Yes campaign lost the Battle for Scotland in pretty decisive fashion last month. Scotland voted to remain a part…

Peter A Bell's insight:

Alex Massie is confused. It is not “Yes people” who are misrepresenting “The Vow”. They are merely accepting the way it was portrayed. Perception is everything. And, while Mr Massie is correct in assessing the panicked pre-referendum promises from the British parties as utterly vacuous, that is not how “the Vow” was sold to the people of Scotland.

There is no dishonesty in “Yes people” demanding that the UK Government deliver on promises even if, in print, those promises amount to nothing when the British media colluded in the effort to sell those empty assurances as something solid and meaningful.

Apart from anything else, holding the UK Government’s “feet to the fire” on this may at least serve to make people aware of how they were duped by The Daily Record and others. Which helps to lay the groundwork for the next referendum.

See on blogs.spectator.co.uk



via Tumblr http://ift.tt/ZDUeIf

Cameron has failed in duty on debate say SNP

DAVID Cameron has been accused by the SNP of a “total dereliction of duty” for not leading today’s set-piece six-hour Commons debate on devolution following the Scottish independence referendum.

Peter A Bell's insight:

One of the things that was predicted to occur in the event of a No vote in the referendum was that British nationalists would represent it as a fulsome and unequivocal endorsement of the union. And so it has turned out. The 45% who unequivocally voted for independence are, as also predicted, being totally ignored. Only those who voted for something completely undefined count for anything in the calculations of British establishment.

It is the British state defined. Vote positively for something, and your voice doesn’t count. Only if you vote to let British politicians decide what you have voted for is your vote respected.

This is not democracy. This is a mockery of democracy.

This is demockracy!

See on heraldscotland.com



via Tumblr http://ift.tt/1Dc7wdR

Cameron has failed in duty on debate say SNP

DAVID Cameron has been accused by the SNP of a “total dereliction of duty” for not leading today’s set-piece six-hour Commons debate on devolution following the Scottish independence referendum.

Peter A Bell's insight:

One of the things that was predicted to occur in the event of a No vote in the referendum was that British nationalists would represent it as a fulsome and unequivocal endorsement of the union. And so it has turned out. The 45% who unequivocally voted for independence are, as also predicted, being totally ignored. Only those who voted for something completely undefined count for anything in the calculations of British establishment.

It is the British state defined. Vote positively for something, and your voice doesn’t count. Only if you vote to let British politicians decide what you have voted for is your vote respected.

This is not democracy. This is a mockery of democracy.

This is demockracy!

See on heraldscotland.com



via Tumblr http://ift.tt/1Dc7um4

Creating two classes of MP would destroy UK, Brown tells MPs

RESTRICTING Scottish MPs’ voting rights at Westminster because of increased tax powers for Holyrood would lead to the destruction of the United Kingdom, Gordon Brown has warned MPs.

Peter A Bell's insight:

Gordon Brown shows himself to be a blinkered buffoon, while Alex Salmond, as ever, displays masterly political acumen.

Brown totally fails to recognise that devolution itself inevitably created two classes of MPs. Those who represent constituencies in the parts of the UK with devolved powers, and those who represent constituencies in England. Like anyone mindlessly wedded to the notion of the British state, Brown imagines that it can exist isolated from and unaffected by the incessant constitutional tinkering which is the British establishment’s way of addressing the fundamental flaws in the union which have been exposed by Scotland’s independence movement.

Salmond, on the other hand is ever the realist; ever the pragmatist; ever the consummate political operator. By stepping down from the office of First Minister, he has freed himself to take a role in the vanguard of the ongoing campaign to restore Scotland’s rightful constitutional status. Keen observers will have noted the early stages of a transformation from staid national leader working within the constraints of high office, to feisty man of the people and bugbear of the British establishment.

His talk of a referendum on independence being a “once in a generation thing” was always carefully calculated. Only the politically tone-deaf failed to hear the implied addendum, “all other things being equal”. Salmond, of course, knew full well that those “other things” were never going to be equal. He knew that the British parties would renege on their hastily cobbled-together “vow” of “more powers”. He knew, too, that public demand for an early second referendum - within five years - would be inevitable and undeniable.

Just as Cameron, Clegg and Miliband made their “vow” never intending to honour it and knowing that there was no power within the context of the British state which could require them to keep to the promises, so Salmond knew he was safe to declare September’s referendum a once in every two or three decades event because he was fully aware that circumstances would render this moot.

The difference is that Salmond was preparing to respond to the voice of the people and serve the interests of democracy. The three British politicians were readying themselves to ignore the people and deny democracy.

See on heraldscotland.com



via Tumblr http://ift.tt/1vvo92W

Labour set to boycott EVEL talks

DAVID Cameron accused Labour of “not being interested in fairness” for the UK on Tuesday after the party decided to boycott talks on English votes for English laws.

Peter A Bell's insight:

Any dispassionate observer witnessing the current squabbling amongst British politicians would be immediately struck by two glaringly obvious points. Firstly, that the present constitutional arrangements within the UK are an untenable shambles. Secondly, that these British politicians have neither the wit nor the will to find a lasting solution.

Just listen to them! Only a few weeks ago they were telling the people of Scotland that the UK was the very epitome of political unions. The greatest political union in history. A perfect arrangement which offered “The Best of Both Worlds!”. Now they are falling over each other in their eagerness to be the one who best recognises the countless flaws in the union and is, therefore, the best placed to deal with those flaws.

The reality is that these politicians are not even looking for ways to address the aggravating anomalies and democratic deficiencies that are defining characteristics of the British state. Rather, they are desperately trying to bury these failings in a welter of talk about constitutional reform in order that the very status quo which they acknowledge as unacceptable can be maintained.

Characteristically blind to his own hypocrisy, Gordon Brown - that most prominent of nonentities - complains that talks on the constitution are “a closed-shop stitch-up”. He does so apparently oblivious to the fact that the British has never allowed discussion of constitutional reform to be conducted in any way other than in “a closed-shop stitch-up”. The original devolution settlement was a product of just such “a closed-shop stitch-up”. The Calman Commission was “a closed-shop stitch-up”. And the latest talking shop in the safe pair of hands belonging to Lord Smith of Kelvin is no different.

A constitutional commission cannot legitimately be called such unless it is prepared to examine ALL constitutional options and unless any proposals based on its conclusions are subject to the approval of the people.

Our imagined disinterested observer, were they even moderately politically aware, might note one further point regarding the failure of the signatories to the pre-referendum “vow” to participate in the House of Commons debate on devolution. Some have remarked that these three clowns simply couldn’t be bothered to turn up. That is a serious misreading of the situation. The failure to attend was purposeful and orchestrated. By not having anything to do with the debate, Cameron, Clegg and Miliband were sending a very pointed message that they have no intention of honouring their promises to the people of Scotland. The purpose was to reassure the “devo-sceptics” in the ranks of their respective parties who might otherwise have been concerned that the structures of power and privilege to which they cling like parasites could be at risk.

See on scotsman.com



via Tumblr http://ift.tt/1vd24F3

New plan to radicalise the Labour Party

SCOTTISH Labour should change its name, back sweeping new powers for Holyrood and refuse to co-operate with the Conservatives in any future independence referendum, according a group of party activists.

Peter A Bell's insight:

Radicalism redefined?

What do we actually have here? A cosmetic name change. A repeat of old promises about “more powers”. And redundant advice not to repeat a mistake so glaringly obvious that it should never have been made in the first place.

How is any of this meant to sway disaffected Labour members and voters or convince anybody that British labour in Scotland is even capable of reconnecting with the people it purports to represent?

See on heraldscotland.com



via Tumblr http://ift.tt/1tVTu9t

SNP surge brings gloom for Labour

Another week and there is more worrying news for Scottish Labour.



SNP figures show that a significant proportion of the colossal number of new members they have signed up since the referendum come from traditional Labour heartlands.

Peter A Bell's insight:

Surely the most striking thing about British Labour in Scotland is the fact that they appear to be totally oblivious to their situation. They seem to lack any awareness of the profound changes that have been wrought in Scottish politics by the referendum campaign.

We saw this same blinkered denial following the 2007 Holyrood election. And the second most notable thing about the 2011 election was British Labour’s abject failure to learn any lessons from the SNP’s historic win at their expense.

The referendum, and its aftermath, represent the third warning for British Labour in Scotland. But, rather than taking heed of that warning, they choose instead to regard the outcome as a triumph.

In the early hours of Friday 19 September, as it became clear that the forces of fear were to enjoy an inglorious victory over the forces of hope, I was talking to a grinning, gloating representative of British Labour in Scotland. I remarked to them that their delight was likely to be, to paraphrase Burns, as short-lived as the rainbow’s lovely form, evanishing amid the storm to come.

I pointed out that they had treated the referendum as a party political battle with the SNP. By their actions, not least in forming an alliance with the Tories, they had won that contest, but it had cost them the country.

I doubt very much if my words had any lasting impact. British Labour in Scotland continues to equate its interests with the interests of Scotland despite the enormous gulf that has opened up between party and people. They continue to behave as if political power in Scotland is their entitlement. They genuinely seem to believe that nearly a decade of profound upheaval in Scotland’s political environment is no more than a blip.

They seem to think they are not affected by this upheaval. That it requires no response from them. That they need not change to accommodate the new political realities. That they need only wait and the voters will eventually come to their senses and everything will get back to the way it was before.

Some will regard this as an exaggeration, or even a total misreading of the situation. They will insist that there are people within British Labour in Scotland who are fully aware of the problems the party faces. They will point to various instances of British Labour politicians in Scotland talking about the need for change. My response would be to challenge them to point to something more substantive than talk about the need for change.

If there was genuine awareness within its upper echelons of the extent to which British Labour in Scotland has gone astray then we would be seeing, not just ordinary members burning their membership cards, but high level defections to the SNP. That this is not happening is a measure of just how detached from reality British Labour politicians are.

See on heraldscotland.com



via Tumblr http://ift.tt/1sAEbYg

Flower Of Scotland blooms again despite No vote

THE Flower Of Scotland remains in bloom. The stirring unofficial national anthem was belted out by thousands of members of the Tartan Army last night despite a battalion of Yes voters arguing the song should now be ditched because of Scotland’s failure to “rise” and “be the nation again”.

Peter A Bell's insight:

Eddi Reader has it wrong. “Flower of Scotland” is not a celebration of war. It was written as a lament for the fallen of Culloden and for the suffering that ensued as a result of this military defeat.

Given the lost opportunity of the referendum and the inevitable dire consequences for our nation, such a lament seems entirely appropriate.

See on scotsman.com



via Tumblr http://ift.tt/1sBLyxI

Sturgeon threatens to resurrect plans for another Scottish referendum

Nicola Sturgeon, the woman expected to replace Alex Salmond as leader of the Scottish National Party and Scotland’s First Minister, said she could start resurrecting plans for a fresh referendum on Scottish independence as soon as 2016.



Speaking today, Ms Sturgeon said that a “clear and unmistakable pledge” had been made that the package for Scotland would be “something near to federalism”, and failure to implement them would result in a “heavy political price”.

Peter A Bell's insight:

Why is this described as a “threat”? It is no more than a recognition of the political reality. Sturgeon is perfectly correct when she says that the people of Scotland will demand another referendum when the British establishment reneges on its promises. Why would anybody expect otherwise?

See on itv.com



via Tumblr http://ift.tt/1suXeDm

Millions face tax rises or 'derisory' state pension, report claims - Telegraph

A think tank says money to pay pensioners will run out next year after discovering a “flaw” in the national accounts

Peter A Bell's insight:

The laugh,albeit a very wry one, is on all those people who voted No in Scotland’s independence referendum because they were gullible enough to imagine that pensions would be safeguarded by the British state.

I reserve the right to say, “I told you so!”, as often as I bloody well like.

See on telegraph.co.uk



via Tumblr http://ift.tt/1EC4gdg

Davidson interviewed by police over vote claims

SCOTS Tory Party leader Ruth Davidson has been interviewed by police in her Parliament offices in connection with allegations pro-Union campaigners illegally counted postal votes in the weeks before independence referendum ballots closed.

Peter A Bell's insight:

Perhaps the most shocking thing about this whole affair is that it isn’t shocking at all. We have become so inured to British politicians’ disregard for normal standards of behaviour that we barely bat an eye when the nominal leader of a sort-of political party stands accused of a serious breach of electoral law.



The reaction from “party sources” within the British Conservative’s branch in Scotland says it all. There is, they insist, “no suggestion” that Ruth Davidson has done anything wrong. Are we to suppose that she is being interviewed by the police on a whim? Must we disregard the fact that the Crown Office found sufficient grounds to instruct the police to carry out a full investigation?



Davidson being questioned by police means, by definition, that there is a suggestion of wrongdoing and that she is either a possible suspect or a potential witness.

The denials coming from these “party sources” are symptomatic of that same arrogant, self-righteous British exceptionalism that we saw so much of during the referendum campaign. It is a manifestation of the conviction that the ruling elites of the British state can do no wrong. The absolute belief that any conduct, no matter how reprehensible in any other context, is fully justified if it is done in the name of preserving the established order.

Regardless of how the authorities dispose of the hapless leader of the Scottish Tories, there is evidence enough of the corruption that besets the British state.

See on heraldscotland.com



via Tumblr http://ift.tt/1vaiaRd

Lamont attacks Salmond over Abellio rail contract

ALEX Salmond has been accused of using his final days in power to sell out Scotland, after Dutch rail operator Abellio was awarded the contract to run ScotRail services from April 2015.

Peter A Bell's insight:

The pertinent question here is, what would British labour in Scotland have done differently? And the answer is, absolutely nothing. The Scottish Government is constrained by tendering rules laid down by the UK government and was obliged to award the rail franchise to the best bidder. No other government could have done anything else.

In fact, the Scottish Government has done rather well to secure the deal that it has. The living wage; no compulsory redundancies and improvements to rolling stock are all worthwhile gains that will benefit workers and travellers alike.

What we are seeing here is, not the government being held to account by a “loyal opposition” looking after the interests of Scotland’s people, but the petty and pointless sniping of a political clique entirely focused on its own interests.

One of the predictions made prior to the referendum was that, in the event of a No vote, the British establishment would seek to undermine the Scottish Parliament in various ways. It was further forecast that the British parties at Holyrood would play an active role in the effort to bring Scotland’s democratic institutions into disrepute. We might claim Johann Lamont’s contemptible conduct as evidence of this anti-parliamentarian campaign, but for the fact that it is indistinguishable from the small-minded, partisan ineptitude that has characterised the opposition in the Scottish Parliament since the SNP took power in 2007.

See on scotsman.com



via Tumblr http://ift.tt/1w9dgR8

Storm over website after MSP expenses hit £12.5m

MSPs’ expenses rose to more than £12.5 million last year, up by around a quarter of a million pounds on 2012-13, according to figures.

Peter A Bell's insight:

I’m still trying to find the “storm” here. Who, exactly is raging about the fact that MSPs expenses rose roughly in line with inflation despite extraordinary winding-up costs - without which there might have been an effective decrease?

Who, apart from pathetic Tom Peterkin, is getting into a lather of righteous indignation about any of this?

Who is taking to the streets to protest the fact that a website is running slow due to unusually heavy traffic?

When will the “Scottish” press stop treating us like we’re a bunch of morons?

See on scotsman.com



via Tumblr http://ift.tt/1uP9TR1

On Organ Donation and Lies

The following letter was refused publication in the Herald today. It’s by the artist, Alec Finlay, who created the new National Memorial for Organ and Tissue Donation, in Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh.

Peter A Bell's insight:

Unionist lies deplored.

See on bellacaledonia.org.uk



via Tumblr http://ift.tt/1vODQPv

David Cameron urges Scottish nationalists to accept referendum defeat - Telegraph

The Prime Minister rebukes Nicola Sturgeon after she claimed it was a matter of “when, not if” Scotland becomes independent.

Peter A Bell's insight:

Whether through a malicious purpose to deceive or mere stupidity David Cameron conflates two quite separate issues. Nobody is seriously contesting the referendum result. The Scottish Government certainly isn’t disputing the outcome and neither is the SNP. It is characteristically dishonest of David Cameron to suggest that they are.

But, as was foretold by observers of the political scene in Scotland more aware of the realities than any London-based politician ever could be, Cameron attempts to equate the unionist victory in the referendum campaign as a defeat for the entire independence movement in Scotland. It is not. It never could be.

It will come as no surprise to most people in Scotland to find that British politicians are totally baffled by the concept of a political principle. Having observed the behaviour of the species over a number of years, we would expect the likes of Cameron to be bewildered by the idea of politicians adhering to fundamental principles rather than readily sacrificing them on the altar of political expediency.

The restoration of Scotland’s rightful constitutional status is a matter of fundamental principle. It is not something that can be abandoned in the face of a setback such as a referendum defeat.

The other error that Cameron and his fellow British nationalists make is to suppose that the Scottish National Party and the independence movement are one and the same thing. This is partly due to plain ignorance and partly due to their folly in believing their own propaganda. In reality, the SNP is only one part of a much larger political movement which encompasses other political parties - such as the Scottish Greens and the Scottish Socialists - as well as numerous non-party political groups and countless individuals who are politically active to varying degrees.

Were Cameron and the rest of the Westminster elite even vaguely aware of the realities of Scotland’s politics they would realise that Nicola Sturgeon can no more deny the demand for another referendum than she can suspend the campaign for independence.

Cameron and his ilk are confused and uncomprehending because they are being confronted by true democratic power. They are accustomed to a form of politics that operates entirely within the context of a rigidly controlled party political system whose sole purpose is the preservation of the existing structures of power and privilege. They are used to popular participation in politics being no more than the occasional ineffectual scrawling of a cross on a ballot paper next to any of a number of options not one of which poses a meaningful threat to the ruling elites of the British state or the dominant economic imperative. They simply do not understand the kind of mass grass-roots activism that now characterises the independence movement in Scotland.

It is not Nicola Sturgeon who will decide that there is to be another referendum. Nor is it the SNP or even the Scottish Government. And it certainly isn’t David Cameron. The people of Scotland will decide. The politicians will just do as they are told.

See on telegraph.co.uk



via Tumblr http://ift.tt/1qg30BX

Rennie urges Labour and Tories to improve devolution offers

Scottish Liberal Democrat leader Willie Rennie has claimed plans to give extra powers to Scotland risk being held back by “forces of Conservatism” - including the Labour Party.

Peter A Bell's insight:

Here we go again!

When the Scottish Parliament was first reconvened back in 1999 it was, according to unionists, the very exemplar of devolution. It was not long, however, before those same politicians who had lauded Scotland’s devolution settlement as the greatest thing since universal suffrage started acknowledging its deficiencies. And so we got the Calman Commission - rigged, as these things must be within the context of the British state, to ensure that the power and privilege of the British state’s ruling elites was not put in the slightest jeopardy.

Roll forward only a relatively short time and, before the watered-down Calman proposals are even fully implemented, the British parties are to found, once again, grudgingly admitting that this settlement too is inadequate and scrambling to cobble together a new devolution package. We are then treated to the unedifying spectacle of the British parties squabbling over which of their incoherent and largely unworkable plans allows them to lay claim to the title of “the party of devolution” at the same time as they try to present that they are united in their determination to deliver “more powers” despite none of them being able to say what these powers might be, when they might be delivered, or how they might benefit Scotland.

Now, in the wake of a No vote in the referendum, they are back to the same squabbling. Squabbling which totally misses the essential point that it is not British politicians such as Willie Rennie and his Red and Blue Tory allies who should be deciding these matters anyway. It is for the people of Scotland to decide what powers their parliament should have.

This is the same Westminster elite that has already got it wrong so often that there is absolutely no rational reason to hope that they might somehow get it right on this occasion. Even if their definition of what is right did relate to what is best for Scotland, they have proved themselves incapable of figuring this out. The reason being that they are not in any way concerned about what is best for Scotland. Their sole concern is the preservation of the structures of power and privilege which define the British state.

British politicians will NEVER devise a satisfactory devolution settlement. There is no satisfactory devolution settlement.

Which makes the comments about “uncertainty” from Alistair Carmichael look all the more ludicrous. This dullard whines about the uncertainty supposedly caused by the popular independence movement and pro-independence politicians’ adherence to the democratic principle of self-determination. Meanwhile, he remains dumbly unaware that the real uncertainty is caused by the endless constitutional tinkering of British politicians as they frantically try to stem the rising tide of civic nationalism, progressive politics and democratic activism which they justifiably regard as a threat to their power and privilege.

Will Alistair Carmichael be the last person in Scotland to realise that the constitutional question can only be settled with independence?

See on heraldscotland.com



via Tumblr http://ift.tt/1vM9gWz

Sillars: ‘New mandate for independence’ in 2016

WESTMINSTER won’t let Scotland stage another referendum and the SNP should be ready to negotiate independence if it wins a majority at Holyrood in 18 months, a former Deputy leader of the party has said.

Peter A Bell's insight:

Jim Sillars is undoubtedly correct to assume that the British state will do all in its power to prevent the people of Scotland ever again being permitted to have their say on the matter of their nation’s constitutional status. He is also perfectly correct to point out that the electoral process is an alternative means by which the people can make their voice heard. Where Mr Sillars goes wrong, in my view, is in emphasising the parliamentary route to independence over a new referendum.

It is true that a majority of pro-independence candidates returned to Holyrood in 2016 could be interpreted as constituting a mandate to sue for independence. Particularly if this also involved a clear majority of the votes cast with a high turnout. Let’s say, 55% on an 85% turnout. The fly in the ointment is the word “interpreted”. If such a vote is open to interpretation then there will always be those who are prepared to dispute the legitimacy of any claim that it is, in fact, a vote for independence.

Legitimacy is crucial. Which is why we should be working towards achieving a massive vote for the SNP in the 2015 UK election and an even bigger vote for pro-independence parties in the 2016 Scottish election. Not to directly validate a mandate to sue for independence, but to prevent the British state denying the people of Scotland their democratic right of self-determination. And, just as importantly, to prevent them rigging Scotland’s electoral system so as to return power at Holyrood to the “safe pair of hands” that is British Labour.

Jim Sillars is only half right when he says that we were “given” the 2014 referendum by Westminster. It is at least partially true to say that the people of Scotland took that referendum by the way they voted in the 2011 election. We have to do so again. But we must do so even more explicitly.

When the people of Scotland go to the polls in 2015 and 2016 we must do so with the clear purpose of sending and unmistakable message to the ruling elites of the British state. That message is that, notwithstanding the result of the 2014 referendum, sovereignty yet rests with Scotland’s people. We must assert our democratic right of self-determination.

We must insist that the people of Scotland alone have the legitimate authority to determine the powers of their parliament and, by means of a written constitution, the manner in which that power is exercised.

We must demand another referendum and, thereby, put beyond question the legitimacy of the process by which Scotland’s rightful constitutional status is restored.

See on scotsman.com



via Tumblr http://ift.tt/1s4Tln8

New Forth Crossing to cost £50m less

Deputy First Minister Nicola Sturgeon today revealed that the overall cost for Scotland’s flagship project will be £50 million lower than the previous budget estimate made in 2013.

Peter A Bell's insight:

When did you ever hear of a UK Government project being brought in on schedule and under budget?

See on edinburghnews.scotsman.com



via Tumblr http://ift.tt/1urWtKL

Police probe postal referendum vote counting claim

POLICE SCOTLAND are investigating claims that Better Together campaigners breached electoral law by counting postal votes during the Scottish independence referendum.

Peter A Bell's insight:

I note from the below-the-line comments that many British nationalists are outraged by the fact that Police Scotland are investigating an allegation of serious wrong-doing. They appear to consider themselves above the law. It would be gratifying to think that they might shortly be disabused of such arrogant notions.

See on scotsman.com



via Tumblr http://ift.tt/1rXZjpZ