Speaking in London this week Barak Obama warned that Qaddafi must ‘stand down and leave Libya to the Libyan people.’ It was another fine example of the doublespeak Obama is famous for. Obama certainly has no intention of leaving Libya to the Libyans. He intends to help BP, Total and Fina steal their oil.
In March the UN Security Council authorized a military ‘no fly zone’ allegedly to protect Libyan civilians in response to reports Qaddafi was about to butcher those in Benghasi who had rebelled against him - inspired no doubt by the uprisings in neighbouring Egypt and Tunisia. But NATO’s military action has escalated from enforcing a defensive ‘no fly zone’ to become in effect the armed wing of the Libyan rebels. British, American, Italian and French aircraft have been bombarding and killing Libyans for over two months now flying 6,000 ‘sorties’ and firing more than 250 Cruise missiles. Britain alone is on course to spend £1billion on the conflict.
NATO commanders admit killing Qadaffi and replacing him with a more pliant, pro-western alternative is now their main objective. This is not only beyond the terms of UN Resolution 1973 it is expressly prohibited under international law. Yet ‘regime change’ in Libya is precisely what warmongering Obama has in mind. He has deemed ‘all legitimate military targets’ to include Qadaffi’s official Government residencies. A bloody civil war now looms in a country divided between NATO backed rebels in the east and Libyan Government forces in the west.
Several important questions arise from NATO’s latest war. Uppermost among them perhaps is how Qaddafi has survived in the face of such overwhelming military odds? The continuing loyalty of his armed forces is one factor but his ability to play on the deep-seated hatred for western Imperialism and the United States in particular has been even more crucial. The civilian population of Tripoli for example has predictably been drawn in behind Qaddafi by its hatred for Western Imperialism, NATO and their daily bombardment.
BBC and SKY News reporters go out of their way to deny the seething contempt that exists towards Western Imperialism throughout the region. Thankfully there are superior news agencies which convey how the Arab masses see the invasion of Iraq, the occupation of Afghanistan and the persecution of the Palestinians as an affront to democracy, international law and to themselves.
For half a century the US has backed every tyrant and despot in the area. Obama continued with this strategy until the ‘Arab Spring’ began. Western Imperialism stood full square behind tyrants like Mubarak. The uprisings in Egypt, Tunisia, Yemen and Bahrain have rather exposed them. And it ill behoves Obama to claim, as he did in London this week, that Britain and the United States are the worlds ‘moral guardians’.
Britain and the US never saw the Arab Spring coming far less fostered it as Obama tries to imply. Therefore NATO’s support for the rebels based in Benghasi, the self styled Transitional Council, will hardly ingratiate them to the rest of the Libyan population.
The Libyan Transitional Council are in truth a mixed bunch. They have legitimate grievances against Qaddafi having faced years of discrimination and under development. But they belong to
tribes common only in Eastern Libya who have always been hostile to Qaddafi. Many of them call for the restoration of the disgraced King Idris whom Qaddafi overthrew in a popular uprising in 1969. Idris was a corrupt, brutal and above all plaint western stooge every bit as hated as Qaddafi. He was famous for the deals he signed with Western oil companies – British, French and Italian – wherein Libya received the lowest rate in the world for a barrel of oil taken from its deserts. Al Qaeda are also reported to be involved in the rebel group (they have long been sworn enemies of Qaddafi) although not a significant size.
And of course oil is at the heart of all Obama’s calculations. The French have been the most belligerent of all voices on Libya. It’s clear their motivation is not humanitarian but the prospect of securing precious oil fields across the rich Libyan dessert.
Whilst Qaddafi is without doubt an idiosyncratic despot who rules, not through democratic structures as he claims, but via a rigged political system aided by a ruthless police state funded by the country’s huge oil wealth. Nonetheless he has never been tamed by Western Imperialism and they now see their chance. ‘Regime change’ however for democrats remains the sole and inviolate right of the Libyan people alone, not NATO, not the USA, not Britain nor anyone else.
Obama, Cameron, Sarkosy and Berlusconi are not motivated by humanitarian concern for the Libyan people they aim to impose yet another puppet who will promise them access to the huge oil reserves in the Libyan desert. This conflict then is not a war to help the Libyan people its a war to help BP steal their oil.
Sunday, 29 May 2011
Tuesday, 10 May 2011
Scotland's Political Climate Changes Utterly
As landslides go the 2011 Holyrood election was huge. Scotland has been shaken to its political foundations as voters again voiced their contempt for the Tories, their coalition partners the Lib-Dems and New Labour. The Scotsman described Thursday’s result as a ‘victory of hitherto unthinkable proportions’ for the SNP. Even The Scotsman can be right some of the time!
In truth the extent of the victory surprised even the SNP. They emerged with 45% of the vote [their largest ever], 69 seats [out of 129] and the first overall majority in Holyrood’s history. At counts across the country SNP candidates arrived expecting third or fourth place and walked out hours later ‘as the newly elected MSP for the said constituency’. The front page of Saturdays Edinburgh Evening News said it all. It led with a photograph of the newly elected MSP for Edinburgh Southern emerging from a bookmakers with his £750 winnings after he put £50 on himself to win at 14/1 just a fortnight ago. That former Lib Dem seat was, according to all received wisdom, Labour’s for the taking.
It is impossible to underplay the scale of the SNP victory. Even the ‘certainties’ of the D’Hont PR system employed to distribute Holyrood seats were swept aside. So many people voted for the SNP on Thursday that after wining all the constituency seats in some regions they also got MSPs on the same regional list! Legends are made of this. The SNP’s message, albeit deceitful, that ‘the list vote elects the First Minister’ brought them huge dividends.
The SNP’s sophisticated, multi-million pound election campaign, with its navigational tools for activists and social networking operations completely outstripped the once powerful Labour machine. Pollsters YouGov report that 80,000 Labour voters across Scotland switched to the SNP in the final 36 hours in disgust at its increasingly negative campaign and incessant targeted mail shots. When they had constituency activists on the ground Labour knew when to leave people well alone!
BELEAGERED and BELABOURED
Can it really only be a year since every Labour MP in Scotland increased their majority? This time the all-conquering Labour Party of Lowland Scotland fell to pieces like a Laurel and Hardy car. If definitive and final proof were needed that people vote one way in Westminster elections and another for Holyrood this is it.
In Labour’s Central belt ‘heartlands’ its seats toppled like ninepins. And comparing Thursday’s results with the notional results from 2007 [itself a bad night for Labour] does not sufficiently explain the scale of their collapse. A better comparison would be to look at how Labour’s five figure majorities from last year poured into the SNP corner.
Labour imagined the Lib Dem protest vote would go to them, so why didn’t it? The answer is that Labour like the Con-Dem Coalition also support public spending cuts and tuition fees. They offered no real alternative. Former Lib-Dem voters were also seduced by Salmond’s claims of managerial competency at Holyrood. These SNP’s achievements in wooing disenchanted Liberals should not be regarded lightly. There is little love lost between the two parties, but on this occasion the support the SNP won from the Lib-Dems was the difference between winning and winning an overall majority.
As it turned out even the so-called ‘rogue’ poll of April 21st ,which first suggested the SNP had an overall majority, underestimated their support. And let’s not forget that Labour started this election campaign with a 15% lead!
The fact is Salmond attracted votes not just from disaffected Lib Dems, but also Labour, Green, Tory and SSP supporters too.
EPHEMERAL OR EARTH SHATTERING
The central question is how much of this change is ephemeral, a one off, a freak result, and how much of it has broken the political mould?
Those who tentatively suggest the former must reckon with the 5-year term the SNP majority now has in this Parliament. That’s certainly not superficial. Neither is the scale of Labour’s collapse.
On the other hand those who suggest we are now in permanent new territory must ask how can the SNP keep seats like Edinburgh Pentlands and Edinburgh West when they have virtually no activists there and little natural support as its political opponents wait to pounce? And what will be the consequences in next years Council elections after a year of public spending cuts?
There are those of course who argue that the result on May 5th illustrates a certain ‘political promiscuity’ by voters who voted for Labour in huge numbers last year and opted for the SNP equally emphatically this time. This demonstrates, so it is argued, an inherent volatility in politics because there are no ideological differences between the 4 establishment parties. And this is certainly true if you examine Alex Salmond’s economic programme, his business plan, or international policy in regards to say Libya or Afghanistan. And the public spending cuts which he delayed until after this election sit in his in tray awaiting his scissors.
THE CUTS
Above all it is the issue of the cuts which will now test Salmond’s popularity most. Popularity levels like his can only go one way. Ask Nick Clegg! And the SNP has very difficult choices now to make during continued economic stagnation. It faces making severe public spending cuts. And it has as a party no compunction in voting for them, unlike the SSP. It votes through cuts every day in Councils across Scotland and it will do so again at Holyrood. Of course Salmond will try valiantly to pin the blame on Cameron and Clegg. And rightly so, but in the end he will not fight the cuts, he will make them. That brings huge public opposition and with it huge opportunities for the left.
Salmond must make £3bn of cuts over 5 years and these will be severe and unpopular. A shrewd and cunning political operator he might be - look at the way he announced his five year Council tax freeze for example at the same time as he unceremoniously and largely unnoticed dumped the SNP’s commitment to an income based alternative- but he will make them nonetheless.
Neither will an SNP Government confront the employing classes or redistribute the great wealth of Scotland. Salmond may be a populist but he will defend the interests of big business in Scotland as mercilessly as anyone else.
The message from the people of Scotland to Alex Salmond however remains unequivocal - these cuts are utterly unnecessary and indefensible and he must fight them! The economic crisis wasn’t caused by the greed and recklessness of working people and the poor after all.
‘The SNP has been good for Scotland’ boasted Salmond defending his 4 year record at Holyrood. But which Scotland does he mean? The 200 businessmen who endorsed him on polling day? Sir David Murray? Sir Jackie Stewart? Sir Tom Farmer? The Scottish Sun and News of the World whom also blessed him with an endorsement? The Scottish Sunday Express? They all believe the SNP has been good for them and that’s why they backed Salmond on Thursday!
‘Alex Salmond has been good for Scotland’ they said in unison ‘That’s why we support his re-election as First Minister.’ John Swinney welcomed their backing and said ‘Captains of Industry have benefited from the SNP.’
The Sunday Times Rich List came out at the weekend and what’s remarkable about the table of Scots billionaires and millionaires is the number who came out last week in support of the SNP. As New Labour found to its cost you can support the millionaires or you can support the millions. Getting it wrong has devastating consequences electorally.
So there’s the rub. Millions of Scots voted for the SNP to fight the cuts and to stand up to the Tories but the SNP now supports a regressive council tax freeze, cutting corporation tax and cuts in public services, jobs, pay and £3.3bn off the budget over the next 5 years.
INDEPENDENCE
Undoubtedly the most profound impact of last weeks astonishing is made on the likelihood of a referendum on Independence. The SNP did not present the Bill in the last Parliament they said because they had no majority. Now they do. Independence just took a great leap forward as Mao might have said.
There is no doubt that the case for independence took a battering during the election campaign itself as the SNP leadership barely rose to its defence whilst the unionist parties, sensing a weakness in the SNP’s armour, poured endless cold water on it. In these circumstance its little wonder the polls show support now down below 30%.
Supporters of Independence like the SSP therefore have a huge task on our hands to win the argument for Independence outside Holyrood in the pubs, clubs, community centres and workplaces across the land. But it can and must be done. The case for independence must be won before the referendum is called.
This offers an unprecedented opportunity for the left. The SNP is incapable of delivering a majority for independence on its own and to be fair it has acknowledged this frequently in the Independence Convention which the SSP joined.
It remains our job on the left to outline the alternative vision for independence. The alternative to neo-liberalism, warmongering, privatisation and profiteering. How many of the 69 SNP MSPs for example will protest at having to swear the oath of allegiance to the Queen? The party favours independence with the Queen as Head of State.
Alex Salmond is undoubtedly a shrew politician who closely courts popularity but he also supports the NATO attacks on Libya and the British occupation of Afghanistan. He also supports the monarchy and cutting corporation tax for employers and retaining the unfair Council tax. The SSP are better able to persuade progressive Scotland of the case for Independence.
THE LEFT
Given the huge swing to the SNP which swept all before it, taking dozens of seats from Labour, Liberals, Tories and Greens [polls suggested the Greens could get 8 seats] alike it is hardly surprising the left’s vote was squeezed on Thursday. We were also entirely eclipsed in the way the media covers this big money election.
The left was never at the races. In Glasgow George Galloway got 6,500 votes but never looked like winning and he has gone back to where he came from leaving nothing behind pretty much as usual. The Socialist Labour Party got the biggest left vote with 10,000 but they have been unable to coalesce the left in Scotland up to now and that will not change. The SSP vote [8,722] was also disappointing and down from 2007. This was inevitable after the fiasco of the Sheridan trial in January. Solidarity, as expected, were the biggest losers given their disgraced leaders incarceration for lying.
It is also true that nowadays the left’s resources are minuscule compared to the millions spent by Labour and the SNP and this disparity makes an uneven contest all but impossible.
For the SSP and the left as a whole the task must be to build up support for the socialist case again and to act with others to establish new fresh ideas and a potent political base of support in communities, workplaces and amongst those fighting the cuts There will be many opportunities presented to us in the weeks, months and years to come. We need to roll up our sleeves and take the socialist case to new generations of political activists.
The electoral plain is but one of many in politics and the 2012 Council elections offer an opportunity for a breakthrough. But as SSP Councillor Jim Bollan put it to me during the election you have to lay foundations before you put up the walls and take your seat. This time last year I met the team behind Green MP Caroline Lucas’s success in Brighton and asked them what they put their victory in getting Britain's first Green MP elected- down to. They each said ‘25 years hard work at ground level’. After last Thursday, the Greens are the biggest Party on Brighton and Hove Council.
In truth the extent of the victory surprised even the SNP. They emerged with 45% of the vote [their largest ever], 69 seats [out of 129] and the first overall majority in Holyrood’s history. At counts across the country SNP candidates arrived expecting third or fourth place and walked out hours later ‘as the newly elected MSP for the said constituency’. The front page of Saturdays Edinburgh Evening News said it all. It led with a photograph of the newly elected MSP for Edinburgh Southern emerging from a bookmakers with his £750 winnings after he put £50 on himself to win at 14/1 just a fortnight ago. That former Lib Dem seat was, according to all received wisdom, Labour’s for the taking.
It is impossible to underplay the scale of the SNP victory. Even the ‘certainties’ of the D’Hont PR system employed to distribute Holyrood seats were swept aside. So many people voted for the SNP on Thursday that after wining all the constituency seats in some regions they also got MSPs on the same regional list! Legends are made of this. The SNP’s message, albeit deceitful, that ‘the list vote elects the First Minister’ brought them huge dividends.
The SNP’s sophisticated, multi-million pound election campaign, with its navigational tools for activists and social networking operations completely outstripped the once powerful Labour machine. Pollsters YouGov report that 80,000 Labour voters across Scotland switched to the SNP in the final 36 hours in disgust at its increasingly negative campaign and incessant targeted mail shots. When they had constituency activists on the ground Labour knew when to leave people well alone!
BELEAGERED and BELABOURED
Can it really only be a year since every Labour MP in Scotland increased their majority? This time the all-conquering Labour Party of Lowland Scotland fell to pieces like a Laurel and Hardy car. If definitive and final proof were needed that people vote one way in Westminster elections and another for Holyrood this is it.
In Labour’s Central belt ‘heartlands’ its seats toppled like ninepins. And comparing Thursday’s results with the notional results from 2007 [itself a bad night for Labour] does not sufficiently explain the scale of their collapse. A better comparison would be to look at how Labour’s five figure majorities from last year poured into the SNP corner.
Labour imagined the Lib Dem protest vote would go to them, so why didn’t it? The answer is that Labour like the Con-Dem Coalition also support public spending cuts and tuition fees. They offered no real alternative. Former Lib-Dem voters were also seduced by Salmond’s claims of managerial competency at Holyrood. These SNP’s achievements in wooing disenchanted Liberals should not be regarded lightly. There is little love lost between the two parties, but on this occasion the support the SNP won from the Lib-Dems was the difference between winning and winning an overall majority.
As it turned out even the so-called ‘rogue’ poll of April 21st ,which first suggested the SNP had an overall majority, underestimated their support. And let’s not forget that Labour started this election campaign with a 15% lead!
The fact is Salmond attracted votes not just from disaffected Lib Dems, but also Labour, Green, Tory and SSP supporters too.
EPHEMERAL OR EARTH SHATTERING
The central question is how much of this change is ephemeral, a one off, a freak result, and how much of it has broken the political mould?
Those who tentatively suggest the former must reckon with the 5-year term the SNP majority now has in this Parliament. That’s certainly not superficial. Neither is the scale of Labour’s collapse.
On the other hand those who suggest we are now in permanent new territory must ask how can the SNP keep seats like Edinburgh Pentlands and Edinburgh West when they have virtually no activists there and little natural support as its political opponents wait to pounce? And what will be the consequences in next years Council elections after a year of public spending cuts?
There are those of course who argue that the result on May 5th illustrates a certain ‘political promiscuity’ by voters who voted for Labour in huge numbers last year and opted for the SNP equally emphatically this time. This demonstrates, so it is argued, an inherent volatility in politics because there are no ideological differences between the 4 establishment parties. And this is certainly true if you examine Alex Salmond’s economic programme, his business plan, or international policy in regards to say Libya or Afghanistan. And the public spending cuts which he delayed until after this election sit in his in tray awaiting his scissors.
THE CUTS
Above all it is the issue of the cuts which will now test Salmond’s popularity most. Popularity levels like his can only go one way. Ask Nick Clegg! And the SNP has very difficult choices now to make during continued economic stagnation. It faces making severe public spending cuts. And it has as a party no compunction in voting for them, unlike the SSP. It votes through cuts every day in Councils across Scotland and it will do so again at Holyrood. Of course Salmond will try valiantly to pin the blame on Cameron and Clegg. And rightly so, but in the end he will not fight the cuts, he will make them. That brings huge public opposition and with it huge opportunities for the left.
Salmond must make £3bn of cuts over 5 years and these will be severe and unpopular. A shrewd and cunning political operator he might be - look at the way he announced his five year Council tax freeze for example at the same time as he unceremoniously and largely unnoticed dumped the SNP’s commitment to an income based alternative- but he will make them nonetheless.
Neither will an SNP Government confront the employing classes or redistribute the great wealth of Scotland. Salmond may be a populist but he will defend the interests of big business in Scotland as mercilessly as anyone else.
The message from the people of Scotland to Alex Salmond however remains unequivocal - these cuts are utterly unnecessary and indefensible and he must fight them! The economic crisis wasn’t caused by the greed and recklessness of working people and the poor after all.
‘The SNP has been good for Scotland’ boasted Salmond defending his 4 year record at Holyrood. But which Scotland does he mean? The 200 businessmen who endorsed him on polling day? Sir David Murray? Sir Jackie Stewart? Sir Tom Farmer? The Scottish Sun and News of the World whom also blessed him with an endorsement? The Scottish Sunday Express? They all believe the SNP has been good for them and that’s why they backed Salmond on Thursday!
‘Alex Salmond has been good for Scotland’ they said in unison ‘That’s why we support his re-election as First Minister.’ John Swinney welcomed their backing and said ‘Captains of Industry have benefited from the SNP.’
The Sunday Times Rich List came out at the weekend and what’s remarkable about the table of Scots billionaires and millionaires is the number who came out last week in support of the SNP. As New Labour found to its cost you can support the millionaires or you can support the millions. Getting it wrong has devastating consequences electorally.
So there’s the rub. Millions of Scots voted for the SNP to fight the cuts and to stand up to the Tories but the SNP now supports a regressive council tax freeze, cutting corporation tax and cuts in public services, jobs, pay and £3.3bn off the budget over the next 5 years.
INDEPENDENCE
Undoubtedly the most profound impact of last weeks astonishing is made on the likelihood of a referendum on Independence. The SNP did not present the Bill in the last Parliament they said because they had no majority. Now they do. Independence just took a great leap forward as Mao might have said.
There is no doubt that the case for independence took a battering during the election campaign itself as the SNP leadership barely rose to its defence whilst the unionist parties, sensing a weakness in the SNP’s armour, poured endless cold water on it. In these circumstance its little wonder the polls show support now down below 30%.
Supporters of Independence like the SSP therefore have a huge task on our hands to win the argument for Independence outside Holyrood in the pubs, clubs, community centres and workplaces across the land. But it can and must be done. The case for independence must be won before the referendum is called.
This offers an unprecedented opportunity for the left. The SNP is incapable of delivering a majority for independence on its own and to be fair it has acknowledged this frequently in the Independence Convention which the SSP joined.
It remains our job on the left to outline the alternative vision for independence. The alternative to neo-liberalism, warmongering, privatisation and profiteering. How many of the 69 SNP MSPs for example will protest at having to swear the oath of allegiance to the Queen? The party favours independence with the Queen as Head of State.
Alex Salmond is undoubtedly a shrew politician who closely courts popularity but he also supports the NATO attacks on Libya and the British occupation of Afghanistan. He also supports the monarchy and cutting corporation tax for employers and retaining the unfair Council tax. The SSP are better able to persuade progressive Scotland of the case for Independence.
THE LEFT
Given the huge swing to the SNP which swept all before it, taking dozens of seats from Labour, Liberals, Tories and Greens [polls suggested the Greens could get 8 seats] alike it is hardly surprising the left’s vote was squeezed on Thursday. We were also entirely eclipsed in the way the media covers this big money election.
The left was never at the races. In Glasgow George Galloway got 6,500 votes but never looked like winning and he has gone back to where he came from leaving nothing behind pretty much as usual. The Socialist Labour Party got the biggest left vote with 10,000 but they have been unable to coalesce the left in Scotland up to now and that will not change. The SSP vote [8,722] was also disappointing and down from 2007. This was inevitable after the fiasco of the Sheridan trial in January. Solidarity, as expected, were the biggest losers given their disgraced leaders incarceration for lying.
It is also true that nowadays the left’s resources are minuscule compared to the millions spent by Labour and the SNP and this disparity makes an uneven contest all but impossible.
For the SSP and the left as a whole the task must be to build up support for the socialist case again and to act with others to establish new fresh ideas and a potent political base of support in communities, workplaces and amongst those fighting the cuts There will be many opportunities presented to us in the weeks, months and years to come. We need to roll up our sleeves and take the socialist case to new generations of political activists.
The electoral plain is but one of many in politics and the 2012 Council elections offer an opportunity for a breakthrough. But as SSP Councillor Jim Bollan put it to me during the election you have to lay foundations before you put up the walls and take your seat. This time last year I met the team behind Green MP Caroline Lucas’s success in Brighton and asked them what they put their victory in getting Britain's first Green MP elected- down to. They each said ‘25 years hard work at ground level’. After last Thursday, the Greens are the biggest Party on Brighton and Hove Council.
Sunday, 8 May 2011
Yesterday I Delivered This Speech At The Edinburgh May Day Rally
May Day 2011 will be remembered for the SNP's truly historic and extraordinary election victory at Holyrood. Like it or not the implications for the labour and trades union movement and for the prospects for socialism in Scotland are profound.
The overwhelming political issue of the moment remains the appalling cuts planned by the CON-DEM Coalition in London and their impact on the living standards of working people. The question is, can we rely on the SNP Government to fight those attacks, because that undoubtedly means confronting the employing classes and redistributing the great wealth of Scotland.
Our message to Alex Salmond today remains clear - these cuts are utterly unnecessary and indefensible AND HE MUST FIGHT THEM. We do not accept that an economic crisis caused by the greed and recklessness of our banks and global corporations means working people and the poor must suffer a severe cut in their living standards.
And let's make one thing clear. We are not 'all in this together'. Times are not hard for everyone - not when some are paying £25,000 a year for schooling their children at Fettes
- not when the Registers of Scotland reveal houses in Belmont Drive, Murrayfield, sell for £2.3m
- not when the Royal Bank of Scotland awards it's CEO a £7.7 million salary
- not when Edinburgh, with it's stark inequalities, remains the UK's 2nd richest city, with £3 trillion worth of equity managed here.
Yet David Cameron, Nick Clegg and David Milliband insist 'There have to be cuts in the standard of living of millions'. They are wrong. They are ideologically motivated. They intend to ensure the filthy rich keep their excessive wealth whilst the rest of us pay heavily for something we didn't do.
It's our job in this labour and trade union movement to outline the alternative, to explain that the books can easily be balanced by making alternative decisions;
- like ending the tax evasion which robs the country of £20 billion a year
- or raising corporation tax to the same level seen in the rest of Europe
- or scrapping Trident nuclear weapons to save £100 billion
- or ending the occupation of Afghanistan, which costs £5 billion a year
- or taking the banks' profits into public ownership, not just their debts and losses
- or replacing the council tax with an income based alternative to bring in another £1.5 billion.
This issue is about morality and justice. Those who caused the crisis should pay for it.
Not the poor, elderly, sick and disabled, nor the one in three children already living in poverty.
Not the 850,000 low paid workers earning a pittance in Scotland.
Not the pensioners struggling to get by on wholly inadequate incomes.
Alex Salmond is a very shrewd politician, but he supports the NATO attacks on Libya and he supports the British occupation of Afghanistan. He supports the monarchy and cutting Corporation Tax for employers whilst retaining the unfair Council Tax.
Working people have put the SNP on watch; Alex, will you implement Tory cuts or refuse?
Will you stand up for the 1 in 3 youngsters in Scotland living in poverty or ignore them again?
Will you help the 850,000 people struggling to get by on the National Minimum Wage as you tout Scotland around the world as a low wage economy?
How you answer these questions will truly determine whether our country has entered new ground or not.
Last month I joined half a million people in London on the TUC demonstration against the cuts entitled 'There is a better way'. Indeed there is, and the people of Scotland need it desperately.
The overwhelming political issue of the moment remains the appalling cuts planned by the CON-DEM Coalition in London and their impact on the living standards of working people. The question is, can we rely on the SNP Government to fight those attacks, because that undoubtedly means confronting the employing classes and redistributing the great wealth of Scotland.
Our message to Alex Salmond today remains clear - these cuts are utterly unnecessary and indefensible AND HE MUST FIGHT THEM. We do not accept that an economic crisis caused by the greed and recklessness of our banks and global corporations means working people and the poor must suffer a severe cut in their living standards.
And let's make one thing clear. We are not 'all in this together'. Times are not hard for everyone - not when some are paying £25,000 a year for schooling their children at Fettes
- not when the Registers of Scotland reveal houses in Belmont Drive, Murrayfield, sell for £2.3m
- not when the Royal Bank of Scotland awards it's CEO a £7.7 million salary
- not when Edinburgh, with it's stark inequalities, remains the UK's 2nd richest city, with £3 trillion worth of equity managed here.
Yet David Cameron, Nick Clegg and David Milliband insist 'There have to be cuts in the standard of living of millions'. They are wrong. They are ideologically motivated. They intend to ensure the filthy rich keep their excessive wealth whilst the rest of us pay heavily for something we didn't do.
It's our job in this labour and trade union movement to outline the alternative, to explain that the books can easily be balanced by making alternative decisions;
- like ending the tax evasion which robs the country of £20 billion a year
- or raising corporation tax to the same level seen in the rest of Europe
- or scrapping Trident nuclear weapons to save £100 billion
- or ending the occupation of Afghanistan, which costs £5 billion a year
- or taking the banks' profits into public ownership, not just their debts and losses
- or replacing the council tax with an income based alternative to bring in another £1.5 billion.
This issue is about morality and justice. Those who caused the crisis should pay for it.
Not the poor, elderly, sick and disabled, nor the one in three children already living in poverty.
Not the 850,000 low paid workers earning a pittance in Scotland.
Not the pensioners struggling to get by on wholly inadequate incomes.
Alex Salmond is a very shrewd politician, but he supports the NATO attacks on Libya and he supports the British occupation of Afghanistan. He supports the monarchy and cutting Corporation Tax for employers whilst retaining the unfair Council Tax.
Working people have put the SNP on watch; Alex, will you implement Tory cuts or refuse?
Will you stand up for the 1 in 3 youngsters in Scotland living in poverty or ignore them again?
Will you help the 850,000 people struggling to get by on the National Minimum Wage as you tout Scotland around the world as a low wage economy?
How you answer these questions will truly determine whether our country has entered new ground or not.
Last month I joined half a million people in London on the TUC demonstration against the cuts entitled 'There is a better way'. Indeed there is, and the people of Scotland need it desperately.
Monday, 25 April 2011
Time To Abolish The Council Tax - Not Freeze It
The opinion polls suggest Labour and the SNP are neck and neck in the race for Holyrood 2011. Interestingly both parties now support a freeze in Council Tax bills for the next year. They arrived at this 'freeze' via different routes however.
Like the Scottish Socialist Party the SNP are opposed to the Council Tax in principle, believing, as the majority of Scots do, that it is unfair and hits the less well off disproportionately hard. The Council Tax is indeed a regressive tax that bears no relation to a person's income. Consequently the least well off are hit hardest as the wealthy pay coppers. Since they have not been able to replace it with an income based alternative, the SNP have settled for second be stand 'freezing' the current charges.
Labour on the other hand has no principled objection to the Council Tax. They argue for a freeze on the grounds that they purportedly want to 'help hard working families in this time of austerity'. Most people believe that it has more to do with avoiding being politically outmanoeuvred by the SNP. Either way freezing the Council Tax does nothing to address it's fundamental unfairness. Indeed it may be argued a freeze helps the rich most of all.
As things stand the wealthy in Scotland pay a tiny tiny percentage of their income on this bill. For example,Stephen Hestor (the CEO of RBS) was just awarded a £7.7 million pay package for the coming year. Living in Edinburgh his Council Tax bill will again be frozen at £2,338 or 0.03% of his salary whilst some pensioners are paying 25% of their income on theirs.
The Scottish Socialist Part believes this is utterly unacceptable and this week we will highlight our fully costed proposals for a local income tax to replace the Council Tax. Our plans would mean the burden would be lifted from the shoulders of of pensioners, low paid workers and the poor and at the same time force the wealthy to pay their fair share for a change.
Here's how it works. Each individual in Scotland will pay towards the funding of local services but the more you earn the more you pay. So, for example, if your income is less than £10,000 you are exempt. That's too low to force people to contribute. Thereafter, on incomes over £10,000 and up to £30,000 you pay 4.5%. So if you are on £200,000 your bill is £450 [4.5% of the earnings over £10,000] If you earn more than £30,000 you pay nothing on the first £10,000, 4.5% on the next £20,000 and 10% on the earnings over £30,000. The next incremental step is to 15% on earnings over £50,000 and 20% on earnings over £100,000. This graduated rate (which the SNP opposes) is fairer and ensures that as your income goes up so does your tax obligation.
Economists at Paisley University who scrutinised these figures found that 77% of Scots will be better off compared to now. Furthermore, using the latest Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs figures, they are able to demonstrate that these proposals would bring another £1.5 billion into Holyrood's Treasury.
So, not only would this tax be fairer and redistributive, it would also halt the need for any cuts to public services in Scotland. And that's a freeze we DO need.
Like the Scottish Socialist Party the SNP are opposed to the Council Tax in principle, believing, as the majority of Scots do, that it is unfair and hits the less well off disproportionately hard. The Council Tax is indeed a regressive tax that bears no relation to a person's income. Consequently the least well off are hit hardest as the wealthy pay coppers. Since they have not been able to replace it with an income based alternative, the SNP have settled for second be stand 'freezing' the current charges.
Labour on the other hand has no principled objection to the Council Tax. They argue for a freeze on the grounds that they purportedly want to 'help hard working families in this time of austerity'. Most people believe that it has more to do with avoiding being politically outmanoeuvred by the SNP. Either way freezing the Council Tax does nothing to address it's fundamental unfairness. Indeed it may be argued a freeze helps the rich most of all.
As things stand the wealthy in Scotland pay a tiny tiny percentage of their income on this bill. For example,Stephen Hestor (the CEO of RBS) was just awarded a £7.7 million pay package for the coming year. Living in Edinburgh his Council Tax bill will again be frozen at £2,338 or 0.03% of his salary whilst some pensioners are paying 25% of their income on theirs.
The Scottish Socialist Part believes this is utterly unacceptable and this week we will highlight our fully costed proposals for a local income tax to replace the Council Tax. Our plans would mean the burden would be lifted from the shoulders of of pensioners, low paid workers and the poor and at the same time force the wealthy to pay their fair share for a change.
Here's how it works. Each individual in Scotland will pay towards the funding of local services but the more you earn the more you pay. So, for example, if your income is less than £10,000 you are exempt. That's too low to force people to contribute. Thereafter, on incomes over £10,000 and up to £30,000 you pay 4.5%. So if you are on £200,000 your bill is £450 [4.5% of the earnings over £10,000] If you earn more than £30,000 you pay nothing on the first £10,000, 4.5% on the next £20,000 and 10% on the earnings over £30,000. The next incremental step is to 15% on earnings over £50,000 and 20% on earnings over £100,000. This graduated rate (which the SNP opposes) is fairer and ensures that as your income goes up so does your tax obligation.
Economists at Paisley University who scrutinised these figures found that 77% of Scots will be better off compared to now. Furthermore, using the latest Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs figures, they are able to demonstrate that these proposals would bring another £1.5 billion into Holyrood's Treasury.
So, not only would this tax be fairer and redistributive, it would also halt the need for any cuts to public services in Scotland. And that's a freeze we DO need.
Tuesday, 19 April 2011
For a Modern Democratic Republic
All across Scotland political parties are vying for votes and spending millions of pounds trying to engage the electorate in the 'democratic process'. Glossy leaflets are being distributed left, right and centre whilst 'hustings' take place in church halls and community centres as political activists strive for most votes. But regardless of who wins the 129 seats on May 5th all the successful candidates must start their new job by defying the democratic principles they have just publicly espoused.
I well remember my first day as an elected MSP, I was legally compelled to tell a lie, a great big lie in front of the entire country. And when I refused I was expelled from the very Parliament I had fought so hard to enter. The reason? The Scotland Act compelled me to swear an oath of allegiance not to the people who had just elected me but to 'the Queen, her heirs and successors'. I refused. My allegiance I insisted was to the people of Scotland. But the Parliamentary authorities made it clear to me, and to my fellow MSPs, in no uncertain terms, that if we refused to take the oath we would not be legally permitted to sit in Parliament. [This requirement also faces MPs at Westminster].
How can our democratic process be so quickly and categorically usurped in this way? What about the declaration made by the Returning Officer that I 'had been duly elected to serve the people' of the Lothians?
The answer is that Britain's constitution has a monarch as our Head of State. Furthermore our unelected monarch and unelected House of Lords help enact laws referring to us as her 'subjects'. The monarch is 'attended' by her Lords, knights, aristocrats and the landed gentry. Our armed forces fight for and express loyalty to their 'Queen and country'. The law of the land upholds 'Her Majesty' as the ultimate legal authority. She is not accountable to, or elected by, anyone. It's no wonder people across the world who know of the UK's antiquated constitution are prone to ask incredulously 'Is this the same country that haughtily lectures the rest of the world about democracy?
Those who defend the Queen's role as our unelected Head of State insist hers is a largely benign and symbolic position. But this is patently untrue. Her powers can hardly be described as 'benign' if, when you don't declare your complete obedience to her, you cannot take up the seat the people elected you to.
But Parliament has the power, insist the monarchy's defenders, adding that the House of Commons is sovereign and the Queen cannot interfere in their political decisions. But strictly speaking she could, that's the point. She could, if she insisted, even refuse to allow a Government to be formed. She could refuse to sign Bills into law. This may appear unlikely in the present circumstances, but what if there was a political or constitutional crisis? We saw a glimpse of this last summer when after a hung Parliament emerged out of the General Election it took quite a while to form a Government. Into such circumstances 'benign' powers are often seen to emerge! Ask the people of Australia. They well remember a greater constitutional crisis in the 1970s when the so-called 'benign powers' of the Queen were evoked to remove the elected Labour Government of Prime Minister Goff Whitlam.
Furthermore Tony Blair infamously took us to war in Iraq by dint of the Royal Prerogatives given to him by the Crown and without a vote in the House of Commons. And the Queen's Privy Councillors exercise powers that outstrip those available to the House of Commons. Their administration of many of the world's tax havens, for example, is beyond the reach of MPs.
Constitutionally, power in Britain doesn't ultimately rest with the people. Britain is not a fully functioning democracy but a constitutional monarchy. As a democrat this worries me. I support a modern democratic republic for Scotland, not an outmoded feudal anachronism. And the polls suggest the majority of Scots agree with me. Our constitutional arrangements are urgently in need of root and branch reform. A modern democratic republic would establish the clear principle that we, 'the people', equal citizens in a free country, are ultimately in charge. We demand the right to elect our MPs and our Head of State in free and fair elections. That Head of State must be accountable to the people alone.
I once watched Alex Salmond get himself into a 'right Royal fankle' trying to explain the SNP's policy of 'a people's monarchy'. Try as he might he couldn't square two contradictory concepts. You can have rule by the monarch or rule by the people, but not both. There can be no place for hereditary privilege in a modern Scotland.
In 2005 the Queen came to open 'her' new £440m Holyrood Parliament. All MSPs and their families were 'cordially invited to meet 'Her Majesty''. But we six Scottish Socialist Party MSPs headed for the hills. Calton Hill in Edinburgh City Centre to be precise, where with thousands of others, we read out a declaration calling for a modern democratic republic for Scotland. To us those three words, 'modern', 'democratic' and 'republic' are inseparable. 'Modern' is something the monarchy is not. And I'm not just referring to the castles, palaces and titles or to their horse drawn carriages, robes, crowns and double breasted suits. I'm referring most of all to their attitudes and principles, their unearned positions, class ridden hierarchies and political controls.
'Democratic' the monarchy can of course never be. You either have the 'divine right of Kings' and their 'hereditary privileges' or you have free and fair elections, you simply can't have both.
A 'republic' is by definition a state in which 'supreme power resides in the people' not a monarch. To me it is the essence of democracy. An elected Head of State is a prerequisite in modern democracies. If you look around the world at other leading economies; France, Germany, Italy, Russia, China and most of the others, they all dumped their monarchies centuries ago. And America never had one, not unless you count Elvis!
I well remember my first day as an elected MSP, I was legally compelled to tell a lie, a great big lie in front of the entire country. And when I refused I was expelled from the very Parliament I had fought so hard to enter. The reason? The Scotland Act compelled me to swear an oath of allegiance not to the people who had just elected me but to 'the Queen, her heirs and successors'. I refused. My allegiance I insisted was to the people of Scotland. But the Parliamentary authorities made it clear to me, and to my fellow MSPs, in no uncertain terms, that if we refused to take the oath we would not be legally permitted to sit in Parliament. [This requirement also faces MPs at Westminster].
How can our democratic process be so quickly and categorically usurped in this way? What about the declaration made by the Returning Officer that I 'had been duly elected to serve the people' of the Lothians?
The answer is that Britain's constitution has a monarch as our Head of State. Furthermore our unelected monarch and unelected House of Lords help enact laws referring to us as her 'subjects'. The monarch is 'attended' by her Lords, knights, aristocrats and the landed gentry. Our armed forces fight for and express loyalty to their 'Queen and country'. The law of the land upholds 'Her Majesty' as the ultimate legal authority. She is not accountable to, or elected by, anyone. It's no wonder people across the world who know of the UK's antiquated constitution are prone to ask incredulously 'Is this the same country that haughtily lectures the rest of the world about democracy?
Those who defend the Queen's role as our unelected Head of State insist hers is a largely benign and symbolic position. But this is patently untrue. Her powers can hardly be described as 'benign' if, when you don't declare your complete obedience to her, you cannot take up the seat the people elected you to.
But Parliament has the power, insist the monarchy's defenders, adding that the House of Commons is sovereign and the Queen cannot interfere in their political decisions. But strictly speaking she could, that's the point. She could, if she insisted, even refuse to allow a Government to be formed. She could refuse to sign Bills into law. This may appear unlikely in the present circumstances, but what if there was a political or constitutional crisis? We saw a glimpse of this last summer when after a hung Parliament emerged out of the General Election it took quite a while to form a Government. Into such circumstances 'benign' powers are often seen to emerge! Ask the people of Australia. They well remember a greater constitutional crisis in the 1970s when the so-called 'benign powers' of the Queen were evoked to remove the elected Labour Government of Prime Minister Goff Whitlam.
Furthermore Tony Blair infamously took us to war in Iraq by dint of the Royal Prerogatives given to him by the Crown and without a vote in the House of Commons. And the Queen's Privy Councillors exercise powers that outstrip those available to the House of Commons. Their administration of many of the world's tax havens, for example, is beyond the reach of MPs.
Constitutionally, power in Britain doesn't ultimately rest with the people. Britain is not a fully functioning democracy but a constitutional monarchy. As a democrat this worries me. I support a modern democratic republic for Scotland, not an outmoded feudal anachronism. And the polls suggest the majority of Scots agree with me. Our constitutional arrangements are urgently in need of root and branch reform. A modern democratic republic would establish the clear principle that we, 'the people', equal citizens in a free country, are ultimately in charge. We demand the right to elect our MPs and our Head of State in free and fair elections. That Head of State must be accountable to the people alone.
I once watched Alex Salmond get himself into a 'right Royal fankle' trying to explain the SNP's policy of 'a people's monarchy'. Try as he might he couldn't square two contradictory concepts. You can have rule by the monarch or rule by the people, but not both. There can be no place for hereditary privilege in a modern Scotland.
In 2005 the Queen came to open 'her' new £440m Holyrood Parliament. All MSPs and their families were 'cordially invited to meet 'Her Majesty''. But we six Scottish Socialist Party MSPs headed for the hills. Calton Hill in Edinburgh City Centre to be precise, where with thousands of others, we read out a declaration calling for a modern democratic republic for Scotland. To us those three words, 'modern', 'democratic' and 'republic' are inseparable. 'Modern' is something the monarchy is not. And I'm not just referring to the castles, palaces and titles or to their horse drawn carriages, robes, crowns and double breasted suits. I'm referring most of all to their attitudes and principles, their unearned positions, class ridden hierarchies and political controls.
'Democratic' the monarchy can of course never be. You either have the 'divine right of Kings' and their 'hereditary privileges' or you have free and fair elections, you simply can't have both.
A 'republic' is by definition a state in which 'supreme power resides in the people' not a monarch. To me it is the essence of democracy. An elected Head of State is a prerequisite in modern democracies. If you look around the world at other leading economies; France, Germany, Italy, Russia, China and most of the others, they all dumped their monarchies centuries ago. And America never had one, not unless you count Elvis!
Thursday, 14 April 2011
SSP's Holyrood Manifesto
The Scottish Socialist Party launched our manifesto for the 2011 Holyrood elections yesterday at a press conference in Glasgow. With me at the launch were the other top of the list candidates from across Scotland. Frances Curran (Glasgow), SSP Councillor Jim Bollan (West of Scotland), and myself briefly outlined the main points in our magnificent manifesto [which can be downloaded from the SSP website] for the assembled press pack.
We gave the people of Scotland a cast iron guarantee that if they elect SSP MSPs on May 5th we will not vote for cuts to public services, to jobs, wages or conditions. This is a very important commitment because this will be the first Parliament faced with a reduced budget so MSPs will either vote for cuts or fight them.
The SSP has never, in twelve years, voted to cut public services or the standard of living of working people and we have no intention of starting now.
Second we stressed that we are committed to scrapping the hated and unfair Council Tax. We intend to replace it with an income based alternative which sees the wealthy pay more and the poor exempted.
And last, but by no means least, is our support for an independent socialist Scotland, a modern democratic republic. Whilst other parties dilute their commitment to independence we remain passionate about it. And as we will endure the sycophants cooing over a Royal wedding in the last week of this election campaign we felt it important to restate our commitment to a modern democratic republic for Scotland.
The press conference was well attended as the picture shows. As well as the BBC and STV film crews, several other photographers and journalists were present and their questions reflected their growing recognition that support for the SSP is increasing noticeably.
The coverage of our manifesto launch has, as usual, been patchy; some good, some bad, some non-existent. STV news carried a full interview and the greatest column inches were found in the Aberdeen Press and Journal. So, hats off to them for fair coverage and Dunces Caps to the BBC, The Daily Record and the other tabloids for ignoring us once again.
Sunday, 3 April 2011
Prescription Charges Abolished in Scotland After 50 Years
After my election to Holyrood in 2003 I launched a Private Members Bill to scrap prescription charges. The SSP's Bill won the backing of hundreds of health groups, unions and patients groups across the country. It even won the support of the Scottish Parliament's own Health Committee.
It was voted down by an unholy alliance of Labour, Lib Dem and Tory MSPs, otherwise this double tax on the sick would have become law 6 years ago.
I am delighted nonetheless that our visionary idea has, at last, been realised and that a great injustice has been eradicated. The NHS promised, back in 1947, to provide health care free at the point of need paid for out of general taxation. Prescription Charges broke that promise to patients. Without our Bill, and the SNP Government's decision to pick it up, prescription charges would be £7.40 per item today as they are in England.
This achievement shows the people of Scotland what a difference SSP MSPs at Holyrood make to their lives, and in particular, to those of the low paid, sick and vulnerable. I hope people will remember this on May 5th.
It was voted down by an unholy alliance of Labour, Lib Dem and Tory MSPs, otherwise this double tax on the sick would have become law 6 years ago.
I am delighted nonetheless that our visionary idea has, at last, been realised and that a great injustice has been eradicated. The NHS promised, back in 1947, to provide health care free at the point of need paid for out of general taxation. Prescription Charges broke that promise to patients. Without our Bill, and the SNP Government's decision to pick it up, prescription charges would be £7.40 per item today as they are in England.
This achievement shows the people of Scotland what a difference SSP MSPs at Holyrood make to their lives, and in particular, to those of the low paid, sick and vulnerable. I hope people will remember this on May 5th.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)