New working group in Scottish Parliament.

There has been an Interesting  development in thr Scottish Parliament where Patrick Harvie and Alison Johnstone of the Scottish Green Party have reached an agreement with Independent MSPs Margo MacDonald, Jean Urquhart and John Finnie to establish a working group under the Parliament’s Standing Orders.

Ms Urquart and Mr Finnie quit the SNP last month after the party voted to change policy and scrap its opposition to the nuclear-armed NATO defence partnership.

The new alliance will give the MSPs involved representation on the influential Parliamentary Bureau which decides Holyrood business, in turn providing them with further opportunities to contribute to debates in the Chamber.

A joint statement issued by the Independent/Green Group agreed that

5 MSPs have decided to form a technical working group to assist them in their Parliamentary duties.Patrick Harvie and Alison Johnstone of the Scottish Green Party have reached an agreement with Independent MSPs Margo MacDonald, Jean Urquhart and John Finnie to establish a working group under the Parliament’s Standing Orders.This grouping will give the MSPs representation on the Parliamentary Bureau which decides Parliamentary business, in turn providing the MSPs with further opportunities to contribute to debates in the Chamber.The Independent/Green Group agreed this statement:“The five of us have discussed ways in which we can work together, and after taking advice from colleagues on our options, have decided to form a grouping to enhance our ability to represent our constituents.“Although every member of our grouping is pro-independence and believes strongly in a more equal, sustainable Scotland, it is by no means a formal, party-based arrangement; no MSP has changed, or plans on changing, their party affiliation or on taking positions different to those they have taken in the past.“We all look forward to pushing for an independent, fair and peaceful Scotland both inside and outside of Parliament, and to working with MSPs across the Chamber to achieve these goals.”

This is a welcome mood supporters of Independence who are dissatisfied with the SNP government  and would like to vote for a progressive alternative to without having to abstain ot vote for the Unionist Parties need to feel that they have an option.

I was impressed with Patrick Harvie the Scottish Green Leader during the last Scottish elections and was disappointed the Greens didn't get more members elected to the Scottish Parliament.

Of course the Scottish Greens a re a separate Party unlike the Greens in Wales who are an offshoot of the Greens in England.

The new alliance will  also have the same Number (5) s the Lib Dem Holyrood, who currently get a slot at FMQs two weeks out of three: So they will be seeking a  similar response.Though whether Harvie will be seen as leader and ask the opposition question or it will be divided amongst them waits to be seen.

The wrong decision on NATO

I'm afraid  I cant agree with Syniadau over the SNP conference decision that a Independent Scotland would remain a member of  NATO

As Syniadau points out the motion passed as amended read.....

"On independence, Scotland will inherit its treaty obligations with NATO. An SNP government will maintain NATO membership subject to an agreement that Scotland will not host nuclear weapons and NATO takes all possible steps to bring about nuclear disarmament as required by the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty of which all its members are signatories, and further that NATO continues to respect the right of members to only take part in UN-sanctioned operations."

So why not just contribute to the UN Peace Keeping force as Ireland do?

These days most European countries may members of NATO but that does not mean its the right Organisation to join.


And there  are many others (either full members or associates ) throughout the World .Not all  what you might call Democracies

	NATO members		Membership Action Plan		Individual Partnership Action Plan		Partnership for Peace		Mediterranean Dialogue		Istanbul Cooperation Initiative		Global Partners

So the question is.  Who are the Enemy?

Which if any of the Non NATO  members would be a threat to Scotland?

SNP MP  Angus Robertson  argued,r, that withdrawing from NATO would leave the North Sea open to potential attack.

"I asked what the impact would be of Scotland not being in NATO. Everything that is around Scotland turns into a black hole where we have no idea what's going on, and that worries our neighbours intensely," explained Robertson.

Mr Robertson, along with fellow MP Angus MacNeil, told members that NATO is regarded as the "keystone defence organisation" by Denmark, Norway, Iceland and the UK.

Who the hell is threatening Denmark and Norway and Why aren't Sweden and Finland members who may have more to worry about if its Russia?

It seems to me that the SNP may be attempting to gain tacit approval for Independence from NATO members or at least limit hostility.

But they have taken the wrong step they could have maintained that an Independent Scotland could be pat of the non aligned nations of the UN and not part of an organisations dominated by the USA and it immediate allies.

It is the wrong decision taken to limit the Media attacks on a "Defenceless Scotland" . But it will mean Scotland will be tied to an organisation increasingly seen as an arm of Western Imperialism and in some quarters little more than a satellite of a US Empire.

I hope Plaid will not follow suit.

Red (White and Blue) Ed

 In his Speech to Labour's Scottish Conference Ed Miliband attacked Alex Salmond's desire to "split up" Britain, and insisted: "We are one United Kingdom."

The Labour leader attacked Scotland's First Minister over rising unemployment - which he said was the biggest challenge of all - but also on his links with media tycoon Rupert Murdoch. .

He said: 

"We must reject attempts to divide our country by ideology or geography. We are not left-wing Scotland and right-wing England, we are one United Kingdom."He insisted that families, businesses and pensioners who were struggling in difficult economic times shared the same concerns, regardless of where they lived.

On Murdoch, he would have a point .Except for the fact that until Murdoch switched (and it appears he was reluctant to do so) to supporting Cameron's Conservative. Labour were hand in glove with News International and bent over backwards to please them. Salmond should not be so close towards Murdoch but Ed Miliband would be bending over backwards if he thought Murdoch and News Intentional would switch back to supporting them once the  Leveson has ended and people lose interest.

But Miliband's Unionist stance puts and end to the Clear red water that Rhodri Morgan proposed for Welsh Labour as opposed to Blair's New Labour.

 It seems that Miliband thinks that even Scottish Labour who have much more autonomythan "Welsh Labour" which is not much, cannot pursue clear red water from Cameron's ConLibs because he believes  "We are not left-wing Scotland and right-wing England",


He seems to think just because the majority in England elected Tory MPs . We in wales and Scotland  should accept it to preserve the union even though the majority in the two Nations voted for Left of Center Parties (Labour,Plaid and SNP.

He may be right in that " businesses and pensioners who were struggling in difficult economic times shared the same concerns, regardless of where they lived". But devolution has already meant that Wales and Scotland have the right to approach things differently and this means that we are not seeing for example the move to privitisation of the NHS which is clearly behind the agenda of the reforms in England.

There has been some comments from the Liberal Left in England claiming that Scottish Independence will leave the English almost permanently under Tory rule. And this they state  is a reason to oppose it.

But we spent 15 years from 1987-1982 under a Tory government taht bot h Wales and Scotland rejected. Why should we suffer (and boy did we suffer) because of right wing England.?

But if in 1997 we in Wales and Scotland had rejected devolution we would now be facing the right wing "reform" that are being forced on the English. We have chosen to take a different approach and though I know that both the Labour goverment  in Wales and the SNP should do more to improve the concerns of the poorest in our counties . The thought that as Millband seems to be suggesting we should not seek our own way and accept rule from a right wing Westminster Government  in order to preserve the UK chills me.

Miliband is also being disingenuous in his claim "We are one United Kingdom".

I believe its still Labour Party policy for an "United Ireland" which may be why Miliband  prefers to ay United Kingdom  the Union.  Becuase it is Labour Part policy to break up the Union though I suspect most members do not know it. Perhaps  when  the debate begin on the Scottish Referendum Labour politicians such as Miliband who say they wish to prefer the United Kingdom should be asked "If this includes the six counties? and then if you can " divide our country by ideology or geography" in Ireland.Why not Wales or Scotland?



"

Lay on! Lay on! Lay on! They fail!

I some times wonder whether London Journalists are Lazy or ignorant  rather than simply just opposed to Scottish Independence.

A recent issue of the Express stated that.

The First Minister vowed to press ahead with his own poll to break up Britain despite being warned that the SNP’s proposals would be illegal.

Critics accused Mr Salmond of “panic” after the UK Government said a referendum would be unconstitutional without its authority.

The fact is a little research would point to Autumn 2014 as  always being the most probable date for the Independence referendum,.simply because June of that year will see the 700 anniversary of the Battle of Bannockburn and whether you think that it would be cynical or not . The fact is that is that the comparison of an arrogant English Ruler crossing the Border to face a largely peasant army will be made during that year by commentators and you can bet Salmond will be compared to tRobert theBruce to Camerons (Edward 11)

Other comparison of Edward attempting to legitmise is invasion by including disgruntled Scots like the gormer Guardian of Scotland Ingram de Umfraville,( Labour former First Ministers?) will be made.

But Robert had prepared his troops well. They had spent the winter drilling and he had chosen the ideal spot well.

One of the sad fact of the Battle is the presence of Welsh Archers on the English side. Tough hopefully the Welsh will be behind the tanks of the Scottish this time.

I,m not saying that this anniversary will be a major influence in the minds of Scottish voters but it will be an additional factor.

But who lead the invading army this time against Salmond's. Robert the Bruce

In theory it should be current Scottish Secretary Michael Moore but his Liberal Democrats are scarcely more popular in Scotland than the Tories and in recent weeks he has loked little more than Camerons puppet over the Independance issue. and has already made conflicting statements over whether the Scottish Government can legally call  a referendum 

There has been some talk that the Unionist army should be senior scottish politician, and former Labour Chancellor Alistair Darling has been recently spoken of, as it is claimed (at least by London commentators)  he is well respected in Scotland, but perhaps this is  largely because of sympathy from Scottish noters after his mauling (and often semi- racist) from the London media.

And as events have shown Cameron will be unable  to stay out of the issue even though it will not go down well with Scottish Voters . His latest intervention has seen nearly  800 people joining the SNPi n the last few days. Indeed its probably why Labour did comparently well in the 2010 Westminster Election.

Camerons other recent boob has been his attempt to prevent a option of devo-max in the Scottish independence referendum. as  Syniadau.so excewntly points out His instance of the  exclusion of a Devo-Max option will make it more likely for voters tvote for com plete Independence.

I still think it will be hard for the SNP to win an Independence referendum but every time the likes of Cameron seek to interfere makes be more confident that 2014 will see Scotland if not gaining complete Independence will have made a giant stride towards it.

P.S. If you are wondering ? The Title refers to the cry of the Scots as the Battle turned in thier favour.

Self Determination or Independence

I must admit I have some sympathy with Dafydd Elis Thomas, over the Independence issue.

On the eve of the Plaid conference in Llandudno focussing on ‘renewal’, the Dwyfor Merionnydd AM said:....

“I was happy to talk about self government and self determination but independence is something I found ethically incompatible.
“I am a Welsh European first and foremost.

I share his position as I  personalty always felt that no Nation can call it self Independent if it..

• Acccepts membership and the rules of the United Nations
• Signs and obeys the Geneva Convention
• Agrees to the judgement of International Courts.
• Signs Trade agreements that bind you to a specific economic model
• Joins an organisation like the original Common Market
• Agrees to the development of the above as it becomes a legislative body as the European Union has become.
• Joins alliance like NATO,

Except for the last, I agree with all the above and have nothing but scorn for those petty nationalists who think they country can some how be self sufficient and ignore the rest of the World and International Laws.

However the success of the SNP  in promoting the use of  Independence on the Scottish Stage means that the "I" word is in the ascendancy  and compared to it Self-Determination  sounds a bit like non-alcoholic lager. 

 Although I can see no difference between the SNP  plans for Scotland to have the same sovereign status within the EU as the likes of Germany, Latvia or Luxembourg as Plaids plans for Wales.

So although I would still  prefer Plaids  previous  position The important thing is what they mean by Independent  and make it clear No  Sovereign Nation  today (apart for North Korea perhaps) can claim to be fully Independent?  

The negative connotations that Independence may have  will  of course be raised by the British .Unionist Parties (Labour, Conservative and Libdem) but they should be faced

Iincidentally I have used the term British Unionist rather than British Nationalist because the former has been seized by the far right and I don't want to appear to smear them . I hope when they react to the Independence call from Wales and Scotland they do not use as means to smear Welsh and Scottish Nationalism.

Do I share the doubts of Dafydd El whether Wales could be Independent at this  moment in time . Wel Yes. But when ever I sat an exam I never thought I get 100% but I always tried to get the best mark I could.

The challenge of Nationlist in or out of Plaid is to envisage the Wales they want in a World they want and work towards it.

An Independent Scotland is no guarantee for Wales.

Plaid Wrecsam points out that in a recent poll in Scotland hows those who would vote Yes for independence ahead by 39% to 38%.

One can't read to much in this and  I would expect that if a referendum was to succeed then the polls would have to be at least a 10% lead  before the referendum campaigns starts as  the vast majority of pro-union media campaigns against Independence.

What interested me however were some of the comments

Great news, and we will get independence by default. Let's smash the union now.

And

....Scots are far ahead of us on this issue but if they achieve independence and make a success of it (which they will in my opinion) then the calls for Welsh independence will grow stronger. That day can't come soon enough!

There has always been a assumption that  if Scotland became  Independent  then there would be a natural upsurge for Welsh Independence.

This however may be the actual outcome.

Prior ti the establishment of the Irish Free State the concept of Home Rule all Round was possibly even popular in Wales than in Scotland  where religious difference  influenced  support, and if my memory serves me correctly .When I was a student of his at  Aber .John (Bwylchlan) Davies, once  claimed in a lecture  that there was even some idea that the Highlands  would join in a confederation with Ireland.to form a Hibernian Nation.

Both the Liberal Party and the fledgling Labour supported the idea of Home Rule all Round  but the failure of Lloyd Georges Cymru Fydd pointed to the weakness in the movement.

Both Wales and to a much larger extent  Scotland were also  caught up in the British Empire  supplying the military and Administrators needed to maintain it.

Interestingly there was a an argument against Irish Nationalism that ...

The fact that Ireland wished to leave the greatest Empire in the World meant that they were not ready to do so,

Whatever. After Ireland  obtained what was then Dominion Status (similar to Canada) which was the principal of Home Rule all Round the motor that drove this concept outside Ireland  no longer existed and the Labour Party apart from a few dropped the idea and the Liberals Party still occasionally cling to some form of federalist ideal went into a speedy decline.

Indeed it became necessary to form Plaid Cymru in 1925, and it was not until 1934 the SNP was formed after the the merger of National Party of Scotland (1928) and the Scottish Party (1930) . Nevertheless Home Rule almost vanished from the political scene not to really emerge again until l the 1960's.


The argument that the creation of an Independent Scotland will automatically lead to an Independent Wales is alas not self evident.

Indeed Wales could be worse off. Picked on by a renewed English Nationalism and Labour Politicians who would need Welsh votes even more the former opposed any financial assistance to Wales and whilst claiming that we were a drain on England and the latter claiming wales could not survive without support from England opposing any idea of Welsh Independence.   and In Wales  without the institutions and media to speak out there could develop a fear of taking any  step towards Independence. Scottish Independence  as it did in after the creation of the Free state in 1922 kill  the Independence movement here for years

I'm not saying this will be the outcome but we should not rely on the creation of an Independent Scotland to lead us to similar status. We must not only campaign for an Independent Wales but to campaign for the Institutions and Society to sustain it.

Can this be why Cameron and the Tories opposed AV?

Before I began I must admit to taking the information fro Britain Votes and Better Nation. I hope they will forgive me for borrowing their info.

 On Thursday there was an by-lection  for  Edinburgh City Council, City Centre . The last election which was held under STV  resulted in the following 1st round preference votes.
 SNP 20.4%
Con 20.2%
LD 19.9% 
Lab 18%
Grn 17%
SSP 1.8%
Ind) 1.6%
Lib) 1%

After the Elimination counts with he Lib Dem Charles Dundas being elected first (taking most of the Green votes)   – with the SNP’s David Beckett elected next, and the Tories’ Joanna Mowat only returned once  Labour  were eliminated  in the last round.

So Thursday  byelection was also under the same rules as STV though you can argue it co responded to an Election under AV. The SNP who had hekd the seat were somewhat at a disadvantage because the former councillor David Beckett had done a Adam Price and resigned his council  seat to attend a course at Harvard   (prehaps they will meet up?) and there might have been a bit of resentment from a electorate who felt they had been snubbed.

Any way the voting went as follows  turn out was 23.4%
 
Round 1
Con 837 (24.2% + 4.0)
 SNP 797 (23.1 +2.6)
 Lab 682 (19.7 +1.7)
 Green 494 (14.3 -2.7)
 Ind 394 (11.4 +9.8)
LD 251 (eliminated) (251 -12.6)

Round 2
Con 904 (67 votes from LDs)
SNP 825 (28 votes from LDs)
Lab 716 (34 votes from LDs)
Green 576 (82 votes from LDs)
Ind 402 (8 votes from LDs) (eliminated
)

Round 3
Con 1043 (139 votes from Ind)
SNP 893 (68 votes from Ind)
Lab 745 (29 votes from Ind)
 Green 635 (59 votes from Ind) (eliminated)

Round 4
Con 1110 (67 votes from Greens)
SNP 1084 (191 votes from Greens)
Lab 968 (223 votes from Greens) (eliminated)

Round 5
SNP 1368 (284 votes from Labour) – ELECTED
Con 1264 (154 votes from Labour)

So the Tories has  led in most of the counts and had received  more second preference votes from the Independent . Failed to win the seat at the last hurdle . When the majority Labour prefernce voter went to the SNP.

What can we read from this not to much  .

That the Libdem vote collapsed  is clear and the fact that the majority of twhat must be a hardcore of Liberl Democrat  loyalist second preference  went to the Greens. Which may result in some gains for the latter next may.
A surprising large percentage of Labours preferences went to the Tories.
It would have been intresting to see what the SNP second preferences were?
But the real question might be can the Tories win a election under these rules (ie virtual AV)? and could it be the reason why they where so vehement against AV. Whould the anybody but a Tory (ABAT) result in them being wiped out particularly at local level?

Will AV wipe out Plaid?

In today Western Mail Dr John Cox  argues that the implication of AV could result in Plaid MPs be wiped out at Westminster especially when taking into account the proposals for larger consultancies in this I am in agreement it is of interest that the Lib-Dems could also lose their three seats and this also seems likely though on the current polls they would do so anyway.

Though I suspect that the Lib-Dems  with some misgiving would sacrifice their 3 Welsh seats for the chance of  ay 20 -40 more in England and perhaps wiping Plaid and the SNP out

Of course this should not be a reason to oppose AV if it resulted in a truly proportional representation but unless you looked at this from a purely UK angle  in which the nationalist parties and all the Northern Ireland parties would probably not meet a percentage threshold then of about 5%  giving them a nominal entitlement of 3 MP's then this will not be fair.

Of course in Northern Ireland the London parties do not largely stand so there may be a case that the introduction of AV would result in more proportionality. But the fact that they recognise the uniqueness of the Six counties  is an Tacit acceptance by the London parties that "Regional " factors should be included in any assessment of whether a system is proportional or not.

My argument  is that although in a minority when it comes to Westminster elections both Plaid and the SNP have enough support to claim seats in the Commons based on the idea of proportional representation. It would be a shame if the introduction of AV could result in them having less representation than they are entitled to under a proportional system based on the Welsh or Scottish percentage of votes,

At the moment Plaid's could claim that it was entitled to  4-5 of the 40 welsh seats based on its votes in Wales, where the SNP cou;ld claim 11-12 instead of the 3 and six they currently have.

I think Plaid's leadership should make a step of rejecting AV not because it threats theircurrent  seats but because it is con masquerading as given us more democracy ,as Dr Cox points out this may well be far from the truth in Wales at least.

A Labour-SNP coalition in 2011?

I’m not sure if this is just a case of The Scotsman or the Labour Party bring mischievous. The paper claims that.

A source close to Scottish Labour leader Iain Gray told The Scotsman a tentative approach has been made to one of his aides over whether he would be willing to strike a deal in a "post-Alex Salmond era".

I always take the term “a source” or a “senior party figure” with a pinch of salt, as I believe that this is usually cover for a correspondents extrapolation of an interview, or even merely speculation.

Anyway the SNP have pointed to recent opinion poles which show they are closing the gap on Labour, and that next years Holyrood elections have it all to play for.

However the article does point out to a potential dilemma in Scotland, because it is highly unlikely that either Party will have an overall majority, and this leads to some interesting scenarios

• The largest Party could as SNP have done quite successfully rule alone on a vote by vote situation where only a vote of no confidence could bring them down.
• They could form a coalition with the Greens, Independents or socialist parties but this would be depending on the numbers.
• They could form a coalition with the Lib-Dems, but could Labour (or the SNP) enter coalition with a Party which at the same time is in hock to the Tories in Westminster I doubt it.
• I think we can leave out a coalition between either Party and the Tories.

So that leaves:

• A coalition between Labour and the SNP. However this would depend on Labour being the largest Party because there is no way at the moment that Labour would be junior partners taking orders from Alex Salmond or any leader of another party.

 Because of the arithmetic of the Holyrood elections however I suspect there may be some informal discussion between Parties on the possible outcome of the next election to the Scottish parliament, and I think the SNP should make it clear that if Labour are not prepared to be junior partners in a coalition (or equal partners ) with a SNP leader then they would not be junior partners to Labour.

Labour often behaves like a boy who threatens to take the ball away if he’s not allowed to have a glamorous role in a game of football. They need reminding its not their ball but the people of Scotlands

US Senate Summon UK Politicians to Show Trial.

A formal invitation then followed from Senator Robert Menendez, who is on theUS Senate hearing into the release of the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing. Has invited/summoned MacAskill and Dr Andrew Fraser, the director of health and care of the Scottish Prison Service who drew up the final medical report on the Libyan, to attend. He has also invited/summoned former UK justice minister Jack Straw who has beed minded to attemd.

Richard Baker, Labour’s shadow justice secretary, said:

 “It is quite extraordinary Kenny MacAskill has ruled out appearing before the US Senate inquiry. He and Salmond are the men responsible for the decision and they are now running scared.”

Annabel Goldie, the Scottish Tory leader, said:

“The SNP would be the first to complain if anybody refused to co-operate with them so they must comply with this request from the US Senate.

Typical hypocritical politicians.

In what other country other than the the USA would they support  placing UK politicians on virtual Trial?

Richard Baker on the Today programme this morning  has also said that he didn't think Jack Straw (who as British Justice Minister signed a agreement with Libya on prisoner exchange) should have to attend the hearing.

"If there was any dubious reason for Megrahi release then I doubt that the Scottish government were involved. Indeed they would probably have delighted in exposing it.

The decision by the Scottish Government Justice Minister was clearly (rightly or wrongly, solely on compassionate grounds why should he answer for this to a foreign government?

I can understand the anger in the USA at the release of al Megrahi .The Lockerbie atrocity killed 270 people – 190 of them American – in the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 in December 1988: But since when are governments of sovereign nations, or component parts of sovereign nations answerable to the US Senate.

If they wish to investigate by all means do so and if they suspect that BP had undue influence on any discussion then should ask questions but the US senate is not the World Government.

Would the late Edward Kennedy or any member of Congress have attended a committee of MP’s investigating sympathy for the IRA in the US Congress

The United States stand is further incongruous because it is not a member of the International Criminal Court (ICC). The ICC is a permanent international criminal court, founded in 2002 to investigate and prosecute individuals suspected of having committed genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes.

As of April 2010, 111 states are members of the Court, and a further 38 countries have signed but not ratified the Rome Statute that established the court. Countries such as India, Indonesia, and China have not signed or ratified the Rome Statute. The United States is in the unique position of having signed the Rome Statute, but formally withdrawn its current intention of ratification.

Positions in the United States concerning the ICC vary widely. The Clinton Administration signed the Rome Statute in 2000, but did not submit it for Senate ratification. The Bush Administration, the US administration at the time of the ICC's founding, stated that it would not join the ICC. When asked whether the United States should join the International Criminal Court, Barack Obama (then a Senator), stated:

"Yes the United States should cooperate with ICC investigations in a way that reflects American sovereignty and promotes our national security interests."

So the US believes that it has every right to behave like the Worlds Policeman, so long as the world cannot investigate its behaviour.