Embedded Files
SCOTTISH HISTORY
Steps To The Scottish Socialist Republic
Not by any means inevitable, they will have to be consciously striven for and steadfastly maintained.
2017
SNAP GENERAL ELECTION
Westminster Parliament
SNP Opportunism =
Minority Tory Administration
Because of the SNP total self belief combined, with their lets face it relatively new strength. Both within the Scottish and Westminster Parliaments, they were prepared to take an electoral gambol. The SNP believed that they had won enough of the argument over Scottish independence to use the General Election to push for another Scottish Referendum over the issue. The SNP self belief and arrogance meant that effectively they did not care what effect this gambol would have for the Scottish people, the British public, or even for themselves.
How can I say this well as far as the SNP are concerned, they would still have the majority of party representatives in the Scottish Parliament. And still be the biggest single Scottish party represented in Westminster. Simple mathematics spelt that inevitability out clearly enough, together with an unhealthy dose of political opportunism. The SNP remain in pole position, but at what ultimate cost?
This was the ideal opportunity to finally, if not expunge but at least severely limit the effect of the Conservative Party in British politics. But what do we get instead? Who’d have imagined this? An increased foothold for the Conservative Party in Scotland, with more Scottish Tory MP’s. Tragically it is these very Scots Tory MP’s that could now prove crucial, they have provided the Conservative Party a better majority than they deserve, in the Westminster Parliament. The SNP’s failed gambol lost them MP’s and helped the Conservative gain MP’s And put both the Tory Party and this Prime Minister back into number 10 Downing Street.
MEMO TO SNP BE CAREFUL OF WHAT YOU WISH FOR
During the election comments are heard from SNP and media of Another Referendum being on the Agenda, in the Scotland context this is not Brexit but Independence. As an advocate for Scotland’s Independence, this coming from the Scottish national party it made sense. The notion of this causing the SNP a loss of support, I just considered this as the media spin on it.
But going through the Westminster Constituency Results to compile a report on the General Election I was immediately struck by just how apposite this consideration was. Especially comparing these 2017 Results with those of the last General Election in 2015 a mere 2 years ago. They make for very interesting viewing and are certainly worthy of expressing here. My just how short the collective memory of the SNP must be to forget their glorious electoral victories so quickly as to put them all at possible risk with a pointless gambol.
Simply said SNP’s 21 Lost Seats & MP’s is terrible enough, but SNP put a gloss on it by highlighting their Total Seats Regained not their Total Seats Lost.
Even their Results in Winning Seats is not brilliant, in every one SNP share of the vote in 2017 was down, many times by over 10%. sometimes dangerously so. While those coming runners up increased their percentage of the total votes cast.
Nb!
Just adding the Constituency of Gordon, Alex Salmon ex SNP Leaders Safe Seat. LOOK at the 2015 Results
A.Salmon was the M.P. with 27,717 Votes, at 47.7% of the Total Votes cast,
an increase of 25.5%
The LibDem Candidate Christine Jardine was 2nd.
The Tory Candidate Colin Clark was 3rd, with less than 7,000 Votes, at only 11.7% of the Votes cast, a decrease of 7.0%
Now LOOK at the latest 2017 Results for the same seat.
The Tory Candidate Colin Clark has leapfrogged above these 2 mentioned Candidates to take the Seat becoming the New Tory M.P. With 21,861 Votes,
40.7% of Votes Cast, an increase of 29%
Alex Salmon SNP Candidate has LOST his Seat, with this time, 19,254 Votes, 35.9% of Votes cast, a decrease of 11.8%
The LibDem Candidate David Evans plummeted to 4th place below Labour,
with less than 6,000 Votes, a mere 11.6% of Votes cast, a decrease of 21.1%
A DANGEROUSLY BAD AND
UNNECESSARY RESULT
CAUSED BY SNP OPPORTUNISM
I am highlighting Seats Lost to SNP and Won by their political opponents,
1st: Labour 6 Wins; 2nd: LibDem 3 Wins 3rd: Tory 12 Wins.
Giving Results for 2017 and 2015 to show how the parties have fared in the interim.
For Labour this must have been especially gratifying reclaiming lost
Constituencies. Prior to the Election Labour only had 1 Seat in Scotland,
after it they had 7 Seats, 6 of these Seats were Gains from SNP.
For the LibDems the SNP's stupidity proved a godsend, before the Election they only had 1 Seat in Scotland, after they had 4 Seats, Gaining 3 Seats from the SNP.
For the Conservatives it must have been manner from heaven, for long being the justified Pariah’s of Scotland’s political landscape, now firmly ensconced in its political heartlands. This is nothing short of an incredible transformation in fortunes, who would have though the day would ever dawn on a Conservative Party victory celebration in Scotland. South of the border the same party is wearing black in mourning for its previous Westminster political majority.
All this down to 2 political gambols the biggest by Theresa May Tory Party Supremo and the 2nd by Nicola Sturgeon present Leader of the SNP.
RESULTS
Labour GainsFROM SNP
LibDem Gains From SNP
Tory Gains From SNP
2015
2015
2015
2015
2015
2015
2015
2015
2015
2015
2015
2015
Scottish Parliament Campaign Drop Oath to Queen
2015
12th May Postscript of phenomenal General Election Results in Scotland beyond the SNP wildest dreams and the main English parties, especially the Labour Parties most vivid nightmare.
First a summary of how it came to pass without recapping all I have recently said.
➢ Scottish Referendum: 4 Parties put their eggs into 1 basket victory.
{SNP = Yes Campaign; Labour + LibDem + Tory = No Campaign}
➢ The No Campaign: Thought their victory had killed off the SNP.
➢ The Coalition {LibDem} Government: Felt able to fob off the Scottish people with overdue ‘Election Pledges’.
➢ The Labour Party: Imagining the SNP dead, felt they could continue ‘running their show’ from England. Letting down the Scottish Party {considered by some as the ‘Heart & Soul’ of the Labour Party} and its own grass roots supporters and voters.
➢ General Election Result: The Labour Party paid the ultimate price, with BOTH the loss of its Scottish ‘Heartland’ and with it the prospect of a ‘British Parliamentary majority any time soon.
➢ The LibDems: Paid the ultimate price {across Britain} for their part in the Coalition Government. Being blamed ‘Guilt by Association’ for the Tories sins, while paradoxically the Conservatives got a second chance to do more of the same.
All 3 parties {Labour; LibDem; Tory} need the Union of the United Kingdom for their particular political purposes and not for the benefit of Scotland OR the Scots. They have all used the Union as a source of membership, revenue, and to spread their political power.
Despite having specific parties ‘born and raised’ in Scotland the ‘Main Party’ has always been based in England.
This is not an accident but is born out of the parties rationale, which considers that the principle part of the Union is England and thereby everywhere else is considered ancillary to the political and economic ‘Needs’ of England.
This rationale is born out of the political history of these islands, and of their parties perceived part in it.
6. The ‘Union’ is not born out of any Unity of National Equals but of Colonisation.
<United Kingdom Historical Addenda_truncated summary_> From the ‘Birth’ of ‘England’ marking the Anglo Saxon ascendancy over the Celts. Through the ensuing formation of an ‘English Nation State’. To the inherent political ambitions of an English Monarchy of greed and avarice.
The Act of Union was a political takeover of a Scottish Monarchical domain by an English Monarch courtesy of the ‘Parcel Of Rogues’ Scots selling Scotland cheap into the nascent English Empire.
2014
Current State:
Part of Great Britain/United Kingdom
FRIDAY 19th September 2014
REFERENDUM VOTE
N0 = 55% YES = 45%
MORE POWERS OFFERED
TIMETABLE 4 DELIVERY
September 2014: Referendum Vote
November 2014: Draft Resolution
January 2015: Debate Package
MAY 2015: DELIVER PROMISES?
Q: WHAT ARE THE PROMISES?
English Parliamentary Parties
DO NOT AGREE
1st Step: Independence
Paradoxically the initial step was taken at the behest of the last English Labour Westminster Government. Paradox?
The English Labour Party had always taken the selfish attitude of only ever considering their future existence in Westminster, which meant ensuring their parties parliamentary majority within the Westminster Parliament.
Which was always obtained courtesy of The Union of Great Britain/United Kingdom, hence their implacable Support for its continued existence combined with similar Opposition to its dismemberment.
Consider my surprise when this English Labour Party propounded the consideration
of a Scottish Parliament, what was one to make of this?
My first thought that it was meant in part as a Political Sop to Scottish Nationalism, to provide a Political Cul-de-sac to Scottish National Aspirations.
My later more considered deliberations left me with the thought that it may prove useful as a political platform, from whence to challenge English Parliamentary Governance of Scotland. It would mean a pragmatic approach to politics to use the means at your disposal, provided in this instance by your ultimate political adversaries.
One of the greatest paradox’s provided by the English Labour Party was to effectively provide a political lifeline to Scottish Nationalism, thereby resuscitating the political careers of both the SNP and of its retired former leader Alex Salmon. SNP’s political fortunes had hitherto oft vacillated to such an extent that Salmon felt compelled to proffer his political retirement.
Such was my initial surprise of a ‘Scottish Parliament’ why not just let the SNP wither on the political vine?
Scottish Nationalism has a wider basis of general support than is usually apparent to the casual political observer. Though most of those who may vote SNP in any election do not necessarily consider themselves as Scottish Nationalists, their vote can never be taken for granted which is why the SNP were likely to be surprised at the turn of their political fortunes.
Not being a Labour Party member or with any ear to what passes for their leading deliberations, I can only conjecture at the real political motives behind the offer of a ‘Scottish Parliament’. Were the English Labour Party completely unaware of the state of the SNP’s political fortunes? Did they simply assume that the basis for support for Scottish independence was sufficient enough to warrant such a ‘solution’?
Either way the English Labour Party are suffering from their assumptions, would they ever again achieve a working majority in England’s Political Palace of Westminster without selling their soul to the highest fiscal bidder? Is the subsequent Labour Party English electoral landslide under Tony Blair's stewardship some proof of this assertion? Was this landslide achieved at the cost of what the Labour Party had always professed to believe in, for the sake of winning over the Tory Party's hinterland in the English southern shires?
Will the Labour Party ever again assume political ascendency in Scotland?
Some paradox's for Labour in this was Tony Blair's Scots ancestry. Yet another being Gordon Brown's ancestry. This extract from from an Scotland Magazine online article highlights the political tightrope the Labour Party is expected to walk: 'Being Scottish and the leader of the United Kingdom takes some balancing act. New British Prime Minister Gordon Brown has done it by stressing his loyalty to the Union between Scotland and England while taking a calculated and deliberate decision with his wife Sarah to have his children born not just in Scotland, but in Fife, where they have a home and where Brown serves as a Member of Parliament.'
Gordon Brown as an individual managed it being adroit as a political acrobat but to expect your party to do likewise is something different. The Labour Party is dropping bricks over the prospect of not having Scots Labour MP's to bail them out in England
A price for Tony + Gordon et al is that the SNP is now the principle party in Scotland’s Parliament with Alex Salmon as its 1st Minister.
Scotland’s 1st Referendum to proffer the mirage <?> of Independence is nigh.
18th September 2014 to be precise.
QUESTION
Does A Referendum Yes Vote + Independence = A Republic.
The Scottish Government <SIC> Website has this to say for itself:
MAKE YOUR VOTE COUNT ON 18 September 2014
The Scottish Government was formed after the May 5, 2011 parliamentary election at which the SNP gained a clear majority with 69 of the 129 seats at
Holyrood and a mandate to govern until the next election in 2016.
The independence referendum consultation, Your Scotland, Your Referendum
was launched by the First Minister on Burns Night, January 25, 2012, and
closed at midnight on Friday, May 11, 2012. It attracted more than 26,000
On October 15, 2012, the Edinburgh Agreement was signed by First Minister
Alex Salmond and Prime Minister David Cameron. The Agreement ensures
that the Scottish Parliament at Holyrood will be able to deliver a referendum
that meets the highest standards of fairness, transparency and propriety.
On January 30, 2013 the Scottish Government accepted the Electorall
Commission’s recommendation on the wording of the independence
referendum question: ‘Should Scotland be an independent country? Yes/No.’
On February 5, 2013, the Scottish Government published the first in a series
of papers intended to show how a constitutional platform will be put in place in
the event of a yes vote in the independence referendum.Scotland’s Future:
from the Referendum to Independence and a Written Constitution
suggests Scotland could be an independent state by March 2016.
A historic step was taken on March 12, 2013 when the Scottish Independence
Referendum (Franchise) Bill was introduced to the Scottish Parliament to
extend the franchise to 16 and 17 year olds, ensuring their voice is heard in the 2014 referendum.
On March 21, 2013 the Scottish Independence Referendum Bill was
introduced to the Scottish Parliament, setting the conditions for the referendum
and for it to be held on September 18, 2014 and passed on November 14, 2013.
The Scottish Independence Referendum Act 2013 restricts the material
that can be published by the Scottish Government and other public
bodies for 28 days before the independence referendum on September 18.
The restrictions, in force from August 22, cover a range of
communications including written correspondence, speeches and
social media channels.
For more information read the guidance:
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Government/Elections/guidance/ElectionsGuidanceCS
The facility to comment on the Road to 2014 Blog and our Facebook
page will be suspended until after the independence referendum.
The Scottish Government’s Twitter account @scotreferendum will not be updated during this period.
QUESTION
Does A Referendum Yes Vote + Independence = A Republic.
To answer a question with a question, Does A Referendum Yes Vote = Independence?
Not necessarily, why? I do not want to pre-empt anything or pass any ammunition to the enemy but I have to ask have the SNP thought the process through properly?
How much do they really want full Independence? OR are they simply trying to get the best result possible under the present circumstances? From the Off the 'No Campaign' would want to wrong foot their opponents to counter each and every proposition, and the Yes Campaign should have been properly prepared for it.
The NO lot are merely a Rag Bag of malcontents trying to appear unanimous.
While in the Yes lobby the SNP appear to making the running I have yet to hear from anyone else, it may be the media South of the Border trying to paint it in simple hues of 'Them and Us' with the SNP as the 'Bogeyman'. There is certainly a measure of that but in reality just how much of a 'Left' is there in Scotland? In that context I am talking of genuine left wingers who believe in implementing socialism, yes there are the 'usual suspects' the same organisations that exist south of the border, as well as the 'home grown varieties' with as little a notion of 'Left Unity' as there is in England. Where does that leave this? The Scottish left is effectively segregated against itself, essentially the 'revolutionaries' don't even consider it as an issue merely 'a political diversion to the class struggle comrades'. The Scottish Socialist Party appeared at first sight a viable proposition until the debacle with their leader Jimmy Sheridan seeming to scupper them as a viable consideration. The 'mainstream parties' would rather not bother with it at all if it could be avoided, the Green Party are political pragmatists that deals with issues as they are presented, the Labour Party have a vested interest in the system as it stands their natural home is within the NO Camp.
In the consideration of Scottish Independence comment has to made of the frankly hysterical reaction of the English media to the issue, here is a mere sample at random
It should provoke no surprise at the partisan Pro Union stance of English National newspapers as they are a classic example of the dictum British = English.
Daily Telegraph "Ten days to save the Union"
Cameron and Brown join forces to persuade Scots to stay British as Yes camp forges lead
David Cameron and Gordon Brown will join forces to try and keep the UK together
the Independent "Ten days to save the United Kingdom"
Scottish independence: Ten days to save the United Kingdom as George Osborne promises further devolution after poll shows shock lead for Yes camp
Salmond dismisses ‘panicky bribe’ and says Westminster elite is losing referendum campaign
the Guardian "Last stand to keep the union"
Scottish referendum: no campaign makes last stand to keep the union
Westminster parties unite over Scottish vote
DAILY MIRROR
Why the Scottish independence vote matters to YOU -
Why the Scottish independence vote matters to YOU -
healthcare, immigration, sport, banks and bills
healthcare, immigration, sport, banks and bills
Sep 08, 2014 22:14 By Jason Beattie, Graham Hiscott
One chart that shows why Scottish independence could
mean a never-ending Tory government for England
Sep 03, 2014 14:12 By Sophie Warnes
Scottish independence referendum: Simon Cowell and
Mick Jagger among stars pleading for no vote
DAILY MAIL
2nd Step: Scottish Republic
Scottish Independence will not guarantee a Scottish Republic that will have to fought for, those in favour of Independence simply have that wish in common they are not necessarily republican. This may seem a strange supposition to those taking only a cursory or passing interest in this topic. But it is meant to indicate that Scottish Independence = Scottish Republic is not a foregone conclusion. To understand what may at first sight seem a conundrum it must be perfectly understood that the prime mover in the Referendum Yes Campaign the SNP is by no means a Republican party.
To quote Wickipedia::
'Contrary to the assumptions of many, the SNP is not republican, and its general view is that this is an issue secondary to that of Scottish independence. The current stance of the SNP is that an independent Scotland would retain the monarchy which it currently has as part of the United Kingdom.'
Meaning assuming a position akin to New Zealand 'independent' but remaining within the 'Commonwealth'.
However from my own perspective all is not lost as apparently the 'Republican faction' within the SNP is alive and kicking, this from the Independent newspaper:
SNP conference: SNP prepare ground for dropping the Queen
SNP conference: SNP prepare ground for dropping the Queen
The Scottish National Party yesterday opened the way to ditching the Queen as head of state of an independent Scotland. Stephen Goodwin, at the SNP conference in Rothesay, says the decision was a direct snub to Alex Salmond who fears it could alienate some older voters.
The Scottish National Party yesterday opened the way to ditching the Queen as head of state of an independent Scotland. Stephen Goodwin, at the SNP conference in Rothesay, says the decision was a direct snub to Alex Salmond who fears it could alienate some older voters.
No more relevant to a modern democracy than the Teletubbies; an
anachronism hundreds of the years out of date. The monarchy got a good
kicking by republicans in the SNP yesterday and in an independent Scotland
the public would get a chance to do the same.
Defying a warning by their leader, Alex Salmond, delegates voted by a clear majority to hold a referendum on whether or not to retain the Monarch as head of state for Scotland within the first term of an independent parliament.
An attempt by the party leadership to get the referendum proposal shelved - by remitting it back to the executive - was defeated by 177 votes to 164. However, Mr Salmond was spared a double embarrassment when an amendment committing the SNP to campaign for an elected head of state was defeated by 208 votes to 152.
The far left are pleased to declare to souls like me that the SNP are Tories so their Independent Scotland would be a Capitalist Scotland, well Doh of course that goes without saying, I have never said otherwise. Is that any reason for opposing Scottish Independence? Does their argument mean that they support The Union?
Of course BOTH Yes & No Camps are sucking up to big business trying to get as many corporations signed up to their cause. While the very nature of Capitalism means that businesses deal pragmatically with the situation as it stands, its no good looking at the firms 'signed up' now, instead see where companies stand after a YES vote. Will any self respecting company dealing in or with Scotland abandon it after that vote? No of course not they will simply carry on regardless as entrepreneurs within an Scottish Capitalist economy.
This is precisely why I assert that an Independent Scotland does NOT equal a
Scottish Republic, that will have to be fought for.
SCOTTISH REFERENDUM WEBSITE
Q> Will the Queen be head of state in an independent Scotland?
Answer: Yes. Scotland will remain a constitutional monarchy with
Her Majesty The Queen as head of state.
Her Majesty will be succeeded by Her heirs and successors according to law.
As is the case in the UK, if a party in favour of changing this position was to gain enough support to form a government, it would be open to it to propose a change.
The current Scottish Government does not support such a change.
John MacLean
John MacLean
1879-1923
1879-1923
John MacLean was a Scottish schoolteacher and Marxist educator. His Marxist evening-classes produced many of the activists who became instrumental in the Clyde revolts during and after WWI. MacLean was appointed both an Honorary President of the first Congress of Soviets and Soviet Consul to Scotland in recognition of his consistent socialist position on the imperialist war and his tireless work in support of the Bolshevik revolution. MacLean was at odds with much of the British left and dismissive of the newly-formed Communist Party of Great Britain. He had already turned his back on economism and the syndicalism favoured by the Clyde Workers’ Committee, had recognised the nature of British imperialism and come to the conclusion that revolution could only come about through the destruction of the British Empire.
John MacLean died on
30th November, 1923.
James Connolly
Born Edinburgh, Scotland of Irish parents – said to have first come to Ireland in his youth as a member of the British Army – married in 1889 – active in The Socialist movement in Edinburgh in the early 1890s – came to Ireland in 1896 and founded the Irish Socialist Republican Party – lectured on socialism in Britain and U.S., 1902 – emigrated to U.S. in 1903 – member of Socialist Labour Party (U.S.) and the Industrial Workers of the World – founded the Irish Socialist Federation in New York, 1907 – returned to Ireland in 1910 as organiser for The Socialist Party of Ireland – Belfast organiser of the Irish Transport and General Workers Union, 1910 – acting Gen. Sec. of I.T.G.W.U. and Commandant of the Irish Citizen Army, 1914 – Commandant General of Dublin Division of the Army of the Republic, 1916 – executed following the 1916 Uprising.
Connolly was born in an Irish slum in Edinburgh[note 1] in 1868.[4] His parents had emigrated to Scotland from Monaghan and settled in the Cowgate, an Irish ghetto where thousands of Irish settled. He spoke with a Scottish accent throughout his life. He was born in St Patrick's Roman Catholic parish, which was known as "Little Ireland".His father and grandfathers were labourers.
He had an education up to the age of about ten in the local Catholic primary school. He then left and worked in labouring jobs. Because of the economic difficulties he was having, like his eldest brother John, he joined the British Army.
SCOTTISH HISTORICAL & CULTURAL LESSONS
ROBERT BURNS
Scots Pioneer Republican?
Much has been written about the legend that is Robert Burns, he is after all in the Scottish National Pantheon. The Icon of them all casting an immense shadow for such a tragically short life-span. This is the moment when Scotland stands on the historic brink a pivotal point in its history, where Burns
Societies the world over will debate the ramifications for Scotland and celebrate or commiserate over the outcome. Which side would Robert Burns have been on? Surely that would have been a foregone conclusion? I fully intended to make great play of this moment in the period leading up to it using Burns as a trumpet for independence. Reading up on Burns to spread the word of his sentiments on the issues involved as a clarion call to the cause, one aspect of the bloke himself could not help but hover over his legacy, something I had but heard alluded to relating to him and that is Freemasonry.
Looking through the literary canon of Robert Burns for the firebrand prose, to proclaim Independence for his native Caledonia. There popping up like weeds in the glorious field were references to The Masons, being an ignoramus in all things Masonic and Burns connection with it. I only spotted the obvious ones with the word Mason actually mentioned in it, I did then discover a more explicit description of Robert Burns participation in Freemasonry. And for me the depressing aspect was the confirmation of what I had hoped was not possible, that much of his most eloquent prose of the Unity of Mankind over adversity was actually inspired by and extolled Freemasonry. The Masons embraced him as much as he them, they helped ensure his work was published and his name spread. Burns must have been a veritable godsend for the Masons, helping to spread and popularise their doctrine. Not in the pedantic sense of a proselytizer but in the more subliminal sense, of getting the sentiments across and accepted as common currency in the popular
vocabulary. Why did Burns embrace Freemasonry? What appealed to Burns in its ethos? Robert Burns has in his youthful reputation a manner and character of the archetypal enfant terrible, one footloose and fancy free with an eye and word to appeal to women. Such is the mythology that doubtless surrounded him in life. The point being that the religious and political establishment may well have looked askance at the very consideration of the youthful Burns, "would you let this reprobate near your daughter?" Could easily be a common fatherly refrain certainly amoung the well heeled burghers of many a parish, that combined with unhealthy nonconformist concepts of equality well heaven forfend. So much for Burns what of Freemasonry? Freemasonry exists as a male club literally as its membership is exclusively masculine, its membership is open to all denominations though its hierarchy is delineated towards anglicanism. Something of a paradox as Freemasonry's concept of God is strictly un-conformist, in that it frankly flies in the face of really every established religions world view of 'Their God'. As Freemasonry has its own unique language, belief system and indeed iconography. Freemasons declare Their God as The Great/Grand Architect of the Universe. Though this is not in itself absolutely unique, I am learning in this regard widening my own hitherto limited understanding of the matter. The concept was used by Saint Thomas Aquinas in 1265-74; In his Summa" God, Who is the first principle of all things, may be compared to things created as the architect is to things designed (ut artifex ad artificiata)."[2]
Again John Calvin, in his Institutes of the Christian Religion (1536) repeatedly calls the Christian God "the Architect of the Universe", also referring to his works as "Architecture of the Universe", and in his commentary on Psalm 19 refers to the Christian God as the "Great Architect" or
"Architect of the Universe".
The concept entered Freemasonry via a Calvinist Minister Reverend James Anderson in his work Book of Constitutions written in 1723.
Page updated
Google Sites
Report abuse