Came across this on the SNP website.
Independence is more popular in Scotland than the Unionists would like you to think.
See Below:
SNP Constitutional Affairs Spokesman Pete Wishart MP has welcomed an opinion poll by Angus Reid Public Opinion which shows a majority of the people of Scotland back independence or more powers with independence as the most popular option for change. The poll also shows that a majority of people across the UK back independence or more powers.
According to the poll 64% of people in Scotland want independence or more powers. This breaks down as 22% for “some additional powers, including the introduction of a new Scottish rate of income tax”; 17% for “many additional powers, such as full financial autonomy from the UK”; and 25% for independence - the greatest number for those supporting constitutional progress.
The poll also showed 56% of people across the UK supported independence or more powers for Scotland - and again independence is the most popular change option.
Commenting Mr Wishart said:
“There is a clear desire for Scotland to move forward and this poll shows that the Scottish Government’s white paper, which lays out these options, is in tune with what the people of Scotland want - the right to have their say on their constitutional future.
“There is an overwhelming desire in Scotland to extend the powers of the parliament, with independence the most popular option for change. The status quo is no longer acceptable to the VAST majority of the people of Scotland, and this poll reflects that.
“It is very welcome that independence is the most favoured option for constitutional progress and it can be the winning option for Scotland.
"The Calman Commission has been kicked into the longest of long grass by Labour and the Tories, and people's aspirations in Scotland are far more ambitious than the watered down ideas of the London-based parties.
“Independence would allow Scotland the ability to generate MORE jobs and investment with full responsibility for our economy; to remove nuclear weapons from our waters rather than spend £100 billion on new weapons of mass destruction; and to keep our forces out of illegal wars.
“We would also be able to use all the levers and powers available to tackle poverty and to fully represent our interests and our values – such as our world leading commitment to tackle climate change - amongst our neighbours, in the EU and in the world.”
ENDS
Monday, 21 December 2009
Sunday, 20 December 2009
Reply to CWI article
A reply to Phillip Stott of CWI
I am disappointed with this article. He argues that present disaffection with current devolution arrangement is caused by failure to solve the problems of working class communities. But this ignores the cultural question and lack of democracy. The strenghtening of Scottish parliamentary powers begins to solve the problem of lack of Scottish Democracy. In other words a parliament the people will find useful to democracy. He recognises the fact we could face a Tory government after the next general election. What better arguments have they ever been to opt for full independence. I am also not happy that he slates the SNP by claiming they would slash public services. I don't think the SNP want that but remain tied to the capitalist system putting limitations on their ability to fight budget cuts and protecting public services. Furthermore Mr Stott of the CWI or Committee Workers International comes out in favour of a parliament with full econonmic powers but ignores the need for full independence. Someone should educate him that in order to get a Socialist Republic first we have to smash the British constitution and crown powers and create a free Scotland, Wales, Ireland and indeed England. Support for beefing up the powers of the Scottish parliament may be widespread amongst the people but that is no excuse not to argue for Scottish independence in full. The political climate will change and indeed the mood of the Scottish people after the election of a Tory government. Republican Socialists will be better placed than ever to argue alongside the SNP for nothing less than Scottish independence therefore solving the problem of a lack of Scottish Democracy.
Larry
I am disappointed with this article. He argues that present disaffection with current devolution arrangement is caused by failure to solve the problems of working class communities. But this ignores the cultural question and lack of democracy. The strenghtening of Scottish parliamentary powers begins to solve the problem of lack of Scottish Democracy. In other words a parliament the people will find useful to democracy. He recognises the fact we could face a Tory government after the next general election. What better arguments have they ever been to opt for full independence. I am also not happy that he slates the SNP by claiming they would slash public services. I don't think the SNP want that but remain tied to the capitalist system putting limitations on their ability to fight budget cuts and protecting public services. Furthermore Mr Stott of the CWI or Committee Workers International comes out in favour of a parliament with full econonmic powers but ignores the need for full independence. Someone should educate him that in order to get a Socialist Republic first we have to smash the British constitution and crown powers and create a free Scotland, Wales, Ireland and indeed England. Support for beefing up the powers of the Scottish parliament may be widespread amongst the people but that is no excuse not to argue for Scottish independence in full. The political climate will change and indeed the mood of the Scottish people after the election of a Tory government. Republican Socialists will be better placed than ever to argue alongside the SNP for nothing less than Scottish independence therefore solving the problem of a lack of Scottish Democracy.
Larry
Friday, 11 December 2009
Still on track for independence
Murray Ritchie
Still on track for independence
Scottish Review
Have I got this right? Alex Salmond, being the Sun King of Scottish politics, governs by force of personality. Without the benefit of a parliamentary majority he gets his way by turning his countenance on his enemies and watching them wilt in his glare.
Perplexed and divided they come up with a cunning plan. They decide to appease the great leader by offering some limited constitutional co-operation. This the Sun King graciously accepts because, of course, it serves his purpose. Half a loaf and all that…
But when the great man calls his opponents' bluff and invites them to vote for their own brainwave they suddenly lose their nerve and run again for shade. It is all rather confusing. They may appear ridiculous, even pathetic, as the onward march of Scottish self-determination is again delayed for a moment or two but that's Scottish politics, folks. We're all gradualists now, like it or not.
This constitutional constipation is interpreted by Salmond's enemies in the venal Holyrood commentariat – where the Unionists enjoy a hostile majority – as the SNP at last hitting the buffers and the Sun King heading for the guillotine.
Well, somehow I doubt it. At times like this the opponents of independence take heart. There’s Michael (Lord) Forsyth suggesting Gordon Brown should obey Wendy Alexander's 'bring it on' demand for an independence referendum. Considering His Lordship made a career from misreading Scottish political opinion, I doubt Gordon Brown would be tempted. I suppose he could overcome his party's parrot protest that in time of economic crisis we have more to worry about than further constitutional change. He could argue that the cost of an independence referendum would be minimal if conducted alongside a general election and his suggested referendum on electoral reform next year.
At first sight it is a plausible plan for calling Mr Salmond's own bluff – except of course that unlike the Unionists, Mr Salmond is not bluffing. He reckons – and I see much force in his optimism – that he might win, and his assorted Unionist opponents – less gung-ho than Forsyth and Alexander – worry that he might be right.
Here's why. At times like this our political class tends to get preoccupied with the small picture, the latest scandal, the newest opinion poll. But after a lifetime watching the SNP and its contribution to Scottish life I suspect the future looks rather rosy for Mr Salmond and for independence. Polls and scandals and reshuffles and by-election successes and failures come and go and are merely the punctuation in Scotland's political story. The narrative only becomes interesting when the SNP is making waves and that has been the storyline now for more than a decade.
History shows you should expect the unexpected with the SNP. Only four years ago the Nationalists were written off in Westminster opinion polls, registering a measly 13% support. Today they are running the country and favourites to continue after 2011. Salmond's plan for independence enjoys, at worst, a sound building block of support from about a third of the electorate where a generation ago it was almost non-existent.
Whenever the SNP dip in the polls we hear how 'the Scottish people don’t want independence' but remember this: we know from these same polls that the Scottish people want more constitutional power in some form. And when they get more devolution we have learned that this just feeds their appetite for yet more. This is gradualism in practice, which is why reaction to Salmond's white paper suggests if you put together those favouring independence and/or more devolution you get a huge majority. That explains Salmond’s belief that a multi-option referendum is another step to independence. If the high road via a referendum next year is closed, then it is only sensible to take the low.
In other words if Salmond manages to chip away at the Union, as he is doing with the Unionists trying to buy him off with concessions, then there will come a time when the pile of chips is bigger than what’s left of the block. From there it is just another step to the Sun King's apotheosis when the Union as we know it will be history.
The story so far has been relentless, from the disappointment of the 1979 referendum which signalled the death of Tory Scotland and the emergence of a new civic nationalism. Eventually this led to the 2007 referendum whose outcome stunned the Unionist last ditchers with the SNP going on to govern from a parliament established with the express objective of killing nationalism stone dead.
Nothing in 300 years of Union has been more significant than Scotland turning to a secessionist party for leadership. As Salmond said at the time there may be Labour governments in future – and he is probably correct – but the Labour/Unionist monolith crushing all aspects of Scottish life is busted for all time. With electoral reform local government has already been opened to all politics, killing off Labour's anti-democratic grip. Holyrood's loaded voting rules could be in line for the chop and if Brown goes ahead as promised with a referendum on Westminster electoral reform we could even see the day when the SNP is Scotland's biggest party in the Commons.
This cannot have escaped the attention of Unionists more thoughtful than Lord Forsyth and must explain why the Unionist coalition is in disarray on Calman.
The Tories have reverted to type on their promise of more devolution by reneging at the first phone call from David Cameron and now say they will bring forward their own proposals if they oust Labour at Westminster.
Labour says it sticks by Calman but won’t actually do anything to legislate unless and until it wins the general election. Some hope. As for the Liberal Democrats, still wondering where their fingers are, who can say?
Anyway, I am not sure British general elections matter much any more in Scotland in these devolutionary days. I remember a by-election in Paisley in 1997 that coincided with a new feature of Scottish politics. System Three opinion polling was first to suggest a consistent difference between voting intentions for Holyrood and Westminster and it proved correct. I can still see the face of Labour's campaigners in that by-election when we showed them the evidence that the SNP vote always rises when the contest is for Holyrood.
Scots may be lukewarm about independence for the moment – which is why Salmond is perforce a cautious gradualist – but they still perceive an advantage in having the SNP in strength in Edinburgh. I can see no reason why this should change and every reason why the SNP can only benefit next time from the Sun King’s personal domination of parliament. According to a Nationalist friend of mine, Salmond is the only man in Scotland who can swagger when he's sitting down. I suspect the Scots rather like that and respect him for it even if not everyone loves him. For the moment our First Minister remains the smartest political operator in Britain and the Scots know it. I have no faith in a government of English Tory toffs driving Scottish voters to independence. Rather the Tories are simply irrelevant now. Labour will split and argue about the Scottish question if defeat comes next year and that again can only benefit Salmond. I suspect the Labour left, if it survives, would warm to independence when it assesses its future.
So, despite those routine dips and blips in its fortunes, I think the independence cause will prosper. Even a defeat two years from now would not be fatal for the SNP, just another pause until the next advance, probably at a time when Scotland is recovering from this year's economic shocks. Salmond knows all this and is content to play the long game, confident that his gradualism proves that advance is inexorable as he continues to confound his opponents. And he can reflect that the other Sun King, the French chap, never faced the guillotine but died in his bed a happy man in old age.
Murray Ritchie is former convener of the Scottish Independence Convention
Still on track for independence
Scottish Review
Have I got this right? Alex Salmond, being the Sun King of Scottish politics, governs by force of personality. Without the benefit of a parliamentary majority he gets his way by turning his countenance on his enemies and watching them wilt in his glare.
Perplexed and divided they come up with a cunning plan. They decide to appease the great leader by offering some limited constitutional co-operation. This the Sun King graciously accepts because, of course, it serves his purpose. Half a loaf and all that…
But when the great man calls his opponents' bluff and invites them to vote for their own brainwave they suddenly lose their nerve and run again for shade. It is all rather confusing. They may appear ridiculous, even pathetic, as the onward march of Scottish self-determination is again delayed for a moment or two but that's Scottish politics, folks. We're all gradualists now, like it or not.
This constitutional constipation is interpreted by Salmond's enemies in the venal Holyrood commentariat – where the Unionists enjoy a hostile majority – as the SNP at last hitting the buffers and the Sun King heading for the guillotine.
Well, somehow I doubt it. At times like this the opponents of independence take heart. There’s Michael (Lord) Forsyth suggesting Gordon Brown should obey Wendy Alexander's 'bring it on' demand for an independence referendum. Considering His Lordship made a career from misreading Scottish political opinion, I doubt Gordon Brown would be tempted. I suppose he could overcome his party's parrot protest that in time of economic crisis we have more to worry about than further constitutional change. He could argue that the cost of an independence referendum would be minimal if conducted alongside a general election and his suggested referendum on electoral reform next year.
At first sight it is a plausible plan for calling Mr Salmond's own bluff – except of course that unlike the Unionists, Mr Salmond is not bluffing. He reckons – and I see much force in his optimism – that he might win, and his assorted Unionist opponents – less gung-ho than Forsyth and Alexander – worry that he might be right.
Here's why. At times like this our political class tends to get preoccupied with the small picture, the latest scandal, the newest opinion poll. But after a lifetime watching the SNP and its contribution to Scottish life I suspect the future looks rather rosy for Mr Salmond and for independence. Polls and scandals and reshuffles and by-election successes and failures come and go and are merely the punctuation in Scotland's political story. The narrative only becomes interesting when the SNP is making waves and that has been the storyline now for more than a decade.
History shows you should expect the unexpected with the SNP. Only four years ago the Nationalists were written off in Westminster opinion polls, registering a measly 13% support. Today they are running the country and favourites to continue after 2011. Salmond's plan for independence enjoys, at worst, a sound building block of support from about a third of the electorate where a generation ago it was almost non-existent.
Whenever the SNP dip in the polls we hear how 'the Scottish people don’t want independence' but remember this: we know from these same polls that the Scottish people want more constitutional power in some form. And when they get more devolution we have learned that this just feeds their appetite for yet more. This is gradualism in practice, which is why reaction to Salmond's white paper suggests if you put together those favouring independence and/or more devolution you get a huge majority. That explains Salmond’s belief that a multi-option referendum is another step to independence. If the high road via a referendum next year is closed, then it is only sensible to take the low.
In other words if Salmond manages to chip away at the Union, as he is doing with the Unionists trying to buy him off with concessions, then there will come a time when the pile of chips is bigger than what’s left of the block. From there it is just another step to the Sun King's apotheosis when the Union as we know it will be history.
The story so far has been relentless, from the disappointment of the 1979 referendum which signalled the death of Tory Scotland and the emergence of a new civic nationalism. Eventually this led to the 2007 referendum whose outcome stunned the Unionist last ditchers with the SNP going on to govern from a parliament established with the express objective of killing nationalism stone dead.
Nothing in 300 years of Union has been more significant than Scotland turning to a secessionist party for leadership. As Salmond said at the time there may be Labour governments in future – and he is probably correct – but the Labour/Unionist monolith crushing all aspects of Scottish life is busted for all time. With electoral reform local government has already been opened to all politics, killing off Labour's anti-democratic grip. Holyrood's loaded voting rules could be in line for the chop and if Brown goes ahead as promised with a referendum on Westminster electoral reform we could even see the day when the SNP is Scotland's biggest party in the Commons.
This cannot have escaped the attention of Unionists more thoughtful than Lord Forsyth and must explain why the Unionist coalition is in disarray on Calman.
The Tories have reverted to type on their promise of more devolution by reneging at the first phone call from David Cameron and now say they will bring forward their own proposals if they oust Labour at Westminster.
Labour says it sticks by Calman but won’t actually do anything to legislate unless and until it wins the general election. Some hope. As for the Liberal Democrats, still wondering where their fingers are, who can say?
Anyway, I am not sure British general elections matter much any more in Scotland in these devolutionary days. I remember a by-election in Paisley in 1997 that coincided with a new feature of Scottish politics. System Three opinion polling was first to suggest a consistent difference between voting intentions for Holyrood and Westminster and it proved correct. I can still see the face of Labour's campaigners in that by-election when we showed them the evidence that the SNP vote always rises when the contest is for Holyrood.
Scots may be lukewarm about independence for the moment – which is why Salmond is perforce a cautious gradualist – but they still perceive an advantage in having the SNP in strength in Edinburgh. I can see no reason why this should change and every reason why the SNP can only benefit next time from the Sun King’s personal domination of parliament. According to a Nationalist friend of mine, Salmond is the only man in Scotland who can swagger when he's sitting down. I suspect the Scots rather like that and respect him for it even if not everyone loves him. For the moment our First Minister remains the smartest political operator in Britain and the Scots know it. I have no faith in a government of English Tory toffs driving Scottish voters to independence. Rather the Tories are simply irrelevant now. Labour will split and argue about the Scottish question if defeat comes next year and that again can only benefit Salmond. I suspect the Labour left, if it survives, would warm to independence when it assesses its future.
So, despite those routine dips and blips in its fortunes, I think the independence cause will prosper. Even a defeat two years from now would not be fatal for the SNP, just another pause until the next advance, probably at a time when Scotland is recovering from this year's economic shocks. Salmond knows all this and is content to play the long game, confident that his gradualism proves that advance is inexorable as he continues to confound his opponents. And he can reflect that the other Sun King, the French chap, never faced the guillotine but died in his bed a happy man in old age.
Murray Ritchie is former convener of the Scottish Independence Convention
Wednesday, 2 December 2009
Independence not despair
Alex Salmond produced his White Paper on a referendum on Scottish Independence on St Andrews Day. A multi-option referendum no less but more significant is the Unionists determination to vote down any referendum in 2010.
As Republican Socialists we are revolutionary in thinking and can see the limitations of parliamentary representative democracy in today's Scotland.
But should we despair? No probably the best time to hold an independence referendum is after the election of a Tory government. People in Scotland will vote Labour, SNP, Green and Socialist but not Conservative. This leaves the unsolved issue for the union that is England votes Tory while Scotland and Wales don't. An issue in the 90s a Westminster government with no democratic mandate to rule in Scotland. The SNP have promised to make independence referendum an election issue (general election) if the Unionists vote down the Referendum Bill.
So are we reformist for waiting for party politics to change our political future? Of course not we put our faith in the working class as John MacLean did. However with no revolution round the corner we still campaign. Let party politics take it's course. The SNP intentions are by large genuine.
So we should say let the Unionists be suffocated by their own intransigence.
As Republican Socialists we are revolutionary in thinking and can see the limitations of parliamentary representative democracy in today's Scotland.
But should we despair? No probably the best time to hold an independence referendum is after the election of a Tory government. People in Scotland will vote Labour, SNP, Green and Socialist but not Conservative. This leaves the unsolved issue for the union that is England votes Tory while Scotland and Wales don't. An issue in the 90s a Westminster government with no democratic mandate to rule in Scotland. The SNP have promised to make independence referendum an election issue (general election) if the Unionists vote down the Referendum Bill.
So are we reformist for waiting for party politics to change our political future? Of course not we put our faith in the working class as John MacLean did. However with no revolution round the corner we still campaign. Let party politics take it's course. The SNP intentions are by large genuine.
So we should say let the Unionists be suffocated by their own intransigence.
Saturday, 28 November 2009
IRSN MacLean Commemoration Statement
IRSN MacLean Commemoration Statement
Comrades,
As Scottish Republican Socialists gather again this year to pay tribute to the inspiration provided by John MacLean, the comrades of the International Republican Socialist Network join you in saluting this giant of the international socialist movement.
The lessons that John MacLean provided in his own time are just as important today, perhaps more so, as the Scottish working class is now in a period of potential opportunity that is unequaled. MacLean recognised that the potential for working class revolution was greater in Scotland than it was in the island of Britain as a whole and on this basis insisted that Scottish workers organise separately, into a distinct revolutionary party. MacLean was no narrow or romantic nationalist- -he was an exemplary internationalist, recognised throughout the international socialist movement for his work in opposition to the fratricide of the first world war--but he understood that the struggle for socialism throughout the islands of Britain and Ireland demanded the destruction of the British imperial state and saw that revolutionary action in Scotland provided a means of striking a blow against British imperialism, assisting the revolutionary forces then active in Ireland, and enabling Sc!
ottish workers their best opportunity for class liberation.
Today in the islands of Britain and Ireland, it remains necessary to undermine and overthrow the reactionary British imperialist state and it is clear that Scottish and Welsh workers would be more powerful within the confines of their distinct nations, at present, than they are when forced to contend with the greater bastions of reaction within England as well. Far from abandoning their English sisters and brothers, this revolutionary strategy offers a means to strike significant blows against the entire British state, which can only assist working class revolutionaries within the English nation.
However, Scottish workers must remember that the republican socialist struggle welds together the fight for national liberation and the struggle to liberate our class. As that other great Scottish-born republican socialist, James Connolly, made plain, these struggles cannot be separated. The national liberation struggle in Scotland can only be won in a meaningful way for Scottish working people through the creation of a Scottish workers' republic and the struggle for socialism in Scotland cannot be won without the destruction of the imperial British state, which means the liberation of the Scottish and Welsh nations from continued union within that state. There is no first this and then this. There is one fight to be one--the struggle to build a Scottish workers' republic and anything that falls short of that is no stepping stone or way-station, but only defeat.
But, there is another aspect of John MacLean's analysis that continues to hold important lessons for Scottish working people; one that receives far less attention. As the historical research of James Young has demonstrated, John MacLean aligned himself with other revolutionary socialists internationally; in Germany and the Netherlands, in Italy and Ireland, in Russia and America who we now refer to by the term Council Communists. This was a revolutionary tendency within international socialism that sought to return to Marx and Engels' understanding that it is the working class itself that can make a social revolution, not any party acting in its name; that it is the working class itself that must lead the way forward to class war and social revolution, because the consciousness of socialism arises from their actual experience under capitalism.
This too, we must learn from MacLean today--our class creates all of the wealth in the world; every wheel that turns does so because our class enables it to; and we need no leadership provided by any class other than our own to determine the road to liberation. The working class movement does not belong in the hands of university lecturers, trade union bureaucrats, or members of the parliament or assembly. but must be led by the working class itself, confident in its own abilities. This lesson from John MacLean is as important for Scottish working women and men today as is his pioneering vision in calling for a Scottish Workers' Republic.
Comrades, today let us pay tribute to the tremendous example provided by John MacLean and let us also re-dedicate ourselves to fight for the Scottish Workers' Republic he first proclaimed and to ensuring that it will be a true Workers' Republic, led by our own class, standing proudly shoulder-to- shoulder. We have been naught, but we shall be all!
Peter Urban
Comrade, International Republican Socialist Network
Thursday, 19 November 2009
Annual John MacLean/St Andrew's Day Rally.
Annual John MacLean/St Andrew's Day Rally.
Sunday November 29
1.30 pm
Gather Corner of Boydston Rd, facing Eastwood Cemetery, where MacLean is buried.
To MacLean Cairn Shawbridege Arcade, Shawbridge St.
Speeches and Albannach, plus Adhamh Macleod and co. in Carey's Bar across the road in Shawbridge St, next to police Station, High Flats.
Gerry Cairns: Oration at MacLean's Grave, Eastwood Cemetery. 1 pm
Speakers inside bar:- Lloyd Quinan, Dr Jas D Young, SNP MSP. Alasdair MacPherson, SNP Bannockburn Councilor, Brian Quail, SCND.
The Scottish Republican Socialist Newsletter is happy to publicise this event. While the author is not a member of SRSM we note the important contribution SRSM make to Republican Socialism in Scotland.
Sunday November 29
1.30 pm
Gather Corner of Boydston Rd, facing Eastwood Cemetery, where MacLean is buried.
To MacLean Cairn Shawbridege Arcade, Shawbridge St.
Speeches and Albannach, plus Adhamh Macleod and co. in Carey's Bar across the road in Shawbridge St, next to police Station, High Flats.
Gerry Cairns: Oration at MacLean's Grave, Eastwood Cemetery. 1 pm
Speakers inside bar:- Lloyd Quinan, Dr Jas D Young, SNP MSP. Alasdair MacPherson, SNP Bannockburn Councilor, Brian Quail, SCND.
The Scottish Republican Socialist Newsletter is happy to publicise this event. While the author is not a member of SRSM we note the important contribution SRSM make to Republican Socialism in Scotland.
Sunday, 15 November 2009
Why we should work together for independence
An independent Scotland would weaken parties like the BNP and deal with the cancer of the Scottish Defence League.
It is time the pro-independence parties sat down to hold discussions with the SNP. A single candidate standing for independence would make sense and ensure the Left did not split the vote. Differences between Scottish Left factions over socialism should not take priority over Scottish independence. Once the transition to independence is made we can battle for a Workers Republic. A Scottish Workers Socialist Republic cannot be achieved without independence. Our goal of a Scottish Republic need not take second place to the agenda of the reformist SNP. But we must keep our eye on the ball and consider the political landscape and the SNP proposals for an independence referendum.
As public support for an referendum on the issue of independence is at an all time high we need to consider the idea of public pressure politics. Where are the demonstrations being organized for an independence referendum? Why have public meetings involving cross party support and public figures not been organized to tour Scotland and bring the message to the people? Why have elections not been used to put an independence referendum to the top of the political agenda? These are some questions we should be asking.
The SNP cannot win independence alone on a platform of constitutional nationalism. They need to be prepared to work with others as the Scottish Left must be prepared to consider the needs of Nationalists to get us to the goal of independence.
The pro-independence parties of the Scottish Greens, Scottish Socialist Party, Solidarity and any others must be willing to hold discussions with the SNP about making independence and the referendum top priority between now and 2012.
We face a general election probably next year with the possibility of years of Tory rule after a Conservative victory. The consequences for Scotland are immense so we must be prepared to work together to smash the British union and the status quo.
Larry
It is time the pro-independence parties sat down to hold discussions with the SNP. A single candidate standing for independence would make sense and ensure the Left did not split the vote. Differences between Scottish Left factions over socialism should not take priority over Scottish independence. Once the transition to independence is made we can battle for a Workers Republic. A Scottish Workers Socialist Republic cannot be achieved without independence. Our goal of a Scottish Republic need not take second place to the agenda of the reformist SNP. But we must keep our eye on the ball and consider the political landscape and the SNP proposals for an independence referendum.
As public support for an referendum on the issue of independence is at an all time high we need to consider the idea of public pressure politics. Where are the demonstrations being organized for an independence referendum? Why have public meetings involving cross party support and public figures not been organized to tour Scotland and bring the message to the people? Why have elections not been used to put an independence referendum to the top of the political agenda? These are some questions we should be asking.
The SNP cannot win independence alone on a platform of constitutional nationalism. They need to be prepared to work with others as the Scottish Left must be prepared to consider the needs of Nationalists to get us to the goal of independence.
The pro-independence parties of the Scottish Greens, Scottish Socialist Party, Solidarity and any others must be willing to hold discussions with the SNP about making independence and the referendum top priority between now and 2012.
We face a general election probably next year with the possibility of years of Tory rule after a Conservative victory. The consequences for Scotland are immense so we must be prepared to work together to smash the British union and the status quo.
Larry
Saturday, 24 October 2009
The right to choose Scottish Freedom
The article in Scotland On Sunday by Mike Russell is most welcome he writes: It is no longer tenable for any democratic party in Scotland to stand in the way of that right to choose
and as time goes by, the confused signals from other parties indicate that they, too, realise there cannot be an indefinite delay in allowing the people to have their say.
The latest example of that is the internal debate within the Scottish Liberal Democrats, who have now convened a special session at their autumn conference next week to debate the party's stance on a referendum That has come about, seemingly, because of deep disquiet in Lib Dem ranks, especially at the grass-roots level, about the position taken by the party leadership in standing against a vote of the people. It is, indeed, passing strange that a party whose very name proclaims its democratic credentials and which ordinarily favours referenda on a range of issues should have thus far proved so resolutely opposed to a referendum on Scotland's future.
As Scottish Republican Socialists we should back the wishes of two-thirds of the Scottish people to be allowed a referendum on independence. Russell also goes on to say "The London parties would do well to heed the words of Irish home rule campaigner Charles Stewart Parnell, whose observation that no-one "has the right to fix the boundary of the march of a nation" prefaced the Scottish Government's first white paper on the constitution in August 2007.
It is clear the people of Scotland want to have a choice on their future, and we intend to give them the chance to seize the benefits that only independence can bring."
Scottish Republican Socialists most welcome the SNP initiative but should warn that attempts to get the Referendum Bill passed in Holyrood could mean accepting a third option on the ballot paper of more fiscal powers from Calman Commission. Most people including the SNP leader Alex Salmond would be more comfortable with a straight choice Yes/No referendum on independence.
And here lies the dilemma of constitutional nationalism that fights as a minority government in parliament.
What is clear is the next general election to Westminster could mean the Tories find themselves without all out victory but instead a hung parliament while unlikely to have any representation in Scotland.
Interesting times certainly lie ahead in the Scottish and London parliaments in 2010. but as a true republican socialist I will not put my faith in parliamentary politics but remain true to revolutionary politics to effect real change and thus a Workers Republic.
Larry
and as time goes by, the confused signals from other parties indicate that they, too, realise there cannot be an indefinite delay in allowing the people to have their say.
The latest example of that is the internal debate within the Scottish Liberal Democrats, who have now convened a special session at their autumn conference next week to debate the party's stance on a referendum That has come about, seemingly, because of deep disquiet in Lib Dem ranks, especially at the grass-roots level, about the position taken by the party leadership in standing against a vote of the people. It is, indeed, passing strange that a party whose very name proclaims its democratic credentials and which ordinarily favours referenda on a range of issues should have thus far proved so resolutely opposed to a referendum on Scotland's future.
As Scottish Republican Socialists we should back the wishes of two-thirds of the Scottish people to be allowed a referendum on independence. Russell also goes on to say "The London parties would do well to heed the words of Irish home rule campaigner Charles Stewart Parnell, whose observation that no-one "has the right to fix the boundary of the march of a nation" prefaced the Scottish Government's first white paper on the constitution in August 2007.
It is clear the people of Scotland want to have a choice on their future, and we intend to give them the chance to seize the benefits that only independence can bring."
Scottish Republican Socialists most welcome the SNP initiative but should warn that attempts to get the Referendum Bill passed in Holyrood could mean accepting a third option on the ballot paper of more fiscal powers from Calman Commission. Most people including the SNP leader Alex Salmond would be more comfortable with a straight choice Yes/No referendum on independence.
And here lies the dilemma of constitutional nationalism that fights as a minority government in parliament.
What is clear is the next general election to Westminster could mean the Tories find themselves without all out victory but instead a hung parliament while unlikely to have any representation in Scotland.
Interesting times certainly lie ahead in the Scottish and London parliaments in 2010. but as a true republican socialist I will not put my faith in parliamentary politics but remain true to revolutionary politics to effect real change and thus a Workers Republic.
Larry
Sunday, 11 October 2009
IRSM release statement
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
11 October 2009
Irish Republican Socialist Party
STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE LEADERSHIP OF THE IRISH REPUBLICAN
SOCIALIST MOVEMENT
The Irish National Liberation Army and Irish Republican Socialist
Party were formed in 1974 in order to create a 32 County Socialist
Republic. In those 35 years, military volunteers and political
activists have fought with courage and honour and have struck at the
heart of the British military and political machine in Ireland and in
Britain. The INLA is a key constituency within the Republican
Socialist Movement. The INLA recognised that its struggle was based
upon two distinct phases:
1. Armed Resistance
2. Political Organisation
In 1994, the INLA put in place a no first strike policy and in 1998
called a complete ceasefire. Both of these decisions were based on
its political analysis and monitoring of the changing military and
political environment. The recent progress on loyalist
decommissioning can be traced back to the INLA's no first strike
policy of 1994 and the INLA acknowledges this progressive step by
loyalism.
The RSM has been informed by the INLA that following a process of
serious debate, consultation and analysis, it has concluded that the
armed struggle is over and the objective of a 32 County Socialist
Republic will be best achieved through exclusively peaceful political
struggle.
The RSM agree with this analysis and are fully supportive of the move
to build a left wing party that has a clear objective of a 32 County
Socialist Republic based on the principles of equality, justice,
inclusion, human rights and dignity.
It is within the above objective that the RSM opposed the Good Friday
Agreement and continues to do so. We as a movement believe that the
Six County State is not a viable political entity, which cannot be
reformed and fitted into a flawed two state solution.
The RSM has always aspired to the principle of the primacy of
politics as espoused by Ta Power.
The future struggles are political. We urge all comrades, members,
volunteers and supporters to join the political struggle ahead with
the same vigour, commitment and courage that was evident in our armed
struggle against the British State.
To paraphrase James Connolly, "let us arise," build a left political
alternative in Ireland and support the struggle against global
capitalism.
Ultimately our allegiance is to the working class. Onwards to victory.
###
Irish Republican Socialist Party
Costello House
392B Falls Road
Belfast BT12 6DH
Ireland
Click here for IRSM website
11 October 2009
Irish Republican Socialist Party
STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE LEADERSHIP OF THE IRISH REPUBLICAN
SOCIALIST MOVEMENT
The Irish National Liberation Army and Irish Republican Socialist
Party were formed in 1974 in order to create a 32 County Socialist
Republic. In those 35 years, military volunteers and political
activists have fought with courage and honour and have struck at the
heart of the British military and political machine in Ireland and in
Britain. The INLA is a key constituency within the Republican
Socialist Movement. The INLA recognised that its struggle was based
upon two distinct phases:
1. Armed Resistance
2. Political Organisation
In 1994, the INLA put in place a no first strike policy and in 1998
called a complete ceasefire. Both of these decisions were based on
its political analysis and monitoring of the changing military and
political environment. The recent progress on loyalist
decommissioning can be traced back to the INLA's no first strike
policy of 1994 and the INLA acknowledges this progressive step by
loyalism.
The RSM has been informed by the INLA that following a process of
serious debate, consultation and analysis, it has concluded that the
armed struggle is over and the objective of a 32 County Socialist
Republic will be best achieved through exclusively peaceful political
struggle.
The RSM agree with this analysis and are fully supportive of the move
to build a left wing party that has a clear objective of a 32 County
Socialist Republic based on the principles of equality, justice,
inclusion, human rights and dignity.
It is within the above objective that the RSM opposed the Good Friday
Agreement and continues to do so. We as a movement believe that the
Six County State is not a viable political entity, which cannot be
reformed and fitted into a flawed two state solution.
The RSM has always aspired to the principle of the primacy of
politics as espoused by Ta Power.
The future struggles are political. We urge all comrades, members,
volunteers and supporters to join the political struggle ahead with
the same vigour, commitment and courage that was evident in our armed
struggle against the British State.
To paraphrase James Connolly, "let us arise," build a left political
alternative in Ireland and support the struggle against global
capitalism.
Ultimately our allegiance is to the working class. Onwards to victory.
###
Irish Republican Socialist Party
Costello House
392B Falls Road
Belfast BT12 6DH
Ireland
Click here for IRSM website
'Armed struggle is over' - INLA
Both the BBC and RTE have reported a significant development in the history of the Irish National Liberation Army. This weblog recognises the importance role of Ireland's Republican Socialist Movement towards peace and an end to sectarianism. For improved communities and an end to the drugs problem in society.
The Scottish Republican Socialist Newsletter salute the INLA and RSM for this brave decision.
BBC Report below:
'Armed struggle is over' - INLA
INLA men at funeral in 1996
The INLA has been on ceasefire for 11 years
An Irish republican paramilitary group responsible for dozens of murders during Northern Ireland's Troubles has renounced violence.
The Irish National Liberation Army said its "armed struggle is over".
The INLA said it would pursue its objectives from now on by "exclusively peaceful political struggle".
Its statement did not mention weapons decommissioning, but it is understood talks have begun and the government hopes the process will begin in months.
A small group which proved itself to be ruthless during the Troubles, it has been on ceasefire for 11 years.
The statement was issued through its political wing, the Irish Republican Socialist Party, at an event in Bray, County Wicklow on Sunday.
"The republican socialist movement has been informed by the INLA that following a process of serious debate, consultation and analysis, it has concluded that the armed struggle is over," it said.
"The objective of a 32-county socialist republic will be best achieved through exclusively peaceful political struggle."
'Deadline'
Northern Ireland Secretary Shaun Woodward said he welcomed the INLA's statement but "it is essential that words are matched to deeds".
Mr Woodward urged the INLA to destroy its weapons before the deadline in February when the decommissioning body is due to be wound up.
Established in 1975, many of its recruits were former members of the Official IRA.
They murdered Conservative Northern Ireland spokesman Airey Neave in 1979 by leaving a bomb under his car at Westminster.
The organisation was also responsible for one of Northern Ireland's worst atrocities.
In 1982 it killed 17 people in a bomb attack on the Droppin' Well pub in Ballykelly, County Londonderry.
INLA KILLINGS 1975 - 2001
Scene of Droppin' Well bombing
42 civilians
46 UK security forces
16 republican paramilitaries
Seven loyalist paramilitary
Two Irish security forces
Total: 113
Republican figures includes 10 INLA members killed in feuds
*Source: CAIN Troubles archive
Who are the INLA?
In pictures: INLA history
Political reaction
The INLA also murdered loyalist LVF leader Billy Wright at the Maze prison.
Three members of the INLA died in the jail while on hunger strike in the 1980s.
Despite being on ceasefire since 1998, it has carried out a number of shootings and engaged in a wide range of criminal activity.
The group has regularly indulged in bouts of bloody infighting.
In February this year, the INLA claimed responsibility for the murder of a drug dealer in Londonderry.
It is mainly involved in organised crime, such as extortion and robbery.
Last year police investigating the INLA and associates in County Londonderry seized controlled drugs with an estimated value of £10,000.
The INLA has been talking to intermediaries representing the British and Irish governments for several months.
The group is also believed to be engaged in talks with the head of the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning, General John de Chastelain about putting its weapons beyond use.
RTE Report:
INLA ends campaign of violence
Sunday, 11 October 2009 16:17
The INLA has announced that it is to end its armed struggle.
In a statement read out at the commemoration of its founding member, a spokesperson said that it would continue its campaign for a 32 County Socialist Republic through peaceful and political means.
This afternoon in Bray, Co Wicklow, around 60 republicans and socialists gathered for their annual commemoration of Seamus Costello.
Advertisement
He was the man who, 35 years ago, founded the Irish National Liberation Army.
After the traditional wreath -laying ceremony, a member of the Irish Republican Socialist Party, the political wing of the INLA, announced that the organisation had decided to end its armed struggle.
He said that the group had concluded that its objective of a 32 County Socialist Republic was best achieved through peaceful and political means.
The announcement brings to an end a 35 year campaign which has claimed around 150 lives.
After the IRA called its ceasefires in the 90s and eventually ended its campaign, the INLA remained in existence.
The INLA was notorious for the ruthless nature of its attacks and today's decision is both a significant and welcome development.
In recent years it was involved in several murders and has remained active in Derry, Strabane, parts of Belfast and in Dublin.
The PSNI and gardaí often linked it to racketeering and drugs related businesses.
The Scottish Republican Socialist Newsletter salute the INLA and RSM for this brave decision.
BBC Report below:
'Armed struggle is over' - INLA
INLA men at funeral in 1996
The INLA has been on ceasefire for 11 years
An Irish republican paramilitary group responsible for dozens of murders during Northern Ireland's Troubles has renounced violence.
The Irish National Liberation Army said its "armed struggle is over".
The INLA said it would pursue its objectives from now on by "exclusively peaceful political struggle".
Its statement did not mention weapons decommissioning, but it is understood talks have begun and the government hopes the process will begin in months.
A small group which proved itself to be ruthless during the Troubles, it has been on ceasefire for 11 years.
The statement was issued through its political wing, the Irish Republican Socialist Party, at an event in Bray, County Wicklow on Sunday.
"The republican socialist movement has been informed by the INLA that following a process of serious debate, consultation and analysis, it has concluded that the armed struggle is over," it said.
"The objective of a 32-county socialist republic will be best achieved through exclusively peaceful political struggle."
'Deadline'
Northern Ireland Secretary Shaun Woodward said he welcomed the INLA's statement but "it is essential that words are matched to deeds".
Mr Woodward urged the INLA to destroy its weapons before the deadline in February when the decommissioning body is due to be wound up.
Established in 1975, many of its recruits were former members of the Official IRA.
They murdered Conservative Northern Ireland spokesman Airey Neave in 1979 by leaving a bomb under his car at Westminster.
The organisation was also responsible for one of Northern Ireland's worst atrocities.
In 1982 it killed 17 people in a bomb attack on the Droppin' Well pub in Ballykelly, County Londonderry.
INLA KILLINGS 1975 - 2001
Scene of Droppin' Well bombing
42 civilians
46 UK security forces
16 republican paramilitaries
Seven loyalist paramilitary
Two Irish security forces
Total: 113
Republican figures includes 10 INLA members killed in feuds
*Source: CAIN Troubles archive
Who are the INLA?
In pictures: INLA history
Political reaction
The INLA also murdered loyalist LVF leader Billy Wright at the Maze prison.
Three members of the INLA died in the jail while on hunger strike in the 1980s.
Despite being on ceasefire since 1998, it has carried out a number of shootings and engaged in a wide range of criminal activity.
The group has regularly indulged in bouts of bloody infighting.
In February this year, the INLA claimed responsibility for the murder of a drug dealer in Londonderry.
It is mainly involved in organised crime, such as extortion and robbery.
Last year police investigating the INLA and associates in County Londonderry seized controlled drugs with an estimated value of £10,000.
The INLA has been talking to intermediaries representing the British and Irish governments for several months.
The group is also believed to be engaged in talks with the head of the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning, General John de Chastelain about putting its weapons beyond use.
RTE Report:
INLA ends campaign of violence
Sunday, 11 October 2009 16:17
The INLA has announced that it is to end its armed struggle.
In a statement read out at the commemoration of its founding member, a spokesperson said that it would continue its campaign for a 32 County Socialist Republic through peaceful and political means.
This afternoon in Bray, Co Wicklow, around 60 republicans and socialists gathered for their annual commemoration of Seamus Costello.
Advertisement
He was the man who, 35 years ago, founded the Irish National Liberation Army.
After the traditional wreath -laying ceremony, a member of the Irish Republican Socialist Party, the political wing of the INLA, announced that the organisation had decided to end its armed struggle.
He said that the group had concluded that its objective of a 32 County Socialist Republic was best achieved through peaceful and political means.
The announcement brings to an end a 35 year campaign which has claimed around 150 lives.
After the IRA called its ceasefires in the 90s and eventually ended its campaign, the INLA remained in existence.
The INLA was notorious for the ruthless nature of its attacks and today's decision is both a significant and welcome development.
In recent years it was involved in several murders and has remained active in Derry, Strabane, parts of Belfast and in Dublin.
The PSNI and gardaí often linked it to racketeering and drugs related businesses.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)