UNIONISM - "The dust of creeds outworn" (Shelley)
The greatest single inhibitor of Scotland's crossing the millennium threshold as a prosperous and progressive nation is her people's inherited sense of inferiority born of generations of political manipulation. There can be few other people with such an international reputation for inventiveness, application and financial acumen who have fallen so low in their own self-esteem that they would rather others should rule them from outside than that they should take charge of their own destiny. What is it about the creed of Unionism which, despite its archaism as a political dogma, can still prevent its victims recognising its false pretensions and keep them paralysed in limbo like rabbits under the weasel's gaze?
If we look back over the last two centuries we can perceive certain patterns that have all contributed to our current senses of inadequacy, disillusionment and political cynicism. Unlike most other small European nations (but like the Irish) we Scots lost, to the lure of riches and self-aggrandisement in England, those who in their time should have provided national leadership. In earlier days of Whigs and Tories under the Union Scotland was already governed by remote control from London whilst various factions at home began exploiting ordinary folk in fast developing industrial ghettos; or by clearing them abroad either in exchange for more profitable sheep or as soldiers to further the expansionist cause of England's empire. Scotland thus had no resident ruling class in the then contemporary sense; and its small middle-class of local burghers, budding industrialists, teachers and ministers was far too comfortable, rather like some of them to-day, to wish to challenge Scotland's constitutional arrangements. This was the essence of early Unionism and a shaming manifestation of how a national character, capable of the erudition of Hume and the egalitarianism of Burns, can be traduced by craven leadership into the epitome of servile resignation.
Moving forward and nearer to our times there was a brief period of hope when the Liberals took up the cause of Scottish Home Rule. But then, as now, the declarations of noble Liberal intent were unmatched by action and subsequent Liberal Governments, when they did gain office, conveniently forgot their Scottish promises. Suddenly however Scotland was electrified by the arrival on the scene of the Labour Party and its charismatic leader, Keir Hardie. Foremost on the agenda, as far as Scotland was concerned, was the formation of a Scottish Parliament in Edinburgh for, at the time, this was seen as being fully consistent with the Labour movement's wider international socialist aspirations. But once again, as soon as Labour gained office the Scottish parliament was forgotten and the party's direct political descendants today feel embarassed by the notion of an independent Scottish parliament. For ordinary Scottish people in our generation here is where Unionist history has cruelly repeated itself: for the very people they have trusted to provide Scottish leadership have taken the identical route of those earlier betrayers of Scotland at the time of the Union. They too have settled in Westminster where everything is comfortable and civilised, to run Scotland by remote control through the established processes of cabal, quango and Unionist patronage.
Of course Labour supports a puppet Scottish parliament now--because it knows that if it betrays Scotland again even its blindest adherents will abandon it. But its heart is not in the project--and never will be until it is forced to raise the full Scottish Standard either by SNP pressure; or by rediscovering its own soul.
Here we go Again - Colin Campbell
I would like, now and again, to be able to praise some of BBC Scotland's undoubtedly good points, but its downside is so damaging to our national interests that in a monthly column like this the priorities must remain as before.
It is difficult to comprehend the apparent inanity of programme producers who decide that it would be fitting to have on our "national`' airwaves a mere seven days dedicated to ''Scots Tongue Week''. The ivory tower from which they exercise their planning can rarely have been more translucent than in this demonstration of a complete misunderstanding of what Scottish national broadcasting properly demands. Where Radio Scotland is our specified broadcasting provider, not by grace but by right of Scottish licence fees, it is an absurd notion that the main tongue of its listeners should be so treated--just as it is absurd to talk about 'Scottish National weather'', or ''Scottish National travel''. What is subliminally being displayed here is the Unionist inference that nationalism, uniquely in a Scottish context, equals triviality. But would you believe it, there is worse--far worse to come?
''Scots Tongue Week'' was made to coincide exactly with Gaeldom's annual festival of international renown--the Mod (concurrently taking place in Blairgowrie) which, as far as Radio Scotland is concerned, merited not one single minute of coverage. Could this simply too have been crass insensitivity? Well, from the record this is just possible but I would be inclined to think that even BBC Scotland could not have plumbed such depths of ineptitude. So what's going on?
With the entry of Michael Forsyth into Highland and Gaelic politics the plot seems to thicken. The oldest Unionist trick in the book has been to encourage antagonisms between Scotland's various cultural and social traditions in order to rule us, untroubled by unified revolt, from Westminster. One area thus exploited has been the historic difference between Highlander and Lowlander--or more appropriately in to-day's terms--Gael and non-Gael. There are commentators who already suggest that Forsyth is looking beyond a likely Tory defeat at the next Election and preparing the ground for a defence of the Union by destabilising Scottish society in advance of any devolved or independent parliament. His assiduous support for Gaelic, the new University of the Highlands and Islands, though warmly welcomed in themselves, and his own idea of a Highland Convention presided over by himself in the first instance, undoubtedly lend credence to such speculation. It all follows on quite naturally from the recent reform of local government--a reform based not on democratic need, but on political manipulation of massive proportion. But where might BBC Scotland and its ''Scots Tongue Week''--and its boycotting of the Mod--fit into to all this? Well, you see, like Michael Forsyth the BBC fears both devolution, and even more, independence--for its role would in the first instance be greatly diminished, and in the case of independence Auntie would be made to pack her bags. As with Forsyth's activities there have been other straws in the wind that indicate a similar policy of ''divide and rule''. There has been the reduction in Radio Scotland's status to the equivalent of a tabloid journalism--thus driving more serious listeners on to the BBC's main London output. There is the small and aesthetically disagreeable input of Scottish programmes into BBC TV. There has been the editorial takeover of BBC regional stations in Scotland which has had the effect of controlling and denaturing their output--and there has been the divorcement of Gaelic broadcasting from mainstream Scottish broadcasting--even though this has deprived many Gaelic speaking heartlands of any service in the language at all. One effect of all this is to introduce a sense of ghettoism in which both Gaelic and Scots have become estranged from one other and in which there are already early signs of jealousy and recrimination between them.
If events are indeed being trained in this direction my opening criticism of BBC Scotland's ''inanity'' is clearly unjustified. What we would have instead would be a degree of deviousness and duplicity that would make Machiavelli look a mere amateur. I wonder which diagnosis is more correct. don't you?
We are 70 this month - and we need your support
The Scots Independent is celebrating its 70th anniversary--from November 1926 to November 1996.
We are of course essentially a political organ. In order to operate successfully we require a stable and viable financial structure. In the earlier decades of the paper's existence the record shows that its maintenance caused the Party much heart and pocket searching. Subsequently, the formation of a limited company laid the groundwork for a self-sustaining enterprise. That has provided the independence cause with ongoing ancillary support without calling on the resources of the political arm of the movement.
The publishing business continues to be very fragile, however. The vast television industry means that mass readership is a thing of the past. This means that an organ such as the SI has to rely on more than the kind of casual readership support which is the bane of national papers. We hope that what we need can be described not just as unquestioning loyalty from our readers, but rather sustained understanding of the technical problems we have to meet month on month. Against that background some of those readers have already been asking what kind of anniversary present they might give us. The answer is that they can consider one--or all four--of the following ways of say- ing "Happy Birthday":
Take out a personal subscription;
Send a friend (or a school, or a hospital, or a library) a year's subscription;
Have your CA/branch, if its SI monthly order has lapsed--for whatever reason--start up again. Many branches find the SI is a good way of making contact with lapsed members, immobile members, sleeping members or even so-called closet Nationalists;
Become a patron of the Scots Independence Trust, set up to guarantee the paper's future in the longer term--either yourself or perhaps a well disposed Party member who has a bit of spare cash.
So if you really want to say "Happy Birthday" to us in a meaningful way, contact us to-day:
Write to: HAPPY ANNIVERSARY, Scots Independent, 51 Cowane Street, Stirling FK8 1JW
Or email Scots Independent- NOW !!
James Halliday - Don't Believe All You Read in the Papers
"Don't believe all you read in the papers'' must be among the earliest pieces of advice that each of us receives as we grow up. It's not bad advice either although it can lead to an unwillingness to believe anything, which is just as silly as readiness to believe obvious nonsenses. We are not telling one another that the papers are always telling lies or passing on misinformation, only sometimes, and the frequency varies from one branch of the Media to another.
As often as not no great harm is done. Most papers today do not deal in news of any significance, but rather with daily gossip, romances, fantasy, tragedy, idiocy and so on. Few stories have a life span of more than a day, and each new day brings a new crop of enjoyable trivia.
The trouble is that somewhere at the back of our mind there is a kind of folk-memory that newspapers were once part of the public record; that reports and articles by responsible and well-informed writers could be used as evidence by students and analysts in later times. We still have such excellent journalism which best informs us about the wider world. Alistair Cooke continues to provide his incomparable insight into American society and politics. Charles Wheeler does for America what Mark Tully has done for India; and our understanding of Eastern Europe derives largely from the writings of Neal Ascherson and Misha Glenny. Those writers inspire confidence. We feel entitled to use their information to guide us in reaching our opinions and we are seldom left to regret our trust.
Sometimes writers who usually seem reliable are guilty of misleading their readers not from any desire to deceive, but because they have become careless in what they think they have learned. From the past few days comes the assertions that the turnout at US Presidential elections was "usually'' less than 50 per cent; that the Taff Vale judgment was somehow unfair to trades unions and had to be repealed; and that the battlecruiser Repulse took part in the sinking of the Bismarck. The truth is that the turnout in US elections has ''sometimes" been less than 50 per cent, but not in a Presidential year; that the Taff Vale judgment gave to the unions the same rights and freedom of action as are permitted to individuals and was therefore a landmark in extending the rights of workers; and that the Repulse lay at the bottom of the sea off the Malayan coast while the Renown joined in the hunt of the Bismarck.
So what? If we were dealing with mere conversations or quiz programmes, there would be no great point in criticising, but in future times some earnest searcher after truth will turn to the Herald or the Scotsman preserved in the archives, and will quote such errors as accurate evidence. We should beware of leaving any record uncorrected. because otherwise future understanding can be hopelessly confused.
It doesn't get any easier to be accurate as time passes and the generation which remembers events dies out. For fifty years now we have all tended to judge political movements and behaviour in the light of the events of the Second World War. The merit of men and parties has been judged on the basis of their response to Hitler and the Nazi regime, and much that was evil has been excused because its perpetrators at least were anti-Nazi.
No journalist now under 65 has any personal understanding to remind him that many people in public life all over Europe sought Hitler's protection, not because they themselves were Nazis but because they thought they were thereby attaching themselves to the winning side. They thought that they were thus serving the best interests of their country and their people. Most people after all believe that what they are doing is morally defensible and politically wise.
Quisling thought Germany would win and that Norway would best be on her side. William Joyce thought Germany would win and worked for her rulers in the expectation of reward and status in the future. Petain and Laval believed that the future of France lay in coming to terms with the victorious Germans.
For their pains, in due course they were executed, all but Petain, and thousands unremembered shared their fate. Those were stern times, and most rulers and communities have calmed down since then. The ousting of hated governments In recent years has not been accompanied by firing squads except in Roumania. Tempers are, and should be, under better control, and without the background of war and its horrors we should have learned to disagree with civility. But there is still a duty upon all interpreters of behaviour, including journalists, to be aware that we once agreed that all those who, in accordance with their own conscience and their own judgment, were prepared to surrender their country's freedom, had made a wrong and blameworthy choice.
Cuir às dhan Wabaid ! - Alasdair MacCaluim
Ged a tha iomadh gaisgeach ann an eachdraidh na h-Alba mar Uallas. Brus agus lain MacGilleathain, chan eil teagamh ann gur e Elmer Fudd am fear as ùra agus as neònaiche dhaibh. 'S e Mgr Fudd an duine glic a thòisich an abairt fheumail ''Cuir às dhan wabaid!'' An turas seo, cha b' e Bugs Bunny a bha chuir dragh oirnn ach ''Calum Coinneanach'' nach maireann, rabaid a' Phàrtaidh Nàiseanta. Tha Calum air a bhith marbh o chionn trì mìosan a- nis ach chanainn gu bheil à thaibhse fhathast còmhla ruinn ann am poileataigs na h-Alba. Nuair a nochd Calum coir airson a' chiad uair ann an Dùn Deagh air 26mh den Ghiblean b' e fior chulaidh mhagaidh a bh' ann. Bha móran nàiseantach dubh an aghaidh samhla ùr a' phàrtaidh seo a chionn 's gu robh e a' coimhead cho gòrach. A bharrachd air seo, rinn na Laboraich fanaid oirnn, ag ràdh gu robh Calum bochd a' dearbhadh gu robh ''poileataigs Mhickey Luch" aig a' PhNA. A dh' aindeoin seo, 's ann againne a bha an gàire mu dheireadh. Nuair a thuirt am pàrtaidh gum biodh referendum ann gus samhla a' phàrtaidh thaghadh, thuirt na Laboraich gu robh am PNA neo-chinnteach agus gu robh sinn air tionndadh-U mór a dhèanamh Bidh deagh chuimhne agaibh air na thachair greiseag a déidh sin. Seadh, 's e sin tionndadh-U air leth na Laborach a thaobh sgaoileadh- cumhachd. Tha e soilleir cuideachd gu bheil iad fhathast neo-chinnteach air a' chùise seo. Ged a bha am PNA a' coimhead gòrach airson greiseag, chanainnse gun do dh' ionnsaich sinn agus sluagh na h-Alba tòrr mun phàrtaidh bhon chùise seo. Anns a' chiad dol a-mach dh' ionnsaich sinn gu robh am pàrtaidh deamocrasach agus gu robh iad deònach a bhith ag éisdeachd ris a' bhallrachd aca agus a bhith ag aideachadh nuair a tha lad air mearachd a dhèanamh. Chan ann mar seo a tha am Pàrtaidh Laborach ! Tha mi a' smaoineachadh gun do dh' ionnsaich am pàrtaidh leasan bho Chalum cuideachd. 'S e sin an leasan gu bheil beachdan agus poileasaidhean a cheart cho cudromach ri lomhaighean ann am poileataigs. Bha iomadh duine an aghaidh Chaluim a chionn 's nach robh iad a' smaoineachadh gu robh feum air samhla ùr gach bliadhna no dhà. Tha iomhaigh agus "soundbite politics" ro chudromach ann am poileataigs an latha an- diugh. Tha seo air tachairt airson gu bheil na Laboraich agus Tóraidhean mar na pàrtaidhean ann an Ameireagaidh, cho coitach ri chéile. Mar a thuirt sanas a' PhNA o chionn ghoirid: Na Laboraich Ura--Na seann Tòraidhean. A chionn 's nach eil diofar mór eadar na poileasaidhean aca, tha sanasan mar suilean olca Bhlair agus samhlaidhean mar leòghann nan Túraidhean ''Albannach'' a' fàs nas cudromaiche ann an iomairtean nam pàrtaid'.
Cha do chòrd Calum ri ballreachd a' PnNA air sgàth 's gu bheil am PNA gu tùr eadardhealaichte bho na pàrtaidhean eile. Tha poileasaidhean diofraichte againn air neo- eisimealachd, rocaidean 7 cumhachd niùclach, cùisean sóisealta, a' Ghàidhlig agus air cha mhór a h- uile rud eile. Bidh iomhaigh agus samhlaidhean cudromach dhan PhNA anns an taghadh ach cha bhi Mgr Salmond a' cluich geam falamh nam Blaireach/nan Toraidhean. Cha bhi am PNA a' cluich ''Rocaidh sinn thu'' le Queen agus a' cleachdadh sholas-disco ann an coinneamhan-naidheachd mar a rinn Kinnock ann an 1992. Tha fior-phoileasaidhean againn agus cleachdaidh sinn iad ann an iomairt an
taghaidh.
1820 Martyrs Remembered
Jimmy Reid, a hero of the 1971 UCS 'work- in', was in fine fettle in his address to this year's annual Sighthill Commemoration, held by The 1820 Society.
He paid tribute to 'our' 1820 martyrs as pioneers in the struggle for the work- ers' social and economic-- as well as political--rights --whose efforts posthumously bore some fruit in the 'successes' achieved by the Labour Movement in our own century--in terms of the recognition of trade union rights and the establishment of the Welfare State. He also expressed his indignation at the extent to which the legacy from the past struggles of the Labour Movement had been progressively undermined by our recent experience of Thatcherite Tory rule -- together with his growing personal concern that in its desperation to win power the so-called 'New Labour' Party of Mr Blair had itself --already--sold out to 'Thatcherism` and was therefore in danger of comprehensively betraying its own principles and its own roots.
Judging from the warmth of his reception from the 50-strong crowd at the end of his address this was a view which was widely shared, by most of those in attendance.
Our other guest speaker --John Brady, the SNP's PPC for Springburn, who had spoken earlier--naturally argued that only an independent Scotland could adequately guarantee trade union and welfare rights thereby articulating the martyrs' simultaneous commitment to an essential 'Scottish dimension' as well as to social justice.
Once again the Society was fortunate in the fine weather which graced the occasion. Lily Love--who recently made a substantial contribution towards the cost of leather shoulder- saddles for the Society's banner--laid the wreath, and we were also grateful to one of our other stalwarts, Peter Wright, who had come all the way from Fife only to find himself being press-ganged into giving the financial appeal -- which raised the very respectable sum of £62.
Membership of The 1820 Society is £5 waged/£2 unwaged,
Membership secretary William Douglas, 252 Nether Auldhouse Road, Glasgow G45 1LS, would welcome a surge in new members.
See also 'The Radical Rising' on THE Scots Independence Tour.
Tory Lies and Fiddled Figures - Andrew Wilson
Andrew Wilson joined the HQ staff in August as the Senior Researcher/ Economist, having previously worked as an economist in the Scottish Office. This month he tells SI readers the truth about Scotland's finances and exposes the Tories' fiddled figures, put out under the guise of impartial Scottish Office Information.
In late October the Scottish Office published its latest "Government Expenditure and Revenues in Scotland'' report. This supposedly impartial exercise has rightly drawn fire as a politically motivated sham, and abuse both of the Civil Service and of taxpayers' resources. Both issues are being pursued by SNP Members of Parliament.
What interests me, as an economist, however, is the cynical attempt to mislead that is implicit in the entire published document.
How many times have we heard Tory politicians quoting the line that Scotland is subsidised by the UK to the tune of £8 billion? In fact the Scottish Office report says nothing of the sort -- even on their own dodgy methodology -- but relies on the smokescreen of jargon and "official statistics" to confuse. They rely on the view that Government budget statistics to most people are like King James VI's thoughts on Dr Donne's verses--"They are like the peace of God, they pass all understanding ".
Even sadder is the fact that the smoke-screen exercise not only tried to confuse politicians, but it actually confused some of the Scottish Press.
Take as an example the headline in the Herald that said ''£8200 million subsidy for Scots".
In fact--although you wouldn't know this without an inspection of the fine print--this was NOT what the Scottish Office document said. The UK of course ran a massive deficit of £47.9 billion, although this isn't mentioned until page 32 of the report. This is crucial because part of the £8.2 billion is Scotland's proportionate share of the UK deficit which should be subtracted if one is looking to find out how much Scotland is being "subsidised". This would leave £4.0 billion and thus the £8.2 billion 'subsidy' is quickly halved.
From that £4.0 billion we must then subtract Scotland's share of privatisation proceeds and North Sea revenues. Many journalists were under the impression that privatisation proceeds and oil revenues had been included. This was understandable because the report did devote a lot of space to both these issues-- half a page on privatisation proceeds and two pages on oil revenues.
It was not clear until footnote 4 on page 32 that privatisation receipts were not in the figures. Other fine print deal with the actual exlusion of oil revenues. If these two factors are included--as they must be--the ''subsidy" drops again-- now down to £2 billion-- a rather different figure from the headline £8.2 billion.
It is at that £2 billion figure that there can start a real debate about the minutiae of the economic argument - a debate on matters such as the treatment of income tax and ''unidentified" expenditure. The SNP figures on these matters are sources from a range of documents and stand up to any scrutiny. These figures have the effect of disposing of any subsidy whatsoever.
It is quite appalling that Government Ministers are using officials to produce documents which use cynical presentational tricks to mislead the very people that they are supposed to serve. Michael Forsyth is now using statistics rather as a drunk man uses a lamppost--for support rather than illumination. Instead of employing the very substantial talents of the Civil Service and their professional economists and statisticians, to inform and assist people in coming to a considered judgment, they are used shamelessly to obfuscate. This will of course come back to haunt the Tories.
One area where they have already begun to produce problems for the Tories lies in the work the SNP has recently undertaken using Scottish Office figures and methodology.
The SNP has applied such techniques to every fiscal year since 1979. We find that using their own method --not ours--Scotland contributed a relative surplus of £80 billion over the period to the London Treasury, £16,000 for every man, woman and child in Scotland. Asked to respond to this figure at their news briefing last week, the Scottish Office official could only say that ''it would not be appropriate for me to comment''.
However, comment they will as an answer will be required to the Parliamentary Question that Alex Salmond has now tabled. When the answer comes it will mark the beginning of the end of the fiddled figures trick that Forsyth and his predecessors have used to try and bamboozle Scottish voters and the Scottish Press.
David McCarthy takes Forsyth to Task
As an Englishman who has spent the last eight years in Scotland, and would not live anywhere else, I was sadden- ed by the venom in Mr Forsyth's speech to the Conservative Party Conference in Bournemouth attacking the SNP. He seemed to get more and more furious like a golfer thrashing about in the rough.
He claims that "over the past quarter-of-a-century the SNP has cynically generated an atmosphere of anti-English sentiment" and has "orchestrated hostility'' against the English. Really? I have travelled far and wide in Scotland, have knocked on thousands of doors, have the most obvious English accent--and have never met any anti-English sentiment. Nor have I met any anti-English sentiment within the SNP. None.
What does exist in Scotland is something entirely different. There is a strong feeling that the UK Government doesn't care much about Scotland and that we would do better with control of our own affairs. Some version of this view appears to be held by at least three-quarters of the population in Scotland, just as it was strongly held in the past by people like Mr Lang and Mr Rifkind. It has nothing whatever to do with being "anti- English" .
Mr Forsyth attacks SNP claims that the Scottish economy would do very well with independence. "Fantasy". "Extravagant creative accounting '' . ''Naivety''. "Fraudulent prospectus". (The spit must have been flying all over the stage by this time).
The SNP's argument that Scotland is not subsidised by the rest of the UK, and would be more prosperous with independence, is all set out in detail with statistics taken from quoted Government sources. We welcome reasoned analysis of our view. Mr Forsyth only invites ridicule by shouting abuse. Perhaps he can't sustain a discussion on economics? Surely the Tories must have someone who can?
The SNP's "Independence in Europe'', he tells us, ''would reduce Scotland to Third World status and hand over the governance of our country to Brussels".
Well, the UK has "Independence in Europe", -- doesn't it? Has Mr Forsyth's party handed over the governance of our country to Brussels? I don't think so. Those that do would of course say Mrs Thatcher, Mr Forsyth's mentor, took the fatal step by signing the Single European Act.
All the SNP wants is the same ''Independence in Europe'' for Scotland that the UK now has. We envy the position within the EU of countries like Ireland and Denmark and wish we could have the opportunity to manage our own affairs as successfully as they do. For the future, we are "pro-Europe"--like many of Mr Forsyth's Tory colleagues.
Perhaps the central theme of Mr Forsyth's speech was supposed to be where he accuses the SNP of being "narrowly socialist''. ''The arrogant assumption of the Salmond school of Nationalism is that to be a true Scot you must first be a socialist; if you do not embrace that neanderthal illusion, you forfeit your Scottish identity".
We make no such assumption. I quote my own introductory leaflet to the electors of East Lothian: "No-one can say what Government Scotland will have after independence. With proportional representation all four parties in Scotland will be well represented. Very likely there'll be a coalition. Then we shall have the politics of consensus instead of the childish shouting match you see at Westminster".
After independence there will be plenty of room for the Tories. In fact I expect we shall see a rather more attractive, and, with the benefit of proportional representation, more successful Tory party in Scotland. It will be free of the laager mentality that results from having control of no councils, having no MEPs and only a handful of Scottish MPs. Certainly, if the SNP ever were to become a "narrowly socialist" party embracing "neanderthal illusions" etc, I might need to find another party myself!
As to ''socialist" SNP policies, I don't really mind what Mr Forsyth calls them. We support, among other things: a first class NHS stripped of the commercially oriented ''reforms" that have only produced expensive bureaucracy, free nursery places for all 3 and 4 year-olds, well-funded comprehensive education. higher pensions and a cold climate allowance for the elderly, action to kick-start council house building and some redistribution of the burden of taxation in favour of those earning less than f26,000 a year, Neanderthal? Come, come, Mr Forsyth. These proposals would be regarded as mainstream in other European countries.
I suppose if we really wanted to be neanderthal we would be following the Tories by proposing to abolish inheritance tax, which after all only cuts in at f200,000, while forcing elderly people with assets of £16,000 to sell their home to pay for residential care.
Concluded Mr Forsyth in Bournemouth: ''The true flower of Scotland is the genius and the generosity of our people''. Mr Gerald Warner-- Mr Forsyth's eccentric Right- wing adviser, who presumably wrote the speech--certainly isn't a genius. A little more generosity from Mr Forsyth might help the political debate in Scotland.
It might even help the Tories. After all, however you read the polls, nothing Mr Forsyth has done so far has troubled the scorers. Even Neanderthal Man knows that 13 per cent is within a grunt or two of--er --13 per cent.
Scots Independent - Seventy Years Old this Month
Seventy years ago the founders, William and Iain Gillies alongwith Tom H Gibson, set in motion what has proved to be, the longest surviving political newspaper in Scotland this century. Not only is the SI still alive and well but their offspring are still active in the Nationalist cause. Anne Lorne Gillies, SNP PPC for the Western isles, is the daughter of Iain and grand- daughter of William Gillies. Tom and Elma Campbell Gibson's daughter Isabel is a stalwart member of the Dumfries Branch of the SNP and a valued supporter of the SI.
As I said at this year's SI Lunch and Oliver Award Presentation, I don't know for certain what was in the minds of the founders in 1926, but I am sure that Tom H Gibson, in particular, recognised that it would be a long hard struggle to convince our fellow Scots of the need for and merits of the case for Independence.
The Scots Independent was to the fore in calling for the formation of "a Scottish National Party" and the Scottish National League was among the bodies which came together to form the National Party of Scotland in 1928. A move well described by Elma Campbell Gibson in the columns of the SI in May 1955. Thus Scotland had in 1928, for the first time ever, both a newspaper which championed the Independence cause and a political party prepared to seek an electoral mandate for Scottish Freedom.
It has been a long haul since 1926. The ups and downs of the National Movement have been well documented in two recent books. 'Independent and Free' by Richard J Finlay (John Donald 1974) recounts the history of Scottish Nationalism to 1945 and James Mitchell's 'Strategies for Self-government' (Polygon 1996) expertly analyses the various strategies and methods used to secure a Scottish Parliament over the past 100 years.
But real progress has been made. To-day, in comparison with 1926, Scotland now has a political party thirled to securing Independence. The SNP has for the past 20 years contested every Scottish constituency at General Elections. I joined the National Party following the 1959 General Election when only five seats were contested by the SNP. The number of seats contested rose to 15 in 1964 and to 23 in 1966 as the Nationalist cause surged forward in the Sixties.
Since Dr Winifred M Ewing's magnificent victory in the 1967 Hamilton By-Election, the SNP has had a continuous presence in the English House of Commons. From a high of eleven MPs in 1974 the Party now holds four seats, controls three local authorities with Council seats held throughout Scotland, and has a voice in Europe through two excellent Euro MEPs, Dr Winifred M Ewing and Dr Allan Macartney. Recent opinion polls indicate that the National Party could repeat the electoral success gained in the two 1974 General Elections. But, of course, only time will tell.
Over the years the Scots Independent has been served by some outstanding Scots as Editor, from William and lain Gillies in 1926 to the present indefatigable incumbent, W Kenneth Fee. In between, men of the calibre of Arthur Donaldson, Dr Robert D Mclntyre, Tom H Gibson, Alasdair MacDonald, Michael Grieve, Albert D Mackie, Dr David Murison, Douglas Stewart, Alwyn James and Colin Bell have ensured that the Scottish cause has been well backed in print.
Contributors over the years have included literary figures such as Neil M Gunn, Hugh MacDiarmid, Lewis Spence, Alexander Scott and Donald Campbell. Indeed the SI has chosen to celebrate its 70th Anniversary by publishing, in conjunction with the Scottish Cultural Press, a selection of the 'Around The Arts' -columns penned by Alexander Scott from 1968 to 1970 (the SI was then a weekly). Edited by Neil R MacCallum, the present Arts Editor of the Sl, 'Sing Frae The Hert' is a must for all those interested in Scottish Culture.
Another two past contributors merit special mention. The exceptional Scottish cartoonist, the late Ewen Bain, contributed an outstanding series of political cartoons from the January 1978 Sl, on Devilution (as Compton MacKenzie aptly summed up Devolution). The SI published a selection of Bain's political cartoons, edited by David R Rollo, in 1991.
Over the decades, the late W Oliver Brown contributed a pithy column which was the first item read by many SI devotees. Once again David R Rollo did sterling work in editing a splendid selection of Oliver's comments and aphorisms under the title of 'The Wisdom of Oliver Brown'. It was appropriate when Dr James C Lees proposed that the SI should honour a Scot each year that the award should be named after W Oliver Brown.
The Oliver was first awarded in 1983 to the writer and climber Tom Weir and is now regarded as the Scottish equivalent of the 'Brits (so- called) Honours List'. The roll call of winners indeed does read as a list of outstanding Scots-- Tom Weir, Prof Derick S Thomson, Ewen Bain, Mary Marquis, David Stephen, Jimmie Mcgregor, Muriel Gray, George Rosie, Norman MacCaig, Dr John Purser, Gordon Wright, Dorothy-Grace Elder and Colin Bell. The nomination list for the award is now open again.
The SI volunteers, from Business Manager Tom K Preston, a task he has fulfilled since 1958, Editor Kenneth Fee, since 1985, the dispatch team to the many contributors, all give of their time and effort willingly to further the Scottish cause. The team associated with the SI look upon their service as a trust, a duty to be carried on until the day Scottish Freedom is achieved.
But the production of a Nationalist newspaper would be pointless without the existence of a political party to secure the goal of Independence. That is why, although the SI is independent of the Scottish National Party, it urges electoral support for the Party. The SI welcomed, for example, the recent approach from SNP Chief Executive Mike Russell to run a double page election fixture in the lead up to next year's General Election.
For monthly sales the SI is grateful to all participating SNP Branches (Branches receive a 20% discount on the cover price), individual agents such as top salesman Robert Halliday and the growing number of postal subscribers. From Auchtermuchty to Australia, from Zetland to (New) Zealand the Sl is distributed world wide, every month by the 51 Cowane Street volunteers. Our newest international postal subscription has just arrived from Bermuda.
That we can celebrate the 70th Anniversary of the SI is due solely to the loyalty of the many helpers and readers over the decades. Unlike most political newspapers the Sl receives no subsidy from a political party, but relies on sales and the generosity of its readers.
In addition the Scots Independence Trust, which aims to guarantee the paper's future economic well being, has already attracted over 30 magnificent patrons--and is of course looking for more!
Our thanks are extended to current teams of helpers and readers with the hope that Independence will have dawned before the SI's 80th anniversary. Until then we will continueto do our best to live up to the vision of our founders--to promote all that is best in Scottish Nationalism and all that is best in our beloved Scotland.
All books referred to below are available by post from--
Scots Independent (Newspapers) Ltd, 51 Cowane Street, Stirling FK8 IJW.
"Independent and Free" £13.50 (Special rate incl p+p)
"Strategies for Self-govermnent" £13.00 incl p+p
"Bain's Cartoons" £3.00 Special price--post free
"The Wisdom of Oliver Brown" £3.00 Special price--post free
"Sing Frae The Hert" £5.95 incl p+p
|
