Banner

  By G.A.Ponsonby
 
A Labour MSP has criticised his party’s decision to “hold hands” with the Tories in the ‘Better Together’ alliance against Scottish independence and has claimed that the No campaign is now unable to “outline a coherent vision”.

Lothians MSP Neil Findlay has broken ranks with his Scottish Labour colleagues and called for the Labour and Trade Union movement in Scotland to argue against independence by putting forward their own alternative to ‘Devo-Max’.

Writing in a left wing publication ‘The Labour Movement Alternative For Radical Constitutional Change’ - Mr Findlay, together with co-author Tommy Kane who is the MSP’s researcher and a Labour parliamentary officer, insisted that Scotland needs “something better” than the status quo currently being promoted by the No campaign.

Claiming that Scotland is faced with “social and economic devastation” under the current settlement, Mr Findlay said of Better Together: “Its members cannot outline a coherent vision either, for a Scotland that seeks to break and/or control the power of Capital and work in the interests of ordinary working people.

“…and the Better Together Campaign cannot simply speak of the virtues of the UK and how well we have been served by the current Union, without recognition that things must change within that union.”

In the article, entitled: ‘People Power:Fighting for Real Power for Scotland’s People’, the Labour MSP dismissed Devo-Max as a solution to Scotland’s problems with poverty claiming it would lead to an end of redistribution of wealth across the UK and a race to the bottom in terms of corporate taxation.

Calling for a breakaway Labour led campaign, he added:

“Whatever the question eventually put to the Scottish people, we believe there is time for the Labour and Trade Union movement to generate its own alternative using the Scottish Labour Party’s and the STUC’s review process.

“Our aim is that the ideas generated in this paper are included in those debates and form part of the Labour Movement alternative for constitutional change.”

Mr Findlay continued: “We need stronger powers to ensure that social ownership allows us to own and invest in productive elements of the Scottish economy which also means greater borrowing powers.

The Labour MSP also warned that Westminster will not simply hand Scotland any extra powers and said:

“It is becoming clearer that these additional powers will not be handed to us and that we will have to fight for them.”

Mr Findlay’s attack on ‘Better Together’ follow similar comments the Labour MSP made last month in which he launched an astonishing personal attack against Alistair Darling, and distanced himself completely from the No campaign.

Participating in an Edinburgh People’s Festival debate Mr Findlay derided the alliance between Labour, the Tories and the Lib Dems and also heaped ridicule on several senior Tory and Labour politicians.

Mr Findlay’s calls for a Devo-Max type alternative to full independence is in stark contrast to Labour’s official position within Better Together, which refuses to countenance any further powers for the Scottish Parliament.

The intervention by the Labour MSP and those on the traditional left has highlighted the difficulty faced by Scottish Labour who have allied themselves to David Cameron’s Tory party in an effort at maintaining the current constitutional settlement.

With over two years to go before the referendum, there will be very real doubts as to whether the Unionist bloc can maintain a united front that insists only the status quo appears as an alternative to independence on the ballot paper or whether splits will emerge as the more powers camp becomes more vocal.

Comments  

 
# Thee Forsaken One 2012-09-10 08:05
Neil Findlay is cruising for a bruising from his party. Personally I do doubt that 'Better Together' will manage to stay together over the coming years, especially as the Right and Centre of the Tories start to fall out with each other and the Left and Right of the Labour party start falling out with each other too.
 
 
# Barontorc 2012-09-10 08:06
These Scottish union supporters just don't want to grasp the reality of the UK situation. Is this the blind faith and hope brigade's ostrich technique in full display?

The 90% non-Scottish, English dominated, union-bent Parliament will never give what Scotland wants or needs and certainly can neither be expected nor trusted to do so.

It's time these Labour MSPs represented their constituents in the real-world rather than push that nonentity that is the idealogical and cynically de-valued agenda of a right-wing so-called socialist party clinging like a drowning man to what was their loyal lifeboat.

There's no doubt there will be an almighty stampede for Scottish seats in the coming independent country of Scotland - involving all of these farcically aligned politicos. Idealist my bahookie - it's all about self-preservation.
 
 
# GrassyKnollington 2012-09-10 08:26
So let me get this straight, Mr. Findlay has "dismissed Devo max as a solution to Scotland's problems" and would like Labour to come up with "their own alternative".

More opaque, more toothless, less likely to happen than the fabled jam tomorrow.

Firmly in the union but a tad more lefty.

Superb. I suggest leader of all Labour Johann Lamont *cough* sets up a committee with a view to setting up a future commission who will look into this possibility.
 
 
# Bambi 2012-09-10 09:07
'sets up a committee with a view to setting upa future commission who will look into this possibility'

You forgot the 'without drawing any firm conclusions' bit!
 
 
# connect2 2012-09-10 08:29
The article makes interesting reading although it wallows in nostalgic, perceived past glories.
The huge blindspot that is preventing these various Labourites from acheiving their vision is the Union; they simply cannot see past it. It hasn't delivered the goods and cannot deliver, not in any shape or future form.
Unionism, whether it be the British variety, or within the EU is blinding and binding them to a narrow pathway.
What would assist them in acheiving their goals of redistribution of wealth etc is to Set an Example. Allow Scotland to be a beacon.
In addition, what disappoints me about these Labourites is the extreme lack of moral backbone that they display. Stand up loud and proud and shout these views. MSPs should be voicing these themes in the Parliament, not hiding them in a left wing publication. It is cowardice.
Anyone can quote theory and name drop giants of past labour movements, indeed Douglas Alexander has made a career out of it, but if Neil Findlay really...and I mean Really wants to make a difference, then he knows what he has to do.
 
 
# thomsor 2012-09-10 08:30
Re Barontorc - idealist my bahookie - its all about self preservation. Very true, why else would these Scottish unionists continue to lie to the Scottish people in the face of all the myths they peddal being exposed daily.
Why else do they continue to push the Westminster line that we are better together when it is patently clear that Scotland is not an equal partner in this union? Join Yes for Indy in Edinburgh 22nd September.
 
 
# CathkinBraes 2012-09-10 08:38
The monolith is starting to break up, and high time too, because the idea of "Scottish" "Labour" holding hands with the Tories is just one step too far for any remaining principled (but deluded) socialists left in their ranks. Have you noticed how few Labour activists, and even MSPs and councillors have stuck their necks out in support of "Better Together"?

The truth of the matter is that the only realistic way of ever getting "Devo-Max" is by voting for independence. So, we'll be in charge of a couple more things than we would have been than in the fantasy scenario of getting Westminster to vote "Devo-Max" through. So what? Where's the problem, guys? Anyway, why would you have wanted the Tories at Westminster to have been in charge of those things anyway?

Or was it just keeping the Orange vote that you were bothered about???

Congratulations on finding your backbone. Now, just go the whole hog.
 
 
# cjmjr 2012-09-10 08:42
With the great Tory push to the right, Labour will have to follow in order to secure middle England, moving further away from there core Scottish voters. Good for the Snp and for the SDA when they launch themselves after Independence, not so good however for Labour in Scotland, the wilderness beckons....
 
 
# Breeks 2012-09-10 08:50
I don't think its the collaboration of Labour and Tory which renders the "No" campaign unable to “outline a coherent vision”. The problem is they lack the coherent arguments to present. Their Better Together campaign is running on empty already. It's a big fat pig in a tiny wee poke and everybody knows it.

The positive case for the Union remains conspicuous by it's absence, but a similar observation might equally be applied to the wholly unnatural 'union' of Labour and Tory. Might I remind you of the resulting 'Jim Murphy' phenomenon, the curious dichotomy of not being a unionist but supporting the union.

It begs another question too, what happens to the Better Together campaign if the austerity measures of 2013 stress the Condem coalition to buckling point,and the UK is suddenly confronted with a Westminster General Election campaign running in parallel with the Independence Referendum campaign? Better together eh?
 
 
# Wee-Scamp 2012-09-10 08:50
This of course doesn't sit well with Cameron's "only one question" approach.
 
 
# pmcrek 2012-09-10 09:07
Seems he is basically arguing for independence but not realising it yet.
 
 
# GrassyKnollington 2012-09-10 09:40
Nope far from it.

Quote:
the Labour MSP dismissed Devo-Max as a solution to Scotland’s problems with poverty claiming it would lead to an end of redistribution of wealth across the UK and a race to the bottom in terms of corporate taxation.
 
 
# pmcrek 2012-09-10 20:23
What I mean to say (apologies for not being clear) is that he is arguing for things only independence can deliver, he just hasnt realised it yet.
 
 
# exel 2012-09-10 09:17
“Lothians MSP Neil Findlay has broken ranks with his Scottish Labour colleagues and called for the Labour and Trade Union movement in Scotland to argue against independence by putting forward their own alternative to ‘Devo-Max’.”

Seems like a reasonable proposition to me. The labour party brought on the last referendum held in Scotland if you remember. The one that Scots voted yes to if you remember DEVOLUTION (a quasi federal system).

That system has not worked to the satisfaction of the electorate here. So the natural alternative is a real FEDERAL system. With of course a written constitution.
 
 
# MajorBloodnok 2012-09-10 09:29
(or preferably full independence)
 
 
# sneckedagain 2012-09-10 10:02
Any federal solution that gave Scotland or Wales anything like parity with England would be rejected out of hand by the English - and quite right too.
I can think of nothing more devilishly complicated and divisive than trying to work out details of some fanciful British federation.
Can we please drop this silly federal diversion (the last stand for the unionists) and concentrate on the less complicated and more readily achievable goal of normal independence
 
 
# davemsc 2012-09-10 10:07
He doesn't seem that far from arguing for independence. Who will be the first high-profile Labour figure to do it? It can only be a matter of time.
 
 
# Mad Jock McMad 2012-09-10 10:23
According to Lord Cooper's 1953 judgement Devo-max (aka federal solution) is outside of Westminster's competence as it fundamentally alters the 1707 Treaty of Union. The only way it could happens is if the English electorate were offered a binding referendum on a 'federal union'. Westminster having drilled into the English the Scots are subsidy junkies makes it likely they would reject 'Devo-max' out of hand.

So far it looks as if the Unionists have painted themselves into a corner because in real terms any further repatriation of powers beyond the 1998 Scotland Act is beyond Westminster's competence.

Potential win/win for the 'yes' camp.
 
 
# exel 2012-09-10 11:04
Quoting Mad Jock McMad:
According to Lord Cooper's 1953 judgement Devo-max (aka federal solution) is outside of Westminster's competence as it fundamentally alters the 1707 Treaty of Union. The only way it could happens is if the English electorate were offered a binding referendum on a 'federal union'. Westminster having drilled into the English the Scots are subsidy junkies makes it likely they would reject 'Devo-max' out of hand.

So far it looks as if the Unionists have painted themselves into a corner because in real terms any further repatriation of powers beyond the 1998 Scotland Act is beyond Westminster's competence.

Potential win/win for the 'yes' camp.


In my opinion: of all the rubbish posted under this moniker this one takes the biscuit. This referendum is not about what the English, Irish or Welsh want. It is about what Scots want the future Scottish constitutional position to be.
 
 
# Mad Jock McMad 2012-09-10 11:56
Exel: your ignorance of Scots Law and constitutional practice is second only to your inane ranting about a fixed constitution prior to independence.

The legal and constitutional position of the 'considered will of the Scottish people' is exactly what this is all about. The referendum has been conceded by Westminster for exactly this reason and this reason alone. The 'considered will of the Scottish people' has been deemed sacrosanct by the UK Supreme Court - the very body set up to keep us upitty Scots in place.

Scottish sovereignty is limited by the 'considered will of the Scottish people' as defined by Lord Cooper in 1953 in McCormack as would any proposed constitution. Scotland is by law and constitutional practice a representative democracy.

You conflate Westminster's supposed and assumed 'powers' over Scotland with the actual legal and constitutional position because it simply does not fit your limited approach to the issues at hand or your written constitution fixation.

The order of play is the Scots hold a referendum to consider unilateral withdrawal from the Union Treaty which is in fact what a 'Yes' vote in 2014 actually means.

If it is the 'considered will of the Scottish people' to withdraw from the Treaty of Union, Westminster, as the UK Parliament, ceases to exist. That is the current legal and constitutional actualite. At no point is there any input from Westminster (as it is outside of its powers under the Treaty of Union) or the English electorate.

For the same reason if Westminster decides on a 'devo-max' solution this under the terms of the Treaty of Union is also out with its powers as a devo-max settlement will fundamentally alter the conditions of the original Treaty of Union which it has no powers to do (a legal point already conceded by Westminster).

In effect to have a devo max solution would require a binding referendum of the English electorate on one hand and the Scottish electorate on the other and for both as seperate sovereign nations to agree to the proposal of a new federal union (aka devo-max).

This is why Westminster will not touch devo-max with the manky end of a SDA stick and why they are stuck with 'No' position as it is the only stance within their power.

Once you get to grips with what is you then begin to understand the Unionists position - a succesful 'No' vote is the only way to preserve Westminster as the UK Parliament.

The Scots have no need of the Council of Europe or anyone elses 'protection'. The SNP has drawn the Unionist camp onto a prepared political battle field of their choosing and it is begining to dawn on folk such as Mr Finlay that the pincers are about to close on the trap without the SNP or the Yes campaign having to do that much.
 
 
# exel 2012-09-10 12:38
Mad Jock McMad 2012-09-10 12:56
“Exel: your ignorance of Scots Law and constitutional practice is second only to your inane ranting about a fixed constitution prior to independence.”


I openly and freely admit to ignorance of “Scots Law”, but I have been around long enough to know that Scotland does not have a written constitution. If we vote YES in this referendum: that position IMHO will not change.

As for the rest of your post, I must bow to your professed superior knowledge of Scots Law.
 
 
# Galen10 2012-09-10 13:07
Excel,

It is arguable whether a written constitution is essential. I happen to agree that it would be better if one were developed, however it is not something I would die in a ditch about, and there are examples of countries which function without written constitutions, and arguments against getting hung up on the idea. Even in the USA, where the constitution has developed a quasi-divine status in some quarters, there are some people who think the fixation with the document and it's interpretation is not altogether a good thing.

As for your opinion that a YES vote in 2014 without a written and agreed constitution already in place will result in "no change", that's pure speculation on your part. You have zero evidence to support it other than your gut feeling. If it is the settled will of the Scottish people that a written constitution is indispensible, they are quite capable of making it happen.

If they aren't that bothered, then it probably won't happen; that may be an indictment of the Scottish political parties and establishment in a post independence Scotland, or it may simply be a pragmatic response to the fact that the people of Scotland aren't as fixated as you are about the sky falling down without a written constitution.
 
 
# uilleam_beag 2012-09-10 13:30
Excel, as has been clearly demonstrated to you before ad nauseam, there is zero chance of us being able to put together a written constitution before we secure a yes vote in the referendum - not if you want it to have a shred of credibility in the eyes of currently undecided and unionist voters.

I see the process of drafting our constitution post-referendum as an important healing process. Many who opposed independence, or were uncertain or wary, before the vote will get on board once the decision has been taken. The campaign is certain to be fracticious to a degree (hopefully we can minimise that) but sitting down to decide what sort of new Scotland (Alba 2.0) we want to build will be invaluable in mending those rifts. It has to be inclusive, but it's unreasonable to expect the unconvinced to get involved in a project they feel no affinity to and a course to which they are not committed.

The day after the vote I and many others who frequent this site will be out campaigning to make sure we get a codified constitution. Now is not the time for that. Other than a commitment to this in principle, it's nothing but a decisive. distraction.
 
 
# exel 2012-09-10 10:33
sneckedagain 2012-09-10 11:02
“I can think of nothing more devilishly complicated and divisive than trying to work out details of some fanciful British federation.”

Too complicated for whom, the political parties or the Scottish people?

“Can we please drop this silly federal diversion (the last stand for the unionists) and concentrate on the less complicated and more readily achievable goal of normal independence.”

Less complicated for whom, the political parties or the Scottish people?

“Any federal solution that gave Scotland or Wales anything like parity with England would be rejected out of hand by the English - and quite right too.”

The English are not being asked yet are they?
 
 
# Galen10 2012-09-10 14:11
Too complicated for you it would seem Excel, since you never actually come up with any details of what a federal UK would look like, and more importantly how it would be achieved.

Constructing a federal structure to replace the current structure presupposes that the parties affected "want" it to happen. There is little or no evidence that there is any appetite for constructing such a system, and even if there was there is certainly no consensus about what it should look like.

The process will be complicated for all concerned I'd wager, political parties, the people of ALL the affected parts of the UK, civic groups etc., etc., ...so what's your point?

And no, the English aren't being asked yet, as "any fule know" that they have no appetite for it. The disparity in sizes between the units does not give any confidence that a federal system would work in the UK, or indeed that there is enough commonality of interest between England and Scotland in particular to overcome the potential conflicts involved. Waht about a situation where (for example) the UK federal parliament voted in favour of something on the back of Scottish and/or Welsh votes, which the English parliament had voted against, or indeed where the Scots were voted down on something on the say so of Englsih votes?

A tory English parliament in London being over-ruled by a Coalition or Labour dominated federal parliament would soon result in the Daily Mail carpet biters baying for blood.

You have to explain how you are going to square that circle before anyone takes the federal project remotely seriously.
 
 
# RTP 2012-09-10 11:11
What is he saying we should have another Calman but only with input from a section of the Labour party maybe Lamont will be up for this oh forgot she is with the tories and whats the other parties name the one on the fringe Lib is it.????
 
 
# RJBH 2012-09-10 11:50
the only vision the Unionist have... Left or Right... is keeping Scotland Subserviant to the whimms of Westminster.
 
 
# Saltire Groppenslosh 2012-09-10 12:03
I think this is great for all kinds of reasons;-

"Mr Findlay continued: “We need stronger powers to ensure that social ownership allows us to own and invest in productive elements of the Scottish economy which also means greater borrowing powers.
The Labour MSP also warned that Westminster will not simply hand Scotland any extra powers and said:
“It is becoming clearer that these additional powers will not be handed to us and that we will have to fight for them.”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
One could almost see him mouthing the words "We need independence" after a statement like that.

Come on Labour! Better Together doesn't fit does it? You know that in your socialist souls. It will suddenly all fit together properly once you start supporting Scottish independence.
 
 
# Jim Johnston 2012-09-10 12:25
It's looking more and more like some Unionists such as Mr Findlay are waking up to the fact that concrete proposals, as an alternative to a YES vote, is the only hope they have of maintaining the Union.

Jam tomorrow is going nowhere, people with perfectly legitimate questions regarding Independence will have their answers as far as humanly possible, set out in the white paper being prepared by the SG.

If the alternative to YES is "status quo and jam tomorrow", they have a fair, clear and decisive choice to answer in their "X" box come the referendum.

My own feeling is that time for the Unionists to define an alternative has run out now in many peoples minds. Thanks in no small part to Westminsters insistance of a "simple" Y/N question and negative anti-Independance nonsense, which always suited the SNP perfectly well, may now lead to the Union being hoisted on it's own petard.

Mad Jock McMad says it all, the Unionists have "painted themselves into a corner". They really should have been careful what they wished for. Numpties.
 
 
# rhymer 2012-09-10 12:31
BACK TO THE FUTURE ?
In the late 1970s the "40's" field came on line and we started pumping oil into Westminister 's pockets. We were told it would probably only last a dozen years or so ( so they used the money to build the M25 ring road around London HOWEVER ! The big news yesterday was that the so called ""Old 40s" field has obtained a new buyer who proudly announced ANOTHER 75 YEARS OF PRODUCTION from the 40s field at OVER DOUBLE THE EXISTING OUTPUT !

I guess somebody in Westminster must have lied to to us. . . . .
 
 
# Dcanmore 2012-09-10 13:53
The Royal Society of Chemistry seems to think that there's 100 years of oil production left in the North Sea, with claims of up to 60 billion barrels still to be recovered. This story became public in 2008 then was swiftly buried.

telegraph.co.uk/.../...
 
 
# Training Day 2012-09-10 12:37
Disingenuous guff from Findlay. He dismisses devo-max but calls vaguely for more powers, omitting to mention what they are or how they are to be achieved.

And does he really believe that we will 'have to fight' for these nebulous additional powers or will his leader - that's Ed Milliband for the avoidance of doubt - simply agree to adopt some form of additional powers stance which will inevitably damage Labour UK-wide even further?

In short, a fundamentally dishonest position. More power to the Labour for independence folk who have the courage to articulate their position openly.
 
 
# Briggs 2012-09-10 12:46
How long before he's labelled as a 'maverick' by the MSM?

Judging from his performances at Holyrood he certainly seems to have a lot to say for himself.

Yup 'maverick' suits him well.

..........or 'Champion the wonder horse'
 
 
# tartanfever 2012-09-10 13:58
It would be great if the MSM actually mentioned him !

Yet again any 'split' in the unionist ranks fails to make the news and once again, no questions will be asked of the labour leadership in Scotland. Lamont being kept safely in the shadows and away from any negative news.

She'll go back to being wheeled out a couple of times a week to wag her finger at the SNP and call AS names as she continues personal attacks.

Of course, this works for the SNP as people get fed up with her, but boy, it doesn't half destroy any chance of real debate over independence - which is probably the aim of the unionist cabal.
 
 
# wee e 2012-09-10 13:31
“something better”
I remember that. Turned out to be the poll tax.
 
 
# Davy 2012-09-10 14:03
I think Mr Findlay has worked out that the "Yes but, No but, Yes but, better together" campaign actually is fast disappearing up its own backside, and I reckon a few of his supporters have told him so, and he has decided to distance himself from them in anticipation of the country voting YES, and will hope to pick up a position or two within his party when the heads start rolling in the aftermath.
It certainly wont be for Scotlands sake.

Vote Yes, Vote for a positive Scottish future.
 
 
# Glenbuchat 2012-09-10 15:40
It is perhaps more interesting that the Labour Party can, and always has, accommodated a breadth of opinion on this and most other issues.

Contrast that with the SNP which, according to their former deputy leader, Jim Sillars, shows all the traits of a totalitarian communist regime:

telegraph.co.uk/.../...
 
 
# weegie38 2012-09-10 16:05
Ah, Jim Sillars, the 90-minute politician. The fact you consider such a bitter-minded has-been as any sort of worthwhile commentator on Scottish politics exposes the poverty of your argument.

Not as much as your opening sentence, though. Remind us, which party ousted Dennis Canavan (and replaced him with a thug)? which party marginalised Malcolm Chisholm? Which party stamped on Wendy Alexander the moment she dared to show independent thought as Scottish party leader? Which party doesn't allow non-member comment on its Scottish party website? Aye, that's right: your home of "breadth of opinion". Don't make us laugh.
 
 
# GrassyKnollington 2012-09-10 16:09
82 year old Jewish escapee from the Nazis Walter Wolfgang manhandled out of Labour conference for shouting "nonsense" at Jack Straw .
news.bbc.co.uk/.../4293502.stm

you New Labour chappies weren't too accommodating of Walter's opinion were you?
 
 
# pmcrek 2012-09-10 17:58
Revisionist much? The Labour party have been happily expelling unwanted ideologies from the movement since as far back as the 1920s.

Besides which, this is not dissension, the promise of jam tomorrow is completely in line with current Labour policy.
 
 
# Davy 2012-09-10 20:58
Well "Glenbuchat" maybe you can tell us how did the labour party deal with the threat to that councillors son's apprenticeship from one of their own members last May, you know the one where she had to vote their way or else ??? how did they accommodated that ? do tell.
 
 
# Glenbuchat 2012-09-10 21:24
I am no expert on the internal workings of Glasgow City Council, to which you perhaps refer, but I understand that this remains an entirely unsubstantiated allegation

I note that you do not address the substance of the Sillars criticism of the SNP leadership and lack of internal debate.
 
 
# exel 2012-09-10 21:11
@ uilleam_beag 2012-09-10 14:30 .
“I see the process of drafting our constitution post-referendum as an important healing process. Many who opposed independence, or were uncertain or wary, before the vote will get on board once the decision has been taken. The campaign is certain to be fracticious to a degree (hopefully we can minimise that) but sitting down to decide what sort of new Scotland (Alba 2.0) we want to build will be invaluable in mending those rifts. It has to be inclusive, but it's unreasonable to expect the unconvinced to get involved in a project they feel no affinity to and a course to which they are not committed.”

IMHO by then it will be too late. I am not the one you have to convince.

At least 60% of Scots who have a vote want something other than your independence.
 
 
# cynicalHighlander 2012-09-10 21:52
So we are 'Better Together' yet will campaign separately! And we don't even have to provide the spades, keep digging for Britain.
 
 
# sneckedagain 2012-09-10 22:58
exel

You are of course,as usual, wrong.
Most polls over the last eighteen months have those against indpendence at between 30% and 40% with similar figures being achieved for those for independence. Do not count those who don't have an opinion, who don't care or who wont vote as opposed to independence.
My opinion is that if we face the referendum showing 5% behind the unionists we will win the vote.

I see no reason why we don't just hijack the "Better Together" slogan as Scots of all religions, racial backgrounds and social class are better together and will be so in an independent Scotland
 
 
# Am Fògarrach 2012-09-11 00:09
What Scottish Labour Party, Mr Findlay?
 
 
# Barontorc 2012-09-11 01:22
Hey! and Andy won !!!!!

Well done son!! Well done!!!
 

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

Banner

Donate to Newsnet Scotland

Banner

Latest Comments