Suppose for a moment ........- Colin Campbell
Scotland's Media gallery is something akin to a hall of mirrors--a hall in which Scottish viewers are permanently constrained whether they like it or not. Most of the mirrors (representing the Press) are owned by commercial undertakings which have a vested interested in reflecting back to us images which, if not grossly distorted, certainly carry subliminal messages designed to influence our thinking. There is however one mirror in the hall on which Scots have traditionally relied for reflecting back a true likeness and one from which we can identify and confirm our unique national features. This mirror is owned by the BBC--a public corporation financed by our own licence contributions and established by Act of Parliament.
The relevations contained in our recent correspondence with BBC Scotland (which are presently being collated, in the first instance, for onward submission to the Broadcasting Complaints Commission) have shown that our historic trust in the impartiality of the BBC can no longer be sustained; and the consequences of this realisation must inevitably be far-reaching.
Let us suppose for a moment that the situation we have exposed over Radio Scotland's Headlines programme were to be mirrored elsewhere on BBC Scotland. If it were, what sort of political manipulation could actually be taking place on a day-to-day basis?
One major misrepresentation, which I have highlighted before, occurs in the form of centralised BBC news broadcasts. By showing the main television news from London, Scotland, with its brief local opt-out from network broadcasting, is depicted as being constitutionally inferior to England and the political equivalent of one of sixty or so English regional broadcasting areas. This deliberate misrepresentation, which seeks to obfuscate Scotland's separate political identity, is however overt. More covert practises could include the following:
The partial selection of news items with political connotations. Have you too noticed Labour's political plugs on Good Morning Scotland on most Monday mornings when Parliament is in session? Then there is the choice of times at which such items might be broadcast. We can be certain that the BBC keeps a profile of the social status of listeners/viewers who tune in at certain times of the day. Using sociologists' gradings of society it would be possible--and I put it no higher than that--to carry sensitive political news items or interviews to coincide with maximum audience ratings of those whom one particularly wished to influence. There are hints that potential Labour supporters may sometimes be targetted in this way--just as there are peak listening periods which seem earmarked for fostering Unionist attitudes and sentiment. Then there are the criteria used in setting up political interviews of individual party spokespeople. Quite different responses can be attained by interviewing politicians supportively, or provocatively--or by interjecting issues which, by their nature, elicit either politically helpful or damaging responses as the occasion may require. An interesting example of where an invitation to take part in discussion may either be a poisoned chalice or a chance to promote a policy or opinion is Radio Scotland's Eye-to-Eye programme on Sunday mornings. The possibilities for manipulative broadcasting are of course endless--but the point I am making is that once trust has been shown to have been seriously breached, as it has over the Headlines issues, all previous assumptions becomc vulnerable to critical reassessment.
And what of English Nationalism ? - James Halliday
Political success for a third party", so-called, does not require the prior destruction of the other two. Just as well, because a strong enemy is at his most savage if he has been driven into the last ditch, defending the last shreds of his pride, his power and his possessions. That is one reason why English politicians' opposition to our independence is going to become more intense than ever before. We are all that is left of their historical gains, and Mr Major correctly sees advantages in encouraging them to one last spasm of defiance before they are forced to realise what place they now occupy in the world. In their rage and misery, as Europeans of all sorts speak sharply and disrespectfully to them, they will take their spite out on us by seeking ever more keenly and cunningly to thwart the growing desire for independence among Scots. Mr Marlow is one who has warned Scottish Nationalists that they had better not stir up English Nationalism because it will be all the worse for the Scots if they do. To some extent he is quite correct, and honest in his threats of the punishment which awaits impertinence. The trouble is that English nationalism has always been a fact of life but being successful and dominant within their own British sphere for so long, it is only now when their inferiors have grown cheeky, that these inferiors have to be slapped down, and will be, if at all possible, by an English nationalism which has, so to speak, come out of the closet.
We have always had to prepare for this day which must shortly arrive, and we have made some sensible arrangements. We have acted, for instance, on the most straightforward and honest of strategic principles--that you will win if you make yourself stronger than the strong. We have for some years now made it our objective to match the strength of the Labour Party in Scotland, and we have had some indication of the threat which we pose from the gibbering viciousness of the comments from Mr McConnell and his friends, especially those on the apparatchik wing of their party.
This has not been the only reward for our efforts. We have also been reminded that there is a second avenue to success; not to surpass the strength of the strong, but to make such progress that fear prompts them to steal your programme and present it as their own. This was why, and how, the Labour commitment to devolution was arrived at. They sought to follow the various examples which are found in British history when one party steals what is brightest and best from another's repertoire. Anyone who tries to insist that Labour would have moved along that road without our pressure, need not expect to be taken seriously or be granted a reputation for truthfulness. So, some success can be gained if you have your campaign taken over by the strong, though there is of course always the snag that they will dilute or pervert your plans to the greatest possible extent.
This sort of reasoning provides something of the case for gradualism, or step by quivering step from devolution to something better, and then better still. It can be expected to bring some modest practical advantages, as Isobel Lindsay recently pointed out. If powers over housing, welfare, education and social policies generally could not be used to the advantage of the people of Scotland then something very strange was happening; and if these powers could be used with advantage then they, and the Assembly to which they were awarded, could not be dismissed as worthless. What she does not realise, and never has realised, is that without an identity, recognised and acknowledged by the rest of the world, any self-government proposals have missed the point. There has always been a proneness, on the part of many within the SNP, to use the second of our essential Party aims--to defend the best interests of Scotland while the main struggle for independence continues--as an excuse to opt out of determined and urgent pursuit of the first. I see the point of it, but none the less I think it is a pity that that second aim is there at all. If you are pursuing the first, commitment to the second follows automatically.
One final way remains whereby a cause can be advanced. Parity with the strong might not be achieved, and forcing them to adopt more than a modest proportion of our programme might not be achieved either. If there appears a chance to find a friend of great strength which will clobber your bully for you, then you should seize that chance. Without the French army and French command of the sea at the crucial moment the American colonies could not have won their independence when they did. Without the French army the Italians could not have driven the Austrians out of the Italian provinces which they had long controlled.
Our problem is not a military one, but we have grossly failed to maximise the goodwill which we might enjoy from other communities. We must surely have long realised what no less an informed witness than Michael Collins had written, that British desire to crush Irish aspirations in the 1919-22 period was "held back by the force of world opinion, largely Irish-America opinion''. And ordinary American opinion too, which continues to sustain Ireland and Israel, and might extend good will to Scotland too if we had been less ready to associate ourselves with the anti-Americanism of the worst elements in both the Labour and Tory parties. Washington could have taught us greater wisdom; so could Cavour, and we would do well to listen belatedly to Michael Collins.
Trade Unions - Read the Small Print - Ian Bayne
A mid last month's Euro96 distractions even the most conscientious Scottish trade unionist could be forgiven for missing the earth-shattering news that Scottish Labour is to fight the next General Election on its own manifesto.
At first glance the very idea bristles with enticing possibilities. It must by now be apparent to even the most unobservant pundit that a huge and ever-widening ideological gap is emerging between New Labour and its loyal Scottish support. Just think of the litany of key issues dear to almost every Scottish trade unionist's heart: full employment, the minimum wage, rail re-nationalisation, restoration of welfare benefits for unemployed teenagers and health & education spending, funded by tax rises for the rich.
These are all issues on which in contrast Cmrde. Blair and his Shadow Cabinet colleagues -- Gordon Brown apart--have very little, if anything, to say.
Take even New Labour's allegedly show-case commitment to a Scottish Parliament. There is increasing evidence of a split between Scottish Labour activists and the London-based party hierarchy on the so-called parliament's proposed tax-raising powers -- which shadow Scottish Secretary George Robertson is already hinting may well be side-lined on the eve of the coming General Election.
So it is not too difficult to imagine that a Manifesto genuinely drawn up by Scottish Labour in Keir Hardie House might differ in certain important respects from a New Labour manifesto.
Regrettably, this scenario is simply not going to be allowed to unfold in the foreseeable future. Before the so-called 'Scottish Manifesto' is submitted for the ritual approval of the 'Scottish Labour' membership, it requires to be ratified at UK level by the party's NEC. Cmrde. Blair & co, are taking no chances. They know perfectly well that the Scots simply can't be trusted to come up with a programme that wouldn't go down like a lead balloon in the Deep South.
And as they might well need Scottish seats to sustain a Labour Government in power at Westminster, the bottom line is that Scotland cannot really be trusted with self-government--whether inside or outside the Labour Party.
Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear! Nice try, George and Tone, but it just won't do, will it? If in the course of your summer canvassing in the run-up to the possible autumn election, you come across any Labour punters, boasting about their so called 'Scottish manifesto', just tell them to read the small print....
Nuclear Ombudsman - Buyer Beware - Margery Dougan
The last big privatisation before the Election has had a £5m campaign in the UK Press for the last two months. The Government hope it will have encouraged the public as well as the institutions to take advantage of this final throw to buy British Energy shares.
British Energy is the result of a merger between (English) Nuclear Electric and Scottish Nuclear. It generates 18% of the UK's electricity and incorporates the UK's most modern nuclear power stations. It operates eight nuclear power stations, six in England and two in Scotland-- Hunterston and Torness. It is one of Britain's three largest electricity generators.
The flotation is expected to be £1.5bn plus, inheriting a debt of just £200m instead of the original £700m expected. The Government cut more that £1bn from the amount which might have been available to the tax-payers, who get to keep the old Magnox stations because these are getting near the hugely expensive decommissioning stage.
The flotation may realise £1.5bn --the English Sizewell B station included in the package cost £3bn to build!!
Scottish Power will buy 75% of the output from Scottish Nuclear's two stations at Hunterston and Torness. Hydro-Electric will take the other 25 % under an agreement signed in 1990 which will run until 2005.
Scottish Power and Scottish Hydro-Electric, told by the electricity regulator to lower their prices, want any competition discussions to involve Scottish Nuclear, one of British Energy's two operating subsidiaries. Scottish Power have even suggested that they might to look again at their contract to take 75 % of Scotish Nuclear's output.
Significantly the Pathfinder prospectus published had no Scottish mention. SNP's Kevin Pringle told us, "The brass-plate is irrelevant. In the prospectus they did not consider any Scottish party viewpoint, nor did they give any weight to the Scottish dimension. It merely confirms the view in Scotland that this company has a southern focus". The mail-out invitation to subscribe was sent under the aegis of the financial adviser to the (English) Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. Even the London Times found this omission sufficiently insensitive that they carried a leader warning gently that after independence shareholders might not consider their investment so wise.
The SNP's commitment to public ownership, starts with Railtrack and the Skye Bridge in their first four-year term. Economic prospects thereafter would affect other sold-off public utilities. As share-dealing is expected to begin in mid-July it is probably safe to go on holiday in the first fortnight without worrying about an early Election but, better still, hold on to your savings.
Filling the credibility gap in Scotland's Defence - Dr Peter Lynch
In Spring 1996, the SNP's special conference discussed the party's response to the ongoing intergovernmental conference (IGC) of the EU which is examining reforms to the Maastricht Treaty. One of the most significant conference decisions, which was ignored in the Press, was support for a new participatory stance on European defence and foreign policy. This policy change closed off one of the party's major policy weaknesses and significantly reinforced its argument for independence in Europe. Before the conference, the SNP's foreign and defence policies still retained the hallmarks of the cold war. Indeed, pre-existing policy was based on a world in which the revolutions of 1989 never happened and the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact remained intact. It took the SNP a long time to realise that times had changed and address the credibility gap that had developed over defence and foreign policy issues.
The impact of 1989 is everywhere to be seen in foreign policy and defence. Whilst it was possible to see pre-1989 Europe divided between two competing economic and political blocs, post-1989 Europe is a much more fluid and unpredictable arena for defence and foreign policy arrangements. Since 1989 the EU has changed, NATO has changed and a range of new defence and security organisations have emerged such as the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, the North Atlantic Co-operation Council, the Partnerships for Peace organisation and the Western European Union. What is so striking about these organisations is their varied memberships, which span the traditional post-war divisions between East and West, NATO/Warsaw pact members and neutrals.
The whole European defence environment has been unpacked into a series of concentric circles and overlapping organisations. The SNP is therefore not faced with definitive choices about being in or out of NATO but confronted by an à la carte menu of defence and foreign policy organisations which Scotland can join without compromising its anti-nuclear stance. For example, the West European Union not only contains 10 full members from the EU, but also Denmark, Ireland, Austria, Sweden and Finland joining as observers and Iceland, Norway, Turkey Bulgaria, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Latvia, etc, joining as associates.
The North Atlantic Co-operation Council contains a large number of NATO and non-NATO states from Eastern and Western Europe, discussing the prospects for defence co-operation between former cold war enemies.
Similarly, in NATO we find a defence organisation seriously discussing expansion to incorporate former enemies in Eastern Europe, but also involving itself in a range of defence and peacekeeping activities which has allowed much wider participation in training and exercises. Those two great neutral states, Finland and Sweden, have abandoned their strict neutral status to join NATO's Partnerships for Peace programme with Russia and Eastern Europe, whilst still remaining non-members of NATO itself. In addition, a number of NATO and non-NATO states in Europe have participated in peacekeeping exercises in Poland and the Ukraine: the type of activity that will prove useful to NATO in dealing with any future Bosnia's in addition to contributing more effectively to UN peacekeeping activities across the globe.
What is clear about defence and foreign policy arrangements in the post-1989 climate is that they have become extremely flexible. Such flexibility offers a considerable opportunity for the SNP. The demise of the East-West conflict and the two competing defence blocs has led to the establishment of a range of new defence and foreign policy organisations and to the diversification of existing defence organisations such as NATO so that it is now difficult to tell exactly where they begin or end. This situation offers a mixed menu for any future Scottish defence and foreign policy involvement that manages to escape the legacy of the cold war and nuclear weapons whilst still playing a constructive role in international politics.
The SNP took a decisive step forward in proposing Scottish participation in organisations such as the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, Partnerships for Peace and the Western European Union. This step undercut accusations of isolationism and gave the party more credible European and defence policies than existed before the special conference. Current discussion over the SNP's draft defence policy is also a significant advance. For the first time in years, the party looks set to produce a detailed and costed policy for a Scottish army, navy and airforce--and vital details for what a future Scottish defence force will look like and what contribution it can expect to make to international peacekeeping and common defence arrangements.
Over the last year, the SNP has been engaged in policy development intended to shore up the independence option and deal with the credibility gaps in the case for independence whether on tax and spending, the economics of independence or the transition to independence. The Party's proposals for defence and foreign policy are very much part of this strategy and will make a substantial contribution to modernising the idea of independence in Europe and providing a detailed assessment of Scotland under independence.
Dr Peter Lynch is a lecturer in Politics at Stirling University.
Noble Landowners of Scotland - Colin Darroch
"We need to redistribute land. How else does one address the inequality of land ownership we've inherited? At present 87% of the land is in the hands of 12.6% of the population. "
These are the words of Derek Hanekom, Minister of Land Affairs in Nelson Mandela's Government. Bad as the situation is in South Africa, it is even worse in Scotland. We need a Minister Of Land Affairs in an Independent Scotland to tackle this appalling problem.
Finding out the exact details about land ownership in Scotland is not easy, although Auslan Cramb and Andy Wightman have to be congratulated on providing useful information in their recent books. *
The Register of Sasines was created by an Act of the Scots Parliament in 1617 to establish property rights. Almost 400 years later, this is still our main source of information although a new Land Register was created in 1979 which is being introduced in stages throughout Scotland with the intention that it will eventually supersede the Sasines Register. Unfortunately, registration under either system, although desirable, is not mandatory. It can take several years for a change of ownership to be recorded and this allows a new owner to take his time in deciding which nominee company in which tax haven should hold the title to the land.
The Scottish Landowners Federation has claimed that its 4,000 members (less than 0.1% of the population) own 80% of the land. This claim is probably exaggerated but Andy Wightman has identified that 1,411 owners own 58% of Scotland. This inequality occurs because we do not have a Scottish Parliament to ensure that we have a democratic form of landholding. As David Rollo pointed out last month, many members of the House of Lords own land in Scotland and abuse their power to look after their own interests. they claimed at least one third of the places on the new Deer Commmission. On the island of Jura there are 6,000 deer and less than 200 people. Which do you think receives their Lordship's priority?
I have been able to identify 85 peers who between them own more than two million acres which is 11% of Scotland. I am sure that my list is not comprehensive. If you.know of others, please write and let us know. Their relatives also own substantial parts of the country. For example, Sarah Troughton, sister of the late Duke of Atholl, owns 17,000 acres at Ardchattan in Argyll and Lord Vestey's cousin Edmund Vestey owns 86,300 acres at Assynt and Banmore. Their Lordships' biggeabuse of power was probably when they hijacked a Local Government Act to ensure that rates were no longer payable on fishing and shooting rights.. This removed the sole remaining land tax in Scotland. Now they no longer pay the community but we continue to pay them forestry grants or we even pay them not to plant trees if their land is designated as a site of special scientific interest. Our generosity reached the absurd stage at Knockdow in Cowal where the UK Government paid a forestry grant of £400,000 to the landowner who just happened to be the Swedish Government. Somehow I cannot see Nelson Mandela's Government being so generous.
(~"Who Owns Scotland" by Andy Wightman, published by Canongate ~ £14.99. "Who Owns Scotland Now" by Auslan Cramb, published by Mainstream ~ £l4.99).
OWNER ESTATE ACRES
Duches of Abercorn Ardchyline, Argyll 2,350
" " " Halterburn, Roxburgh 3,000
Earl of Ailsa Cassilis, Ayrshire 10,000
Earl of Airlie Airlie, Angus 37,300
Earl Of Annandale Annandale, Dumfries 12,500
Duke Of Argyll Argyll Estates 60,800
Viscount Astor Tarbert, Jura 19,500
Duke Of Atholl Atholl, Perthshire 1 48,000
Lord Balgonie Glenferness, Nairn 6,500
Lord Balneil Balcarres, Fife 4,000
Lord Binning Tyninghame, East Lothian 6,000
Duke Of Buccleuch Bowhill, Selkirkshire 37,500
" " " Dalkeith, Midlothian 2,000
" " " Daerhead & Whitecleugh 5,700
" " " Queensberry & Liddesdale 216,400
Lord Burton Dochfour & Glenquoich 31,000
"." " Glenshiel & Cluanie 17,000
Marquess Of Bute Ardentraive, Argyll 3,000
" " " Dalblair, Ayrshire 19,600
" " " Bute 31,300
Earl of Cadogan Snaigow, Perthshire 4,000
Letters to the Editor
Campbell's Campaign
Congratulations to Colin Campbell for his continued battle with BBC Scotland over their anti-SNP bias.
Why they publicise themsel- ves as a "National" station puzzles many. They are only an English Regional station--albeit a "Mother" England propaganda Media.
One wonders why they have been feather-bedding Billy Connolly--is it because of his anti-SNP views? They are trying to make out he is a great Scot-- despite his publicised outburst 'That he would rather be a Bosnian than a Scot''.
I think you should embarrass Radio Scotland by asking them as they give so much prominence to Irish Politics--would they consider changing their name to ''Radio Belfast"? They seem more interested in Irish Home Rule.
Keep up the good work!
DONALD T MacLEOD, Bridge of Don
CANADIAN VIEWPOINT
The Dean of Calgary University in Alberta educated in Cardiff was reviewing the various provinces' parliaments with a group of constitutional experts.
As an example he took Scotland, a small country, with its independent legal and education systems who have national sports teams representing their country for all that they are governed by England's London.
In Dr Thomas's opinion, Scotland will be consulting with Brussels and not London, in the near future.
VICTOR A GRAY, Omemee, Ontario
CATALUNYA VIEWPOINT
I am a young Catalan nationalist who reads Scots Independent from January. It is really fantastic to know how the Scottish nation grows up. I think that Alba and Catalunya have a lot of coincidences, for in- stance your Treaty of Union is from 1707 and our is from 1714. This was a bad age, but I am sure that the 21th century will see the liberation of our nation in an United and Free Europe.
To end I will be so grateful if any Scottish people is so kindful to send me information about your national movement or to made an exchange of information. Thank you to SI to keep the people who live abroad informed about the Scottish news.
JORDI VAZQUEZ MIR, Diputacị 274 Pral C, E-08009 Bàrcelona, Catalunya
WALLACE RESTORED
A word of praise is due to our caring Glasgow City Council, for the fine job of work accomplished, in the cleaning and re-lettering of the Wallace monument, here at Robroyston, the historical site of our National Hero.
The imposing 20 ft red granite monument, fronted by the mighty carved Emblem of Sword and Shield, will meet the approval of our welcome visitors and Overseas Cousins, prompted no doubt, by the widely shown epic film, "BRAVEHEART".
The Wallace monument at Robroyston deserves to be added to the Catalogue of "Places to visit in and around Glasgow", and our National Hero, Sir William Wallace, Scotland's freedom fighter, takes a rightful place, in the history books of our local schools.
JOHN B HORNICK, Pollokshields, Glasgow
Nàiseantachd agus Nàiseanachd - Alasdair MacCaluim
A nn an "Carn" (iris a' Chomainn Cheiltich) geamhradh 95/96, bha aiste ann bho chomann ùr; "An Scottish Separatist Movement" (SSM). Chuir iad sànas anns an t- "SI" cuideachd, a' cleachdadh an ainm "Celtic Heritage" agus ag ràdh gu robh iad a' reic stuthan Ceilteach. 'S e a bh' annta ach buidheann anaiteamach (racist) a bha dubh an aghaidh nan Sasannach. Bha "Celtic Heritage" a' reic bhràstaichean 7c ag ràdh rudan mar "Sasannaich a-mach". Mar iomadh neach-leughaidh "Charn" agus an t-"SI" eile bha mi air leth feargach leis a' chomann seo agus leis a' phuinnsean a bhios iad a' sgŕobhadh.
Ged a thachair seo o chionn ḿosan, tha an SSM agus a leithid fhathast a' cur dragh orm. Gach turas a tha PNA a' dèanamh gu math anns na "polls" agus gach turas a tha e coltach gum faigh sinn pàrlamaid, bidh comuinn mar an SSM a' nochdadh. Chan eil mi buileach cinnteach carson a tha buidhnean mar sin ann, ach tha beachd no dhà agam. Tha mi a' smaoineachadh gu bheil MI5 np "special branch" an sàs anns na buidhnean sin airson teagamh a chur ann an nàiseantachd.
Co-dhiù, mas e agents provocateurs no nàiseantaich chusach (extremist) a th' ann-ta, tha fhlos agam dè a bhios a tachairt gach turas a nochdas iad. Bidh Seoras MacDhonnchaidh, lain Major no Micheal coir Forsyth air an telebhisean ag ràdh gur e Nazaidhean no luchd-f̣irneart a th' anns a' Phàrtaidh Nàiseanta agus gur e rud uamhasach a th' ann an nàiseantachd. 'S e breug-chràbhadh air leth a tha seo. Tha e glè fhollaiseach gu bheil na Laboraich agus na Ṭraidhean cho nàiseantach 's a ghabhas a thaobh Breatainn agus gu bheil iad air leth fhèin toilichte gach turas a thàid comann 'ur mar SNLA no Scottish Watch a stèidheachadh. Bidh iad a' dèanamh ṃran calpa poiliteagach bho "nàiseantachd olc" 7c.
Air an adhbhar seo, chan eil mi a' creidsinn gu bheil am facal "nàiseantach" cho feumail sin dhuinn. Gun teagamh tha sinn nar nàiseantaich (na h-Alba) ach tha na Ṭraidhean nan nàiseantaich (Shasannach/ Bhreatannach) cuideachd. Mar sin, dè tha eadar-dhealach- aichte? Tha e gu math mi- fhortanach gu bheil an aon fhacal "nàiseantachd" a' ciallachadh ṃran rudan diofraichte nar cànan. A-rèir Micheal Zwerin anns an leabhar "A Case For The Balkanisation of Practically Everyone"; chan eil a h-uile cànan mar sin. Ann an Euskara (Bascais), tha facal eadar- dhealaichte ann airson nàiseantachd adhartach: "abertzale". Rinn an t-eachdraiche Pàdraig Berresford Ellis eadar-dheala- chadh eadar nàiseantachd impireach no impireileas agus nàiseantachd (nationalism) agus nàiseanachd (nationism). Ann an leabhar Zwerin tha "nàiseantachd" a' ciallachadh nàiseantachd impireach agus tha "nàiseanachd" a' ciallachadh nàiseantachd ana-impireach.
Tha am Pàrtaidh Nàiseanta agus na poleataigs a th' againn nàiseanach a-rèir Zwerin agus nàiseantach ana-lmpireach a- rèir Berresford Ellis. Tha PNA (7 Plaid Cymru, Mebyon Kernow agus Mec Vannin) airson saoghail uaine far a bheil ceartas ṣisealta agus far nach eil rocaidean niuclach. Tha sinn nar eadar-naiseantaich cuid- eachd. Gun teagamh, tha nàiseantachd impireach ann an Alba, ach chan eil e anns a' phàrtaidh againn. Tha feadhainn de na nàiseantaich impireach anns na buidhnean beaga air an oir mar an Scottish Separatist Movement ach chanainnse gu bheil a' mharchuid de dhaoine mar sin anns na pàrtaidhean Breatannach agus anns a' phartaidh Taraidheach gu h-àraidh.
|
