Scotland: at least Labour could oppose independence independently


2:40 pm - October 19th 2012

by Dave Osler    


      Share on Tumblr

In a part of Britain in which the population still gets overly excited about the ideological alignments of its football clubs, the British flag is not just a neutral patriotic symbol.

Thirteen-year-old Lee Heron was earlier this year sent home from his high school in Newton Stewart, Wigtownshire, for wearing a Union Jack T-shirt his mum had bought him Primark. This attire, his teacher deemed, was likely to inflame sectarian tension among the pupils.

I do not know enough to pass any comment on the merits of that particular case. But in the local context, the reported decision of some Scottish university Labour clubs to hand out Union Jacks as a freshers’ week recruitment incentive is probably sending the wrong message to an entire section of the population.

Yet even before David Cameron and Alex Salmond agreed the terms of a referendum on Scottish independence – likely to be held in 2014 – Labour has been remarkably anxious to position itself as plus unioniste que les unionistes on this issue.

So it is that former chancellor Alistair Darling – who would no doubt have strongly supported a Nairn thesis-style break-up of Britain at the time when Neil Kinnock famously branded him a ‘bearded Trot’ – has ended up heading Better Together, the main anti-independence campaign.

At least he is likely to end up on the winning side. In the terms in which the argument is currently framed, the Scottish National Party looks set to come a cropper.

After dropping his earlier insistence that Scottish residents be given a chance to tick a box in favour of further devolution, Salmond faces resounding defeat, at least if the opinion polls are anything to go by.

While I personally favour outright Scottish independence – for reasons I have set out elsewhere – this remains a minority outlook on the English left.

Officially, reluctance is expressed as opposition to ‘breaking up the historically constituted unity of the British working class’. Unofficially, the very real fear is that if Scotland leaves us, the parliament of what remains of the UK will be handed to the Tories in perpetuity.

Given that Labour’s heritage is support for Scottish home rule rather than independence proper, let us accept that progressive Sassenach opinion can reasonably differ. What does worry me is the tactical ineptness of Labour’s apparent determination to do the Tories’ heavy lifting for them.

As the joke went after China gifted a couple of pandas to Edinburgh zoo, Scotland now has twice as many ailuropoda melanoleuca than Conservative MPs. If Better Together was reliant on a Tory figurehead, the referendum would be another ballgame altogether.

By entering a formal alliance with the Conservatives and the Lib Dems, Labour is selling itself short, and reinforcing the impression north of the border that little separates the three London-based mainstream parties.

Scottish Labour leader Johann Lamont should think twice about ramping up the quasi-Thatcherite rhetoric in a bid to attack the SNP from the right.

A far better choice would be to oppose independence independently, while pushing for the combination of greater autonomy and greater social justice that most Scots seem to want.

    Share on Tumblr   submit to reddit  


About the author
Dave Osler is a regular contributor. He is a British journalist and author, ex-punk and ex-Trot. Also at: Dave's Part
· Other posts by


Story Filed Under: Blog ,Local Government

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.


Reader comments


“Unofficially, the very real fear is that if Scotland leaves us, the parliament of what remains of the UK will be handed to the Tories in perpetuity.”

Best reason I’ve heard for an independent Scotland. I am now firmly for it. England can run under the Tories, Scotland under successive left wing governments and unhappy lefties can go live north of the border. We’ll see in the end which solution omes out better – an excellent experiment.

If there is any single greater indication of the need for Scottish independence from the clutches of Labour then I have not seen it. The fact that failed a Westminster politician who slavishly followed the Right wing consensus leads the ‘no’ campaign says it all really. A party that has successfully betrayed the interests of Scotland for the last five or six years they were in power by perusing the Daily Mail’s twisted agenda are now determined to permanently weld us to a political settlement designed to drag us back to Victorian Times. It comes as no surprise that ‘New’ (or ‘One Nation’, whatever the fuck that means) Labour have swung in behind the Tories because when you get down to it and strip away all the shit around the periphery, it is the same Party. Different wings with the ‘Labour’ contingent being the ‘One Nation’ end of the Party, the Lib Dems being the penalty box to penalty box roving midfielders and the Tories acting as the Old Guard, but one Party all trying to old Daily Mail each other.

Darling and the rest of his moribund Party have lost any real sense of direction, any connection with the electorate and a complete contempt for the people they are ‘supposed’ to represent.

They cannot find time to campaign for the millions of British people who are now faced with losing incomes thanks to disastrous disability reforms. There is silence as millions more are driven into unwanted part time work or zero hour contracts. They are not interested in people who are losing both jobs and incomes, or attempting to find jobs in a market where forty people apply for every shitty vacancy. Look at the photographs taken campaigns against Atos and workfare, there are MP shaped holes in them all, because ‘Labour’ cannot be arsed to stand up for anything other than the right to stuff there snouts into the Westminster trough.

Here is a thought for Alistair and that annoying woman whose name genuinely escapes me; perhaps if Labour where actually seen to be representing decent people instead of pandering to vermin, perhaps there would be no need for an anti independence campaign?

3. Chaise Guevara

@ 1 Tyler

“Best reason I’ve heard for an independent Scotland. I am now firmly for it. England can run under the Tories, Scotland under successive left wing governments and unhappy lefties can go live north of the border. We’ll see in the end which solution omes out better – an excellent experiment.”

Lacks symmetry though. Can we swap, so we get to start in the country that has way more stuff?

Realistically, losing Scotland would not give the Tories a permanent lock on Downing Street, although obviously it would be a huge advantage in the short term. Without a credible threat to their rule, the Tories would inevitably pull to the right, thus creating a credible threat as the kind of people who switched sides to vote for Blair returned to Labour.

In other words, we’d likely still have control passing between the two parties, but both of them would be more right-wing than before. Which obviously is still good news for you and bad news for me.

“Unofficially, the very real fear is that if Scotland leaves us, the parliament of what remains of the UK will be handed to the Tories in perpetuity”.

The fear may be very real, but the myth of perpetual Tory rule is just that.

The myth appears to be based on two things:

1) A failure to look at previous election statistics, and
2) The belief that things stay the same forever.

The Conservatives would have an advantage right now, but opposition would adapt and build (we know what happens to parties that remain in power for too long). Myth-believers may wish to have a look at the last Scottish Assembly results. Labour’s “perpetual” rule in Scotland was very short-lived indeed.

I think Jack C has settled that one.

And when the Labour Party of England & Wales win the 2015 General Election Tyler will be very welcome to move to Texas, or wherever he’d feel politically comfortable, and hopefully not come back.

6. Churm Rincewind

@ Jack C (4) “Unofficially, the very real fear is that if Scotland leaves us, the parliament of what remains of the UK will be handed to the Tories in perpetuity…but opposition would adapt and build (we know what happens to parties that remain in power for too long).”

Certainly. But you assume that the opposition would come from the left. It could just as easily come from UKIP, the EDF, or the National Front.

Incidentally, who do you mean by “us”?

6: “But you assume that the opposition would come from the left.”

Recap: South of a line from The Wash to the River Severn, Labour has just ten out of 197 parliamentary seats. Numerous counties, from Cornwall to Essex, are Labour-free zones.

500 odd words of what? This article says so little that I found myself drifting off by the second paragraph.

@Churm,

I don’t know who I mean by “us”. I didn’t use the word.

And why do “I assume that the opposition would come from the left”? I didn’t say that.

More recently, non-Tory English majorities have been won by the Labour party. Before that it was the Liberals.

I think it unlikely that Labour will be beaten by the EDF and the National Front, and they’ve never been troubled by UKIP in a General Election.

What makes you think differently?

“This article says so little that I found myself drifting off by the second paragraph.”

I occasionally believe that is the fine art of much contemporary high-class journalism. If an article says nothing much of substance but says it ever so elegantly, no one can possibly take offence.

My impression is that the reporting style of the freebie papers like the Metro and London Evening Standard tends to be very tight as the business models depending on continuing to attract readers in order to attract advertising revenues. I get excellent daily briefing on local news by email from my local daily paper entirely free.

11. The XYZ Line

Union Jacks at freshers’ weeks? Ridiculous! Why on earth would members of a party which supports the Union want to associate with the symbols of the Union?

I suppose Darling ex‘bearded Trot’ or not is a better choice to lead the bitter together cabal than the utterly appalling Johann Lamont, or the equally vile popinjay that is Ruth Davidson.

Attacking the SNP is just a proxy for attacking the very concept of self-determination. If they all in unison attack self-determination that can only lead people to rationally conclude that there is effectively no difference between them no matter which badge they wear. They are all centralisers in thrall to the London establishment.

I like Salmond and the SNP because they stir up the vested interests in Scotland and London. The Labour vested interest establishment utterly despise them and the feeling is mutual. Contrary to what some people seem to believe their dominant leadership core are not particularly leftwing. They would not have been out of place in a 1950/60S Conservative government. Policies such as not charging kids to go to university are just not seen as leftwing in Scotland by anyone. If anything the policy is a middle class subsidy. They may say a lot of things the English left like such as being anti-nuclear weapons and defending the NHS etc. But what they are is paternalistic rather than lefty. For example, they want independence to cut taxes not raise them. This from a former Labour apparatchik is pretty accurate.
http://www.scotsman.com/news/simon-pia-vision-is-just-an-illusion-1-2504098

Salmond a few years ago:

Mr Salmond said: “The SNP has a strong social conscience, which is very Scottish in itself.

“One of the reasons Scotland didn’t take to Lady Thatcher was because of that. We didn’t mind the economic side so much. But we didn’t like the social side at all.”
http://www.scotsman.com/news/alex_salmond_scotland_didn_t_mind_thatcher_economics_1_1086679

The whole cliche of Labour Scotland and Tory England is just nonsense. The idea that Scotland is more leftwing than England is just a myth. The majority in Scotland have always been anti-Labour. The mistake people make is assuming the only rightwing opinion is those who vote Conservative. The SNP electoral base are a pretty broad church and they pick up anti-labour votes in some areas and anti-Tory votes in other areas.

A map of the constituency vote in Labour Scotland after the last SP election.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Scottish_Parliament_election_2011_map.svg&page=1

What terrifies labour is the SNP advance into their traditional heartlands. Accurately telling the voters that the Labour Party cares nothing about them and only sees them as electoral fodder rattles the Labour cage because it is true.

No matter what the result is in the referendum the current UK governing system is not fit for purpose. The entire UK state needs to be decentralised. However, the London establishment will fight it tooth and nail. The West Lothian question really needs to be resolved. It is just bad politics and bad economics to have the Scottish Parliament responsible for spending 60% of public money spent in Scotland, and only responsible for raising 15% of the public money spent in Scotland. So further fiscal devolution is called for even if there is a no vote.

“Scottish Labour leader Johann Lamont should think twice about ramping up the quasi-Thatcherite rhetoric in a bid to attack the SNP from the right.”

She should also realise she is undermining the policies of Carwyn Jones, who is currently the most successful labour politician in the UK.

Never ceases to amaze me how little labour actually learn from their successes.

14. Colin McHammertime

Scottish Labour must rank as amongst the strangest and most disturbing collection of politicians in the UK. Soon this gaggle of opportunists, careerists, incompetents and reactionaries will be jumping this sinking ship and just to complete their political evolution most will probably go on to provide the personnel the establishment needs to ignite the spark of Scottish fascism.

15. Churm Rincewind

@ Jack C (9): “I don’t know who I mean by “us”. I didn’t use the word.”

Indeed you didn’t. You were quoting the OP. My apologies for a lazy reading of your post.

“I think it unlikely that Labour will be beaten by the EDF and the National Front, and they’ve never been troubled by UKIP in a General Election. What makes you think differently?”

I was picking up on your suggestion that in the event of an inbuilt Tory majority, “opposition would adapt and build (we know what happens to parties that remain in ower too long)”. I agree, and I think your example of the Scottish Assembly is a good one. In my view, what happened there was that the inbuilt Labour majority became unpalatable to the electorate, and voters sought an alternative. But rather than turning to the established Conservative and/or Liberal parties, votes swung behind what was at the time a relatively small and (many would have considered) eccentric alternative – the SNP.

So I don’t think that the fact that Labour in England have historically never been “beaten by the EDF and the National Front” or been “troubled by UKIP in a General Election” is necessarily true for the future. It was similarly thought that Labour in Scotland would never be beaten or troubled by the SNP. How wrong they were.

It was similarly thought that Labour in Scotland would never be beaten or troubled by the SNP. How wrong they were.

I imagine soothsayers would have been thrown off track by Scottish Labour deciding the best way to react to the SNP holding what might be regarded as a ‘Labour position’ on any conceivable subject was to jink hard and fast to the right, turn red in the face and begin angrily ranting about ‘Newsnat’. Who could have prediction such a cretinous move?

The entirely predictable booing of Ed Miliband makes better television, but the real story is that the Glasgow and Belfast rallies were held at all.

It may or may not still be a matter for Westminster and Whitehall whether or not to cut at all in Scotland or in Northern Ireland. But what to cut in Scotland is now overwhelmingly a matter for Holyrood, which these days means for the SNP. And what to cut in Northern Ireland is now overwhelmingly a matter for Stormont, which at least primarily for the DUP and for Sinn Féin. Anyone who doubts this should note the absence of any demonstration in Labour-run Wales. “Blame London” will not wash anywhere outside England. Least of all in Scotland, with the independent fiscal power of the devolved body there.

What we have seen today in Belfast has been a mass demonstration by the working class against its own two political parties, at least until such time as economic circumstances compel it to create another one or more. Meanwhile, what we have seen today in Glasgow has been a mass demonstration against the Irish-style bourgeois Nationalism of which, this very day, the SNP became the vehicle once and for all. It has been a long time coming, but at last it has arrived. By endorsing NATO membership, the SNP has finally become Fine Gael. Or the Establishment wing of Fianna Fáil, back when there was any other.

Although even those have always had the fig leaf that the blatantly obvious treaty was nominally a secret, in the way that MI5 and MI6 officially did not used to exist. Let’s just say “Shannon Airport”, and the point is made. There is no economic case for Shannon Airport. It is purely strategic. And we all know what that means. Like Prestwick Airport, in fact. So, has Alex Salmond, by securing a commitment to NATO membership, prevented the retention of Prestwick as a British sovereign base? Think about it.

Consider Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil in the early Cold War years: rural, bourgeois, ultra-Catholic, with endless close family ties to the United States, and with no meaningful opposition to their duopoly except (if there was any) from what Attlee’s and Bevan’s Labour Party would have been like if its left wing had been cut off. As in Sweden, there were domestic political difficulties when it came to selling full NATO membership. As in Sweden, those were easily circumvented. Sweden, in fact, even co-operated in an attempt to obtain her own nuclear weapons. Will Scotland? I only ask.

Look at the number of demonstrations that there have been over the decades by Irish Communists and ultra-Leftists, and by those, sometimes the same people, who have continued to profess allegiance to the 32-County Republic of 1916. They themselves have never tired of pointing out the blatantly obvious true state of affairs that has for so very long given rise to so very, very many specific causes for demonstration, or on occasion for rather more than demonstration.

The SNP had always supported Scottish membership of Partnership for Peace, the only logical purpose of which is eventual accession to NATO. The monarchy, the pound (or else the euro), and now this: what does have to happen before much of that party secedes from what is as clearly a creature of British intelligence as ever was the 1926 secession from Sinn Féin, which duly went on to hang the IRA.

As clearly as ever was the 1933 merger of the Blueshirts, Cumann na nGaedheal and the National Centre Party, complete with a commitment to Commonwealth membership (which in those days necessitated retention of the monarchy, and a very high degree of integration in foreign policy and defence), albeit for a United Ireland as the ultimate aim.

And as clearly as ever was a party which has always been funded very largely, and of course entirely openly, by trade unions that exist throughout these Islands and are headquartered in England, usually in London.

David Lindsay @16:

“Anyone who doubts this should note the absence of any demonstration in Labour-run Wales.”

The lack of a demonstration in Cardiff has got bugger all to do with the fact that the government is currently Labour-run. It has everything to do with the Labour and Trade Union establishment in Wales being hard-line unionists (in the other sense) who see Wales as being “too small, too poor, too weak, too stupid”, and therefore not ‘worthy’ of having demos of their own like their counterparts in Scotland and NornIrn do. They – like their forebears Kinnock, Bevan, et al – like making themselves feel important by cavorting around London instead.

@17, and who, exactly, is not a Unionist in that sense in Wales?

Bevan (the Bevan in my earlier comment should have been Bevin, but this one was very definitely Bevan) ridiculed the first parliamentary Welsh Day on the grounds that “Welsh coal is the same as English coal and Welsh sheep are the same as English sheep”. In the 1970s, Labour MPs successfully opposed Scottish and Welsh devolution not least because of its ruinous effects on the North of England. Labour activists in the Scottish Highlands, Islands and Borders, and in North, Mid and West Wales, accurately predicted that their areas would be balefully neglected under devolution.

Eric Heffer in England, Tam Dalyell and the Buchans (Norman and Janey) in Scotland, and Leo Abse and Neil Kinnock in Wales, were prescient as to the Balkanisation of Britain by means of devolution and the separatism that it was designed to appease, and as to devolution’s weakening of trade union negotiating power. Abse, in particular, was prescient as to the rise of a Welsh-speaking oligarchy based in English-speaking areas, which would use devolution to dominate Welsh affairs against the interests of Welsh workers South and North, industrial and agricultural, English-speaking and Welsh-speaking. Heffer’s political base was in Liverpool, at once very much like the West of Scotland and with close ties to Welsh-speaking North Wales.

There is a strong feeling among English, Scottish and Welsh ethnic minorities and Catholics that we no more want to go down the road of who is or is not “really” English, Scottish or Welsh than Ulster Protestants want to go down the road of who is or is not “really” Irish. The Scotland Office Select Committee is chaired by Ian Davidson, a Co-operative Party stalwart and Janey Buchan protégé who is therefore a hammer both of Scottish separatism and of European federalism. There is no West Lothian Question, since the Parliament of the United Kingdom reserves the right to legislate supremely in any policy area for any part of the country, the devolution legislation presupposes that it will do so as a matter of course, and anyone who does not like that ought to have voted No to devolution.

The Welfare State, workers’ rights, full employment, a strong Parliament, trade unions, co-operatives, credit unions, mutual guarantee societies, mutual building societies, and nationalised industries (often with the word “British” in their names) were historically successful in creating communities of interest among the several parts of the United Kingdom, thus safeguarding and strengthening the Union. The public stakes in the Bank of Scotland and the Royal Bank of Scotland are such permanent, non-negotiable safeguards of the Union.

The Union can only be defended in these terms and within this tradition, while any failure to defend the Union cannot be described as left-wing in any way, shape or form. Ed Miliband, over to you.

20. douglas clark

This has to be amongst the most confused, completely ridiculous articles I have ever read.

Our author has this to say:

“”A far better choice would be to oppose independence independently, while pushing for the combination of greater autonomy and greater social justice that most Scots seem to want.”

And who is going to deliver it?

Check the lack of credibility in that statement. I do not believe that Labour will win the next election, nor do I believe that they would offer what your author suggests. At the moment, they are part of a ‘No’ campaign that threatens and bullies. They are no party of additional powers. (If I am wrong, let them spell them out. So far, the silence is deafening.)

The author of this pice is being economical with the truth, Ms Curran has an idea in her mind to offer more if we vote no. Who is reminded of other politicians? She is an incredible advocate for further devolutionary powers. I used the word incredible deliberately.

As far as the article is concerned, what a pathetic piece of cant!

It ill behoves the author to think he has the faintest idea that he knows what he is talking about, it ill behoves any commentator who think likewise to think they do either. For they are, collectively, completely ignorant of what they speak.

Honest!

To that extent, they are apparently unaware of the discussions that have been going on in Scotland for yonks and too ignorant to add to that debate, but prefer this sort of mind wank.

For the debate is local and international and has absolutely nothing to do with the Labour Party.

It is that that you lot hate.

You have been marginalised and you don’t know how it happened.

It is a truly mad mess that the Labour Party in Scotland has presented over the last few weeks. It is not even right wing, it is right of reason.

Would you, dear reader, give up affordable health care for the elderly, or free prescriptions or education free at the point of delevery? We do it within our ‘allowance’.

Well, you just did. You voted Labour.

_____________________________________________

Your Labour Party, Dave Osler, is beyond a joke.

In Unionist Politics at least there is nothing to distinguish between the pigs and the men, they all look just the same.

We have an option.

You don’t.

Saor Alba.

21. margin4error

Scottish Labour still thinks it is the powerbase of Labour as a whole. This was a view hapilly perpetrated when Brown was in the ascendance. And each Scottish Labour politician seems to look to London not for inspiration, but as their ambition. They want to be MPs rather than MSPs, and Prime Ministers rather than First Ministers.

Until that changes the SNP will remain the biggest party in Edinburgh. But this referendum is a chance, if Labour take it, to establish some scottish leader figures who see Scotland first, and the UK second. Darling is of course not such a figure.

Churm,
You need to look at previous election results.

The SNP have been mainstream since at least 1970, so scarcely an “eccentric” choice for Scottish Assembly voters.

An English equivalent would be the displacement of Labour or the Conservatives by the Lib Dems.

“Anyone who doubts this should note the absence of any demonstration in Labour-run Wales”

All they will be noting is the lack of UK media coverage of devolved politics in Wales. The last year has seen the biggest demonstrations outside the sennedd ever seen. Most of them over health service changes.

Furthermore, as the devolution settlement still remains very weak, with the welsh government having fewer financial powers than a parish council, why on earth should those opposed to London imposed cuts protest in Cardiff? All cuts we have had imposed are down to economic decisions taking in London. That isn’t to say we don’t have more autonomy over where the axe falls, but we still have to actually use the Axe.

“exactly, is not a Unionist in that sense in Wales”

About 10-15% of the population. However if the question is ‘do you think the welsh government should have more powers, including fiscal responsibility” opinion polls put that to around 70%. Support for the union here boils down to two factors; (1) Cultural – shared history, the army, monarchy etc combined with the fact nobody wants passport controls on the severn bridge, (2) Economic – attempting to finance public services and welfare purely on tax reciepts would bankrupt us at the moment (I do look forward to the TPA figuring this out) – we need the subsidy.

However there is little support for the political approach of westminister. A federal system with some form of re-distribution would be the preferred option for the vast majority here.

“In the 1970s, Labour MPs successfully opposed Scottish and Welsh devolution ”

And then Thatcher happened. Things changed, and most of those labour MPs realised they had made a mistake – more so in Scotland, but still enough of them in Wales to ensure support for Welsh Devolution. Unfortuantely the divisions within Welsh labour are still great, and even Carwyn Jones gets treated with contempt by his UK leadership.

Douglas Clark hits the nail on the head. People who do not follow devolved politics simply have no idea how to respond to the referendum – because they simply do not understand how we ended up in this position.

24. douglas clark

margin4error,

The greatest error the Labour Party ever made was to give up on Clause 4. The directionless shit that occurred thereafter meant that it was as soulless as, say, the Republicans. Gordon Brown as Chancellor brought you PFI and the, sort of, privatisation of public services. That mind set gives you ATOS where the bloody objective is to run an inhumane policy. It is also beyond a joke that Labour loves capitalism to the extent that it doesn’t even try to argue for control of it’s excesses. Sunder Katwala will be along shortly to tell us about some sort of ‘think tank’ paper making progress through the Labour Party. Frankly, he is wasting his time. Nobody is listening any more. Labour is like a football team in the third division whose supporters recall it’s past glories. Frankly, it is a power structure that has had it’s day. I am perfectly serious about the Orwell quote:

“No question, now, what had happened to the faces of the pigs. The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.”

Can you see any difference?

I can’t.

Politics ought to mean something more than a focus group and triangulation. Ed Milliband hasn’t got beyond that newspeak, and I guess he never will……

25. douglas clark

David Lindsay @ 19,

You say:

The Scotland Office Select Committee is chaired by Ian Davidson, a Co-operative Party stalwart and Janey Buchan protégé who is therefore a hammer both of Scottish separatism and of European federalism.

You do realise that your hero is a complete tosser?

I will be happy to give you chpter and verse on that.

You also say:

There is a strong feeling among English, Scottish and Welsh ethnic minorities and Catholics that we no more want to go down the road of who is or is not “really” English, Scottish or Welsh than Ulster Protestants want to go down the road of who is or is not “really” Irish.

Really?

Scottish Nationalism is inclusive, not exclusive. You know not of what you speak. Shame on you for your pathetic attempt at racism. Essentially, someone who lives here is welcomed whatever their background. Y’know what? I have no idea, and have no intention of asking, what religion or ethnicity motivates Alex Salmond, Nicola Sturgeon or Hamza Yousaf. I, and I suspect most other SNP supporters, would be quite happy to see that trio as reasonable succession planning, come 2024 or so.

You might be more ‘at home’ on this forum:

http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t872684/

For there hatred of difference abides. And the wedge strategy is in full flow.

Douglas,

There is an excellent article on our kingdom (http://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/daniel-g-williams/single-nation-double-logic-ed-miliband-and-problem-with-british-multicu ) that covers the inclusive nature of civic scottish and welsh nationalism, and how british nationalists fail to see what they are doing is in fact nationalism.


Reactions: Twitter, blogs
  1. Jason Brickley

    Scotland: at least Labour could oppose independence independently http://t.co/SQttUQ1f

  2. Jock_Abroad

    Interesting RT @libcon: Scotland: at least Labour could oppose independence independently http://t.co/4uzauGTM





Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.