green umbrella

Scottish independence would bring serious short-term fiscal problems, according to a new report. The authors conclude that an independent Scotland would face a choice of reducing public expenditure, or raising interest rates and taxes, or a combination of all three...
 
(more in the following link..*^^*)

Wednesday, April 21, 1999 Published at 13:52 GMT 14:52 UK
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/events/scotland_99/news/325149.stm

Audience question: Would Scotland be better off as a fully independent country?
 

You said:

I must say I found the very anti-union comments disturbing. To look back on the great things we have achieved, and the legacy (the world over) that it has left, it wasn¿t England, Scotland, Wales or Ireland that did these things, it was a United Kingdom. We are vastly greater than merely the sum of our parts, and to allow such an important union be destroyed by small minded xenophobia and greed is abhorrent to me. After all, where does it stop? Will Edinburgh want to split from the rest of Scotland? How about Glasgow, after all they have 'distinct identities'. We share more in common than any other nations in the world, divisions have been manufactured to suit others agendas. We are multitudes stronger together, than we possibly could ever be apart.
Adam Rickard, Hertfordshire

Why is it that Scotland is saying it should be independent? Surely it is England who should be seeking independence, after all we have been ruled by Scotland since James 1st/6th!. Just look at the UK cabinet ministers now. They are nearly all Scottish and the English don't even have their own national parliament!
Evelyn Henry, Nottingham

How can Hardeep talk about 300 years of subjugation? It was a mutually beneficial and respected union. How many other countries within the empire were given nearly 50 seats in the Westminster Parliament? There is a national identity - that of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland - long may it stay like that.
Steven Smith, Bristol

Text: England would be better if Scotland were fully independent!
Chris, Hearts

Text: If it wasn't for Scotland Labour wouldn't be in power.
Mark, Camelford

Text: England have not complained while spending Scotland's oil money.
Liam, Aberdeen

Text: Gordon Brown is no longer a Scot in most Scottish people's eyes.
Alan, Glasgow

Text: If the English keep moaning about a Scot becoming prime minister then the union is finished.
Al, Edinburgh

As far as I am concerned Scotland can have its independence; but I am not so sure they would enjoy it when they realised how little money they would have and what a drop in standards they would have to endure.
Simon Clark, Spennymoor

If Scotland wants its own separate parliament, then let them. On the condition they have absolutely no funding from England at all. The same applies to Wales. So much money from England is spent to prop up and support Scotland and Wales. If they want to be alone, let them, and watch them sink.
Nicky, Suffolk

Find out what you had to say about Question Time on Thursday, 22 February, 2007 from Edinburgh.
Friday, 23 February 2007, 09:26 GMT
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/question_time/6386789.stm#4

An Act of Disunion

It's rather a special edition of Newsnight tonight. Exactly 300 years after the Scottish parliament voted for the Act of Union we're being allowed into the Hall where the vote took place to have a debate of our own.

We're devoting the whole programme to discussing the future of the Union - will England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland see another century, let alone three, as United countries?

Our opinion poll for the programme would seem to suggest that a majority don't think it will.\

(see the result in the following link (the handout given in the class):
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6264823.stm)

We've been told that it is the first time Parliament Hall has staged such a debate in, well, 300 years.

We've an audience of the great and good: politicians; academics; lawyers; novelists; actors; pop stars; wannabe pop stars.

And for the first time, well, in slightly less than 300 years - Jeremy and Kirsty will be presenting together. They've never done that on Newsnight.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/6267799.stm

An Act of Disunion

It's rather a special edition of Newsnight tonight. Exactly 300 years after the Scottish parliament voted for the Act of Union we're being allowed into the Hall where the vote took place to have a debate of our own.

We're devoting the whole programme to discussing the future of the Union - will England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland see another century, let alone three, as United countries?

Our opinion poll for the programme would seem to suggest that a majority don't think it will.\

(see the result in the following link:
)

We've been told that it is the first time Parliament Hall has staged such a debate in, well, 300 years.

We've an audience of the great and good: politicians; academics; lawyers; novelists; actors; pop stars; wannabe pop stars.

And for the first time, well, in slightly less than 300 years - Jeremy and Kirsty will be presenting together. They've never done that on Newsnight.

It's rather a special edition of Newsnight tonight. Exactly 300 years after the Scottish parliament voted for the Act of Union we're being allowed into the Hall where the vote took place to have a debate of our own. We're devoting the whole programme to discussing the future of the Union - will England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland see another century, let alone three, as United countries? Our opinion poll for the programme would seem to suggest that a majority don't think it will.

The very fact of being in Parliament Hall on Tuesday night, 300 years after the last debate of the Scottish Parliament will send a shiver up my spine.

I lived 300m down the Royal Mile in the Canongate in an 18th century building for several years and I always felt a sense of history when I walked down the turnpike stair out onto my doorstep.

Parliament Hall, the Courts, the Signet library and the Heart of Midlothian make up the most atmospheric area and on Tuesday night it is there we shall debate and argue about the cultural impact of the Union.

Spark of creativity

How important was the Scottish Enlightenment to modern "British" thought - the philosophy of David Hume, the revolutionary economic ideas of Adam Smith?

Did Scotland embrace the tolerance that was a hallmark of English society?

Would Robert Adam have enjoyed such success in England (and given England some of its finest architecture) had it not been for the Union?

Would Robert Burns have written in English as well as Scots without the Union - and if not would he be as popular around the world as he is today?

In The Act of Union Scotland retained its laws, education system and church - thereby keeping much of the tenets of nationhood. So why, for much of the twentieth century, did so many Scottish writers and dramatists rail against their larger neighbour - did it provide a convenient spark for their creativity?

Alchemy of Englishness

It seems it is only in the past decade that English writers (Jeremy included!) have sought to understand the alchemy of Englishness. Is there a jealousy in England that the Scots have promoted a sense of identity where the English have been more reticent?

And yet there is one area in particular where there is a joyous celebration of difference - and that is music. From the Bay City Rollers to Franz Ferdinand - from the Sex Pistols to Artic Monkeys - surely no one would suggest these are British bands. They are English and Scottish - just as there is an English football team (quite successful) and a Scottish football team (less successful).

Bring the debate on!

By Kirsty Wark, Newsnight Presenter
Tuesday, 16 January 2007, 11:45 GMT
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/6266797.stm

It's rather a special edition of Newsnight tonight. 300 years after the Scottish parliament voted for the Act of Union we're being allowed into the Hall where the vote took place to have a debate of our own.

We're devoting the whole programme to discussing the future of the Union - will England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland see another century, let alone three, as United countries? Our opinion poll for the programme would seem to suggest that a majority don't think it will.

What do you think? Post your comments here.

Tuesday, 16 January, 2007
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/2007/01/tuesday_16_january_2007.html
(follow the link to see more comments on the issue *^^*)

843 AD - Kenneth MacAlpin unites the Scots and Picts as one nation under his rule. This is the first step in creating a united Scotland.

1040 - Macbeth slays Duncan to become King of Scotland after Duncan is heavily defeated by the English in battle. In 1054 Malcolm, son of Duncan, is installed by English soldiers but apparently only in Strathclyde and Lothian. Macbeth reigned for 17 years until he was killed at Lumphanan in 1057.

1107 - On the death of Edgar, Scotland becomes disunited. Alexander I becomes King of Scots, but David I becomes King in Lothian and Strathclyde.

1124 - Unity is restored when, on Alexander's death, David becomes King of Scots. His reign is one of the most important in Scotland's history, extending Scottish borders to the River Tees, including all of Northumberland. David I institutes many administrative changes into Scotland including laws, early schools and gives much Scottish land to his Norman friends.

1296 - Annexation of Scotland by England. Edward I invades Scotland. Scotland's Coronation Stone - the "Stone of Destiny" - is taken by Edward I to Westminster Abbey. Scots are killed in thousands by Edward's 30,000 infantry and 5,000 cavalry in Berwick and Dunbar.

1297 - Emergence of William Wallace. He kills Sheriff of Hazelrig, and a revolt under his command begins. In September, Wallace defeats the the English forces at Stirling Bridge and becomes the Guardian of Scotland.

1298 - Battle of Falkirk. Wallace and his army of 12,000 are defeated by Edward I of England and his army of 2,500 heavy horse and about 20,000 foot. Wallace resigns guardianship, but Scotland now has a sense of self-identity apart and distinct from that of England.

1305 - William Wallace, betrayed and captured by the English, is hung, drawn and quartered in a barbarous execution. Wallace's head is mounted on London Bridge.

1314 - Battle of Bannockburn. Scots under Robert the Bruce rout the English led by Edward II, resulting in Scottish independence. The Scots with only 500 mounted men, 2,500 spearmen and 5,000 foot-soldiers defeat the English and their army of 25-30,000.

1320 - The Declaration of Arbroath is drawn up to recognise Scottish independence. The Pope accepts the Declaration.

1326 - First Scottish Parliament meets.

1328 - Treaty of Northampton is signed between Edward III and Robert I officially recognising Scotland's independence and Robert Bruce as its king.

1437 - Assassination of James I at Perth.

1502 - King Henry VII of England gives his daughter in marriage to James IV of Scotland, leading to the Union of the Crowns in 1603.

1638 - The National Covenant. A Protestant (mostly Lowland, later called Presbyterian) movement forms. Charles I regards protests against the prayer book as treason, forcing Scots to choose between their church and the King. The covenant, swearing to resist these changes to the death, is signed in Greyfriars Church in Edinburgh. It is accepted by thousands of Scots.

1642 - English Civil War breaks out. Scottish Army of the Covenant sent in in 1644 transforming course of war in north of England. Huge cost of fighting leads to heavy taxes on ordinary people.

1692 - The Massacre of Glencoe. Clan Campbell, siding with the King (William of Orange), coldly murders members of Clan MacDonald. This act of savagery begins years of feuding in Scotland.

1707 - Treaty of Union of Parliaments is passed. Scotland is formally united with England to form Great Britain. Although claimed to have been a peaceful and desired union, it was met with riots in Edinburgh and the Highlanders never wanted union with England. It was, in effect, "steamrollered" onto the Scots by Queen Anne and England.

1746 - Battle of Culloden. Jacobite Scots are routed by government troops. Bonnie Prince Charlie escapes to France. The wearing of the kilt is banned.

1785 - Official beginning of the Highland Clearances, when clans are forced off their lands to make way for sheep and cattle.

1854 - Official ending of the Highland Clearances.

1918 - Labour fights General Election in Scotland on two planks: "The Self-Determination of the Scottish People" and "The Complete Restoration of the Land of Scotland to the Scottish People".

1919 - Speaker's Conference agrees a Scottish Assembly should have revenue-raising powers.

1932 - Pro-Home Rule Independent Labour Party splits from Labour Party.

1934 - Scottish National Party formed, partly from a breakaway section of the Cathcart Conservative Association.

1945 - SNP wins first seat, Motherwell, and loses it in the same year.

1947 - Scottish Convention formed, with the aim of securing a Parliament for Scotland along non-party lines.

1950 - Scottish nationalists steal the Stone of Destiny from Westminster Abbey. This was Scotland's Coronation stone, taken by the English in 1296. By tradition all British monarchs have to be crowned while sitting on it. It was recovered from Arbroath Abbey, although some claim this was a copy, and the original remains in Scotland..

1967 - SNP's Winnie Ewing wins Hamilton by-election.

1968 - Conservative opposition make Declaration of Perth, favouring a form of devolution.

1974 - SNP wins seven and 11 seats respectively at February and October General Elections.

1979 - Prospect of devolution falls at referendum. Campaign for a Scottish Assembly immediately launched.

1989 - Scottish Constitutional Convention holds inaugural meeting, attended by MPs, MEPs, local authorities, unions and churches.

1992 - Conservatives win General Election and with it comes inevitability of some form of constitutional reform.

1995 - Convention publishes blueprint, Scotland's Parliament, Scotland's Right.

1997 - Labour wins General Election by a landslide, leaving Scotland without any Conservative MPs. Devolution is high on political agenda.

1997 - Referendums Bill for Scotland and Wales published in May.

1998 - Scotland votes "yes, yes", in September on questions of own Parliament and tax-raising powers.

1999 - Election to Scottish Parliament, 6 May.

Wednesday, April 7, 1999 Published at 17:05 GMT 18:05 UK
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/events/scotland_99/the_scottish_parliament/306837.stm

Most voters in England and Scotland want their countries to be independent from each other, according to a new survey.

52% of Scots want a separate state. 48% of English people want to break away from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

The government's Scottish Chancellor Gordon Brown says there should be a debate about the future of the United Kingdom but thinks we're stronger together and weaker apart.
We want to know what you think. Should countries in the UK become independent of each other? Or is there too much shared history and values? Should the United Kingdom be broken up?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio1/news/newsbeat/061127_england_scotland.shtml
(go to the link and read various opinions of the British)

Scottish National Party leader Alex Salmond has issued three key pledges to the people of Scotland in his speech at the party's annual conference and said independence remains the ultimate goal.

Mr Salmond said the nationalists were now established as the main opposition party in the Scottish Parliament and would ultimately become Scotland's government. He told delegates in Inverness that the SNP would "hold the Scottish Executive to account" on the issues dominating the parliament. And Mr Salmond promised that his party would work together to achieve its goal and make Scotland's new parliament a "real parliament" in an independent and confident Scotland.

The SNP leader expressed delight at candidate Annabelle Ewing's performance in the Hamilton South by-election on Thursday when she reduced Labour's near 16,000 majority at the general election to a mere 556 votes. He attacked Labour's record on foreign policy and the private finance initiative and called on the party to organise itself to win power in the Scottish parliamentary elections in 2003.

The SNP leader said the other parties had not realised how much the political ground "had shifted" since the Scottish Parliament elections in May and promised the party would dominate by building on the 35 seats it currently holds in the new parliament. Mr Salmond told the conference: "Our road ahead is clear. We will change the devolved parliament we have into the independent parliament we seek. "Our ambition is for a country economically prosperous - a thriving economy and a just society - a Scotland at ease with itself because it lives up to the best of our tradition in securing the way forward. "The Union, whose 'boasted advantages' grow ever more feeble, has had its chance. It will not see its 300th anniversary. Our hour, Scotland's hour, is at hand."
Address concerns
Mr Salmond's speech sought to address the concerns of both the gradualists and fundamentalists within the party. He stressed that the Scottish Parliament is the appropriate "platform" for the party in achieving its ultimate objective of independence but that this could only be done by adopting a step-by-step strategy.

His strong endorsement of independence will please those on the fundamentalist wing of the party who have criticised Alex Salmond for focusing on the new parliament rather than the traditional goal of independence. Earlier in the day, Mr Salmond came under fire from SNP treasurer Ian Blackford for not seeming sufficiently committed to independence. Mr Blackford, a key figure on the party's fundamentalist wing, accused the party leader of a "dereliction of duty" for focusing on the devolved parliament rather than the ultimate goal of independence.

The party treasurer repeated Mr Salmond's own words when he described Nato's bombing of Kosovo as "unpardonable folly" to describe the party leader's approach to independence. Mr Salmond also made a renewed commitment to "fair tax" during his speech and accused Chancellor Gordon Brown of creating a multi-billion war chest to offer tax cuts before the next election. He said: "Our position is different. Spend the resources on the things that really matter - health education and housing."

Friday, September 24, 1999 Published at 16:40 GMT 17:40 UK
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/456643.stm

An independent Scotland could develop a stronger economy, a study by three Scottish academics has found.

The ability to pursue its own fiscal policy could bring Scotland the potential to stimulate business and wean it from a "culture of dependency", the economists concluded.

The independent report was carried out by the David Hume Institute for the corporate finance group MacDonald Orr.

Professor David Simpson, one of the authors, said the institute had no party allegiance. The timing of the release - on the day of the SNP manifesto launch - had been decided by media consultants.

He told BBC News Online: "We're not saying an independent Scotland will be more prosperous - it could be more prosperous.

"The reasons for that are the under-performance of the Scottish economy under the status quo, compared to the rest of the UK and comparable small western European countries like Denmark, Finland, Norway and Ireland.

"Secondly, independence, as opposed to devolution, gives access to a wider range of policy instruments, which can be applied to adjusting policy to the needs of the economy."

Other small nations in Europe differed widely in the policies they followed, with regard to issues such as incomes policy or membership of Nato.

But all had managed to achieve stronger economic performance than Scotland, Professor Simpson said.

"Each country is free to pursue certain policies it deems suited to itself."

Professor Simpson, an honorary professor economics at Heriot-Watt University, admitted his predictions required a huge number of assumptions.

But he said factors such as whether or not an independent Scotland chose to join the European single currency would not greatly affect its wealth.

Politicians opposed to independence often mention the cost of setting up armed forces for Scotland as one of the costs that prohibit such a move. The report's authors disagreed.

"Clearly, if there was any attempt to retain a nuclear capability after independence, then defence spending would clearly have to rise per capita," Professor Simpson said. "But I don't think that would be on anyone's agenda."

Current UK defence spending amounted to 3.2%, considerably more than countries such as Ireland and Norway.

"It's perfectly obvious from the numbers Scotland could be a Nato member and still be able to fall within the presently defined defence budget."

The study warns of potential damage to business if Scotland moved to independence without putting in place measures to maintain the confidence of foreign investors.

At the same time, it predicted the Scottish Parliament set up under devolution would be able to make only small changes to Scotland's economy.

"Devolution is very limited in what it can do," Professor Simpson said. "The Scottish Parliament has no economic instruments at its disposal whatsoever."

The report suggests tensions could increase between Edinburgh and London when the Parliament starts to sit in Holyrood. But it makes no comment on whether independence had become any more probable.

"Not only do we not say anything about if it is likely, we don't say it is desirable. That is a personal, political judgement for everyone to make. All we're saying is that the outlook for an independent Scotland is reasonably optimistic.

"Let's say that it has reinforced my view."

Unsurprisingly, the Scottish National Party welcomed the report, while Labour dismissed its conclusions.

An SNP spokesman said: "An independent Scotland would be the seventh richest country in the industrialised world in terms of GDP per head, according to a House of Commons library analysis."

A Scottish Labour spokesman said: "Day by day, the full costs of the SNP divorce are becoming clear with higher taxes and lost jobs."

Thursday, April 8, 1999 Published at 14:59 GMT 15:59 UK
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/events/scotland_99/news/314567.stm

Former Prime Minister John Major agrees with Scottish National Party claims that Scotland will be independent by 2007, it has been reported.
The ex-Conservative leader claims Scotland has been set on a course to separation by Labour.

He is reported to have said Alex Salmond's conference boasts, as leader of the SNP, that Scotland would cut its ties with Britain by 2007 will come to fruition.

Mr Major, whose autobiography is due to be published shortly, is also reported to claim that he had a secret plan to introduce devolution north of the Border in the event of a Scottish Tory wipe-out in 1992.

'Alex Slamond may be right'

In an interview with The Sunday Times, Mr Major said: "They (Labour) have set us on a course that will make Scotland independent.

"When I heard Alex Salmond saying we may have Scottish independence by 2007, I thought he may very well be right."

Sunday, October 3, 1999 Published at 08:45 GMT 09:45 UK
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/463953.stm

(originally printed on http://www.swans.com)

In "The Case For Scottish Independence" (Swans, November 7, 2005), Joe Davison seems to want independence on certain terms only, those terms being that it is an unambiguous socialist republic.

I am also a republican socialist and I agree that in the twenty-first century it would be absurd to have an unelected monarch at the head of a newly independent Scottish state. However, at the end of the day that is a decision for the Scottish people to make, after we have achieved our independence.

Similarly, there are a lot of people who now feel that the European Union (EU) is a threat to Scotland's independence. I disagree, but again this can only be decided after we have independence. Scotland cannot leave the EU at the moment, even if we wished to, because Scotland remains locked into the British state. This union must be broken first before we can decide our international policy.

Likewise, it is up to the Scottish people whether and if they want to have a socialist society. Given the fact that all the Scottish parties are on the political left, it would seem likely that an independent Scotland would be further to the left than the current UK government, but at the end of the day it is up to the people of Scotland to decide the politics they want post independence. As a democrat I believe Scotland will get a socialist society when the people want it and not before then.

In order to pursue any political objectives whatsoever, however, the first step must be national independence. It is quite obvious that the devolved settlement is not capable of making any substantial changes in Scottish society. Economic control remains firmly with the UK government as does broadcasting, defence, etc. Most importantly, on every international body the UK government misrepresents Scotland's interests by subordinating them to the wishes of our much larger neighbour.

To gain independence we must prove that the public want it. People vote for political parties for a variety of different reasons and independence support is split over all the political parties. A substantial amount of voters for the traditional unionist parties, i.e., Labour, Tories, and Lib-Dems, are in fact independence supporters according to opinion polls.

It follows then that independence support is actually higher than that attained by the Scottish National Party (SNP), which has a specific economic and social programme that by its very nature cannot appeal to absolutely everyone at once.

How much higher is debatable but there are grounds to conclude that where the straight decision on union versus independence is asked (and it isn't asked often) that the independence argument is more popular than the current status quo.

Certainly we in Independence First believe that if a referendum on Independence versus the union were held tomorrow, that independence would win as the arguments in favour of normal powers for Scotland are substantially more persuasive than the limited potential of continued unionism.

The Scottish Parliament Elections of 2003 marked a watershed in Scottish politics. It was widely reported as a disastrous setback for the SNP in the British media and the SNP's share of the votes and number of seats did fall.

However, the more important result was that there were now three Scottish parties: the Scottish Green Party, the SNP, and the Scottish Socialist Party (SSP), who had gained substantial representation at Holyrood.

Since all these parties support independence, the actual amount of independence-supporting Members of the Scottish Parliament (MSP) had gone up.

The number of people who support independence has long been higher, according to polling evidence, than traditional SNP support and there is considerable evidence of support for independence amongst voters for the traditional unionist parties.

As a member of the SNP on the left of the party I tried after the elections to argue for a change in political direction for the party to embrace republicanism and to shift more firmly to the left to re-capture the votes the party had lost to the SSP.

I later joined the Scottish Republican Socialist Movement (SRSM) in an attempt to encourage discussions with activists from both the SNP and the SSP, an attempt which unfortunately failed when the SNP proscribed SRSM and subsequently expelled me from the party.

While I believe my political analysis was accurate in terms of maximising the SNP vote, I later realised that the bigger picture was how to motivate the majority of the population behind the concept of independence and how to capitalise on the new strength and diversity of the independence movement.

An Independence Convention modelled on the Scottish Constitutional Convention (which established the arguments for the current devolved settlement) was originally suggested by activists from the SNP and SSP at a fringe meeting at SNP conference. Eventually, all the Scottish parties would give the convention their full support.

After two years of discussions, the Independence Convention launched on St. Andrew Day last year. I was a representative on the Convention latterly from Independence First and it was an inspiring sight to see all the Scottish parties sharing a platform.

Since then, official talks have been opened between the SNP and the Scottish Green party on forming some kind of post election alliance.

The Scottish Socialist Party appears to have lost some ground electorally over the Tommy Sheridan resignation issue; however, their new leader Colin Fox is a competent individual and I'm sure they will do well again at the next Scottish elections.

Certainly the SSP and the SNP and the Greens have all been enthusiastic participants in the Convention Process and all parties have also given substantial support to the new non-party political organisation Independence First.

Independence First came about from an Internet-based think tank that was established to consider new tactics to achieve independence. This group was deliberately drawn from diverse sources of political opinion and it was eventually decided after much discussion that the most obvious way of establishing support for independence was through a referendum.

Secondary constitutional changes such as the ultimate decision on constitutional arrangements and the membership of international bodies would be left to the people after the first objective was achieved, i.e., the breakup of the British Union.

It was felt that the demand for a referendum on independence was a simple democratic decision for the people of Scotland and it would be possible for all independence supporters to sign up to this without having to compromise on any political principle.

We also felt that this demand, if supported by all the existing supporters of independence, would be capable of motivating other members of the public behind the cause of independence and it is Independence First's objective to take the independence message out of the political parties and into the public domain to create a massive mass movement for independence.

Independence First launched as a campaign in March last year. Since launch, its potential was realised and it has gained substantial political support from right across the independence movement.

Every single independence-supporting party or group has given some level of support to Independence First. MSP's from all the major Scottish political parties have given messages of support and the Scottish Green Party has given the campaign its official endorsement as a party.

The new political parties, the Scottish Independence Party and the Free Scotland Party, have also given written support to the campaign, as have the Celtic League and prominent individuals like David R. Ross, the Scottish historian.

We believe, therefore, that Independence First has the potential to gain mass support from the public at large. At this stage we are attempting to create branch structures across the country and we are currently in the process of setting up groups in Edinburgh, Glasgow, Dundee, and Inverness and it is our intention to have a local group in every town in Scotland.

Independence First has no political policy objectives outside independence. Our members are free to continue to argue for whatever they currently believe in but as an organisation we are determined to argue for a referendum on independence and nothing else and not to be divided by any political policy.

The independent Scottish parties (ie those who are not run from London) do have some similar political objectives and all are unquestionably on the political left however it is up to these parties to decide how or if or to what extent they wish to work together.

The Independence Convention is the perfect vehicle for these groups and civic Scotland to meet together and thrash out a vision of what an independent Scotland might be like. Independence First has enthusiastically participated in the meetings to establish the Convention and we wish the organisation every success.

The people of Scotland cannot wait however for the political parties to reach eventual agreement. We the people need our national freedom to decide for ourselves what our future political destiny is going to be and this can only be achieved by winning a democratic referendum which states unequivocally that we as a nation want our independence.

All Scotland's independent parties agree on the mechanism for proving this support -- through a simple and democratic referendum. If the unionists are confident of their case for the continuation of the British union they should be willing to put that case to the people of Scotland.

Scotland has never had a clear choice whether we wish to remain in the union or not. While the British union has been historically portrayed as an equal union between partners in reality it happened against the will of the ordinary people of Scotland (who showed their feelings at the time by rioting against it!) and the corrupt "Noble" representatives were not only bribed but were pressurised by the threat of military force.

The British union has always been an unequal partnership. While Scots provided cannon fodder in numerous imperial wars our general standard of living didn't substantially improve until after the second world war!

Despite massive evidence of support for Home Rule it took at least a 100 years to bring it grudgingly into reality and with a substantially weaker parliament than was demanded by the devolution convention!

Independence First see our role as building up pressure from the outside for a democratic referendum on whether we wish to continue with the current political union or take up the democratic demand of normal national powers for Scotland.

Anyone who is interested in joining our movement is invited to visit our website, http://independence1st.com, or, if they would like to send us a message of support, to contact me at media@independence1st.com.

(This article was written by an Action Network user not the BBC / Updated: 08 Aug 2006) By Joe Middleton, Edinburgh, City of
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/actionnetwork/A13622546

Independence First, the non-party political referendum campaign, independence1st.com, recently wrote to both the UK Government and the Scottish Parliament asking for a democratic referendum for the people of Scotland on independence.

The replies were swift. The Scottish Parliament replied: "Schedule 5 to the Act (Scotland Act 1998) defines matters which are reserved to the United Kingdom Parliament. The Government of the United Kingdom is therefore responsible for considering any fundamental changes to the existing devolution framework in Scotland."

The Scottish Office in London replied "It is worth noting that in the UK political system the UK parliament is sovereign and it is for Parliament to decide whether or not to hold a referendum on any particular issue -- and what the terms of any referendum should be."

Of course these answers are pretty much what we expected. The Scottish Parliament just wants to pass the buck down south, while the Westminster Government does not even recognise that there is a problem. In England Parliament may be sovereign, but in Scotland the people are sovereign.

These answers are obviously not acceptable. The question is what are we going to do about it? In Independence First's case we plan to do quite a lot about it and we hope the readers of this article will help us.

While Independence First has probably not impinged on the public consciousness yet, we have been quietly and carefully doing something very important. Uniting the entire independence movement behind our campaign, something which we hope will be obvious on 30th September when we organise our first march for independence through the centre of Edinburgh and ending outside our temporary parliament.

While opinion polls are always variable post-devolution there has been a definite trend towards stronger support for independence. Indeed if the question of EU membership and the monarchy is removed the polls show a pretty clear majority in favour of independence.

The Scottish Green Party have expressed official support for the campaign and will be speaking at our rally on the 30th September. The Free Scotland Party, the Communist Party of Scotland, The Scottish Enterprise Party, The Celtic League, The Scottish Independence Party and the Scottish Republican Socialist Movement have all also given official messages of support. Tommy Sheridan MSP, the SSP's Carolyn Leckie MSP and Alan McCombes, SNP MSP's Stewart Maxwell and Sandra Whyte, independent MSP Campbell Martin (who is speaking at our rally) all support the campaign as well.

The Scottish Independence Convention, whose meetings IF representatives attend, is also officially backing our pro-democracy march and rally on the 30th of September. In short then every single Scottish independence supporting party and pro-independence political organisation have backed our strategy of pushing for a democratic referendum by the people, here in Scotland.

Independence First will distribute 10,000 leaflets in the major population centres in Scotland before this march. The Federation of Student Nationalists and Young Scots for Independence have agreed to contact their text referendum supporters list in support of the march.

We hope a strong turnout will provide the much needed boot up the backside the Scottish executive requires to take the independence debate seriously.

To attempt to show the enormous latent support for independence we have also launched an e-petition through the Scottish Parliament. The petition reads as follows:

Petition by Neil Caple (National Convenor), on behalf of Independence First, calling for the Scottish Parliament to consider and debate what moves it could make to ensure the early presentation of a referendum on self determination to the people of Scotland.
The petition is available at the Scottish Parliament web site.

In the expectation that none of these efforts will actually have any effect on the unionist led executive we will also attempt to influence the actual outcome of the next election. In the next few weeks leading artists, writers and musicians will endorse a one million pledges for independence campaign.

This campaign will call for one million Scots to give their support to parties which support independence in both the first and second votes. We believe this is enough to swing the election in favour of independence and is also an amount which is well within the reach of the pro-independence parties.

Our campaign includes people from all walks of life, political activists and people who have no interest in traditional politics whatsoever. We have one thing in common: we all agree that without independence nothing substantial can be improved about Scotland. For this reason no matter what our political views we have decided to not be divided by any political policy and concentrate all our energies on turning up the pressure for a referendum on independence.

Next year we have a golden opportunity to make this happen. The three hundredth anniversary of the treaty of union is a perfect time to reconsider whether the British state suits our interest any longer.

We don't think it does and we believe a democratic referendum will prove the Scottish people as a whole think the same.

(This article was written by an Action Network user not the BBC / Updated: 18 Sep 2006) By Joe Middleton, Edinburgh, City of
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/actionnetwork/A14428974

i received two daffodils from my friend at church last Sunday.
i do not particularly like daffodils, but i do love to get flowers as a gift.
i was wearing a yellow top that day by chance.. (*^^*)

i went on a picnic to Windsor Castle alone on a sunny spring day (Friday 16 March 2007) after class.
i saw the beautiful chapel with beautiful windows, decorations, ceiling, and tombs, grand old stone buildings, pretty gardens, and luxurious rooms.
the castle was really beautiful and i really enjoyed the trip.
i can enter the castle again and again for free in one year with the ticket..

i cannot concentrate on writing essays or reading books very well.
i am often late for or even absent from classes.
but i go to the music practice room almost everyday and can focus on playing the piano quite well. (>.<)

why cannot i write posts....T.T
why am i so lazy....T.T