by David Milligan

A Labour Party member asked the following question in an article done for "Labourhame" and I answered his question in straightforward language that went to the centre of the Labour Party's core values.  Thanks here goes to Mr Currie who I believe is Labours' Treasurer for Glasgow South who authored the article.  It can be viewed at "Labourhame" under the title of "Stop the bus - Can some non-politicians get on" along with the other responses I wrote.

I was struck by the honesty of the question and that is why it was important to answer not just for Mr Currie the author but for everyone.  Please remember that this was written to provoke thought about the situation in a non-confrontational way so that it could be digested easily by Labour supporters without offending them and let them see a point of view that ordinarily they would brush aside automatically because it comes from a CyberNat, which in a previous response is how I introduce myself.  Labour Party supporters still make up a sizeable chunk of the population, and if we want the independence referendum to be a roaring success, we need to talk to them and give them the arguments in a way that doesn't try to browbeat them into some kind of empty submission which achieves nothing in the long run.

It is my sincerest hope that any visiting Labour supporter will find that we on Newsnet Scotland are very capable of thoughtful and well considered posts.  And it is also my sincerest hope that if someone from the Labour supporters decides to post on this thread that they are given the space to make their point properly.  

Mr Currie asked: “A question that is never asked is “Why would we want to separate?” We are not like the states that emerged from the former USSR, where Russia oppressed Estonia, Latvia, etc. They were right to demand independence, and it was great that they got it. However, England does not oppress Scotland. The proof of that is the simple fact we are having this debate.”

Dear Mr Currie,

The reason that people like me want separation/independence/re-attainment of nation status etc etc etc is simple, the Act of Union 1707 has worked against the Scottish people.  If the Union had been set up fairly then there would have had to have been an equal number of representatives from each of the two countries sitting in Westminster when the Union was kicked off. As it was, the Scottish voice was drowned out. That is unfair and undemocratic.

Adding to this, we have seen a situation where due to the skewed seat of power, Scotland doesn’t benefit from her own resources and we have seen an unfair advantage given to London and the South East of England through successive parliaments.  Our people are left in a terrible state whilst money is pulled from Scotland to fund any number of projects that benefit the South of the UK. Think about that one for one moment.  It could even be argued that the North of England is in a similar state but that is possibly where the argument for independence has a benefit for England. If Scotland removed assent for the Act of Union 1707 then the Westminster Parliament would have to deal with the situation in the North of the country and as a result the Northerners would ultimately benefit by a re-balancing of finances.

There have been many times when the administration in Westminster have “covered up” the true economic position of Scotland and in fact they are still doing it today as can be seen if any of you download and do a bit of digging in the “GERS” report. This is just human nature at play again. Scotland produces a lot of wealth for the UK and contrary to popular belief, more than pays her way. The Nationalists in Scotland were responsible for the obfuscation of Westminster because as the Nationalists in Scotlands' voice grew, there was a very real prospect that they would seek independence, Westminster could not afford to lose (certainly in the 70′s) such a golden goose when in all respects they were pretty broke.

 

I’m trying not to judge here but instead trying to see both sides of the situation.  So, it’s a given that the UK has benefitted from the oil and gas revenues. The figure that is generally settled on is somewhere between £300 – £323 Billion over the last 34 years. Solid estimates give another 40 years of oil and gas production in Scotland and given that the price for these commodities tend to go up as they become more scarce, that means that an independent Scotland would have the wealth to tackle all the really nasty problems that Scotland has at the moment.  Our lifestyle would improve and we would have a more egalitarian society.  Problems don’t always go away no matter how much money you throw at them, but child poverty and mass unemployment and costly, poor quality social housing are all inextricably linked and therefore the wealth of our nation and a reindustrialisation would have a resoundingly positive impact on the lives of those at the bottom of the social strata, and then position them to take up the opportunities that would exist.

You see (and I’m sure you know), child poverty lies at the bottom of a pyramid of social and economic dysfunctionality and the only way to tackle it is to deal with all the root causes. Without independence, all we can do is tinker round the edges, no more than that, and it doesn’t matter who is in power in Holyrood, the situation would remain the same because Westminster would never give us the wealth that would be needed to sort it properly.

So to give an answer to your original statement on this issue, I would ask that we define the word “oppression” in our case. We seem to have free speech (we’re having a free debate) so no problem there. However we don’t have the ability to help our own people and Westminster are certainly not going to cough up the cash for us to do it, so there is a problem there, and because we have been lied to about our true financial position in an effort to keep us under control, I would in this sense call that a form of oppression. I don’t feel oppressed personally, but that’s just because of my particular circumstances, however, I can’t ignore the plight of people who are unable to break out of their circumstances because opportunities don’t exist for them to do so.

It is down to you and me Mr Currie, to find a way to give these people a chance in life so that we don’t have any more lost generations due to deprivation and mass unemployment.  We are, underneath all these political clothes “socialists” and if we ignore those at the bottom of our society then it cheapens us all and society as a whole suffers.

That’s why I’d like us to separate and become the Scotland that I know we can be, a Scotland that we all know where we’d like to live and prosper in.  If someone came along and told me a way where we could achieve all this without independence then I assure you I would be listening.  Promises though, are not enough, “jam tomorrow” has been tried before and we were lied to on that one. This time whatever the answer, it has to be for keeps and it has to be for Scotland.

I thank you again for your time,

Kindest regards to all,

David Milligan

Comments  

 
# Jiggsbro 2012-02-05 01:01
Excellent article. But it appears Scottish Labour are more interested in propping up English Labour than they are in helping the people who vote for them. That's probably why they're not voting for them so much.
 
 
# dundie 2012-02-05 02:30
Nothing new there then. Perhaps that explains why Glasgow contains more poverty-stricken areas than anywhere else in the so-called UK. Labour "internationalis m"...
 
 
# Auld Bob 2012-02-05 23:59
Damn! I was typing a good reply there and it just went blank. I'll just make a shorter comment then. The Wastemonster plotted to emascalate Glasgow as they feared the Red Clydesiders and unions. They tore the heart out of Glasgow and moved the population into high-rise hell-holes, East Kilbride, Eastehouses and all over Scotland to new towns. Then, helped along by the Glasgow Mafia labour party, they presided over the poverty that we still see in Glasgow to this day. The heavy industry was destroyed as was lighter engineering and not a lot was done to replace it. Glasgow had just become too big for its boots. Remember this, Labour started by the depravation of the Crofters en.wikipedia.org/.../... The Battle of the Braes on Skye. The great early labour leaders were from that Crofters Party. Then, aided by the Co-op, unions and, believe it or not, Liberals, The Labour Party began. Both they and the Liberals were Home Rule for Scotland parties. So ask yourself how such beginnings saw the Labour party preside over the creation of the poverty that is endemic in Glasgow these past 70 odd years? The Troughs of Wastemonster, corruption and the House of Lords have a lot to answer for. Until Labour learns its own history with eyes wide open they are to remain a spent force.
 
 
# bringiton 2012-02-05 11:58
I wonder how much the Labour party in Scotland depend on Labour London to fund them ?
This would explain much in their determination to follow the unionist line.
It will be interesting to see (if that is possible) who is going to fund their anti-independence campaign.
 
 
# pmcrek 2012-02-05 03:27
Just to add, the surplus that Scotland provides to the UK on average is not much in the 21st century to a country that is the size of the UK.

It is however a great deal of money to a country of 5 million people, enough to lay the groundworks of the Green Social Democracy most of us want to live in, irrespective of party allegiance.

While the rest of the UK wont miss the money, if Scotland can become a burgeoning Social Democracy it may help others, with the same aspirations elsewhere on these isles to purge lies such as, paying for education is the only way or that FPTP is fair.
 
 
# EricF 2012-02-05 13:46
John Ruddy, LabourHame regular, claims (in a response to David) his registration on Newsnet has been removed, and he's not allowed to re-register. Is this true? Can somebody explain please?
 
 
# Saltire Groppenslosh 2012-02-05 16:18
Yes I saw that as well EricF, perhaps the online ed could possibly tell us if he was a wee bit to heavy with the language or something?
 
 
# InfrequentAllele 2012-02-06 00:41
There's no John Ruddy or any similar name in our ID records. If he had registered but was removed for a breach of mod policy, he'd have received an email telling him why. It's possible he's simply experiencing log in problems (I have an SNP councillor friend with the same difficulty).

You've got my email address - if you're in contact with John Ruddy ask him to email me with his log in ID and I'll sort the problem out for him.
 
 
# EricF 2012-02-06 17:57
I don't know JR nor do I have an email address. He does have a blog at jruddy.wordpress.com/ as well as commenting a lot on LabourHame. He commented on 1st February (in the Stop the Bus thread):

"I have to disagree with your version of events over at NewsNet Scotland. There is certainly nothing like the open debate we have on this site. My own membership has been removed, and no matter how often I try to re-register, I am not allowed back. (You need to register to make comments)."

There may be a genuine mix-up which he's interpreting negatively or he's telling porkies. I just thought you should know.
 
 
# EricF 2012-02-06 18:00
Oh, and by the way, "AndrewEdinburgh " on the same thread said:

"I got nodded of Newsnet because i did not believe Alex Salmond 100%.They nodded my second ever post and i did not swear or do anything other than disagree with the SNP.

Andy Edinburgh"

You may not be aware that Andrew has nodded off, but now you are.
 
 
# mountaincadre 2012-02-06 18:41
Andy fae Edinburgh(Well known Labour troll).
 
 
# tartanfever 2012-02-05 14:51
I value your contributions PM, although our political agenda may differ, you realise that independence does offer a way forward to creating a fairer and greener society - two attributes that I would hope the vast majority of people would aspire to. It's a positive message.

However, I have difficulty with the fundamental 'block' that I see with most Labour politicians and their support. For someone of my age I was once a Labour supporter and voter in my youth - mainly spurned forward by the destruction of Thatcher's reign, I was happy and proud to support the 'party of the people'. that changed soon after 1997 when the seeds of doubt started creeping in to my thinking.

I had my doubts about the Blair govt. - to focused on the frivolities of 'cool Britannia' and being 'media savvy and friendly'. Then league tables started to appear on everything, the NHS, Police and so on. It seemed to me that the word 'service' was slowly being eroded from the fine institutions and being replaced by the word 'business.'

The Bank of England was handed the power to alter interest rates, and the Labour Government under Blair and Brown handed more power by de-regulating further the financial markets. This was following the Clinton model of 'governance by business advisors'. The markets would create the wealth if you let them do what they want. And so it happened. Industrialisati on was as ignored by this govt. as had been by the tories, All the eggs were in the City of London basket.

There were successes at this time. Mo Mowlam's work in NI was a triumph, but this was soon to be dashed a couple of years later with 9/11 and all that ensued. Regardless what you think of the rights and wrongs of the Iraq war, in terms of the international community and the UN, it was illegal.

That was the turning point for me. Robin Cook resigned as did Clare Short and it was clear that there was divide in the party. Seeing Blair stand alongside Bush during that time was the most disheartening of experiences. We truly were becoming the next state of the US.

Thats when I stopped supporting Labour. Looking back to 1985, when i gained the right to vote, I couldn't see any relation to the party and principles of that day. It's pretty much remained the same since.

In the last 10 years we have witnessed a complete narrowing of the political spectrum into shades of centre politics and no alternative to the left or right.

So that became the Labour policy - let the City and financial markets make the money to support a huge welfare state. Nowhere in there was a real effort to re-industrialise huge parts of the country and give jobs back to those areas most affected by Thatchers govt. - the north mainly.

From those years one statistic keeps reminding me of the failure of Labour, the gap between rich and poor increased more in that time than it did under Thatcher.

With that in mind, I simply don't understand how Labour supporters of a certain generation can actually believe that this is the same party of 20/30 years ago, the party of the people. They simply aren't.

The arguments they put forth are all based on rhetoric and policies that they themselves have mostly reneged on. It seems to me that many Labour supporters are actually incapable of looking critically at their party's track record and realising that they have not delivered on the promises they made.

What have they actually done for Scotland ?
 
 
# sneckedagain 2012-02-05 17:41
I have posted the following on Labour Hame without any great expectation that it will be published. I put it up about noon and it hasn't been moderated yet so I think we can say we are dealing with a pretty demoralised bunch. Let's all remember we have all been there and that we are a conversion organisation. A friendly hand is more effective in political terms than throwing bricks in most instances and this is probably one of them.

"I see no reaction here (Labour Hame)to the latest opinion poll (Ipsos-Mori) putting Labour at 23% which underlines my assertion that the SNP , at 49% in the same poll, is not beating Labour, it is replacing Labour.
I would say that Labour in Scotland is approaching a point from which recovery becomes impossible – unless there is a complete change in the positions it has adopted.
I will state this again. Labour is not constitutionall y a unionist party. Adopting a hardline unionist position is in no way essential to the furtherance of the supposed aims of the Labour Party.
This position is adopted in my opinion because those in power in Scottish Labour believe their own interests are served by adopting it or because London Labour rules Scottish Labour and those with political ambition on Scottish Labour slavishly mimic the London line in pursuit of their own interest."
 
 
# Briggs 2012-02-05 18:03
There definitely is a place for the Labour Party in a modern Independent Scotland.
Why they stick to their supposed 'roots' cosying up to the British State is really beyond comprehension.
If they joined with the SNP and fought for a 'Yes' vote, their future in Scotland would be assured.
They really are behaving disgracefully.
 
 
# Saltire Groppenslosh 2012-02-05 19:06
The intransigence is palpable.
 
 
# Auld Bob 2012-02-06 00:13
Quoting Saltire Groppenslosh:
The intransigence is palpable.



The real plain facts are that the vast number of SNP members tend to be a left of centre, social democratic body. The old Labour Party used to by much the same or perhaps had a tendency to be a little more leftward. We really have much more in common than the old, (great), Scottish Labour Party had with the Conservatives. I knew lots of these old Labour Party MPs and activists. They would not have given houseroom to the Scottish Labour Party of Today. Furthermore, Scotland is going to really need an opposition that has the ambition to govern Scotland and, what is more, has the political might to be able to do so. However, if the modern Labourites do not make a drastic shake-up soon they will go the way of the Lib/Dems and the Tory Party and face extinction.
 
 
# Macart 2012-02-06 15:11
Certainly not the Labour of my father's day or indeed my own early years. There are a great many Labour supporters who wish for a more socially democratic party and find themselves voting for politicians who value their seat in London more than running a clean house in Scotland. Auld Bob's bang on! You have to want to practice your politics in Scotland and for Scotland. I wouldn't dream of asking a loyal Labour supporter to vote for the SNP or indeed any other party, but I won't hesitate to ask them to vote for independence. Independence is greater than any party, its about the people and future of our nation. Its simple at the end of the day - Do you trust Westminster or Holyrood to hold your best interests at heart? Do you believe your politicians should be accountable to you directly or to their party allegiances? Do you want politicians who understand your problems and can call on the resources of our nation to help alleviate those problems or do you want to go cap in hand to London based committees who have no idea about your problems and could care less?

Regardless of party affiliation there is only one answer.
 
 
# .Scot 2012-02-07 02:32
England does not oppress Scotland. The proof of that is, they are generously allowing us to have this debate.”
 
 
# jafurn 2012-02-07 21:11
Quoting .Scot:
England does not oppress Scotland. The proof of that is, they are generously allowing us to have this debate.”


I cannot believe you do not see the irony in your statement.

It was a joke ..right?
 
 
# proudscot 2012-02-08 14:42
Quoting .Scot:
England does not oppress Scotland. The proof of that is, they are generously allowing us to have this debate.”


I trust you are joking - otherwise what is "generous" about allowing debate on any matter in a democracy?
 
 
# Blanco 2012-02-07 18:46
'Labour for Independence'. A campaign whose time is nigh.
 
 
# tartantommy 2012-02-12 21:25
From the older articles "IS THAT FRANK'S BUS?" former Lab MSP
 

You must be logged-in in order to post a comment.

Donate to Newsnet Scotland

Banner

Latest Comments