Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org

macnumpty · Posted: Sun Oct 29, 2006 2:34 pm Post subject: Continuing stories

A quick glance through the weekend's papers (and a look at the TV programmes) tells me that this is a week to look at stories that I've already covered, and how they're progressing.

Firstly, on stock transfer: Malcolm Chisholm has been interviewed today, informing viewers that he has personally visited all of the Council areas where the Council Tenants have been balloted on having their housing transferred over to an association. Obviously, Edinburgh (his home patch) was the first of these. The tenants voted No. He's visited Stirling. They voted No. He visited Renfrewshire. They voted No, which could possibly gift two marginal constituencies to the SNP next May. He's also campaigning in Inverclyde and Highland, no doubt to the abject terror of local Labour parties in those areas. Having admitted that he is now the Zelig of stock transfer debacles, he's effectively cursed any future plans while he's Communities Minister and now seems to have "Sack Me" written on his face.

On party funding there are two interesting stories worth considering: the first is the RMT's decision to end its affiliation to the SSP, as discussed here. They haven't as yet announced their support for Solidarity, but I suspect that this will be a matter of 'when' rather than 'if'. Meanwhile, the £2.4 million donated to the LibDems by convicted perjurer Michael Brown is causing consternation: reports abound that the party will have to return the cash, and the Scottish LibDems have opted against disclosing how much of that money went their way, but seeing as their 2005 Election expenses were more than double their 2001 figures, I'd guess that it was quite a bit. But if there is a forced repayment, it'll leave the LibDems' 2007 campaign in tatters.

Finally, The Greens will be discussing Coalition options (a subject I like to come back to occasionally) at their Conference next week, with Patrick Harvie taking the initiative by circulating a paper on what part the party could play in propping up any potential Executive next year. Although he's tight-lipped on what policies will have to be part of any deal (though he has re-stated the party's opposition to nuclear power), he did mention his preferred option for how the deal would work. He's seeking the activists' backing for the 'Confidence and Supply' model, where the Greens would take no ministerial seats and would not be expected to support the Executive on most matters, but they would support another party's candidate for First Minister, back the Executive in confidence motions and vote for the Executive's Budget in exchange for concessions on policy over the four-year term.

Harvie says this will allow a more exciting form of politics, where an Executive will have to win an argument before it wins the vote. I think it'll lead to more U.S. Congress-style 'pork barrel' politics, with Executive whips having to negotiate with other parties, and individual members of all political hues (including their own), in order to get votes passed, where the only question Ministers will have to answer from MSPs will be, "What's in it for us?" Or perhaps I'm getting cynical.

_________________
(\_/)
(О.о)
(> < )
^ ^ This is Bunny. Bunny wishes that he was on the electoral roll in Glasgow East, so he could vote for John Mason. He also reminds you to read the Our Scotland Blog.

macnumpty · Posted: Sun Oct 29, 2006 5:13 pm Post subject:

UPDATE: According to Kenny, the Scottish Republican Socialist Movement has also disaffiliated from the SSP, apparently citing concerns that the party isn't giving enough weight to the Independence argument (have I read that right, Kenny?). However, a number of SRSM members will stay in the party as individuals, so I don't think they're switching to Solidarity.
_________________
(\_/)
(О.о)
(> < )
^ ^ This is Bunny. Bunny wishes that he was on the electoral roll in Glasgow East, so he could vote for John Mason. He also reminds you to read the Our Scotland Blog.

Firefox · Posted: Sun Oct 29, 2006 5:29 pm Post subject:

Correct. It was felt by a lot of the membership (not myself though) that commitments to Independence were on paper only. The movement is going to remain cross party.
_________________
"Your denial is beneath you, and thanks to the use of hallucinogenic drugs, I see through you." Bill Hicks

SLG · Posted: Mon Oct 30, 2006 12:29 pm Post subject:

If the SSP go under, would the SRSM consider standing in future elections?

Rinty · Posted: Mon Oct 30, 2006 1:54 pm Post subject: y

I doubt the idea that the RMT will affiliate to Solidarity. I suspect that they will stay unaligned and support left candidates of various parties that support their policies as they do in England. In effect this would mean that Solidarity would get support from them as there are only two left parties in Scotland, but I dont think they will affiliate anytime in the near future and I dont think Solidarity would expect them to either.

Personally I think that SRSM are better to be an independent cross party group as a socialist party is unlikely to give the prominence to independence that they would seek and a nationalist party is unlikely to give the prominence to socialism that they would seek. Again I cant see them affiliating to Solidarity.

Firefox · Posted: Mon Oct 30, 2006 6:46 pm Post subject:

There's little chance of us becoming a party in our own right. Cross party we can do what we want to do, and that is take Socialism to Nationalists, and Independence to Socialists.

We won't stand in elections because, frankly, we don't have the money or the members. We don't pretend to. By going cross party, we expect to pick up some members that refused to have anything to do with the SSP (because they were SNP).
_________________
"Your denial is beneath you, and thanks to the use of hallucinogenic drugs, I see through you." Bill Hicks

Rinty · Posted: Mon Oct 30, 2006 7:42 pm Post subject: h

How many SRSM members were in the SSP fox? And how many are remaining?

I always found the push for the entrenchment clause a bit bewildering and I always thought that if a conference could vote to "entrench" something in a constitution then they could easily vote at a subsequent conference to "un-entrench" it. No?

I always used to vote along with the idea at SSP conferences as I did like the guys who instigated the debate, I liked their spirit and I liked that they challenged the leadership, something that the SSP didnt and still dont like.

I remember at the 2005 conference they didnt allow the SRSM motion to boycott the UK elections, didnt even allow the debate never mind argue against it. I thought it would have been a good debate to have with much further reaching angles than just whether we stood or not, perhaps that is why they didnt allow it.

One thing about all of this splitting is that I actually am quite sad not to be in a party with Donald Anderson and Kevin Williamson, they are both real thinkers who I really admire, even though I dont always agree with them, they were vey important figures in the SSP as they were forever questioning accepted norms in the party.

Firefox · Posted: Mon Oct 30, 2006 8:03 pm Post subject:

I was against the entrenchment motion, which is why my name's not on it. In the first case, it was a good one to put forward but after that we were flogging a dead horse and debating for the sake of it. I think there were opportunities we missed because of that motion.

There's four remaining members that I know of. I'd say about fifteen to twenty(ish) were in it. Some louder than others. In the past year a lot of comrades grew disheartened and left (but stayed with us), so over the past year or so figures go all over the place. We discussed leaving before the whole TS and UL shenanigans. There was also a few that weren't in the party at all. We had a few up in Dundee, Embra, Glasgow.

There's part of me that wanted to heavily campaign on issues like Abstentionism and Entrenchment, but use the motions to play the party game a wee bit better. Never happened though. Maybe we never should...

Conference shenanigans and the SWP are the two reasons Solidarity won't get many (if any) members from the SRSM, rather than because of individual members like yourself and Tommy. There's a former SRSM member who's gone to Solidarity, but I think I'll not mention too much of him. I quite like the guy, but other people have mixed feelings.

To be honest we were thinking about divorce for a while. We were going a couple of months ago and another party member argued we stay until the conference until he buggered off himself soon after.

You should come up to the John Maclean march when we have it. I'll post details on the rallies and events bit when I have more details (we still need police confirmation).
_________________
"Your denial is beneath you, and thanks to the use of hallucinogenic drugs, I see through you." Bill Hicks

Babygael · Posted: Thu Nov 02, 2006 5:53 am Post subject:

And from the Northern Scot.........Cullen Skink has secured its first entry into the erm Oxford Dictionary.
_________________
Ath-bheothachad

Here is where I come to water my roots.