....OPINION......OPINION......OPINION......OPINION......OPINION......OPINION..
We need leaders who will put first the interests of Scots
Labour’s betrayal of the working class
That Sturgeon letter
Reasons for Council budget cuts
The people should have their say on defection
Vote for what we want
The law needs changed
Elections
Bias against the SNP
Where is the justice?
....OPINION......OPINION......OPINION......OPINION......OPINION......OPINION..
________________________________________________________________________________
the3towns.com March 6 2010
We need leaders who will put first the interests of Scots
There is something wrong with Scottish league football, and the national side’s promising result against the Czech Republic last Wednesday night gives a major clue to what is the problem.
The Scotland side that took the field in Craig Levein’s first match as national coach put down a marker that augers well for the future. With endeavour and skill, Scotland saw-off a strong Czech side, beginning the Levein era with a 1-0 win.
However, just three days earlier, Scotland’s two top club-sides played out a poor match, with members of both teams exhibiting a lack of basic skills and producing only one goal, which came from a goalmouth scramble in the fourth minute of time added-on for stoppages.
The match was, of course, the Old Firm game, and the 1-0 win for Rangers all-but guarantees a second league title in two years will be heading to Ibrox. Over the 90 minutes (94 with time added-on), Rangers were the better team, but only just, and that isn’t saying much, because Celtic were very poor.
The Scotland team against the Czech Republic consisted of, hardly surprising, eleven Scotsmen, and they tried their heart out for ‘their’ team. In the Old Firm fixture, of the twenty-two players on the field at kick-off, only eight were Scots.
Possibly Celtic’s worst player was the on-loan Landry N’Guemo: throughout the game he seemed to have great difficulty finding a team-mate with a pass. N’Guemo grew up in a village called Dschang, which you’ll find in the African republic of Cameroon. I could be wrong, but it is probably safe to say that the young N’Guemo did not grow up with a burning desire to one day play football for Glasgow Celtic. Instead, the African’s commitment to the club is based solely on the considerable pay cheque that slips into his bank account every month.
I singled out N’Guemo only because he was particularly poor in last Sunday’s game, but I could have picked any of the ten Celtic players who started last Sunday’s Old Firm game, and who were not born in Scotland. Actually, of the starting eleven, two were born in Scotland, but one, Aiden McGeady, has chosen to play for Ireland. Scott Brown was the only Celtic player eligible to play for Scotland.
In 1967, Celtic became the first Scottish side to win the European Cup, with eleven players born within 30 miles of Glasgow - Bobby Lennox, from Saltcoats, was the player who lived farthest from Celtic Park. Last Sunday, a very poor Celtic team lined up as follows:
Artur Boric (Poland), Andreas Hinkel (Germany), Josh Thompson (England), Thomas Rogne (Norway), Edson Braafheid (Netherlands), Aiden McGeady (Ireland), Scott Brown (Scotland), Landry N’Guemo (Cameroon), Diomansy Kamara (France), Robbie Keane (Ireland), Marc-Antoine Fortune (France).
Celtic used three substitutes during the game: Darren O’Dea (Ireland), Georgios Samaras (Greece) and Ki Sung-Yueng (South Korea).
Notwithstanding the obvious communication problems that must impact on a team with players who have eleven different ‘first’ languages, it is pertinent to ask how many of the current Celtic side can genuinely claim to understand the history of the club and what it means to the fans? While so many young (and not so young) Scots would give just about anything to wear the green-and-white hoops and play for the team they love, how many of the current Celtic team could make a believable claim to being supporters of the club, beyond the next pay cheque?
By all accounts, the answer to that last question is just two - McGeady, the Scottish-Irishman and Robbie Keane, a genuine Irishman. Speculation continues to suggest that the only Scotsman in the Celtic side, Scott Brown, grew up with an allegiance to Rangers.
The current Celtic side are a team of international mercenaries, whose skills, such as they are, will be made available to the highest bidder. Such a scenario is the name of the game in the world of top-flight football. It’s a business, and a very lucrative one at that.
However, scouring the world for footballing talent only works if you can afford to pay for the best: Celtic, and for that matter Rangers, cannot afford even second-best.
While both sides of the Old Firm currently pay wages of around £20,000 per week to their mercenaries, talented young Scottish players on their books ‘don’t make the grade’. The logic seems to be, if you’ve signed a foreign player, and are paying him such huge wages, you’re going to want your money’s-worth - and so, you’re going to play him.
Since the beginning of this season, I’ve had cause to take-in a number of Under 19 Pro-Youth games, mainly involving Queen of the South, who presently have on their books two local boys, one from Ardrossan and the other Saltcoats.
In each of the Under 19 sides I’ve seen, there have been young boys with exceptional skill. Those boys, with the right training and, crucially, with the right commitment on the part of players and clubs, could certainly, in a few years time, give the likes of Landry N’Guemo or Georgios Samaras a run for their money.
As things stand, though, young Scottish talent will not be given much of a chance to play for either of Scotland’s two top sides.
For that situation to change, Celtic and Rangers need to invest as much in developing young Scottish players as they presently squander on mediocre foreign mercenaries. Just for the record, Rangers were not as bad as Celtic in last Sunday’s game - fielding seven Scots in their starting eleven - but they still had an Algerian, a Bosnian, an American, a Spaniard and two Northern Irish on the field at some point during the 94 minutes.
It might mean a few relatively lean years as the young Scottish players build their skills, but the end result would deliver better and stronger Old Firm teams, with the national side also benefiting from young men finally being allowed to reach their full potential with the best club sides in the country.
Unfortunately, the money-men who run football clubs seem to see the short-term fix as the only option. If they aren’t prepared to build a better Scottish club, using young Scottish talent and developing Scottish skills - substitute ‘country’ for ‘club’ and the same applies in politics - then Scots will continue to suffer, while our money is poured down the drain or, to put it another way, into the bank accounts of over-paid and less-than-competent foreign players - for ’foreign players’ substitute ‘Westminster politicians and bankers’ and, again, the same applies to politics.
In football and politics alike, we need leaders who will put first the interests of Scots and our country.
(c) the3towns.com
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
the3towns.com February 27 2010
Labour's betrayal of the working class
In all but name, New Labour launched its General Election campaign last weekend.
The prime minister still has not announced the date of the election - he’s going to hang on, virtually until the last minute - but the speech Gordon Brown made at a rally in Warwick University gave us New Labour‘s campaign slogan - ‘A future fair for all’.
Presumably, we are supposed to take from the phrase that a re-elected New Labour Government will create a society that is fair. However, the slogan could equally mean we are all to receive a fair in the future - I’ve no idea where we would put it, now that the Braes is a car park and Laighdykes a quagmire.
More seriously, though, the New Labour slogan is telling for two reasons. Firstly, the party used the exact same phrase at its 2003 Conference - couldn’t they even be bothered to think up a new one, or do they now simply re-hash slogans the way they have re-hashed Tory policies since being elected in 1997?
Secondly, the phrase does seem to give the game away in terms of New Labour’s failure to create a fair society over the 13 years they have been in power. If a fair society is to be created in the future, then there can be no doubt that our current society, the one created by New Labour, is unfair.
In that respect, the facts do speak for themselves, with the most damning, for New Labour, being that since 1997 the poor have got poorer and the rich have got richer. Under the governments of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, many ordinary working-class people have been plunged into levels of poverty that even the destructive policies of the Thatcher Tory Government managed to avoid.
A year after Tony and Cherie Blair swept into Downing Street, to be met by hordes of party workers waving British Union flags, Peter Mandelson - now Lord Mandelson and the real power behind New Labour - made clear just how much the former ‘people’s party’ had changed. In a speech to California computer company executives, Mandelson stated, “we are intensely relaxed about people getting filthy rich”. Unfortunately, the time from then until now has also shown that New Labour was equally relaxed about people getting very poor.
Like the Tories before them, New Labour pandered to multi-national corporations, doing everything asked of them to allow profits to be maximised, while the wages and conditions of workers were eroded. The political entity led by Blair, then Brown, went from being the party of millions, to the party of the millionaires.
The people who created the Labour Party will be spinning in their graves at what their organisation has become. Formed to give parliamentary representation to the working-class, Labour, for generations, struggled against the capitalist British establishment, with its vested interests and in-built bias in favour of the very small minority that grew fat on the labour of the workers.
The fight was hard, but the workers, the ordinary men and women of Britain, put their faith in ‘their own’ to look after their interests and legislate to create a fairer society. Labour had some successes: the creation of the welfare state, which provided a safety net for the poor; the establishment of the National Health Service; and a programme of house building that, for the first time, allowed working-class people to live in affordable homes, away from the squalid conditions created by money-grabbing, private landlords.
However, even before Blair, Brown and Mandelson got control of the party, Labour leaders tempered their aspirations for the working-class by bending to the control of the imperialist British establishment. Labour quickly travelled from socialist ideology to government compromise, and the hopes of ordinary people were continually dashed.
Then, along came New Labour, and all pretence of being a socialist party was abandoned. Blair and Mandelson told the party it was unelectable and had to change. The change they advocated was to move to the centre-right of the political spectrum, adopt Tory policies, abandon the founding principles of the Labour movement and turn their backs on the working-class in favour of the bosses and the money-men.
Party members were told that the policies of ‘old’ Labour had been soundly rejected at the polls, and that if they were ever again to form a government, those policies had to be ditched. One Labour MP - the one the people of Cunninghame North had the misfortune to be (mis)represented by for 18 years - went as far as saying the Labour Manifestos at the 1987 and 1992 General Elections had been “fantasy politics”.
That MP was Brian Wilson, and his statement was a reflection of what those in control of New Labour believed. They considered it was the stuff of fantasy to want to create a fairer society; they believed power was more important than principle. What Mr Wilson and the leaders of New Labour in London failed to mention, far less understand, was that those ‘old’ Labour policies had been supported by the people of Scotland. Brian Wilson, himself, had been elected to the UK Parliament in 1987 and 1992, standing on commitments contained in the Manifestos he later described as “fantasy politics”.
Scotland wanted the policies of ‘old’ Labour. Scotland wanted a fair society. Scotland wanted socialist solutions to our country’s problems - but, like the working-class, Scotland was abandoned by New Labour. Labour turned its back on the people it was supposed to help, and on the country that supported it through the long, destructive years of Thatcherism.
Now, as the capitalist Tory policies employed by New Labour over the past 13 years have brought the UK to its knees, we are supposed to believe the party when it tells us it will deliver “a future fair for all”.
We now know, from harsh experience, that New Labour will not deliver a fair society in Scotland or the UK. Neither will the Tories. The Lib Dems? Aye right!
If Scotland wants the fair society for which we continued to vote, while the people of England were electing Thatcher, then we must first take back the power to govern ourselves and elect a government of our choosing, rather than the one England elects and imposes on us.
That will only happen when we re-take our political independence. If we don’t take responsibility for ourselves, we’re destined to have more inequality, more right-wing policies, more people unemployed, more illegal wars, more multi-billion pound nuclear missiles we will never use; and more London-based politicians ripping us off.
When Gordon Brown finally gets round to facing the public at the polls, the choice is ours.
(c) the3towns.com
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
the3towns.com February 20 2010
That Sturgeon letter
Some politicians really need to grow up.
Calls for the resignation of Deputy First Minister Nicola Sturgeon over the letter she wrote in support of a constituent are completely over-the-top. Anyone who witnessed last week’s First Minister’s Questions at Holyrood, where Alex Salmond defended his deputy, would have seen that the opposition’s resignation calls were nothing more than empty rhetoric on the part of political pygmies who could not lace Nicola Sturgeon’s boots.
Now, don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying that Ms Sturgeon was right in providing a letter of support for convicted fraudster Abdul Rauf: I’m simply saying that doing so is not grounds for resignation.
As the MSP for Govan, Nicola Sturgeon was approached by a constituent, who asked for her help. In writing a letter of support for Mr Rauf, Ms Sturgeon was providing that help - it’s what MSPs are supposed to do.
However, it is the content of the letter that has led to charges that Nicola Sturgeon blundered and made an error of judgement. Abdul Rauf had previously served a jail term for fraud and, the reason for his approach to Nicola Sturgeon, was now facing court over charges relating to fraudulently claiming benefit of around £80,000. In these circumstances, was it appropriate for Ms Sturgeon’s letter to enquire whether the presiding sheriff might look at a non-custodial sentence?
The answer to that question has to be ‘no’, it wasn’t appropriate. The sentence handed to a criminal has to be determined by a sheriff, and should not be influenced by a politician. It is entirely proper that the Executive and the Judiciary - those who make the law and those who dispense it - are kept apart. It is, therefore, in this area that Nicola Sturgeon certainly made an error.
Had the Govan MSP simply written a letter in support of her constituent, where she flagged up Mr Rauf’s health problems and his responsibility for a young family, then she could legitimately claim to have done as much as could be expected in the circumstances - after all, the man had essentially stolen £80,000 of public money. It was going beyond this position, asking for a non-custodial sentence to be considered, that was an error of judgement.
It may be that Nicola Sturgeon did not actually write the letter, it might have been composed by a member of her staff - but even if that is the case, Ms Sturgeon signed it, presumably after reading it, and must therefore accept responsibility for its contents. Nicola Sturgeon is a very busy person - MSP for Govan, Deputy First Minister and Health Secretary - but even a lowly back-bench MSP knows they should never sign anything without being aware to what they are appending their name.
So, that is where the fault lies. Nicola Sturgeon made an error of judgment in signing a letter that went too far in support of a constituent facing fraud charges. She made a mistake, who hasn’t?
The mistake was made in her capacity as MSP for Govan: it did not involve her other roles within the Scottish Government. However, that has not stopped political opponents, like Labour’s Iain Gray, Annabel Goldie of the Tories and Tavish Scott of the Lib Dems , from calling for her resignation as Deputy First Minister and Health Secretary.
It seems to be a knee-jerk reaction to any mistake, actual or perceived, for opposition politicians to call for a minister to resign. Nicola Sturgeon’s mistake is not a resignation matter, and the politicians who have demanded that she go have actually diminished their own, already poor, standing. Gray, Goldie and Scott have shown themselves to be little more than political chancers. Certainly, none of the three have the abilities of Nicola Sturgeon, or the respect she has earned since assuming ministerial office.
Nicola Sturgeon has been, by far, the best Health Secretary Scotland’s had since our national parliament was reconvened in 1999. Because of the many problems besetting the Health Service - most of which were caused by the Tory Government of Margaret Thatcher introducing ‘the market’ to the NHS, and New Labour’s continued underfunding of the service - the Health portfolio was seen as a poisoned chalice.
The best Health Minister under the previous Labour-Lib Dem administration was the first, Susan Deacon. However, despite her undoubted talents, even Ms Deacon could not achieve the turnaround in the NHS, and the increase in services to the public - not to mention handling the swine flu pandemic - that Nicola Sturgeon has provided since assuming office in 2007. It would be to the detriment of Scotland if she was forced out because a letter she signed went too far in support of a constituent.
Of course, Scotland’s interest is not what motivates the leaders of Labour, the Tories and the Lib Dems. All they are interested in, is narrow party-political advantage and, in their own wee world of politics, they see the resignation of a Government Minister as a victory. We should all bear in mind the actions of Gray, Goldie and Scott when next we go to the polls. Labour, the Tories and the Lib Dems have shown that they are prepared to damage the Scottish Health Service to score a cheap political goal.
The Scottish public has a right to expect more from its MSPs. I, for one, have more respect for a politician who attempts to do their best for constituents and country, but who makes an honest mistake, than for those who would, metaphorically speaking, take out and shoot anyone who is found to be not perfect.
It is all the more ironic that those calling for Nicola Sturgeon’s resignation lead parties whose parliamentary groups are filled, almost entirely, with political non-entities, men and women whose limited abilities mean they, themselves, cannot adequately perform the role of MSP, far less Health Secretary and Deputy First Minister.
We should accept that Nicola Sturgeon made a rare lapse in judgement, and then allow her to get on with the roles she performs on our behalf.
Meanwhile, the ‘weans’ in Scotland’s opposition parties should do us all a favour and grow up.
(c) the3towns.com
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
the3towns.com February 13 2010
Reasons for Council budget cuts
Last Thursday, North Ayrshire councillors agreed to a budget that sees millions-of-pounds cut from local services.
The area has consistently suffered from the highest unemployment in Scotland, and ‘the recession’ has compounded problems - but the Council’s budget decision is where the irresponsible actions of bankers and financial speculators really begins to impact on the most vulnerable people in our communities.
Services for the elderly will face cuts, while breakfast clubs and after-school care for young children are under threat. We all pay taxes in order that such services can be provided for members of our extended families and friends within local communities, but the UK Labour Government has used our taxes to bail-out unprincipled and unrepentant banks.
While pensioners in Ardrossan, Saltcoats and Stevenston struggle to survive, the financial speculators who caused ‘the recession’ continue to live lifestyles the like of which most of us can only dream. Our taxes were used to ‘socialise’ the multi-billion pound debts of banks and financial institutions - in other words, the debts were passed to us - which has meant these organisations are again able to make profits, which they keep. Not only that, from the new profits, they intend to once again pay obscenely-massive bonuses to senior managers - the same managers who brought the country to its knees with their irresponsible, greedy actions.
So, on this occasion, North Ayrshire Council are not entirely to blame for cuts to services - they are also down to the inherent unfairness of the capitalist system and the actions of the UK Labour Government.
Capitalism, the economic system supported by all of the so-called mainstream political parties - Labour, the Tories, the Lib Dems and the SNP - is based on maximising profits for the few by exploiting the majority. The few at the top of multi-national banks and corporations maximised their profits, while the majority struggled to get by. Then, when the corrupt capitalist system collapsed, the majority - you and me - paid to cover the debts of the few. Now, the few are back to their old games, while many of the majority suffer unemployment, home repossessions and reduced or removed services.
We are paying the price of capitalist extravagance and incompetence, and will continue to pay for many years to come. Now, though, our payments are not just in terms of financial bail-outs - now, we are also paying a social cost.
The UK Labour Government has used so much of our taxes, and borrowed so much money, that it cannot now afford to fund the public services the country needs. Failure in the private sector has resulted in punishment for the public sector which, in turn, means pain for you and me. That’s the price of embracing the capitalist system.
Now, the failure of capitalism isn’t just a theory. Now, ‘the recession’ isn’t just an abstract concept discussed by politicians and economists on television programmes. Now, it’s all very real.
The UK Labour Government has imposed substantial cuts across all departments, including the devolved Scottish Parliament. This year alone, the SNP Scottish Government will receive half-a-billion pounds less than they had expected.
In turn, the SNP has had to impose cuts to Scottish public services, including local government, which brings us back to the budget passed last week by North Ayrshire Council.
The local authority talks of ‘savings’ and ‘efficiencies’, but what they mean is cuts. The Council is skint, so services will be cut and workers may lose their jobs. Again, while the capitalists look to maximise their new profits and pocket their bonuses, the majority, in this case Council workers and service users, pay the price.
There is no doubt that the biggest impact on the Council’s budgetary decisions is the reduction in public finances caused by the decision to bail-out the capitalist system, but in North Ayrshire there are other factors at play.
While North Ayrshire Council are not entirely to blame for the necessity to cut budgets, the ruling Labour Executive do bear responsibility for decisions that have contributed to the local authority’s straitened position.
For example, embarking on a Public Private Partnership (PPP) project to build and maintain four schools, which will ultimately cost local taxpayers £380 million, was a disastrous decision. Not only is the multi-million pound cost a massive drain on Council resources - the PPP bill has to be paid irrespective of any other considerations, which means the private companies involved will continue to receive their profits while the Council cuts public services - but the schools, themselves, are of poor quality and continue to require substantial repairs.
The North Ayrshire Council Schools PPP Project is notorious. Other local authorities around the country are aware of it and refer to it as a reason not to go down the PPP route when they are considering building projects in their own areas.
Then, there is the small matter of £15 million of Council funds deposited in Icelandic banks that subsequently collapsed. The money is still outstanding.
Financial regulators issued warnings about Icelandic banks long before they collapsed, while one English Council withdrew its funds from Reykjavik because it believed the return being offered was “too good to be true”. North Ayrshire took no notice and no action.
So, overall, the biggest contributory factor to North Ayrshire Council’s financial problems are the corrupt capitalist system embraced by the ‘mainstream’ political parties and the actions taken post-collapse by the UK Labour Government. However, the other, more local, issues are also significant.
When we next get the opportunity to vote, at national and local level, we must make sure we get rid of the politicians who have caused the dire situation we now experience. They failed us, and we are now paying the price.
Next time, let’s vote for candidates and parties who put people before profit.
(c) the3towns.com
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
the3towns.com February 6 2010
The people should have their say on defection
John McNamee of Blantyre made a few ripples in the political pond this week by declaring he no longer believed in independence and, therefore, he was quitting the SNP and joining Labour.
Mr McNamee is an elected councillor on South Lanarkshire Council, so his decision means the SNP Group are down one member, while Labour’s number goes up. That is the headline issue in Cllr McNamee’s actions, but there is also the matter of how someone who apparently believed in the right of the Scottish people to govern themselves, now thinks that is not a good idea.
Clearly, there will be people in Blantyre who voted for an SNP councillor and who will now be concerned that the person they elected is to take his voting instructions from Labour. Those people are right to be concerned.
Now, before any of the less intelligent members of the SNP rush to condemn me for hypocrisy, given that in a previous life I was elected as an SNP MSP, only to end up serving as an Independent, I should point out there is a crucial difference between what Cllr McNamaee has done and my own situation.
I did not leave the SNP; I did not resign from the party; my commitment to an independent Scotland was, and remains, undiminished; I had not changed my views from the day I was elected as an SNP MSP. The reason I ended up out of the SNP was because I was expelled by the party.
The SNP took the decision to kick me out, in the full knowledge that it would be reducing its number in parliament by one. It was the party’s decision, not mine. However, that did not stop some of the more intellectually challenged SNP members - leadership loyalists every one - from calling for me to resign as an MSP.
If those calling for my resignation had their way, it would have meant the party leadership could expel any MSP with whom they disagreed, and simply replace them with a more obedient member. That really would be the end of freedom of speech within political parties.
Without going into too much detail, the reason I was expelled from the SNP was because I had been a vocal critic of the leadership of John Swinney. Under Swinney, the SNP lost seats, members and votes; the party was in a downward spiral.
I publicly called for Swinney to stand down and for Alex Salmond to return as leader, so that the party could be rejuvenated and its fortunes turned around.
Most people now acknowledge I was right. However, Swinney and a very small group of people around him couldn’t take the criticism and charges were fabricated against me. The party never produced any evidence to support their charges - they couldn’t, there was no truth behind them - but that did not stop the leadership loyalists on the National Executive Committee from finding me guilty and expelling me.
All of which meant I was no longer an SNP MSP. So, should I have resigned and allowed another SNP member to take my place in parliament?
As explained above, I took the decision that I was the same person who had been elected as an SNP MSP and it was the party who decided I should no longer hold that position. In fact, John Swinney recently made a comment to me, in front of a witness, which confirmed that he had been behind moves to expel me and that his motive had been pay-back for my part in ending his leadership.
Had I resigned from the party or had I joined another party after being expelled, then there would have been a case for me standing down as an MSP - but the reality was that the SNP, by its actions, chose to reduce its number in parliament.
I decided to continue working for local people, on the same basis as I had always done. Constituents had the same person representing them, a person who held the same political views as when he was first elected, including support for an independent Scotland.
Which brings us to the crucial difference with the situation involving Cllr McNamee. The South Lanarkshire councillor was elected as an SNP member, but has now fundamentally changed his views and has joined another political party. Electors in Blantyre voted for a councillor who would, amongst other things, support the cause of an independent Scotland. They now have one who is completely opposed to that proposition.
By turning his back on the voters who elected him, McNamee has removed legitimacy from his election and he should resign. If he thinks local electors will back him, even after his complete turnaround in what he stands for, then he should put that to the test at the ballot box. He should force a by-election, stand for Labour and allow the people to have their say.
On the other issue relating to Cllr McNamee’s action - his discovery that he no longer believes in independence - this, without doubt, is a clear sign that he was never actually a Nationalist in the first place.
Once someone has read the facts, rather than British media distortions, and recognises how much more successful and prosperous an independent Scotland would be with full powers over our own affairs, they don’t change their minds and advocate that, instead, our country should just be a region, controlled by another country.
People like Cllr McNamee are chancers, motivated by their own self interest. Usually, it transpires that the SNP had cause for concern regarding them, which prompts the resignation and move to another party. In this case, it has been reported that McNamee had been under investigation by the local SNP group over his expenses and allegations of inappropriate behaviour. It sounds like Labour are welcome to him.
Meanwhile, the people of Blantyre have a Labour councillor for whom they did not vote. If McNamee believes in democracy - literally meaning ‘people power’ - he should let the people have their say.
(c) the3towns.com
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
the3towns.com January 30 2010
Vote for what we want
The latest British Social Attitudes Survey, published last week by the National Centre for Social Research, appears to show we have moved to the right in political terms.
Amongst the report’s findings were that 33% of people now see themselves as Conservatives; fewer than 40% want to see a redistribution of wealth; and only a similar figure would be prepared to pay more tax to help those less well-off.
In fact, the ‘British’ Social Attitudes Survey is actually the ‘English’ Social Attitudes Survey, which means that, really, there has been little change. It transpires that slightly fewer than 360 Scots contributed to the Survey’s findings.
England has consistently voted for centre-right political parties - Conservative and New Labour - both of whom have fully embraced the unfettered free market, which operates on the basis of exploitation, forcing down wages and workers’ conditions, reducing spending on public services and maximising private profit; while ordinary, working-class tax-payers bail-out the capitalist system when it fails.
Under the Tories and then New Labour, the rich have got richer and the poor have got poorer - last week’s Survey showed there are now 1.7 million British children living in “severe poverty”, yet the UK Government can find billions of pounds to wage war in Iraq and Afghanistan, not to mention saving the skin of millionaire bankers and financial speculators, the same people who continue to pay themselves obscene salaries and bonuses.
The British Social Attitudes Survey makes clear that such situations will continue, as England prepares to elect a right-wing Tory Government to replace the right-wing New Labour Government. Meanwhile, Scotland will again reject these policies - and the Tories - but we will still have David Cameron as prime minister. The reason, of course, is because Scotland is heavily outnumbered by England in terms of population within the United Kingdom. That is how our different opinions on taxation, redistribution of wealth and voting intentions were drowned-out in the British Social Attitudes Survey - and why we will have a Tory Government imposed on us, despite rejecting them, yet again, at the ballot box.
The only way Scotland can have the government it wants and for which it votes, is if we re-assume the status of a normal, independent nation. Until we get off our knees and decide to take responsibility for ourselves, England’s opinions will be portrayed as ours and the voters of England will decide who governs us.
Of course, British Unionist political parties - Labour, the Tories and the Lib Dems - will argue that Scotland can have the best of both worlds, with a devolved parliament in Edinburgh while remaining part of the United Kingdom.
However, the reality is a bit different to the rose-tinted view of the Unionists. Scotland’s devolved parliament has very few real powers. For example, the Scottish Parliament has no power over Scotland’s economy; it has no power over international relations; we are not allowed to decide whether or not Scottish troops are sent to war. In fact, the Scottish Parliament has so few real powers, it is actually Westminster that takes all decisions relating to Holyrood elections - MSPs don’t get a say. Not only that, the Scotland Act 1998, which established the Scottish Parliament, contains a clause that allows Westminster to overrule any decision taken by the Scottish Parliament. Then, just for good measure, there is another clause that gives Westminster the power to abolish the parliament in Edinburgh, if it sees fit.
It was former Tory and Ulster Unionist MP Enoch Powell who once said, “Power devolved is power retained”, and that is certainly the case with regard to relations between Westminster and Holyrood. The reality is that the Scottish Parliament is entirely answerable to the British (English) Parliament in London. Even the current SNP Scottish Government can only legislate in areas that Westminster has said it can.
The Scottish Parliament has no power over income or corporation tax and, as a result, is extremely limited in what it can do to redistribute wealth and tackle poverty. Yet Scotland consistently expresses support for policies that would achieve both goals - the British Social Attitudes Survey shows England is moving further in the opposite direction.
It’s worth repeating: the only way Scotland can have the government it wants and for which it votes - and can have the policies we consistently say we support - is if we re-assume the status of a normal, independent nation.
Now, clearly, the most obvious way of achieving independence is to vote for the SNP - the party does, after all, already form the devolved government - but would an independent Scotland governed by the Nationalists see the implementation of policies that would achieve a redistribution of wealth and an end to poverty?
The SNP currently operates with a conflict at its core. Without doubt, the social policies it advocates are moderate left-of-centre. The SNP sits comfortably in the social-democratic tradition, but its financial policies tell another story, putting it on the centre-right of the political spectrum, geared towards the capitalist free-market, with low taxation, small government, and a Scotland open to exploitation by the very multi-national corporations that lie behind the current economic recession. It is difficult to marry the party’s social commitments with its advocacy of free-market capitalism.
There are, however, other pro-independence political parties that do advocate policies which chime with the ones Scots have repeatedly stated they support, including a progressive taxation system - where the better-off pay more and those on low incomes pay less - coupled with a redistribution of the nation’s wealth, directed to lift people out of poverty and provide hope and opportunity for everyone.
The irony is that the parties whose policies most closely meet the aspirations of Scots are considered to be outside the mainstream of politics: they have also seen steep declines in their respective vote over recent years. They are the Scottish Socialist Party (SSP) and Solidarity.
Of course, they used to be one party, and if they are to return to the level of support achieved at the polls in the early Noughties, they need to be united once again.
However, notwithstanding the internal split in the socialist movement, why should it be that votes for the SSP and Solidarity have declined, while Scots apparently support the society their policies would create?
The answer is simple. The media in Scotland is controlled by organisations based in England: news stories are reported from the right-wing, British Unionist perspective of London and the south-east. Just as the British Social Attitudes Survey portrays an English view as being representative of the whole of the United Kingdom, so the London-centric UK news and political coverage misrepresents the opinions of Scots.
Far from being outside the political mainstream, the SSP and Solidarity advocate policies that reflect the traditional Scottish view on the type of society we want. Actually, it is the right-wing, capitalist policies of the Tories and New Labour that sit outside the mainstream of political thinking in Scotland - but English-dominated media and research organisations will never report that reality.
To redress the balance, Scots should be prepared to vote for what they believe in, irrespective of the indoctrination of the British (English) establishment. If we want a Scotland that puts first the interests of Scots, then we need to vote for political parties that support independence - and if we want to create a society where poverty is eradicated, where all of our citizens are treated with respect and provided with the opportunity to build a better life for themselves and their families, then we should be prepared to vote for socialist parties.
(c) the3towns.com
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
the3towns.com January 23 2010
The law needs changed
In a previous life, as an MSP, I was a member of the Scottish Parliament’s Public Petitions Committee. Rightly, the Committee has won plaudits for the way it allows the public direct access to parliament and to raise issues of concern.
Unlike petitioning the Westminster Parliament, a member of the public who submits a petition to Holyrood can expect action to be taken, even if it is just to note the matter raised. At Westminster, members of the public cannot directly petition parliament. Instead, a petition is submitted by an MP on behalf of their constituents. However, as one MP told me, submitting a petition involves dropping it into a bag behind the Speakers chair and then forgetting about it.
The Scottish Parliament’s Petitions Committee has become the model for other legislatures around the world - even Westminster MPs have visited Holyrood to see how things are done. During my years on the Committee some very serious issues were raised by members of the public. Probably the most significant was when a petition was submitted on behalf of people who, as children, had suffered abuse, both physical and sexual, while in the care of the state or religious orders.
As a consequence of receiving that petition, the Committee carried out an investigation and, for the first time, requested debating time in order that Parliament could fully consider the outcomes.
The debate on the Victims of Institutional Childhood Abuse was one of the most moving ever heard in parliament. However, the most significant aspect of that day came just prior to the commencement of the debate, when the then First Minister, Jack McConnell, made a public apology on behalf of the state to all children abused while they were in care. For many of those abused children, now adults and sitting in the Parliament’s Public Gallery that day, Jack McConnell’s apology was the long-awaited beginning of the process to right a wrong.
There were other petitions that stood out: one where a woman sought changes to the way a prisoner’s release was notified to victims of crime. Actually, the issue she raised was that, in some cases, victims were not notified and, as happened to her, the first she knew about the release of her violent ex-husband was when she walked into him in her local shopping centre. After representations by the Petitions Committee, Ministers agreed to tighten-up the process of notifying victims of crime about when a perpetrator was due to be released.
Another petition was presented by the family of a young girl who was killed by a speeding driver. They requested a change to the law, so that taking a life on the road would be treated the same as killing someone with a gun or a knife - the car being the weapon used. At present, drivers who kill someone are usually charged with dangerous driving, and if they receive a custodial sentence it is normally of only a year or two. As far as I am aware, that particular petition did not make the progress the girl’s family had hoped. However, the petitions process did allow them to raise the matter at parliament, which brought national publicity for the issue.
Overall, the Committee was used well by members of the public to raise concerns, but there were a few occasions when some attempted to abuse the access it gave to parliament. One such case was a when a petition was presented, apparently by three individuals, which sought to ‘improve’ the planning system in Scotland. When the Committee heard the presentation by the petitioners, it quickly became clear that the three individuals were businessmen and their idea for improving the planning system was to privatise it.
It transpired that each of the businessmen had experienced a situation where a local planning committee had refused their applications for housing developments. The developers then had to go through the process of appealing the planning decision, and they felt the local committee should not have been allowed to delay matters.
What the businessmen wanted was for planning committees to be abolished and, instead, for decisions to be taken by private ‘planning experts’. They wanted to remove the involvement of democratically-elected councillors.
As things stand, communities, through their elected councillors, actually have very little power to prevent big businesses from imposing their will, and their developments, even when local people object to proposals. Planning committees can refuse permission, but if a developer appeals to Scottish Ministers - in fact, the appeal will normally be heard by a civil servant - and that appeal is successful, then the feelings of local people are brushed aside. The only recourse left to aggrieved communities in that situation would be to raise the matter at the Court of Session - but even if successful, the Court cannot reverse the decision of the civil servant, it can only set it aside and ask ‘Ministers’ to reconsider.
Ardrossan has recently experienced two examples of big business imposing its will on the community, against the wishes of local people and North Ayrshire Council’s Planning Committee.
A few weeks ago, Clydeport, owners of Ardrossan Harbour, won an appeal to Scottish Ministers, which overturned a Planning Committee decision to refuse permission for the demolition of the Customs House in Dock Road. The outcome is that one of Ardrossan’s few remaining buildings from the era when the town had a thriving commercial port will be knocked-down.
Then, this week, a civil servant, on behalf of Scottish Ministers, granted permission for Vodafone to erect a 3G base-station and mast on Stanley Road, close to Stanley Primary School and adjacent to the site of a proposed housing development where young families will be expected to live.
The Vodafone proposal was originally turned down by North Ayrshire’s Planning Committee. Councillors listened to local people and decided the mast should not be allowed in that location. However, Vodafone has got its way and the mast will be erected.
Quite simply, the current system is wrong. Big business should not have such power over local communities. Planning legislation should not take precedence over the wishes of local people. Simply because a proposal complies with existing planning rules should not mean that it must be allowed. Communities should have the ultimate say, and if people in a town like Ardrossan want to keep a building of historic significance or don’t want a mobile phone mast next to a primary school, then that is what should happen.
In a democracy, it is wrong that big business can force communities to accept proposals they don’t want.
Councillors on the Planning Committee answer to the people of North Ayrshire and have a duty to listen to the views of local people. Clydeport, through its parent company Peel Holdings, and Vodafone answer only to shareholders and have a duty to maximise profits. In a democracy, who should be taking decisions that affect local towns?
If the law needs to be changed, then the law should be changed. Big business should not be riding rough-shod over the wishes of communities.
(c) the3towns.com
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
the3towns.com January 16 2010
Elections
Do you have an opinion on when votes should be counted after an election? If you do, North Ayrshire Council’s relatively new chief executive, Elma Murray, would like to hear from you.
Ms Murray is also now the returning officer for elections held within North Ayrshire, which includes those for the Council, the Scottish Parliament and the Westminster Parliament. The returning officer has responsibility for ensuring everything goes smoothly on election day, from before the polls open at 7:00am until the votes have been counted and the result announced in the early hours of the next day.
In fact, it is the counting of votes in the early hours that most interests Ms Murray and other returning officers around Scotland.
Rumour has it that the officials would rather see the counting postponed until the next day - for example, this year’s UK General Election will take place on a Thursday and, if the returning officers have their way, votes would not be counted until Friday, possibly starting at mid-day, with the result announced in late afternoon or early evening.
Now, that idea has some merit. One positive aspect being that everyone would be able to get a night’s sleep before attending the count at the Magnum in Irvine. However, there are negative aspects.
As someone who has been involved in a few election counts over the years, I much prefer to know the result, sooner rather than later. I think most people from the political side of elections will feel the same. That opinion isn’t just driven by a need to know or a desire to be put out of your misery. Political activists don’t like any time when ballot boxes are out of their site.
If the idea of postponing election counts until the next day is adopted, ballot boxes will have to be stored overnight, and whoever is tasked with watching them will have to be beyond reproach.
Now, the means involved in tampering with sealed ballot boxes would be quite complicated, but it could be done. It is also the case that almost everyone has a political opinion, very few people are completely neutral, so anyone who might have access to ballot boxes containing uncounted votes would be eyed with great suspicion by political parties if a result went against them.
Why create unnecessary doubt? Once the people have voted, get the votes counted and have the result available to the public by the time they get up to go to work on the Friday morning.
There have been stories of ballot tampering for as long as there have been elections. Even in recent years there are two events that stand out. The first happened at the 2003 local government elections in Renfrewshire. In a number of seats the result was very close between Labour and the SNP, and the balance of the entire Council was decided on just one or two Wards.
Labour scraped victory on that occasion, but SNP calls to have ballots checked in a few seats were turned down, after it emerged the counted ballot papers had, apparently, been thrown-out instead of stored. Local authorities have a legal obligation to retain ballot papers.
Then there was the Westminster Glenrothes by-election, where polls predicted a close-run thing between Labour and the SNP. However, as things turned out, Labour won comfortably with a majority of over 6,000.
Such a big margin of victory did not chime with the SNP’s own polling, carried out by party activists prior to the election. Because of that, the party asked to check what are known as the ‘marked-up registers’. These are the lists on which staff at polling places mark-off the names of people who vote on the day of the election. You will have seen it being done when you have voted. You give the person your Polling Card or your name and address, and they score off your name on their list.
The SNP wanted to check the registers, as all political parties are entitled to do, so they could see how many people who had committed to voting for them, subsequently did or did not actually vote.
Unfortunately, the local council ‘lost’ the marked-up registers. That means it is not possible to check who voted, and the SNP could not verify if its ‘identified supporters’ had turned out on polling day. It is also not possible to check if people whose names appear on the Electoral Register, but who have died since the list was compiled, might actually have voted. Believe me, it has happened.
The two examples given relate to post-election issues, but serve to illustrate how security surrounding ballot papers and registers is crucial. If we changed to having election counts the day after the actual vote, then uncounted votes would be handed over to the security of a very few individuals. Who can give a 100% guarantee that none would be lost or thrown out by mistake?
Having said that, there remains another issue where ‘First-Past-The-Post’ ballot papers are counted. A quote attributed to the former Soviet leader Josef Stalin goes, “It’s not the people who vote that count, it’s the people who count the votes.”
Votes for each candidate are counted be tellers, usually council employees prepared to work through the night to get a bit of overtime. From personal experience of watching tellers do their job, they make very few mistakes. However, once tellers have placed ballot papers into piles for each candidate, they are counted into bundles of 100 and taken to a central table where they are placed onto the main piles for each candidate. A couple of bundles of 100 placed on the wrong pile could swing an election result.
Tellers don’t take the bundles of 100 to the central table, that’s done by a deputy returning officer, usually a senior council official.
Now, far be it from me to suggest that such manipulation of an election result has ever taken place, but the opportunity is there.
The Scottish Parliament Election of 2007 produced the highest-ever number of spoilt ballot papers, and the fact this coincided with the introduction of electronic counting was cited by many as the cause.
However, in reality, ballot papers were spoiled because people were asked to use three different electoral systems on two ballot papers. For the Scottish Parliament there was the First-Past-The-Post system for electing a constituency MSP, then the numerical ranking of candidates for the Additional Member element of the poll. In addition, the North Ayrshire Council Election was conducted on the same day using the Single Transferable Vote method.
That won’t happen again. The Scottish Parliament and Council elections have now been separated and will be held a year apart - parliament in 2011 and council in 2012.
There were problems with the system, but it wasn’t electronic counting that produced spoilt ballot papers.
In Cunninghame North the result saw the SNP take the seat from Labour by just 48 votes. Had the count been done under the old system, where piles of 100 ballots were carried to a central table, one bundle ‘mistakenly’ placed on the wrong candidate’s pile could have altered the result.
Some changes are worth making, but slowing down the process by delaying the count until the next day, and having uncounted votes lying around out-of-sight, would be detrimental to the process. Meanwhile, removing the scope for human influence or error should be encouraged.
(c) the3towns.com
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
the3towns.com January 9 2010
Bias against the SNP
All broadcasters in the UK are supposed to be politically impartial but, unfortunately, that is not the case. Our so-called ‘national’ broadcaster, the BBC, is biased against the SNP.
BBC Scotland has had to recognise the SNP is now the major force in Scottish politics, given that it forms the government of Scotland, but broadcasters in London still perceive the Nationalists to be a minor party on the periphery of the political spectrum, and treat them as such.
Here is what the BBC’s political editor, Nick Robinson, had to say about the SNP’s concerns over the decision to broadcast Westminster Election debates featuring only the leaders of the main British Unionist parties - Labour, the Tories and the Lib Dems:
“ ‘See you in court’. That's the message coming from the nationalists in response to the deal between the three main UK parties and the three main broadcasters.
“They complain that they are the victims of a metropolitan carve-up which ignores their status as major parties in Scotland and in Wales.
“Alex Salmond is reminding all who'll listen of the time a Scottish court injuncted a Panorama interview with Prime Minister John Major in the run-up to local elections in 1995. The court deemed that the broadcast was unfair to other parties in Scotland. I need no reminding since I was deputy editor of Panorama at the time and had to call Downing Street to tell them that the interview would not be seen in large parts of the UK - since TV transmitters do not neatly cover national borders, the courts blacked out coverage in parts of the north of England and Northern Ireland to be sure no Scot would see it.
“This time the broadcasters are offering separate debates for the main parties in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland in addition to the UK leaders' debates.
“They will point out that the nationalists - unlike the Lib Dems - do not have even a theoretical chance of winning a UK-wide election or forming a government.
“Alex Salmond is not even running at the next Westminster election. That won't, I suspect, stop him calling in the lawyers. Even if a court proves unwilling to overturn a deal done by the three main UK parties and three main broadcasters, he will hope to persuade the jury that is Scottish public opinion.”
Robinson’s comments, posted on the BBC web site, are breathtaking in their arrogance and ignorance. Sadly, what borders on cultural imperialism is what we have come to expect from London-based broadcasters who think they are so much more important than the hicks (Jocks) in the provinces.
Let’s start with Robinson’s comment that “they”, the SNP and Plaid Cymru, “complain that they are the victims of a metropolitan carve-up which ignores their status as major parties in Scotland and in Wales.”
The argument put forward by the Scottish and Welsh nationalists is not based on a perception of having been wronged by a decision taken in London by London-based broadcasters and London-based, British Unionist political parties. There is no whimper of ‘poor me’ from the SNP or Plaid. Let’s put to the side Robinson’s patronising tone and, instead, look at the facts: the agreement over broadcasts featuring the leaders of the three main British Unionist political parties was reached without any consideration being given to the different political circumstances that apply in Scotland and Wales, compared with England. Only in England are the three main parties Labour, the Tories and the Lib Dems.
In Scotland, the SNP forms the government of the country and is ahead in most opinion polls relating to the Westminster Election. Of the three main parties, in terms of England - and accepted by the BBC, ITV and Sky - only Labour can make claim to any degree of strength in Scotland, and that is in decline.
The Tories are Scotland’s third party, with only one MP elected from a constituency north of the border. The Lib Dems, whose Scottish MPs are mainly returned from small pockets of support in rural areas, hold a poor fourth-place in Scottish political rankings.
All three of England’s main parties trail the SNP in Scotland, yet the London-based broadcasters have agreed with the London-based political parties that there shall be three television broadcasts, beamed throughout Scotland, which will not feature Scotland’s party of government, but will include the leaders of the three main opposition parties north of the border, all of whom just happen to support the British Union.
So, when the SNP and Plaid Cymru “complain that they are the victims of a metropolitan carve-up which ignores their status as major parties in Scotland and in Wales”, the facts are on the side of the Scots and Welsh.
Robinson’s next patronising comment refers to Scotland’s First Minister attempting to fight for the right to be heard. The BBC editor states, “Alex Salmond is reminding all who'll listen of the time a Scottish court injuncted a Panorama interview with Prime Minister John Major in the run-up to local elections in 1995.”
It’s that phrase, “all who’ll listen”. ‘All who are daft enough to listen’ is clearly what is implied, but even the biased BBC in London surely would not have allowed their political editor to stray that far from objectivity.
Then we have Robinson displaying the ignorance that, ironically, makes the case for why London broadcasters should not be allowed to beam into Scotland their British Unionist party leaders' debates. Robinson argues, “the nationalists - unlike the Lib Dems - do not have even a theoretical chance of winning a UK-wide election or forming a government”. Only a London-based, metropolitan reporter who does not understand Scottish politics could make such a crass statement.
The SNP does not fight Westminster Elections to win UK-wide - the fact the party does not field candidates outside of Scotland makes such a feat an impossibility - and therefore does not seek to form a government anywhere other than in Scotland.
The SNP fights Westminster Elections attempting to gain sufficient support from the people of Scotland - either a majority of seats or votes - to secure a mandate to negotiate an independence settlement with Westminster: the conclusion of which would see Scotland re-establish itself as a normal, independent nation.
It is for that reason that the SNP has a right to be heard in any leaders' debate broadcast in Scotland. Alex Salmond does not seek to be prime minister of the UK or for the SNP to play any part in a Westminster government, but those two prizes are not all that can be won at the UK General Election. The SNP fights for a different prize, one that is perfectly achievable - securing independence for Scotland by the consent of the people through the ballot box.
Such a victory would be won through democracy, and it is undemocratic for London-based broadcasters and political parties to seek to deny the SNP a voice in the main television debates ahead of the Westminster Election. It is also profoundly undemocratic for the BBC, ITV and Sky to argue that only voices supporting Scotland remaining in the British Union should be heard before Scots go the polls.
The so-called ‘compromise’ of having an additional debate in Edinburgh, over-and-above the three beamed into Scotland from London, simply means the British Unionist parties would feature in four broadcasts to the SNP’s one.
In the interests of fairness and democracy, the three main parties in England - all British Unionists - must not be handed an advantage over their Scottish and Welsh opponents ahead of the Westminster Election.
Any ‘leadership’ debate broadcast in Scotland must feature the leader of the SNP, who is, after all, Scotland’s elected leader.
Less arrogance and ignorance from London-based political reporters would be an added bonus.
(c) the3towns.com
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
the3towns.com January 2 2010
Where is the justice?
It’s amazing the things you find on the internet when you’re looking for something else. Now, behave, I’m not talking about those kind of things.
I had been looking for comments made by former prime minister Tony Blair prior to the unleashing of ‘shock and awe’ against the people of Iraq in 2003. Blair had appeared on the Radio 4 Today programme and had said that Saddam Hussein could stay in power in Iraq, and could even retain all of his conventional military hardware, provided he gave up his weapons of mass destruction (WMD).
The reason for my search was, of course, Blair’s recent admission - to the cutting-edge political interviewer Fern Britton - that he would have sent British troops into war against Iraq even if Saddam had not had weapons of mass destruction, and that he would simply have “deployed different arguments” to justify the military action.
Clearly, Blair cannot have it both ways. In 2003 he was arguing that an Iraq free of WMD and led by Saddam Hussein was fine, but now he says it didn’t matter whether or not Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, British forces were always going to go in alongside American troops to effect ‘regime change’.
Some of us never had any doubts, but there surely is no longer anyone out there who does not now accept that Tony Blair took Britain to war on the basis of a lie. Blair lied to the Westminster Parliament. His lie secured parliamentary support for war and sent hundreds of young British men to die - not forgetting the thousands of innocent Iraqi men, women and children who were blown apart by British and American bombs.
Crucially, Blair’s admission that war was inevitable, irrespective of what Saddam Hussein did or did not do, and was based on removing the head-of-state of a sovereign nation, so that he could be replaced with one who was more amenable to America, means that, in terms of international law, Tony Blair and George Bush are guilty of war crimes.
To wage war against a nation that presents no threat to your own is a war crime. Iraq was no threat to Britain or America. However, that nation was home to the world’s third-largest oil reserves, and Saddam Hussein was not prepared to let America plunder Iraq’s resources. So, he had to go, and a pretext for war had to fabricated.
Britain and America knew Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction. United Nations’ weapons inspectors had made clear there was no evidence of such weaponry anywhere in Iraq. UN reports stated that weapons previously held by Saddam had been decommissioned. Of course, Britain and America knew all about the weapons Iraq used to have, because it was the UK and the US who sold them to Saddam.
That said, in 2003 Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction, and Tony Blair knew that. Yet the British prime minister stated publicly that all Saddam had to do to avoid war with Britain and America was to give up his weapons of mass destruction. He did not have any.
Saddam Hussein was a despicable tyrant, but America and Britain does not have the authority to overthrow, by military force, any national leader they simply do not like. Nor does the US and the UK have any right to occupy a sovereign nation and to govern it, either directly or by proxy.
Since Saddam Hussein was removed by US forces, with the support of the British military, Iraqi oil reserves are being extracted by American companies, with the oil itself being made available to America at very favourable rates.
In addition, many American companies have made billions-of-dollars through contracts awarded to rebuild the Iraqi national infrastructure that was bombed to smithereens by the American military. That work is ongoing, and companies, such as Halliburton, which has very strong links to the American government, are continuing to rake in the cash.
The actions of the Bush administration and the Blair-led UK government were, and remain, contrary to international law. Of course, both George W Bush and Tony Blair have since retired from their positions of power, but that does not mean they should no longer be held to account.
Both Blair and Bush ordered that a war be waged against Iraq. That war was illegal. Therefore, both men should be brought before the International Court of Justice in the Hague, the United Nations’ principal judicial body, where they should be afforded the right to defend their actions.
I believe the evidence is overwhelming and both men would be convicted of war crimes. Of course, that won’t happen. It won’t happen because the US and UK will not let it happen. Even if there was a will amongst other nations to bring Bush and Blair to justice, America still has sufficient economic and commercial power to buy-off any attempt to initiate legal proceedings.
There is something far wrong with the type of democracy advocated by the United States of America, when we see it desperately trying to extradite from Britain Scots-born Gary McKinnon, the 43 year-old Asperger Syndrome sufferer who is accused of attempting to hack into US government computer systems, yet it would move heaven and earth to prevent George Bush from facing trial.
Gary McKinnon’s condition is a type of autism: he maintains his attempt to look at files on US government web sites was related to his interest in UFOs. No-one was harmed by Gary McKinnon’s actions.
George Bush, on the other hand - along with his sidekick Blair - ordered the bombing of innocent civilians, killing thousands of people. If America and Britain really believed in democracy and the rule of law, who should be facing trial, Bush and Blair or Gary McKinnon?
If Gary McKinnon is extradited to the US, and if he is convicted of breaching US security by hacking into Pentagon web sites, he could face up to 60 years in a high-security prison. Meanwhile, George Bush and Tony Blair continue to make millions-of-pounds (and dollars) from speaking engagements - and receive 24-hour protection, paid for by US and UK tax-payers. Where is the justice?
Oh, I almost forgot, the thing I found on the internet while I was searching for Blair’s comment to the Today programme about Iraqi WMD, was a reference to a speech made to the Scottish Parliament on June 2 2004. It was made by a then MSP called Campbell Martin. Apparently, he had been suspended by the SNP and was speaking in support of a Motion lodged by the Scottish Socialist Party.
The comments came towards the end of his speech and were directed at Labour MSPs who supported Tony Blair and the war in Iraq. To be honest, I couldn’t have put it better myself…
“This international situation has come about because the American President and the British Prime Minister were prepared to lie to the people whom they are supposed to represent.
“The people of Britain were lied to by a Prime Minister who represented your unionist party.
“Iraq did not have chemical or biological weapons. Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction. Iraq had no weapons other than those that it was sold by Britain and America when Saddam Hussein was our best pal because he was using the weapons to kill Iranians. That is the reality.
“The position that was taken by the Labour leader of the United Kingdom Government was all lies and you supported it. Bush and Blair knew that it was all lies - I have a copy of a document called ‘Rebuilding America's Defences: Strategies, Forces and Resources For A New Century’, which was published by the Project for the New American Century in September 2000. That was four months before Bush stole the American presidency and a year before the atrocity at the World Trade Center.
“The document sets out the blueprint for an invasion of Iraq. A year before the attack on the World Trade Center, the Americans were already determined to invade Iraq.
“The organisation that published the document included people like Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and Jeb Bush. The people who planned to invade Iraq are now in positions of power in the American Government - they lied to the American people and Blair supported their lies.
“Last month, Geoff Hoon, the UK Defence Secretary, said that it costs £4 million a day to keep British troops in Iraq. The SSP amendment today says that money should instead be used to bring about a lasting peace in the middle east.
“Let’s stop spending £4 million a day on sending people to Iraq to kill Iraqis. Let’s start using it to build peace in the middle east.”
(c) the3towns.com
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________