Scots Independent
August 1996

Owned, Edited and Printed in Scotland - First Published in November 1926

Olympic Games Fuelling Unionist Hype - Colin Campbell

Whether or not we are sports buffs we have been unable to to escape Media coverage of the Olympics in Atlanta for almost a whole month--and in Scotland we have to bear the ignominy of not being represented as a nation whilst Scots are lumped into a British team reflected back to us by our Media as being English in all but name.

British athletics, unlike football, rugby and most other team sports, has evolved in such a way that, because of the lack of training and coaching facilities in areas away from England's Home Counties, the chances of individual performers being spotted, and of rising to the top, diminish with every mile they are distant from London. As a consequence of this imbalance of opportunity there has been little prospect of the separate development of Scottish, Irish or Welsh athletic teams on a par with those in other sports. Not all that long ago Dundee Hawkhill Harriers (now famous I believe for its connections with Liz McColgan) had to make do with a grass running track, a cupboard full of field-event implements and a three-roomed hut for a training base--and this was the only athletic facility, outside a meagre school provision for the whole population of Dundee and Angus. I know, because I was lucky enough to be a member and to-day, living in the Outer Isles there is no provision for athletics training or coaching outwith the schools, which themselves still have inadequate facilities.

All this has been a direct consequence of the UK's obsession with centralisation of investment and effort within the already prosperous confines of southern England: and is in marked contrast to the way in which rural and peripheral areas are treated in Scandinavia and on the Continent where the fruits of active encouragement may be seen m the extraordinarily high international achievement rates of athletes from such small coun- tries as Norway, Sweden, Finland and Denmark.

It is therefore deeply depressing to hear the Prime Minister, at the height of the Media razzmattazz about Britain's medal hopefuls, announce that £100 million of lottery money is to be spent on establishing--in England of course--a 'British Sports Academy' as a centre of training excellence. Once again our own money is to be diverted into a project based in an already amply supplied England--and we can be sure that there is also a political motive here since John Major never misses a trick to bolster Britishness at the expense of what he perceives as the lesser peripheral nations that share England's border.

The Media hype from London and Glasgow is a blessing to both our native and neighbouring Unionist politicians for it presents a massive opportunity to proclaim that 'We're all Brits together again' and that in athletics, as in politics, to be Scots, Welsh or Irish is not just to be inferior but to be irrelevant. Until our athletes, coaches, officials and the Scottish athletic hierar- chy establish Scotland's claim to international status in athletics, on a par with other sports, we shall continue to be used merely as a source of bonus talent to enhance the reputation of England's athletic prowess in its bogus British guise. What is more Scotland will continue to miss out on her share of investment in training infrastructure and, perhaps most tragically of all, Scottish athletes who have qualified as Olympic competitors will continue to be denied the opportunity of taking part because there is not room for them in the 'British' team. I don't doubt that, had we got our own independent Media truly representing our national aspirations and pursuing our cause, Scotland would have had a team at Atlanta.

Return to the index

A Rolling Stone ...... - James Halliday

A very famous Scottish journalist, widely known for his Home Rule sympathies, once accounted for his reluctance to join his Party by explaining that he saw the SNP as merely one nationalist sect (his word) among many. I argued with him that the SNP had a foundation in doctrine and in organisation which placed it in a different category from other groups whose existence owed more to an undue sense of self-importance on the part of key in-dividuals. I argued that there would come a time when all who styled themselves Nationalists would come within the SNP and the other peripheral groups would wither away. This is surely what happened from the 1960s onwards, certainly after the Hamilton victory in 1967.

It has been interesting, with those thoughts in mind, to enjoy the stir caused by the anticipated return of the Stone of Destiny, this time with the connivance of officialdom. As so often happens, young journalists have shown how common it is for carelessness to injure fact. It has been left for only one correspondent to the national Press to point out that none of those who took the Stone in 1950 were members of the SNP.

I don`t suppose we have any more unwillingness to enjoy any reflected glory which may be going, than we had in 1950, but we should remember that we were then on the outside looking in, enviously and wistfully, while the Scottish Covenant Association was in due course revealed as the body which had, through its leaders, inspired the whole enterprise.

The SNP was left, like the other ''sects" to hope that it might be honoured by being thought guilty. There were plenty of people in Glasgow, in those days, moving around in a kind of child's game of self-inflicted fear, taking three tram journeys when only one was needed, to throw off pursuit by fantasy-induced police, and arriving at their destination seeming to be brushing sandstone dust from their persons. It was in this kind of atmosphere that Oliver Brown rose to open a meeting and remarked on the great pleasure he felt in standing there watching the crowd mingling with the detectives.

Much of the journalistic error of the time, perpetuated in recent days, was of course caused by the fact that the Covenant Association leaders realised that it was to their advantage to play up the alleged contrast between themselves as ''Moderates" -- a nice thing to be--and the SNP and others as ''extremists''. Without any apparent examination of the facts respecting either doctrine or temperament of the various organisations, the working Press went along with this piece of inadequate interpretation, and have continued to do so. The difference now is that we are being given credit which we have never earned. The credit for the original piece of publicity treasure belongs to lan Hamilton and his colleagues, and to John MacCormick who approved and sustained.

My own argument came, I think, to be borne out as in due course people who had long held out against joining the SNP came in; and as young people growing up to a politically active age joined the SNP because no rival existed. At last the position was as I had believed and wanted; all who claimed the name ''nationalist" were now in the Party, and ''party'' and ''movement" were one and the same.

But as time does not stand still, and anyone tempted to swagger about with an "I told you so'' attitude, is usually in for a rude awakening. Persuading all Nationalists to come together in one party has not been the final stage in the party s growth. As the party grew in strength it attracted into its ranks, and even into its highest echclons, many who would not lay claim to the name of Nationalist at all, and many indeed who would quite specifically reject it. The party for them was a practical vehicle of choice rather than any sort of ideological home. After all, as we used to be at pains to point out, our very name was ''National", without the ''-ist''. The gradual desertion of `'sects'' and the coming together of persons with a shared purpose confirms the accuracy of the name. In such an organisation with a clearly established structure and regular policy-making mechanisms, ''moderate'' and "extremist'' are absolute terms. And, whatever jeers can be directed at the SNP, "one sect among many" is not one of them.

Return to the index

Jitters in the Unionist Camp - Editorial Comment

One thing above all else that the Unionist establishment fears is that the steady growth in national self-confidence, so evident in almost every aspect of Scottish life, might be transformed into a runaway surge of support for the SNP just in time for the General Election. It is for this reason that Labour's panic referendum proposal has had such an unnerving effect not only on their own Scottish supporters but also on the Lib Dems, their Constitutional Convention allies and the puppet commentators of our Unionist-controlled Media.

The last-minute imposition of a referendum on Labour's already half-hearted plans for devolution is seen by many as proof that in their London headquarters the commitment to devolved parliaments for Scotland and Wales is no stronger than it was in 1979. But worse than this, as far as their allies in the Convention are concerned, is the implicit acknowledgment that Labour's dealings with them throughout their seven-year period of co-operation have been merely of an exploitative nature, designed solely to shelter Labour from the fall-out following their unexpected failure to win the last two General Elections. For the Lib Dems in particular it is a bitter harvest to reap since their virtual merging, in the public mind, with the Labour Party in policymaking has already cost them dearly in electoral support.

For Unionists generally the possible realisation of their scenario of a Nationalist breakthrough, as a direct consequence of Labour's precipitate change of policy, has surfaced at the worst imaginable moment--just as the General Election campaign is taking on its own momentum. They have quickly appreciated that their greatest danger lies in disgruntled supporters pre-empting Labour's planned referendum by voting in the only manner which ensures that Scotland's constitutional future lies in Scottish, rather than Westminister's hands: that is by voting SNP. It is for this reason that our opponents have rallied round to try and sow dissension within our own ranks over how the SNP should react to Labour's referendum proposal. They rightly perceive that should we as a party take up any position, either for or against the referendum options, we would not only perhaps quarrel among ourselves over the issue but we would also obscure from public view our enhanced appeal as the only party in a position to guarantee the constitutional change the Scottish electorate so desperately wants at the earlier, and much more binding General Election itself.

What this latest round of jitters in the Unionist camp displays for all to see is the essential immorality of Unionism as a political doctrine in itself. For, as a prerequisite for its survival, it relies for maintaining its ascendency on such characteristics as disloyalty to Scotland, a physical dependency on Westminster with its nakedly English political aspirations, a willingness to frustrate the democractic will of the Scottish people and a mortal fear of effective constitutional change. As a movement it strikes uncomfortable resonances with France's wartime Vichy regime and Marshal Petain and is the very antithesis of the newly born South Africa and Nelson Mandela. It is a creed that is archaic and rotten to the core; and it remains as an offensive blight on to-day's map of a modernising democratic Europe.

Return to the index

News Focus - So-called Scottish Labour Party is a Fraud

The SNP's home affairs spokesperson Roseanna Cunningham MP attacked Tony Blair for ditching the principle of Scottish popular sovereignty in his devolution U-turn, and foisting the English doctrine of Westminster sovereignty on Labour in Scotland. She challenged every Scottish Labour MP who signed the Claim of Right --the 1989 foundation document of the Constitutional Convention --to reaffirm their support for Scottish sovereignty. She told the SI:--

"In March 1989, every Scottish Labour MP--with the sole exception of Tam Dalyell--signed the Claim of Right, which upholds 'the sovereign right of the Scottish people'. But at a news conference on 27 June, George Robertson said that New Labour's proposed devolution legislation would, 'explicity recognise the fact of Parliamentary sovereignty'. And Tony Blair--the puppet-master in Labour's retreat on the Scottish constitution--effectively buried the Claim of Right when he said in Edinburgh that there would be, 'a clear statement in the Bill of the sovereignty of Parliament'. "In other words, the Labour leadership have ditched the commitment to base their proposed devolution legislation on the Constitutional Convention's scheme, since the sovereignty of the Scottish people lies at the very heart of that scheme. This calls into question the integrity and credibility of every Scottish Labour MP who put their name to the 'Claim of Right', and they now have a responsibility to tell the people of Scotland exactly where they stand. Do they stay true to the principle of Scottish popular sovereignty, or are they prepared to accept the fundamental retreat which Blair is imposing on Labour in Scotland, in which case they should immediately withdraw their names from the 'Claim of Right'.

"Tony Blair has gutted the Convention scheme by ditching Scottish sovereignty. In doing so, he has made it abundantly clear that New Labour are proposing not a powerhouse national Parliament for Scotland, but a pitiful sub-committee of Westmninster. Tony Blair can't be trusted on tbe Scottish constitution, since his entire record is one of backtrack and betrayal. And as New Labour's devolution proposals grow ever weaker, the case for independence and equality of status in Europe becomes ever stronger".

SNP Chief Executive Michael Russell said that tbe term "Scottish Labour Party" was a fraud--as illustrated by the way Tony Blair imposed his devolution U-turn on Labour in Scotland--and also revealed that publicity material marked "Scottish Labour" is actually printed in England. He told the Sl:--

"At the Scottish Grand Committee in Dumfries recently, Labour supporters were waving flags marked 'Scottish Labour', which on closer examination turn out to have been printed in England ! "The term 'Scottish Labour Party' is a total fraud. Scottish Labour are incapable even of publishing simple publicity material here in Scotland, far less develop their own policy positions.

"It was Tony Blair's Islington coterie who ditched the sovereignty of the Scottish people, and foisted this fnndamental retreat on tbe party in Scotland--effectively dumpng the Convention scheme, which is based on the principle of Scottish sovereignty. "The policies of Scottish Labour, like the leaflets, have 'Made in England' stamped all over them. "Now Labour are a southern-focussed party, with a southern focussed agenda. Only the SNP can be trusted to put Scotland first, and votes for the SNP are the only guarantor of real constitutional change".

Return to the index

Trade Unions - The Final Betrayal - Ian Bayne I am still trying to recover from the man's colossal audacity. Without any consultation with Labour's allies in the Constitutional Convention--including the STUC-- Cmrde Blair has unilaterally ditched his predecessor, John Smith's solemn pledge to legislate for a Scottish Parliament 'within a year ' of taking office.

His proposed referendum U-turn would at best delay matters well beyond his first Parliamentary session, and at worst give Blair an apparent excuse for 'conscientiously' dumping Devo. Don't tell me this is par for the course. Sure, Labour has reneged on its Devo pledges before--though usually not until after a General Election. This is the first occasion on which a Labour leader has publicly reneged on the Commitment before a General Election.

Between 1888--when Keir Hardie first proposed Home Rule as part of his Scottish Labour Party's platform -- and 1945 most Scottish Labour Parliamentary candidates and MPs paid some sort of lip-service to the ''Scottish Parliament'' commitment of their founding fathers. In the 1920s they even got round to introducing a couple of Devo bills which were conveniently talked out.

From the end of the war until the October 1974 election, Home Rule disappeared altogether from Labour's manifestos. In retrospect this can be seen as a relatively honest period in 'Scottish Labour's' history. They just weren't interested in the idea, and didn't even bother to pretend otherwise.

It took the SNP's successes in February 1974 to transform the picture, and even then, ironically, the Scottish Council of the Labour Party had to be browbeaten by the London-based NEC into accepting the necessity for making some concessions.

There then followed two botched bills and a rigged referendum, though in fairness the ensuing 17 years of Tory rule had begun to shift some Scottish Labour--and in particular some Scottish Trade Unions--minds into a genuine appreciation of the advantages of self-government.

Hence the principled--and highly creditable--resignations of John McAllion and Harry Ewing in response to Blair's referendum ploy, not to mention good old Dennis Canavan's instant condemnation of it. In contrast too many other Scottish Labour MPs and Trade Unionists could only react--in Oliver Brown's famous phrase -- with 'a shudder frantically looking for a spine to run up'.

In the coming election only the SNP will be able to supply Scottish working people with the backbone they will surely need to outsmart Cmrde Blair's anti-Devo machinations.

Return to the index

Independence - Best for Scottish Education by Janet Law

Labour has managed to demonstrate for everyone exactly why Scotland needs to be independent. Tony Blair, without consulting his Scottish party members, decided to change Labour policy on devolution. His loyal henchman George Robertson agreed to carry the can, but why should the rest of the Labour Party in Scotland accept this? Robertson, of course is appointed by Blair: so his motivation is obvious if repellent. Perhaps the rest of Labour's Scottish leadership are so brainwashed and browbeaten into subservience to the Westminster system with the Secretary of State as Governor General that they willingly accept this as a model for their own organisation.

The same people pretend to lead the people of Scotland! Gradually it is becoming obvious that the people of Scotland really only barely tolerate the political leadership of The Labour Party in Scotland. The SNP is proving a credible alternative and effective opposition to Labour's lack of leadership throughout Scotland. As the General Election approaches, every vote for the SNP will be a judgment on the failure of both Westminster parties to defend the interests of the Scottish people.

In no area of Scottish life is the problem with Labour more clearly demonstrated than in the field of education. It is generally accepted by everyone, including the Tories, that the Scottish education system is different to that of England. Recently there has been a widespread and growing expectation amongst most people involved in Scottish education that within months -- well maybe eighteen months--we would be seeing the establishment of a Scottish Assembly or Parliament. If this was the limited form of Assembly advocated by the Constitutional Convention. responsibility for much important social and economic legislation would remain with Westminster. Therefore education would be perhaps the major responsibility of a Scottish Assembly.

While many people involved in education have concerns about the relationship between a devolved Assembly and Scotland's local authorities, an Assembly, with or without tax-raising powers, has tended to be seen as something of a protection for Scottish education. The SNP has had to keep reminding people involved in education and other aspects of local government that only an independent Scottish Parliament would give us control over our own resources, and only with control over our own resources would we actually be able to make a difference. Now that Labour's commitment to even their puppet theatre'' Assembly is in doubt. we can point to this as an object lesson in what happens to your policies when you just meekly accept that someone in England is going to make decisions for you without consulting you--just like Tony Blair's Labour Party.
Return to the index

An Comann Ceilteach - Alasdair MacCaluim

Tha nàiseantachd ann an Alba caran neònach an taca ri nàiseantachd anns na dùthchannan Ceilteach eile nam bheachdsa. Chan eil nàiseantachd agus an strì airson a' chànain ceangailte ann an Alba mar a tha iad, can anns a' Chuimrigh no ann an Eirinn. A bharrachd air seo, cha chanainnse gu bheil mòran cheanglaichean eadar nàiseantaich na h-Alba agus na buidhnean nàiseantach/buidhnean nan cànan anns na duthchannan ceilteach eile. A dh' aindeoin seo, tha aon bhuidheann ann an Alba a bhios a' brosnachadh nan ceanglaichean cudromach seo agus 's e sin an Comann Ceilteach (the Celtic League).

Chaidh an Comann Ceilteach a stèidheachadh anns a' Chuimrigh ann an 1961. 'S e buidheann phancheilteach a th' innte a bhios a' gabhail pàirt anns an strì airson saorsa culturach, sóisealta agus poilitigeach anns na duthchannan ceilteach. Tha cóig amasan aig a' chomann: (1) ag obair airson ath-bheothachadh nan cànanan ceilteach (2) a' brosnachadh co-oibreachadh eadar na ceiltich (3) a' leasachadh co-eòlas ceilteach (4) a' foillseachadh an stfi nàiseanta anns gach duthaich ceilteach. (S) a' moladh gum bu chòir na goireasan nàdarra bhith air an cleachdadh gu cothromach gu math a h-uile duine anns na duthchannan Ceilteach.

Bidh an Comann Ceilteach a' cur nan amasan aca air adhart ann an iomadh dòigh, gu h-àraidh troimh "Charn" an sar ràitheachean aca anns a bheil naidheachd, iomair- tean agus aisteachan acadaimigeach. Tha duilleagan aig gach duthaich cheilteach ann an "Carn" le artaigilean anns a' Bheurla agus na sia cànanan Ceilteach. Tha fiosrachadh ann mu na partaidhean nàiseantach anns na duthchannan ceilteach bho PhNA gu Union Democraffque Bretonne (pàrtaidh nàiseanta na Breatainn Bige). Bidh "Carn" a' toirt am follais strì nan cànanan cuideachd.

Tha "Carn" làidir a thaobh na h-àrainneachd anns an fharsaingeachd agus gu h-àraidh air a' cheist niuclach agus air an sgrios a bhios arm Bhreatainn a' dèanamh air feadh nan duthchannan ceilteach ann an àiteachan mar Bheaufords Dyke agus Rosyth. Tha an Comann Ceilteach ag aontachadh leis an abairt Albannach "Cuiribh ur Trident suas ur Thames!" Bidh an Comann Ceilteach a' cumail suil aireachail air an airm fad an t-siubhail agus bha iad ag ràdh gu robh bàtaichean-tumaidh a' glachdadh liontan bhàt- aichean-iasgaich bliadhnaichean roimh mhór-thubaist an "Antares".

Tha duilleaganuraComainn Ceiltich air tòiseachadh air an eadar-lion a' gabhail a-steach naidheachd, iomairtean cudromach agus a h-uile rud a chaidh sgriobhadh ann an Gàidhlig Mhanainn ann an "Carn" riamh. Seo an seò- ladh WWVV a th' aca:

http://homepages.enterprise.net/mkermode/polcul/cl.html

Tha meòirean den chomann anns gach dutchaich ceilteach --Alba, a' Bhreatainn Bheag, a' Chòrn, a' Chuimrigh, Eilean Mhanainn agus Eirinn. Ma thu sibh ag iarruidh tuilleadh fiosrachaidh mun Chomann Cheilteach, sgrìobhaibh gu rùnaire meur na h-Alba:

Richard McGee, 14 Rathad Restalrig, Dun Eideann, EH6 8BN.

Tha "Carn" daonnan a' lorg aisteachan do na duileagan Albannach aca anns a' Bheurla agus gu hàraidh anns a' Ghaidhlig. Cuiribh ur artaigilean gu:

Ms P Bridson, 33 Bòthar Bancroft, Tamhlacht, BÁC-24, Éire.
Return to the index
CONTACT:
Scots Independent, 51 Cowane Street, Stirling, SCOTLAND, FK8 1JW
Tel: 01786 473523 (24 hr), FAX: 0141-427-4030
If you have any comments (good or bad) on these pages contact hamish@rmplc.co.uk.
Previous page Return to Ham's Homepage