The campaign for Scottish Freedom

Join the real Scottish Republican Socialists
To join Scotland's real republican socialists send an email to redlarry1962@googlemail.com and provide your real name, trade union organisation if any and political affiliation or belief.Also we need to know the town or city you live in. Or join our news and debate forum on.
http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/group/scotsocialistfreedom/

The Scottish Socialist Freedom Group is the only genuine republican socialist organisation in Scotland. Unlike others we have not sold out to the constitutionalist SNP and remain true to Scottish Republican Socialism by revolutionary means through political activity.

Our current aim is to recruit new members in Scotland committed to independence and socialism. We can meet up and formulate aims and our strategy over the coming months. Target areas remain Glasgow, Edinburgh and Dundee but will accept members to communicate whatever location or country they reside.

Don't get mad get even and join us today

www.ssfg.weebly.com

Re: Federal Republic of Scotland?

The Republican Socialist analysis in Ireland of Eire Nua's federalist advocacy (that is, the position of the IRSP, when this position was first advanced) was that it was a sop to the loyalist/unionist community of the six counties and was contrary to the realities of contemporary Irish society and potentially harmful to the nationalist communities of the six counties.

By advocating a four province, federal state, Sinn Fein seemed to think, the loyalists might perceive themselves as retaining significant influence within the province of Ulster, even were the province restored to its original nine county status, instead of the abbreviated six counties retained by Britain in order to gerrymander a loyalist majority. Insofar as the loyalists had since the creation of the six county statelet used their dominance to oppress and terrorize the nationalist population, advocacy of anything resembling a continuation of this situation could be called reckless at worst and ill-conceived at best.

While Scotland has experience of the sectarian 'orange and green' divide, it is one that immigated to Scotland along with the Scotish populace formerly resident in Ireland and lacks the geographic concentrations that exist in Ireland. Were there a sectarian community resident in the highlands or islands hostile to the populace of the central belt, for example, one might be able to see why such a proposal was being advanced, but the reality is that to the extent a sectarian divide exists within the Scottish populace, both sides of that sectarian divide are more likely to be found in Glasgow than in any hinterlands of the nation.

An argument could be advanced that the divide between the speakers of Lallans and the speakers of Scot's Gaelig (essentially a lowlands/highlands divide) or the division between the pockets of Scottish Catholicism and the Kirk (essentially a division between small pockets in the islands and the mainland of Scotland) could provide a basis for some form of federalism. However, in the latter instance, there are probably far more Catholics in Glasgow than in the rest of Scotland combined and, in regard to the former, the extent to which the gaelig-speaking communities remaining in Scotland provide a viable base for federal division is clearly open to debate.

When one considers the significant difference that still exist between the highlands and islands and the lowlands, a strong case could be made that the populace of the highlands and islands might benefit from some constitutional protections being erected to secure their interests from being trampled upon by the far larger populace of the central belt and southern lowlands, but this doesn't necessitate the move to federalism to ensure. Scots should bear these legitimate concerns of those living in the highlands and islands when drafting a constitution after winning an independent Scottish workers' republic, however--even within a workers' republic the cultural, geographic, and historic differences between Scotland's highland and lowland populace argue for safeguards that will protect those characteristics most desirable, without preserving the reactionary attributes that have sometimes accompanied them.

More important than consideration of whether or not to adopt a federal approach to Scottish independence is consideration of the class orientation followed towards Scottish independence. Scottish independence must reflect a genuine national liberation for it to have meaning for the masses of the Scottish people and in contemporary times real national liberation is impossible without breaking the fetters of imperialism and globalized capitalism that undermine the national sovereignty of all peoples. For Scottish workers to remain oppressed by foreign imperialists and native capitalists in an independent Scotland is to have won nothing worth having. The imperative of Scottish national liberation is rooted in the reality that it is only through the break up of the archaic British state that the working class of all the nations of the islands or Britain and Ireland will be able to win their liberation as workers and as human beings. That said, the Scottish working class would be fool-hardy to support any two-stage argument that calls upon them to support the creation of an independent capitalist Scotland as an intermediate step towards building socialism.

The central tenet of the republican socialist tendency, that the struggles for national liberation and socialism are inseparablly intertwined remains as true today as it did in the time of James Connolly or John MacLean. The majority of Scotland's people are workers and those Scottish workers must insist that the creation of an independent Scottish republic is also the creation of a workers' republic.

Peter Urban
International Republican Socialist Network

Federal Republic of Scotland?

I have received an email about a Federal Republic of Scotland and the position of Scottish republicans. I am not an expert on federalism so could only give a general reply.

Hi, I wanted to ask a question regarding your movement. Is a "Federal Republic of Scotland" being advocated for or against by the Scottish republican movement, and what is the opinion of the Scottish republicans regarding intra-Scotland federalism?

I wanted to ask this because this was put forth by Irish republicans as part of an "Éire Nua" proposal ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89ire_Nua ), although the Éire Nua is controversial among Northern Irish republicans like Sinn Fein because of its concessions to Northern Irish protestants (who desire no less than a pronounced degree of autonomy, preferably, in protestant eyes, under a Protestant ruler than a Catholic one) in a United Ireland; outside of the republican movement, a federal republic of Ireland has also been proposed for pragmatic, local reasons, including the geopolitical distance between the services of the government in Dublin and the needs of local governments in other areas.

My supposition is that a federal republic of Scotland would address concerns regarding social self-governance at the local and regional levels better than a unitary, Glasgow-centric republic would post-independence. Furthermore, it would give greater political flexibility to local areas of Scotland in the same way that devolution and further future liberalizations of Westminster's hold over Scotland have for the political and economic viability of the country.

So, what is the opinion of the Scottish republican movement regarding a "Federal Republic of Scotland?"

Rayne
USA

And my reply:

Hi

The concept of federalism has never been debated by Scottish Republicans or Scottish Republican Socialists that I am aware of.

The Eire Nua model as advocated by Republican Sinn Fein and dropped by Gerry and his Provos is probably one of the most workable constitutional arrangements for a United Ireland. This is because the island is made up of 4 provinces one of which Ulster remains in the chains and bondage of British imperialism. I have a lot of respect for RSF's Eire Nua programme.

In Scotland the regions are different so where would we place the devolved parliaments? Or should our regions eg: Highland's & islands, Strathclyde, Tayside etc..become federal states within an independent Scotland?

You raise interesting questions on federalism of which I am not an expert on these matters.

As for a unitary state as an independent Scotland the parliament is likely to be situated in Edinburgh and yes it would be true to say Scotland is no different than any other country that the regions have specific issues and problems where a federal solution within independence could be an interesting programme to implement.

What we do not support is preservation of the union with Britain so would not be happy to settle with a Federal state within the UK.

Saying all this the pressing matters for republicans in Scotland has been the independence arguments and the need for a referendum to settle the matter for time being.

It would be interesting to debate the merits of federalism within an independent Scotland if I knew what forum would debate this I would be glad to hear about it. So far the independence movement have not been known to debate the merits of federalism within an independent Scotland.

Slainte
LM

IRSM video

Interview on US Radio with Marian Price 32 County Sovereignty Movement / IRPWA

The link below is an interview with Marian Price (Irish Republican Prisoners Welfare Association / The 32 County Sovereignty Movement on Radio Free Ireland Portland Oregon the link below is takes you to a podcast of the interview,

Interview with Marian Price 32 County Sovereignty Movement / IRPWA

What the 32 County Sovereignty Movement stand for

There exists an Anglo-Irish conflict. There exists in Ireland a prevailing politics engendered by this conflict incapable of resolving the conflict. Irish Democracy, A Framework for Unity is a political strategy for resolution of the Anglo-Irish conflict. It is a policy of democracy and for democracy. It is a policy to achieve Irish unification. As Irish republicans we pursue a separatist agenda rejecting the right or need to any British dimension in Irish politics other than those of mutual interest between two sovereign nations. The policy is predicated on the construction and practice of a new politics, democratically based, people inclusive and sovereign in expression and integrity. It is an Irish political policy.

The prevailing politics in Ireland is British politics in Ireland. This is the cause of conflict and the cause which perpetuates the conflict. British politics in Ireland, partition, is a violation of Irish sovereignty. It prohibits the Irish people to national self determination and true democratic expression. It is a colonial practice, a lingering remnant of a once world politics comprehensively rejected and reviled. Democracy is the ultimate expression of this rejection and Irish democracy must be this expression made manifest by a politics practiced from it. It is from this realisation that the politics of conflict resolution must be constructed.

Alternative politics for conflict resolution must be measured against their ability to achieve this end and not against political thinking which has already failed to do so. Republican ability must be set against the cause of conflict and not distracted by comparison to already failed strategies. The alternative to not seeking sovereign independence is to seek sovereign independence by constructing political strategies predicated on this objective. Irish Democracy, A Framework for Unity is such a political strategy.

As with any political strategy the 32 County Sovereignty Movement’s must be formatted on the basis of its just political foundation, its clearly outlined objective and its mechanism to pursue its realisation. It must address political reality if it wishes to secure fundamental change to it. As a policy, and as a strategy, the relationship between our political objective and our political strategies to achieve it must be underpinned by a clarity of purpose so as one cannot be undermined by the other. Throughout Irish history there were/are many advocates of the separatist position who ultimately sought popular endorsement to justify their abandonment of it. In more concise terms advocacy of the separatist position must be synonymous with its pursuit. The clarity of purpose in the Irish instance is sovereign democracy wherein any political initiative purporting to act in pursuit of the separatist ideal cannot in any way undermine the integrity of our right to that sovereign democracy. All politics on the island must be held accountable to this criterion.

Irish Democracy, A Framework for Unity is thus drafted under three principle headings;

1.Political Foundation.

2.Definition of Objective.

3.Political Strategies.

From these evolves the broader strategy as it relates to our perception of the conflict and the perceptions of others which confront us. Its principle tool is democratic scrutiny. The policy holds that democracy is the most potent panacea for conflict resolution and no less so for the Anglo-Irish conflict. The relationship between Irish sovereign integrity and Irish democracy is indivisible. A derogation of either imparts a derogation of the other.

We define Irish democracy as an expression of its people’s will, inclusive, accountable and unhindered by any external impediment. We reject the notion of it being a statistical headcount or a numerical mechanism by which the violation of its sovereign basis can in someway be legitimised. The British violation of Irish sovereignty is the cause of the Anglo-Irish conflict.

POLITICAL FOUNDATION

The Irish people are a sovereign people. The island of Ireland is the sovereign territory of the Irish people. These are historical and indisputable facts. They form the bedrock of the republican demand for Irish independence. Ireland, like many other small nations, was subject to colonisation and its history was primarily authored by its people’s resistance to it. Ireland was never a willing colony. The drive behind this resistance was the Irish people’s innate sense of our separate identity. This was conceded by the colonising power as it was this separate identity which marked us out for widespread coercion and discrimination.

The history of British colonialism in Ireland is one of repression, appeasement and coercion. The objective of British politics in Ireland is to remain in Ireland. The imperial concept of divide and conquer continues to be the principle mechanism by which the British maintains its presence. This policy, not unique to Ireland, involved the imposition of colonial settlers coupled with the implementation of draconian laws so that their minority status was given majority status authority. The Penal Laws of the 17th century represented a systematic attempt to eradicate the concept of Irishness as a separate identity and to replace it with an Anglo- Protestant ethos in which the minority garrison settlers were to be assured social, political, economical and religious dominance.

The political and economic systems which these laws created where systems in which political and social violence prevailed. Ireland was governed by imperial appointees, unrepresentative sectarian assemblies and flawed constitutions. It had disastrous consequences for the Irish people. Endemic poverty, famine, mass emigration and violence were the hallmarks of British colonialism in Ireland. In 1798 Theobald Wolfe Tone, the founder of Irish republican separatism, initiated an armed rebellion declaring the right of Ireland to complete independence and that such independence was the only course which could resolve the artificial differences fostered amongst the Irish people. The British responded with savage repression and introduced the Act of Union in 1801 declaring Ireland to be an integral part of the United Kingdom.

In the century which followed Ireland witnessed a cycle of rebellion, constitutional agitation, famine amounting to genocide and land wars. The British pursued repression, appeasement and coercion in attempting to pacify its occupation. Ireland could not be pacified.
Although a clear political cohesion did not always exist in the politics which fought British colonialism this was to change in 1916 when the separatist position was defined in terms of the sovereignty of the Irish people. At the outset of rebellion the President of the Provisional Government of the Irish people, P.H Pearse, read out a Proclamation which declared that;

…the right of the people of Ireland to the ownership of Ireland, and to the unfettered control of Irish destinies, to be sovereign and indefeasible.’

In so doing Pearse defined what the British had no right to trespass on or which no Irish representative had any right to deviate from. In response the British Government executed the Provisional Government of the Irish people.

In revulsion at this act the Irish people overwhelmingly endorsed, by popular ballot in the general election of 1918, separatist candidates who had pledged in manifesto to uphold that which was declared in the 1916 Proclamation and to convene an Irish parliament, Dail Eireann, to legislate for the Irish people. In 1919 Dail Eireann issued A Declaration Of Independence declaring,

‘Whereas the Irish people are by right a free people;’

Upon this premise, and by their status as the elected representatives of all the Irish people, enacted it the same declaration,

‘We ordain that the elected Representatives of the Irish People alone have power to make laws binding on the people of Ireland, and that the Irish Parliament is the only Parliament to which that people will give their allegiance’

The British declared Dail Eireann illegal and war ensued. The War of Independence, between the Irish Republican Army and the British occupation forces concluded with the signing of a treaty in 1922 by which the island of Ireland was partitioned. Twenty six counties were given limited Home Rule and the remaining six, in which a national minority held numerical majority, were allowed secede. Dail Eireann, by entertaining a treaty which subverted the sovereignty of the people, usurped its own authority and voted, under threat of ‘immediate and terrible war’, in favour of the treaty. A Civil war ensued wherein pro-treaty forces received British military and political assistance.

Partition and most notably its abject failure has dominated Irish political life ever since. Ireland remains as a failed colonial remnant with the violent consequences which that automatically entails. It is the political position of the 32CSM that the resolution of the Anglo-Irish conflict must commence from the explicit recognition of the sovereignty of the Irish people and our inalienable right to exercise self determination with the integrity of our sovereignty unimpeded.

We practice a politics which is unequivocal on this fundamental right and reject as flawed, subverting and inadequate any political premise purporting to act in national interests which derogates from this right. The Declaration of Independence did not mark the achievement of Irish freedom but represented its lawful expression, mandating the Irish people with the right to defend it. Irish independence, Irish sovereignty and our right to defend them can never be viewed as anachronistic.

Irish independence is a democratic right and is also the democratic solution to the Anglo-Irish conflict. In consequence Irish democratic politics, in its advocacy and practice, must place our independence both as its central objective and its central political strategy. All politics must be accountable to democracy and democracy must be accountable to sovereign integrity. The 32CSM holds that the Irish people are a sovereign people fully entitled to national self determination. It is the British contention that we are not a sovereign people and it is the British demand that the Irish people should practice a politics which recognises this. Politics based on the pre acceptance of any form of legitimacy afforded to partition is British politics in Ireland. We reject such politics.

DEFINITION of OBJECTIVE

The objective of the 32CSM, the republican separatist objective, is the restoration of Irish sovereignty by the immediate end to the British violation of it. We seek a sovereign Irish democracy for the Irish people.

Our objective is also our strategy. The politics of Irish freedom must be free from any politics which would subvert it. We seek of others, as we do ourselves, the practicing of the politics of Irish freedom.

Our objective is the realisation of our Declaration of Independence. Our objective is the objective of Wolfe Tone, of Robert Emmet, of Fintan Lalor, of Charles Kickham, of Padraig Pearse, of Liam Lynch, of Sean McCaughey, of Sean South and of Francis Hughes. Our objective is the historical objective of Irish republicanism.

POLITICAL STRATEGY

Our strategy is conflict resolution through democracy. It is an engagement with our political opponents at national and international level. It is the development of an Irish Democracy Process to secure a sovereign foundation for national self determination.

A ‘peace process’ is primarily driven by the emotiveness of its language and the electoral constraints of its participants desperate to avoid the perception of being viewed as anti peace. The political decision making process is reduced to party political considerations and electioneering. It cannot form the basis of conflict resolution because the issue of national sovereignty transcends party politics. National matters require national thinking.

Peace is not the absence of war and the politics of peace is not a process to avoid the breakdown of a ceasefire. A democracy process contains the necessary criteria to address the causes of conflict and to secure a political framework that can allow peace and justice to prevail.

There are different parties to the Anglo-Irish conflict each reflecting their own interpretations of it and answerable to their own constituencies as to how they interact with it. The flaw in current thinking holds that the resolution to the conflict is to be found in harmonising these diverse political stances rather than holding them to account as they relate to the cause of that conflict. All parties have a role in the conflict resolution process and each party must address any democratic deficiency which their position entails and it is the strategy of the 32CSM to ensure that they do.

Identifying these deficiencies requires a critical analysis set against a definition of democracy based on sovereign integrity, inclusiveness and accountability. The 32CSM submit that an Irish Democratic Framework meets this definition. An Irish Democratic Framework represents a just mechanism to resolve the conflict and the ensuing conflicts engendered thereof. In outline this framework offers;

1.A sovereign democratic expression for the Irish people.

2.Maximum inclusiveness in the democratic process.

3.Real accountability to and from government.

4.Real influence in forming government.

5.Constitutional and sovereign stability.

It is against this backdrop that peace can be secured by challenging the standing of existing positions as they relate to these fundamental democratic necessities.

A.The British Government.

The British government is the occupying power. The British government is not democratically accountable to any section of the Irish people. It is for the British government to defend this position and explain how it is tenable in an international context. The 32CSM has already issued that challenge through the auspices of the United Nations by legally challenging the British claim to sovereignty in Ireland. Clearly a duty exists on all democratic parties to challenge blatant undemocratic practices. It is the strategy of the 32CSM to ensure these parties take up this challenge.

In as much as there is this singular onus on the British government to address the issue of Irish sovereignty to secure a final settlement there exists other responsibilities for them also. As the claimed sovereign authority a neutral stance on its political intentions in Ireland is unacceptable. The nature, strategies and longevity of the Anglo-Irish conflict has created deep suspicion and fear amongst sections of the Irish people. The British government must comprehensively and definitively address these real concerns. In consequence the 32CSM calls on the British government, and for the other parties to do likewise, to clearly spell out their long term political intentions towards Ireland. The political intentions of the British government impact on all parties concerned thus creating an imperative for these parties to seek out what these intentions may be.

B.The Irish Government

A government calling itself the Irish government has a duty to defend Irish rights and interests. On national matters it has a duty to bring an Irish political perspective to bear. It alone, without external influence, must define Irish sovereignty and act accordingly. It must accept or reject the validity of the Declaration of Independence. The Irish government represents the foremost Irish political power on the island which affords it access to political corridors prohibitive to other parties. This places options at its disposal to address the conflict at national and international level. These include political, diplomatic, legal and economic forums in which Irish claims can be pursued and pressure can be brought to bear on other parties to engage on the issue of Irish sovereignty. The 32CSM calls on the Irish Government to take the lead in supporting the United Nations challenge to British claims of sovereignty in Ireland and to fully utilise all options open to it for this end. It must equally be held accountable as to why, and if, such options are not availed of and fully explored

As with the British government the Irish government has an equal responsibility in addressing suspicion and uncertainty amongst the Irish people on future political direction. As with the British government a neutral stance on behalf of the Irish government is also unacceptable. The Irish government has stated that it favours Irish unity by ‘consent’ but what is its political programme to achieve this ‘consent’. How does it envisage that Irish unity will be brought to pass? The 32CSM will hold the Irish government to task on its stated position and will pressure other parties to do likewise. Irish government intentions also have a bearing on all involved which adds an imperative on parties to engage with government to discern what these political intentions may be.

The Irish government has no option but to engage on the concept of an Irish Democratic Framework as the principle political mechanism for resolving differences between sections of the Irish people. In its pursuit of unionist ‘consent’ the Irish government must outline its vision of an inclusive Irish democracy for them and detail the sovereign basis upon which it is justifiably founded.

C.Unionists

The unionist people are Irish people. Unionism is an Irish political tradition. Since their arrival in Ireland in the 17th century those who formed the unionist persuasion have calibrated their political identity against an Irish measure and not a British one. Unionists have sought domination both as a minority on the island and as a majority within part of it. In its professed loyalty to Britain unionists have never sought equality within the democratic structure of Britain but sought veto over its decision making process as it effected the unionist tradition. Equally this veto was employed to ensure unionist insulation from the democratic wishes of the people on the island of Ireland. The veto is in effect a mechanism for unionists to secede from democratic structures which could render them a numerical minority. In tandem with this scenario is the enforced minority status afforded Irish nationalists in the artificial six county region whose sole purpose was to give economic credibility to the gerrymandered entity. Peace cannot be secured or consolidated by giving credence or constitutional protection to blatant anti democratic arrangements. It is the role of the 32CSM to challenge any political participant in such an arrangement to justify themselves and to explain on what democratic basis such arrangements are undertaken.

The hallmark of the relationship between unionists and the British government is one of profound and perennial mistrust. It is a grotesque scenario which serves only to reinforce a deep scepticism in the political and democratic process in Ireland. This mistrust is the hallmark of the historical relationship between the colonising power and the settler garrison. The proven antidote for this mistrust has been for those settlers to forge a democratic relationship with the indigenous population to help build a new and free nation. This is the strategic approach of the 32CSM to our fellow Irish people. Unionists face an imperative to address the deceit inherent in the British colonial mindset and to make preparation for their place in a democratic sovereign Irish nation. In consequence the 32CSM extends the hand of dialogue to unionists in full recognition that the fabric of a new democratic society cannot be tailored without their significant input. The future we both face into is a dependence on each other. The future of the unionist people is in Ireland.

D.Constitutional Nationalism

Irish constitutional nationalism, (ICN) in its historical and contemporary outlook, views a British dimension to Irish politics as intrinsic to its practice. One of the great fallacies in Irish political history is to interpret the difference between constitutional nationalism and republican separatism as one of methodology in pursuit of objectives. Nothing is so further removed from the truth. Indeed it has long been an established strategy for ICN to promote this fallacy only to be exposed when it came to dealing with the issue of national sovereignty. At its heart ICN views the political landscape from a British/establishme nt perspective and explicitly recognises a legitimacy in British claims of sovereignty in Ireland. The Good Friday Accord is a product of this perspective. The GFA is a mechanism to prolong a ceasefire, nothing more. That prolongation is necessary for Irish constitutional nationalism to harmonise the British presence in Ireland. The question that must be addressed by ICN, and which is posed by the 32CSM, is whether or not it accepts that the Irish people are a sovereign people thus entitled to national self determination?

Irish constitutional nationalism, no more than republican separatism, is not defined by the methods it employs but by the products and provenance of its political practices. The GFA addressed only political methods as witnessed in the pre-conditional acceptance of the Mitchell Principles for entry to negotiations. Once Irish politics defers to a British insistence on how our national rights can be pursued and defended Irish rights are automatically demeaned. This stance is one which the British would not countenance concerning its own peoples rights. As a negotiations position it is an unmitigated disaster from the Irish perspective. The 32CSM seeks to realign ICN to a position of defending Irish national rights as resolutely as the British defend theirs.


CONCLUSION

The political analysis of the 32CSM is a correct one but will remain impotent unless dialogue is pursued with the other political parties to the conflict. Because we are correct they will not voluntarily come to us but will seek to marginalise and demonise our republican stance. This is part of their failed agenda. The issue of national sovereignty, national self determination and Irish democracy cannot be avoided indefinitely. Irish Democracy, A Framework for Unity is a strategy which allows those parties to engage on these fundamental issues with republicans by first and foremost asking them to address the veracity of their own positions.

An Irish Democratic Framework offers an original and unprecedented political opportunity to resolve the deep divisions amongst the Irish people engendered by the Anglo-Irish conflict. It is not an imposed structure but one which needs the active input of all our people to construct and in so doing the process of dialogue, understanding and peace building can commence.

The 32 County Sovereignty Movement remains deeply committed to our objective of restoring our national sovereignty and the creation of an inclusive Irish democracy for all the people of Ireland. We thus initiate The Irish Democracy Process.

Building a Republican Socialist Voice

What is necessary to create Democracy for Scotland in the coming months and years is for the Scottish Left to embrace the beliefs and aspirations of true republican socialism. That we are clear that the economic and social problems that weigh heavily down on Scotland have to be tackled with independence and socialism and a programme that is created by and for republican socialists in line with wishes of the Scottish Left.

While the Left Unity initiative should be welcomed for socialists and trade unionists to provide a united front to the electorate what is also required is a programnme of intent for republican socialists to present as a new model for activism as a basis to rally around our beliefs and campaign for the objectives of the Scottish Socialist Republic.

What is needed is alternatives to the moribund and inept tenets of nationalism.

That the SNP alone cannot liberate Scotland from issues of social decline or poverty it has suffered through the years.

That activism goes beyond misplaced faith in parliamentary solutions and represents core principles that we can unite and fight around to secure a new society based on need instead of greed.

That to secure democracy is not just about independence but removing the exisiting institutions and representatives of the British state and building and creating new ones. That Scotland no longer lives under the shadow of the crown or it's powers.

That Scottish independence is a necessary first step to a socialist republic so republican socialists actively campaign for a referendum on independence.

And activism means street activity to go out to the people and sell the beliefs and message of republican socialism. That a programme of action be drawn up that goes beyond one party input or sectarianism and persuades sections of the Scottish Left of the importance and lack of contradiction in utilising republican socialists principles and beliefs when fighting for a Socialist Republic against a monarchist system.

The above is set out by the Scottish Socialist Freedom Group more will follow.

Solidarity with Gail and Tommy Sheridan

Solidarity Co-Convenor Tommy Sheridan has served with legal papers confirming that the prosecution against him will go ahead - more than a year after he was charged by police.

His wife Gail, also 44, was also served with an indictment over perjury charges.

Sheridan, who recently appeared on Channel 4's Celebrity Big Brother, was awarded £200,000 in damages after he took the News of the World to court in 2006.

However the rich scab newspaper refused to pay the damages

The Crown Office said the indictment contained a charge of perjury against the politician and another charge of attempting to persuade someone else to commit perjury.

His wife faces one charge of perjury.

A hearing is now scheduled to take place at the High Court in Edinburgh on February 26.

The perjury investigation was launched after a judge claimed conflicting evidence in the trial might have meant some people were perjuring themselves.

Sheridan and his wife have always denied the allegations and criticised the way Lothian and Borders Police handled the investigation.

The couple appeared at Edinburgh Sheriff Court to answer the charges in March last year and were released on bail.

Sheridan's solicitor, Aamer Anwar said: "Both Mr and Mrs Sheridan maintain their innocence and are determined to fight this."

The lawyer also says that the media should respect the family's privacy.

Solidarity Scotland's Socialist Movement have posted a defiant message on their website

Police harrassment of FRFI activists in Dundee

PUBLIC REPORT OF POLICE HARRASSMENT AND CHARGING OF FIGHT RACISM! FIGHT IMPERIALISM! STREET PROTEST.. DUNDEE SATURDAY 17.01.09

The day had started very well with a militant, angry and noisy protest march against Israel’s attack on Gaza going into Dundee’s city centre. After the rally, activists from Fight Racism! Fight Imperialism, one of whom had spoken at the event, set up a protest stall in the Murraygate to continue building support for the people of Gaza and Palestine.

Once again the city centre ambassadors demanded we remove our stall as we did not have permission or insurance. Once again we told them no! The police were called this time and proceeded to threaten the comrades with Breach of the Peace or causing alarm. It was suggested they go and consult their law books and superior officers as we were not backing down to such contrived charges. They appeared to accept this but returned an hour later with a van and told those present that this time they had come up with obstruction as a charge. Third time lucky for them maybe but the comrades then began speaking to the gathering crowds explaining what the police were doing and asking them to stay around as witnesses, sign the petitions and support political rights. People were told to check out the You Tube videos about the cops in Liverpool trying to close down protest there and to check out Dundee Arrest on You Tube where a comrade was violently assaulted and arrested by Tayside police for handing out leaflets about Cuba. Speakers explained that when people start to protest here about unemployment, low wages and rent rises that the same cops would be out attacking their rights too. We were speaking out for the people of Gaza who were dying at that moment and we would not allow the police to silence us.

Talk about obstruction! - by now there was 1 police van and 100 people prepared to listen to speeches and chants about free speech. Comrades from the Socialist Workers Party joined the protest having been harassed for doing political work for Gaza that week.

By now the police action was a very public affair and they were not looking so comfortable. They charged Michael with obstruction under Section 53 of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982. As Michael explained to the youth present this was one of the hated Margaret Thatcher’s laws and it was no surprise that her favourite bobbies were digging it up now!

Michael was threatened with arrest if the stall was not immediately removed and after consulting with the comrades and the crowds it was decided to call a rally in the Murraygate at 12 the following Saturday to protest the harassment and charges.

We call on everyone to openly and publicly challenge this attack on democratic and political rights. Get up! Stand Up! Stand Up For Your Rights!

DEFEND DEMOCRATIC RIGHTS!

NO TO POLICE INTERFERENCE!

RALLY AT MURRAYGATE 12 NOON DUNDEE SATURDAY 24.01.09

Contact the campaign on frfiscotland@yahoo.co.uk.

VENCEREMOS!

WE SHALL WIN!

800 march at Gaza protest in Dundee

800 Protesters have held a march in Dundee against the conflict in Gaza.

From BBC News Report

The march, organised by Tayside for Justice in Palestine, was followed by a rally in City Square.

It comes as Respect MP George Galloway has said he intended to lead an aid convoy to Gaza.

A spokesman for Tayside for Justice in Palestine said: "Even before the military attacks, the Israeli blockade had turned Gaza into an open prison.

Thousands attend Gaza protest march in Edinburgh

Organisers estimated that 10,000 attended yesterday's Gaza protest in Edinburgh.

Police stationed themselves at various points throughout the march filming demonstraters. Protesters were prevented from getting near the US consulate by the cops who themselves complained that they were pelted with shoes, boots, red paint and wooden poles.