Severe Child Poverty Shames Scotland

The charity Save The Children this week published a report disclosing that there are 90,000 children in Scotland living in severe poverty. That's 90,000 youngsters growing up in households where the income is less than £134 a week. So, when the fridge or cooker, washing machine, electric shower or gas fire breaks down it doesn't get fixed. These are the kids who can't afford to go on the weekend school camp to Abefoyle or Dunoon or even outings to the zoo, the museum, the sports stadium or the cinema. They are the ones who will not meet their educational or social potential. They will not be our future doctors or nurses, teachers or firefighters. One in three children in Scotland now live in poverty, 90,000 children - the equivalent of a city the size of Paisley - re punished for being poor in a country which is one of the richest countries in the world.

In Glasgow almost 20% of children live in severe poverty. What does this say about a city which is spending a small fortune on the Commonwealth Games? How bitter to see those children most in need of help from the 'common wealth' again be denied it.

To make matters worse Save The Children's research covered 2009/09. This means it does not take account of the current economic downturn. The rise in unemployment and the cuts to lifeline public services will have made matters even worse.

Save The Children is to be congratulated for bringing the matter to our attention but as a charity it's limitations as an agency of change are laid bare. 'The Scottish Government must' STC say, 'set out a clear commitment to end child poverty in Scotland'. Must they? STC admit the Government have done nothing about eradicating child poverty in 12 years. And of course it never will. Labour, the SNP, the Tories or Liberal Democrats don't give a damn about child poverty in Scotland. They all share the neo-liberal belief that rich corporations are the priority in this country. These political parties, all in the pocket of big business, argue that the rich must be allowed to pay miserable wages, exploit the poor and pay negligible taxes [as Barclays did this year - 1% tax on it's profit of £8 billion]

So STC 'milk the cow and kick over the bucket'. They highlight how terrible the situation is but plead with King Herod not to keep murdering the first born. Karl Marx observed that 'Philosphers have merely interpreted the world, the point however is to change it' - it is also thus with charities.

And so it is to those with no illusions in neo-liberal 21st Century capitalism that we must look for solutions to severe child poverty in Scotland. We owe it to all those 90,000 youngsters and the millions more who will follow to eradicate the causes of this blight in our society.

Speaking Up For An Independent Socialist Republic At My Old School In Motherwell

After speaking at Fettes College (the fee paying school in Edinburgh that Tony Blair attended) last week I now get the chance to meet pupils at my old school; Our Lady's High School in Motherwell.

This Wednesday's visit will be the third time I have been asked to address the pupils and I'm really looking forward to it.

Not only is Motherwell my home town and Our Lady's my old school but this is heartland territory for the Socialist movement. It is the birthplace of Labour's first leader - James Keir Hardie - and nearby lies the UNESCO World Heritage site of New Lanark. Here the Utopian Socialist Robert Owen established a world renowned cotton mill in the early 1800s with enlightened attitudes to work, education, health and social conditions. Motherwell also elected Britain's first Communist MP back in the 1920s, one of only four ever to win a seat at Westminster.

Those sSocialist pioneers believed in a democratic republic and, with two Royal weddings to suffer this year, it is surely time to remind people of the need for an elected Head of State to replace the feudal relic that is the British monarchy. The Socialist movement's founders firmly believed in putting the interests of the people ahead of those of rich aristocrats. Those beliefs are today carried on by the Scottish Socialist Party. The record of the modern Labour Party, on the other hand, is of course light years behind Keir Hardie, Robert Owen and other founders of the labour movement. Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, Ed Milliband and Iain Gray would be hard pressed to spell Keir Hardie, much less have anything in common with his views! They have long since turned their backs on such ideas in order to pursue their own privileges, high living and fat cat expenses. By contrast the SSP believes, as Keir Hardie and Robert Owen did, in the need to end exploitation and to provide full employment, decent wages and conditions, educational access for all, the redistribution of wealth and the establishment of a democratic republic.

Those values are as important today as they ever were. Lanarkshire once led the world in fighting for them. Now Labour's dismal record at local, national and UK levels would shame the county's progressive pioneers.

At Our Lady's High on Wednesday I intend to remind all the students of this past and to outline the case for an Independent Socialist Scotland today and a modern democratic republic.

Lothians SSP delivers

SSP members across the Lothians will this week deliver 50,000 of these newsletters [below] as the first salves in our Holyrood election campaign.

Abdelbasset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi - Bywords for miscarriage of justice

Today's announcement by Cabinet Secretary Sir Gus O'Donnell that the British Government did all it could to assist the release of the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing adds further weight to the suspicion that the greatest miscarriage of justice in Scottish legal history involved the British state.
Why was Al Megrahi released?
The question brings forward many competing explanations. According to Sir Gus O'Donnell he was freed because British oil interests demanded it. He was handed back to Libya so that BP could gain access to their huge untapped oil reserves.
The SNP Government are apparently appalled at this suggestion and the inference they had any part in this grotesque affair. But there are those of us who think they doth protest too much!
Arguing, as the SNP do, that he was released because the Scottish Justice system is known for its compassion and humanity, recognised he had terminal cancer and wished to see him spend his last few days with his family, is of course utter twaddle. The Scottish justice system has no such qualms. And it is an insult to our intelligence to suggest it has. People die in Scottish prisons all the time. If the SNP believe he was responsible for the worst mass murder in modern Scottish history then why did they insist, as a condition of his release, that he abandon his legal appeal against conviction. His case was being sympathetically examined by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission. The idea that such a reactionary outfit as the SNP would show him the mercy he apparently never showed his victims is offensive nonsense.
The truth is itb suited both the Scottish legal establishment - of which the SNP is part- and the British state to prevent the full facts of this case coming out. Al Megrahi's hearing was widely expected to conclude that this was, to put it mildly, an unsafe conviction. It is now a matter of public record that Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny McAskill met AL Megrahi privately in his cell in Greenock prison and told him he could have his his freedom only if he agreed to abandon that appeal.
So Alex Salmond may be absolutely right to accuse Gordon Brown of rank hypocrisy in regard to his public statements following the release of Al Megrahi. But he is equally guilty of such a charge. The First Minister Salmond is taking us for mugs if he expects us to believe he is not also complicit in covering up the worst miscarriage of justice in Scots legal history.
Officially the SNP believes Al Megrahi was responsible for the bombing of Pan AM 103.
Officially the SNP believes the Scottish Justice system reached its verdict in possession of all the facts. Officially they also believe the Scottish Justice system is based on values of compassion and humanity and that this is exercised so liberally that the man convicted of cold blooded killing 300 people deserves mercy in abundance.
This is the same SNP who opposed compensation to those denied their human right to toilets in their cells, to those denied a lawyer at police interrogations and against offenders having the vote. Are we really to believe they are so liberal and compassionate as their release of Al Megrahi suggests?
I accuse the SNP of complicity in this cover up. The worst miscarriage of justice in British legal history also denies the victims of Pan Am 103 and their families the justice they deserve and the SNP knowingly plays its part.
I sat on the Scottish Parliament's Justice 2 Committee between 2003-2007.

Whither Egypt? - Reform, Repression or Revolution?

It began in Tunisia, then spread to Algeria within hours before reaching Yemen in the East and settling in the most important revolt of them all in Egypt. The January 2011 uprising of the Arab masses has been fermenting for a long long time. Millions across the region bravely faced down their hated security services and brutal regimes. The scenes are reminiscent of those beamed around the world 20 years ago from Eastern Europe. The revolt of the Arab peoples has the potential to be just as earth shattering.
We've seen nothing like this before there. Not on this scale. The raw voice of the people with all its confusion and political divisions is nonetheless agreed on one thing, change has come and the dictatorships have to go.
But what changes are being sought and which won? These revolts are economic, social and political in character. The standard of living across the region is falling dramatically as food and other basic necessities cost more and more. The social conditions in Egyptian society for example with 12million people living in Cairo alone have been hellish for many many years. The issue here is not whether or not to fight for change but how.
If the dam burst in Tunis it became a tsunami by the time it reached Cairo. The scent of democracy is in the nostrils of tens of millions in dozens of countries.
President Hosni Mubarak in Egypt, fearing the enormity of this unprecedented political revolt, was forced to make unparalleled changes to the Egyptian constitution within minutes. So much then for the oft repeated line of political reactionaries the world over that 'things cannot be changed overnight'. Revolutionary moods seldom stand on ceremony. Mubarak realised this entirely and within hours installed a Prime Minister to listen to the demands of the protesters. This despite the fact Egypt has had no such position before. In turn his manoeuvre was treated with contempt by protesters sensing his weakness. Their boldness was further encouraged when
they learned he had appointed Sulieman his hated head of security services to the post. He also gave new powers to his former Air Force Chief. Mubarak has gambled on the loyalty of the military and at same time challenged his critics to a waiting game. He hopes the protesters run out of steam. The stakes are high on all sides.
Of course the other remarkable feature of this piece of history, watching it from the comfort of a Scottish armchair, is the response of British and American Imperialism. Foreign Secretary William Hague and US Secretary of State Hilary Clinton both insist the people have 'legitimate grievances'.
No, really? Could this be the same countries who have done more than any other in the world to bolster Mubarak and assist his brutal military dictatorship. Where does he get his guns and instruments of repression from Mr Hague? Now that Cameron and Obama see the writing on the wall they change horses, flash their 'democratic credentials' and speak about the 'legitimate grievances of the people' before warning Mubarak not to put down the revolt.
The hypocrisy of these people! Mubarak has been a hated dictator for 30 years in Egypt. Yet he simply could not have survived to repress the Egyptian people without US and British complicity. In return for his backing of Israel's maltreatment of the Palestinians for example or the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan Mubarak was showered with privileges by the US and Britain
such as the latest military hardware with which to suppress his own people. This is well known in Egypt and it is therefore little wonder they express such hatred for his British and American 'handlers'.
What happens next depends on the political balance of forces, the decisions of the leaders of the key parties and the strength of will on both sides. Mubarak will not stand down voluntarily, he will have to be removed. Equally if the protesters lose momentum he will survive. The political struggle is not just between the Muslim Brotherhood on the one hand and the Wests preferred standard bearer Mohammed El Baradei on the other. There are many other forces out there seeking to direct the political unrest and frustration and seeking to improve the lives, standard of living and political rights of tens of millions.
One thing can be said with certainty the sands have shifted in Egypt now. The radical mass protests of the past 7 days have changed Egypt for ever.

Afghanistan 2011, the year withdrawal begins?

2011 will be a critical year for Britain's occupation of Afghanistan.
Canada has already announced the withdrawal of its troops this year concluding that 'a decade at war is long enough. Neither the Canadian public nor the troops themselves have any appetite to stay longer'. The Canadians follow the Dutch who ended their deployment in 2010. Their military chief General Peter van Uhm expressed grave doubts about the entire military strategy handing the base in Uruzgan back to the US.
David Cameron has repeatedly stated that a phased British withdrawal begins this summer. Like Barrak Obama he has staked his political reputation on this promise. So will he keep it? The precedents are not good. Such promises have been made for the past ten years. Who can forget John Reid, Blair's Defence Secretary, in 2001 casually announcing that 'British troops will be home by Christmas without a shot being fired'? Former communist Reid today sits, ermine clad, beside his peers in the House of Lords, honoured by the Empire for services rendered whilst the carnage escalates. Obama and Cameron realise the stakes are enormous but privately are advised the prospect of meaningful withdrawal is remote. US Commander General David Petraeus has repeatedly warned them the Taliban cannot be defeated militarily. Interviewed by BBC Foreign Affairs Editor John Simpson recently he again conceded that a political solution had to be secured. Consequently 'back channel talks' with Taliban leaders continue. Whilst the misnamed International Security and Assistance Force [ISAF] talks up paltry military advances and promise to 'hand Afghanistan over to a 'National Army and Police Force'' they are under no illusions about either objective.
Meanwhile the Pentagon admit in their annual report that 'Efforts to reduce insurgent capacity, such as safe havens and logistics support from Pakistan and Iran, have not produced measurable results.' With characteristic understatement they add' The Taliban's strength lies in the Afghan population's perception that coalition forces will soon leave and a Taliban victory is inevitable. The Taliban is not a popular movement but it exploits a population frustrated by weak governance.' In other words Afghans have no love for the Taliban but they are even more disgusted by the catastrophic failure of Karzai's government to provide economic support or security of any kind. Unemployment stands at 70%. Patrick Cockburn reported [The Independent 13/11/10] that $52billion in economic aid pumped into Afghanistan in recent years has made no difference whatsoever to the endemic poverty there such is the rampant corruption and racketeering at all levels. Of 23million people more than 9million live in abject misery. A further 5million survive on £23 per month. Tens of thousands are dying of starvation. This shocking picture is only matched by the political poverty. Obama has witnessed a staggering loss of support. His inability to defeat the Taliban is seen as part of a wider incompetence. A large majority of Americans oppose his ongoing involvement in this conflict. The same is true in Britain.
Pro rata British military casualties in Afghanistan have been heavier than anyone. Some 350 British soldiers have been killed and countless others maimed and injured. This compares to 950 US fatalities. [Of course both figures are tiny compared to 50,000 civilian losses]. The US has more than 100,000 troops but the British with 9,000 have a casualty rate twice as high.
'Our strategy is to train up the Afghan National Army and Police Force to take over. Only then can we leave' says David Cameron echoed by the entire UK political establishment. This strategy is both dishonest and bogus. There is no such thing as the 'Afghan National Police Force or Army'. Those men in uniform masquerading as ANP/ANA officers are paid by local warlords, it is to them they pledge their loyalty and take instruction. Karzai's authority barely reaches Kabul city limits. Taken collectively the ANA/ANP are simply not fit for purpose. Drug addicted, demoralised and infiltrated by the Taliban each is utterly despised by the civilian population for its brutality and corruption. It is no match for the incorruptible, drugless, death defying, better equipped and highly motivated Taliban resistance.
Plans to install a puppet President and develop a pliant, police force and army are as old as the occupation itself. They were part of Blair and Bush's exit plan when they invaded in 2001. Cameron and Obama's political fiction is therefore nothing new.
So in 2011 the ISAF strategy amounts to a muddled mixture of ongoing military skirmishes, controlling Taliban-lite regions of the North and West, back channel talks to Taliban leaders and fitful efforts to turn a 'pigs ear' of a National Police Force/Army into a silk purse.
This muddle will undoubtedly continue through 2011 to produce further pointless carnage with numerous British and American troops and countless Afghan civilians killed. And for what?

Fuel poverty reaching crisis point

Carolyn Churchill's article in Wednesday's Herald 'More energy bill misery ahead' [12/1/11] sent shivers down my spine and I suspect I wasn't the only one. On reading further my blood began to boil as details of further gas and electricity price rises were forecast.
In November the Scottish Government released figures showing a threefold increase in 'fuel poverty' levels. More than 770,000 households in Scotland are now in this position paying more than 10% of their income on energy bills. Worse still was the enormous rise in those experiencing 'extreme fuel poverty' [spending 20% of household income on keeping warm]. And all this before the bills arrive for the coldest winter in living memory.
In a largely unreported section of the Scottish Government announcement was the revelation that Alex Salmond has abandoned his 2007 manifesto commitment to eradicating fuel poverty in Scotland by 2014.
So with the average combined gas and electricity bill now £1,300 a year and, as Carolyn Churchill's article warns, another rise likely and the situation fast reaching crisis point the population is to be left to the mercy of profiteering power companies.
The human misery behind these figures is appalling. What's the number of cold related deaths going to be this winter? Millions of Scots are now unable to pay these exorbitant gas and electricity bills amid an economic downturn with spiralling prices and tax rises?
In an energy rich country like ours this is nothing short of a national disgrace. It doesn't have to be like this.