2009
....OPINION......OPINION......OPINION......OPINION......OPINION......OPINION..
Reflecting on 2009 and what lies ahead
The reality of Christmas
Dishonesty of British Unionist parties
Problems at North Ayrshire Council
The true cost of councillors’ allowances
Facing down fascism
Glasgow North East by-election
Another allowances scandal
The Laighdykes disgrace
The BBC and the BNP
Say goodbye to Rangers and Celtic
British/English domination of Scotland
The end for Labour
Arrogance
Back to basics for Scottish football
Denying the Scottish people their voice
Actions of opposition MSPs have been shameful
The release of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi
Town centre regeneration
Arrest of journalist is wrong
The truth
Fighting for their future
Liam who?
Killing Kilmarnock
Paying the price of New Labour’s wars
Hope and opportunity
And now for viewers in Scotland….Indoctrination
Real regeneration
The choice facing Scotland
Paulo’s singing the right song
The difference made by a fair voting system
Not voting is the wrong decision
Politicians who dip our pockets
The Scottish Parliament
North Ayrshire’s poor quality PPP schools
The politicisation of the police
Happy Birthday SNP
The Declaration of Arbroath
Why local Labour activists can’t believe their luck
North Ayrshire PPP Project - disaster from start to finish
The British denial of democracy in Scotland
The Miners strike - 1984-1985
Tackling the bevvy culture
Radical policies for your family
The Council toddlers
The North Ayrshire PPP chickens could be coming home to roost
North Ayrshire Council PPP scandal hasn’t gone away
Scotland - Homecoming 2009
There is an alternative to the failed capitalist system
End the killing
Local newspapers
A home truth behind Israel's bombing of innocent Palestinians
....OPINION......OPINION......OPINION......OPINION......OPINION......OPINION..
________________________________________________________________________________
the3towns.com December 26 2009
Reflecting on 2009 and what lies ahead
If you’re not too busy this week, you might take time to reflect on 2009 and look ahead to what 2010 may hold for you. It’s perfectly understandable at the changing of a year to consider where we stand in the great adventure that is life.
Each of us is different, and each of us will have had different experiences over the past twelve months, with different memories to look back on as our lives move inexorably forward.
For some, 2009 will have been a good year - births, marriages, promotions, exam success, football team winning - all creating cherished memories. While, for others, it will be a different matter. The loss of loved ones, relationships ending, job losses, homes repossessed - 2009 has been a very difficult year for an awful lot of people.
Many will be only too happy to see the back of 2009, but will 2010 be any better?
The economic recession that spanned the past twelve months will continue for the foreseeable future. The incompetence of the New Labour Government in London, coupled with the greed and arrogance of bankers, has left us all with a share in a national debt running into Trillions of pounds.
The job losses of the past year will be compounded in 2010 as politicians cut the funding available to the public sector, and councils pay-off workers to make ‘efficiency’ savings. With fewer workers, services to people in local communities will also be cut.
When it is capitalists in private companies and banks who have caused economic collapse in the UK, why is it that the debt created to bail them out has to be ‘socialised’ - in other words, paid for by you and me - and why, when it is the private sector that is responsible for creating a financial and social crisis, it is the public sector that is paying the price in terms of funding cuts, job losses and reduced services?
The past year also saw the worst scandal ever to hit the UK Parliament. The allowances scandal will be recorded as having happened in 2009, but in fact it has been going on for years. The only difference is that, last year, the general public actually found out what was happening.
Highly-paid politicians have been getting us to pay for their lavish lifestyles in London and, in many instances, at their constituency homes too. Not only were we funding their necessary outgoings, such as staff and office expenses, we were forking out to have their homes decorated and furnished - and their moats cleaned and bell-towers repaired.
Locally, thanks to investigative work done by the3towns.com, we now know that some North Ayrshire councillors also have a liking for our money. The Provost and Deputy Provost had us buy new clothes for them and their wives, to the tune of £3,000 in one year, while other councillors claimed for more miles than they actually covered and for meetings that were not really meetings.
Elsewhere, the last year saw the directors of a firm called Comprehensive Estate Services arrested in relation to attempting to defraud the NHS. Comprehensive Estate Services is the company that North Ayrshire Council still, to this day, maintains was a credible bidder for its £380m Schools Public Private Partnership (PPP) Project.
Eventually, North Ayrshire Council officials and senior Labour councillors will have to account for the fact they backed Comprehensive Estate Services as competent bidders when, in fact, a report headed “Review of North Ayrshire Council’s Education PPP Project”, which was produced for the then Scottish Government in August 2004, the very first review of the two bids received by the Council, stated, “The Council’s financial advisors have been unable to satisfy themselves that the CES (Comprehensive Estate Services) bid has sufficient financial or economic standing necessary to pass evaluation at this stage of the process.”
In reality, North Ayrshire Council only ever had one credible bid for a contract that has now saddled local Council Tax-payers with a bill for £380m - £300m of which represents the cost of maintaining just four schools over 30 years. There was never competition for this contract, which meant the only genuine bidder could charge whatever they liked - the Council had no alternative but to accept.
Of course, the past year also saw continuing problems with the four schools actually built under the Council’s PPP contract. We’re paying £10m-a-year, but one of the sub-contractors employed to carry out repairs at St Matthew’s Academy in Saltcoats was so concerned at the poor condition of mortar holding together the walls of the gymnasium that he called-in the Health & Safety Executive. For his actions, his company was dropped from carrying out any further work on the lucrative maintenance contract. As the builder told the3towns.com, “I’ve lost work because of this, but at least I can sleep at night.”
It’s certainly been an eventful year, but what can we expect in 2010?
Within the first five months of the new year we will go to the polls to elect a UK Government. New Labour will not be re-elected. There is absolutely nothing Gordon Brown and his colleagues can do to turn-around their fortunes.
Of course, New Labour does not deserve to remain in power. They have overseen the biggest economic crisis this country has seen since the 1930s, with Gordon Brown’s ’light-touch’ regulation of the financial sector being one of the biggest contributors to the disaster. New Labour also took us into one illegal war and another that simply cannot be won. Hundreds of young British men - and countless thousands of Iraqis and Afghanis - have lost their lives as a consequence.
The voters of England will elect David Cameron as prime minister next year and Scotland will have a Tory Government imposed on us. Unless, that is, we get off our knees and take responsibility for our own affairs.
If you think New Labour was bad, just wait until Cameron gets his feet under the desk at Number 10. The cuts local government faces just now will be nothing compared to those a new Tory Government will impose.
So, those are the options Scotland faces in 2010: a Tory Government imposed on us by the electorate of England or standing on our own two feet and having the confidence to govern ourselves.
Remember, the British Unionists told us the sky would fall in if the SNP ever formed a government in Scotland - it didn’t. They now tell us the same sky will plummet to earth if Scotland votes for independence - rest assured the sky will stay firmly where it presently is after we re-assume the status of a normal nation.
The new year can be a new beginning for Scotland, with a democratically-elected Scottish Government using our resources in our interests, governing Scotland with the consent of the people. Alternatively, we can go back to the future, with a Tory Government in London, which we didn’t vote for, imposing its will on us, and using our resources to plug the financial hole created by bankers in the City of London.
The decision is ours.
Meanwhile, I hope you and yours have a good New Year.
(c) the3towns.com
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
the3towns.com December 19 2009
The reality of Christmas
So, we’re almost there again. We’re in the last few days leading up to Christmas, that festival where we all celebrate the birth of Jesus, the son of God, who came into the world in a lowly stable in Bethlehem.
Well, maybe not. There will, of course, be many people across Scotland whose religious beliefs lead them to acknowledge the birth of Christ and to organise their celebrations around that event. However, for much of the population, Christmas is about giving and receiving presents; it is about partying; the festive season is about fun, friends and having a good time.
There will be many who use Christmas to forget about the dreadful year they have experienced - more this year than there were twelve months ago - and some will attempt to enjoy things, while putting to the back of their minds the cost of everything and how they have managed to fund it.
In other homes, children will be disappointed. Like last year, it appears Santa didn’t get their letter. They will have some presents, but the economic and social reality endured by their parents - or in many cases, parent - will mean that Christmas is a very muted affair.
Few in Scotland have escaped the recession, so this year’s Christmas festivities might not be as extravagant as those held in 2008 but, for an awful lot of people, nothing has changed. When you are already poor, a recession doesn’t have that much of an impact on you.
Those in our society who have to exist on benefits didn’t have money last Christmas and it will be the same this year. Mothers - it’s usually mothers - will have gone without food for weeks, just to save a few pounds so they could buy presents for their children.
The little heating that could be afforded will have been turned off - in the coldest months of the year - so a wee bit could be saved. The consumerist society that operates in Scotland and across the western world, even in the teeth of an economic recession, demands that children must have expensive toys and clothes, and if they can’t have them at Christmas, then parents feel complete failures.
Of course, if you don’t have savings, then the only way to fund Christmas will be to borrow money. For some, that will mean arranging an overdraft at the bank or securing a loan. Others will ’max-out’ their credit card (or cards). The reality, though, is that to access such funds, you first need an income. If you are unemployed, banks will not let lend you money.
So, if you find yourself in that position, how do you get your hands on the money to give your kids a once-a-year treat at Christmas? Some will take up the offers of companies who go door-to-door in deprived areas, touting unsecured loans at disgracefully high APRs (Annual Percentage Rates), meaning that this year, some low-income parents will be offered ‘consolidation loans’ to pay off what remains outstanding from the money they borrowed last Christmas, with a little extra to buy this year’s presents - pushing them ever deeper into debt.
That is what capitalism is all about, the exploitation of others to make profit for the few.
It is capitalists who created the consumer society; it is capitalists who produce the expensive toys and clothes; it is capitalists who advertise in magazines and on TV, telling children and parents alike that anyone who doesn’t possess the latest ‘must have’ item is some sort of ’freak’ or social outcast. Then, for those who can’t afford to buy the products produced by the capitalists, there are the money-lenders, practitioners of capitalism in its most basic form - making a profit from people who don’t have money, and so have to borrow from those who do.
That is the society in which we live, and even though capitalism has brought our economy to its knees, we are told there is no alternative - but there is.
Since I was around 16 years-old, every Christmas I’ve watched a film called It’s A Wonderful Life. In recent years, the film seems to have acquired a fashionable identity. Like stating that Nelson Mandela is your hero, claiming your favourite film is It’s A Wonderful Life has become the stock answer for those attempting to cultivate what they believe to be a ‘trendy’ left-wing persona.
Unfortunately, some of those making such claims were equally happy to vote for Margaret Thatcher when she was branding Nelson Mandela a terrorist, and when she was destroying the lives of communities the length and breadth of the country. More recently, those same people have been content to support New Labour, which is every bit as much a capitalist political party as the Tories.
Anyone who understood the life-long struggle of Nelson Mandela to overthrow white imperialist rule in his country, and who actually got the message of It’s A Wonderful Life, could not possibly support the capitalist society endorsed by New Labour or the Tories.
This Christmas, if you have never seen It’s A Wonderful Life, please watch it. Even if you do not agree with the theme of the movie - how people working together can achieve much more than they could as individuals, and how a fair distribution of resources produces a more equitable and better society - you will be rewarded with an uplifting Christmas story.
One final thing. I really hope you and your family have a great Christmas, celebrating in the way you choose, but please remember that, not too far away, some people will be struggling.
If you can, remember those less fortunate this Christmas. Stories of people going hungry and cold are not just the fiction of Charles Dickens. It is happening right now.
The society created by politicians we elected has produced a reality where the poor have got poorer, while the rich have got richer.
In the short-term, if you can afford to give to a charity that helps the deprived or homeless, particularly at this time of year, they would greatly appreciate your help.
In the longer-term, let’s think about working together to create a fairer, more just society, where poverty is eradicated and where hope and opportunity is restored to everyone.
Such a society is perfectly possible. We only have to decide we want it, and vote for politicians prepared to make it happen.
Seasonal socialist greetings to readers of the3towns.com.
(c) the3towns.com
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
the3towns.com December 12 2009
Dishonesty of British Unionist parties
Last week the3towns.com referred to the absurd situation where two representatives of the Labour Party, Central Ayrshire MP Brian Donohoe and Largs councillor Alex Gallagher, blamed multi-million pound cuts at North Ayrshire Council on a lack of funding from the SNP Scottish Government.
Both men are either very stupid or are attempting to mislead the public by distorting reality. In the case of Mr Donohoe, I would be willing to accept a plea of stupidity - he certainly has form in that area - but I’m told Mr Gallagher is one of the brighter Labour councillors. Yes, I know, that isn’t much of a recommendation, but it does probably rule out any attempt by him to claim he didn’t actually understand how local government funding operates.
Presently, a council only raises around 20% of its total funding by levying the Council Tax. Since 2007, that particular tax has been frozen - in other words, it has not gone up - and that is entirely due to the SNP Scottish Government giving extra funding to local authorities. In the case of North Ayrshire Council, the SNP Government, this year, will provide £210m in order that the Labour administration does not have to increase the level of Council Tax paid by local people.
The other 80% of local authority funding also comes from the SNP Scottish Government, which, in turn, receives its financial resources through a block grant from the UK Labour Government at Westminster. That is the reality of devolution - Scotland’s finances are still determined by a parliament in the capital city of another country.
This year, the UK Labour Government is imposing cuts of £500bn on all government departments - Scotland’s share of those cuts is £500m. That means the SNP Scottish Government will receive half-a-billion pounds less than it had expected. A consequence of such a massive cut is that the Scottish Government has less to pass on to councils around the country, so the reason North Ayrshire will have less money this year is primarily the fault of cuts imposed by the UK Labour Government in London.
Another misrepresentation currently being made by representatives of the Labour Party is that there should not be a referendum on independence during the current economic recession.
Firstly, the effects of the recession have been exacerbated by the actions of the UK Labour Government, so for members of that party to claim that the SNP should not hold a referendum because of Labour’s failures, is plainly ridiculous.
Secondly, the whole point of Scotland retaking its political independence is to ensure this country has complete control over its own resources. Only with independence will Scotland be able to take decisions on our economy, thereby preventing situations like the one we are currently experiencing, where we have been dragged into a recession by the actions of bankers and financiers who went almost entirely unregulated because of decisions taken by the UK Labour Government.
Thirdly, the SNP isn’t actually proposing to hold its referendum right now. The Scottish Government has simply published its White Paper, setting out proposals for a referendum on Scotland’s constitutional future - proposals that would include options other than independence, such as gradually increasing the powers of the Holyrood parliament.
All of which brings us to the political cowardice of the British Unionist parties. Labour, Tory and Lib Dem MSPs have made clear they will vote-down the SNP proposals for a referendum on the constitution, even though the proposals would include their own favoured options, and even though all three parties claim they would win any such poll.
The position adopted by the British Unionists is not believable. If they genuinely think they would win a referendum on Scotland’s constitutional future, why would they fear actually holding one? Their arguments surrounding the issue also do not hold water. As previously explained, the current economic crisis was partly caused by them, the referendum is not planned to be held until the UK should be out of recession, and their own favoured options would be included in the questions asked.
There is also the old Unionist chestnut that Scots have rejected independence at every UK General Election. That is not the case.
When we go to the polling booth at election time, there are a number of factors that determine where we put our cross on the ballot paper. For example, we may like or even dislike an individual candidate. We may like or dislike a party leader. We may have weighed up the policies of the parties and have reached a decision on which one most closely embraces our own beliefs. We may want to stop a particular candidate or party, and so vote for the person or party most likely to beat them. We may have a long tradition of supporting a particular party and feel we can’t vote for anyone else. We may think that the party we normally vote for has been in power too long and it is time for a change.
There are many factors that determine how we vote, and we don’t always vote the same way at every election - there is documentary evidence to show that we are prepared to vote differently at individual elections, supporting different candidates or parties at UK, Scottish and Council polls.
That is the reality of the situation, so it is completely false for British Unionists to claim that everyone who did not support the SNP at past elections was registering their opposition to independence. It is also untrue to say that all those who voted Labour, Tory or Lib Dem were endorsing the British Union.
The fact of the matter is that the people of Scotland have never had the opportunity to voice their opinion on our country’s membership of the Union. When Scotland was dragged into a union with England in 1707, ordinary Scots rioted on the streets of Edinburgh, Glasgow and most other major towns. The union was agreed by so-called Scottish ‘nobles’, who were rewarded for their actions by receiving money and land from the English. Those who sold-out Scotland were, of course, described by Rabbie Burns as a “parcel o’ rogues”.
The people of Scotland should have their say on the future of their own country. A referendum, with every other political factor stripped out, would provide such an opportunity.
Only a contemporary “parcel o’ rogues” would seek to deny the Scots their voice.
(c) the3towns.com
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
the3towns.com December 5 2009
Problems at North Ayrshire Council
The bad pixies have been casting their evil spells again. The same hobbits from the darkside that caused the worst economic recession since the 1930s have turned their attention to North Ayrshire.
The result of the latest black magic will see the local council cutting budgets by £40m a year, for the next three years, with schools having to close and around 800 people losing their jobs. This is a devastating blow to an area that already has the highest unemployment in Scotland, with crippling levels of poverty.
Of course, as some of us have been arguing for years, the reality of life in North Ayrshire is not actually the result of incantations by mysterious elves, but decisions taken by politicians with names and party affiliations.
Budget cuts, unemployment and poverty do not just happen by chance. They are a consequence of policies followed by MPs, MSPs and councillors.
It never ceases to amaze me how people like Gordon Brown and, locally, council leader David O’Neill wring their hands and shake their heads as they explain how they are going to have to take drastic action to turn around the dire circumstances in which they find themselves. However, in reality, unemployment, poverty and cuts to public services have been caused by people like Brown and O’Neill. Of course, they, themselves, are not terribly affected by the consequences of their policies - their publicly-funded salaries and expenses provide a comfortable cushion of protection. For the rest of us, though, times are tough and are about to get much tougher.
Prime minister Gordon Brown has attempted to portray himself as some sort of master of the universe, saviour of planet Earth, as he has ‘dealt with’ the economic crisis that, we have been told, is an international phenomenon.
That is nonsense. Brown, first as chancellor of the exchequer and then prime minister, was intrinsically involved in developing and implementing the free-market, capitalist policies that created the economic collapse and the social consequences we all now face.
It was Gordon Brown who initiated the ‘light touch’ regulation of banks, which allowed financial institutions to gamble - and lose - with our money. It was Gordon Brown and his Labour Government that abandoned the principles on which their party had been founded and, instead, cosied-up to speculators and financial spivs.
We currently have a financial crisis because the Labour Government, and other centre-right administrations around the world, went along with the idea that capitalism was the only game in town and that markets should be allowed to regulate themselves.
New Labour, first under Tony Blair and then Gordon Brown, embraced the policies of Margaret Thatcher, the woman who all-but destroyed the UK as a manufacturing base and whose actions devastated communities the length and breadth of the country. With New Labour, as with the Tory Governments that went before, people did not matter, so long as profit was being generated and the balance sheet of UK plc looked healthy.
However, the reality, as we are now painfully aware, was that the great capitalist miracle was a con - funded by you and me - through which a few individuals got very rich, while the rest of us struggled to get by. Then, when the banks and financial institutions were exposed as unscrupulous gamblers, their losses were ‘socialised’ - in other words, ordinary people paid again.
Capitalism doesn’t work. The reality we now live is proof of the failure of that economic system. Yet New Labour and the Tories will both re-embrace it, just as soon as we, the people, have cleared the banks’ debts and have cleaned up their mess.
Locally, the Labour Party has ‘governed’ North Ayrshire since 1980. David O’Neill is in his third term as leader of the Council. His party has been in power across the UK for twelve years, and ran Scotland for most of the last decade. If the local authority is in dire straights - and it is - then no-one is to blame but David O’Neill and his Labour colleagues at UK, Scotland and local levels.
In North Ayrshire, senior Council officials are amongst the highest paid in Scotland, they certainly receive salaries far above the average for the local area. That, perhaps, has formed part of the problems that have affected the local authority.
In many cases, senior officials, who are supposed to work for us, the people of North Ayrshire, have become remote from rank-and-file members of local communities. The local authority used to insist that officials at the most senior levels had to live within the boundary of North Ayrshire, but that rule was scrapped some time ago, with the result that a number of those who oversee the services we receive in our towns and villages, actually choose not to live amongst us. I’m told Troon has been a favourite with the Council elite - close enough to the local authority’s headquarters in Irvine, but administered by, and receiving services from the more affluent South Ayrshire.
Of course, officials only carry out the policies agreed by councillors. So if senior employees receive inflated salaries, choose to not even live in North Ayrshire, and oversee the provision of services that let down local communities, then the responsibility for that lies squarely at the door of Cllr David O’Neill and his Labour colleagues who have been running our Council for thirty years.
In recent times, we have seen the Labour administration of North Ayrshire Council invest £15m of our money in two Icelandic banks that subsequently collapsed; they signed-up to a 30 year contract to build and maintain four schools, which will cost us, the local taxpayers, £380m; they’ve removed warden cover from vulnerable people in sheltered housing complexes across the district; and in the last few weeks the3towns.com has revealed that councillors have charged us for their clothes, and have submitted questionable mileage claims.
Now, Cllr O’Neill claims schools will have to close and around 800 Council workers will lose their jobs. The failure of North Ayrshire Council rests with Labour councillors and very senior members of staff - but, yet again, it will be local people and the workers, those who actually provide public services, who will pay the price.
(c) the3towns.com
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
the3towns.com November 28 2009
The true cost of councillor's allowances
This week, the3towns.com again reports on concerns being expressed over allowances claims submitted by a North Ayrshire councillor - for the second week, the member in question is Labour’s Peter McNamara.
Since using Freedom of Information legislation to secure the allowances claims for all 30 North Ayrshire councillors, the3towns.com has revealed how the Provost and Depute Provost, Bobby Rae and Ian Clarkson, charged the public over £3,000 to buy clothes for them and their wives; how Labour councillor David Munn has claimed repayment of mileage covered by him for travelling to and from Council headquarters in Irvine - the councillor has claimed between 18 and 36 miles for return journeys, despite the actual distance being just 14 miles; and how Cllr McNamara also claimed for 18 mile return journeys - in his case the actual distance is just 16 miles - and for attending the Edinburgh meetings of a national organisation called YouthLink, despite him never actually having been appointed to the body by the Council.
Now, the3towns.com has revealed that Cllr McNamara has also got the local Council - for local Council read you and me, the taxpayers of North Ayrshire - to pay for 35 ‘meetings’ in relation to the South West Scotland Community Justice Authority (SWSCJA), despite that organisation actually only having held 5 minuted meetings in the 20 month period covered by the allowances claims submitted by the Labour member for Ardrossan & Arran. Most of the unminuted meetings recorded by Cllr McNamara in his mileage claims relate to return journeys from his homes in Saltcoats/Ardrossan to Irvine, where he again claimed repayment covering 18 miles, when the actual distance is just 16 miles.
These revelations come on top of further concerns over the amount of public money claimed by Cunninghame North’s MSP, Kenneth Gibson. The SNP member has a history of being amongst Scotland’s most expensive politicians, previously even claiming more from the public purse than his SNP colleague Alasdair Allan MSP, who represents the Western Isles and has to travel extensively around a very large rural and island constituency, and between it and Edinburgh.
Also of concern is Kenneth Gibson’s fondness for getting us to pay £75.00 per night so that he can stay at a Brodick hotel owned by an SNP colleague the MSP has described as “a friend” - the same man, Mr Billy McLaren, also owns the property Gibson claims as his main residence in Kilbirnie.
Then there is the Westminster Parliament. Local MP Katy Clark recently paid back a total of £782.89 after independent auditor Sir Thomas Legg highlighted two allowances claims he believed should not have been allowed - £336.39 for mobile phone calls and £446.50 on removal costs. To be fair, the amount of Ms Clark’s repayment was a drop in the ocean when compared with the amounts others were forced to return, such as prime minister Gordon Brown having to pay back around £13,000 to the public purse.
However, the point is, each of these individuals was elected to represent us, the people, and we have every right to be concerned about how they are using our money.
There is no justification, whatsoever, for councillors to be getting us to buy their clothes, never mind new dresses for their wives. That practice should never have been allowed.
There is also no justification for councillors to be charging for mileage they haven’t actually covered, and for attending meetings of organisations to which they have not been appointed by the local authority. As for Cllr McNamara’s 30 ‘meetings’ on Community Justice Authority business, over and above the 5 official meetings actually held by the organisation, questions have to be asked over the reason for the very frequent ‘unofficial’ get-togethers and whether or not the people of North Ayrshire should be funding his travel to and from them.
Let’s be clear, when we elect people to represent us, we expect them to carry out certain duties and to ensure that the bodies to which they are elected provide us with a range of services. Most of our elected representatives work very hard on our behalf, and it is right they are paid and compensated for their time. It is also right that legitimate costs met by councillors, MSPs and MPs on working for us, their constituents, are reimbursed.
However, the recent revelations about four North Ayrshire councillors (so far), our high-spending MSP and the scandals at Westminster have resulted in all elected representatives being tarred with the same brush. That is unfortunate and unfair.
In a democracy it is vitally important that the people have faith in the bodies who legislate on our behalf. The legitimacy of government, whether local or national, comes from the consent of the people - so if the electorate loses faith in the elected, and withdraws consent - 70% of the people staying away from the ballot box, as happened in the recent Glasgow North East by-election, is a withdrawal of consent - then the very principles of democracy are called into question.
It may seem a relatively small issue when a councillor claims public money for having covered 18 miles as opposed to 14 miles, or for attending meetings of a body to which he has not been appointed by the local authority - the monetary value involved is hundreds-of-pounds - but the damage done to the trust of the people by such actions is immense.
It is for that reason North Ayrshire Council should carry out its own investigation of allowances claimed councillors, and should ensure that any ‘overpayments’ or non-legitimate claims result in councillors repaying such money to the public purse.
The councillors involved may also wish to consider whether or not it would be appropriate for them to remain in public office.
Having said that, the fact North Ayrshire Council tried to keep secret the councillors’ allowances claims requested under Freedom of Information by the3towns.com - only releasing the documents after the intervention of the Information Commissioner - does not auger well for the local authority’s commitment to openness and accountability, nor to it serving the people of North Ayrshire.
(c) the3towns.com
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
the3towns.com November 21 2009
Facing down fascism
The good news from last weekend was that a group of fascist thugs were blown off the streets of Glasgow.
Only around 70 latter-day Nazis turned up for their anti-Islamist protest, while around 1,500 people hit the streets in a counter-demonstration to promote Scotland’s multi-cultural society.
It should also be borne in mind that, of the 70 fascists who did turn up, many had travelled from England. It was supposed to be a protest by the Scottish Defence League, but that organisation is actually an off-shoot of the English Defence League, which has tried to foment anti-Islamic aggression in English cities.
The British National Party (BNP) says it has nothing to do with the English Defence League - which thinks the BNP is too soft on immigration - but the social and intellectual inadequates who turned up in Glasgow last Saturday are the same ones who attempt to talk-up the BNP as a legitimate political party, which it certainly is not.
Police forces are often criticised for their handling of public marches and protests - I’ve personally witnessed just how wrong the police can get things - but Strathclyde Police are to be commended for the way they dealt with last Saturday’s two demonstrations in Glasgow.
The peaceful, multi-cultural march - organised by Scotland United, trade unions and churches - was escorted through the streets of the city with a minimal police presence, while the group of fascists, with a history of causing trouble at previous demonstrations in England, were prevented from creating disorder by an appropriate police action that contained them far from the city centre.
A spokesperson for the ‘Scottish’ Defence League, who would only give his name as ‘Don’, claimed that they were denied their human rights and freedom of speech. Perhaps he was being ironic? Isn’t it strange how organisations of the far-right, who would deny human rights and freedom of speech to ethnic minorities, are very quick to condemn such action when they feel it is applied to them.
No-one should be under any illusion, the BNP is a racist organisation. It’s core belief is the establishment of an all-white Britain. Irrespective of how much the current leadership of the party has tried to change its image - more suits than bovver boots - the BNP still promotes prejudice based on a person’s skin colour. It believes whites are superior to non-whites - a proposition that is undermined by the very existence of the BNP and the white Neanderthals it has as members.
Thankfully, there are very few Scots drawn to such racial prejudice - a situation confirmed by the BNP’s poor showing in the Glasgow North East by-election, where it finished fourth and lost its deposit (political parties have to achieve at least 5% of the vote to retain the £500 deposit it costs to stand in a constituency).
The fascists had fancied their chances in Glasgow North East. The constituency has high levels of unemployment and poverty, and is also home to Scotland’s largest population of asylum seekers. The BNP thought the ‘indigenous’ white population would look to scapegoat their non-white neighbours for the problems that exist in communities like Sighthill. They were wrong.
High unemployment and poverty are not caused by immigration, they’re caused by the policies implemented by successive British governments - and they impact on every citizen, irrespective of skin colour.
Scotland has serious social problems that need to be addressed, but the answer to those problems does not lie in racial segregation or victimising sections of our communities who have had little or no influence over the decisions that have created the conditions in which we now live.
Another significant aspect to emerge from last Saturday’s pathetic racist demonstration in Glasgow was the number of fascists who carried ‘No Surrender’ banners.
There has always been a link between right-wing English political organisations, like the BNP, and loyalists in Ulster. There is also a common bond between supporters of Chelsea Football Club and Glasgow Rangers, which again produces links to Ulster and back to extreme right-wing organisations, which is how ‘No Surrender’ flags can be seen at Ibrox, in certain parts of Northern Ireland and on the streets of Glasgow during demonstrations by the ‘Scottish’ Defence League.
Anyone who doubts the link between Rangers, Ulster loyalism, far right organisations and support for the British Union should have a look at some of the web sites and fans’ forums that populate the internet.
Incidentally, possibly another example of irony on the part of the ‘Scottish’ Defence League, but wasn’t it funny that many of the fascists in Glasgow last Saturday held placards proclaiming “Ban the burqa”, when they, themselves, had their faces covered by scarves?
There is no place for racism in democratic societies, and it was really good to see so many people turn out last weekend in support of the Scotland United march for a multi-cultural Scotland.
Last Saturday saw exceptionally heavy rain and strong winds, but 1,500 individuals still made the effort to show Scotland respects the contribution made to our country by peoples from all over the world. Scotland is a better country for the input of people born beyond our border, whether Irish, Italian, Polish, Pakistani, Indian or English. It’s a pity the same cannot be said for some - thankfully only a few - of the ‘indigenous’ Scottish population who shamed the country by taking part in a fascist demonstration.
A pleasing aspect of the turnout at the multi-cultural march and rally was the number of young people in attendance.
For years now many public marches have been marked by the absence of large groups of students and young people. It seemed we had created a generation either apathetic or too worried about student debt and the lack of employment opportunities to spare the time for public protest on political, social or environmental issues.
However, Saturday’s turnout seems to suggest that Scotland’s young people are rediscovering their radicalism. That has got to be a good thing for our country and for democracy.
(c) the3towns.com
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
the3towns.com November 14 2009
Glasgow North East by-election
So the people of Glasgow North East have spoken, and they said, ‘We’ll have more of that poverty and deprivation, please.’
How else can we explain a by-election result where the people of one of Scotland’s most deprived communities voted for the candidate from the party that has held the seat for 74 years and, for the past 12 years, has been the government with responsibility for the economy, employment and spending on social issues?
Actually, there are a number of reasons why people in Glasgow North East voted Labour last Thursday, returning Willie Bain to Westminster as their MP.
Firstly, Mr Bain was the only local candidate contesting the election. He has good local credentials, with his parents still living in a fourteenth-floor flat in one of the many tower blocks that populate the landscape.
Secondly, there is a substantial elderly population in Glasgow North East. Support for British Unionist parties tends to be strongest in the age group that remembers Britain standing together against the Nazis in World War II, so the pro-independence message of the main challenger, the SNP, was not as well received there as it is in other parts of the country.
Thirdly, a resident of the constituency indicated to me that many people still have in their minds that they have to vote Labour to keep out the Tories. This is a line trotted out consistently over the years by the Labour Party, and it has been very successful for them.
Glasgow North East is a classic example of just how successful that ploy has been. Labour has held the constituency for 74 years - notwithstanding that recently it was represented by Michael Martin, Speaker of the House of Commons, who is not supposed to have any party affiliation, but who was originally a Labour MP. Seventy-four years of continuous Labour domination, but people still think that if they don’t turn out and vote Labour, the Tories will get in - even though everyone and their dug knew that the challenger to Labour was the SNP, not the Tories.
Nationally, Labour will use the same line in Scotland when the General Election comes around, probably in May of next year, although it could be earlier, particularly if Gordon Brown feels buoyed by the victory in Glasgow North East.
Constituencies with high unemployment and levels of deprivation, which have got worse over the last 12 years under a Labour Government, will be told they have to vote Labour to keep out the Tories. The reality is that the Tories have very little chance of winning any but a handful of seats in Scotland.
It is also true that, in fact, every single person in Scotland could vote Labour at the next election, but if England votes Tory - and it looks like it will - Scotland will have a Tory Government imposed on it. The only way for Scotland to prevent the imposition of a Tory Government is for us to vote for the SNP. We could vote for other pro-independence parties, such as the Scottish Socialist Party or Solidarity, but the only way to stop the Tories is to win seats, and realistically the only pro-independence party likely to do that at a Westminster Election is the SNP (more of that later).
The Tories are favourites to win the 2010 election, and if you think things have been bad under New Labour, just wait until David Cameron gets his feet under the desk at Number 10.
There is no point in sending Labour MPs to Westminster from Scottish constituencies, they are part of the same British Unionist coalition as the Tories, and they will sit back and allow a Cameron Government to wreak havoc on the public sector here in Scotland. Some of us well remember the damage done by the last Tory Governments of Margaret Thatcher and John Major - we are still living with the consequences.
If we want to safeguard Scottish jobs and Scottish services, then we have got to put Scotland first. That will only happen when we retake our political independence and secure the powers and resources to govern ourselves in the interests of the Scottish people.
Having said that, Glasgow North East was a bad result for the SNP, there is no getting away from that. The party fielded a very able candidate in David Kerr. I’ve known David for a number of years and he would, probably will, be a very good MP one day. However, the message didn’t get across to the electorate this time.
It was a by-election and it had to be fought, irrespective of the limited chances of success. The General Election will be different: when all 59 Scottish constituencies are being contested, the parties will direct their resources to the seats they feel they can win, and the SNP will see success in a number of areas they don’t currently hold.
It is for that reason we should not read too much into the result from Glasgow North East. It was a good result for Labour and a bad result for the SNP: the Tories managed a poor third place, but the SNP still expect to take additional seats at the General Election, and the Conservatives are confident of being in government - Glasgow North East has not changed anything. Sadly, it also won’t change anything for the people of the deprived constituency.
At the count in the Scottish Exhibition and Conference Centre (SECC) on Thursday night, Willie Bain concluded his victory speech by saying, “I won’t let you down.” To which a weary Glasgow City Council employee, waiting to tidy up after the politicians and journalists left, responded, “Aye, you will.”
There were two other points that emerged from the Glasgow North East by-election. Firstly, and thankfully, the fascist scum of the British National Party (BNP) did not make the breakthrough they had predicted. They finished fourth and lost their deposit.
I’ve written before of my loathing of the BNP and the racist agenda on which it stands. At the count, my belief was confirmed when I witnessed an exchange between a black community activist from Sighthill and a member of the BNP. The black man had been drawn into an exchange with a group who were wearing BNP rosettes. Eventually he said, “What’s wrong, am I not British enough for you?” The response he got from one of the BNP representatives was, “You’ll never be British.”
The black Sighthill resident was not an immigrant. He was born and raised in London and moved to Glasgow some years ago. Yet, to the BNP he will “never be British”.
The second point to be confirmed by the result is that the Left in Scotland has to find a way of re-uniting. It is absolutely pointless for the Scottish Socialist Party and Solidarity to be fighting each other for the same core vote.
Scotland needs a strong socialist movement, but until the much-publicised breakup of the Left is consigned to the past, and comrades once again work together for the people, the parties of the right will continue to damage communities across the country.
I made that point to a senior member of the Scottish Socialist Party at the SECC last Thursday. She replied, “I agree.” Then, looking across at members of Solidarity, she asked, “Any suggestions on how we do that?”
Rightly, socialists argue for ‘People before Profit’. If the interests of the people are to come first, and they must, then we also have to have ‘People before Politics’.
Scotland desperately needs a strong and united Left.
(c) the3towns.com
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
the3towns.com November 7 2009
Another allowances scandal
The vast majority of people who put themselves forward for election, at whatever level, do so because they want to play an active part in making life better for their fellow citizens.
However, as we saw in the summer with the revelations over allowances claimed by MPs at the Westminster Parliament, there are some whose motivation is to benefit themselves. Even before the Daily Telegraph began printing stories about MPs claiming for ‘duck houses’ and ‘moat cleaning’, the general public could often be heard to voice the opinion that politicians were “only in it for what they could get out of it”.
Never held in particularly high regard, it will be a very long time before Westminster MPs recover from the damage done to their reputation by the truth emerging - a truth that showed most of them did not see a problem with taxpayers meeting the cost of furnishing and decorating their second homes, paying for the upkeep of their gardens, providing state-of-the-art televisions and music systems, and even footing the bill for food.
We ask MPs to work in two distinct areas - politically and geographically - so it is right that we should provide expenses to allow them to do the job. In fact, guidance issued to MPs in relation to allowances states that expenses must be incurred “wholly, necessarily and exclusively” in their work as Members of Parliament. In other words, they should only claim for costs related to their work on behalf of their constituents. By no stretch of the imagination could decorating a second home or maintaining a garden be said to be “wholly, necessarily and exclusively” related to an MPs work on behalf of their constituents.
Clearly, such claims from MPs should have been rejected by the Westminster fees office, but they were not. In fact, they had become the norm. New MPs were told by ‘old hands’ that they should claim for such things. It was seen as a way of increasing their incomes.
Having said that, no-one forced MPs to fill in their expenses claims with demands for repayment of money spent on enhancing their personal living environment. That is the crux of the matter. What on earth went through the minds of MPs as they put pen to paper and claimed for ‘surround-sound home cinemas’ and ‘boombox CD players’? Why did they think it was acceptable and appropriate for ordinary working people to buy these things for them?
Now, we see similar things happening here in North Ayrshire. Again, let’s be clear, most councillors work tirelessly for their communities, and it is only fair they receive compensation for money they spend in attending to Council duties. We ask them to run our local Council - and the services it provides - and we pay tax so they can do that job, and provide those services.
However, as the3towns.com reveals this week, North Ayrshire Council’s Provost and Deputy Provost have indulged in their very own ‘Westminster moments’, submitting allowances claim forms for suits, ties, shoes, kilts, and even clothes for their wives.
As with MPs at Westminster, these claims were allowable under the rules - but what went through the minds of Bobby Rae and Ian Clarkson when they claimed public money for a new dress for their wife or £210 for a suit from Slaters? Why did they think it was acceptable and appropriate for ordinary working people to buy these things for them?
According to the rules governing payments from the ‘Provost’s Allowance’, money can be claimed for “additional necessary purchase or hire of clothes to attend civic functions”. Are we seriously being asked to believe that Cllr Bobby Rae and Cllr Ian Clarkson did not own a suit suitable for attending civic functions? Also, why are we, as taxpayers, meeting the cost of new rig-outs for their unelected wives?
Then there is the amount claimed by the Provost and Deputy Provost. Bearing in mind the rules say expenditure can be for “additional necessary purchase or hire of clothes”, is it acceptable for Provost Rae to have claimed over £2,000 in the past two years, with his deputy submitting receipts totalling just under £1,000? Did these two men own no clothes at all before they were elected?
Councils and councillors are funded by taxpayers: we need councils, and councillors, to provide local services, such as education, social care, affordable housing and refuse collection. Don’t believe the hype from vested interests, like the Confederation of British Industry and the Institute of Directors, the private sector does not provide a better job of delivering these services. Private companies force down wages, conditions and service levels in order to extract every penny of profit.
Councils are a good thing when they are run properly - that is, when they are run in the interests of the people. So, it is extremely unfortunate when local authorities are damaged by the actions of a few individuals who get caught up in their own supposed importance. When Bobby Rae and Ian Clarkson submitted forms claiming public money for new suits and clothes for their wives, they must surely have lost sight of reality.
North Ayrshire has the highest unemployment in Scotland, and the Council chief executive has warned the local authority must find ‘savings’ of around £30million over the next three years. It has been argued that such savings can only be achieved if services to the public are cut. Against that background, it cannot possibly be appropriate for senior councillors to be kitting out themselves and members of their families from public money.
The other aspect of this story that, quite simply, is wrong, is that we now know about the claims submitted by Bobby Rae and Ian Clarkson, only because the3towns.com pursued a Freedom of Information request. North Ayrshire Council did not publish the information as part of their annual statement on Councillors Allowances. Not only that, the local authority tried to keep the information secret.
North Ayrshire Council refused to provide the information requested by the3towns.com. It was only after the intervention of the Scottish Information Commissioner that the local authority backed down.
Therefore, the reality is that we have senior councillors charging us for new clothes, and senior Council officials trying to keep that information secret from us.
It’s worth repeating - Councils are a good thing when they are run properly - that is, when they are run in the interests of the people. At the moment, it seems that statement does not apply to North Ayrshire Council.
(c) the3towns.com
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
the3towns.com October 31 2009
The Laighdykes disgrace
In the mid-1990s Labour-controlled Strathclyde Regional Council embarked on a major renewal of the drainage system in Saltcoats. This work involved laying new pipes across the town, including through the Holm Plantation.
Once works were complete, it soon became clear there was a problem with an area of the public open space: land located across from the children’s play area became flooded after rain. This had not been a problem before the new pipes were laid.
Incredibly, instead of holding to account the Regional Council for what its contractors had done, Labour-controlled Cunninghame District Council (North Ayrshire’s predecessor), who were responsible for the maintenance of the Plantation, decided the flooded area would be left as it was and, from then forward, would be allowed to grow ‘naturally’.
Of course, by simply leaving the land, Cunninghame District Council would not have the problem of trying to maintain water-logged grass, and local people would avoid that part because the ‘naturally’ growing grass was so long. This course of action also avoided Strathclyde Regional Council and its contractors having to carry out extensive - and expensive - remedial works. The only losers, then, were local people who lost an area of attractive open space.
Fast-forward to 2004, when North Ayrshire Council’s Labour administration announced a new school was to be built on public open space at Laighdykes Playing Field.
The new school was to replace St Michael’s Academy in Kilwinning and St Andrew’s in Saltcoats. It was to accommodate all Roman Catholic children of secondary school age, so could have been located anywhere in North Ayrshire.
Even if the new school absolutely had to be in Saltcoats, there were numerous other sites that could have been used, including some adjacent to the Three Towns by-pass, which would have negated the necessity for upwards of twenty buses a day making their way along busy residential streets.
However, the Labour-run Council took the decision that the best location for a new ‘super-school’ was on the only football pitches serving Saltcoats and Ardrossan. Despite the fact the two towns did not have enough pitches to accommodate the needs of local teams, councillors decided to reduce the number still further.
One of the reasons given by the local authority for using Laighdykes was that it already owned the site, so it wouldn’t have to fork out to buy an alternative. However, North Ayrshire Council’s assets, such as the land at Laighdykes, do not actually belong to some sort of public ‘corporate’ entity. Neither do they even belong to ‘the Council’, which comprises the thirty individuals elected as councillors. In fact, the assets of the Council are owned by ‘the people’ of North Ayrshire, and administered by the councillors elected by ‘the people’.
So, by pressing ahead with constructing a new school on Laighdykes, North Ayrshire Council did not just go against the wishes of local people, they rode rough-shod over the expressed opinion of the land’s owners.
There was another aspect to the Council’s dismissal of the people’s legitimate concerns. Laighdykes Playing Field had formerly been a golf course and was purchased by the Burgh Councils of Ardrossan and Saltcoats, to be used for ‘recreation by the community’.
North Ayrshire’s Labour councillors and unelected senior officials claimed the land as theirs and proceeded to ‘appropriate’ the area they needed for the new school. They had to take this action, which saw the land transferred from ‘Leisure’ to ‘Education’, because the former Burgh councillors of Ardrossan and Saltcoats had made clear when they bought it that the land was to be used for recreation.
The land’s owners - the people - objected to this move, but those tasked with administering the asset on behalf of ‘the people’ ignored the concerns and pressed ahead.
The result was that, eventually, a new school was built on Laighdykes Playing Field.
With other factors having attracted more attention - such as the scandal associated with the procurement of the new school (and three others) and ongoing problems with the completed structure - the sports facilities, built as part of the £380 million Schools PPP Project, have possibly not received the attention and scrutiny they deserve.
Labour councillors promised ‘state-of-the-art’ facilities, including football pitches. However, what was actually delivered was of such poor quality they had to be closed to the public. Instead of Grade A pitches, local teams got Grade C, which represents a massive difference in terms of playing surfaces.
Now, as the3towns.com reports in the News section of this edition, the extent of drainage problems in what remains of the public open space around the sports facilities at Laighdykes can be revealed.
Grassed areas are sodden. Surface water does not drain away and the land is unusable. Public paths are flooded and, just two years since being constructed as part of the multi-million-pound PPP contract, are having to be replaced.
Like the Holm Plantation in the 1990s, local people have lost out because of decisions taken by Labour councillors and senior local authority officials who are supposed to work in our interests.
Independent councillors John Hunter and Ronnie McNicol, both elected in May 2007, continue to highlight the scandal of North Ayrshire Council’s Schools PPP Project - every aspect of it - and how it has impacted negatively on local people. However, if those responsible for what has become “North Ayrshire’s disgrace” are to be held to account for their actions, councillors Hunter and McNicol will require the backing of other elected members, the SNP, the Tories and the Lib Dems - maybe even any Labour councillor with a conscience, if such a person exists.
Ultimately, North Ayrshire Council’s purpose is to serve ‘the people’. The disgrace of what has happened to Laighdykes Playing Field, and the scandal of the local authority’s £380 million Schools PPP Project, is what happens when a council ignores the people.
(c) the3towns.com
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
the3towns.com October 24 2009
The BBC and the BNP
We will all have our own opinion on whether or not the leader of the British National Party (BNP) should have been invited by the BBC to appear on its flagship politics programme Question Time.
I’ve previously made clear my position on the BNP: it is a fascist organisation whose members are intellectual and social inadequates. The BNP, like the Nazi Party it idolises, attempts to scapegoat minorities for national failures, and exaggerates fears to turn sections of communities against each other.
Only last week the Equality and Human Rights Commission won a court case that found the BNP’s constitution to be illegal. Specifically, the constitution restricted membership to those within particular 'ethnic groups' - to be more exact, BNP membership was open only to those whose skin colour is white. Clearly, such a restriction is racist, and the party that was happy to operate such a constitution is equally racist.
The outcome of the court case has meant that the BNP must now amend its constitution. In practice, that means the party will no longer be allowed to prevent non-white people from joining, but in reality no non-Caucasian is going to sign-up to an organisation that considers them to be inferior. So the BNP will continue to operate as a racist, fascist organisation, with the only change being to the wording of its constitution.
The Equality and Human Rights Commission was right to bring legal action against the BNP, but questions have to be asked over what took it so long. The BNP’s racist constitution has been in force for years. It was in force when the party stood in local government elections in England and had councillors elected; it was in force when they stood at this year’s European Union Elections, which resulted in two of their fascist candidates being elected from constituencies in northern England. Why was an organisation with an overtly racist - and therefore illegal - constitution accepted by the Electoral Commission, and why was that party allowed to stand for election?
There are some Neanderthals who actually support the BNP’s hate-filled racist policies. These are the representatives of the ‘white master race’ who think that, by virtue of their skin colour, they are superior to any non-white person. The fact they actually believe such rubbish tends to negate their premise, but such limited intellectual capacity is a prerequisite for membership of the British National Party.
However, the BNP could not have had its limited electoral success simply on the basis of votes cast by its deluded membership. BNP representatives were elected because ordinary members of the public in deprived English constituencies were persuaded to vote for a racist political party.
Of course, most of those who put a cross in the box next to the BNP are not, themselves, racist. Quite simply, they have been let down by mainstream British political parties and they believed the BNP propaganda about it being a legitimate alternative. At election time the far-right organisation plays down its racist core beliefs and, instead, trots out imagery of when Britain was supposedly great. Ironically, much of the BNP’s propaganda includes photographs from World War II, such as spitfires and ‘our lads’ defending our shores, but fails to mention that the war was fought to defeat the fascists and Nazis on which the BNP models itself.
With regard to whether or not BNP leader Nick Griffin should have been invited to appear on the Question Time panel, there are strong arguments for and against such a move. A case can certainly made that the BBC, as a publicly-funded body, should not be offering a platform to an organisation that discriminates against everyone in the country who does not have white skin. However, the BBC argues that the Charter which governs how the broadcaster operates stipulates that it must show due impartiality to political parties once they have achieved a certain level of electoral support.
So, who is right? Should fascists, like the BNP, be prevented from spouting their racist propaganda, or would limiting their freedom of speech actually constitute political repression by those who oppose their views?
In a personal capacity, I was presented with such a dilemma a couple of years ago. As a candidate at the 2007 Scottish Parliament Election I was invited to take part in a number of public meetings in the Cunninghame North Constituency. At one such event, on Arran, the organisers had invited not only the candidates fighting the local constituency, but also representatives of political parties contesting the West of Scotland Regional List. This meant that an invitation was sent to the BNP.
Like other candidates who vehemently oppose the BNP’s racist agenda, I then had to make a decision about whether I should share a platform with their representative or pull-out of the Arran meeting. I decided to take part and to expose the BNP for the intellectual cretins they are. However, as it turned out, they didn’t bother to send a representative to Brodick.
The decision I took on that occasion puts me into the camp that says the BBC were right to allow the BNP leader to sit on the Question Time panel. It is not for a (supposedly) impartial broadcaster to denounce and expose a fascist organisation, that responsibility lies with the other political parties.
However, there is another issue over the BNP’s appearance on Question Time that requires to be highlighted - the Scottish dimension.
In Scotland, the BNP is an almost total irrelevance. They have no elected representatives at any level and can count only a few hundred deluded individuals as members. In fact, as the3towns.com revealed earlier this year, in North Ayrshire there are just 12 members of the racist organisation - 6 in Irvine, 2 in Stevenston, 2 in Kilwinning and 1 each in Ardrossan and Largs - that’s from a population of 135,000.
Despite the BNP being almost non-existent in Scotland, support and minor electoral victories in England have resulted in the fascist party receiving television coverage, including the platform of Question Time, which is broadcast into every Scottish living room. Scots firmly reject the BNP, but because Scotland is part of Britain - and is served in terms of ‘national’ broadcasting by the London-based BBC - the fascists receive Scottish airtime that they do not merit.
This, of course, is at the same time as Scotland’s First Minister, leader of the party that forms the democratically-elected Scottish Government, is being told he cannot have a place in any televised leaders’ debate in the run-up to the next Westminster General Election.
There is something far wrong with the BBC’s impartiality if it results in the broadcaster offering a platform to the BNP, thereby allowing the party to, potentially, take its racist message into every household in Scotland, but denies a voice to the man who leads the moderate, democratic SNP, which was elected to form a government by the Scottish people just two years ago, and which currently leads in opinion polls for the Westminster Election.
(c) the3towns.com
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
the3towns.com October 17 2009
Say goodbye to Rangers and Celtic
Last week we were subjected, yet again, to the bleatings of Rangers and Celtic about how they will have to move to English football - or a future European league - if they are to maximise their full potential and compete with the best sides in the world.
Why don’t they just go? Please, go. Go now. To paraphrase the old chant, “Why are you waiting?”
Oh, that’s right, the English league, not to mention a future European creation, has not said it wants you.
Still, you’ve got a massive fan-base, so surely the English clubs will see sense and will, eventually, welcome you with open arms. Once they realise the financial potential of Old Firm fans visiting their grounds, they will be overcome with a desire to have you down there. Well, that’s as long as they don’t remember the last visit of Rangers to an English city - court cases are still pending in relation to the disgraceful aftermath of the 2008 UEFA Cup Final in Manchester.
The reason Rangers and Celtic want to play against English opposition is almost entirely financial, it has little to do with football. The Old Firm are now more businesses than football clubs, and it is the pursuit of money, rather than trophies won on the field, that motivates the talk of a move away from Scottish football.
Look at the record books: very rarely do we see the name of any team other than Rangers or Celtic. By playing in Scotland, the Old Firm are virtually guaranteed European football every season. That would not be the case if they were accepted into the English league but, over the course of a season, the money generated from playing clubs with larger fan-bases could mean greater income. That is the theory.
However, the compromise for the supposed financial benefits would be less on-field success, which raises the question, ‘How many Rangers fans would continue to turn up for matches when their side was not winning?’ We only have to look back to the early 1980s, when some games at Ibrox attracted fewer than 4,000 fans.
Celtic supporters appear to be more loyal (if you’ll pardon the use of that word in a Celtic connotation), but they, too, would be less likely to turn out for a side that, possibly, would aspire to nothing more than a mid-table finish each year.
Would Old Firm fans really be keen to fork out around £40 every home game to watch the likes of Scunthorpe, Peterborough or Doncaster? Then there would be the cost of travelling to away games, which could be as far south as Bristol or even Plymouth - and that is if the Glasgow clubs were accepted into the Championship. It could be that, if the English league was minded to accept Rangers and Celtic, the two sides would have to start out at the very bottom, with matches against Accrington Stanley, Dagenham & Redbridge and Burton Albion.
Clearly, clubs in England’s League 1 and League 2 would have to be compensated if they agreed to allow Rangers and Celtic to leapfrog them into the Championship. The question is, ‘Who would pay that compensation…and why?’
Personally, I believe Scottish football would be much better without the Old Firm. Rangers and Celtic dominate the domestic game and, with them gone, other clubs would be able to genuinely compete for honours. Teams like Hibernian, Hearts, Kilmarnock, Aberdeen and Dundee United would be winning the Premier League or Scottish Cup, and would be qualifying for Europe.
Teams that are winning tend to attract bigger crowds, so we could expect attendances to grow for league games. Young Scottish players would have more chance of breaking through into first teams if every side was pursuing a youth policy, rather than dipping into deep pockets, as happens with the Old Firm, to bring average foreign players to Scotland. Clearly, the development of young Scottish talent would also benefit our national side.
It could, therefore, be a win-win situation. Rangers and Celtic, apparently, want to leave Scottish football, and the domestic game could be a better, more competitive product without them.
There is a problem, though. If Rangers and Celtic decide to opt out of Scottish football, they should not be allowed to play in England while remaining resident in Scotland. If the Old Firm want to compete in England and, presumably, after a few years, enter the top-flight Premiership and qualify for Europe, as representatives of England, then they cannot remain in Scotland.
There are plenty of English non-league teams who would be happy to sell-out to Rangers or Celtic, thereby allowing them a base in England. If they want to play in England and be representatives of an English league, then they should be based in England. Rangers and Celtic fans say it is the team they support, so presumably they would be happy to follow (or in the case of Rangers, follow-follow) them to England.
Better, though, would be a situation where Scots supported their local team, like Ayrshire people going along to Rugby Park to follow Kilmarnock or Somerset for Ayr United. Wouldn’t it be much better to support a successful Kilmarnock side playing just 18 miles down the road, than a struggling Rangers slogging it out against Swansea City, possibly two or three hundred miles away?
Some Old Firm fans argue that Rangers and Celtic have carried Scottish football for years but, in fact, the Glasgow giants have milked our game. They have dominated and snapped-up the best talent of other sides, resulting in a two-tier situation where Rangers and Celtic have prospered, and the rest have been kept in their place, unable to compete.
The Old Firm say they want to leave Scottish football: they should be encouraged to do so - and sooner, rather than later.
(c) the3towns.com
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
the3towns.com October 10 2009
British/English domination of Scotland
The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is a union of nations, it is not one nation. As such, it is a misrepresentation for any resident of the UK to give ‘British’ as their nationality.
Of course, the British State, representing the countries within the British Union, issues us with ‘British’ passports, and when we are entering other countries we are advised to say we are ‘British’, not Scottish, English, Welsh or Northern Irish. Personally, I have always considered myself to be Scottish and have never referred to myself as anything other than Scottish.
Scotland is a nation, England is a nation, Wales is a nation, Northern Ireland is a nation - Britain is not. To give ‘British’ as your nationality is the equivalent of saying you are ‘European’. Membership of the European Union (EU), like the British Union, is made up of nations, but the EU, itself, is not a nation. So, to state your nationality as ‘European’ would be incorrect, but not any more incorrect than claiming your nationality as ‘British’.
Having said that, ‘our’ government in London tells us we are British, and that we should call ourselves British - but to those who run the British State, the word ‘British’ is interchangeable with ‘English’. When they say ‘British’ and ‘Britain’, they actually mean ‘English’ and ‘England’. Around the world, Britain and England are the same thing. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, if recognised at all, are seen as sub-national regions of Britain/England.
Even post devolution, the nation of Scotland remains subsumed within the British Union, and is not recognised as a real country on the international stage.
In 1707, when England and Scotland entered into a union, it was the unification of the nations' parliaments, not the merging of two nations into one. Scotland and England retained their respective legal systems, educational institutions and churches. At the time, pro-unionists claimed the union of England and Scotland was a freely-entered union of equals. That, like so much else about the British Union, was a lie.
Scotland entered into union with England against the wishes of the people. Contemporary documents describe rioting in the streets of major Scottish towns and cities. Of course, at that time, the people had no say in the governing of their own country. Scotland was sold into union with England by a few lords and earls who had been promised money and land in England. Rabbie Burns famously described that act of treachery by Scots aristocrats as them having been “bought and sold for English gold”. They were the original “parcel o’ rogues”.
Since then, England has asserted its dominance over its smaller neighbour. During the Victorian period, efforts were even made to erase the name of Scotland. Maps from that time still show ‘North Britain’ where Scotland should be, and the ‘North British Hotel’ existed in Edinburgh’s Princes Street until relatively recently.
However, despite 300 years of indoctrination, and cultural, political and financial domination, England has failed to subdue its unruly northern neighbour. In 2007, the ungrateful Jocks even had the temerity to elect a government from a party that seeks to end the British Union that has seen Scotland’s people and wealth drained south to bolster the dominant ‘partner’.
Scotland will, eventually, re-take our political independence - that is, we will re-establish the sovereign parliament that went into abeyance in 1707. However, don’t expect the British Unionists to give up their control of Scotland without a fight. England still benefits greatly from its ‘union’ with Scotland.
Independent Norway, which discovered oil in the North Sea at the same time as deposits were found in the Scottish sector, has a £200 billion ‘Futures Fund’ to be used for the benefit of the Norwegian people, and the country has just been listed by the United Nations as the best place in the world to live. Meanwhile, Scotland is skint, has rocketing unemployment, and can’t even take decisions over our own economy. So, where did our oil wealth go, while Norway was building its economic war chest? It went straight into the Westminster Exchequer.
The British Unionist fight to keep control of Scotland, our natural resources and wealth, has recently manifested itself in the proposals to hold the UK’s first televised debates by leaders of political parties ahead of the next Westminster General Election.
We’re told such debates should only involve the leaders of British Unionist political parties, even though the SNP, the party that forms the government of Scotland, will contest every seat in this country. Let’s look at the Unionist’s ‘logic’: firstly, they believe the SNP should only qualify for a seat at the election debate if it fields candidates in English constituencies. Clearly, such a proposition is stupid. Scottish political parties have no desire to govern England. A very different situation from the British/English parties’ wish to retain dominance over Scotland.
Secondly, to the British Unionists, it does not matter that all three British/English parties finished behind the SNP at the last ‘national’ test of political opinion, the European Union Election, and at the one before that, the Scottish Parliament Election. Their argument is therefore undemocratic.
The bottom line is that Labour, the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats want to achieve a political advantage over the SNP, the party that is currently ahead in opinion polls for the Westminster Election. The British Unionists’ undemocratic action is designed to deny the SNP an opportunity to get its message across to the people of Scotland: they also do not want people to see just how poor are the leaders of the British/English parties in comparison with Alex Salmond, Scotland’s First Minister.
In England, the Westminster Election will be a contest between Labour and the Tories, with the Lib Dems challenging in some areas. It is, therefore, perfectly natural that any leadership debate in England should feature Gordon Brown, David Cameron and Nick Clegg. The SNP would have no place at such an event.
However, in Scotland, the Election is a straight fight between the SNP and Labour: the Tories and Lib Dems will be also-rans. Having said that, the four parties will contest all Scottish constituencies and should, therefore, be represented in any leaders’ debate.
There is no way democracy would be served, or fairness achieved, by British/English leaders’ debates being broadcast into Scotland. The three British/English parties would be represented in a Scottish leaders’ debate and would have the opportunity to articulate their British Unionist agenda and to seek the support of the people of Scotland. The SNP would be the lone voice arguing for Scotland to re-take the normal status of an independent nation.
The British Unionist parties should stop seeking a political advantage ahead of the Westminster Election, and should recognise that it is fundamentally undemocratic for them to attempt to impose a British/English perspective on a leaders’ debate about Scotland’s future.
Scots should no longer tolerate British/English political parties talking to England, but taking up our broadcasting time here in Scotland. The only leaders’ debate that should be shown in Scotland is one where the party that forms our government is represented. That’s democracy.
(c) the3towns.com
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
the3towns.com October 3 2009
The end for Labour
How many women would describe their husbands as their ‘hero’? Even if you love the guy - and there must be some women who still love their husbands - is it really a healthy situation to hero worship him?
Of course, I’m referring to Sarah Brown’s introduction of her husband, Gordon, at the Labour Party Conference in Brighton. Mrs Brown - incidentally, a better performer at the podium than her husband - gushed about how Gordon went to sleep and woke up in the morning thinking about how to make Britain a better country. If that’s true, then he’s the only man who does. It’s probably better that we don’t pursue further just what most men wake up thinking about, but it usually has nothing to do with social or economic issues.
Mrs Brown also advised us that Gordon got up very early: perhaps, then, the man does have a conscience - and if he does, the lack of sleep will be due to that conscience being guilty.
As chancellor of the exchequer and then (unelected) prime minister, Gordon Brown has played a central role in creating a Britain with mass unemployment; a Britain where unregulated banks - a Gordon Brown initiative - created the biggest economic and financial crises since the great depression of the 1930s; a Britain where the gap between the rich and poor has got bigger; a Britain where young men are sent to kill and be killed in illegal wars; a Britain where whole housing estates are plagued by anti-social behaviour. In such circumstances, in such a reality, if Gordon Brown really does devote so much time to thinking about how to make Britain a better country, and if he really possesses the massive intellect we’re told he does, why has he not yet reached the obvious conclusion - that Britain would be better without him and New Labour?
Of course, Mr Brown will never reach that conclusion, that would require a degree of honesty the prime minister does not possess. Politicians, particularly those in government, are not allowed to show any sign of weakness. So, to admit that, actually, you’re not very good at the job, is just not permitted.
Wouldn’t it have been really refreshing if Gordon Brown had stood at the podium and told Labour’s conference, and the people of the UK, that he, and Blair before him, had got it very badly wrong? Wouldn’t it have been good if he had said, “You know, we thought we would never get elected unless we copied the Tories, so that’s what we did.
“We abandoned every principle the Labour Party ever believed in and we adopted Tory policies on society and the economy. We abandoned social justice and the creation of a fair and equitable society. We gave up on creating employment for everyone and, instead, embraced the free market - we even allowed multi-national corporations to exploit our workforce and castigated those without jobs. We blamed the unemployed for their predicament, just as Thatcher had done, despite the fact it was us who created the situation in which they found themselves.
“We aligned ourselves with the most right-wing, most aggressive American administration in living memory, and got ourselves into an illegal war - fought in the interests of American oil companies - which has cost the lives of hundreds of young British men and thousands of innocent Iraqi men, women and children. We also went into Afghanistan, into a war that can’t be won, and didn’t provide our troops with the equipment they need.
“We gave up on doing what was right for the majority because we accepted the spin of public relations consultants, working for capitalist millionaires, who told us we had to privatise public assets and allow private companies to make money at our expense. They said they did things better, and we believed them.”
Then, wouldn’t it have been really good if Gordon Brown had looked into the camera and told Britain, “I have failed you. Tony Blair failed you. New Labour failed you. For those failings, I apologise and I offer you my resignation.”
Of course, there was no chance of that ever happening and what Gordon Brown actually said was that Britain needed more of New Labour and more of him as prime minister. What was the justification for Mr Brown’s assertion that Britain needs more of the same? Well, it basically came down to, “If you think we’re bad, you should see the Tories.”
New Labour’s campaign slogan for the next General Election, which must be held by May of next year, is essentially, “We’re hopeless, but the Tories are worse.”
In reality, there is little difference between New Labour and the Tories, as was admitted this week by Ed Miliband MP, the current Labour secretary of state for energy and climate change. That truth was emphasised by the man considered to be the actual leader of New Labour, Lord Peter Mandelson, who, in an interview with the Sunday Times, said he would not have a problem working with a future Tory government.
All of this means that it doesn’t matter who wins the UK General Election, very little will change. New Labour and the Tories are both right-wing, pro-capitalist political parties who will prioritise the interests of big business over those of the people of this country. Both parties, if elected, will continue with the policies that have got the country into the social and economic mess we see all around us today.
Having said that, there isn’t actually much doubt about who is going to win the next UK General Election. England will vote for the Tories, so there will be a Tory government.
Scotland will not vote Tory, but English votes will ensure we have a Tory government imposed on us. The only way of stopping that is for Scotland to reject both right-wing British parties and vote, instead, to govern ourselves.
British political parties, with unstinting help from legions of London-based civil servants (they are supposed to be impartial, but not when it comes to preserving the British State), and the loyal British Unionist media used to tell us that if there was ever an SNP Government the sky would fall in. The SNP were elected in 2007 - look out the window, the sky is still there.
Scotland has a decision to make at the next UK Election: we can have more of the same policies from the Tories, the policies New Labour stole from them in the first place, or we can chose to elect candidates who will put first the interests of the people of Scotland.
To paraphrase Lord Mandelson, we’d have to be ‘chumps’ to allow a Tory government to be imposed on us after we had rejected them at the ballot box.
(c) the3towns.com
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
the3towns.com September 26 2009
Arrogance
There is always arrogance associated with imperialism. The British Empire was built on the exploitation of peoples around the world whom the conquering British believed were less intelligent and cultured.
The argument - and the attempt at justification for Empire - was that Britain brought civilisation to the peasants, even savages, who populated the countries into which British armies marched.
Indigenous peoples were then dominated and indoctrinated into the superior British way, while all the time the wealth and natural resources of countries were exploited and shipped back to mother England. If anything, the principle lesson learned by occupied peoples should have been that the British were unprincipled thieves. Perhaps that is why virtually every country of the British Empire has retaken its independence at the earliest opportunity.
At one time it was claimed Britain occupied so many countries around the world that the Empire was so large the sun never set on its territory. Of course, there was a rejoinder to that statement, which argued that the reason the sun never set on the Empire was because God didn’t trust the British in the dark.
Now, of course, the British Empire is gone and British influence around the world is virtually non-existent. That doesn’t stop UK prime ministers and governments from pretending that Britain is still a major global player, part of which involves them planning to spend £100 billion of our money on nuclear weapons of mass destruction that will never be used - launching missiles against a nuclear-armed enemy would also ensure Britain was on the receiving end of such an attack (mutually-assured destruction) and atomic weapons cannot prevent attacks by terrorists. The UK Government’s multi-billion-pound Trident replacement plans are nothing more than an extremely expensive way of buying a seat at meetings of the G8 nations, where everyone else at the table knows Britain is a spent force, both economically and in terms of influence.
In the 21st Century the only global super-power is the United States of America. The American Empire now extends around the world, with governments controlled by US funding and those that don’t cow-tow to Washington’s wishes portrayed as ‘dissidents’ or even ‘evil’.
Wee Scotland - not even a real nation but just a region of the UK (or as most American’s believe, a region of England) - recently got a verbal slapping from the US for daring to have a will of its own and for taking a decision that did not meet with American government approval.
I believe it was correct to release, on compassionate grounds, Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi, the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing, so that he could spend his final days at home in Libya with his family. The US government disagreed and loudly said so. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton even phoned Scotland’s Justice Secretary, Kenny MacAskill, in a blatant attempt to interfere in the internal affairs of another country by seeking to have the decision changed.
Mrs Clinton’s actions were born of arrogance: the arrogance that holds American opinion as being superior to that of another nation; the arrogance that believes American interests should be paramount, even when those interests do not best serve other nations; the arrogance of the playground bully, who thinks those smaller than him should do what he wants.
Then, just this week, we in Scotland were advised we are off the hook. Ian Kelly, a spokesman for the US State Department, said America was looking to “move on” from the al Megrahi release, and that it was not seeking to “punish” Scotland. Hold on a minute, “punish” Scotland? Who elected America as the world’s policeman, judge and jury? What supreme arrogance to believe you have the right to punish nations that don’t do what you want.
Yes, on this occasion, America has decided not to punish us, but what happens the next time a decision is taken by the democratically elected Scottish Government - in the interests of the people of Scotland - but with which the American Government disagrees? Will we then be punished for having the temerity to think we have the right to take our own decisions, which, let’s not forget, must be in full compliance with Scots law?
So much for the ‘special relationship’ we have with America - one of the supposed benefits of Scotland’s membership of the British Union. What kind of special relationship allows for the bigger, stronger partner to punish the other if they don’t do what they’re told? With marriage being a special relationship, would it be acceptable for a husband to tell his wife, who had disagreed with him, that on this occasion he had decided not to punish her, but he reserved the right to do so in the future if she repeated her disobedience?
Closer to home we have a bigger nation seeking to exert control over its smaller neighbour. Scotland elected an SNP Government in 2007. The SNP had promised that, if elected, it would hold a referendum that would give the people of Scotland the opportunity to have their say on whether or not our nation should re-take its political independence. Now in government, it intends to honour that commitment.
However, the dominant partner in the British Union doesn’t want to hear what the Scottish people have to say, so members of British Unionist political parties in the Scottish Parliament intend to vote down the SNP’s referendum proposals. We’re back, again, to arrogance - this time an arrogance that holds the opinion of British Unionist politicians as being more important than those of the people of Scotland; an arrogance that believes British Unionist interests should be paramount, even when those interests do not best serve Scotland; an arrogance where the British Unionist playground bully thinks those smaller than him should do what he wants.
Instead of arrogance, the world would be a much better place if bigger nations showed respect: America should respect the right of other nations to govern in the interests of their own people, without the threat of punishment hanging over them if the US disagrees with their actions, and British Unionists should respect the right of the Scottish people to have their say on Scotland’s political future.
(c) the3towns.com
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
the3towns.com September 19 2009
Back to basics for Scottish football
Scotland last week fulfilled what appears to be our national footballing destiny, that of gallant failures.
A spirited performance against the Netherlands - still resulting in defeat - wasn’t enough to see us qualify, even for a play-off position, for the World Cup Finals. So, Scotland will not be there next summer when the cream of international footballers take to the pitches of South Africa. In fact, as a nation, we haven’t qualified for any major football tournament since France 1998.
On the face of it, the result was right. We didn’t deserve to qualify. Quite simply, our players didn’t show sufficient skill and quality to beat even mediocre sides. So, we can’t really complain, can we?
Well, yes, we can complain - and rightly so. The reason we can complain is because the fall in the numbers of high-quality Scottish footballers is not down to some natural deterioration of our footballing gene pool. Our players haven’t simply got worse as a matter of course.
The reality is that Scotland is no longer producing the numbers of quality players we used to, because fewer young boys are playing the game beyond primary school age, and there are a number of factors contributing to that position.
I’ve pointed out before the negative impact on our lives of some decisions taken by politicians. Unemployment doesn’t just happen; a lack of affordable houses isn’t a natural phenomenon; prioritising more money for illegal wars and killing innocent civilians (and young British soldiers) in far off lands, rather than adequately funding the NHS, is not controlled by the same forces that see the sun rise in the morning and set at night. These things are not the results of evil spells cast by the bad pixies, they happen because of decisions taken by politicians.
Likewise, it was politicians who decided to sell-off already-limited open space and playing fields in towns across Scotland, a consequence of which is that young boys wanting to play football have fewer opportunities to do so.
Of course, some youngsters give up the game of their own accord - opting instead to become ‘virtual’ football managers from the comfort of their bedrooms - and embark on a lifestyle that involves little or no physical activity beyond climbing the stairs in their house and going to the toilet whenever they can drag themselves away from their computer screen. The power of multinational corporations and their vast advertising budgets are responsible for that particular aspect of the footballing drop-out figures.
That said, there were always other distractions that took boys away from football, not least the discovery of alcohol and women - and not always in that order. However, despite such factors, Scotland still managed to produce world-class footballers. My own personal memory of such greats only goes back as far as the 1960s, starting with players such as Denis Law, Billy Bremner, Jim Baxter, Jimmy Johnstone and Saltcoats’ own Bobby Lennox.
The seventies and eighties also saw Scots of international standing: I’ve yet to see a better full back partnership than Sandy Jardine and Danny McGrain, while players such as Graeme Souness and Kenny Dalglish were regarded as amongst the best in the world.
Throughout those years, Scotland produced sides that could compete in international tournaments. In 1974 we became the first team to be knocked out of a World Cup Finals without losing a game, after a victory over Zaire and draws against Yugoslavia and Brazil: we went home because Brazil scored one goal more than us against the African side.
As a nation, we have always been capable of producing good, and at times great, footballers. That hasn’t changed. Recently, I’ve taken in a number of youth matches in the West of Scotland (including Greenock on a blustery and rainy Sunday morning and Maybole on a cold and wet Monday night). Despite inclement weather, I’ve witnessed a very high standard of play from the boys involved.
However, the reality is that the games in Greenock and Maybole were both played on artificial surfaces. The teams concerned had to fork out a lot of money to hire the facilities, and that is because there are so few grass pitches still available. Which brings us back to decisions taken by politicians.
Since our failure to reach South Africa 2010, there has been much talk of Scottish football needing to take a fresh look at its entire structure - the argument being that it isn’t just in the professional game that problems exist. In fact, it isn’t just in football that problems exist.
If we want to turn around the decline in the Scottish game - at domestic and international level - we need to start, literally, at the grass roots. We need to ensure there are sufficient grass pitches, of high quality, to allow our young, talented footballers to develop their skills.
In the Three Towns, the decision by Labour councillors to build on Laighdykes Playing Field resulted in fewer grass pitches being available to local teams. That decision was taken despite the fact there were already insufficient pitches in the area to meet national guidelines. To compound the Labour councillors’ actions, the local authority then accepted replacement pitches, fewer in number, which they claimed were grade A, but which have turned out to be of very poor quality.
If we don’t get the basics right, such as the number and standard of pitches on which our young footballers play, then we will continue to see potential stars leave the game before their talents are fully developed, and we will continue to field Scotland sides that can’t beat mediocre teams.
Not so long ago the Scottish Football Association ran an advertising campaign that sought to encourage youngsters to play the game. Posters featured a photograph of the current Scotland captain, and posed the question, “Where will the next Darren Fletcher come from?” The actions of Labour councillors in North Ayrshire mean that the chances of future Scotland players coming from our local area are diminished.
(c) the3towns.com
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
the3towns.com September 12 2009
Denying the Scottish people their voice
Only last week I commented that the behaviour of Labour, Tory and Liberal Democrat MSPs had been shameful - specifically in relation to their manufactured opposition to the release, on compassionate grounds, of the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing - and within days they provided conclusive proof of their inability to act in Scotland’s interests.
First Minister Alex Salmond set out his administration’s proposals for the forthcoming session of parliament, which included the intention to legislate for the SNP’s manifesto commitment to hold a referendum on independence. As national self-determination is the core belief of the Scottish National Party, had the first SNP Government not brought forward proposals for such a referendum, opponents would, rightly, have condemned them for reneging on the commitment.
So, we have a government that is keeping to its pre-election promise to hold a referendum on independence, and what is the reaction of Scotland’s British Unionist opposition parties? They have made clear they will block the SNP’s proposal.
It’s one thing for the British parties to be opposed to independence for Scotland - I fundamentally disagree with their position, while respecting their right to hold and articulate their view - but it is something else completely for them to gang-up to block the democratic right of the people of Scotland to have their say on the constitutional future of our country.
The SNP was elected as the largest party at the 2007 Scottish Parliament Election and, as such, had the right to form the government - a right they exercised. However, the Nationalists form a minority administration, which means they must secure support from at least some opponents in order to have legislation passed by parliament. Most people accept this is a much better way of governing than what went before, when Labour and the Liberal Democrats cobbled together a formal coalition to ensure they would always have a majority.
The political reality in Scotland’s parliament means the SNP must persuade its opponents of the merits of its proposals or their legislative plans fall. That, you may think, means that opposition parties are perfectly within their rights to reject the SNP’s proposal on an independence referendum, given they are not persuaded of its merits. However, a proposed Bill giving the electorate the right to voice their opinion is completely different from a Bill that would change the law in some other area of parliamentary competence.
The SNP is not proposing Scotland moves directly to independence - if it were, opposition parties would be well within their rights to block such legislation. The SNP is simply proposing that a referendum be held, which would ask the Scottish electorate if they want to re-take our country’s political independence. For British Unionist politicians to block the people from having their say is simply undemocratic.
The British Unionist’s argue there is no need for a referendum, because the Scottish people don’t want independence. They cite the lack of an overall majority for the SNP at the last Scottish Parliament Election - and every Westminster Election - as ‘proof’ of their assertion. However, the reality is that an individual’s decision to vote for a particular political party is based on many considerations. It is misleading in the extreme to claim that every person who did not vote SNP at the last election opposes independence. There is even evidence of Labour, Tory and Lib Dem members who, when questioned by pollsters, state they would support an independent Scotland.
It is dishonest to claim election results give an accurate view of Scotland’s position on our constitutional future. Only when every other consideration is stripped out, and the people are asked the simple question of ‘are you for or against Scotland re-taking its status as an independent nation’, will we really know what the people think. That is what the SNP Referendum Bill proposes, and that is what British Unionist politicians want to block.
If we listen to Labour, Tory or Liberal Democrat spokespeople, we are led to believe there is overwhelming support for Scotland remaining in the British Union, but if that really was the case, why are the Unionists so scared to let the people have their say?
If the British Unionists are so sure of their case, they should actually welcome the SNP’s referendum proposal, support it in parliament, and make sure it is passed.. They should then mount their own campaign to keep Scotland within the Union, which, if the Unionist’s are right, would be an overwhelming success and the Nationalist fox would be well and truly shot.
The reality, though, is that British Unionist MSPs don’t want a Referendum Bill, they don’t want to have to mount a campaign defending Scotland’s position as a mere region of Britain, and they don’t want the people of Scotland to have a say on the future of their own country.
As is the case with their ‘opposition for the sake of opposition’ in the Lockerbie bomber case, the behaviour of British Unionist MSPs over proposals for a Referendum Bill are shameful.
Labour, Tory and Liberal Democrat MSPs were not elected to keep Scotland in the British Union at all costs; they were certainly not elected to deny the Scottish people the right to have their say on what is best for our country. All MSPs are elected to do what is best for Scotland, and the pro-independence MSPs are happy to make their case to the people, they are happy to show our country would be much better-off with full control of our resources and with all the powers necessary to provide a higher standard of living and quality of life for all of our citizens.
British Unionist MSPs are not prepared to even attempt to make a case for Scotland’s continued place within the Union. Instead, they want to kill off any chance of the Scottish people having a say in their future, so that no scrutiny is applied to how the British Union has failed Scotland over 300 years.
Yet again, their actions are shameful.
(c) the3towns.com
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
the3towns.com September 5 2009
Actions of opposition MSPs have been shameful
Last Wednesday morning I watched live coverage of the Scottish Parliament. Our MSPs were debating the Scottish Government’s decision to release Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi, the man convicted of bombing Pan Am flight 103 over the borders town of Lockerbie in December 1988.
In my opinion, Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill was correct to allow al Meghrahi to return to Libya on compassionate grounds - the man is dying of cancer and met all the criteria laid down in Scots law to be considered for release.
Of course, such a decision will always provoke opposition. Some of the friends and relatives of those who died in the bombing do not accept that compassion should have been shown to the man convicted of killing those they knew and loved. That is entirely understandable. However, other opposition, from some politicians, has epitomised the shallow, petty nature of politics.
Last Wednesday we had sanctimonious, puffed-up opposition MSPs telling us how Kenny MacAskill and the SNP Government had got it wrong when they agreed to let al Megrahi go home.
Even after every one of their manufactured complaints had been addressed, with explanations given for why every decision was taken, the self-important MSPs still opposed. They could not drag themselves out of their opposition bunker. They were intellectually incapable of assessing the situation for themselves and actually doing what was right. So they reverted to the default position of being against whatever your opponents say or do.
In their actions since the decision to release al Megrahi, and during last Wednesday’s parliamentary debate, Labour, the Tories and the Liberal Democrats have brought politics into even greater disrepute. Members of each party have attempted to justify their opposition, but it is based on nothing more than political opportunism - and even that basis is flawed.
Opposition parties believed media stories that said Scotland would be damaged by the Government’s action in allowing al Megrahi to return home to Libya. The stories particularly made reference to America, home to most of the people killed in the Pan Am bombing.
Now, there are two aspects to the opposition’s stance that require comment. Firstly, it suggests they believe the Scottish Government should not take decisions that upset other countries, particularly America, even if those decisions are correct.
Secondly, it blindly accepts whatever is said by the American Government or media. However, the reality is that, as with this country, the American public does not necessarily share the view of government spin doctors or right-wing media moguls.
I spent three days last week in New York and spoke with a number of ordinary Americans. No-one raised with me the release of the Lockerbie bomber. Even when discussion turned to Scotland, no mention was made of the decision taken by the Scottish Government.
In my contact with American journalists, none of them believed al Megrahi’s release was still a story - just two weeks after the issue was sufficiently important for the Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, and the head of the FBI to write to Kenny MacAskill expressing their country’s anger.
Any tears shed by the American Government over al Megrahi’s release were of the crocodile variety, as were those of its British counterpart. Both administrations wanted al Megrahi returned to Libya, so that private corporations could enter into lucrative contracts to extract from the desert massive reserves of Libyan oil.
The ordinary Americans I spoke with expressed no negative opinions about the release of al Megrahi or about Scotland in general. Unless we count one comment about a country where the men wear skirts.
Contrary to the view of opposition politicians, Scotland has not been shamed by the SNP Government. However, what has been shameful is the narrow-minded attitude of Labour, Tory and Lib Dem MSPs - men and women who think they are very important people, but who the general public would struggle to name.
Having said that, last Wednesday’s debate in parliament showed one honourable exception. A Labour MSP who was able to think for himself and who, having actually paid attention to the explanations offered by Kenny MacAskill, announced he would be supporting the SNP Government: he was even prepared to break his own party whip, because he understood the decision to release al Megrahi on compassionate grounds was correct. That MSP was Malcolm Chisholm.
Sadly, his Labour colleagues and the other opposition members did not share his honesty and integrity. At Decision Time the petty oppositionists joined together to pass an amendment that condemned the Government decision to release al Megrahi - but even then they showed their actions were motivated by small-minded, party-political considerations.
If it really was the case that opposition MSPs believed the decision of the SNP Government had been so wrong and had damaged Scotland, then the appropriate action would have been to move a motion of no confidence in the Salmond administration. Labour, the Tories and the Liberal Democrats did not take that action.
Scotland’s opposition parties did not seek to bring down the SNP Government because that would have precipitated a Scottish Election, and that is something they don’t want. On the specific issue of al Megrahi’s release, the public of Scotland do not share, in any great number, the Unionist parties opposition - and the SNP Government is still popular with the man and women in the street.
If an election to the Scottish Parliament was called now, the likelihood is that the SNP would be returned with an increased majority, which illustrates that Labour, Tory and Lib Dem MSPs were simply posturing, they were playing politics with their opposition to al Megrahi’s release. They were opposing for the sake of opposing.
In contrast, after much consideration, the SNP Government took a decision they knew would not be popular in certain circles, but which, nevertheless, was the right thing to do.
Out of this whole issue, the only people to emerge with any credibility are the SNP Government and Labour’s Malcolm Chisholm.
(c) the3towns.com
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
the3towns.com August 29 2009
The release of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi
International controversy descended on Scotland last week with the decision to allow Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi to leave Greenock Prison and return home to Libya.
As the world knows, Mr al Megrahi is the only person to have been convicted of the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 in December 1988, an atrocity that claimed the lives of 270 people. As a tried and sentenced mass murderer, many believe al Megrahi should not have been afforded any compassion and should have spent the rest of his days in jail.
However, the facts are that, under Scots law, any prisoner can apply to the Justice Secretary to be released from their sentence on compassionate grounds - that right applies irrespective of the crime committed or length of sentence received.
Mr al Megrahi made such an application after he received confirmation that the prostate cancer from which he suffers is so severe and advanced that he is not likely to live more than three months.
Scotland’s Justice Secretary, Kenny MacAskill, has come in for severe criticism from certain quarters over his decision to release al Megrahi, but I have to say that I believe he was right.
Kenny MacAskill complied with every rule and regulation laid down by the parliaments of Scotland and the United Kingdom. As Justice Secretary he met his obligations, and after due process and consideration he reached a decision that allowed a terminally ill man to return to his family…to die.
One relative of an American man who died in the Lockerbie bombing said Kenny MacAskill was a disgrace and that the people of Scotland should be ashamed. The woman felt betrayed and made clear that her understanding of justice meant that al Megrahi should have died in prison.
Most of us cannot begin to imagine the grief and loss of that American woman, and of all the relatives of those who died on flight 103 - a grief and loss they have carried with them for 21 years. For them, the bombing of the Pan Am aircraft was not just an act of terrorism; it was not simply a consequence of global politics or of radical fundamentalist beliefs; it was the cold-blooded murder of people they loved. Because of the intensely personal nature of the Lockerbie bombing for those who lost friends and relatives, it is understandable that the release of the person convicted of planting the bomb would provoke such strong feelings.
However, that does not make Kenny MacAskill a disgrace or mean that the people of Scotland should be ashamed.
Notwithstanding the extremely important issue of al Megrahi’s conviction - the man almost certainly was not responsible for the bombing, and therefore was wrongly convicted - the issue on which Kenny MacAskill had to decide was whether or not a prisoner in a Scottish jail, with only around three months to live, should be released to spend his last days with his family. On the basis of all available evidence, Scotland’s Justice Secretary decided it was right to show compassion.
I believe that, far from being ashamed, the people of Scotland should be proud of the decision taken by Kenny MacAskill.
In his speech announcing al Megrahi’s release, Mr MacAskill made clear that he had rejected an appeal by the Libyan Government to have their citizen returned under a Prisoner Transfer Agreement signed between the north African country and the UK Labour Government.
Tony Blair, prime minister at the time the Prisoner Transfer Agreement was signed, had made clear to Libyan authorities that al Megrahi would be included within its remit, but he had no authority to give that commitment - justice being devolved to the Scottish Parliament and, through that body, to the Scottish Government.
UK ministers wanted al Megrahi returned to Libya under the agreement - that was the British end of a deal that saw BP secure multi-billion-pound contracts to extract massive reserves from Libyan oil fields - but Scotland’s Justice Secretary found no grounds to allow al Megrahi’s transfer. The man had been convicted of mass murder - notwithstanding the dodgy nature of much of the evidence - and relatives of those who died in the bombing had been promised al Megrahi would serve his sentence in a Scottish jail. On that basis, MacAskill turned down the transfer request from Libya.
However, on the completely separate issue of compassionate release, Kenny MacAskill found all relevant criteria to have been met, and took the decision that, in a civilised and decent country, it was right to allow a dying man to spend his last days with his family.
MacAskill also made clear that he accepted the Lockerbie bomber had not shown compassion to those who were blown out of the sky above the borders’ town - but that was not grounds for us, as a nation, to do the same. Kenny MacAskill’s decision showed the difference between justice and revenge.
Scotland should be proud it has a government prepared to do the right thing, even in the face of immense pressure from the world’s only super power. We should be under no illusions, if Scotland still had a Labour-led Scottish Executive, rather than an SNP Government, al Megrahi would have been sent back to Libya under Tony Blair’s Prisoner Transfer Agreement, even if he had been perfectly healthy.
New Labour’s leader in the Scottish Parliament, a man called Iain Gray, saw an opportunity to indulge in small-minded, petty party-political point scoring and joined in the attacks on Kenny MacAskill. Mr Gray said that if he had been First Minister - don’t worry, that’s never going to happen - al Megrahi would not have been released.
Quite frankly, that is nonsense. Like all leaders of the Scottish sub-section of the British Labour Party, Iain Gray takes his orders from London, and London wanted al Megrahi sent back, so that profit-hungry British oil companies could exploit Libya’s natural resources.
Mr Gray’s actions, and those of other opposition politicians in Scotland, show the SNP Government has little to fear from Labour, the Lib Dems and the Tories.
The message sent to the world by last week’s decision on the release of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi is that Scotland is a country that believes in justice tempered by compassion - but also that, as a nation, we are prepared to take our own decisions and do what is right.
(c) the3towns.com
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
the3towns.com August 22 2009
Town centre regeneration
Last week the3towns.com reported on the latest meeting of Saltcoats traders who hope to help regenerate the town centre.
The local business-owners - and Independent councillor Ronnie McNicol, who brought the traders together - are to be commended for actually attempting to do something positive for the town.
Saltcoats, like Ardrossan and Stevenston, has been on a downward spiral of decay since the heady days of the 1930s, 1940s and 1950s, when people still travelled ‘doon the watter’ and the Three Towns were holiday resorts.
Cheap package-holidays to the Mediterranean-sun killed the Clyde Coast’s tourist industry, but it has been the loss of long-standing, predominantly manufacturing jobs that have led to the run-down towns we now have in North Ayrshire.
While a Member of the Scottish Parliament, I frequently raised the issue of persistently high unemployment in North Ayrshire, and pointed out how the nature of local job losses had meant communities in this part of the world missed out on the considerable, targeted assistance provided to other areas of Scotland where major employers had closed their operations.
Government task forces were set up following the closure of the Linwood car plant, Timex in Dundee, and the Ravenscraig steel mill in Lanarkshire, to name just three - but the drip, drip, drip of small-to-medium size job losses in North Ayrshire meant the overall impact on local communities and families was missed. Had the North Ayrshire job losses happened with one closure, the Red Cross would have been dropping food parcels to us.
Instead, the losses occurred over a number of years - the major Three Towns’ employer, Imperial Chemical Industries (ICI), was a classic example - but the end result was the same for North Ayrshire as it had been for the other areas that did receive substantial aid.
With ICI gone, there was no other major employer, which led to North Ayrshire unemployment reaching unprecedented levels, amongst the highest in the country - and staying there - but still no government assistance was forthcoming, certainly not in the form or to the extent witnessed in other ‘economically depressed’ areas.
ICI employed people from all over North Ayrshire, but the bulk of the company’s staff lived in the Three Towns. So when ‘the factory’ shed its workers, the impact on Ardrossan, Saltcoats and Stevenston was devastating. Some former employees never worked again, others could only secure low-paid, short-term posts. A consequence of which was the spending-power of local people was severely diminished: which, in turn, had a negative effect on Three Towns’ shops and service-sector businesses.
Other factors played a part in the demise of the town centres in Ardrossan and Stevenston, one of which was a decision to designate them as ‘peripheral shopping areas’, which were only to serve adjacent housing. At the same time, Saltcoats was to be promoted as the main shopping centre for the Three Towns.
These decisions were taken by the Labour councillors who then ran the local authority, Cunninghame District Council. Some of them are still councillors today, and are still taking decisions that damage local towns and communities.
While designating Saltcoats as the main shopping area for the Three Towns may have had some logic to it - it already performed that function anyway - to write-off Ardrossan and Stevenston simply compounded the problems that already existed in the towns.
At the time, shopping in Ardrossan could have been enhanced and developed to service the commercial port, but that, too, was killed-off. We now have a yachting marina that employees very few people, and an Asda store that takes local cash and ships it back to the ‘Wal-Mart family’ in the USA.
That aside, having taken the decision to promote Saltcoats as the main local shopping centre for the Three Towns, the Council then poured funding into attracting commercial operations to a retail development in Irvine. The money Saltcoats needed to upgrade facilities and the fabric of the town-centre never materialised. All of the Three Towns were allowed to decline, and responsibility for that lies primarily at the door of the Labour councillors whose decisions, at best, were incompetent.
Of course, UK and national politicians must also bear their share of the blame for the plight of Ardrossan, Saltcoats and Stevenston. It was Margaret Thatcher and her Tory government who initiated polices that saw people and communities as expendable - men and women were thrown out of work and jobs moved to the far east, so that greedy capitalists could maximise their profits by paying workers slave-level wages.
New Labour, under Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, continued the Thatcherite philosophy and the social consequences are now very evident. We have millions unemployed and with little or no hope of a job. We have a breakdown in respect for authority - why would someone respect the people who created the hopeless situation in which they find themselves. We have anti-social behaviour and decent people afraid to leave their homes after dark, because politicians have created an underclass who believe themselves to have been shunned by society, and who react by kicking back.
Obviously, we all have personal responsibilities, but we, as individuals, did not kill-off well-paid manufacturing jobs; we did not follow a strategy that said there was ‘no such thing as society’; we did not adopt a ‘greed is good’ philosophy; we did not allow town centres to decline; we did not introduce policies that resulted in young families having to live in high-rent, low-standard private housing; we did not remove hope from young people; we did not give a higher priority to spending billions of pounds on fighting illegal wars and on building and creating nuclear weapons of mass destruction, rather than on creating a society where people were valued, and where we all had the opportunity to build a good and decent life for ourselves and our families.
We did not do all those things: the problems our society and local communities have are a result of decisions taken by Tory and Labour politicians - and those problems include long-term unemployment, with people living on very limited incomes, and decayed town centres, where shops struggle to survive because local people no longer have money to spend.
The Saltcoats traders and Ronnie McNicol are absolutely right to want the Three Towns’ main shopping area upgraded and revitalised, but that has to be just the start. For businesses to operate and thrive in Saltcoats, they need more than cosmetic changes to the fabric of buildings and local streets - they need customers.
The key to regenerating the Three Towns is jobs. People need to be employed, earning a good wage, and spending that money locally before we will see real improvements to local communities.
By all means, let’s see town centres looking better, but let’s be under no illusions - until we elect politicians who use our money to create employment and give people a higher standard of living and a better quality of life, then very little is going to change.
(c) the3towns.com
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
the3towns.com August 15 2009
Arrest of journalist is wrong
A dangerous precedent was set last week when Strathclyde Police arrested Arifa Farooq.
You may not have heard of Ms Farooq, but you have probably seen some or her work.
Arifa Farooq is a journalist with BBC Scotland’s Investigations Unit, based in Glasgow. In April, she went undercover during an investigation into the standard of care provided by private companies employed by local authorities in Scotland to look after our elderly citizens.
The programme, broadcast across the UK on BBC1, found carers on the minimum wage, often with very little training and frequently frustrated by poor management. It also uncovered evidence of missed and curtailed visits, failure to keep proper care plans - including inaccurate records of what medicines should be taken - and untrained staff using equipment such as hoists.
As a result of Ms Farooq’s undercover investigation, and the BBC report, MSPs from across the political divide came together to amend care regulations and change the law, in order to address the problems created by profit-hungry private care companies.
If ever there was clear justification of an undercover investigation being in the public interest, this was surely it. Dodgy companies, run by some very dubious characters, were exposed securing publicly-funded contracts providing handsome profits - while staff were poorly paid, poorly motivated and poorly trained. Exposure of the appalling level of care provided to vulnerable, elderly people also justified the BBC’s actions.
However, last week, four months after Ms Farooq’s report was broadcast on Panorama, Strathclyde Police invited her to attend Maryhill Police Office, where she was held in a cell for over an hour, before being arrested. Apparently, the charges faced by the BBC journalist relate to securing employment with a care company by using a false identity.
I can appreciate that staff employed by companies whose business involves looking after and dealing with vulnerable members of society - young and old - require to complete a Disclosure Scotland check into their backgrounds, and that supplying false information in relation to such a check is an offence, but in this specific case, common sense should have been applied.
Arifa Farooq did not supply false information in an attempt to hide offences or behaviour that would have made her an unsuitable person to work with elderly people. She simply provided a false name in order to allow her to carry out an investigation that, ultimately, exposed serious malpractice and led to improvements in the overall care of our senior citizens. Prior to beginning her undercover work, Ms Farooq also received training from Age Concern Scotland, which meant she was actually better trained than many of the full-time staff employed by the Lanarkshire-based care company.
It is extremely important in this matter to emphasise that, very often, the only way of securing information to expose malpractice relating to the work of, and services provided by, local authorities is to go undercover or hope that someone genuinely working within the sector decides to become a whistleblower.
Many local authorities, despite the fact they are supposed to work for us, go to great lengths to keep information from the public. If someone makes an allegation against a Council, it is now often the case that, without an investigation, the local authority will immediately deny any wrong-doing and will close ranks in an attempt to prevent disclosure of any information that could prove problems exist.
Take North Ayrshire Council and its highly-controversial £380m Schools PPP Project. Despite overwhelming evidence that proves the Council only ever had one credible bid - so no competition for its multi-million-pound contract, funded by you and me - the local authority still denies this is the case. North Ayrshire Council still maintains that a bid received from a company called Comprehensive Estate Services Limited was a credible bid and provided competition to the one from the contractor that was awarded the contract.
Comprehensive Estate Services Limited had no accounts, no functioning office, no previous experience in building or maintaining schools - and lied about having the backing of a number of construction and design industry professionals. Just for good measure, the company’s two directors were recently arrested over allegations of attempting to defraud a National Health Service trust in London.
At the time I was investigating the North Ayrshire Council Schools PPP Project, the local authority initially refused to provide copies of paperwork relating to the two ‘credible’ bids it claimed to have received. I was able to secure the documents by taking the matter to the Information Commissioner, who found that the Council should release the information I had requested.
Amongst the paperwork reluctantly released by the Council, was the revelation that its own independent advisors on the PPP Project had declared the bid from Comprehensive Estate Services Limited to be ‘non-compliant’.
It is absolutely essential that journalists can investigate potential stories, using all possible legitimate means - and in certain circumstances that has to include deception to allow working undercover.
It is ironic that Arifa Farooq has been arrested by the police, when every force in the UK uses the same undercover methods to infiltrate and gather evidence against corrupt and criminal operations.
It is also a fact that, on many occasions, undercover journalists expose issues, and then provide their evidence to the police and the prosecution service, when the law has previously decided not to pursue the matter…because of a lack of evidence. Convictions are then secured because of the work of journalists, not the police.
The dangerous precedent set by the decision to arrest Arifa Farooq is that a line has been crossed, which means journalists can now face prosecution, even if their undercover work is demonstrably in the public interest and leads to prosecution and, as was the case with the BBC investigation into the standard of care in Scotland, a change in the law.
That, quite simply, is just daft.
The procurator fiscal service, which is now considering a report into the arrest of Arifa Farooq, should quickly announce there will be no further action in the matter.
It is in our interests that journalists continue to investigate issues of public concern -and that, by doing so, those who would seek to keep information from the public, and who would attempt to cover up problems that exist, are exposed and held to account.
(c) the3towns.com
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
the3towns.com August 8 2009
The truth
Imagine you went to your doctor for a check-up, something more and more of us do for various reasons.
After a few days you go back to the Surgery for the results and you’re devastated when the doctor gives you the news that, despite what you had thought, you are actually in very poor health. The GP tells you that without his help and care, you won’t survive.
Clearly, such news would come as a shock, but you would accept it - your doctor is the medical professional - and you would follow the instructions given to you, including changing your lifestyle. What choice would you have? You’ve been told you must now live in a certain way or….well, you won’t live.
So, having thought yourself to be fit and healthy and ready to lead an active and successful life for the ‘long time’ you expected to have left, your doctor’s news changes everything and you settle down to a much quieter existence. You certainly would not get involved in anything that might make your health even worse.
Your doctor, the expert, has told you how ill you are, and he’s prescribed the lifestyle you have to adopt if you want to survive. You have no choice but to accept things - but, at least, you know the doctor has your interests at heart.
Imagine, then, that having curtailed your lifestyle for 30 years - struggling to survive because you limited your ambitions and expectations, in line with your doctor’s diagnosis - the GP’s notes are made public and you discover that he lied to you.
How would you feel in those circumstances? How would you feel knowing that the very person you trusted to do what is best for you, the person you had every reason to expect was looking after your interests, had actually lied?
All those years ago, when you thought you were fit, your doctor told you a pack of lies. He said you were ill and needed his help to survive, when that wasn’t true. In fact, you had been fit. You had no need of your doctor’s support. He lied to you, and for the next 30 years you limited your lifestyle and, through taxation and prescription charges, you paid the doctor for ‘healthcare’ you didn’t need.
Instead of giving away all that money, you could have used it to build a better life for your family. You could have lived a more productive and prosperous life, but you believed what your doctor had told you.
When you discovered that your doctor had lied, and that you had wasted 30 years, how would you feel? What action would you take?
Almost certainly, you would want severe sanctions taken against the doctor who had lied: it would not be unreasonable for you to seek that he was struck-off and never again allowed to work as a doctor.
In the circumstances described, you would have every right to be extremely angry.
Now, of course, the story, so far, in this article is a work of fiction. Doctors don’t lie to their patients. Doctors are highly-trained, professional people who really do have at heart the best interests of their patients.
Yes, of course, doctors do make mistakes - they’re human - but they do not generally lie to perfectly healthy patients by telling them they are so ill they won’t survive without the doctor’s help.
Sadly, politicians are not covered by such professional ethics - and they do tell lies. Despite being trusted by us to run the country - and our lives - they often take decisions that impact negatively on us. Then, as if that wasn’t bad enough, they come into our living rooms, through the television in the corner, and they lie to us. They tell us that what they are doing is in our interest, when it clearly is not.
In the above story, a doctor told a patient he was very ill and would not survive without the GP’s help, but the truth was the patient was perfectly healthy and could realistically look forward to a long and prosperous life. That didn’t happen, but in 1974 and 1975, the then Labour Government told Scotland it was very ill - in economic terms - and that without help (subsidies) from Westminster, our country would not survive.
We were told Scotland was an economic basket case, and that we had to curtail our lifestyle and ambition. We were told, by the people we had trusted to run our country, that we were a hopeless case, dependent on England for our very existence. The Labour Government lied.
Official papers, finally released after being kept secret by the British government establishment, show that when Labour Ministers were telling us we, as a nation, were very ill and needed their help to survive, their own civil servants were submitting reports that made clear Scotland, if it were to re-take its independence, would have access to booming oil revenues, would have one of the strongest currencies in Europe, would have “embarrassingly” large tax surpluses, and would be transformed “into a country with a substantial and chronic surplus”.
The official UK government papers go on to describe how the Department of Trade and Industry “disguised” the extent to which an independent Scotland would be financially successful - in other words, they lied to us. While they knew an independent Scotland would be one of Europe’s strongest and most successful countries, UK government Ministers were telling us we couldn’t stand on our own two feet - the same message they’re telling us today.
The government papers from the 1970s also refer to England’s need to hold onto Scottish oil fields, stating that if Scotland re-took its independence, England would have to ‘import’ oil from us - and may even have to consider ‘force’ to ensure a share of the oil in the Scottish sector of the North Sea.
Of course, the UK Government’s lies worked, for them, and conservative estimates say Scotland has lost out on around £200 billion of oil revenues since the 1970s.
How angry would you be if your doctor said you were very ill and would only survive with his help - and then, over the next 30 years, he charged you for medication you didn’t need? What action would you take against a doctor who lied to you and treated you in that way?
How do you feel about British Unionist politicians who said your country was very ill and would only survive with their help - and then, over the next 30 years, ripped you off for around £200 billion?
What action should be taken against British Unionist political parties who lied to you and treated you in that way?
(c) the3towns.com
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
the3towns.com August 1 2009
Fighting for their future
“We’re Killie till we die!”
Those were the words of Douglas Reid, leader of East Ayrshire Council, as he closed his speech to the 20,000 people who turned out to support Johnnie Walker workers last Sunday.
Dougie Reid has been an SNP councillor for 17 years - he’s Kilmarnock born and bred and works tirelessly for his constituents, the people with whom he grew up.
Another speaker at the ‘Keep Johnnie Walker in Kilmarnock’ rally was local MSP Willie Coffey. Willie is another Kilmarnock man - again working with and for the people he went to school with, worked beside and lives amongst.
Willie is from a well-known local family - his late brother, Danny, was an SNP councillor for many years and was provost of Kilmarnock & Loudon.
The contributions of Dougie Reid and Willie Coffey were different from those of other speakers. First Minister Alex Salmond was the most articulate; two trade union representatives made telling points about Diageo’s motivation for wanting to close the Johnnie Walker plant - they said it was all about greed, and they were right; Kilmarnock’s Stevenston-raised Labour MP Des Browne spoke about ‘his’ constituents and how Johnnie Walker wouldn’t be Johnnie Walker if it left Kilmarnock; but Dougie Reid and Willie Coffey spoke on the issue with a passion that only comes from being Killie boys fighting for Kilmarnock.
The other speakers genuinely care very much about what is happening at Johnnie Walker and the possible consequences for Kilmarnock if Diageo goes ahead with its plans for closure, but it was the two local men who made clear what the campaign is all about.
For the town of Kilmarnock, losing Johnnie Walker would be almost unthinkable. Unemployment would soar to the highest level in Scotland: millions of pounds would be taken out of the local economy: businesses that feed into the Johnnie Walker plant and which cater for the needs of staff would, almost certainly, go to the wall. Put quite simply, closure of Johnnie Walker would be an economic and social disaster for Kilmarnock.
That is only one aspect, though: Dougie Reid and Willie Coffey grew up in Kilmarnock and they know the town doesn’t just want Johnnie Walker to stay for practical reasons. Kilmarnock is proud to be the home to Johnnie Walker, the world’s best-known whisky brand. Go into a bar anywhere in the world and you will probably see a bottle of Johnnie Walker Red Label on the gantry. For generations, whisky drinkers around the globe will have seen the proud legend on that Red Label - ‘Bottled in Kilmarnock’.
Kilmarnock is Johnnie Walker and Johnnie Walker is Kilmarnock. On Sunday, Willie Coffey said, “We want Diageo to be part of our future, because they’ve got part of our past.”
The problem for the Kilmarnock-Johnnie Walker link arose when the whisky company was swallowed-up by multi-national drinks conglomerate Diageo. For Diageo, the only thing that matters is making money, and lots of it. Sentiment does not feature in the considerations of the company’s directors and management.
If whisky can be bottled somewhere in the world that would mean Diageo increasing its profits even further - last year it made over £2 billion - then the 200 year link between Kilmarnock and Johnnie Walker doesn’t matter.
Diageo’s actions show the true face of capitalism - it’s all about money, not people, not communities, not society, not fairness, not decency. Capitalism is driven by greed and by the exploitation of ordinary working people - and what Diageo proposes for Kilmarnock and Port Dundas in Glasgow exemplifies everything that is wrong with the unfettered free market.
Even when people fight back in defence of their jobs, their families and their towns - as is happening in Kilmarnock - defenders of capitalism show they will always put first their narrow self-interests. The Confederation of British Industry (CBI) in Scotland criticised the Johnnie Walker workers, saying their actions could discourage other investors from setting up in Scotland.
Let’s think about that comment for a moment. What the CBI is saying, is that workers have no place attempting to defend themselves. All that matters, according to the business organisation, is that capitalists can set up in Scotland, pay staff as little as they can get away with, utilise the good name built up by Scottish companies to extract the maximum profit, and then simply close down Scottish facilities when bigger profits can be made elsewhere. That’s capitalism for you - and that’s the opinion of an organisation that is strongly supported by the Tories, the political party that is going to form the next government of the United Kingdom.
Even now, possibly the best chance of persuading Diageo to change its mind about closing the Johnnie Walker plant is the negative impact on the company’s international reputation that is being generated by its treatment of Ayrshire and Glasgow workers. Capitalists only see the bottom line - the profits. If Diageo believes its global profits will suffer as a consequence of its actions in Scotland, then it might reconsider its decision.
Some politicians, such as Scottish Finance Secretary John Swinney and Kilmarnock MP Des Browne, have ruled out a boycott of Diageo’s drinks, including Guinness and Smirnoff vodka. They say a boycott would put jobs at risk.
I disagree with their position. Jobs are already at risk - that‘s what this fight is all about - and the quickest way of getting Diageo to see how their business is going to be damaged is to hit their bottom line - their profits - by refusing to buy their drinks.
If people around the world make clear they won’t buy Diageo products until the threat of closure hanging over Johnnie Walker in Kilmarnock and the distillery at Port Dundas in Glasgow is removed, and that decision quickly impacts on the company’s balance sheet, then those in the Diageo boardroom can be forced to backtrack on their selfish and potentially disastrous decision.
Meanwhile, the Killie boys - Dougie Reid and Willie Coffey - will continue to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with the people of Kilmarnock in the fight to save Johnnie Walker….and maybe even the town itself.
(c) the3towns.com
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
the3towns.com July 25 2009
Liam who?
Have you ever heard of a man called Liam Byrne?
Isn’t he the blonde one in Boyzone? No wait, Liam Byrne…he was manager of Celtic for a while, wasn’t he? No, that was Liam Brady.
Liam Byrne….Liam Byrne?
Chances are you haven’t actually heard of Liam Byrne, but the man just cost Scotland £150m.
Mr Byrne is the Labour MP for Hodge Hill in Birmingham, and is a Treasury Minister in the UK Government. Last week, he told Scotland’s Finance Secretary, John Swinney MSP, that the Scottish Government couldn’t have £150m that is currently sitting in a bank account in London.
The money is being held in the ‘Fossil Fuel Account’ at Westminster and, by law, can only be accessed by Scottish Ministers for the purpose of supporting the development of renewable energy in Scotland.
Now, developing renewable energy is a key policy of the SNP Scottish Government, so the £150m in the Fossil Fuel Account could certainly be put to good use - which was why the Scottish Finance Secretary wanted access to it.
However, it shows how limited are the powers afforded to Scotland’s government that Mr Swinney actually had to ask an MP for a seat in Birmingham if it would be OK for us to use some of the money allocated to us. Mr Byrne said no.
According to British Unionists, devolution is as good as it gets for Scotland. They tell us that independence would be a disaster for us. So, we just have to grin and bear the fact an MP for an English constituency can tell Scotland’s democratically elected Finance Secretary that he cannot use Scotland’s share of money designated to be used to develop green, safe and cost-effective renewable energy.
Actually, Mr Byrne didn’t tell John Swinney that he couldn’t have the money from the Fossil Fuel Account. What he said was, ‘Yes, you can have the £150m…but we’ll cut the Scottish block grant by the same amount.’
So, if the SNP Scottish Government in Edinburgh ever uses that £150m, the Labour government in London will take back £150m from the total allocated to fund other government services in Scotland, thereby completely defeating the purpose.
Is it any wonder politicians are held in such low esteem by the general public?
Unfortunately, this is the reality of Scotland within the British Union. Even with the limited powers of devolution, we still have to go to London, cap-in-hand, to get back just some of the money we contribute every year to the Westminster Exchequer.
Presently, the Scottish Government receives a block grant from the UK Government, which finances public services in Scotland. That is exactly the same system that operated before devolution, except that the block grant was then provided to the Scottish Office, a department of the London government.
The level of the funding allocated to Scotland - both before devolution and now - is determined by the Barnett Formula, which is calculated on the basis of Scotland’s population, relative to the overall UK figure. Barnett has led to many English MPs complaining that Scotland receives too much money.
However, anyone who thinks Scotland gets a good deal out of Barnett, doesn’t understand how the system works - and that’s before we consider how much Scotland contributes to the UK.
Notwithstanding the fact that official UK Government figures (GERS - Government Expenditure and Revenue Scotland) don’t count North Sea oil revenue as coming from Scotland, but do count money spent ‘for Scotland’ - such as our share of funding the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and building and maintaining Britain’s nuclear weapons of mass destruction - Barnett actually operates to reduce the amount of money ‘given’ to Scotland each year.
It costs more to provide the same level of service in Scotland as it does in England - a result of the widely-spread nature of Scotland’s population - but UK Governments (Labour or Tory) are committed to reducing the amount we get - irrespective of need.
So, just because we now have a parliament building in Edinburgh and SNP Ministers, don’t be fooled into thinking we are governing ourselves - we’re not. Westminster decides the areas in which the Scottish Government can legislate, and how much it can spend. Under devolution, Westminster has the power to overturn any decision of the Scottish Parliament and, ultimately, can even abolish the whole Edinburgh legislature, if it chooses.
It is an old saying, but still as true today as when it was first uttered, ‘power devolved is power retained’. The UK Government devolved power to a Scottish Parliament, but retained power over everything it does.
In the ten years since the Scottish Parliament was established, it has legislated on many issues affecting the people of Scotland, often in ways subsequently followed by the UK Government, and has even taken its own path on other substantial matters, such as Free Personal Care.
However, what the Scottish Parliament and Government can do is severely limited by the constitutional and financial constraints placed on them by the UK Government through the Scotland Act (1998). Scottish ‘government’ won’t be able to fully implement policies in the interests of the people of Scotland until it has the full powers, and full access to all of our nation’s resources, that only come with independence.
Anything less than independence - such as a small increase in a very limited number of powers, as advocated by the British Unionist Calman Commission - will retain the position we currently have, where the Scottish Parliament and Government is answerable to the UK Government for everything it does and everything it spends.
The reality is that Scotland more than pays its way. Contrary to the lies of British Unionist politicians, we receive back from London less than we contribute. The myth of Scottish ‘subsidy junkies’ has been scotched time and time again. We now also have UK Government papers from the 1970s that show how the then Labour Government lied by saying Scotland was an economic basket case, and that North Sea oil was due to run out in 10 years - it’s still pumping multi-million pounds into the London exchequer today.
Independence is the normal state of affairs for a nation, but British Unionists tell us Scotland is the only country on the face of the Earth that can’t govern itself.
These same British Unionist politicians see nothing wrong in the fact a Labour MP for a constituency in Birmingham can tell the democratically elected Scottish Government that it can’t have access to its own money.
(c) the3towns.com
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
the3towns.com July 18 2009
Killing Kilmarnock
I’ve written before about how much I loathe Margaret Thatcher and the policies she introduced while prime minister of the United Kingdom.
Thatcher was responsible for an economic and social strategy that destroyed jobs, people’s lives and whole communities. Recently, some right-wing journalists have tried to re-write history by arguing that Thatcher was simply misunderstood. These revisionists will fail in their task.
They will fail, and they will deserve to fail, for Thatcher did destroy communities - that is a matter of record - and people remember only too well what she did. You can’t re-write history while those who lived through it are still around.
I used to wonder how Thatcher could sleep at night. How could someone be so callous as to throw people onto the dole, take away their livelihoods and their self-respect, and then tell them to get on their bikes to look for work that didn’t exist? The answer was she didn’t care. It wasn’t affecting her and her family, so it didn’t matter. Like the dedicated, free-market capitalist she was, she believed people were expendable in the pursuit of ever-greater profits for the privileged few.
I was reminded of Thatcher, and the damage she did, when I recently visited Kilmarnock in the wake of the announcement by drinks giant Diageo that it is to close the Johnnie Walker plant in the town - putting 700 people out of work.
Diageo say it is essential for them to close the Kilmarnock facility, and a distillery at Port Dundas in Glasgow, in order for the company to remain competitive. Last year Diageo made a profit of £2 billion.
Like Thatcher, the bosses of Diageo don’t care about people. Their motivation is profit, profit and even more profit. The announced redundancies don’t affect them or their families, so they don’t matter.
Who cares that Johnnie Walker has a history in the town of Kilmarnock stretching back almost 200 years? Who cares that it was Kilmarnock workers who built the company and the profits it generates? Who cares that, after losing BMK carpets and Massey Ferguson tractors, the loss of Johnnie Walker could very well signal the death knell for Kilmarnock itself?
To lose 700 jobs and the income generated from them - spent in local shops and businesses - would be a blow from which Kilmarnock and East Ayrshire in general would struggle to recover - but the bosses of Diageo simply don’t care.
From across the political divide, politicians have come together - although Kilmarnock’s Labour MP, Des Browne, couldn’t stop himself from having a go at the SNP Scottish Government, claiming they should have been talking to Diageo while the company was reviewing its operations. Such petty party-politics has no place in the fight to save the livelihoods of 700 people.
Trade unions, too, are desperately trying to engage Diageo bosses in meaningful negotiations over its announced plans - but how can you negotiate with people who don’t care, and whose minds are made up?
When a company is making profits of £2 billion a year, what incentives can governments offer to change its mind about a restructuring of its business? Diageo is motivated by greed. It wants to make even more than £2 billion a year. People, and social responsibility, don’t come into the company’s thinking - it’s all about money.
If any further evidence of Diageo’s greed-driven policies were required, we just need to look at the comments of some senior managers in the past week. One of them said, “We don’t have to bottle the whisky in Scotland.” So the threat is clear. Block what we want to do, and we’ll move the bottling process completely out of Scotland. How much more profit would be generated for Diageo if it could get away with paying slave-labour wages to exploited workers in the far east?
The company’s argument is that as long as the whisky was distilled and matured in Scotland, it could be bottled anywhere and still be ‘Scotch Whisky’. Thatcher would just love these guys.
Trade unions have been here before with Diageo. The company has threatened closures before, and it has always carried out its threats. Government ministers, both in Scotland and at Westminster, are feverishly trying to come up with incentives that would persuade Diageo to change its mind and retain the facilities at Kilmarnock and Port Dundas - but when you’re dealing with greed-driven people who have no social conscience, your scope for manoeuvre is severely limited. Then there is that £2 billion profit: Diageo is prepared to destroy the lives of 900 families - 700 at Kilmarnock and 200 at Port Dundas - in order, it is reported, to save £120 million. Even if the UK and Scottish Governments were to come up with that £120 million as an incentive, how long before Diageo would be back looking for more?
In such circumstances, and given the bosses at Diageo are interested only in making money, perhaps it is up to us, not politicians or trade unions, to speak the language to which Diageo will listen - boycott the drinks made by the company.
It isn’t just whisky, Diageo also make Guinness, Smirnoff Vodka, Bailey’s Irish Cream, J&B Whisky, Captain Morgan Spiced Rum, Archer’s Schnapps, Harp Lager, and Red Stripe lager. If you believe Diageo is wrong to put profit before people, if you believe the workers who have built the profit for Diageo have a right to retain their employment, then don’t buy Diageo’s products for the next year. Hit them where it hurts…in their corporate pockets.
United, the power of the people can bring about change. So here is a change worth bringing about. If you support the workers at Kilmarnock and Port Dundas, contact your elected representatives and tell them to pass the message to Diageo - we won’t buy any Diageo product until the company removes the closure threat hanging over these two plants.
Of course, we could all just sit back and let the closures and redundancies happen. After all, it isn’t happening to us or our families, so does it matter? Ask the people who lost their jobs during the Thatcher years; ask those who haven’t been able to find long-term employment since. The consequences of Thatcher’s destruction of lives and communities is still being felt today, in long-term unemployment, hopelessness, decay, and anti-social behaviour. Don’t let them destroy more lives.
(c) the3towns.com
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
the3towns.com July 11 2009
Paying the price of New Labour's wars
On February 15 2003, along with 100,000 others, I marched through Glasgow in opposition to the plans of the New Labour Government to send British troops into an illegal American war against Iraq.
The march culminated in a rally outside the SECC on the banks of the Clyde. The venue was chosen because, inside the SECC on that day, prime minister Tony Blair was addressing the conference of the Scottish section of the British Labour Party. Protestors wanted Blair to hear that his actions were not in our name.
However, being the coward he is, Blair rearranged his speech - from the afternoon to the morning - so he could be out of Glasgow before the march reached the SECC. Blair may have skulked out of town, but delegates to the Labour conference inside the SECC could clearly hear the people’s opposition to their warmongering leader’s policy.
Across the city of Glasgow on that day, in Pollock, an 18 year-old was hanging around with his pals. Betrayed by the New Labour Government that had promised “Things Can Only Get Better”, most of them didn’t have jobs.
Sixteen months later that young Glasgow man was dead. He died in Iraq, a country he probably could not have pointed to on a map before he decided he didn’t want to languish on the dole, and joined the army to get a trade.
After just six months training, Gordon Gentle was posted with the 1st Battalion Royal Highland Fusiliers to the British sector of war-torn Iraq. On June 28 2004, Gordon was travelling in an army Landrover when an improvised roadside device exploded. The British Army had not fitted the Landrover with protection against such homemade bombs. At a subsequent enquiry, the coroner returned a verdict of ‘unlawful death’.
The coroner meant Gordon had been unlawfully killed by Iraqi insurgents, but the charge could apply equally to the British Army who sent Gordon and other members of the armed forces into hostile territory without adequate protection. It could also have applied to the Right Honourable Tony Blair, the man who sent young British men to kill and be killed in an illegal, immoral, imperialist American war.
Gordon’s mother, Rose Gentle, has campaigned tirelessly for answers as to why her son was killed. Why was he sent to Iraq, after just six months training? Why was adequate protection not fitted to the vehicle in which he was travelling? Why were British troops sent into Iraq, when everyone knew the premise for war was bogus - there were no weapons of mass destruction - and everyone also knew it was really all about America getting its hands on Iraq’s plentiful oil fields?
Like he did back on that February day in Glasgow in 2003, Blair took the coward’s way out. He did not meet with Rose Gentle. Even when Rose went to Downing Street to hand in a petition calling for British troops to be brought home - so that no other mother had to go through what she had endured - Mr Blair was not at home.
I thought of Gordon Gentle last week when I visited an RAF base and an army garrison. I thought of Gordon and the other young men who have lost their lives in America’s wars in Iraq and Afghanistan - not to mention the thousands of Iraqi and Afghani civilians who have also paid the ultimate price.
On my visits to the military bases, I couldn’t help but be struck by the young men in uniform. They were fit, perfectly groomed, and just what the military needs - obedient.
Some of those young men have already seen active service in Iraq and Afghanistan - one man I spoke to, an officer in his late twenties, has just returned from his third tour of duty in Iraq. He told me things really were much better in that country, certainly in contrast to his first visit.
Other young soldiers had just completed their basic training and were waiting to be posted to Afghanistan. Those men will soon be staring down the barrel of a gun in one of the most dangerous countries in the world, but how many of them, like Gordon Gentle, joined the army to get off the dole and to get a trade? How many of those men could have pointed to Afghanistan on a map before they signed up for the army? How many of them will come home the way Gordon Gentle came home, and how many of their mothers will have to endure what Rose Gentle still endures?
Of course, ‘Tony the Coward’, the man who sends other people’s sons to be killed in the name of American imperialism, has long since scuttled off into retirement - a retirement that sees him make millions of pounds for advising American banks, and from making after-dinner speeches to rich Americans.
While Tony Blair has walked off the political stage into a cosy and cosseted life, the global mess created by him and his American buddy, ‘George W’, is still claiming the lives of decent young soldiers, men who joined up to get away from the domestic mess of unemployment and despair also created by Blair and his New Labour Party.
The young men and women who serve our country in the armed forces deserve so much better than sweltering in inadequate camps in Iraq and Afghanistan. They deserve better than being used as little more than cannon-fodder in wars created by America and its lapdog Britain to further the aims of the ‘hawks’ behind the ‘Project For a New American Century’ - a strategy adopted by the administration of former President George W Bush, and which openly called for American world domination.
At the time of writing this article, 179 British military personnel have been killed in Afghanistan. Why did they die? Does anyone remember why British troops went into Afghanistan in 2001?
The war in Afghanistan was in response to the 9/11 attacks on New York. It is an American war - with British support - and was initially given the title ‘Operation Enduring Freedom’ by the US military. The stated aim of the invasion of Afghanistan was to find Osama bin Laden and other high-ranking members of al-Qaeda, and to put them on trial: the war was also to remove the Taliban from Afghanistan.
Eight years and 179 young British lives later, Osama bin Laden has not been found, no high-ranking members of al-Qaeda have been put on trial, and the Taliban still control much of Afghanistan.
(c) the3towns.com
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
the3towns.com July 4 2009
Hope and opportunity
Last Thursday was one of the proudest days of my life. I was at Glasgow University to see my son graduate with an MA in Social Sciences.
It was a remarkable day - Glasgow University is an imposing series of buildings, with 500 years of history behind it and the promise of still further academic achievements ahead.
Other than the personal element of the day, what struck me most was the quality of young people graduating. We hear, almost daily, about feral youngsters causing anti-social behaviour, and about how young people in Scotland are work-shy. What I saw last Thursday were young people of which Scotland can be proud.
Four years of study, four years of hard work, four years of combining university with jobs in supermarkets and pubs, was finally culminating in the awards of degrees that, the students were promised, would better equip them for the real world of employment.
Well, that is the theory. In reality, however, politicians have saddled today’s hard-working graduates with massive debts and the prospect of emerging into the workplace just as the world plunges into the deepest recession for 70 years. What prospects do this year’s graduates really have?
It is still true that possessing a degree should help in securing work, but what kind of work is out there? Where will the young people who graduated last week from Glasgow University find the employment for which they are all now looking?
Will it be in Scotland? There are still jobs in this country, but the reality is that many of the new Scottish graduates will follow the well-worn path south, to London and other major cities in England. Some will head further afield, to America or perhaps the far east. Scots have always been travellers, but surely it is a sign of failure when a country cannot retain its brightest people?
It is realities such as our inability to provide hope and opportunity for our young people - not just graduates, but all of the young Scots who deserve the chance of working and raising their own families in their own country - that reinforces Scotland’s powerlessness as a region of Great Britain. Were Scotland a real nation, with the real powers that only come from independence, we would be able to put in place the social structures that provide work for our young people.
Across a range of industries, Scots could fill roles from the shop-floor to the boardroom - as they do now, but not in their own country. We have some of the best universities in the world, and the brightest students - but once we educate our young people, we all-but force them to leave, because we are not in a position to offer the opportunities their hard work and study has earned them.
For years, as a political activist, I spoke at public meetings, making the case for an independent Scotland. Some people believe that Scotland should be an independent country for no other reason than it is wrong for one nation, in this case England, to exert almost complete control over the resources and affairs of another. That’s fair enough - and they are perfectly right. Other relatively small nations have long ago shaken-off the control of larger neighbours, the most relevant to Scotland being Norway re-establishing its independence from Sweden. That happened over 100 years ago, and in those intervening years, Norway, with a population similar in size to Scotland, and with major oil resources in the North Sea - just like Scotland - has become one of the wealthiest nations in the world. Norwegian university graduates don’t have to leave their country to achieve the standard of living their qualifications justify.
For me, in arguing for Scottish independence, the major factor was always restoring to our country the ability to take decisions in our own interests, and to use Scotland’s resources to achieve a higher standard of living and a better life for all Scots.
I love to see the Saltire flying, I support Scottish teams when they compete in any sport - apart from cricket, I draw the line there - but my nationalism is at core pragmatic. I want to see an independent Scotland, not simply to replace with a Saltire the British flag that currently flies over Edinburgh Castle, but to be able to build a better country, where people can live with dignity, where our elderly are looked after without having to resort to means testing - where they have to prove how poor they are before the are allowed a pittance in benefits.
I want to see a Scotland where our young people are encouraged to be everything they can be, and where hope and opportunity is presented to them right here, in Scotland.
Back in 2004 I wrote a political pamphlet called “Scotland’s Youth, Scotland’s Future”. I can’t claim to have thought up the title on my own - it was an SNP campaign slogan in the early 90s - but the reason I chose it for the pamphlet was because it succinctly states the reality our nation faces.
Scotland’s youth are Scotland’s future, and the decisions we take will determine what kind of future our country will have. If we continue down the road of Scotland being simply a region of Britain, where our resources and our graduates drain to the south of England, then Scotland’s future is bleak.
Alternatively, if we retake the power to govern ourselves, if we retake control over our own resources, if we implement policy initiatives that put first the interests of Scots, then we can retain our best and brightest young people, and we can begin to build a better life for everyone in Scotland.
Scotland has immense potential - that was very evident in the faces of the young people graduating at Glasgow University last week - but we must not allow that potential to be squandered, as it has been in the past. Those young graduates deserve better from us. They deserve the opportunity to live and prosper in their own country.
We can deliver that opportunity - but to reach for a better life, we first have to get off our knees. To make Scotland a better country, with a higher standard of living and a better quality of life, for young and old alike, we need to take responsibility into our own hands. That means independence…nothing less!
(c) the3towns.com
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
the3towns.com June 27 2009
And now for viewers in Scotland....Indoctrination
Given their names - BBC Scotland and Scottish Television - you might assume that both TV channels broadcast Scottish content. Of course, you would be wrong.
Other than half-hour news bulletins, very few programmes shown on Scotland’s two terrestrial TV channels are made in Scotland or even relate to our country. We are a nation that is being overwhelmed by the culture and beliefs of others, in particular England and America.
Even our so-called nightly ‘national’ bulletin is actually news about England or broadcast to an English audience. Frequently our ‘national’ news carries stories about health, education and legal matters - but the London-based broadcasters don’t tell us that the health, education and legal matters they are reporting have no relevance to Scotland, where we have our own legal system and where health and education are the responsibility of the Scottish Parliament.
Recently a school in Paisley was closed because a pupil had contracted swine flu. This news was deemed important enough to feature on the ‘national’ bulletin from London. Great, you might think, a Scottish item on the ‘national’ news - but the London broadcasters blew it by referring to “Paisley in Scotland”.
The news item was clearly written for an English audience, who apparently need to be told in which country Paisley lies. It would also be extremely unlikely that the London-produced ‘national’ news would have referred to a story taking place in, for example, ‘Coventry in England’.
We also frequently hear reporters on our ’national’ news refer to “the north-west” or “the north-east”, but they aren’t talking about Ullapool or Aberdeen. In fact, the north-west and north-east to which they refer can be found considerably to the south of where we live. Again, the London broadcasters are talking to an English audience - no consideration is given to Scottish viewers.
Those of us who live in Scotland pay the same licence fee as those from other parts of the UK, but we are seriously short-changed. Programmes produced in Scotland, or even made elsewhere but for a Scottish audience, are declining in number - and there weren’t many in the first place.
We are swamped by wall-to-wall English programmes - academics have even recorded a shift in how young Scots speak. Apparently, our children are adopting the accents and language they hear every night in their living rooms - coming at them through their television. For example, many young Scots have started copying the London accents they hear on Eastenders - pronouncing the name Smith as ‘Smiff’ and stating “I aint”, rather than the good old West of Scotland “amurnae”.
Then there are the football results. Our ‘national’ news will always report English results before those of Scottish teams. They do it that way because there are more people in England than in Scotland, so the majority of viewers want to hear the English results first. In Scotland, we have to sit through Barnet Versus Dagenham & Redbridge before we get to hear how our top-flight Scottish teams have fared.
Not so long ago, we had the completely ridiculous situation where Scotland were playing an international football match, but broadcast live on BBC1 Scotland was an England game from Wembley.
All of this is bad enough, but that’s just terrestrial television. When we go digital or to satellite channels, Scotland disappears completely. Sky News and BBC News24 report to England - when they report politics it’s Westminster politics, when they review the newspapers, it’s English newspapers.
The BBC satellite news channel is funded from the television licence fee - so those of us in Scotland contribute to it, but we are all-but ignored.
There is a separate issue regarding the money we have to pay for a television licence, and this relates to everyone in the UK, not just Scotland. The Poll Tax was ultimately defeated because it was unfair - it did not take into account a person’s ability pay. Everyone had to pay the same amount, irrespective of their income. Does that ring any bells? It should, because the same applies to the TV Licence.
Now, like so many other issues, Scotland’s poor deal in terms of television and broadcasting in general only happens because we accept it. We get what we deserve. We have become so indoctrinated that we don’t complain when we are fed a diet of English soap operas and English news - we simply sit back and watch it.
Then we wonder why some children seem to be feral and out of control. Back in the 1980s when The Bill first appeared on our screens, it may well have reflected the reality of inner-city London - with youngsters bad-mouthing and even attacking the police - but it did not reflect Scottish society. It does now.
A generation of children has grown up watching such dramas and believe they should behave in the same way. Television has a lot to answer for - it has shaped Scottish society, and not for the better.
We have become indoctrinated by what we see on our television screens, and what we see is England. Scotland is a nation with a distinct culture, but you wouldn’t know it by watching BBC Scotland or Scottish Television.
It is not simply by chance that Scotland was denied it’s own Scottish Six national news bulletin. It has now been confirmed that the last time the Scottish Six was raised as a possibility, the then Director General of the BBC, John Birt, met with New Labour prime minister Tony Blair to discuss how they could make sure it didn’t happen. Remember, we in Scotland pay the licence fee and Tony Blair was supposed to be our prime minister, but the two of them actively plotted to stop Scotland receiving a real Scottish news programme, reporting Scottish news to a Scottish audience, and international news from a Scottish perspective.
Birt and Blair connived to deny Scots our own news because they were, and remain, British Unionists. They believed that if Scotland had its own news, and its own take on international affairs, then the Scots might start having crazy ideas, like deciding they could actually govern themselves - and might take with them the revenue from North Sea oil and Scotch Whisky.
It is not by chance that we don’t have genuinely Scottish channels, showing Scottish programmes to a Scottish audience. Our indoctrination is deliberate - it stops us getting ideas above our station. It stops us from getting off our sofas and taking control of our own country.
(c) the3towns.com
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
the3towns.com June 20 2009
Real regeneration
Last Saturday I attended the funeral of a relation: Bessie Bunch was 87. As another relative put it, “We’ve lost a legend.”
Bessie certainly was larger than life. Anyone who was ever in her company would never forget it. Some of us were fortunate to share her company on many occasions. She will be sorely missed by her immediate family - son George and daughter Anne, her grandchildren, and her great-grandchildren - and also by hundreds of people whose lives were enhanced by knowing Bessie Bunch.
The ‘do’ after the funeral was held in Ceccini’s at Ardrossan Harbour - it was my first visit. It’s very nice, but I still think of the building as the Pump House. That’s what it was when Ardrossan still had a commercial port.
There were members of my (very) extended family at the funeral. Many had travelled from far parts of Scotland and England. All of those who now only visit Ardrossan remarked on how well the harbour area was looking. Compared with old sheds and rusting cranes, who could argue?
Well, actually, I could. I accept that the houses built around the harbour, and the yachts in the marina, look nice, but I much preferred when Ardrossan harbour was filled with ships, and Dockers made a living from loading and unloading their cargoes.
Back then, the harbour was the heart of Ardrossan. The docks provided work for, at its peak, over 100 men. Merchant seamen from all around the world knew and frequented Nicol’s and the Bute Bar. Local shops doubled as ship’s chandlers. It might have been hard, dirty and, at times, dangerous work, but after the introduction of the National Dock Labour Scheme, Dockers were relatively well paid and their wages helped raise many local families and generate income for Ardrossan’s shops and businesses.
We’re now well into the ‘regeneration’ of the Three Towns, Kilwinning and Irvine, but still the only outward sign of new life is private housing, which the3towns.com has previously reported is well out of the financial reach of most local people. Even in today’s depressed housing market, young Three Towns’ couples can’t afford to buy one of the properties built around the harbour’s regeneration area.
The SNP Scottish Government has recognised that town centres are vitally important to communities across Scotland. As a consequence, the government has initiated a scheme to fund regeneration projects in run-down centres.
North Ayrshire Council submitted applications for funding with regard to a number of local towns. In Saltcoats, it’s hoped funding will be provided to regenerate the old Station Master’s house at the town’s railway station. In Ardrossan, the former Jack Miller’s pub - the old Clyde Estuary - is earmarked for redevelopment, if government funding is forthcoming.
The Council is still waiting to hear if its application has been successful, but the government this week announced that the fund is very heavily over-subscribed. All across Scotland there are towns in desperate need of regeneration - and that does not mean simply building expensive private housing.
In towns like Ardrossan, where new houses have replaced commercial organisations and the jobs that went with them, the negative impact is compounded.
Cosmetic changes, however pleasing on the eye, are no substitute for jobs and the earning power of workers that feeds back into local communities. Without work, local towns will not be regenerated - and all the glossy Irvine Bay brochures, and all the grand promises won’t change that.
There was, of course, another telling aspect of the opinions expressed by my relatives about the harbour area being much improved. Although they were all raised in Ardrossan, they were now viewing the town as visitors. All of them have pursued successful careers, but to reach their personal goals they have all had to move away from Ardrossan - indeed, in many cases, they’ve had to move away from Scotland.
It isn’t just local towns that need real regeneration, with the creation of employment and opportunity - our country needs the same.
Years of neglect - and wilful destruction - by British governments have seen Scotland’s overall standard of living deteriorate. Whole communities have been thrown on the scrap heap by right-wing Tory and Labour governments. In many towns across Scotland - including some in North Ayrshire - there are children who have never known their parents to have regular or relatively well paid work. Their role models have been unemployed, and as they, themselves, grow into adulthood, they are confronted by a lack of opportunity that pushes them also onto the dole.
If we are to really regenerate our country and our local towns, we need to create employment. Communities without work stagnate, and that leads to the social problems we can all see in the Three Towns.
Politicians need to re-prioritise their agendas. British political parties can find plenty of money to fight illegal wars, such as in Iraq, and they don’t have a problem finding the billions of pounds it will cost to build and maintain a new version of the Trident nuclear submarines, with their weapons of mass destruction. That money should, instead, be used to create sustainable, well-paid employment; it should help fund a decent standard of living for our elderly citizens; it should be used to ensure everyone has a roof over their head; it should contribute to providing a first class education system for our children.
These are all basic things that would go a very long way to really regenerating our country and our communities - but the priorities of British politicians lie elsewhere. So, while we still live in a relative democracy, we should do our bit by electing politicians who put first the interests of our nation and our people.
Whenever we get the opportunity to vote - whenever the current batch of British politicians stop running from the electorate - we should take the opportunity of telling them we disagree with their agenda.
If you value your community before nuclear weapons and illegal wars - then vote for political parties that put people first. They are out there.
(c) the3towns.com
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
the3towns.com June 13 2009
The choice facing Scotland
Just when you thought the standing of politicians couldn’t sink any lower, they go and prove you wrong.
After weeks of scandals surrounding MPs allowances claims, a bit of humility and honesty from our elected representatives would not go amiss.
Sadly, however, the last week has shown us, yet again, that MPs almost always put their own interests before those of their constituents or the country.
Just as the polls closed on the European Election, Work and Pensions Minister James Purnell announced he had quit the Labour Government. Mr Purnell said the chances of the Tories winning the next Westminster Election were enhanced while Gordon Brown remained prime minister - he also called on Brown to resign.
Almost immediately another minister, Caroline Flint, went before television cameras to denounce Mr Purnell and to heap praise on Gordon Brown, who, Ms Flint proclaimed, was the best man for the job and was best placed to lead the country out of recession.
The next day, when Ms Flint didn’t get the promotion she hoped would be her reward for her public show of ‘loyalty’, she promptly joined Mr Purnell in resigning from the government - and she laid into Gordon Brown, branding him sexist, amongst other things.
It turned out that Ms Flint’s loyalty to Mr Brown had been nothing more than calculated naked ambition on her part. She thought that if she showed her support for Gordon Brown, he would be grateful and would elevate her to a cabinet position, possibly even that just vacated by Mr Purnell.
Self-interest was her motivation, not what was best for the country or even just the Labour Party.
A few days later, once results from the European Election were known, and had confirmed Labour’s worst performance in 90 years, backbench Labour MPs met with Gordon Brown at the House of Commons and had it in their power to bring to an end his term as prime minister.
Labour had polled just 15% across the United Kingdom in the European Election - it was, by any definition, a disaster for the party. Anyone who had at heart the long-term good of the Labour Party would, surely, have wanted to remove and replace the person who had led it to its worst electoral defeat for almost a century - but Labour backbenchers took no action.
Notwithstanding the Labour Party’s problems, the UK is in the grip of the worst economic downturn since the 1930s, a situation that has been exacerbated - if not created - by the financial policies of first Margaret Thatcher and then Tony Blair, with Gordon Brown the chancellor who pursued free-market liberalisation and light-touch regulation of the banks. Surely Labour backbenchers would want to rid themselves of the man perceived by the public to have got us into this mess? Not a bit of it.
Again, naked self-interest took over and those backbenchers looked to Labour’s election defeat and to their own constituencies. If they removed Gordon Brown and replaced him with, for arguments sake, Alan Johnston, the current favourite to succeed the prime minister whenever he does go, there would have to be a General Election shortly afterwards. It just would not be possible for Labour to foist on us a second unelected prime minister.
So, if Labour MPs removed Gordon Brown, the people of this country would actually get an opportunity to pass judgement on them - all of them - at a General Election, and that is what motivated them to keep Brown in place. Turkeys don’t normally vote for Christmas - and the European Election results showed that an awful lot of Labour MPs would be kicked out of their jobs if people were given the chance to vote.
The decision not to call time on Gordon Brown’s premiership was taken, not in the interests of the country, nor was it even in the interests of the Labour Party, it was taken simply on the basis of Labour MPs putting their own interests first and not wanting to lose their jobs.
It was for the same reason that Labour MPs voted down a parliamentary motion debated last Wednesday. The SNP and Plaid Cymru, the Welsh Nationalist party, moved that parliament be dissolved. In other words, that there should be a General Election. Labour members were scared to face the electorate, so they rejected the motion and clung onto their jobs - meaning they can claim almost another year’s salary and allowances before a General Election must be held in May 2010.
From a Labour perspective, the hope is that by then the people will have forgotten about the Westminster allowances scandals and Gordon Brown’s abysmal handling of the nation’s economy. Labour hopes that time will heal, and that those who turned their back on the party at last week’s elections will return to the fold. They can hope, but it isn’t going to happen.
By their actions, Labour backbenchers have proved they will always put their own interests before those of the country. That being the case, they do not deserve our votes.
In England the Tories will win the General Election, whenever it is held. Scotland will not vote Tory, but because we are outnumbered by 10-1 in terms of population, we will have a Tory Government foisted on us by English votes. That would take us back to the days of Thatcher and the democratic deficit, where Tories, rejected by Scots at the ballot box, could impose their policies on our country. The only way to stop that situation from happening, is if Scotland voted in sufficient numbers for the SNP, and to take full control of our nation.
Once Labour is forced to face the people in an election, we, in Scotland, have a choice: we can sit back and allow a Tory Government to be imposed on us from England, or we can restore our independence and take our own decisions, in our own interests.
We should have the confidence to govern ourselves at home and represent ourselves around the world. Of course, we could always leave our country’s affairs in the hands of Westminster politicians who have robbed us blind for years, and who put their own interests before the greater good of the nation.
It’s our choice.
(c) the3towns.com
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
the3towns.com June 6 2009
Paulo's singing the right song
Singer Paulo Nutini hit the headlines this week, but not for releasing another great single - actually, he’s done that too, it’s called Candy.
The reason Paulo was in the papers and across the airwaves was because of comments he made about his home town of Paisley. He said the town had major problems with drink and drugs and had been allowed to decay.
Some responded with typical knee-jerk comments, condemning the singer for daring to rubbish the town that nurtured him and gave him to the world. How dare he? Who does he think he is? Aye, now that he’s famous and got a big house, he turns on the people he left behind. Typical rock star.
Actually, what Paulo Nutini said about Paisley was like the words of his songs, thoughtful and sincere. What he said was also accurate.
Rather than rubbishing his home town, Paulo Nutini spoke out in order to highlight Paisley’s problems and, hopefully, stir up a reaction that could begin to address the issues that have blighted the lives of so many people in the Renfrewshire town.
Rather than turning his back on Paisley, Paulo Nutini has just bought a house in the town and intends to live there for the foreseeable future.
The singer’s comments told the truth. Paisley does have major problems with the drink and drugs culture; anyone who says differently hasn’t walked around the town any time recently. Try waiting at a bus stop in the town centre and see how long it takes before someone approaches you and asks if you are ‘needing any gear’. Incidentally, they aren’t offering to get you some clothes.
Not only was he right, but Paulo also pinpointed one of the major causes of the problems he highlighted. Rather than blame politicians in general for allowing Paisley to decline, Mr Nutini identified the Renfrewshire Council administration that ran the local area for years - that was a Labour administration. In addition, the singer made clear that he hoped the relatively new administration - SNP, elected in 2007 - would begin to turn around Paisley’s fortunes.
The SNP leader of the Council, Cllr Derek McKay, is a very able politician, and a nice guy. In the attempts to halt Paisley’s decline and bring better fortunes to the town, no-one will try harder than Derek Mackay.
Of course, Paisley isn’t the only town to have witnessed substantial decline over recent years, nor do we have to stray beyond the boundaries of Ardrossan, Saltcoats and Stevenston to find communities blighted by the evils of alcohol and drug abuse.
Like Paisley, North Ayrshire has suffered under years of Labour misrule at Council level - and while things did change at the last local government election, Labour remained the largest political grouping and again formed the administration. Opposition councillors form the majority, but with two unpredictable Lib Dem councillors who often support Labour, and one Independent - Margie Currie - who seems to think it is her role to vote with Labour, it is difficult to stop the administration from carrying on with its damaging ways, although there have recently been a few victories.
Like their UK Parliament colleagues, Labour has been in power too long in North Ayrshire. Like their UK Parliament colleagues, Labour councillors like to spend our money - just take a look at how much they claimed in allowances (see News) - and like their UK Parliament colleagues, Labour in North Ayrshire has been bad for the health of local towns.
Despite all the talk about regeneration, few towns have seen any real improvement. There are new private houses, most of which are tiny and have asking prices well beyond the wages of the average Three Towns residents, even in the middle of an economic crisis that has seen most local house prices fall.
Very few businesses have moved to the area or have expanded existing facilities as a result of the regeneration project that has now been running in the ‘Irvine Bay’ area for a considerable time.
The reality is that Labour has failed local communities - and they have been doing it for years. Labour councillors in North Ayrshire are amongst the worst in Scotland. Even within Labour ranks they are notorious. Over the years, I’ve had a number of conversations with national figures in the Labour Party who have cringed, sworn under their breath, and shook their heads whenever I mentioned their colleagues on North Ayrshire Council. The general consensus was that they are hopeless, with one senior Labour MSP even commenting that North Ayrshire voters would do his party a favour if they kicked them out.
Of course, at the last Council Election, some of the Labour dead-wood was removed, but unfortunately enough of them crept back in to be able to keep their death-grip on local fortunes. If the Three Towns are ever to turn things around; if we are ever to address the problems of drugs, alcohol, anti-social behaviour, social decline and lack of opportunity, then we need to rid ourselves of the inadequate local politicians that played such a major part in allowing the decline to happen.
At a national level we now have an SNP Government, and even within the considerable constraints of devolution, things are noticeably better than they were under the previous Labour-Lib Dem administration. We need to replicate that change at a local level.
In England, where they have rolling elections in many local authorities, with a proportion of councillors up for election every two years, the people have just passed judgment on Labour’s failure to deliver. Because of the separation of Council and Scottish Parliament elections, we won’t get a chance to kick-out our own Labour failures until May 2012.
In the interests of Ardrossan, Saltcoats and Stevenston, put that date in your diary. In the meantime, it would help if more high-profile Scots, like Paulo Nutini, actually cared about the communities in which they grew up, and were prepared to speak out to bring about change.
(c) the3towns.com
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
the3towns.com May 30 2009
The difference made by a fair voting system
Two recent controversial planning applications in Ardrossan have shown the benefit deriving to the local community from the 2007 North Ayrshire Council Election that ended the Labour Party dictatorship of local affairs.
With the local Council elected for the first time by the Single Transferable Vote (STV) system of Proportional Representation (PR), Labour’s undeserved control of the local authority was brought to an end. Labour still emerged as the largest single group, but the decision of local voters was that councillors representing parties other than Labour, and indeed no party at all, should form the majority.
A consequence of this first fair election to North Ayrshire Council was that Labour councillors could not simply force their will onto local towns. The two recent Ardrossan planning applications provide good examples of how things have changed. Firstly, there was the application from Clydeport, which sought to demolish Ardrossan’s historic Customs House at the harbour, and to replace it with a modern block of offices and flats.
Labour councillors on the Planning Committee - and the Arran-based Independent who almost always supports Labour - voted to allow the Customs House to be knocked-down, but they were outvoted by the majority, made up of SNP, Tory and a truly Independent member.
Likewise, when a London-based developer applied for permission to cram 60 flats and terraced houses onto land at the site of the former Stanley Nursery in Ardrossan, Labour councillors and their Arran-based ‘Independent’ voted to allow what would have been a serious over-development; but, again, they were outvoted by SNP, Tory and the genuinely Independent councillor.
Had it not been for a fair voting system removing Labour’s unjust majority on North Ayrshire Council, these unwanted and detrimental developments would have been imposed on Ardrossan by Labour councillors.
In fact, there was another recent planning application that is possibly an even better example of how PR has brought democracy to North Ayrshire. Telecommunications giant Vodafone wanted to site a 3G base station and mast on land adjacent to the new Stanley Primary School in Ardrossan. Rightly, local people and parents of Stanley pupils mounted a campaign of opposition.
At a public meeting organised by the Stanley Parents Association, three of Ardrossan’s four councillors attended, voicing their support for local people and opposition to Vodafone’s proposals. The fourth councillor is Margie Currie, the Arran-based ‘Independent’ who has become known for her loyalty to Labour on the local authority. Cllr Currie, as a member of the Planning Committee that would ultimately decide on Vodafone’s application, was not permitted to make comment before the matter went before the committee for consideration.
The three Ardrossan councillors who voiced support for local people and opposition to Vodafone’s plans were the SNP’s Tony Gurney, Independent John Hunter, and Labour’s Peter McNamara. However, on the day that the Vodafone application was heard by the Planning Committee, it emerged that only Cllr Gurney and Cllr Hunter had lodged their opposition with Council planning officials; Labour’s Cllr McNamara had not.
Then, when it came to a vote on the matter, Labour councillors and Mrs Currie supported Vodafone’s plans to put a mobile phone mast next to a local primary school. Thankfully, they were again outvoted by SNP, Tory and Independent Ronnie McNicol.
Again, had it not been for the introduction of a fair voting system at the 2007 Council Election, Labour councillors - and Margie Currie - would have forced their will onto the people of Ardrossan, and the young pupils of Stanley Primary School would now have a mobile mast emitting radioactive signals on land next to their playground.
Previously, when the local authority had been elected using the unfair ‘First Past The Post’ electoral system, Labour had taken almost all the Council seats, despite a majority of local people having voted for parties other than Labour. The STV system blew away Labour’s unwarranted dominance and meant that, broadly, we got the Council for which we had actually voted.
For the first time, the SNP got the number of councillors the party’s vote had merited. Previously, the Nationalist’s vote had seen their candidates come a close second in most Council Wards, but the ‘winner takes all’ nature of the ‘First Past The Post’ system meant that the SNP ended up with only two or three councillors out of a total of thirty.
Likewise, under the PR system, the Tories and Liberal Democrats got the Council representation their actual vote merited. Previously, the Tories had, on occasion, received more councillors than they were due, mainly because their vote was concentrated in just a few Council Wards. For example, at the 1992 Cunninghame District Council Election, across the whole Council area, the SNP polled double the vote of the Tories; but the ‘First Past The Post’ system meant that the Tories secured 6 councillors and the SNP just 3. Meanwhile, under a fair system in 2007, the Lib Dems got councillors for the first time.
However, the most striking result of a fair electoral system was that Independents actually had a chance of securing election. Previously, votes for Independents were outweighed by party votes under the unfair ‘First Past The Post’ system. That changed with PR in 2007 and, in both the Saltcoats & Stevenston and Ardrossan & Arran Wards, genuine Independents, in the shape of Ronnie McNicol and John Hunter, were elected. Of course, the system isn’t perfect, and someone masquerading as an Independent can be elected, only for them to then support one particular political party, such as Cllr Currie with Labour. However, come the next Council Election, Cllr Currie’s record of support for Labour will be there for all electors to see, and her claim to be an Independent will not stand up to scrutiny.
At a time when it would be easy to write-off anyone involved in politics as being ‘all the same’ or ‘only in it for themselves’, it is worth remembering the difference that has been made to local politics by the introduction of a fair voting system and the election of councillors prepared to stand up for local communities.
(c) the3towns.com
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
the3towns.com May 23 2009
Not voting is the wrong decision
Have you recently found yourself getting angry when you see or hear a politician? Do you feel like throwing something through your telly when the news comes on and you hear of yet more MPs claiming public funds to pay for second homes, repairs to tennis courts and cleaning of moats?
Chances are you replied ‘yes’ to both those questions. If you did, then you are in good company. The feeling of anger from amongst the general public towards politicians is unparalleled. Never near the top of professions loved by the public, politicians now find themselves loathed and despised by the people they depend on to keep them in their jobs.
The general consensus seems to be that politicians are crooked freeloaders who have built lavish lifestyles for themselves, and have got us to pay for it all. Not only that, when a member of the public suggested it might be a good idea for MPs to publish details of what they have claimed and what we have paid, the House of Commons, on the instruction of the principal official, the Speaker, spent hundreds-of-thousands of pounds - our money again - attempting to keep everything secret.
Possibly what has been most shocking about the revelations of MPs largesse at the public’s expense is the ‘defence’ that blame lies not with the politicians, but with ‘the system’. Apparently, it was ‘the system’ that forced their hands to sign the allowances claim forms, and it was ‘the system’ that made them forget they had already paid-off the mortgage for which they continued to claim.
There are some MPs who have been greedy and there are others who have been crooked. In all of the cases that have so far come to light, MPs claimed public money in the belief that the people back home in their constituencies would never know. The Westminster allowances system was secret. MPs were honourable men and women and, so, could be trusted. However, compounding the abuse and misuse of public funds, is the total betrayal of the electorate, the ordinary men and women who put their faith in the politicians they elected. Many have now seen a very ugly side to the people they sent to represent them in parliament and, rightly, if the politicians don’t go of their own accord, those ordinary people will look to the next election to pass judgement on the MPs that have let them down.
Now, that is the crucial point. Barring a revolution - and we aren’t going to have one of those - the only way the public can effect change in those who govern us, is through the ballot box. In order to change the government or kick out money-grabbing politicians, we have to turn up on polling day and put a cross in the box. That is democracy.
The problem right now, in the wake of the sleaziest revelations ever to emerge from within UK politics, is that so many people are voicing the opinion that they will not vote at the next election. What we hear when ordinary people are asked their opinion about politicians is “they’re all as bad as each other” or “a plague on all their houses”. While such sentiments are understandable, the outcome of staying away on polling day would be to allow the chancers and crooks to once again grab the key to our public bank account.
The other possibility of a very low turnout would be for extremist parties, like the British National Party, to muster their support and actually find some of their candidates elected, almost by default.
If we are unhappy with the politicians we presently have, then we must turn out on polling day to kick them out and replace them. The first opportunity for us to go to the polls and pass judgement on politicians and their parties is June 4 at the European Parliament Election. Now, if you think the Westminster allowances system allows for abuse and for the pocketing of large amounts of public money, you should have a look at what goes on over in Brussels and Strasbourg.
Of all elected politicians, Members of the European Parliament have the easiest job. No-one knows who they are, where they are, or what they do. Despite that, they receive the same salary as Members of the Westminster Parliament and even higher allowances payments.
Members of the Scottish Parliament are paid around £10,000 a year less than MPs and MEPs, and receive much less in terms of allowances. I have made the point before, but it’s worth repeating - Scotland is a nation of very competent and intelligent people; we presently contribute billions of pounds every year to the Westminster exchequer, from North Sea oil and Scotch Whisky revenues; and we are forced to pay further billions of pounds each year towards building and maintaining the UK’s nuclear weapons of mass destruction, when that money could be used on schools, hospitals and on creating sustainable employment here in Scotland.
Scotland has the potential to be a very wealthy, very successful independent nation. We don’t need to be sending MPs to Westminster or MEPs to Brussels and Strasbourg. Think of the massive saving to the Scottish public purse that could be made if, in re-taking our independence, we cut out the salaries and expenses related to the needless UK and EU layers of government.
Of course, the crucial word there is independence. While Scotland remains simply a region of the UK and the EU, we will go on allowing our wealth to trickle south, and we will go on sending elected representatives to British Union and European Union parliaments.
That being the case, and until we do re-take our nation’s independence, it is absolutely essential that we turn out on European and UK election days to make sure that we get the politicians we want. In these Union parliaments it is imperative that Scotland’s voice is heard. It is, therefore, vitally important that we elect people who have Scotland as their first priority.
If we don’t turn out on polling day and if we don’t cast our vote, we are leaving our future in the hands of others. Voting is extremely important, never more so than now. Sitting at home on election day is playing into the hands of the Westminster spivs and the extremist political parties.
Across the world people have faced tanks and guns in order to secure the right to vote. We only have to face a few political activists armed with nothing more than leaflets. Starting with the European Election on June 4, let’s make sure we exercise our right to vote and tell politicians what we think.
(c) the3towns.com
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
the3towns.com May 16 2009
Politicians who dip our pockets
The disgrace that is the Westminster allowances system has been exercising the media, and the public, over the past week - and rightly so. What has been exposed by the leak to the Telegraph newspaper of MPs allowance claims is that we, the public, have elected an awful lot of chancers to the UK Parliament.
Evidence so far published by the Telegraph shows that members of all the London parliament have used allowances to supplement their already above-average salaries. Some have used public money to modernise their properties, while others have worked a flanker on ‘second homes’ to avoid paying Capital Gains tax when selling the accommodation, before using public money to purchase another property.
Such moves are the biggest rip-offs of the public purse, but the smaller stuff is, possibly, even worse. ‘Honourable Members’ of the UK Parliament have charged us for their groceries, for light bulbs, for bath plugs, and for repairing a leaking pipe beneath a tennis court. Then there are those who claimed thousands of pounds to have their gardens maintained; not forgetting the one who paid his brother over £6,000 to cover the cleaner they shared in their separate London properties.
In Ayrshire parlance, they have been ‘at it’, and now that they have been caught, they claim they have done nothing wrong. Clearly, in terms of the existing Westminster allowance system, they have not broken the rules, but in the broader sense of what is right and what is wrong, they are guilty as hell.
It is wrong for a member of parliament to use public money for any purpose other than providing the best possible service for their constituents. That, after all, is the reason public money is provided to those elected to represent us in parliament. By no stretch of the imagination can it be argued that repairing a pipe under one’s tennis court is in the best interests of constituents. Also, given that even the lowest backbench MP receives a salary in excess of £60,000, what possible justification can there be for the public buying their groceries, particularly when you consider that many members of the public - the MPs constituents - have to buy their own shopping out of a wage that pays the minimum rate of £5.73 per hour?
The reason MPs have used the Westminster allowance system to enhance their income is because the money was there, regulation was lax, and they never for a minute thought that what they were up to would one day be revealed to the public. In short, they were greedy and they never thought they would get caught.
Now, having said all that, it is important to make clear that not all MPs are dishonest, not all of them have been dipping our pockets to fund their lavish lifestyles. Many MPs work diligently and cost-effectively in providing a service to their constituents. Of course, we won’t hear about them, because someone actually doing their job is not newsworthy, but it is worth remembering that those prepared to rip-off the public purse, probably, are in the minority.
The Scottish Parliament has a completely different allowances system and a different ethos. Members of the Scottish Parliament have to submit receipts for everything they claim, and every claim is posted on the parliament’s web site for constituents to inspect. It is a much more regulated and fair system, and one that Westminster could easily copy. If, that is, the London parliament really does want to bring an end to the abuse of allowances that have been widely reported over the past week.
Of course, even within the Scottish Parliament system, there is scope for certain individuals to maximise their claims. Some MSPs, such as Cunninghame North’s Kenneth Gibson, have charged the public purse for things such as snacks, evening meals, and for staying overnight at a hotel owned by a party colleague. At a stretch, the overnight hotel stays could be justified in terms of carrying out constituency business, but surely an MSP, on a salary of £55,000, can afford to buy their own snacks?
The difference between MSPs like Mr Gibson and those Westminster MPs who have been pocketing public money to fund their homes and lifestyles, is that we can keep tabs on what Mr Gibson has been getting us to pay for him, and he has been submitting his claims in the full knowledge that the public will know how much he has charged us. Westminster MPs didn’t think we would see their allowances claims, but Kenneth Gibson, the SNPs most costly MSP - he charges even more than his party colleague who represents the Western Isles - rakes in the public money, and doesn’t care if we know. Now, that really is arrogance.
Again, it is important that we acknowledge that most MSPs are not like Kenneth Gibson. Most get on with looking after the interests of their constituents without a second thought to maximising their allowance claims. The truth is that the majority of MPs and MSPs work long hours and do their best for the people they represent. However, when freeloading MPs and MSPs make the headlines, all parliamentarians are tarred with the same brush, and the public perception is that they are all ‘at it’. In addition, it didn’t help the cause of honest, hard-working MPs that the Westminster Speaker, Michael Martin, was this week outraged, not about the fact that so many of his colleagues were enriching themselves from the public purse, but that the information exposing what they had been up to was leaked to a newspaper.
It is us, the general public, who have been ripped-off by greedy parliamentarians, but, ultimately, the MPs and MSPs who dip their hands into our pockets when they have bills to pay, must answer to us at election time. Power lies with us through the ballot box - so if we re-elect them, then we only have ourselves to blame.
(c) the3towns.com
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
the3towns.com May 9 2009
The Scottish Parliament
Ten years ago last week, the people of Scotland went to the polls to elect the first members of the new Scottish Parliament. In fact, that day back in 1999 was the first time that members of a parliament in Scotland had ever had the legitimacy of being elected to office.
In the old Scots Parliament, which ‘went into abeyance’ in 1707, the members consisted solely of unelected aristocrats and landowners. The ordinary people of Scotland had no say in how their country was governed, so the 1999 version was an improvement on what went before, even if it didn’t seem that way at first.
While the contemporary campaign for a Scottish Parliament was fired by the democratic deficit faced by Scotland throughout the 1980s and the best part of the 1990s - through the years of the Thatcher and Major Tory governments, when Scotland voted Labour and got Tory governments imposed on us by the votes of middle England - the demand for Scottish Home Rule went back around 100 years. The Independent Labour Party (ILP), forerunner of what became the Labour Party, had as one of its core principles the establishment of a Scottish Assembly. However, like so many other commitments made to Scotland by London-based political parties, the Assembly plan came to nothing and was quietly dropped.
With the rise in support for the SNP during the 1970s - boosted by the “It’s Scotland’s Oil” slogan - the idea of a devolved Scottish Assembly was revived by the Labour Party, primarily as a way of derailing the demand for Scottish independence by offering an accommodation that give Scotland an elected forum, but which would keep the nation - and it’s oil - firmly under the control of the British government in London.
Again, however, the Labour Party reneged on its promise. The devolution referendum was rigged against a vote in favour of an Assembly. The Labour Government imposed a ‘40% rule’, which meant that at least 40% of the electorate had to support the establishment of a Scottish Assembly. Notwithstanding the fact that this was the one-and-only time that a simple majority had not been sufficient to win the day in a UK ballot, the ‘40% rule’ also meant that anyone who did not vote was, effectively, counted as a vote against an Assembly - even those people who had died but whose name still appeared on the electoral register in force at the time. So, despite a majority of those who voted being in favour of an Assembly, when the 40% figure was not reached Labour turned its back on Scotland, yet again.
However, by the time Scotland had suffered 18 long years of Tory Governments it had never endorsed, the demand for an elected Scottish legislature was overwhelming. The New Labour Government, elected in the 1997 landslide victory, had promised it would provide Scotland with a parliament, if the people supported such a move in a referendum - and this time there was no rigged ballot.
Scotland spoke loudly and clearly in the Devolution Referendum and said ‘Yes, Yes’. ‘Yes’, we wanted a Scottish Parliament, and ‘Yes’, we wanted it to have tax varying powers. This decisive result led to the Election in May 1999, and to 129 people becoming the first elected members of a Scottish Parliament.
At the beginning, Scotland’s mainly centre-right media gave the parliament and its new members a battering, which, in the main, was not deserved and was unfair. Even the supposedly massive over-run in the cost of the new Parliament building was, to a large extent, a fabrication of hostile newspapers.
The first figure quoted for a parliament building was £40m, and when the new parliament finally came in at a cost of £430m, we were told that MSPs had built themselves a palace at ten-times the original cost. In fact, the £40m quote was for a very modest building, and certainly not the parliament that was finally constructed. The building that now stands at the foot of the Royal Mile could never have been constructed for £40m. It may not have been worth £430m, but it was certainly a more substantial - and functional - building than the one originally planned and to which the £40m tag related. It should also be borne in mind that the building that was finally constructed will, potentially, be Scotland’s national parliament for hundreds of years.
So, after years of being neglected and ignored by the British Parliament in London, Scotland finally had its own legislature in our own capital city. Almost like a real nation, but not quite.
The former Tory (and Ulster Unionist) MP Enoch Powell once famously said that “power devolved is power retained”, and he was absolutely right. Scotland had its own parliament, but with very limited powers and with ultimate sovereignty remaining at Westminster. The Scotland Act 1998, which established the Scottish Parliament, contains clauses that allows Westminster to over-rule any decision taken by the parliament in Edinburgh - and even to abolish it completely, if the UK parliament sees fit.
However, the Scottish Parliament has proved itself and it would be a very brave - or completely stupid - Westminster government that tried to abolish the democratically-elected parliament of Scotland.
Since its opening in 1999, the Scottish Parliament has enacted over 140 bills, bringing Scotland free personal care, reduced prescription charges, and a ban on smoking in enclosed public places, to name just three.
The media focus, as well as that of the people, is now firmly on the Scottish Parliament, with Westminster only encroaching onto the radar when it drags us into illegal wars and when its members are charging us for patio heaters, bath plugs, and porn movies for their partners.
The Scottish Parliament has proved itself capable of governing Scotland, so why do we need Westminster? Quite simply, we don’t.
With control of all our resources, and with all the powers we need, powers that only come with independence, Scotland could be a very prosperous country and could very easily be governed from our own parliament in Edinburgh - without the expense of sending MPs to London or MEPs to Brussels.
(c) the3towns.com
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
the3towns.com May 2 2009
North Ayrshire's poor quality PPP schools
Last week the3towns.com carried a story about a report that was tucked away on the agenda of a sub-committee of North Ayrshire Council. The report related to the current condition of four local schools, and concluded that they represented “high quality” resources.
The four schools were constructed under the North Ayrshire Schools PPP Project and will cost local taxpayers a total of £380m. Broken down, the total cost includes £80m to actually build the schools and £300m to maintain them over the next thirty years - that’s £10m per year for maintaining just four schools.
According to North Ayrshire Council’s previous Labour administration (2003-2007), the four schools built under their PPP Project were going to provide ‘state-of-the-art’ educational and sporting facilities for pupils and local communities. In fact, despite the Council’s attempt to hoodwink councillors by claiming that the schools represented “high quality” resources, what was constructed under the £380m PPP Project was four very basic buildings that, almost two years after opening to pupils, still have a long list of problems that require ongoing repairs.
The poor quality of the buildings constructed under North Ayrshire Council’s PPP Project is often lost in the overall scandal of the scheme, where the local authority only ever had one credible and viable bid for its £380m contract. Labour councillors and senior Council officials claim there were two bids, but the second of those came from a company that had never traded, had no experience of building or maintaining schools, had no accounts, no functioning office, only £2.00 of issued share capital, and whose directors have recently been arrested by the Metropolitan Police in relation to an attempt to defraud the NHS. Incredibly, even today, those Labour councillors and senior Council officials still claim the second bid provided competition to the one that was awarded the contract.
There was never any competition for North Ayrshire Council’s £380m Schools PPP Project. The Council received only one bid that was capable of building and maintaining four schools, which means that the tender procedure undertaken by the Council did not comply with European Union procurement regulations that govern the awarding of such contracts.
The ‘bids’ scandal continues to rumble on - we certainly haven’t heard the last of it - but the other scandal - the one relating to the standard of buildings and facilities constructed under the PPP Project - also requires attention.
Notwithstanding design problems, such as stairwells being too narrow to accommodate the numbers of pupils using them during class changeovers, St Matthew’s Academy in Saltcoats has ongoing issues that, despite the building now being almost two years-old, the Council still refers to as ‘snagging problems’. These problems include serious staining to external walls, cracks on internal walls, panels falling from walls if doors are slammed, floor-covering that has bubbled and lifted, items fitted to walls becoming loose - and not forgetting the soft mortar in walls, which the Council and the Health & Safety Executive determined was not a “serious” problem.
In addition, the promised ‘state-of-the-art’ sports facilities related to the building of St Matthew’s have not materialised. Instead, the former Laighdykes Playing Field now has four full-size football pitches that are unplayable, four 7-a-side pitches that have never been available (along with a promised ‘informal amenity area’), and the full-size pitch that forms the centrepiece of the much-vaunted running track has also never been of a standard that would allow it to be used.
At Stanley School in Ardrossan there are similar ongoing issues, such as a leak that has forced cooks to prepare pupils’ meals in a port-a-cabin in the playground, a heating system that leaves classrooms cold, and drainage problems that resulted in sewerage backing-up onto the school’s only sports pitch, requiring it to be “thoroughly sanitised” before it could be used. The drainage problem has not yet been resolved.
The other two schools built under the Council’s £380m Schools PPP Project - one in Dreghorn and another on the island of Arran - have their own lists of ongoing problems.
Now, we should remember that North Ayrshire Council refers to these issues as nothing more than ‘snagging problems’, and that Council officials last week wanted councillors to accept that the schools represented “high quality” resources.
Thankfully, with the change to the voting system for local government elections in 2007, North Ayrshire Council is no longer a Labour Party dictatorship. The Council sub-committee that received the report on the current condition of the schools was the Three Towns & Arran Area Committee, and the only reason the information was provided, was because opposition councillors asked for it. Labour councillors, the ones responsible for the scandalous £380m PPP Schools Project, don’t want us to know the truth about the poor condition of the buildings we are paying £10m a year to maintain. In fact, the two Labour councillors present at last week’s committee meeting wanted to accept the Council-officials’ report. Under questioning from opposition councillors - mainly the SNP’s Tony Gurney - Council officials accepted most of the problems listed above, yet Labour councillors David Munn and Alan Munro wanted to accept a report that described the schools as “high quality”. Those two men are beyond being a bad joke.
With opposition councillors forming the majority of those attending the Area Committee, the officials’ report was, rightly, rejected. However, the underlying problem remains, which is that Labour councillors and local authority officials are still pretending everything is fine with the four schools built under the hugely-expensive PPP Project. Actually, they know that things are not fine, but they don’t want to admit that to us, the public that pays their wages, the public that pays their allowances, and the public that is footing the £380m bill for their incompetence.
Actually, incompetence relates only to their management of the building process and their acceptance of schools and sports pitches that fall far short of the ‘state-of-the-art’ facilities we were promised. With regard to the Council proceeding with a £380m procurement contract when there was only one bid, incompetence is not a valid excuse.
Senior Council officials were frequently warned that the ‘second bid’, on which they relied to claim there was competition, was nothing more than a tissue of lies and fabrications. The Council’s own independent advisors told them that the ’second bid’ was of such poor quality that it should not be allowed to progress beyond the very first review of bids. Yet the Council allowed it to remain.
It would be stretching credibility beyond tolerance for the Council to attempt to claim that its actions in this matter were down simply to incompetence.
(c) the3towns.com
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
the3towns.com April 25 2009
The politicisation of the police
Some weeks ago, in an article about the Miners Strike of 1984-1985, I referred to how the Thatcher Government had politicised the police force and had used it as a tool of the State.
During the year-long conflict, police officers and miners clashed at pits and other related sites around Britain, with officers often over-reacting to strikers who tried to stop the destruction of their jobs and communities. Nightly news programmes showed police on horseback riding into lines of miners, while officers on foot were seen to lash out with truncheons. Obviously, such violence was not one-way, and some strikers retaliated. However, those who did hit back faced criminal charges and never again worked in the mining industry, whether or not they were subsequently convicted in court. No action was taken against police officers.
As I wrote in the previous article, the actions of the police during the Miners Strike changed forever how they were viewed by a very large section of the general public. Up until that point, the vast majority of ordinary people looked on the police as a force for good. Most people felt that police officers were there to uphold the law and protect the population, but after the Miners Strike it was clear that a sizeable proportion of officers were prepared to use force against the people, and that superior officers were prepared to not only condone such violence, but also cover it up, if they deemed that to be necessary.
The senior police officers who allowed the Thatcher Tory Government to politicise forces across the UK made a very serious error of judgement. During the Miners Strike the police were seen to be not simply upholding the law, but working against ordinary people and for the aims of the State. By their actions, the police had moved from a position of independence to one of being a force for the suppression of legitimate protest and for the imposition of the will of the State.
Obviously, in day-to-day interaction with individual police officers, the ordinary people of the country saw little change; but in times of general protest, when groups of people gathered to voice concerns, particularly over government policy, the police were then seen as being on the side of the State and against the protestors, against the people.
That reality was a significant change in the whole relationship-structure of the British State. When the police can be viewed as acting for the government and against the people, then the balance of power has tilted away from democracy.
Another consequence of the repositioning of the police during the Miners Strike was the need for officers to lie to cover actions that, if they had been committed by anyone not in possession of a warrant card, would have resulted in a court appearance and very possibly a prison sentence.
Those significant departures from the previous independent and trusted position of the police have led, over the years, to situations where innocent people can be killed on London tube trains, with no-one convicted of any offence; and, more recently, where a man walking home from his work, with his hands in his pockets, was attacked from behind while surrounded by police officers, and where a woman was slapped in the face and beaten with a metal truncheon, again in the presence of police officers.
Of course, the fact that the attackers of the man and woman were, themselves, police officers had a significant bearing on why no arrests were made. In fact, none of the police officers who witnessed the attacks even attempted to remonstrate with or restrain their violent colleagues.
The man who had been beaten to the ground by a police officer in full riot gear later died. Immediately after the death of the man - his name was Ian Tomlinson - Metropolitan Police statements indicated that officers had attempted to save the man’s life, and that an ambulance had been prevented from reaching him because of a blockade by people protesting against the G20 Summit of world leaders, which was the reason police were on the streets of London in riot gear.
However, video footage, shot be members of the public, has subsequently shown that no police officer offered assistance to Mr Tomlinson when he collapsed following the unprovoked attack by one of their colleagues. In addition, it has now emerged that the ambulance that was trying to reach him was stopped, not by a protestors’ blockade, but by a police cordon.
Ian Tomlinson was attacked because he was on a public street at a time when people were exercising their democratic right to protest against the actions of governments; and because, as a consequence of that significant change that took place twenty-five years ago during the Miners Strike, the police mentality now, in such situations, is that anyone who is protesting is an enemy of the State and, therefore, a potential criminal who does not deserve to be treated with any sort of respect.
The police officers who attacked Ian Tomlinson and the woman who was slapped and beaten had removed their ID numbers, another tactic that was first seen during the Miners Strike and which the photograph at the beginning of this article shows also happened at the G7 Summit at Gleneagles in 2005. It has also become common practice for officers policing street protests to ensure that their riot gear covers their face, leaving visible only the eyes. Why would a police officer take the time to remove the number that is there to identify them, and to make sure that it was not possible for his or her face to be seen? Why would someone go to those lengths before any protest had even begun? Presumably, officers consider that there might be violence and that, if there is, they don’t want to be held accountable for their actions.
In a democracy, everyone should be accountable for their actions. Had a police officer been beaten to the ground in an unprovoked attack by someone who had attempted to conceal their identity, society would, rightly, have been outraged. When such action is taken by a person who has sworn to uphold the law and protect the public, outrage is compounded by betrayal.
We, as a society, should be able to trust the police. We should know that police officers are independent of the State and that they will protect us from anyone who breaks the law. Above all, we should know that the police, themselves, will not break the law.
Thatcher’s politicisation of the police, and New Labour’s continuation of the process, was and is wrong. We may never get back to the days of the friendly ‘Bobby on the Beat’, but we must end the current position where we have the people and the police on different sides of a ‘them and us’ situation, and where the feet of those in positions of authority are heavily dragged when it comes to investigating and prosecuting violent thugs, just because their crimes were committed while they wore a police uniform.
(c) the3towns.com
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
the3towns.com April 11 2009
Happy Birthday SNP
The Scottish National Party has just celebrated its 75th birthday, so many happy returns SNP.
Now, as the only parliamentarian to have been expelled from the SNP in its 75-year history, it may seem strange that I would wish it all the best. The truth is, I don’t hold any ill will towards the party. There are one or two individuals within the SNP who I don’t have much time for, but any political party will have such people - and I’m sure in the case of those concerned, my feelings are reciprocated.
The SNP was formed in 1934 through a merger of the Scottish Party and the National Party. Originally a ‘home rule’ party, the SNP gradually transformed into the nation’s only political party that advocated the re-establishment of an independent Scotland.
Its first national success came in a 1945 by-election in Motherwell, where Dr Robert McIntyre was the SNP candidate. Dr McIntyre, whom I had the good fortune to meet many years later, only held the seat for three months, with Labour retaking it at the first post-war General Election.
However, the significance of Dr McIntyre’s victory cannot be over-estimated. It was the first sign that Scottish people could be persuaded to vote for a pro-independence party.
The next major step in the SNP’s progress didn’t occur for another 22 years. In 1967 the SNP candidate in a by-election in Hamilton said, “Stop the world, Scotland wants to get on”. That SNP candidate was Winnie Ewing, and the party’s victory in that by-election was really the beginning of the modern SNP.
By the 1970s, and under a campaign slogan of “It’s Scotland’s Oil”, the SNP secured its best-ever representation at the UK Westminster Parliament, returning 11 MPs. Prior to that, the party had secured another landmark by-election victory when ‘the blonde-bombshell’, Margo MacDonald, took Govan from the Labour Party.
From that mid-70s high, the SNP went into the wilderness years of the 1980s, when Scotland believed Labour spin - that we had to vote Labour to get the Tories out. Scotland did vote Labour, but England voted Tory, and as part of the British Union, Scotland had imposed on us the government that England elected. The reality was that if Scotland had really wanted to get the Tories out, we should have been voting for the SNP and independence.
Having said that, the years of Tory Government were good for the SNP in terms of membership. Margaret Thatcher was the best recruiting sergeant the party ever had. Her barely-concealed dislike of Scotland, and the right-wing policies she pursued, drove Scots into the independence camp.
For myself, I had been convinced of the case for independence by the time I was fourteen. I can clearly remember the time in 1974 when it dawned on me that it was wrong that my country was governed by another. It was to be another three years before I actually joined the SNP, and I can remember the person coming to the door of my parents’ home to sign me up, after I had completed a form and sent it away to party headquarters in Edinburgh.
The woman who signed me up was Marjory Forrest who, at that time, was the SNP councillor for Ardrossan North. Marjory was an excellent and well-liked councillor, and she held the Ardrossan North seat for the party, even through the wilderness years.
When Marjory stood down the Labour Party re-took Ardrossan North. However, it was one of the proudest moments in my life when, in 1992, I was the SNP candidate who took back Ardrossan North for the party, turning round a Labour majority of over 900 to secure an SNP majority of 101.
In addition to being an SNP councillor, I also held the position of convener of the party in Cunninghame North for ten years, during which time I worked in every campaign - Council, UK Parliament, European Parliament, and Scottish Parliament - and worked with some brilliant people.
Throughout that period, the SNP in Cunninghame North built support and moved from finishing in fourth place, out of four, to breathing down Labour’s neck in a close second place. At the Election Count following the 2003 Scottish Parliament Election, I can remember declaring to the crowd at the Magnum Centre that the SNP would be back in 2007 and would take the seat from Labour.
Of course, I was proved right, but back in 2003 I never for a minute thought that I would not be a member of the SNP when the party did take Cunninghame North.
They say that a week is a long time in politics, so four years is an eternity. Elected in 2003 as the SNP MSP for West of Scotland, I joined a parliamentary group led by John Swinney.
Under Swinney’s leadership the party had entered into a spiral of decline, both in terms of votes and membership. The leadership of the party had become remote from the grass-roots membership, and even members of the parliamentary group were as good as ostracised if they didn’t sign-up to blindly following the leadership clique of yes-men (and yes-women) that surrounded Swinney.
Eventually, I decided to speak out and say what so many ordinary party members were thinking - that if the party was to reverse the decline, Swinney had to stand down and Alex Salmond had to return as leader.
I gave a TV interview where I made those points, and I wrote an article for Holyrood magazine, in which I said that many people in the SNP had already decided that at the 2004 European Election, they would not vote SNP. I then commented that, if, by their actions, these people brought down the Swinney leadership and allowed the SNP to be rejuvenated under a new leader, then the cause of independence would be well served.
Swinney was not pleased. He instructed the then national secretary of the party, a spineless man by the name of Alasdair Allan, to suspend me from membership of the party. Allan’s attempt at justifying this action, was to interpret my criticism of Swinney as criticism of the party. The fact I had argued for the SNP to be successful under a new leader was overlooked.
Then, days before the European Election, internal minutes of the SNP Shadow Cabinet were leaked to the press, and showed that the party had, in fact, been preparing to switch from opposition to the illegal war in Iraq, to taking a pro-war position.
The minutes were genuine and they were mine - I had been the secretary to the Shadow Cabinet at that time and had recorded minutes of meetings. However, I had not leaked the minutes to the press. Of course, that did not stop Swinney and Allan accusing me of having been the source of the leak, which resulted in me being charged with “actions inimical to the party”.
The journalist who broke the story was Tom Gordon, then of the Herald. Had the SNP asked Tom if I had been the source of the story, he was prepared to confirm, without revealing his actual source, that it had not been me. The party never asked.
Swinney and Allan then broke the party’s own constitution and rules by taking further action against me. In fact, bizarrely, they expelled me from membership of the party, while I was not a member. By coincidence, I was expelled at the last meeting of the party’s National Executive Committee chaired by John Swinney before he stood down and was replaced by Alex Salmond.
So it was that, after 27 years of membership, I found myself expelled from the SNP.
Still, I do wish them a happy birthday, and hope that they continue to play the central role in the campaign to re-establish our country as a successful, independent nation.
(c) the3towns.com
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
the3towns.com April 4 2009
The Declaration of Arbroath
Next Monday (April 6) sees the 689th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Arbroath.
The significance of the Declaration was two-fold: firstly, it enshrined Scotland’s legitimate claim to be recognised as an independent nation; and secondly, it challenged the previously accepted doctrine of the divine right of Kings, i.e. that a King’s right to rule came from God.
The Declaration of Arbroath was, in fact, a letter, signed by the noblemen of Scotland - including Fergus of Ardrossan - and sent to the world statesman of the day, Pope John XXII. In the letter, the nobles sought the Pope’s recognition that Scotland was a nation distinct from England. Previously the Pope had acknowledged that the King of England was the overlord of Scotland, and had excommunicated King Robert the Bruce of Scotland for challenging English domination. In fact, it wasn’t just Robert the Bruce who had been excommunicated, the entire people of Scotland had received the same fate for taking part in the insurrection against English rule that culminated in the King of England being ‘sent hameward tae think again’ following the Battle of Bannockburn in 1314.
Pope John was persuaded of Scotland’s case, and since 1320 we, the Scots, have had the right to live in our own independent nation. It’s a pity that, 387 years later, another set of Scots noblemen were to sell-out our independence for union with England - or as Rabbie Burns put it, they were “bought and sold for English gold, such a parcel of rogues in a nation”.
Irrespective of that later treachery, the Declaration of Arbroath resulted in the international recognition of Scotland as an independent and distinct nation, making our country one of the oldest in Europe.
The second aspect of the Declaration is also very significant. All across the world at that time, Kings claimed their right to rule as a divine intervention on the part of God. To challenge a King was almost a heresy, but the Scots did just that.
In the Declaration of Arbroath, the concept of the sovereignty of the people was established. It was written in the Declaration that the noblemen of Scotland would elect a King of Scots - note the significance of the title, King of Scots, not King of Scotland.
The King was to be elected by the noblemen of Scotland, and would be the overlord and protector of the Scots. However, if that King was ever to allow England to exert influence or control over Scotland, then he would be replaced by another, who would defend Scotland’s independence.
The sovereignty of the noblemen of Scotland gradually transformed into the sovereignty of the people, one of the clear distinctions that sets Scotland apart from England. In England, Her Majesty the Queen Elizabeth is the sovereign, the ultimate power in the land, which is why, to this day, any law passed by the democratically elected House of Parliament has to receive royal assent before it actually becomes law.
In Scotland, however, the people are sovereign, the people are the ultimate power. Of course, given that the Scottish Parliament is just a devolved legislature, answerable to the Westminster Parliament in London, the Scottish sovereignty of the people is overlooked and acts of the Scottish Parliament must also receive royal assent before they can become law.
Another absurdity of the Scottish Parliament is that, despite being democratically elected by the people of a constituency or region, an MSP is not allowed to take their seat in parliament until they have first sworn an oath of allegiance to ‘Her Majesty the Queen, her heirs and successors’.
Having been elected to the Scottish Parliament in 2003, I was faced with the dilemma of how could I take the seat the people had decided I should occupy, when I was required to swear allegiance to an English monarch. As a Scot and a republican, I had a real problem being forced to swear an oath to any monarch, never mind one who is styled as Queen Elizabeth II, when Scotland has never had a Queen Elizabeth I.
As it turned out, I was allowed to make a statement before I took the oath of allegiance. My statement was, “My loyalty is to the people of Scotland. I therefore take this oath under protest.” I then lied and swore allegiance to Her Majesty the Queen, her heirs and successors.
It is surely a complete absurdity that my first act as a Member of the Scottish Parliament was to be forced to tell a lie - and to make clear that I was lying before I did it.
The Declaration of Arbroath established the sovereignty of the Scottish people: the Scottish people are the ultimate power in this country, and it is to the people that Members of the Scottish Parliament owe allegiance. In the 21st Century it is ridiculous that democratically elected politicians must swear allegiance to a monarch before they are allowed to represent their constituents. As Carolyn Leckie of the Scottish Socialist Party put it before she, too, lied by taking the oath of allegiance, “Why should I swear allegiance to Mrs Windsor? I mean, I don’t even know the wummin.”
Next weeks 689th anniversary of the Declaration of Arbroath - and the acknowledgment of Scotland’s right to exist as an independent nation, and of the sovereignty of the Scottish people - comes at a time when British Unionist Scottish politicians seek to deprive the Scottish people of the right to decide whether Scotland should remain a devolved region of Britain or retake our independence.
In the 302 years of the British Union, the people of Scotland have never endorsed our country’s membership. We have never been asked.
The SNP and other pro-independence parties want to hold a referendum that would finally allow the people the opportunity to say whether or not they want Scotland to remain part of the British Union, but unionist parties - Labour, Tory and Liberal Democrats - have said they will vote down any such proposal.
Its 689 years since the Declaration of Arbroath established the Scottish people as the ultimate power in our land, and 302 years since Scotland, against the wishes of the people, was taken into a union with England. It’s time that the Scottish people had their say.
(c) the3towns.com
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
the3towns.com March 28 2009
Why local Labour activists can't believe their luck
News that Robert Crawford, the SNP candidate for the local constituency of North Ayrshire & Arran, has stood down to concentrate on his work with the South East of England Development Agency (SEEDA) does not come as a great surprise.
Last November the3towns.com reported concern amongst local SNP activists over Mr Crawford’s commitment to the cause. In particular, SNP members cited Mr Crawford’s choosing to accept a post in the South-East of England, while he was supposed to be working in North Ayrshire to prove that the SNP was best placed to look after the interests of local people. At that time, in another article, I questioned how the SNP could possibly expect to win the North Ayrshire & Arran seat, against a sitting Labour MP with a majority of over 11,000, when the party’s candidate was invisible and almost completely unknown in the local area.
Although an SNP supporter for most of his adult life, Mr Crawford, the former chief executive of Scottish Enterprise, came late to front-line political activism and was always more comfortable talking economic regeneration than party political ideology. It was no surprise, then, that Mr Crawford could not resist the lure of a senior position with one of the UK’s largest and best-funded development companies.
That said, the decision of Mr Crawford to pull out at this time leaves the local SNP scrabbling around to find a replacement. A task made all the more difficult given that the best candidates have already been selected for other seats.
I don’t claim to know the circumstances that informed Robert Crawford’s decision to resign as the SNP candidate for North Ayrshire & Arran, but I would be surprised if they differed greatly from those that applied at the time he accepted the management post with SEERAD. If Mr Crawford knew then that he wanted to work again in economic regeneration, and that he was drawn to the SEERAD post, then he should have known that he could not commit to both North Ayrshire and the South-East of England, and he should have stood down from the political role at that point.
To have remained in post as the SNP candidate, and to have done next-to-nothing to raise his profile and that of the party in North Ayrshire, Mr Crawford seriously short-changed the local activists that had selected him and who had put their faith and trust in him as their candidate. To now walk away from those party activists, in favour of a well-paid job in England, does not paint Robert Crawford in a very flattering light.
Having spoken with a number of North Ayrshire SNP activists, I know they were absolutely delighted when Robert Crawford put himself forward for selection in the local constituency. Notwithstanding his extremely impressive track record in economic regeneration - from his leadership role with Scottish Enterprise to assisting in rebuilding the civic and economic infrastructure of war-torn Kosovo - Robert Crawford was a local man, still living in the constituency, and had first-hand knowledge of local problems. He seemed to be the ideal candidate.
As a knowledgeable and articulate man, and with his proven abilities in economic regeneration and development, Mr Crawford looked to be one of the strongest performers the SNP have ever fielded in North Ayrshire. However, even from the start there was a sign of things to come.
Despite selecting Robert Crawford as the SNP candidate for the Westminster constituency of North Ayrshire & Arran, neither the local party nor the national body of the SNP publicised the fact. Indeed, it was two months before news of Mr Crawford’s selection was leaked to the3towns.com and we reported it.
In normal circumstances, when a political party selects a candidate to fight a constituency, the first thing the local party does is contact local news outlets. A press release will be issued, giving the date the candidate was selected, his/her background, a briefing on why he/she is the ideal candidate to represent local people, and a statement from the candidate, in which they will highlight how they intend to win; and they will attack their opponents, particularly the sitting MP or MSP, if there is one, and the government, if the candidate does not represent the party in power. This did not happen in the case of Robert Crawford.
My understanding of why the SNP did not initially publicise the fact it had the former chief executive of Scottish Enterprise as one of is candidates, was at Mr Crawford’s request. Apparently, Mr Crawford wanted to be free from a role he was performing with Glasgow Caledonian University Business School before it was made public that he had taken on a party political role. So, for at least two months, the SNP had a candidate but didn’t tell anyone.
However, once the3towns.com had broken the story of Mr Crawford’s candidacy, and his Glasgow Caledonian role had come to an end, it would have been safe to assume that the SNP would launch an all-out attack on the incumbent Labour MP, Katy Clark, and the poor track record of the Labour Government - but it didn’t happen.
First Minister Alex Salmond is on record as saying that the SNP intends to take an additional 20 seats at the next Westminster Election. If that prediction is to be achieved, one of the seats the SNP must be looking to take is North Ayrshire & Arran, where the party beat Labour in the broadly equivalent Scottish Parliament seat of Cunninghame North in 2007. With that in mind, and given the high-profile employment history of the selected candidate, the SNP should have been campaigning all over the constituency and Robert Crawford should have been in every local media outlet at every opportunity - but it didn’t happen.
The SNP campaign in North Ayrshire & Arran has been non-existent, and the sum of Robert Crawford’s contribution as candidate has been a few letters sent to local hard-copy newspapers. Sixteen months after being selected as the SNP candidate, very few people in North Ayrshire & Arran have even heard of Robert Crawford, and now he has gone and the party has to start all over again.
More than a year has been lost to the SNP campaign that seeks to win North Ayrshire & Arran from Labour, and that time cannot be regained. It was always going to be a difficult task for the SNP to overturn Katy Clark’s majority of 11,296, but with the shambles that has been Robert Crawford’s candidacy, unless the party can find an exceptional candidate as a replacement, that challenge is now all-but impossible.
The SNP has to start a new search for a candidate. Meanwhile, local Labour activists can’t believe their luck.
(c) the3towns.com
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
the3towns.com March 21 2009
North Ayrshire PPP Project - disaster from start to finish
In this week’s the3towns.com we report that St Matthew’s Academy in Saltcoats has the country’s third-highest level of exclusions related to pupil violence. Last week we also reported that the four remaining football pitches at Laighdykes playing field are in such poor condition they have been closed to the public since last December, with the Council unable to give a timescale for when the pitches are likely to be repaired. The reason given by the Council for the state of the pitches is “poor land drainage”, which has only been a problem since St Matthew’s was built on the playing field as part of North Ayrshire Council’s £380m Schools PPP Project.
We also reported last week that, despite the unprecedented fall in bank interest rates, North Ayrshire Council had not sought a ‘qualifying refinancing’ of the multi-million pound debt it took on when it signed the PPP contract to build four new schools.
Last month we reported the concerns of Ardrossan builder Alistair McKenzie regarding the poor quality of mortar at St Matthew’s Academy, and other substantial faults at all four schools constructed under the Council’s PPP Project. The schools were only opened to the public in October 2007.
Previously we have revealed the scandal behind the Schools PPP Project - there was only ever one credible and viable bid, so no competition; the Council claimed there was competition and that it had secured value for money, despite the fact the ‘second’ bid it said had provided the competition actually came from a company with no experience of construction or school maintenance, no accounts, no functioning office, and which had two directors with a long history of failed companies - the two directors have also just been arrested in relation to allegations of conspiring to defraud the NHS.
All-in-all, the North Ayrshire Council Schools PPP Project is the biggest scandal ever to have involved local government in this area, and there can be no excuses from the Labour councillors and senior officials whose responsibility the project was - because they were told, and told, and told that they only had one competent bid; they were told that building a school on Laighdykes would greatly reduce the available football pitches and open space; they were told about flooding that occurred as the school was being built, but they carried on regardless. They were told about concerns over the potential for violence that could occur as a result of bringing together in one school pupils from Ardrossan, Saltcoats, Stevenston, West Kilbride, Dalry, Kilbirnie, Beith, Kilwinning, Irvine, Dreghorn and Springside. They were told, but they didn’t listen.
Even today, despite all the evidence to the contrary, the same Labour councillors and Council officials still maintain they had two bids for their £380m PPP contract. The same Labour councillors and Council officials play down the fact no football can be played on the few remaining pitches at Laighdykes, despite the fact they claimed the local community would have ‘state-of-the -art’ pitches once the new school was built: and despite councillors and officials being warned about the potential for violence, teachers at St Matthew’s are now having to deal with the consequences of warnings having been ignored.
All of this has come about because the Labour Party whole-heartedly embraced the Public Private Partnership (PPP) method of financing public building projects. The forerunner to PPP, the Private Finance Initiative (PFI), had been a Tory Government method of supposedly leveraging private money into public projects. However, it was actually a scheme that allowed private companies to make massive profits from the public purse.
Having criticised PFI when it was in opposition, New Labour did a u-turn and embraced it after being elected in 1997. With a little tinkering and a new name, PPP, New Labour embarked on a massive school and hospital building programme. Government ministers at Westminster and in the Scottish Parliament crowed about how Labour was building all these new public facilities. What they didn’t say was that taxpayers were paying way over the odds for the new schools and hospitals, and that contracts signed to have the new facilities maintained would mean that the public would continue to pay way over the odds for at least another thirty years. In North Ayrshire the cost of building four new schools was £80m, but with the maintenance contract signed-over to the private sector, local taxpayers will actually pay a total of £380m over thirty years.
Labour-run councils, including North Ayrshire, fell over themselves to jump on the PPP bandwagon and join the Labour ministers in crowing about the new facilities they were providing. They were driven by the short-sighted and politically-motivated desire to look good to the electorate - how could people fail to vote for them when they saw their kids going to new schools - but their mad-dash to sign-up to PPP blinded them to the consequences, which are contracts costing hundreds-of-millions of pounds, poor quality facilities, the loss of open space and playing fields, and multi-million pound new facilities where existing schools could have been renovated at a fraction of the cost.
St Andrew’s Academy in Saltcoats had very high levels of pass marks amongst pupils, as did St Michael’s in Kilwinning. Since the two schools were amalgamated at St Matthew’s, exam pass levels have fallen, and we now know there are also serious discipline issues at the new school.
The North Ayrshire Council Schools PPP Project has been a disaster from start to finish. Ultimately, those responsible are the Labour councillors who signed-up to PPP and to the £380m contract to build and maintain four new schools. The councillors may well have been influenced by national politicians within their own party, and they may have been led into the PPP deal by unelected Council officials, but that does not exclude them from responsibility - it simply means they were not up to the job they were elected to do.
While North Ayrshire taxpayers will meet the cost of the local PPP Project, it is Labour councillors and senior Council officials who should pay the price. That price should include the councillors being kicked out of office at the next opportunity, but it should also include facing up to what they did - and that might yet mean legal action.
Certain Labour councillors and Council officials in North Ayrshire thought their PPP problems had gone away, but they were wrong. St Matthew’s Academy in Saltcoats, Stanley Primary in Ardrossan, Greenwood Academy in Dreghorn, and Arran High School stand as monuments to the scandal that is the North Ayrshire PPP Project - and, ultimately, those responsible for the scandal should be held to account.
(c) the3towns.com
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
the3towns.com March 14 2009
The British denial of democracy in Scotland
Last weekend the North British section of the Labour Party held its conference in Dundee.
Of course, they call themselves the Scottish Labour Party, but in reality there is no such organisation. Likewise, there is no English Labour Party. The Labour Party is a British organisation and it is committed to keeping Scotland as nothing more than a region of Britain. Whoever leads the British Labour Party is also the leader of the so-called Scottish Labour Party. The person who is presently erroneously called the leader of the Scottish Labour Party, Ian Gray MSP, is actually only the leader of the Labour Party in the Scottish Parliament.
In Dundee last weekend, Scottish Secretary Jim Murphy MP - London’s man in Scotland - spoke to a near-empty hall and called for Labour to take back the saltire from the SNP. In fact, as a member of the SNP for 27 years, I can’t ever recall the party claiming that it owned the saltire, but it is certainly more credible for the SNP to fly the Scottish flag than for a British political party to claim it.
The reason there is no English Labour Party is because the British Labour Party fills that role. In the same context there is no need for an English Parliament, because the British Parliament has always been the English Parliament, with a few Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish allowed to attend.
Rightly, the Labour Party claims it established the Scottish Parliament, but its further claim that it wants devolution to be a success is less credible. The reason for that situation is because, if devolution is a success, and the Scottish Parliament is seen to be capable of managing the responsibilities under its control, then the logical conclusion is that Scotland’s parliament could administer all areas of Scottish governance. In other words, there is no reason why Scotland could not be a normal, successful, independent nation - and that is the last thing the British Labour Party wants the Scots to realise.
The Labour Party, like its British Unionist Tory colleagues, has been prepared to lie through its teeth to keep Scotland as part of Britain. Government papers recently released under the ‘thirty-year rule’ show the extent to which British ministers were prepared to lie to cover the fact that Scotland would be a very wealthy and successful independent nation. Even devolution was a British Unionist ploy that was intended to kill-off demand for Scottish independence. The British argument was that, if they gave Scotland a little power over domestic issues, then the restive natives would settle down and Westminster could continue to avail itself of Scotland's resources and wealth. However, Enoch Powell, the former Tory MP, famously gave the game away when he stated that ‘power devolved is power retained’.
Scotland now has its own parliament, but the reality is that Westminster can overrule any decision made at Holyrood. In fact, Clause 5 of the Scotland Act 1998 contains the power for Westminster to completely abolish the Scottish Parliament, if it so chooses.
Of course, the likelihood of that ever happening is small, but the power is there and, ultimately, it hangs over the devolved Scottish Parliament like a sword waiting to fall if the Jocks get ideas above their station.
The Labour line that it should claim the saltire is a sideshow to divert attention from the real issue. Which flag flies over Edinburgh Castle or any other Scottish building will have little impact on the people of Scotland, unless the removal of the British Union flag and its replacement with the saltire is a recognition of the re-establishment of the independent Scottish state.
Only through independence will Scotland re-take all the powers necessary to radically transform Scottish society and provide a better life for our citizens. Devolution does not permit us to access those powers - for example, the devolved Scottish Parliament has no power over the economy - yet British Unionist political parties tell us that devolution is the best we should expect.
Indeed, another event from last week proved that, not only is limited devolution all that we can expect from British Unionist political parties, it is all they will allow us.
In the Scottish Parliament, Labour, Tory and Liberal Democrat MSPs voted down SNP proposals that would have allowed Scots to vote in an Independence referendum. Of course, such a referendum would also be a British Union Referendum, because the options offered to the people of Scotland would be continued membership of the British Union or an independent Scotland.
In the 300 years of the British Union, the Scottish people have never endorsed Scotland’s membership. In 1707 the people were not asked if they wanted Scotland to join in union with England: if people had been asked they would have rejected it - records show that while Scottish nobles were signing the Treaty of Union, ordinary Scots were opposed and, indeed, were showing their disaproval by rioting on the streets of Edinburgh and Glasgow. Robert Burns labelled the treacherous Scots noblemen as “a parcel o’ rogues”.
Since then, there has never been an endorsement by the Scottish people of our country’s membership of the British Union. We are told that General Election victories for pro-union political parties are also endorsements of Scotland’s place in the union, but that is a bogus argument. There are any number of reasons why people choose a particular party at election time, and to argue that a vote for one party signifies endorsement of all its policies is just daft. How many people who voted to elect the Labour Party in 1997, 2001 or 2005 could actually explain what the party’s policies were at those elections? Indeed, many people did not vote Labour for any positive reason, but rather because they were portrayed as the best vehicle for keeping out the Tories.
Of course, the ’keep out the Tories’ argument is also false. At General Elections in 1983, 1987 and 1992 Scotland voted Labour but had Tory governments imposed on us because of the way England voted. The fact is, the only way of guaranteeing that the Tories never again govern Scotland is to vote for independence.
So, the Scottish people have never endorsed our country’s membership of the British Union, and Unionist political parties last week voted to make sure that we are not given the opportunity to have our say. The SNP and other pro-independence parties are prepared to put their preferred option to the people, put pro-British Union parties are running scared. If they truly believe that the people would endorse Scotland’s membership of the British Union, why are they scared to put it to a vote?
Democracy literally means ‘people power’, but British Labour, British Tory and British Liberal Democrats don’t want the people of Scotland to have the power to determine the future of our own country.
Last week’s vote by the Unionist political parties was a denial of democracy, and clearly shows that British parties do not operate in Scotland’s interests.
(c) the3towns.com
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
the3towns.com March 7 2009
The Miners strike - 1984-1985
I should probably declare an interest before we go any further with this article. In fact, I should declare two interests. Firstly, I loathe and despise Margaret Thatcher and everything for which she stood. Secondly, for generations, my family - the Martins - were coal miners. So, don’t expect anything resembling a dispassionate account of the Miners Strike of 1984-1985.
The strike, which commenced 25 years ago this week, was begun to save 20,000 miners' jobs, which the Thatcher Conservative Government was prepared to see lost in its drive to close what it considered was 20 ‘uneconomic pits’.
There probably was a case to be made for rationalisation and modernisation within the coal mining industry, but that was never more than a passing consideration for Thatcher and her government. The Tory prime minister’s motivation was two-fold - the short-sighted belief that closing pits would save money (the long-term cost of dole money and reduced tax revenue apparently never registered with the inhabitant of Downing Street) and her determination to take-on and break the power of Britain’s trade unions.
History now shows that the Thatcher government had planned well in advance for a prolonged strike by Britain’s miners: some coal-burning power stations were converted to burn oil, coal was stock-piled for months before plans for pit closures were announced, and the transporting of coal was moved away from unionised British Rail to non-unionised independent road hauliers.
It was also significant that the government finally provoked the miners into industrial action in spring 1984, with the prospect looming of better weather and reduced demand for coal to heat the nation’s homes.
Arthur Scargill, then the leader of the National Union of Mineworkers (NUM), has been proven to have been exactly right in what he said at the time - that Thatcher’s actions were designed not to improve the mining industry in Britain, but to destroy it. Scargill warned that the 20 pits earmarked for closure would be just the beginning, and that what Thatcher wanted was for every British pit to be closed, with the country’s needs being met by cheap imported coal from mines where health and safety issues were not serious considerations and where miners were paid a pittance.
However, while Scargill called it right in relation to what lay behind the government’s actions, he was to play into Thatcher’s hands, in terms of public relations, with his refusal to call a national ballot to endorse strike action. Instead, Scargill argued that a series of regional ballots, endorsing strike action at a number of local pits, amounted to a national legitimisation of the miners’ industrial action.
The ‘regional ballots’ argument was portrayed in Britain’s right-wing media as the NUM being afraid to consult its own members and, therefore, that the strike had no legitimacy and was illegal.
Allowing the conflict to be driven by Thatcher’s agenda also meant that the miners were called out on strike at a time when the government knew it had stockpiled enough coal to last for a year. Again, Scargill played into the hands of the Tories.
That said, there can be no doubt that the miners were right to defend, not just their jobs, but their very way of life and the continued existence of their communities.
Anyone who was around at the time will never forget the scenes at picket lines around the country, and how Thatcher politicised the role of the police. No-one who witnessed mounted police, with batons flailing, riding into groups of striking miners could ever again look at the police in the same way. Obviously, miners retaliated, but the police, by their actions, were seen to be firmly on the side of the Tory Government.
There were many instances where police officers removed their identification numbers, so that it would be extremely difficult to pinpoint which officers had been responsible for assaults on miners. Pickets were also goaded by some police officers waving their pay slips - the message being that the police were enjoying inflated wages thanks to the overtime they were getting from policing the strike, while miners and their families were living on the meagre rations that could be provided from the union’s strike pay and public donations.
Meanwhile, Thatcher increased the tension by referring to striking miners as “the enemy within”. Just two years after Britain had fought a war against Argentina to secure the rights to undersea mineral deposits off the coast of the Falkland Islands in the South Atlantic, Thatcher went on national television and said, “We had to fight the enemy without in the Falklands. We always have to be aware of the enemy within, which is much more difficult to fight and more dangerous to liberty”.
Then, on the day after some of the worst clashes between police and miners, at the Orgreave coking plant in South Yorkshire, Thatcher made a speech in which she said, “I must tell you that what we have got is an attempt to substitute the rule of the mob for the rule of law, and it must not succeed. It must not succeed. There are those who are using violence and intimidation to impose their will on others who do not want it.” She was right, but it wasn’t the miners who were using violence and intimidation to impose their will on others, it was the police, acting on the orders of the Thatcher government.
With no pits existing in the local area by the 1980s, the immediate impact of the strike on local people was limited, but I do remember miners’ wives setting up a stall in Dockhead Street in Saltcoats on most Saturdays throughout the dispute. Local people showed their support by throwing money into buckets and making donations of food, such as tins of soup and bags of tatties.
I also remember going with a few of my friends to join miners picketing at the Hunterston ore terminal, where British Steel was bringing in coal and transporting it by road to the Ravenscraig steel plant. Dockers - my father included - had supported the miners and refused to unload imported coal, but Hunterston was a non-unionised port.
The clashes at Huntertson were not on a par with those at many picket lines in England and Wales, but there were still hundreds of arrests.
Years later, in conversation with Colin Fox, now co-convener of the Scottish Socialist Party, we discovered that we had both been part of the picket at Hunterston. We hadn’t known each other at the time, but it was amazing how our recollections were so similar - including sunbathing on the grass embankments in-between attempting to stop the convoys of lorries going into and out of the Hunterston site.
Even today I can’t see a Yuill & Dodds lorry without feeling an almost overwhelming sense of loathing. For me, and so many others, that haulage company will forever be the scabs that moved the coal for Thatcher.
Of course, history now tells us that, after a very long year of bitter disputes, violence, and communities torn apart, Thatcher won and the miners were forced back to work.
However, the reality is that no-one won. The miners returned to work with dignity, but Scargill’s prediction was to be fulfilled and, ultimately, the British mining industry was destroyed. Look at the decay and social decline that now exists in virtually every former mining community across the country and tell me that Britain benefited from the miners being defeated.
Police forces across Britain would also never be the same in the aftermath of the miners strike. The police had been politicised and had been used as a tool of the state. The general public had seen the police use excessive levels of violence against ordinary working class people: the result of which was that the public image of the police would never be the same again.
Thatcher claimed victory and was buoyed by the conflict, which saw her go on to implement the right-wing, free market agenda that decimated the manufacturing industries in Britain. Thatcherism destroyed so many lives and communities, and introduced the financial spivs and speculators that now, 25 years later, have brought the country to its knees.
There were no winners from the 1984-1985 strike, but the miners at least fought for a worthy and honourable cause - the right to work, to earn a wage and to support their families. They were decent men, and they deserved better than to be made pawns in the ideological crusade of a despicable woman who, if the place exists, will certainly rot in hell.
(c) the3towns.com
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
the3towns.com March 7 2009
Tackling the bevvy culture
Some time ago I wrote about the proposal from the SNP Government that sought to raise to 21 the age at which a person could buy alcohol from an off-licence. At that time I said the idea was daft.
It seems I was not alone in that opinion: the majority of people who responded to the Government’s consultation on its proposals relating to alcohol consumption also opposed raising the age from 18 to 21.
It was Tony Blair who claimed New Labour was a ‘listening government’, but they weren’t listening when the people of this country opposed Britain’s involvement in the illegal invasion of Iraq, to give just one example of political deafness. Therefore, it is to the SNP Government’s credit that it did listen when the people spoke, resulting in it dropping its proposal to raise the age at which people can buy a ‘cairry-oot’.
New Labour’s idea of consulting the people is for the government to publish its proposals, allow the people to comment on them, ignore what the people said, and implement the proposals as originally published. In contrast, the SNP Scottish Government published its proposals and actually listened to what the people said in its consultation. How refreshing is that, a government that cares what people think?
So, the age for buying drink from an off-sales will remain at 18, which, I believe, is the right decision. It was just mad to contemplate the idea that an 18 year-old could buy as much alcohol as they liked, so long as they were in a pub, but a 20 year-old could not buy a bottle of wine to drink at home.
It is also the case that alcohol-related public order problems are not caused by people aged between 18 and 21 who have bought their drink from off-licences. Those in that age group who cause problems when they are drunk have bought their booze in pubs and clubs. The age group causing anti-social behaviour after consuming alcohol from off-licences tend to be those aged 15 to 17, possibly younger, and they usually get someone older to actually purchase the drink for them.
The other ideas related to alcohol consumption that the SNP Government will implement have much more merit. For example, imposing a minimum cost could certainly impact on how much people can afford to buy and drink. Also, a ban on drinks promotions, such as buy 2 get a 3rd free, should hopefully lead to a slower intake of alcohol.
However, having said that, there is one aspect of alcohol consumption that has to be addressed before any real reduction will be made in the terrible impact it has on our nation’s health. Scotland has a culture of excessive drinking, and until we abandon the idea that we have to be drunk to have a good time, then we will continue to experience substantial health and anti-social behaviour problems.
Our young people have been brainwashed into thinking that drinking to excess is cool. It isn’t. Vomiting over yourself or falling about in the street is not cool.
There are two issues relating to the way alcohol consumption is portrayed to our young people. The first is the attitude of London-based celebrity magazines, who glorify so-called celebrities photographed falling out of nightclubs: the idea portrayed is that celebrities party-hard by drinking-hard, and if it is good enough for them, then it should be good enough for the ordinary man and woman who are led to believe that they should emulate the actions of the famous.
The second aspect relates to the alcoholic products marketed at the young. Not all that long ago, there were no alcoholic drinks that tasted sweet and were easy to drink. It took time to develop a taste for whisky, if a taste was ever developed. Now, however, drinks every-bit as strong as whisky, taste like Irn Bru or lemonade or strawberries or peach. As children, today’s young adults gulped down Irn Bru and other soft drinks and now they do the same with the ‘adult’ equivalents. The development of sweet drinks was done deliberately and was marketed at young people to get them drinking more, which, of course, had the desired effect of swelling the profits of the multi-national drinks corporations.
Look at virtually any Bebo or Facebook page belonging to a young Scottish adult and you will see comments such as “happiest when bevvying” or “love slammers” or “me n the girls on a Friday nite, getting p***ed’. A culture of drinking to excess is now the norm, and it is the idea that ‘getting p***ed’ is normal and acceptable that we have to move away from before we will effectively reduce the harm alcohol causes in terms of health and social disorder.
Clearly, there have always been people who abused alcohol by drinking to excess, and there have always been a number of reasons why those individuals over-indulged. Those historic reasons are still relevant today: there are still shy people who think they need alcohol to lose their inhibitions. There are still people who drink because they are depressed, despite the fact alcohol is a depressant. There are still people who are genetically predisposed to excessive drinking. Those people are still with us, but remain a small minority and do not explain the massive increase in excessive alcohol consumption and related health and social problems.
Ultimately, the reason our young people are drinking too much is because we have allowed multi-national drinks corporations to target them in terms of specific easy-to-drink products and, through almost omnipresent marketing campaigns, to indoctrinate them into accepting that you have to drink alcohol to have a good time - the message of the advertising campaigns is that if you are not partying and bevvying, you are an outsider….and you don’t want to be an outsider, do you?
Drinking in moderation can enhance the feeling of having a good time. In other circumstances, again in moderation, it can help someone relax.
Certainly, banning alcohol has been tried and has failed. It is also not necessary. However, if we want to tackle Scotland’s very serious alcohol-related problems, we should be giving serious consideration to banning multi-national drinks companies from targeting products at young people and from running advertising campaigns designed to persuade young adults that they have to drink to enjoy themselves or to fit in.
Yet again, we should be putting people before profit. The health and wellbeing of our people should come before the profits of multi-national corporations, but given the adherence of every mainstream political party to the profit-driven capitalist system, which government is going to listen to that message?
(c) the3towns.com
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
the3towns.com February 28 2009
Radical policies for your family
How do you feel about this? In these difficult financial times the government has to make radical decisions. So, in your interests, the family in the big house at the end of your street will now make decisions on your behalf.
Honestly, it is in your interests.
Although your family actually earns more than your neighbours in the bigger house, you must now give them all of your money. They will then take a decision about how much you should get back. Yes, I know, it doesn’t sound like a good deal, but it is in your interests.
The family in the big house will look after some aspects of your outgoings, so it will be necessary for them to use your money. No, you don’t get a say in how they will spend it, but they will be acting in your interests.
You will be able to take some decisions for yourself, such as painting your house or changing the curtains, but you won’t be able to make any major decisions. Those will be taken for you by the family in the big house at the end of the street, but always bear in mind that they will be acting in your interests.
It may be the case that, from time to time, the family in the big house will use your money to carry out actions of which you might not approve. That is something you will just have to accept. After all, you may not think so at the time, but they will be acting in your interests.
You may also notice that the family in the big house begin to carry out improvements to their property and install new fixtures and fittings: they might also buy a new car or two. Yes, they will use your money to help fund these purchases, but it is important that they have these facilities at their disposal, in order that they can best look after your interests.
Don’t get upset when the family in the big house tell you what to do. They are, after all, acting in your interests.
Over time you may become aware that you have fewer and fewer facilities at your home. Don’t worry about that, there will be more at the big house and your children can go and live there. Of course, if your children choose to remain at home, then it will be their fault if they don’t have access to the money and facilities at the big house.
Yes, it is the case that it was your resources that paid for the facilities to be installed at the big house, but don’t forget that you do get some of it back, so that you can pay to have your bins emptied and your grass cut.
So, what do you think? Would you agree if the government in London announced these plans? No, of course you wouldn’t. You would have to be completely off your head to accept such a position. You would have to be daft.
The situation described above is so absurd that no sane person would ever agree to it - but swap ‘your house’ for Scotland, and ‘the big house’ for England and you have the long-standing relationship between the two nations.
Even under the present devolved situation, Scotland still gives all of its money to the UK exchequer in London and receives just some of it back.
You wouldn’t accept a situation where your neighbour uses your money and decides what is best for your family, but that is what Scotland accepts while it remains part of the British Union.
If you listen to British unionist politicians, Scotland re-taking its independence would be ‘a disaster’; it would see us ‘wrenched’ out of the UK; there would be border guards at Gretna, and we would ‘make foreigners of our relations in England’. Just for good measure, we are also told we wouldn’t be able to watch Coronation Street.
Of course, all of that must be true. After all, we are told that the UK Government in London looks after Scotland’s interests, so they wouldn’t lie to us, would they?
In fact, British Unionist Governments have done little but lie to us. Official government papers being released under the ‘thirty year rule’ show that Labour and Tory governments in the 1970s knew how wealthy an independent Scotland would be if it had control of its own resources - so they lied to us. They told us Scotland was - and supposedly remains - an economic basket case, dependent on hand-outs from the benevolent English. The truth, however, was - and is - completely different.
Scotland’s wealth has funded years of UK Government spending, very little of which has trickled up hill to Scotland. Even under devolution we still only receive a small proportion of the total funding that we contribute to the UK coffers - the two biggest contributors to the Westminster exchequer are revenue accruing from North Sea oil and the Scotch whisky industry.
Incidentally, when we hear British unionist politicians spout their garbage about our relations in England becoming foreigners if we re-took our independence, do they really think we are so stupid that we would not look at independent Ireland and the situation of the thousands of Irish citizens who remain quite happily living in England (and Scotland). Go on, phone your auntie in Dublin - ask her if she still watches Coronation Street.
Independence is the normal state of affairs for a nation. Norway discovered oil in the North Sea around the same time as deposits were found in Scottish waters. Today, British unionist politicians tell us Scotland is still an economic basket case, while Norway has invested its oil wealth and currently maintains a Futures Fund, for the use of future generations of Norwegians, that totals around £200 billion. Norway is not in recession, but Scotland, as part of the United Kingdom, is being dragged into the worst depression since the 1930s.
It is not in our interests for us to hand over our money to our neighbours, and for them to take decisions on our behalf - and that applies as much to our country as to our family.
(c) the3towns.com
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
the3towns.com February 21 2009
The Council toddlers
The simplistic thinking of a young child leads them to believe that if they close their eyes, we can’t see them. Most of us will have come across a child in such a situation. They believe that if they can’t see us, we can’t see them.
Of course, young children have an excuse for believing such nonsense: they are young and do not yet understand the workings of the real world. No such excuses can be made for North Ayrshire Council, yet the mind-set of the local authority mirrors the simplistic logic of a toddler.
The condition of mortar at St Matthew’s Academy in Saltcoats, revealed in last week’s the3towns.com, gives us yet another example of the Council’s denial of reality. A builder with 30 years experience considers that mortar at the multi-million pound school’s gymnasium is too soft and could represent a danger to pupils. The builder, Mr Alistair McKenzie, has proved his case: he demonstrated the mortar’s softness to Mitie, the school’s maintenance contractor, and showed to us at the3towns.com how easily the substance crumbled. Mr McKenzie also contacted North Ayrshire Council to alert them to the danger.
In light of Mr McKenzie’s concern and his ability to prove what he was saying, what did North Ayrshire Council do? Well, they did what they always do when someone even appears to criticise them - they denied there was a problem.
Like the toddler who believes they become invisible if they close their eyes, North Ayrshire Council thinks that if they deny something, then the problem goes away. This is the local authority that does not accept criticism. Instead of listening to the legitimate concerns of an experienced builder who has worked at St Matthew’s for months, carrying out repairs to the school that is little more than a year old, North Ayrshire Council went into defensive mode and denied there is a problem. Instead of investigating Mr McKenzie’s claims, and carrying out whatever repair work is required, North Ayrshire Council adopted its well-worn cloak of secrecy and will attempt to rubbish anyone who dares to question its actions.
Instead of working in the interests of the people of North Ayrshire, our local authority operates to an ideology of ‘the less the people know, the better’.
Of course, were North Ayrshire Council to actually admit that there are fundamental problems with St Matthew’s Academy and the three other schools built under the local authority’s £380m Schools PPP Project, then legitimate questions would follow as to why the Council accepted such poor quality buildings. In turn, those questions would be followed by others that would seek answers to who was responsible and why adequate controls were not in place to ensure value for public money.
Again, North Ayrshire Council would deny any of these questions were legitimate. The local authority’s senior officials and ruling Labour councillors would argue that there were checks in place throughout the whole process of securing bidders for the Schools PPP Project, the construction phase, the handover of the completed schools, and the securing of a maintenance contract. However, the problem with the Council’s position is two-fold: firstly, evidence shows that the school buildings are of a very poor standard; and secondly, the people and organisations that passed the North Ayrshire Council Schools PPP Project at every stage of its progress were actually in the business of ‘promoting PPP projects’, rather than ensuring they delivered structures of the highest quality and at the optimum price for the public purse.
Partnerships UK, the organisation that is tasked with scrutinising PPP projects in Britain, was actually established by the Labour Government with the remit of ‘promoting Public-Private-Partnerships (PPP)’. The man who set up the Treasury body that eventually became Partnerships UK was the then chancellor of the exchequer, Gordon Brown. In addition, virtually all of the directors and senior managers at Partnerships UK were recruited from banks and major companies that were active players in PPP contracts, and which made millions of pounds in profit from such deals that were funded by the taxpayer.
I have written before about the scandal of the North Ayrshire Council Schools PPP Project - where the local authority had only one credible and viable bid, meaning there was no competition for the contract to build four new schools. With no competition, the contractor who submitted the one competent bid knew the Council had no fall-back position. In fact, the Council did not run its Schools PPP Project: with only one viable bid, it was forced to dance to the contractor’s tune, and to accept what it got, which was poor quality buildings. Of course, with no competition, the Council was also placed in a position where it could exert very little pressure on its contractor in terms of keeping down costs.
The contractors involved in building the four new North Ayrshire schools all made substantial profits - the capital cost of the buildings was £80m. Those contractors should be called back to rectify what appear to be serious problems at all four schools - St Matthew’s Academy in Saltcoats, Stanley Primary School in Ardrossan, Greenwood Academy in Dreghorn, and Arran High School.
In addition, North Ayrshire Council’s ruling Labour councillors signed a maintenance contract for the four schools, which will see local taxpayers forking out £10m a year for the next 30 years. However, it appears that regular maintenance is being hampered because, more than a year since the buildings were handed over and accepted by North Ayrshire Council, so-called ‘snagging works’ are still being carried out. Snagging is supposed to relate to small jobs that need done to complete a building. As things stand, though, the contractors that built the schools and the maintenance contractor continue to argue over what is ‘snagging’ and what is ‘maintenance’ - and who is responsible for repairs.
So far, the phrase ‘North Ayrshire Council Schools PPP scandal’ has referred to the local authority allowing its £380m project to proceed when it only had one credible and viable bid. The Council did receive a second bid, which it used to give the pretence of competition. However, that bid was packed full of lies and documents downloaded from the web sites of companies that had nothing to do with the bid. The fact that the people behind the second bid have recently been arrested on suspicion of attempting to defraud the NHS, simply adds to the scandal.
Now, however, in addition to the ‘bids’ scandal, we also have the ’buildings’ scandal. Sadly, just as they have done in relation to the bids, North Ayrshire Council’s senior officials deny there is a problem with the buildings. Once again, the toddlers have got their eyes shut….and they think we can’t see them.
(c) the3towns.com
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
the3towns.com February 14 2009
The North Ayrshire PPP chickens could be coming home to roost
In last week’s the3towns.com I wrote about how the scandal over North Ayrshire Council’s £380m Schools PPP Project had not gone away. I detailed the disgraceful excuse-for-a-bid submitted to the Council by a company called Comprehensive Estate Services, and referred to continuing concerns over the business practices of that company’s two directors, Richard Nawrot and George Henderson.
To reprise, North Ayrshire Council only ever had one credible and viable bid for its multi-million pound contract to build and maintain four schools, including St Matthew’s Academy, which was built on Laighdykes Playing Field in Saltcoats. With only one bid, the Council could not proceed with its Schools Project - the European Union tender procedure, under which the contract was conducted, required that there must be competition i.e. there had to be at least two bids.
Enter Comprehensive Estate Services and Messers Nawrot and Henderson. Paperwork submitted to North Ayrshire Council by Comprehensive Estate Services bore the heading ‘Americium’: Americium Developments Limited was another company that had Nawrot and Henderson as its two directors. Nawrot and Henderson claimed that Comprehensive Estate Services was a subsidiary of a major construction company based in Singapore. That was a lie.
Nawrot and Henderson claimed that Comprehensive Estate Services had paid up share capital of £1m. That was another lie. In fact, Comprehensive Estate Services had paid up share capital of just £2.00. Two shares with a value of £1.00 each had been issued, one to Mr Nawrot and one to Mr Henderson.
In its bid documents Comprehensive Estate Services listed three ‘referees’, whom, it claimed, would vouch for the good standing of the company. That was a lie, too. All three ‘referees’ subsequently confirmed that they had not agreed to perform that role for Comprehensive Estate Services, and stated that they would not vouch for the company.
Comprehensive Estate Services and Americium Developments both listed their address as being in Strathmiglo, a small village in Fife. The address they gave was actually that of a chartered accountant, who said he allowed them to use his office as a postal address. So, a company we are asked to believe was a credible and viable bidder for a £380m construction contract had no office of its own, had share capital of just £2.00, had lied through its teeth in its bid submission and, just for good measure, had no previous experience in any aspect of constructing or maintaining schools.
As an MSP at the time, I raised all of these issues with North Ayrshire Council - as did the Laighdykes Residents Group - but the local authority dismissed every concern and maintained that the bid submitted by Comprehensive Estate Services was credible and viable, and that it provided competition to the other bid it had received.
In fact, there was no competition for the North Ayrshire Council Schools PPP contract. The Council received only one credible and viable bid to build and maintain four schools. The bid from Comprehensive Estate Services was of such poor quality that North Ayrshire Council’s own independent advisors stated that it should not be allowed to progress beyond the very first review of the bids. However, the Council had to give the pretence of competition, otherwise it would have failed to comply with European Union tender procedures, and so the Comprehensive Estate Services bid - with all of its lies and misrepresentations - was allowed to remain.
Council officials and Labour councillors knew they only had one bid - they were told about all the irregularities in the Comprehensive Estate Services bid - but they proceeded with the Schools PPP Project and four new schools were built. North Ayrshire Council issued a press release at the beginning of its PPP Project, which stated that the cost of ‘building and maintaining’ four new schools would be £80m. The contract finally signed for the construction and maintenance of four new schools will actually cost North Ayrshire taxpayers £380m. There was no competition and no alternative to the one genuine bid the Council received. In the News Section of this week's edition of the3towns.com we report the very serious concerns raised by a local builder in relation to the safety of walls at St Matthew's Academy in Saltcoats.
Now, back to Nawrot and Henderson and their companies. Americium Developments is listed with Companies House as a small enterprise, meaning it does not have to file full accounts. However, as of January 2007, the limited accounts that the company did file - albeit late - recorded that it had just £1,371 in the bank. This is the company behind a bid for a £380m contract, a bid that North Ayrshire Council still, to this day, maintains was credible and viable.
Then, mysteriously, given the very limited sums of money it declares to Companies House, we find that Americium Developments pays £40,000 per year to Labour’s Lord Lewis Moonie for unspecified consultancy services. Lord Moonie is one of the Labour lords named by the Sunday Times as being prepared to accept cash for amending proposed laws. It is also the case that Lord Lewis Moonie has used facilities at the Houses of Parliament to host a meeting between Americium and representatives of an American company called CombineMed.
Last weekend the Sunday Times reported that Americium Developments was being investigated by the Metropolitan Police and that three people had been arrested on suspicion of conspiracy to commit fraud in relation to the award of a public contract by a London Health Trust. Both Americium Devlopments and CombineMed were involved in the matter being investigated.
The wheels of justice may move slowly but, eventually, everyone is called to answer for their actions - including senior North Ayrshire Council officials and Labour councillors.
(c) the3towns.com
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
the3towns.com February 7 2009
North Ayrshire Council PPP scandal hasn't gone away
Three Towns readers with relatively long memories will recall the scandal of the North Ayrshire Council Schools PPP Project, where the local authority entered into a Public-Private-Partnership contract to have four new schools built and maintained.
Ultimately, over thirty years, the contract signed by North Ayrshire Council’s Labour administration will cost local taxpayers £380 million. As if that is not scandal enough - have you seen the poor quality of the buildings constructed under the schools project - there was also the fact that the Council received only two bids for its contract. One of the bids, that from First Class Consortium, had the backing of a number of well-established construction companies and, at that time, respected financial institutions. The other bid was packed full of lies, misrepresentations and documents downloaded from the web sites of companies that had nothing to do with the bidder, Comprehensive Estate Services Ltd.
The contract went to First Class Consortium and the schools have now been built. However, as was feared, the school constructed on Laighdykes Playing Fields in Saltcoats has resulted in the loss of free, open space, and the little of the former playing fields that is not fenced-off from the general public now resembles the ground at the Battle of the Somme.
North Ayrshire Council, throughout the entire procurement process, maintained that the two bids it received were competent and viable - that was absolute nonsense. The bid from Comprehensive Estate Services Ltd was of such poor quality that at the first Key Stage Review of the tender process, the Council’s own advisors stated that it was not of a sufficient standard to progress to the next stage. The Council, however, allowed it to remain.
From the local authority’s perspective there was good reason to allow the Comprehensive Estate Services bid to remain - the European Union tender procedure, under which the contract was carried out, stipulated that the Council must be able to show there was competition for the contract. The fact was that North Ayrshire Council had received only one competent and viable bid, so there was no competition. The bid from Comprehensive Estate Services was allowed to remain to give the pretence of competition. Had the Council rejected the bid from Comprehensive Estate Services, as they should have, the Schools PPP Project would have been halted. With only one bid, there was no competition and, by proceeding with only one bidder, North Ayrshire Council allowed itself to be put at the mercy of the contractor. Essentially, the contractor could do as it liked and charge what it wanted - there was no alternative bid, no alternative contractor, no competition.
Even today, Labour councillors and senior Council officials will claim that the bid from Comprehensive Estate Services was credible and will argue that it did provide competition to the First Class Consortium bid. The Council’s position ignores the fact that, in its bid documents, Comprehensive Estate Services claimed to be a subsidiary of a Singapore-based company called CPG Corporation: the chief executive of CPG Corporation confirmed to me, in writing, that this was not the case.
Comprehensive Estate Services also claimed to have paid-up share capital of £1 million, when, in fact, Companies House documents showed that the company had actually issued just two shares, each with a value of £1.00.
In addition, the Comprehensive Estate Services bid listed three ‘referees’, who, it was claimed, would vouch for the company. All three of the people named as referees subsequently confirmed to me, in writing, that they had not agreed to perform that role for Comprehensive Estate Services.
The registered address of Comprehensive Estate Services is actually the office of a chartered accountant in the small Fife village of Strathmiglo; the company had no experience in any aspect related to building or maintaining schools; and one of its two directors had been struck-off by the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors.
Despite all of these facts, and despite the previously mentioned Key Stage Review where the Council’s own advisors flagged up concerns over the bid from Comprehensive Estate Services, North Ayrshire Council maintained - and still maintain - it was a credible bid.
I have said before, and I will say it again, the North Ayrshire Council Schools PPP Project stinks. There was only ever one credible bid, there was never any competition, and North Ayrshire’s senior officials must have known that was the case. They could not have failed to know - even if, for some unfathomable reason, they missed all of the facts previously mentioned, they were told about them, on more than one occasion, by the Laighdykes Residents Group and by me. We told them, and told them, and told them - but they denied what we said: I was even called a liar.
Now, you may well be asking, ‘why bring all this up again now.’ Well, despite Council officials and Labour councillors hoping and praying that they had heard the last of it, the North Ayrshire Council Schools PPP Project could be about to come back to haunt them.
The two directors of Comprehensive Estate Services, Richard Nawrot and George Henderson, through another of their companies, Americium Developments Ltd, pay £40,000 per year to Lord Lewis Moonie for ‘consultancy services’. Lord Moonie is one of the Labour lords currently being investigated over claims that they were prepared to accept money to amend proposed laws.
Without going into greater detail, at the moment, I would not be at all surprised if there were further revelations in the national media regarding Nawrot, Henderson and Moonie. I would not be at all surprised if serious questions were asked about the business dealings of Nawrot and Henderson, and I would not be at all surprised if the police were involved.
If that should prove to be the case, a light may once again be shone on the dark dealings of the £380 million North Ayrshire Council Schools PPP Project.
(c) the3towns.com
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
the3towns.com January 31 2009
Scotland - Homecoming 2009
How many readers of the3towns.com have friends or relations living abroad? The answer is, probably, most of them. In fact, from the e-mails we receive, it is clear that many readers actually live in countries far from Scotland’s shores.
It is often said that there are 5 million Scots in Scotland and 50 million around the world. Scots have a great tradition of wandering, often to provide a better standard of living for themselves and their families. Having said that, it is important to record that a great many Scots had no choice in the decision that found them emigrating.
Over a number of years in the late 18th and early 19th Centuries, huge swathes of the Highlands of Scotland were cleared of people, so that the land-owning aristocracy could maximise their income by farming sheep. The indigenous population was, often brutally, forced from their homes and the land they farmed. They were driven, initially, to the coast and the lowlands, then, in many cases, onto ships and off to a very uncertain future in North America.
Scotland’s loss was the gain of America and Canada, with so many ex-pat Scots going on to play pivotal roles in the development of their new countries.
Around thirteen presidents of America could trace their family origins to Scotland. That‘s not counting Barak Obama, but a small village in Fife has already laid claim to his ancestors on his mother’s side.
Even the King was Scottish - Elvis, that is. The Presley family has its roots in the North East of Scotland.
Australia and New Zealand, too, can lay claim to a significant number of Scots who helped shape the countries. Three of the first six governors of New South Wales were Scots, including one called John Hunter. We don’t know if there is any family relationship with our own John Hunter, the Independent councillor for Ardrossan & Arran.
Of course, Australia also saw many Scots arrive on its shores against their will, but not because they were cleared from their farms to make way for sheep. Official Australian figures show that a total of 8,207 Scots arrived in Australia as convicts.
Interestingly, as a percentage of the total number of Britons sent to Australia as convicts, there were more Scots women than men - 9.3% compared with 4.8%. Although, that figure could perhaps be explained by the fact that many Scots women were convicted and deported on charges of prostitution.
Australia also became home to Scottish political prisoners, most notably the Scottish Martyrs in 1792 and the Scottish Radicals of 1820. The case of the patriotic martyrs, who were charged with sedition against the British Crown, was said to have inspired Rabbie Burns to write Scots Wha Hae, the song that would get my vote for a Scottish national anthem.
In America, in addition to the presidents of Scottish descent, nine of the governors of the original thirteen States had Scots ancestry: Archibald Bulloch (Georgia), George Clinton (New York), William Livingston (New Jersey), John MacKinlay (Delaware), Jonathan Trumbull (Connecticut), Richard Caswell (North Carolina), Patrick Henry (Virginia), Thomas McKean (Pennsylvania), and John Rutledge (South Carolina).
Also, all the members of the first American cabinet were of Scottish descent: Secretary of State - Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of the Treasury - Alexander Hamilton, Secretary of War - Henry Knox, and Attorney General - Edmund Randolph.
In 2005, I was fortunate enough to be part of the Scottish Parliament delegation that attended Tartan Week in New York, part of which sees Americans from all walks of life celebrate their Scottish roots. Most people will be aware of the Tartan Day Parade, which takes place on the Saturday closest to April 6th, the date on which the Declaration of Arbroath was signed in 1320 (the Declaration of Arbroath enshrined in international law Scotland’s status as an independent nation).
The parade itself, although not yet rivalling the Irish celebration of St Patrick’s Day, is fast becoming one of New York’s most spectacular events. It is an amazing sight to witness a sea of tartan and saltires make its way up Sixth Avenue - the Avenue of the Americas - accompanied by pipes and drums and Scottish dancers.
The welcome New Yorkers afford to their Scottish visitors is absolutely fantastic, but, of course, it is not only indigenous Scots that make up the parade. New Yorkers of Scottish descent and members of Caledonian Societies from across America also march to mark Scotland’s day in the States.
It is this Scots Diaspora that the Scottish Government hopes to attract back to Scotland in this year of Homecoming. There are Scots in virtually every country on the face of the globe, but advertising relating to the Year of Homecoming will, predominantly, be directed towards ex-pat Scots and those of Scots descent in America, Canada and Australia.
This year, the 250th Anniversary of the birth of Rabbie Burns, Scotland’s national bard, is a perfect time for the world’s Scots to return home: and, of course, the domestic economy could well do with the injection of cash that homecoming Scots would bring.
That said, it wouldn’t be Scotland if some petty politician didn’t want to rain on the parade - not the New York Tartan Day Parade, the entire Homecoming event.
Last week a halfwit Labour MSP launched an attack on ‘Homecoming 2009’, claiming that the SNP Government and First Minister Alex Salmond were using it to further their aim of seeing Scotland re-take its independence. Apparently, so the British Unionist Labour MSP argued, the SNP Government, by showing the Homecoming advertisement on television in Scotland, was attempting to stir-up Nationalist fervour.
Actually, the point of showing the Homecoming ads in Scotland, as well as abroad, is to ensure that the Scottish population is aware of the event and can draw it to the attention of friends and family members who now live abroad. The SNP Scottish Government is doing its job of reaching out a hand to the Scottish Diaspora and attempting to promote Scotland as destination worth visiting. The fact that Labour politicians can’t put aside their British Unionist perspective and see Scotland as a distinct nation worthy of promotion, further diminishes that party.
However, the good news is, if you live abroad and you plan to visit Scotland during this year of Homecoming, it is relatively unlikely that you will meet a petty, small-minded Labour politician while you are here. So, come home, and have a good time.
(c) the3towns.com
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
the3towns.com January 24 2009
There is an alternative to the failed capitalist system
There is a great mystery in contemporary Scottish politics. Okay, I accept there is more than one: why do so many Scots continue to believe the British Unionist propaganda that tells us we are too wee, too poor and too stupid to govern ourselves; why would anyone ever vote Tory; why are Labour councillors so bad at their job - to list just three.
However, for me, the main mystery of Scottish politics is why the Scottish Socialist Party (SSP) and Solidarity have recently polled so badly?
At the most recent parliamentary by-election - for the Westminster Glenrothes seat - the SSP polled 212 votes (0.6%), while Solidarity trailed in last with just 87 votes (0.2%). There simply is no way of spinning a positive message to results that see your party securing less than 1% of the votes cast. Yes, the Glenrothes by-election was polarised into a straight fight between Scotland’s two main political parties, the SNP and Labour, and yes, the two other mainstream parties, the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats, also polled badly - but that does not wholly explain why the two socialist parties failed to make any sort of impact.
The reason I consider the poor electoral showing of the SSP and Solidarity to be the main mystery of current Scottish politics is because both parties have called things exactly right, while, at the same time, the mainstream parties still cannot offer any solution to our economic problems, other than to use our money to bail-out failed banks and to re-embrace the capitalist system.
For many years, socialist activists in Scotland have argued that capitalism was bound to fail, for capitalism is a corrupt system, where an elite grow rich on the labour of the majority. Under the capitalist system, we are told, the wealth-creators are the so-called captains-of-industry and the entrepreneurs; but without the labour of the working class, nothing would be produced. The real wealth-creators are the workers; yet, under the capitalist system, it is the workers who are exploited and who are kept on their knees by an economic system that does not recognise their worth.
It must be very tempting for members of the SSP and Solidarity to say ’we told you so’, as they survey the extreme damage done to the country by the bankers and financial speculators who built personal wealth on exploiting working class people, and who now sit with their begging bowls extended, looking for the same working class people to bail them out and allow them to start their exploitation all over again. Make no mistake, if, ultimately, we do not reject capitalism and, instead, embrace the collective policies of socialism, the economic recession into which we continue to plunge deeper and deeper, will happen again. It has happened before, yet we were told lessons had been learned and that it wouldn’t happen again. That was a lie - but we shouldn’t be surprised, because capitalism is built on lies.
For many years, socialist activists in Scotland have made the case that banks should be owned by the state and should operate in the interests of the people - all of the people, rather than the few. Even today, when Gordon Brown, the Labour prime minister, has just announced the second multi-billion pound bail-out of British banks, mainstream political parties still tell us there is no option but to re-build the capitalist system and, once the ‘mistakes’ of the capitalists have been sorted - i.e. once we, the people, have paid for them - then the same capitalists should again be handed control with a clean slate. Clearly, no lessons have been learned.
Scotland’s socialist parties have long advocated policies that offer an alternative to capitalism. Those policies are founded on the best interests of every citizen of our country - even if capitalists cannot see that the best interests of the country do not lie in them being able to accrue vast personal wealth, while so many of their fellow citizens struggle to eke out a living. Socialist policies put people before profit and argue that the wealth generated by the people of Scotland should be used to raise the living standards of the people.
Under a socialist system, no child in this country would go hungry, as they do now. Under a socialist system, the economy would be driven by what is best for the people, not what makes the most profit for a small, elite group. Under a socialist system, taxes raised from our nation’s workers would be used to provide the very best services for those workers and their families - unlike under the capitalists system, where we don’t have enough money to build much-needed hospitals and schools, but we can find billions of pounds to wage illegal wars and to bail-out failed banks.
In the week when former generals in the British Army have finally found the honesty to admit that Britain’s multi-billion pound Trident nuclear missile system is absolutely useless - and is actually controlled by America - it is worth noting that the SSP and Solidarity were absolutely right on that issue, too.
So, how can it be that the SSP and Solidarity are polling so badly, despite the fact it was those two political parties that were right about how capitalism would damage our country and its people, and who were right that it was madness to be spending billions of pounds on nuclear weapons of mass destruction when that money could have been used to build a better and more prosperous society here in Scotland? Actually, the answer to that question is simple. The media remains in the hands of the capitalists, and the capitalists will not allow us to hear a fair and balanced view on the socialist alternative.
Think back to the Glenrothes by-election. Think back to the media coverage of that election. On television news bulletins the mainstream, pro-capitalist political parties were allowed to get out their message in nightly interviews with candidates and party ‘big-hitters’, but if you wanted to know anything about the socialist parties, you were told there was information on the stations web site: you had to go and search for it. The capitalists don’t want you to know that there is an alternative. They don’t want you to know about socialism and how the implementation of socialist policies would be in your interests.
Don’t be fooled by the capitalist propaganda: socialism is not the form of government that operated in the former Soviet Republics - that was totalitarian dictatorship. Socialism is about the collective benefit that accrues to a society working together in the common interest.
This week, as the capitalists are once again bailed-out by public money, remember that only two political parties warned that the exploitative system would fail and offered a viable alternative. Those parties are the Scottish Socialist Party and Solidarity, and they both deserve to have their message heard.
(c) the3towns.com
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
the3towns.com January 17 2009
End the killing
Last Saturday (January 10), along with 10,000 others, I marched on the streets of Edinburgh, supporting the people of Gaza and protesting against the ongoing - and escalating - military aggression by the State of Israel.
Over the years, I have taken part in many marches but don’t remember one where so many disparate people came together with one goal - to bring an end to the killing and to support the legitimate claim of the Palestinian people to be allowed to return to land stolen from them to provide a homeland for the worldwide Jewish community.
In addition to thousands-upon-thousands of concerned Scots, last Saturday’s marchers included exiled Palestinians, some of whom, when the march assembled for a rally in Princes Street Gardens, were able to explain exactly what residents of Gaza are currently experiencing at the hands of one of the world’s most heavily-armed military forces. Even though we have all seen television footage of Israeli bombs falling and exploding, and of Palestinian civilians being rushed to over-stretched and under-resourced hospitals, to hear stories direct from Gaza, told by relatives of those affected, was heart-rending.
Also marching last Saturday were groups representing ‘Jews For A Just Peace’ and ‘Israeli Conscientious Objectors’. Both of these groups recognise the illegality of Israel’s actions against the people of Palestine and both groups have had the courage to publicly oppose policies that are, supposedly, being carried out in their name.
As I write, the figure being quoted in relation to Palestinian deaths from the Israeli bombing and land invasion of Gaza is ‘around 1,000’, with an estimate of the number of women and children killed being given as ‘over 400’. In addition to dropping bombs, Israel is also now using white phosphorous flares, which many consider to be a chemical weapon. Israeli military commanders claim the flares are being used to provide a smokescreen, behind which its armed forces can operate on the crowded streets of Gaza, but in reality these burning flares are falling onto men, women and children who, if they try to put them out, are likely to receive very serious burns and, ultimately, potentially fatal injuries.
The white phosphorous flares being used by Israel have been supplied by its most staunch ally, the United States of America, which has also used them during its occupation of Iraq, although it initially denied doing so.
It was because of America’s unswerving support for the murderous actions of Israel that last Saturday’s Edinburgh march included a stop-off at the American Consulate in Regent Terrace. Actually, marchers were not allowed into the street on which the Consulate is located. Instead, we were blocked by a line of police on Regent Road. However, the police did allow a symbolic ‘shoe-throwing’ to take place - based on the traditional Arab insult that has recently been highlighted in the media after a journalist removed his shoes and directed them at George W Bush during a press conference in Iraq.
While men, women and children are dying on the streets of Gaza, Tony Blair, the Middle East envoy of what is known as ‘the Quartet’ - America, Russia, the European Union and the United Nations - was in the United States, receiving a medal from his buddy, President Bush. Isn’t it amazing that, at a time of such horrendous bloodshed in the area in which he is supposed to be working for peace, Mr Blair could find the time to pop over to Washington to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with the world’s biggest war-criminal? No, maybe it isn’t all that amazing. After all, Tony Blair, while prime minister of this country, showed his total disregard for peace and for human life. That Mr Blair could be appointed to a role that contained the word ‘peace’ in its title was nothing short of an insult to the families of British service personnel and Iraqi civilians who paid the ultimate price in the illegal war so enthusiastically embraced by Britain’s New Labour Government. It is simply one more example of the perverted logic of the New World Order - the war-mongering, Capitalist governments in London and Washington - where truth has become lie and lie has become truth.
Britain and the US both also frequently cite how they are involved in a ‘war on terror’, yet to the population of Iraq, amongst many others, these two countries are seen as the terrorists. Israel, too, with its bombing of densely-populated residential areas, leaves itself open to allegations of using terror tactics.
In America, there is great hope that incoming president, Barack Obama, will begin to distance the country from the disastrous policies of George W Bush, and will seek to rebuild America’s severely tarnished reputation. However, the problem casting its shadow over such hopes is the continuing presence of military hawks amongst presidential advisors and the immense influence exerted in government circles by the multi-billion dollar American arms industry. In reality, the Obama presidency may struggle to significantly differentiate itself from the outgoing Bush administration - both ardently believe in failed free-market Capitalism and the doctrine that, in military terms, ‘might is right’.
In the UK, we have prime minister Brown who, as chancellor of exchequer, bank-rolled Blair’s war-mongering and oversaw the financial policies that have led to the country experiencing the deepest economic recession since the 1930s. Would another Labour leader or a Conservative Government operate to a different agenda? Not markedly. Under either option it would almost certainly be business as usual and more of the same failed policies.
So, what is the alternative?
More and more, the option of Scotland re-taking its independence becomes appealing. As a small, relatively wealthy independent nation, Scotland could follow economic policies that benefit Scottish society and could distance ourselves from the blood-soaked foreign policy agenda of the United Kingdom. Devolution within the UK means that powers over the economy and foreign policy remain firmly under the control of the Government in London. Only independence will give us the powers we need to radically transform our society in the interests of the citizens of Scotland, and only independence will give Scotland a distinct voice on the world stage.
Thankfully, all we have to do to secure such change is turn up at a Polling Station and put a cross in the correct box. Meanwhile, in Gaza, people who want nothing more than to govern themselves in their own land are presently being blown to pieces by the armed forces of a country that ‘our’ New Labour Government in London considers to be an ally.
(c) the3towns.com
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
the3towns.com January 10 2009
Local newspapers
I suppose it had to happen. Other than support for Scotland re-taking her independence, there is finally another issue on which I can agree with Cunninghame North’s MSP, Kenneth Gibson.
Mr Gibson this week lodged a Parliamentary Motion criticising the decision by Clyde & Forth Press to close down the office of the Largs and Millport Weekly News, and move its editorial staff to the port-a-cabin that currently houses the office of the Ardrossan and Saltcoats Herald.
Like Kenneth Gibson, I believe this decision is wrong. Obviously, the newspaper industry is changing, not least in the area of online publishing. Sales of paid-for, hard copy newspapers are falling, as more and more people turn to the internet for their news - both national and local. The fact that readership of the3towns.com continues to grow, week-on-week, is evidence of this trend - a trend that is not going to be reversed.
At the the3towns.com we consistently report more Three Towns news than our hard copy local counterpart: we also break more stories than the paid-for title. Now, those facts are not because the hard copy local paper doesn’t have good journalists, capable of producing a quality product. Our advantage actually lies in the fact that our primary purpose is to report news, rather than rack up profits through advertising sales.
Clyde & Forth Press, publishers of the Ardrossan and Saltcoats Herald, the Largs and Millport Weekly News and the Irvine Times, is one of the most profitable local newspaper companies in Scotland. However, the bulk of the profits made by the company does not come from the sale of newspapers but, instead, from the advertising carried by its titles. The reality, therefore, is that advertising space has come to dominate over news.
I leave it to others to decide on whether or not the pursuit of greater advertising revenue has had a detrimental impact on the quality of news reporting in hard copy local newspapers, but I firmly believe that such practice has led to fewer journalists being employed and more pressure being applied to those who remain. That cannot be good for morale or for the generation of a positive work environment.
The news that Clyde & Forth Press is to close the Largs office of the local newspaper is symptomatic of the company’s drive for ever greater profits, at the expense of historic and important local connections. The Largs and Millport Weekly News has an even greater local loyalty than, for example, the Ardrossan and Saltcoats Herald. Known in the area as ‘the Wee Paper’, the Largs and Millport has frequently stood shoulder-to-shoulder with the people of Largs as they fought against perceived injustices.
Many people will remember the ‘Save the Largs Seafront’ campaign, which led Cunninghame District Council (the forerunner of North Ayrshire Council) to abandon plans for an enlarged car park on Largs seafront. The proposed car park would have seen the loss of much of the free-access, public open space on the seafront. The local paper took the side of the people - its readership - and ultimately forced the Council to back down.
There have been many other issues on which the Largs and Millport Weekly News has acted as a voice for the people, much more so than its local stable-mates in Ardrossan and Irvine. The reason for this probably lies with the attitude of the paper’s long-serving and much-respected editor, Drew Cochrane. From personal experience, I know how committed Drew is, not just to the newspaper but to the town of Largs. Anyone whose actions were to the detriment of the town would receive short shrift in the pages of the Largs and Millport, while a fair wind was given to those who were prepared to work for local people.
Drew Cochrane is recognised wherever he goes in Largs, and residents often take the opportunity to tell him what they think about issues affecting the town or to tip him off about a potential story. Journalists on the paper also got the local treatment, which led to a much better newspaper than would have been the case if the editor and reporters had cocooned themselves in their Lade Street office. The decision by Clyde & Forth Press to close the Largs office will remove the easy access locals had to the people who produced their local newspaper. No longer will editorial staff work in the town; no longer will they use local shops; no longer will they be on hand for a chat about local issues. In fact, they will be twelve miles down the road, in Ardrossan. How can that situation represent a better deal for the people of Largs or a working environment more conducive to the production of a local newspaper for Largs and Millport?
Of course, those considerations are not what motivated the actions of the Clyde & Forth senior management. Their motivation is maximisation of profits: only if advertising revenue seriously dropped would they consider the negative impact their actions are likely to have on how Largs people perceive their local newspaper. Of course, if Largs people decide not to buy the Largs and Millport Weekly News after it moves out of Largs, then local advertisers might also reconsider their commitment to the paper.
Now, you might think that, as the editor of an online newspaper, I should be happy if the proprietors of hard copy newspapers take decisions that, ultimately, lead to fewer people reading their product and, possibly, even more people turning to the internet for their news. That is not the case.
Online newspapers are the future, but that doesn’t mean there is no place for hard copy editions. Local towns without local hard copy newspapers is not something I would want to see - and that goes for the Three Towns and the Ardrossan and Saltcoats Herald as much as Largs, Millport and ‘the Wee Paper’.
Having said that, those hard copy local newspapers should be better resourced, with well-paid and motivated journalists, rather than the news-lite, advertising sheets that currently hit our newsagents.
Hopefully, Clyde & Forth management might yet see they are making a mistake by removing from Largs a well-established and liked local newspaper - and, hopefully, we may yet see the return of local hard copy newspapers able to report news without worrying too much about leaving enough space to accommodate more and more advertising.
(c) the3towns.com
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
the3towns.com January 3 2009
A home truth behind Israel's bombing of innocent Palestinians
A new year - same old Israeli atrocities.
From the previous sentence, my position on the 60-year-long Israel-Palestine conflict should be unmistakable. However, for the sake of absolute clarity, let me make it clear: I support the people of Palestine in their right to return to their historical homeland, much of which has been occupied for more than half a century by the State of Israel.
The longest-running conflict in the highly-volatile middle east is an exceptionally complex issue; that, surely, can be taken as read. However, one absolute fact that cannot be denied is that in order for the state of Israel to be created and located in its founders’ favoured global position, thousands of Palestinians were ethnically cleansed from their homes and land. In fact, the British Government of the day, which had promised a Jewish homeland in Palestine as part of the Balfour Declaration of 1917, had previously considered attempting to persuade the Zionist leadership to set up the new Jewish State in Africa. However, that idea did not get far from the drawing board and it was Palestinians, instead of Africans, who were forcibly removed to make way for Jewish settlers.
It is this crime against the Palestinian people, committed at the very birth of the State of Israel, that has been compounded ever since by Israeli military aggression and occupation of Palestinian land, which was then ‘settled’ by Jewish colonists. One of the consequences of which is that 1.5 million Palestinians, most of whom are refugees, are now crammed into an area of land just 25 miles long and 8 miles across at its widest point. It is this area, one of the world’s most densely populated, that Israeli fighter aircraft and helicopter gunships have been bombing over the past week.
Of course, the military hawks in the Israeli government have been telling the world that they are simply retaliating to Palestinian rocket attacks launched from inside Gaza. Undoubtedly there have been such attacks, but they are nothing to the ‘shock and awe’ reigned down on the innocent population of Gaza by one of the most heavily-armed military forces in the world. As the BBC’s respected middle east editor Jeremy Bowen put it, the Hamas rockets launched into Israel are “symbolic”, they are a gesture of defiance against a seemingly all-powerful oppressor. Bowen described the attacks as “completely ineffective in military terms”.
The Palestinian people of Gaza have no way of defending themselves against Israeli bombs, nor do they have anywhere to run. The border with Israel is completely controlled by the Jewish state, and has been used over recent years to enforce a blockade that has meant Gaza residents go hungry and have insufficient medical supplies to treat basic illnesses, far less the type of horrendous injuries that result from being bombed. To the south, the Border with Egypt also remains closed, as the Egyptians attempt to remain in Israel’s good books and keep themselves safe from the kind of attack that Gazans are currently experiencing.
Of course, there is the Mediterranean Sea to the west of the Gaza strip, but that also offers no hope of escape: Israeli naval vessels sit offshore, bombarding the Palestinians from that side too.
The British Government, apparently with some reluctance, finally called for Israel to stop its attacks, which is much more than the US administration in Washington would ever do. For years, the United States has staunchly supported Israel, including at the United Nations where the Jewish State is currently in breach of more than 60 resolutions relating to its acts of aggression and occupation of Palestinian land.
While America calls Hamas a terrorist organisation, it should be borne in mind that, in fact, 76 of its representatives were elected to the Palestinian Parliament at the most recent election, in January 2006, making it the largest party and allowing it to form the democratically elected government.
By now you might be asking, ‘Well, yes, we know all this, but what, really, has it all got to do with us?’
Well, the obvious answer is that, as human beings, we should be concerned when any of our brothers and sisters are attacked, and we should do everything we can to bring to an end such aggression. The other answer brings us closer to home.
There is a UK-based charity called Interpal, which attempts to break the Israeli blockade of Gaza in order to provide aid to the long-suffering Palestinian population. The US Government has twice complained to the UK Charity Commissioner, alleging that Interpal has connections with a terrorist organisation - Hamas, the democratically elected government of the area in which the charity does its work. On both occasions the Commissioner has investigated and has found ‘no evidence of any wrongdoing’.
Also, in 2004, the Zionist-led Board of Deputies of British Jews accused Interpal of involvement in ‘terrorism’. The Board subsequently was forced to issue a public apology and pay damages.
Despite these previous failed attempts to discredit the charity, a new move has been made to force Interpal’s bank to close its account, which would put an end to their work on behalf of the impoverished people of Gaza. Interpal banks with the Islamic Bank of Britain (IBB), which operates an alternative banking model that does not include charging interest. The IBB does not have a problem with Interpal and its work. So, who is behind the move to force the closure of the charity’s account? It is none other than Lloyds TSB - the same Lloyds TSB that has just received £4 billion of UK taxpayer’s money to keep it from collapsing, and which now owns Bank of Scotland, with whom many of us will have our own accounts.
Lloyds TSB can exert such pressure on the Islamic Bank of Britain because it is the clearing bank that clears (or doesn’t clear) all of the IBB’s transactions - but why would a British bank want to see the closure of a charity that provides aid to Palestinian people?
Well, perhaps this may have something to do with it: the chairman of Lloyds TSB is a man called Sir Victor Blank. Sir Victor also happens to be a governor of Tel Aviv University, a member of the Advisory Board of the United Jewish Israel Appeal and is involved in Labour Friends of Israel. Another Lloyds TSB director, Sir David Manning, is an ex-ambassador to both Israel and the USA, and was Foreign Policy Adviser to Tony Blair during the planning for the invasion of Iraq.
If you have an account with Lloyds TSB - or the Lloyds TSB-owned Bank of Scotland - maybe you might want to consider whether or not you wish to continue doing business with such an organisation.
(c) the3towns.com
=========================================================================================================
2008
....OPINION......OPINION......OPINION......OPINION......OPINION......OPINION..
Scotland’s future
Merry Christmas
North Ayrshire - the consequence of British Unionist government policies
Does the British State spy on the SNP? You better believe it does.
Why Katy looks safe
Racist propaganda
Debating independence
We will remember them
Last week I watched the best football match I’ve seen in years
Stone of Destiny
Back to the future with Labour lies
Playing for Scotland
North Ayrshire Council’s Icelandic investments
The power to end poverty lies in our hands
North Ayrshire needs jobs
Sectarianism - Scotland’s shame
Capitalism has failed
A fair tax
The British flag
Why Scotland fans booed God Save the Queen
Workers are entirely justified in taking strike action
Who cares?
Realities behind the Beijing Olympics
Out-Torying the Tories
The earthquake has hit
Thatcher
Glasgow East Westminster by-election
Not all young people are neds
the3towns.com – one year on
Gordon Brown's first year as prime minister
Royalty and the British establishment
Tinkering with a symptom won't cure the problem
Football loyalty
Not in the public interest
It's been an interesting year
It's independence or the Tories
So much for local government and housing associations being open and accountable
Senior Council officials should be told to shape up or ship out
Wendy, you're doing a great job
Lack of openness presents challenge to democracy
So, rules have to be obeyed?
The biggest ever rip-off of public funds
Our Council
Scotland Week
Scottish – not British
Still not in my name
Political cowards
ICI's Three Towns legacy
Admit you got it wrong and save the wardens
The real Tartan Tories
Closure of Ardrossan pubs show how politics affects us all
Scotland victory over anti-English sentiment
John who?
No competition for North Ayrshire Council's £380m contract
....OPINION......OPINION......OPINION......OPINION......OPINION......OPINION..
________________________________________________________________________________
the3towns.com December 27 2008
Scotland's future
The passing of the old year and the birth of a new one is traditionally a time when we reflect on what has happened in the past twelve months and look forward to, hopefully, a healthy and prosperous time ahead.
Of course, this New Year sees us tipping head-long into the deepest economic recession since the 1930s, with little hope of any prosperity emerging in 2009. Businesses, large and small, appear to be struggling to survive, with many citing the recently re-capitalised banks as causing significant problems by continuing to restrict lending and by imposing charges for absolutely everything, such as sending a letter to advise of a charge being applied - a charge on a charge.
Businesses are not alone in facing the negative impact of recession. Every one of us is affected, and most of us will also feel the icy blast blowing from uncaring banks if we should transgress against their small-print rules and regulations, such as going over our agreed overdraft limit. Despite the fact these very same banks would no longer exist if they hadn’t been bailed out by public money - our money - they miss no opportunity to hit us for even more. Banks are supposed to be assisting to facilitate the climb out of recession - that, apparently, was the deal to which they agreed when the UK Labour Government gave them billions of our pounds - but their actions are actually causing further hardship for individuals and businesses.
For most of us, the credit crunch and the deepening recession will be the abiding memory of 2008. However, there have been more positive aspects to the past twelve months.
In Scotland, we have seen the first full year of an SNP Government - and the sky didn’t fall in. Remember all those dire warnings issued by British Unionist political parties? Remember how we were told that if we were daft enough to elect an SNP Government the country would become an economic basket case. Well, they were right - the country is an economic basket case, but the cause of the credit crunch and the recession had nothing to do with the SNP Government in Edinburgh and everything to do with the free-market economic policies followed by Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling in the Labour Government in London.
Scotland is being dragged down by its membership of the British Union, while independent Norway - a country that discovered North Sea oil deposits at the same time as Scotland - is not in recession and has behind it a £200 billion Futures Fund, financed by revenues accruing from its oil fields. Meanwhile, Scotland’s so-far recovered oil wealth has been squandered by successive British governments.
While Gordon Brown, in a very funny Freudian slip, told us how he had saved the world, the reality is that for at least the next two years things will be very difficult for all of us. The Labour Government tells us we are all in this together and we must tighten our belts to see us through the recession. Don’t you just love them?
We are all in this together because of the actions of pro-capitalist British political parties, but this dire situation need not have happened. From 1979 Margaret Thatcher embarked on a policy agenda that allowed the free market to operate unfettered. Financiers and banks were allowed free reign, so-called ‘uneconomic’ manufacturing companies were allowed to go to the wall, people became an expendable commodity - and, we were told, there was no such thing as society. We were to fend for ourselves and, if we failed, it was our fault and to hell with us!
Thatcherism was, of course, enthusiastically embraced by Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and the New Labour Project. How disappointed so many people have been with New Labour. So many people actually believed the election of a Labour Government would mean the end of the capitalist smash-and-grab on industry and commerce, but they were to be deeply disappointed.
The reality is that the wealth gap between rich and poor has got bigger under New Labour, and it is Gordon Brown, the so-called ‘Iron Chancellor’, who has led the country to the brink of collapse.
So, looking forward, what is the alternative? There has to be a Westminster General Election by May 2010, which means there is the potential for changing government. In reality, though, kicking out New Labour and electing the Tories would make no difference. David Cameron’s New Tories would continue to embrace the New Labour policies that they, themselves, adopted from the old Tories. It would be more of the same and the very real danger that the economic lessons of the current recession would fail to be learned.
Of course, in Scotland, we have alternatives that don’t exist in England. We can vote to re-take control of our own destiny, with real changes in policy and social direction. In Scotland we can vote to re-take our political independence and, by doing so, to take control of our abundant resources and take responsibility for how we manage our own economy and our own future.
Remember, the sky didn’t fall in when Scotland voted for devolution, despite the fact we had been assured it would. Remember, also, that the same sky remained firmly in place after the election of an SNP Government - again, despite the fact we were told it would collapse around our ears.
British Unionist scaremongering has been exposed as just that - stories designed to scare the Scots from re-taking our independence and ploughing our own furrow as a normal independent nation. There is absolutely nothing to fear from re-taking our independence, far from it. The scary option is remaining within the British Union that has all-but brought us to our knees, despite Scotland being the European Union’s biggest producer of oil and having the multi-million pound Scotch Whisky industry contributing yearly to the chancellor of the exchequer’s tax grab.
Independence is not isolation - that is just one more of the British Unionist scare stories. An independent Scotland would be free to form alliances with, and trade with other independent nations across the globe - and the social union within the British Isles would continue. There would be no border guards at Gretna, we would still be able to visit our friends and relations in England, and we would still be able to watch Coronation Street, just ask our Celtic cousins in Ireland.
The ‘Downing Street Downturn’ is expected to last for the next couple of years, but within that timescale we, in Scotland, can begin the process of re-establishing our nation as an independent country and begin to build a brighter future for our children.
Whatever lies ahead for us as individuals in 2009, lets hope that, as Scots, we weather the economic storm and emerge with the strength, determination and confidence to build that better life for all of our brothers and sisters in this nation of ours.
Bliadhna mhath ur.
(c) the3towns.com
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
the3towns.com December 20 2008
Merry Christmas
Well, it’s almost Christmas again: where has 2008 gone? Christmas - the festive season, a time to be jolly, the season of goodwill to all mankind. Aye right!
Now, don’t get me wrong, I don’t want to be a Scrooge and give it all ‘bah humbug’: I sincerely hope everyone has a great time at Christmas, even British Unionist politicians (you know, I never before realised how difficult it is to type with your fingers crossed). No, actually, I do mean it, I hope everyone has a great time at Christmas and that Santa brings you what you want.
However, my edge of cynicism stems from the reality of life that tends to intrude irrespective of how hard we might try to blot it out. For example, while most of us are settling down to Christmas dinner with all the trimmings, there will be thousands of people in this country sitting alone, with no-one to talk to, never mind pull a cracker with. Loneliness doesn’t go away at Christmas: in fact, it is compounded.
Then - without wanting to sound too much like the Monty Python sketch where each person tries to out-do the other with stories of how poor they had been as children - there will be people who are not just lonely, but homeless at Christmas. Physically homeless, without a roof over their heads, sleeping under stained blankets or cardboard boxes. They will experience no joy, no festive goodwill - just cold, dirt and the same grinding poverty they experienced every other day.
There will be children who don’t get the presents they asked Santa to bring. It seems their letters never made it to the North Pole - or perhaps, more likely, it was because of that reality thing rearing its head again. Their parents (or parent) just couldn’t stretch the Income Support to cover the cost of an Xbox 360.
There will be families who have struggled to put together the best Christmas they can for their children, bending financial rules and using credit cards that were supposed to be for emergencies. Only to find that when the presents are opened, all that is left is that empty reality again - quickly followed by the pressures to repay the money that was spent. Pressures that can grow so big they can even split the families concerned.
There will be households where Christmas is the last straw for already strained relationships. Official figures show a rise in domestic abuse over the Christmas and New Year period, and divorce lawyers report an upswing in business during the month of January.
Have I depressed you enough yet? Sorry, I didn’t mean to. I just wanted to reflect on the reality that exists behind the tinsel and glitter of Christmas. I just wanted, for a moment, to prick the bubble of consumerism and hype that virtually all of us get caught up in. I just wanted us to think about others less fortunate at a time of year when it is so easy to forget.
Of course, on reflection, you might think, ‘Well, there isn‘t much I can do to change things. There isn’t much I can do to reduce the numbers of homeless or even create a more just society, where wealth is more evenly divided and fewer people live in poverty.’ Actually, you can change things. You can create a fairer society, you can end poverty, you can bring an end to unjust wars, you can even decide to provide fresh water to the children of Africa who, without it, will die in the months and years ahead. How can you do all that? Simply by casting your vote at election time.
Democracy, quite literally, means ‘people power’. In a democracy, we, the people, have the power to shape the society in which we want to live. If we want to spend our taxes on eradicating poverty here in Scotland and across the world, then we can do that. All we have to do is elect politicians who share that goal.
If, however, we can tolerate children dying for want of a drink of clean water, or if we can live with the fact that, right here in Scotland, children cry themselves to sleep at night because they are hungry, then we can vote for political parties that endorse the free-market, capitalist system that has created such situations. In a democracy, we have that power.
For me, Christmas would not be Christmas without watching ‘It’s a Wonderful Life’, the 1946 Frank Capra film that starred James Stewart as George Bailey, the hard-pressed manager of the savings and loan company that had provided the funds for most of the population of Bedford Falls to move out of the slum dwellings owned by the evil Mr Potter.
Over-burdened by financial problems caused by his Uncle Billy misplacing $8,000, George Bailey feels he is a failure and attempts to kill himself by jumping into an icy river on Christmas Eve. Rescued by Clarence, a trainee angel (not yet having secured his wings), George calls out, “I wish I’d never been born.”
The next part of the story shows how so many people’s lives would have been different - and worse - if George Bailey really hadn’t been born.
Eventually, George is restored to life, the people of Bedford Falls rally round and replace the missing money, everyone has a happy Christmas, and Clarence gets his wings. Sorry if I’ve just spoiled the film for you, but the real lesson of Frank Capra’s movie is how each of us as individuals touch and influence so many lives. We are not simply individuals, but also brothers, sisters, fathers, mothers, cousins uncles, aunts, friends. By simply living our lives we touch so many others, and what we do can determine whether the people we touch have a better or worse life.
‘It’s a Wonderful Life’ is about society, it’s about people working together to achieve so much more than we ever could as individuals. The choices we make as individuals affect our own lives but also impact on those we touch. As a society, the choices we make impact on our fellow citizens.
The homeless, the poor and the hungry are all there because of the society created by decisions taken by politicians - such as spending billions of pounds on nuclear weapons of mass destruction, rather than on transforming the lives of ordinary people - and those politicians are in power because of decisions taken by us at the ballot box.
We have the power to change not only our own lives but also those of everyone around us. Together, we can change the world.
Please remember those less fortunate at Christmas, and when we next get the chance to exercise our power at the ballot box, let’s do something to help. Let’s change the world.
To paraphrase the late John Lennon…Merry Christmas, war, poverty, and hunger is over - if you want it.
(c) the3towns.com
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
the3towns.com December 13 2008
North Ayrshire - the consequence of British Unionist government policies
The latest analysis of life in North Ayrshire, reported in last week’s the3towns.com, is one that gives great cause for concern. However, having said that, the findings should come as no surprise to anyone who lives in the area.
One of the main findings of the Community Health Partnerships Area Profile 2008, was that North Ayrshire has the second-highest unemployment in Scotland, with a significantly higher-than-average percentage of people living in the 15% ‘most deprived’ areas of Scotland, a situation that the report states is “reflected in the education, employment and prosperity indicators, with many of these rating significantly worse than average.”
In a nutshell, North Ayrshire has systemic, structural problems that will only be addressed when we elect politicians - at both national and local level - who are prepared to fundamentally restructure Scottish society. Tinkering with the corrupt and bankrupt capitalist system will do nothing to turn around the problems so clearly identified in areas like North Ayrshire.
Capitalism is a system that works only for the few and at the expense of the many. For capitalists to grow their wealth, they must exploit their workforce. In economic terms, profit is the excess within the utility price after production costs have been deducted, and such profit can only be achieved by paying a worker less than their labour is worth. That is exploitation, and it creates an unequal society where the rich prosper and the majority eke out a daily existence, living hand-to-mouth and having to save or pay exorbitant rates of interest to buy ‘luxury’ items, such as clothes or shoes.
In areas like North Ayrshire, even before we entered the current economic recession, it wasn’t difficult to find evidence of not just a working class, but an underclass. Since the Tory Government of Margaret Thatcher decided to embark on policies that saw human beings as expendable in the pursuit of wealth-generation for the very few, those discarded have lived, not a life but an existence.
Thatcher and her Tory Government did not just take away the jobs from areas like North Ayrshire, they also took away hope and opportunity. Next year will see the 30th anniversary of the election of Margaret Thatcher as prime minister of the United Kingdom. It will also mark the 30th anniversary of the end of the post-war social consensus and the governmental aim of securing full employment.
The consequences of Thatcherite policies are now plain to see in once-prosperous communities that have been transformed into economic and industrial deserts, where second and even third generations of families do not know what it is like to have a long-term and relatively well-paid job. Where people are denied opportunity, and where there is no hope of a better life, there is depression.
If you live in North Ayrshire, look around you. Look at the depressed town centres and housing estates; look into the depressed faces of the people who slowly walk from one place to the next, passing time because they have nothing constructive to do. Look at the waste of the social infrastructure, and more importantly, look at the waste of valuable lives and human skills.
Other consequences of the Thatcherite programme - enthusiastically endorsed by Tony Blair and Gordon Brown in their New Labour Project - are also reflected in the findings of the Community Health Partnerships Area Profile 2008. The North Ayrshire crime rate is “significantly worse” than the Scottish average, as is the number of people requiring hospital treatment following an assault. North Ayrshire male and female life expectancies are “significantly worse” than the Scottish average, with death rates from heart disease and strokes in the under-75s “significantly worse” than the figure for Scotland.
In North Ayrshire, the proportion of the population hospitalised for alcohol-related and attributable causes is “significantly worse” than average, while the number of people hospitalised for drug-related conditions is the fourth-highest of the 40 Community Health Partnerships in Scotland.
Unemployment, high crime rates, violence, alcohol and drug abuse, low educational attainment - these are the results of the Thatcherite/New Labour social experiment based on the premise that there was “no such thing as society”. These are the consequences of the capitalist doctrine that argued our only interest should be self-interest, and to hell with those who could not or, supposedly, would not work.
The situation in which North Ayrshire finds itself was not inevitable. Nor did we reach such a depressed and depressing state as the result of evil spells by bad pixies. Be under no illusion, we got here because of decisions taken by politicians - politicians that, to a certain extent, we elected.
I say ‘to a certain extent’, because, of course, Scotland never did vote for Margaret Thatcher and her Tory Government. However, we cannot escape all blame. At the four General Elections during the 18 years of the Thatcher and Major Governments, Scotland returned a majority of British Unionist Labour MPs, thereby continuing to tie us into the British Union, a consequence of which was that we would have imposed on us whatever government England elected. It was no-one’s fault but ours that we continually voted for British Unionist candidates, which meant that Thatcher could inflict on us her desperately damaging policies.
The same applies today. Within the next 18 months we will have a UK General Election. In Scotland, if we vote for any British Unionist political party - Labour, Tory or Lib Dem - we will be accepting that we get the government England elects. The only way we can be sure to get what Scotland wants, is to vote for pro-independence parties.
Back in the 1980s and 1990s, Labour coined a campaign slogan that said: “For a Tory-free Scotland, vote Labour.” That was achieved, Scotland did kick-out every Tory MP, but because we remained part of the British Union, we still got a Tory Government imposed on us.
The reality is that Scotland can be Tory-free within the British Union or totally-free with independence. The choice is ours, and it must now be an informed choice - all around us we can see the consequences of British Unionist government policies.
Of course, once we have re-established our right to govern ourselves in a normal independent nation, we then have to elect a government that will put people before profit - and that will restore the hope and opportunity to communities that Thatcher and New Labour have all but destroyed.
(c) the3towns.com
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
the3towns.com December 6 2008
Does the British State spy on the SNP? You better believe it does.
While the real world tries to fend off the effects of the deepest economic recession since the 1930s, our MPs spent much of last Wednesday discussing an unannounced visit to the Palace of Westminster by officers of the Metropolitan Police.
Last Wednesday was the day the Labour Government announced its legislative plans for the coming parliamentary session, which, to be fair, did include some measures that, hopefully, will help those facing the repossession of their home by the banks we, as taxpayers, have just saved from bankruptcy. Those measures were announced in the Queen’s Speech, which was followed by a debate in the House of Commons.
However, a number of MPs took the opportunity to raise issues of concern, not about the economy or how many of their constituents face losing everything because of the collapse of the capitalist system that every mainstream political party in the UK so enthusiastically endorsed, but about whether or not police officers have the right to search an MPs office while pursuing a line of enquiry in a potential criminal case.
As events developed in the Commons, the Speaker, the man with ultimate responsibility for the administration and security of parliament, spoke about what had happened when police officers turned up to search the office of Tory MP Damian Green in relation to enquiries about information that had been leaked from the Home Office.
The Speaker, Glasgow MP Michael Martin, shirked his responsibilities - responsibilities for which he is handsomely rewarded - and instead blamed one of his deputies for allowing the police to enter parliament, and the police for not saying that they didn’t have a warrant to search Mr Green’s office. What a coward.
Desperate to hang on to the wealth and privileges that come with his elevated office, Speaker Martin was prepared to hang out to dry a House of Commons official whose direct boss he is: what is it they say about a bad tradesman blaming his tools when things go wrong? As for having a go at the police for not admitting they didn’t have a warrant, why did Speaker Martin not think to ask that simple question when his underling telephoned to notify him of the police presence and their intention? The man proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that he is not up to the job, and if he had any decency he would resign. Chances are he won’t, though. It takes an awful lot to separate a chancer on the make from the source of his lavish lifestyle.
Having said all that, there are valid reasons why MPs should be concerned over the actions of the police. When Government ministers or officials are not being honest with the public, when they say one thing to parliament and another privately, or when they act against the public interest, then it is perfectly legitimate for a civil servant to expose such duplicity by passing information to an opposition MP. That seems to be what has happened in the case of Damian Green.
Mr Green admits he received information leaked from a Home Office source. That is not a crime. As far as I am aware, Mr Green also admits to making such information public - that is far from being a crime. In fact, it is in the public interest.
It is nothing short of a disgrace, and a dangerous precedent, that police officers searched the MPs Commons and Constituency offices, seized computers, his Blackberry and a number of files. MPs, MSPs and councillors must treat with the utmost confidence information given to them by constituents or, indeed, any member of the public. If the police now consider they have the power - and the right - to breach that confidence, then we have moved significantly from being a free and democratic state.
That said, I don’t believe the police are at the cutting edge of what amounts to the erosion of our democratic and human rights. Police in uniform or brandishing Warrant Cards can be seen and can, hopefully, be held to account for their actions. The same cannot be said for the state operatives who do not work in the light of accountability.
We may think that MI5 belongs to spy stories or is engaged in counter-terrorism activities to ensure we can sleep safely at night. No doubt some of that department’s officials are employed on such worthy tasks, but others are not. The role of MI5 is to protect the British State from potential threats within the UK - MI6 has a similar role, but its perceived threats are located outwith the UK.
It is the definition of a ‘threat to the British State’ that causes real concern, because one spy’s threat is another man’s democratic organisation. We now know that agents of the British State have infiltrated and spied on organisations like the National Union of Mineworkers, and have listened into the phone calls of certain Labour MPs (back in the days when Labour was a socialist party, too close to Soviet Moscow for the liking of the right-wing British establishment).
In a Scottish context, what could be more of a threat to the British State than an organisation that freely admits it wants to break-up that very state and secure the re-emergence of an independent Scotland?
In a previous life I was employed as the Whip’s Administrator to the SNP Scottish Parliamentary Group. Throughout that period there were suspicious clicks on our telephone lines, letters that didn’t arrive, office doors open that had been left locked and many other small issues that gave cause for concern. Of course, the secret service has never admitted that it spies on the SNP, the democratically elected government of Scotland, but you better believe it does. From a British perspective, MI5 would not be doing its job properly if it had not infiltrated the SNP, even at a very senior level.
There will almost certainly be one or two SNP MSPs who regularly pass information to agents of the British State - and I know who my money is on.
The SNP and other pro-independence political parties may very well be a threat to the British State, but their aim of securing independence for Scotland is in the interests of the Scottish people. It is wrong, therefore, that public funds are spent spying on and attempting to subvert these organisations.
So, ultimately, MPs are right to be concerned about the police action that saw officers arrest an elected parliamentarian and search his private papers - and Speaker Martin should resign for not standing up to the police when they came calling.
(c) the3towns.com
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
the3towns.com November 29 2008
Why Katy looks safe
Back in June, the3towns.com reported that Robert Crawford, the SNP candidate for the next Westminster Election in North Ayrshire & Arran, had accepted the position of chief operating officer with the South-East of England Development Agency.
At that time, some SNP activists were quoted as being concerned that Mr Crawford could not perform both roles - being located 500 miles from North Ayrshire, running an organisation that sought to secure investment and business generation in the south-east of England, and also fight a political campaign in North Ayrshire & Arran to unseat a Labour MP with a majority of 11,296.
Now, with speculation that prime minister Gordon Brown could call a Westminster Election for June 2009 - to coincide with elections to the European Parliament, and before the current recession hits its lowest point, which is predicted to be sometime in 2010 - concern amongst SNP members over their missing candidate seems to have resurfaced.
It is understandable that local SNP activists are uneasy over a candidate whose job takes him so far from the constituency. Equally, it can be argued that someone with Robert Crawford’s undoubted talents in the fields of enterprise and regeneration, and who seeks to represent the people of North Ayrshire & Arran, should be applying those talents to benefit people here, in local communities, rather than the comparatively more prosperous south-east of England.
However, there is another aspect of Mr Crawford’s candidacy that should be worrying local SNP activists. That is the recognition factor, or in Robert Crawford’s case, the lack of recognition factor.
Across business and enterprise organisations, Robert Crawford is one of the most respected operators in the country, which is why he was headhunted for the role with the South-East of England Development Agency. Mr Crawford is much-respected by people in senior positions within economic regeneration circles, including government figures, both in Edinburgh and London. He is an intelligent and articulate man, whose roots are local, making him an ideal candidate for the SNP campaign to unseat the incumbent MP, Labour’s Katy Clark - but all of those qualities are being negated by Robert Crawford‘s absence from the constituency. It is also the case that, outwith business circles, very few people in North Ayrshire & Arran have ever heard of Mr Crawford. Certainly, in political terms, his recognition factor is little above zero.
While the SNP candidate has been conspicuous by his absence, the Tory challenger for the North Ayrshire & Arran seat has been making a name for himself.
Philip Lardner is, in political terminology, ‘working the constituency’. As the candidate for the party that finished second behind Katy Clark at the last Westminster Election in 2005, Mr Lardner has been putting himself about, providing photo-opportunities and writing letters to the press on issues of local importance, like the future of nuclear energy-generation at Hunterston; and of lesser importance, such as informing everyone of how he caught the ferry to Arran on a particularly stormy day, and offering his thanks to Cal-Mac personnel for getting him there safely.
Of course, Philip Larder has also featured in the newspapers for his view on the former white supremacist Rhodesian leader Ian Smith, whom he described as “a hero”, and for his membership of the right-wing pressure group the Freedom Association, which, under its original name of the National Association for Freedom, supported the racist apartheid regime in South Africa.
You might not want to vote for Mr Lardner, but the chances are you will have heard of him or will have seen his name somewhere. In political terms, the same is unlikely to be the case for Robert Crawford.
Alex Salmond, Scotland’s First Minister and leader of the SNP, has made the bold claim that his party is looking to win 20 seats at the next Westminster Election. Of course, his opponents have been quick to say he is living in cloud cuckoo land if he actually believes what he claims, but such electoral success may not be beyond the achievable for the current party of government here in Scotland.
Having said that, if the 20 seat prediction is to come true, the SNP would have to be looking at taking constituencies like North Ayrshire & Arran, where they were successful in the equivalent Scottish Parliament seats in 2007. Which brings us back to Robert Crawford and his invisible candidacy.
A candidate should lead an election campaign, but he or she is simply the focal point, there should be many other equally vital members of the election team. Each party activist has a role to play in promoting the party agenda and the candidate, which is why Robert Crawford should not be saddled with all the blame for the SNPs lack of activity on the ground in North Ayrshire & Arran.
While Mr Crawford has to spend Monday-to-Friday in the south-east of England, there is nothing to stop local SNP activists from canvassing and leafleting during that time, raising their candidate’s profile and promoting the message of how their party is best placed to represent the people of North Ayrshire & Arran. Failure to do that will simply lead to the party taking whatever share of the vote it can secure based on national media coverage at the time of the election; which won’t be great, given the UK broadcast media’s history of virtually ignoring the SNP in British elections.
Of course, it may well be the case that the SNP candidate’s lack of profile and the party’s lack of activity could stem from the fact that they don’t actually fancy their chances of overturning Katy Clark’s 11,296 majority.
It can also be argued that the Labour Party hasn’t been on the streets in North Ayrshire & Arran since the Scottish Parliament and North Ayrshire Council elections of May 2007. That is true, but Labour has the incumbency factor on its side, and can rely on much of its work being done for it by newspapers like the Daily Record.
Katy Clark has worked diligently since being elected in 2005 and she has been able to distance herself from many of Labour’s more right-wing policy initiatives. It would, therefore, take a massive campaign-push to unseat her from her position as MP for North Ayrshire & Arran.
On the basis of the SNP’s current lack of activity in the constituency, and the rabid right-wing policies of the Tory candidate, it looks like Ms Clark’s position is safe.
Of course, they say a week is a long time in politics, and even if Gordon Brown was to cut and run for a June 2009 election, that still leaves seven months for the other parties to make the Westminster Election interesting for those of us who live in the constituency of North Ayrshire & Arran.
(c) the3towns.com
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
the3towns.com November 22 2008
Racist propaganda
As the Editor of the3towns.com, I last week received a letter from the Chairman of a registered political party…..or as I prefer to call them, scum.
The political party has elected councillors in a number of local authorities in England, but that does not mean they should receive any respect. They are still scum.
The political party is the BNP, the British National Party.
The letter I received came with a brochure titled ‘Racism Cuts Both Ways’, which tried to argue that the media in the UK portrayed racism as “a one-way street, where exclusively white perpetrators pick on defenceless ethnic minorities.” It then listed what we are asked to believe are genuine ‘case studies’, where Asian/Muslim men attacked whites and ‘groomed’ teenage white girls for sex. Notice that the supposed perpetrators of these alleged acts were Muslims. Not Afro-Caribbeans, Chinese or any other ethnic minority. The BNP, in its propaganda designed to stir up racial hatred, has latched onto the totally unwarranted belief amongst some sections of society that, in the wake of the 9/11 attacks in New York and the 2005 tube and bus bombs in London, if someone is a Muslim, then they must be a terrorist. It is ironic that the BNP seeks to blame the British media for an anti-white agenda, when it is right-wing English newspapers that have erroneously portrayed Asians as potential terrorists.
Amongst the BNP propaganda is the line that white people in need of a Council house “often have to wait for years, living in cramped conditions or sleeping on friends’ or relatives’ floors because there are not enough houses to go round. But asylum-seekers who have come through a dozen safe countries to get to Soft Touch Britain don’t have any such problems. Whether they have left behind a mud hut or a warlord’s palace, they are all entitled to top quality housing at British taxpayers’ expense.”
Again, latching onto the agenda of right-wing English newspapers, the BNP repeats the lie that asylum seekers are living a life of luxury in the UK. Firstly, asylum seekers, by definition, have to prove they are seeking asylum, having fled violence or persecution in their own country. If they cannot prove the circumstances that drove them to leave their homeland - the British Government operates one of the most stringent asylum systems in the world - then they are sent back, often to face torture or death at the hands of the government or militia from whom they originally fled.
Asylum seekers are not economic migrants, simply seeking a better living standard for their families. They are persecuted people in fear of their lives, desperate to be given shelter. As a democratic and relatively free nation, we have a responsibility to offer that shelter.
As for asylum seekers being “entitled to top quality housing”: I challenge anyone who actually believes that to be the case, go and live in one of the flats in Glasgow’s Sighthill, where asylum seekers are placed. Try it even for a week, then come back and tell me asylum seekers are living in top quality housing. The flats occupied by asylum seekers have, on many occasions, already been condemned, and in other areas are those that the Council cannot get local people to accept.
Again, the point of the BNP’s propaganda is simply to stir up racial hatred.
According to the BNP, the brochure I received is also being sent to every MP, MSP, councillor and national and local media outlet. It seems, therefore, that the party of the fascist right in the UK is not short of a few bob. Which prompts the question, just who is funding these social and intellectual inadequates?
The BNP, the party of semi-literate skinheads, has, over the last few years, attempted to portray itself as more mainstream and presentable, but its policies give the lie to such attempts. Like the Nazis in 1930s Germany, the BNP picks on minorities and attempts to blame them for all the ills that befall the country, a country the fascists believe belongs exclusively to them.
Although they call themselves the British National Party, be under no illusions, they don’t consider Scots to be the equal of the English. Like in apartheid South Africa, even whites are graded for their supposed ‘purity’, and the most pure are the white English. Having said that, there are some Scots who, sadly, are taken-in by the party’s vile propaganda.
In 2004, after the then Labour councillor for Ardrossan North failed to turn up for any Council meetings in over a year, a local authority by-election was held. It was won by the Tories, mainly due to the exceptionally poor quality of the candidate fielded by Labour, but the BNP also put up a candidate - someone called Paul McKenzie, who lived in Ardrossan at the time. They secured 23 votes. Twenty-three people in the North of Ardrossan voted for a racist, fascist political party.
Now, 23 votes is not a lot by any standard (it was 2.1% of all votes cast that day), but the fact that those people apparently shared the view that whites are different and better to the non-white people within our local community is shameful. It also shows how the British (mainly English) print and broadcast media can affect how people vote. After all, there are relatively few non-white faces who, even erroneously, could be blamed for the problems experienced by Ardrossan.
The BNP’s racist message gains ground in areas of England where there are large minority ethnic populations, and where, mistakenly, the white population feels threatened by what they don’t know about their neighbours. On such insecurities is built support for the modern BNP, which claims to offer ‘solutions’ to problems that exist only in its collectively warped mind.
Amongst those of us who hold socialist views, there is a line of argument that we should not share a platform with the racist BNP - so as not to give them the oxygen of publicity. While I can fully understand the logic of that argument, I believe it is better to confront the BNP and expose them for what they are - the dregs of humanity. The BNP, irrespective of whether it dresses itself in a shiny suit or high-leg Docs and jeans, is a racist organisation populated by people who seek to blame others for their own inadequacies.
The letter I received from the BNP concludes “I hope you will read this brochure” - I did - “and use your influence to help society face up to the dangers of anti-majority racism.”
There is no anti-majority racism. The only racism I have seen in political literature in this country has been that directed by the BNP at non-white minorities. As such, I will definitely use what influence I have to expose the dangers to our society of a racist organisation masquerading as a legitimate political party.
(c) the3towns.com
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
the3towns.com November 15 2008
Debating independence
Last Sunday I briefly came out of political retirement to address the Beith 1320 Speakers Club, and I really enjoyed it. It’s been some time now since I took part in a public discussion on politics and I found that I had actually missed it.
The Beith 1320 Speakers Club, under the chairmanship of John Johnstone - a resident of Beith but originally a Barrmill boy - is now firmly established as one of Scotland’s foremost speaking and debating clubs.
Originally formed as the Beith 1320 SNP Speakers Club, it transformed into a broader-based, non-party affiliated club following the resignation from the SNP of the club chairman and committee members. The resignations came in 2004 and followed some guy calling on then SNP leader John Swinney to stand down and for Alex Salmond to return as National Convener. One of the good things to come from that episode was that the Beith 1320 Speakers Club was able to then offer a public platform to all political parties, and individuals, who support the restoration of Scotland’s independence. Of course, another good point to emerge from the 2004 ‘rebellion’ in SNP ranks was that Swinney was eventually forced to resign, Alex Salmond did return, and the rest, as they say, is history.
I had spoken at the Beith 1320 Club before, while I was an MSP, and I was certainly in good company. Amongst those who have made the journey to address the North Ayrshire public in Beith are: Nicola Sturgeon MSP, Jim Sillars, Alex Neil MSP, Adam Ingram MSP, Tommy Sheridan, Colin Fox, Alyn Smith MEP, Professor Sir Neil MacCormick, Dorothy-Grace Elder, Murray Ritchie and so many others from all pro-independence parties and none. Whisper it, even John Swinney spoke in Beith while he was still leader of the SNP. I seem to remember he shared a platform with the guy who called for him to stand down. That was a good debate. I enjoyed that one too.
The point of the Beith 1320 Speakers Club is to allow a platform for debate on the issues around independence, such as how we get there, how long it might take, and what an independent Scotland will look like.
Not everyone who supports Scottish independence shares the same political ideology. We certainly all wish to see Scotland re-take her independence, but some of us would rather see an independent Scotland elect a socialist government and present the people with the opportunity to move from being subjects of Her Majesty to citizens of a republic. Others who share the desire for independence would be happy to see an independent Scotland retain the Queen as head of state and to see elected a government of the centre-right.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with such a situation. Within the British Unionist political parties there are just as wide differences in ideology; in fact, their differences are probably wider. After all, there are no right-wing fascist parties that support Scottish independence, but there certainly are within the ranks of those who support the British Union.
It is right that supporters of independence debate the issues that divide us as well as unite us. As was discussed at Beith last week, pro-independence parties, and individuals, will have to reach accommodations if we are to deliver on our shared goal, but that doesn’t mean we all have to support the same pro-independence party.
One member of the Beith audience suggested that maybe it would be a good idea if everyone voted SNP, rather than for any of the other pro-independence parties, which could be seen as splitting the vote.
That suggestion would, you might think, be eminently sensible, but there is a problem. Some people who support independence could not bring themselves to vote for the SNP, which currently sits on the political centre ground, with leanings towards the centre-right in terms of financial policies. It is vitally important, therefore, that those votes are not lost to the independence cause, which is where the Scottish Socialist Party and Solidarity come in. There is even an out-and-out pro-independence party of the right, the Scottish Enterprise Party, so the broad spectrum of political ideologies is covered within the independence movement.
Another member of the audience at last Sunday’s meeting asked if the Labour victory in the Glenrothes Westminster Parliament By-Election meant that support for independence was in decline.
The short answer to that question is ‘no’. In the same way that the SNP victory in the Glasgow East Westminster Parliament By-Election didn’t show that support for the British Union was in decline.
There are a huge number of reasons why individuals vote for certain political parties at certain elections. Some people - a considerable number - actually change who they vote for at different elections, sometimes even on the same day. It is not at all uncommon for people to vote for one political party at Westminster Elections, another at Scottish Parliament Elections, and yet another at Council Elections. Ardrossan showed that factor coming into play at the May 2007 Scottish Parliament and North Ayrshire Council Elections.
The Scottish Office breakdown of the Scottish Parliament vote in Ardrossan showed a tie for first place between Allan Wilson, the Labour Party candidate, and the Independent candidate, whose name escapes me at the moment. The SNP came third at the Scottish Parliament Election in Ardrossan.
However, when we look at the North Ayrshire Council result from the same day, the first candidate to be elected to represent the town was the SNP’s Tony Gurney. People don’t always vote the same way, which is why it is wrong of British Unionist political parties to claim that a vote for them is a vote against independence. We already know that a sizeable percentage of Labour Party members, when questioned, say they would support an independent Scotland.
That is why we won’t know the true level of support for independence until the people are asked a direct question on the subject, with all other political considerations stripped out.
The people of Scotland have never been allowed a say on whether or not they wish to remain within the British Union. Not once since 1707 have British Unionists ever put Scots to the test.
The SNP’s Independence Referendum proposals will finally give the Scottish people the opportunity to say where they stand, and if British Unionist political parties vote down the proposals as they go through the Scottish Parliament, then we can only assume they are scared to hear the verdict of the people of Scotland.
(c) the3towns.com
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
the3towns.com November 8 2008
We will remember them
“They shall grow not old as we that are left grow old:
Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning
We will remember them.”
This Sunday, and on November 11 itself, people across the world will take time to remember those who gave their lives in time of war.
Of course, we tend to associate Remembrance Day with the two World Wars, but almost nightly on our television news we are reminded that young men are still laying down their lives in the pursuit of objectives set by politicians safely ensconced far from where the bullets fly and the shells land.
Afghanistan is a war that cannot be won by forces of the ‘coalition of the willing’. Many have tried before to subdue the Afghan tribesmen, with the best result so far achieved being a tactical withdrawal. Even one of the world’s then super-powers, the Soviet Union, eventually withdrew its forces after an unsuccessful attempt to control the country in the ten years between 1979 and 1989. However, in the Soviet Union’s defence, the Afghan tribesmen it faced were being supplied and trained by the world’s other super-power, America. American special forces provided the guns, ammunition and military training to what became the Mudjahaddin and the Taliban, the very forces that now target their guns and missiles on British and American service personnel.
Iraq, quite simply, is an illegal war. Our troops should not have been sent into the country in the first place, and certainly should not still be there five years after the world’s biggest war criminal, George W Bush, stood on the deck of a US aircraft carrier and declared “mission accomplished”.
Bush, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown have blood on their hands, the blood of young British and American soldiers and of countless thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians. All three politicians should face trial on charges of war crimes, but they won’t. That’s not how we do things in the liberal free democracy that we have been told our troops are defending and, indeed, are bringing to Iraq. In this country, war criminals retire and make millions of pounds as after dinner speakers and as advisors to multi-national corporations, many of whom have fingers in the very big pies that represent the arms industry and the re-building of infrastructure that has been bombed back to the stone age.
From the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, more names of brave young men have been added to those we will remember at services across the country over the next few days, and the politicians who sent them to their deaths will look very solemn as they lay wreaths to their memory. The politicians may even be genuine in their showing of respect, but it won’t stop them sending more and more young men to the same fate.
A famous slogan was coined during the First World War - ‘A bayonet is a weapon with a worker at each end.’ The author of the saying is not recorded, but it was used by Socialists to highlight how, in the War to End All Wars, it was ordinary working class men on both sides of the conflict who fought and died at the behest of the imperialist warmongers who formed their respective governments.
Nothing much changes. Whenever we see young soldiers being interviewed on television, it is obvious that many of them joined the army to get a job and a trade - prospects that government policies denied them in civilian life - only to find themselves in far off countries with a gun in their hand.
World War II was different. If there ever can be a just war, then surely fighting to defeat fascism qualifies for that catagory. I believe, however, that World War I was not a just war. World War I was about imperialism. World War I was about the economically strong nations of Europe seeking to expand their might and influence, it was about countries seeking control of markets by building empires, from which the capitalist industry owners could make ever bigger fortunes
I had great uncles who fought on the Western Front during the ‘Great War’. Indeed, most of us will have relations who went into the hell that was supposedly going to be over by Christmas 1914, but which dragged on until an armistice was signed on November 11 1918, by which time there were around 40 million casualties and 20 million military and civilian deaths. So many of our relations who went into that war never came home, and even though it is now 90 years since the war ended, it is entirely fitting that we remember them.
As the councillor for Ardrossan North some years ago, I was proud to lay a wreath at the town’s war memorial during the annual Remembrance Day service. The wreath I laid was on behalf of the Council and was supplied by the local authority. It comprised red poppies, but, personally, I did not wear one. I still don’t wear one.
I prefer to wear a white poppy, which is not in any way intended as an insult to those who gave their lives, far from it. Unfortunately, however, it seems that in recent years the wearing of a white poppy has come under attack, mainly from the jingoistic right-wing British media, who attempt to portray it as socially unacceptable. Only this week the right-wing London Evening Standard reported that the London Fire Brigade had been “forced to apologise” after it sent out invitations to its Remembrance Day service on cards that bore the white poppy.
Why should the London Fire Brigade be forced to apologise? Only someone who completely misunderstands what lies behind the white poppy could think that wearing it - or printing it on an invitation card - is reason to merit an apology.
In fact, the white poppy recognises all the war dead, of all wars, and symbolises the hope for an end to wars, so that the list of those brave people we remember at this weekend’s services and on November 11 does not continue to grow as more young lives are lost.
The white poppy was first produced by the Co-operative Women’s Guild in 1933 and has been worn at armistice and remembrance services ever since. Those who misunderstand its meaning and who object to it being worn, should perhaps bear in mind this comment, issued by a spokesperson for the Royal British Legion, the organisation that produces the red poppy - “What you wear is a matter of choice, the Legion doesn't have a problem whether you wear a red one or a white one, both or none at all. It is up to you.”
Surely what matters is that we remember those who gave their lives, and do everything we can to prevent the current generation - and future generations - from having to make the same sacrifice.
* The opening quotation in this article is taken from the poem 'For the Fallen' by Laurence Binyon (1869-1943). The poem was first published in The Times of September 21, 1914.
(c) the3towns.com
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
the3towns.com November 1 2008
Last week I watched the best football match I've seen in years
Last week I watched the best football match I’ve seen in years. No, not the Kilmarnock V Celtic League Cup game live on STV. Nor was it the Everton V Manchester United match last weekend. It wasn’t even Chelsea taking on Liverpool at Stamford Bridge, where a single Liverpool goal brought to an end Chelsea’s long unbeaten home record.
The game that had it all - 8 goals, near misses, skilful players, hard tackling, personal feuds, debatable refereeing decisions - was a Three Towns local derby. A team from Ardrossan and a team from Saltcoats played out a great game last Thursday evening, and it wasn’t Winton Rovers and Saltcoats Vics.
The game was a schoolboy match between Ardrossan Academy and St Matthew’s Academy, and both schools can be justly proud of the players that wore their colours.
The final result was Ardrossan Academy 6 St Matthew’s Academy 2, but to this neutral observer that was not the most important aspect of the game. Both teams, boys of 16 years-old, showed skill and commitment that put their professional counterparts to shame. It was bitterly cold and the pitch left a lot to be desired, but neither of these factors stopped 22 young players from getting on with the game and performing to the best of their abilities.
Having said that, it was a very local derby - both teams walked from their respective schools to one of the few remaining football pitches at Laighdykes playing field - and, of course, there was the added West of Scotland element of there being a religious divide between the teams, reflecting the Celtic-Rangers phenomenon of Scotland’s top flight football.
The game brought back memories for me - as a youngster I played in a good few Ardrossan Academy V St Andrew’s Academy matches - most of which were won by my side (Ardrossan Academy), except the time the two of us were drawn against each other in the Scottish Cup. Having done the difficult job of putting out the cup favourites in an earlier round (Holy Cross of Hamilton, which comprised a team of Celtic schoolboy signings), Ardrossan fell to a 1-0 defeat at the hands of St Andrew’s. Believe me, that was a sickener. It must have been, I can still remember it some 32 years later.
Games between the two schools were always that bit special. Notwithstanding the close physical proximity of the two schools, the local town rivalry, and the pseudo Celtic-Rangers connotations, the players of both teams knew each other so well. We had played against each other for our respective primary schools, and then for the Academies through each year. Away from school, we even played together for the same youth teams. So we knew each other and how we played - and we really, really wanted to beat the other team.
That determination had clearly travelled across the years and was in evidence at last week’s game - and for all of those reasons such a heavy defeat will have been very hard to take for the St Matthew’s players.
Having said that, and while Ardrossan Academy were certainly the better team on the day, a final scoreline of 6-2 possibly flattered them just a bit.
Both sides had players of skill who will go on to develop and may even play at a professional level. The flow of passing football throughout the game really was a joy to watch, particularly given the lack of basic skills shown so often by highly-paid professionals in Scotland’s senior sides. Certainly, the teachers who coach the two sides should take great credit from the way their teams played.
One other aspect of the game that stood out as a positive, in contrast to the actions of the professional footballers we see on our televisions every week, was how the players reacted to tough tackles - and there were plenty of those. Not once did a player who had been fouled roll about the pitch in apparent agony. There was reaction, certainly, but that was to be expected after someone had just put their studs into your shin. No-one over-reacted. No-one feigned injury. Not once when players bumped into each other did one of them hit the deck as if they had been taken out by a sniper on the roof of one of the schools. These boys played a hard, tough game, and played it like men, unlike the big Jessies of the professional game who go to ground, roarin and greetin, if an opponent as much as looks at them.
I had gone to watch the match because the son of a friend was playing. My friend is currently working in England and his son has recently returned to playing football after a very serious leg break. Being in England, he can’t keep tabs on how his son is doing, so he asked me to go along. I won’t embarrass the boy by naming him here, but by his performance in Thursday’s game, he certainly seems to be on course to recover the level of play that, prior to his leg break, had scouts from professional sides showing an interest.
It was a really good game. I enjoyed watching it, and I couldn’t say that about most of the senior games I’ve seen in recent years. Both sides wanted to win, but wanted to win by playing attractive, attacking football, which made it entertaining and good to watch. Again, credit is due to the teachers who encouraged their teams to play in that manner, rather than attempting to ’get a result’ by stopping the opposition from playing.
For me, a comment made by a St Matthew’s defender summed up the positive attitude in which the game was played. With just fifteen minutes left, and 4-1 down, he shouted to his team mates, “C’mon boys, just three goals, we can still dae it.”
In fact, those last fifteen minutes were played in semi-darkness, and while there were another three goals scored, two of them were past the St Matthew’s goalkeeper, but both sides played and tried until the final whistle.
On the display I saw last Thursday, if I were to choose between watching Ardrossan Academy play St Matthew’s Academy or Celtic play Rangers, the schools would win, easily.
(c) the3towns.com
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
the3towns.com October 25 2008
Stone of Destiny
If you haven’t yet seen the film Stone of Destiny, go and see it.
The story told in the film may be romanticised and may not be absolutely historically accurate, but it is entertaining and is based on the factual event of 58 years ago that saw the Stone of Destiny returned to Scotland.
On Christmas Day 1950, four Scottish students broke into Westminster Abbey and ’stole’ the Stone of Destiny, the ancient stone on which Scottish Kings had been crowned, until it was stolen in 1296 by English King Edward I and taken to London. The point of Edward and his invading army taking the stone to England was to show the Scots that they were a nation subservient to the English. Edward’s point was that English Kings could show their domination of Scotland simply by parking their backside on the stone that our own Kings had previously used at their coronations.
In short, the act of taking the Stone of Destiny to England was a slap in the face to Scots. It was done to humiliate Scotland. Taking the stone on which our Kings had been crowned was symbolic of Scotland’s loss of independence and its subjugation by England.
Of course, Scotland later re-established her independence under the leadership first of William Wallace and then Robert the Bruce, but eventually lost it again when sold-out by Scottish ‘noblemen’ in 1707.
In all the time since 1296, and throughout the massive changes that affected both Scotland and England in subsequent centuries, the Stone of Destiny lay beneath the English Coronation Chair in Westminster Abbey, a sign of Scotland’s subservient position to England.
By 1950, Scotland had been so successfully subsumed into the English-dominated British Union that many Scottish companies and organisations styled themselves as being North British, rather than Scottish. At the same time, however, a grass roots movement had grown that sought to establish home rule for Scotland. A covenant was established, which called for the creation of a devolved Scottish Assembly, and over the period of 1949 and 1950 around 2 million people signed the Scottish Covenant.
It was in those days of increased awareness of Scotland’s diminished position within the British Union that a Glasgow University student, Ian Hamilton, was inspired to carry out a daring raid on the heart of the British establishment in London. A raid that not only would raise awareness of Scotland’s claim to self determination, but would restore to our country one of its most iconic emblems, the Stone of Destiny.
On Christmas Day 1950, armed only with a crowbar, Ian Hamilton, Kay Matheson, Gavin Vernon and Alan Stuart carried out their raid on Westminster Abbey. They successfully prised the stone from its resting place of 700 years but dropped it as it came free from beneath the Coronation Chair.
The stone broke in two, which Hamilton later said actually made it easier to remove from the Abbey. Kay Matheson took the smaller of the two parts and drove to Scotland, while Hamilton, Vernon and Stuart took the larger part by car to a wood on the outskirts of London, where they buried it and then returned to Scotland.
The reaction of the British authorities when the ‘theft’ from the Abbey was discovered included the closure of the border between Scotland and England, but Matheson had already made it home and the three men did not have the stone with them when the crossed back into Scotland.
News of the stone’s repatriation was greeted with delight in Scotland, but was seen by the British/English establishment as a potential spark for a Scottish uprising against London rule.
Eventually, once the heat had died down, Hamilton and his co-conspirators returned to the wood outside London to retrieve the stone, only to find that some Gypsies had set up camp around where they had buried it. However, being no strangers themselves to the desire for freedom, the Gypsies were happy to help dig up the stone and carry it to Hamilton’s car.
The Stone of Destiny was then returned to Scotland, where it was hidden by Scottish patriots.
Ultimately, in the knowledge that they could not hold on to the stone for ever, the patriots placed it within the ruins of Arbroath Abbey, where the declaration of Scotland’s independence was signed in 1320, and notified the police.
Hamilton, Matheson, Vernon and Stuart were arrested but were never prosecuted. The British establishment feared that to put the four students before the courts could have incited the Scottish uprising against British/English rule, which was their biggest fear at that time.
Now, that is how the film about the Stone of Destiny ends, but that is not quite the whole story.
It is a fact that while the stone was in the hands of the Scottish patriots, it was repaired by a master stone mason. The two parts were once again expertly brought together, and when the police picked it up from Arbroath Abbey it was as it had been before its removal from Westminster.
However, claims have been made that the repair was not the only work carried out by the Scottish patriot stone mason. One story has it that the craftsman actually made a copy of the stone, and that the one returned to the English was not the original. That, so the story goes, remains at home, here in Scotland. In fact, one version of the story has the real Stone of Destiny resting within easy walking distance of the Three Towns.
The other story relating to the Stone of Destiny revolves around questions over whether what Edward I stole in 1296 was actually the stone on which Scottish Kings had been crowned.
Legend has it that the monks of Scone, who looked after the stone, were aware of Edward’s intention and swapped the actual Stone of Destiny with another before the English army arrived. If that story is true, then what the English carted off to London was actually nothing more than a sewer cover, and the real Stone of Destiny has never left Scotland.
I would love to think that the Stone of Destiny currently lies at the spot in North Ayrshire I was shown some years ago, but I can’t help smiling when I think that maybe it is the case that generations of British/English monarchs have been crowned while sitting on what was actually little more than a Scottish toilet seat.
Whatever you believe, the film about the Stone of Destiny is worth seeing - and if, like me, you long for the day when Scotland retakes her independence, I bet you have a lump in your throat when Ian Hamilton’s strict father tells his boy, “Son, I’m so very proud of you.”
(c) the3towns.com
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
the3towns.com October 18 2008
Back to the future with Labour lies
Already the influence of Peter Mandelson’s return to the Labour Government seems evident. Once again absurd spin takes precedence over fact and reality in Labour’s public pronouncements.
When New Labour was created - and principle was abandoned in what had previously been the People’s Party - Peter Mandelson was credited with the adoption by the new party of the medium of spin. In fact, what New Labour did went far beyond simply putting a good spin on news stories. New Labour created a completely new tactic in news management: instead of putting out news releases that painted the party in the best possible light, New Labour distorted the reality so that what was actually bad news for the party or the country was portrayed as good news. Facts were turned on their heads and were given completely different meanings. Not for nothing was Mandelson branded ’the prince of darkness’ and likened to the 16th Century Italian Niccolo Machiavelli, whose name was synonymous with ruthless politics, deceit and the pursuit of power by any means.
Thanks to Mandelson, and of course Tony Blair, New Labour’s waging of an unprovoked and illegal war against Iraq was transformed into a just and moral crusade to bring democracy to the people of the country. Despite all available evidence, New Labour told us the war wasn’t about gaining access to Iraq’s massive oil reserves. Instead, we were told our troops had to go in because Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, which could be launched against British interests within 45 minutes.
Facts were turned on their head. Truth became lie and lie became truth.
Virtually everyone now accepts that this country was taken into an illegal war on the basis of lies told by the New Labour Government, and that the Iraq deception is just one example of how the political party created out of the New Labour Project became so associated with spin and deceit. In the eyes of the British public, Tony Blair may have been the frontman for New Labour spin, but the ‘brains’ behind the concept of manipulating truth to suit the party agenda is recognised as Peter Mandelson.
Mandelson was such a stranger to the truth that he twice had to resign from Blair’s cabinet after attempting to spin his way out of a loan scandal and then accusations that he had been involved in fast-tracking a British passport application for a Labour-supporting Indian national. So tainted with the poison of spin and deception is Mandelson that no-one thought he could ever return to government, but desperate times for Gordon Brown necessitated desperate measures, and the prince of darkness has returned.
Ostensibly, Mandelson was brought back by Gordon Brown as a Business Minister, but most people in the know are of the opinion that his real task will be to manage the Labour fightback against the Tories in England and the SNP in Scotland. Incredibly, given his reputation for spin and all its negative connotations, Mandelson was seen by Gordon Brown as just the man for the job of transforming Labour’s public image.
Here in Scotland we have this week seen clear evidence of New Labour’s return to Mandelsonian levels of spin. Once again truth has become lie and lie has become truth in New Labour’s public pronouncements.
All around us lies evidence of the failed capitalist system, and of the British Government’s failure to adequately manage the British economy. It was Gordon Brown, as chancellor of the exchequer, who proclaimed an end to the days of ‘boom and bust’: it was Gordon Brown who praised City of London financial ‘risk takers‘: it was Gordon Brown who encouraged an unprecedented credit boom by allowing a virtually unregulated financial sector: it was Gordon Brown who took the plaudits for Britain’s economic growth, despite the fact it was built on an unsustainable foundation of personal and corporate credit. Gordon Brown’s tenure as chancellor and then prime minister has coincided with the growth of the money-market spiv, and then the biggest ever financial collapse of the country’s banking system, including formerly respected institutions here in Scotland, such as the Royal Bank of Scotland and Halifax Bank of Scotland.
The financial disaster we are currently experiencing has been created while Scotland remains part of the British Union. Government failures have been British Unionist Government failures. Financial market failures have been failures within the markets operating in the British Union and other capitalist economies. Yet New Labour’s spin on the subject is that this shows an independent Scotland couldn’t stand on its own two feet. Truth becomes lie and lie becomes truth.
Despite the fact an independent Scotland would, like Norway, have built a multi-billion pound oil fund to cushion the economy from the inevitable down turns that affect the capitalist system, Gordon Brown says Scotland without England would be an economic basket case - that is the same England that is home to the British Unionist financial market place that almost brought down the two big Scottish banks.
In addition, the British Unionist prime minister criticises small, independent European nations, like Ireland, Iceland and Norway, which First Minister Alex Salmond has previously cited as an ‘arc of prosperity’ around Scotland.
The reality is that Iceland severely over-extended itself while operating the same financial model endorsed by Mr Brown’s own British Unionist Government, but Ireland was the first country to react to the international downturn in the markets and immediately safeguarded all deposits made to Irish banks. Mr Brown’s British Unionist Government has offered no such security to British investors in British banks.
As for Norway, while they have borrowed money during the current crises, as has Britain, the country still has a standard of living and a balance of accounts that Mr Brown’s British Unionist Government can only look at with envy.
Of course, if British Unionist Mr Brown really doubts the benefits of independence to small European nations, he could always ask the people of Ireland if they would like to give up their own independence and, instead, return to being part of the British Union. The answer Mr Brown would get would contain two words, the second of which would be ’off’.
Meanwhile, in the world of New Labour spin, Britain is leading the way out of the current crisis and our saviour is Gordon Brown. In reality, however, Britain has been forced to borrow billions of pounds to bail out banks, inflation continues to rise (now 5.2%) meaning people become poorer as prices rise, and unemployment in Scotland grew by 19,000 in the months from June to August.
That is the reality that New Labour spin is trying to hide. Far from Scotland not being able to afford independence, the reality is that we can’t afford much longer as part of the British Union.
It is British Unionist government policies that have created the problems Scotland currently has, and no amount of British Unionist spin will change that fact.
Independence means having control of our own resources and taking decisions for ourselves, in our own interests. That is what Scotland needs, and as the European Union’s biggest producer of oil, can well afford.
(c) the3towns.com
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
the3towns.com October 18 2008
Playing for Scotland
Be honest, who amongst us, say this time last month, had heard of Chris Iwelumo?
The Coatbridge-born centre forward with Wolverhampton Wanderers had managed to ply his professional football career without grabbing any major headlines. Until, that is, he was given his Scotland international debut in last Saturday’s World Cup qualifier against Norway.
With the game at 0-0 and Scotland desperate for a goal, the big striker was thrown on to see what he could do. Immediately his size and strength created problems for the Norwegian defence, and the big man certainly got the Tartan Army behind him as he showed the kind of commitment to the cause that the fans love to see.
Then he found himself on the end of an inch-perfect cross and just two-feet out from the gaping Norwegian goal. The keeper had been beaten by the cross, it was an open goal, and as every Scotland fan knows - but struggles to understand - Iwelumo managed to miss.
Honestly, it would have been easier to score than to put the ball past the post from such close range.
Hopefully, Chris Iwelumo will get further chances to prove his real ability for Scotland, but that miss will haunt the rest of his career. It was just so bad, it was, very possibly, the worst ever miss by a professional footballer. Yes, it really was that bad.
Fate can be so cruel. Having played his football with smaller teams, like St Mirren, Iwelumo’s move to Wolves saw him strike a vein of consistency and the back of opponents’ nets on a regular basis. He went into Saturday’s game having scored 8 goals in 6 games for his club. Yet, having worked hard at his game and having earned his chance on the big stage, his contribution will be remembered for a howler of a miss.
What made things worse for Scotland fans was that Irvine-born Rangers striker Kris Boyd - a man who does little else on a football pitch but score goals - was left to watch on the substitutes bench as Iwelumo duffed his open goal and Scotland were held to a draw at home by Norway.
There can be little doubt that Kris Boyd would have taken the chance that presented itself to Iwelumo, and as a consequence, Scotland would have won the match and we would all now be a lot more confident about the team reaching the 2010 World Cup Finals in South Africa.
The fall-out from last Saturday’s game, and the decision of manager George Burley to play Chris Iwelumo (and Hibernian’s Steven Fletcher) ahead of Kris Boyd, culminated in the Rangers striker indicating that he would not play again for Scotland while Burley remained the manager.
That is a pity, because there is no doubt that Kris Boyd is a goalscorer, and every man and his dug knows that, currently, Scotland is not overly blessed in that department. However, having said that, for any Scottish player to walk out on his national team is a disgrace.
It is an honour to play for Scotland, an honour virtually every Scottish man and boy would love to achieve, but never will. Kris Boyd was given the ability that allowed him to live the dream of every Scotland fan, yet simply because the current manager of the national side chose to play other strikers ahead of him, he has turned his back on his country. That is a slap in the face to every Scotsman who ever dreamed of pulling on the dark blue jersey.
George Burley got his tactics wrong on Saturday, particularly in the first half of the game, and he certainly should have used Boyd as we chased the goal that would have given us victory, but he is the man appointed to get our team to the World Cup Finals, and he has to be allowed to manage without players trying to influence his selection by taking the huff if they aren’t picked.
Following the game against Norway, and Kris Boyd’s decision to quit the Scotland squad, George Burley made clear that the main reasons he selected Iwelumo and Fletcher ahead of Boyd were because both players are making regular starts for their club teams - Boyd is not - and they both showed a desire to play during the squad’s pre-match training sessions - apparently Boyd did not.
The right thing for Boyd to have done would have been to redouble his efforts at Rangers, to prove to club manager Walter Smith that he was indispensable to the Ibrox club, which would have had the knock-on effect of virtually guaranteeing his selection for Scotland. Instead, he didn’t have the heart to fight and chose to walk away. An action that seems to confirm George Burley’s opinion that Boyd lacked the commitment to prove himself worthy of inclusion in the team.
Scotland fans fork out a small fortune to follow the team all over the world, often for very little return - I know, I once spent £50 on a ticket to see Scotland play Costa Rica in the 1990 World Cup Finals (we lost 1-0) - but the Tartan Army will continue to spend their hard-earned money and will continue to be the most vocal and loyal fans in the world because they love Scotland and want to see our team do well. If the fans followed the Kris Boyd code of conduct and walked away after a disappointment, there would have been no-one at Hampden for the past fifty years.
Scotland fans are the best in the world, and to be the best takes dedication, commitment, courage and loyalty to the cause. Maybe when Kris Boyd realises how lucky he is to have the opportunity to play for his country, he might embrace the Tartan Army’s dedication, commitment, courage and loyalty to the cause, and maybe then Scotland fans would have him back.
(c) the3towns.com
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
the3towns.com October 11 2008
North Ayrshire Council's Icelandic investments
As I write, our local authority, North Ayrshire Council, is awaiting news of what will happen to the £15 million of our money that it deposited with two Icelandic banks that have now been placed in receivership by the government of Iceland.
There are conflicting accounts on what the Council can expect. Some ‘experts’ believe that the money is safe and will be returned to the local authority within a matter of weeks. This theory appears to be supported by the Westminster Government, which, certainly at this stage, does not seem moved to guarantee deposits made into Icelandic banks by local authorities and other public bodies.
However, other ‘experts’ have a different view, one that argues Councils may not get back everything they deposited. According to one financial advisor, public sector investors in Icelandic banks may only receive back 20p-in-pound of what they stuck away for a rainy day. In North Ayrshire Council’s case, that would mean a £750,000 return on a £15 million investment. That would be a disaster and, surely, would be the very worst case scenario.
Clearly, North Ayrshire Council, like every other local authority, has to budget sensibly and has to put away monies for unforeseen contingencies, which, I think we can assume, is what they did with the £15 million they shipped over to Iceland. It is probably the case that the Icelandic £15 million does not represent the entire ‘rainy day’ nest egg accumulated by the Council, which, of course, would be seen as prudent financial management.
Well, it would if the capitalist system wasn’t corrupt, and if the Council had not invested such a large sum of money with banks that lay outwith the scope and regulation of the UK Financial Services Authority.
Because of the decision the Council took to place such a substantial sum of money in foreign banks, we - and they - now have a period of great uncertainty. In Iceland, the government has moved to safeguard only deposits made by Icelandic citizens, organisations and companies.
Here, in the UK, the Labour Government has stated that individual British investors will see their money safeguarded. Gordon Brown has even used anti-terror legislation to freeze UK-based assets of the Icelandic banks that collapsed in the past week. Councils, charities, police authorities and health boards, however, appear to be a different story.
We can question the wisdom of North Ayrshire Council in placing millions of pounds in foreign banks, but the local authority would be justified in asking why it is that a Labour Government has been prepared to splash billions of pounds to safeguard banks and private sector investors, but is reluctant to offer the same level of help to investors from the public sector.
The banks in which North Ayrshire Council invested had triple A ratings, until they collapsed earlier this week. In financial terms they were seen as a safe bet - but in the world of international capitalism, any bet can go spectacularly wrong.
Capitalism is built on greed and exploitation. The founding principle of the capitalist system is the creation of wealth, but not for everyone. In order for the capitalist system to work, the majority of people have to be exploited. In order for capitalists to make profit, workers - the real wealth creators - have to be paid less than their labour is actually worth. It is a corrupt system.
Over the last few weeks we have seen the whole capitalist system brought to its knees. Even in the greatest exponent of the free market system, America, we have seen the government nationalise banks and financial institutions. The same has happened in the UK. public finance - our money - has been used to bail out the failures of the free market economy, who for years have told us that they do things so much better than the public sector. They don’t, and the last weeks have proved that point once and for all.
The UK bail out of failing banks has seen the Labour Government take stakes in the financial organisations, but has stopped short of outright nationalisation. That is a pity, because nationalisation of the country’s banking system is exactly what we need. Such a move would be in the interests of all the people, not just investors.
Banks that were run in the interests of the people, not in the pursuit of mega-million pound profits, could offer reasonable and government-backed returns on investment for individual savers, companies and public bodies. How much less would the four North Ayrshire schools have cost that were built recently using the PPP funding method if the Council could simply have gone to a state owned bank to secure the capital required? How much better would it have been for North Ayrshire Council Tax-payers if the local authority could have borrowed from the state, at a favourably low rate of interest, and could have repaid the money spread over a period of around 60 years?
Compare that proposition with what actually happened - where the Council entered into a deal with private companies backed by off-shore financial speculators, each of which is taking huge profits from the deal. Our money has gone into the pockets of those like the spivs and speculators that have brought down well-established banks, rather than going into the education of our children, and into producing sound public buildings that will actually still be around, and in good condition, by the time the money used to build them has been repaid.
In our own interests we really need to look beyond the smoke and mirrors of the capitalist financial speculators. We don’t need them. What we do need is banks and financial institutions we can trust. We need to transform our society so that people are put before profit.
Nationalised banks, backed by the state funding that has just bailed out the capitalist spivs, could be the solid foundation needed to really regenerate communities the length and breadth of the country.
If there was a national bank, offering maximum security and favourable returns to investors, what reason would local authorities like North Ayrshire Council have for taking risks by putting huge sums of money into foreign banks?
By putting £15 million into two Icelandic banks, the Council were looking to make money. They were speculating with our money. They were acting like capitalists, rather than the representative body of the people of North Ayrshire.
As I write, we just have to hope they haven’t gambled and lost.
(c) the3towns.com
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
the3towns.com October 4 2008
The power to end poverty lies in our hands
In the week in which further billions of pounds have been made available to shore-up failed banks and financial institutions - and to bail-out the extremely well paid people responsible for the precarious positions of those banks and institutions - here is the statistic that should shame us all: in North Ayrshire, every fourth child is living in poverty.
Actually, I exaggerated that figure. It isn’t 25% of North Ayrshire children that are living in poverty, it’s only 23%. Does that make you feel better? No, of course it doesn’t - or at least it shouldn’t.
One child living in poverty is one too many. For almost every fourth child in North Ayrshire to be in that position is hard-and-fast evidence that we, as a society, have got our priorities wrong.
This week our prime minister said he would “do whatever it takes” to solve the problem. Not the problem of poverty, of course. Our prime minister and his New Labour Government will do whatever it takes, and spend however much is needed, to bail-out the bankrupt capitalist system. They will do that, and they will do it now. Meanwhile, ending child poverty in this relatively rich country remains an aspiration to be achieved by 2020.
In fact, the New Labour Government’s current commitment is not to end child poverty, but to halve it in the UK by 2010. The Campaign to End Child Poverty is this Saturday (October 4) holding a rally in London’s Trafalgar Square, with the aim of keeping the government to that promise. In other words, the campaign wants to make sure there is no slippage in the government’s promise - a promise that, even if achieved, will still leave thousands of young people in this country living below the poverty line for at least another 12 years.
According to the Campaign to End Child Poverty, unless the UK Labour Government is prepared to set aside £3 billion in its next budget, it will fail to keep its promise to halve child poverty in the UK by 2010. How many billions of pounds has the same Labour Government committed over the last couple of weeks to companies and corporations in the City of London, simply to shore-up the prices of stocks and shares?
Of course, successive Westminster Governments - Tory and Labour - have told us that the capitalist system benefits everyone. The more successful the financial markets, the more profitable is the national economy, and the more wealth there is to trickle down to the ordinary man and woman in the street. That’s the theory, but some of us have been arguing for a very long time that, in practice, that theory doesn’t work - and the events of recent weeks have proved that beyond a shadow of a doubt.
Under this Labour Government, the gap between the rich and the poor in society has widened - the rich have got richer, while the poor have got poorer. As Tommy Sheridan once put it, “The Labour Party has gone from being the party of the millions, to the party of the millionaires.”
I can remember taking part in a parliamentary debate on poverty. Opposition MSPs made speeches that referred to statistics showing more people in Scotland were living in poverty than had been the case a generation ago. In response, Labour ministers in the then Scottish Executive cited figures, which they claimed showed the Government had reduced the number of Scots living in absolute poverty. That was the line of defence the then government parties (Labour and the Lib Dems) sought to use in the debate: they drew a distinction between ‘absolute’ and ‘relative’ poverty, and claimed success for moving some people from absolute poverty to just relative poverty.
It made me feel sick to hear very well-paid politicians argue that people existing in relative poverty should apparently be grateful to the Labour/Lib Dem Scottish Executive and the Labour Government in London for the fact that their lives had marginally improved, but that they were still living in poverty.
In my contribution to that parliamentary debate, I made the point that if you are poor you know you’re poor, and it doesn’t matter one bit to you whether you are living in relative or absolute poverty - you are still extremely poor and you still struggle to feed your kids.
I steered clear of statistics in my speech, instead I referred to real people and how being poor impacts on them, and I didn’t have to go to Glasgow or any other inner city location to find the poor. They were, and are, all around us here in North Ayrshire.
I spoke about young women in the Three Towns who often didn’t eat, so that there was enough food for their children. I spoke about the impact poverty has on children, from poor diet, to being set apart from their pals because of the clothes they wore; I spoke about schoolchildren not being able to take part in the activities their pals did, because their own parents couldn’t afford the couple of pounds the activities cost. I spoke about the negative impact poverty has on the education of young people: it’s much more difficult to concentrate on your homework if you have to do it in the only room in the house where there is a heater, and where brothers and sisters are playing, and a television is blaring.
These were not stories made up for effect. These were, and are, the reality of local people.
In that parliamentary debate I also told of the kind-faced man in his sixties who, every Monday, met up with a group of young women in one of Ardrossan’s main streets. He then gave the women a lift to the Post Office. Wasn't that good of him?
Well, actually, no it wasn't good of him. The man wasn't giving the women a lift to the Post Office out of the goodness of his heart. He was a money lender. He held the women’s ‘Monday books’ (Social Security benefit payment books) as collateral against the money they had borrowed from him, at exorbitant rates of repayment, and he took them to the Post Office so that he could get their money before they spent it on food or clothes for their children.
That is the reality of poverty in the Three Towns. It is a story not of ‘relative’ and ‘absolute’, but of grinding hardship and unending pressure. Poverty is a trap. Once you are in it, it is extremely difficult to get out of it.
Of course, it would help if we elected politicians who gave a greater priority to providing a better life for all the citizens and all the children of this country, than they do to spending billions of pounds on nuclear weapons of mass destruction, that we will never use, or multi-billions of pounds on bailing out wealthy bankers.
Its all about priorities. If we wanted to, we could eradicate poverty in this country, and indeed in the world, and we could do it relatively quickly. All it would take is for us to elect politicians who put society before capital, and people before profit.
That power is in our hands. At election time, its up to us how we use it.
(c) the3towns.com
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
the3towns.com September 27 2008
North Ayrshire needs jobs
So, what did Gordon Brown say in his speech to the Labour Party Conference that would impact on us here in the constituency of North Ayrshire & Arran? In short, the answer to that question is, not a lot.
Since the demise of ICI at Ardeer, Shell and the commercial dock in Ardrossan, along with numerous manufacturing companies spread around the district, North Ayrshire has declined to a position where we have persistently high unemployment and some of the worst areas of deprivation in Scotland.
The area’s demise began under the Tory Governments of Margaret Thatcher and John Major, which implemented policies that destroyed traditional heavy industry, and has continued under the Blair and Brown New Labour Governments.
Think back to 1997 when the Major Government was in its death throws. Shiney, happy New Labour told us, in the song by D:ream, that ’things can only get better’. An awful lot of people believed that to be the case, and an awful lot of people have been badly let down.
For those of us in areas like North Ayrshire, things have not got better. If anything, they have continued to worsen.
In the past year or so we have seen the creation of another regeneration company, which, we are told, will lead to the regeneration of the Three Towns, Kilwinning and Irvine. So far, in the Three Towns, we have seen precious few signs of the regeneration the area needs. The Irvine Bay Urban Regeneration Company (IBURC) has embarked on a programme that has seen expensive private housing built on land that formerly was part of the commercial harbour area in Ardrossan. As the3towns.com has previously reported, the new housing is priced way beyond the reach of the average Three Towns’ couple, and that was before the impact of the credit crunch saw mortgages become even harder to secure.
In regeneration terms, it may yet be early days - certainly we have to hope that is the case - because the new expensive, private housing is, so far, the extent of the regeneration company’s efforts. When pressed about what it has done to bring much-needed jobs to the area, IBURC states that it has renovated two shops in Ardrossan’s Princes Street and hopes to expand the nearby yachting marina. It says that, apparently in all seriousness. Two shops, and an aspiration to expand the facility that ultimately killed the commercial port of Ardrossan, formerly one of the area’s biggest employers, and that‘s it. Until IBURC and/or government announces plans for a major job creation programme in North Ayrshire, the current regeneration project will not be taken seriously by local people. As things stand, the regeneration programme being run by IBURC is a cosmetic exercise. It appears that nothing is being done to really regenerate the area.
North Ayrshire needs jobs. Until local people can find secure, well-paid employment, the area will remain depressed and deprived, and no amount of unaffordable private housing will change that fact.
I have long argued that North Ayrshire - and, for that matter, Scotland - needs to get back to creating jobs where, to put it simply, we make things. We need to recreate a manufacturing base. The Tory/New Labour idea that manufacturing jobs could be replaced by service sector employment was always a nonsense. According to Thatcher, Major and their New Labour successors, it didn’t matter that areas like North Ayrshire lost one particular type of work, so long as it was replaced by another.
I can remember in the early 1990s, as a councillor sitting on the Council’s Economic Development Committee, receiving reports that listed jobs lost and jobs created in North Ayrshire. Some months these reports showed more jobs being created than lost, which didn’t accord with what I was seeing in local communities. That being the case, I asked if Council officials could provide a more detailed breakdown of the job figures, for example by sector and gender.
It was only once these more detailed reports began to appear that the true picture emerged of employment trends in North Ayrshire. The jobs being lost were mainly full-time, well-paid manufacturing positions, while the jobs being created were part-time and relatively poorly-paid. There was also a gender split: it was mainly men who were losing their jobs and women who were taking up the part-time, low-paid vacancies.
Since then the situation has worsened. There are now very few full-time, well-paid jobs anywhere in North Ayrshire, either for men or women. The biggest employer, by far, is actually North Ayrshire Council, while the largest private sector employer is British Energy at Hunterston. Other than those two organisations, every other employer is relatively small and employment opportunities are few and far between.
While a Member of the Scottish Parliament, I put forward the proposition that we, as a country, would not be able to return to the days when there were so many manufacturing jobs that people could pick and choose where they worked. However, I offered the opinion that this should not stop us attempting to recreate a strong manufacturing sector.
My idea was that Scotland should choose three or four particular industries in which we could specialise. Education and vocational skills could be targeted towards providing workers in those industries, from craft apprentices, through skilled tradespeople and onto qualified and highly-trained managers. Building a reputation for quality in these areas of industry, it would then be possible for Scotland to export our manufactured products to the world.
One potential area for specialisation that I highlighted at the time was aircraft manufacture. Ayrshire was formerly the home of aircraft manufacture in Scotland, with the Jetstream 31 and 41, and the ATP (Advanced Turbo Prop) all having been built at Prestwick.
The Jetstream was recognised as the best in its class of aircraft, but its manufacturer, British Aerospace Regional Aircraft, could not compete on cost against Bombardier of Quebec and Embraer of Brazil, primarily because those companies received substantial government subsidy. The UK government was barred by European Union subsidy rules from financially backing the Jetstream.
It would require the British Government or a future independent Scottish Government to negotiate a derogation in terms of EU subsidy rules - or preferably for a future independent Scotland to operate from outwith the European Union - but in those circumstances aircraft manufacture could recommence at Prestwick, with great opportunity created for smaller Ayrshire-based manufacturing companies to feed into the production process.
There are other similar areas of manufacturing and production where Scotland could specialise and where high-quality, well paid jobs could be created. All that would be required is the political will.
Unfortunately, no such political will currently exists. Certainly, Gordon Brown offered no hope of any change for areas like North Ayrshire when he addressed the Labour Conference last week.
‘Thing’s can only get better’? Not under New Labour or any other Westminster government they won’t.
(c) the3towns.com
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
the3towns.com September 20 2008
Sectarianism - Scotland's shame
Aren’t those wacky, fun-loving Rangers fans just a hoot? What hilarious funsters they are with their witty wee song about the Irish potato famine being over, so the predominantly Roman Catholic supporters of Celtic can ‘go home’ to Ireland, the land of their forefathers.
The song, to the tune of the Beach Boys hit ‘Sloop John B’, goes, ‘Why don’t you go home? Why don’t you go home? The famine’s over, why don’t you go home?’ Hilarious, eh?
In attempting to justify the singing of the song at the most recent Old Firm match, which Rangers won 4-2, a spokesman for the Rangers Supporters Trust was this week quoted saying that it was aimed at “mocking the myths rival fans perpetuate”.
Myths? The word myth can be used simply to refer to a story, but the most commonly understood meaning of the word ’myth’ refers to a story or belief that is probably not true. So let’s look at the ‘myths’ Celtic fans are accused of perpetuating, and to which the Rangers fans refer in their ’famine song’.
It is no myth that Celtic Football Club was formed out of the poor Irish-Catholic immigrant population in the Glasgow of the 1880s. It is also no myth that many members of that immigrant community had ended up in Glasgow after being forced to leave their homeland because of ’the great hunger’ or potato famine of 1845~50. These people came to Scotland looking for the work that would allow them to feed their families. Back home in Ireland, over 1,000,000 men, women and children were dying from hunger. Those are facts, not myths (stories that are probably not true).
If the core of the Celtic support was formed by an immigrant Jewish community, would it be acceptable, not to mention funny, if Rangers fans sang, ’Why don’t you go home? Why don’t you go home? The gassing’s over, why don’t you go home?’
Of course it wouldn’t be acceptable. It would be shocking and almost unimaginably offensive. So why do some people think it is okay to ’wind-up’ those of Irish descent by singing a song that refers to over a million Irish people dying because they were poor and hungry? Well, that’s the Old Firm for you. As Billy Connolly once said, “An Old Firm game is where supporters of Rangers and Celtic go to a football ground and shout abuse at each other for 90 minutes. Then they go home and put the telly on to find out what the score was.”
The sectarianism generated by the Rangers/Protestant - Celtic/Catholic divide has been referred to as ‘Scotland’s shame’, and indeed it is; but that shame runs deeper than just footballing or religious rivalry.
In January 2005, the then First Minister of Scotland, Jack McConnell MSP, launched and headed a Scottish Executive anti-sectarian initiative. Indeed, Mr McConnell recently criticised the current First Minister, Alex Salmond, for what the former Labour leader felt was the SNP Government’s failure to build on his initiative since it came to power in May 2007.
Back in 2005, as the McConnell initiative was being launched, I wrote an article on Scotland’s sectarian shame and how Jack’s plan would fail. Unusually, the article was published in both of Scotland’s quality daily newspapers, the Herald and the Scotsman.
I was reminded of the article this week as the ’famine song’ once again revealed the sore of Scotland’s sectarianism. I’ve copied it below. When reading the article, please remember that it was written almost four years ago, and consider whether anything has changed. Please also bear in mind that the First Minister referred to in the article was Jack McConnell.
--------------------------------------
Jack McConnell's new attempt to address and tackle sectarianism in Scotland will fail. It will fail for two main reasons: firstly, the two Glasgow football clubs on either side of the religious divide need the revenue generated by their religion-motivated fans; and secondly, because Jack McConnell and his Scottish Government are unionists and unionists are a significant part of the problem.
For British unionists to continue to dominate and govern Scotland, the status quo has to be maintained; and for the status quo to be maintained, Jack McConnell and unionist politicians have to ensure that the people of Scotland - primarily the working class people of Scotland - continue to be divided. The alternative to that would see the people of Scotland shake off historic indoctrination and come together as the nation of Scotland. That alternative would unite the talents and abilities of all Scots. The alternative - the Scottish alternative - would see this nation's interests as paramount. The Scottish alternative would free Scots from the long-instilled notions that they should either aspire to being British or long to be Irish. The Scottish alternative would see Scots proud to be Scottish and focussed on really making Scotland what Jack McConnell claims it is, 'the best wee nation in the world'. But the Scottish alternative could only come about after Scotland had retaken its place on the world stage as an independent nation. However, to a British unionist like Jack McConnell, an independent Scotland is to be resisted at all costs.
It's said that, in polite company, one should never discuss politics, religion or football. That may well be the case, but if Scotland is to tackle sectarianism, we have to accept that all three subjects are intrinsically linked in our country. That being the case, we have to tackle them head on, and anyone too polite to understand that reality should stop reading now.
Scotland's football is, of course, dominated by Rangers and Celtic. Today, in public, both clubs will agree that sectarianism is a problem and will state that they will do everything they can to help eradicate the problem. In private, however, the clubs know that the religious affiliation of their respective supporters is the fundamental driving force of their allegiance to those clubs and that, as a consequence, to eradicate the sectarianism associated with Rangers and Celtic would require the clubs to publicly denounce the linking of any religious persuasion with their teams. To begin to break the sectarian links, Rangers Football Club would have to take every opportunity to state publicly that, if the reason a person supports Rangers is because they are a Protestant, then Rangers consider that to be unacceptable and don't want the support of that person. Likewise, Celtic Football Club would have to reject any supporter whose principal motivation for supporting Celtic was the fact that he or she was raised as a Roman Catholic.
Such rejection of religion-motivated supporters would be the first step towards Rangers and Celtic really beginning to tackle the sectarianism that blights their clubs, but it won't happen. It won't happen because, if it did, Rangers and Celtic would be rejecting the majority of their supporters. Yes, it is only a minority of supporters of both clubs who are openly sectarian, but the reality is that the majority of the supporters of Rangers and Celtic owe their footballing allegiance to their religious upbringing. That's a fact, and if Rangers and Celtic were to publicly reject anyone whose primary reason for supporting the club was that person's religious background, then Rangers and Celtic could be committing financial suicide.
That's the reality of the situation we face today. Rangers and Celtic - like the First Minister - will talk publicly about tackling sectarianism, but both clubs - directors, officials and supporters alike - know that they can only reject the ties that link the clubs to different religions at a very considerable cost.
The football-based sectarianism of the supporters of Rangers and Celtic is the most visible aspect of the problem that blights Scottish society, but it is only a symptom. The real problem lies much deeper and links us back to politics and British unionist domination of Scotland. Because of our country's religious history and the centuries-long domination of our land by our English neighbour, we have one significant section of the population that considers itself British and another that wishes it was Irish.
We can see the British at Ibrox, with their Union flags, singing Rule Britannia and showing how British they are by wearing England football jerseys. Meanwhile, across the city, the Irish will be at Parkhead, waving the flag of the Irish Republic and signing the Fields of Athenry.
Of course, the previously referred-to religion-based divisions apply to this situation but, again, they represent simply a manifestation of a symptom of the problem. The football-based sectarianism in Scotland is born of the real problem, the divisions and resentments created by the historic British/English domination of its smaller neighbours, Ireland and Scotland.
The First Minister may well believe that he means it when he says he wants to rid Scotland of sectarianism, but as a British unionist politician, can he do that and also maintain British unionist control over Scotland?
Scotland will only genuinely begin to tackle the sectarianism that blights our country when we, ourselves, get over the inferiority that drives sections of our population to aspire to being British/English or Irish. Scotland will remain divided and sectarian until we retake our place as an independent nation and the positive focus of the people of Scotland is concentrated on the benefits of being Scottish.
Jack McConnell is a unionist. Scotland's First Minister believes that our country should be a devolved region of Britain and that our Scottish Parliament should play a subservient role to the British Parliament in London. By definition, then, Scotland's First Minister defends the status quo that drives the aspirant British to fly their Union flags and sing Rule Britannia, and which, in turn, stokes the actions of the would-be Irish in shunning this British control. Why some of the would-be Irish would then vote for unionist political parties, thereby securing continued British control of Scotland, is a logic beyond my comprehension.
For Jack McConnell's initiative to work in tackling sectarianism in Scotland, the First Minister has to recognise that we, as a nation, first have to dismantle the structures that have created the Protestant/British, Catholic/Irish divides in Scotland. To free Scotland of sectarianism, we need to free Scotland of the British state and British media indoctrination that drives our people to want to be something other than Scottish.
A Scottish people united in our Scottishness and working to deliver a better Scotland for all of our people, rather than divided on religious and British/Irish lines is a prerequisite to leaving behind the bitterness that has stoked the flames of sectarianism in this country.
A united Scottish people with the power to transform our nation will only come about when we re-take our independence and raise our children to be proud of being Scottish. Jack McConnell, as a British unionist, will fight to prevent that happening - and his anti-sectarian initiative will fail.
(c) the3towns.com
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
the3towns.com September 13 2008
Capitalism has failed
Capitalism doesn’t work.
If anyone needed further evidence of the veracity of that statement, they surely got it this week when the American government nationalised the country’s two major mortgage providers, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
Never again should we hear the mantra of the free marketeers that private enterprise is much more efficient than the public sector. It just isn’t true.
All around us private enterprise is hitting the buffers, and who is expected to pick up the tab for this failure of the capitalist system? That’s right, the public sector. Or to put it another way, you and me.
Billions of public dollars have been made available to bail-out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac because, we are told, if those two private companies were allowed to fail, the entire American economy could have collapsed, and could have taken with it the economies of jus