Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org

Dave Coull · Independentista Joined: 07 Nov 2006 Posts: 2809

At the AGM of Independence First in March 2007, Eric Canning, the Leader of the Communist Party in Scotland, who had joined IF just one month earlier, was elected as convenor by a majority of one vote. Since then, many changes have taken place in IF. Some of these changes were intended to strengthen the position of the convenor, but the most controversial change was the decision to close down the members' forum. It was THAT change which led to a collective resignation from IF, including by the actual founders of IF as well as by the Secretary and Membership Secretary. Eric Canning has recently written on these events. I intend to take issue with some parts of his statement. Since Eric is apparently not on the internet, I will mail a copy of this response to him.

In his statement, Eric refers to "those sad individuals who recently resigned from I.F. to form yet another incestuous grouping". Sixteen people resigned from IF and joined a new grouping, Determination, the non-aligned campaign for self-determination for Scotland. Now, by the law of averages, in any group of sixteen people, whether it is Determination, or the Communist Party of Scotland, or whatever, you are bound to find some people who are sad, and some who are happy, and some who are a mixture of sad and happy. Personally, leaving the campaign which I played such a large part in founding made me a bit sad in some ways, and happy in other ways. But Eric says that all sixteen of us are "sad". What grounds does he have for this sweeping statement?

Regarding the claim that what we formed was "yet another incestuous grouping", that is false. We originally formed Independence First in late 2004/the beginning of 2005 as a strictly NON-PARTY-POLITICAL group. But by March 2007 it seemed to some of us that the leader of a political party (even a _small_ political party) becoming, in effect, the "leader" of IF, brought that non-party-political nature into question. We argued for this view through the Members' Forum. The response to our arguments was that the Members' Forum got closed down. This response to internal dissent, reminiscent of the most authoritarian of political parties, left us with no choice but to leave IF and form a new, and more genuinely non-party-political, grouping. There is nothing "incestuous" about that. The truly "incestuous" thing is the idea that all dissent, even when expressed privately through a members-only-forum, must be banned.

Eric says that we "are only serving the interests of the well practised British Establishment – ‘divide and rule’". But it wasn't the British Establishment which decided to close down the Members Forum of Independence First! Independence First had ALWAYS been intended to include people with lots of different viewpoints, and it was always accepted that this was bound to lead to some dissension amongst the members. For some of us, if a campaign can allow the discussion of dissenting views, that is a positive strength. It is the attempt to impose a monolithic "Unity" which is a sign of weakness.

Eric also says "Anarchic factions and factionalism play into the hands of the Unionist power nexus and dissipate the energies of those involved". Again, it is obvious that Eric is talking about "Determination" here. Note the equating of "anarchic factions" with "factionalism". This seems to me to betray a distinctly Stalinist way of looking at things. Josef Stalin himself, way back in 1913, wrote a book titled "Anarchism Versus Socialism". (I'm not sure if the book is currently in print or not, the one I bought at a second-hand-bookshop was published by Moscow State Publishing House in 1956). In his denunciation of "anarchism", Stalin made a connection between anarchism and "factionalism", and of course he did go on to suppress "factions" of all kinds, whether "anarchic" or not.

Anyway, so far as "Determination" is concerned, it includes people with (from my point of view) fairly right wing views, as well as people on the far left, and folk who are somewhere in the middle. The most important thing these people have in common is that they don't like authoritarianism. Specifically, they didn't like the IF Members' Forum being closed down in order to suppress dissent.

Eric goes on "We need to build a broad base of consensus and co-operation to counter this power nexus. To this end we have a proposal to organise an all embracing conference in the latter part of this year to bring together the Independence forces in a major national campaign which could coalesce around a new mass petition demanding a referendum".

How can Eric claim that IF initiatives are "all embracing" when they specifically do NOT embrace those who express dissent from the "party line" ?

Regarding this "mass petition", speaking personally, and NOT on behalf of the group of which I am a member, I am highly sceptical about this idea. It has been suggested that IF aims to get two and a half million signatures on this petition. That figure, around two thirds of all adults registered to vote in Scotland, is sheer fantasy. Although it is likely that some new members have joined IF since our collective resignation, nevertheless, the paid-up membership of IF has got to be a LOT less than a hundred. Even if it was really possible to get two thirds of all voters in Scotland to sign a petition, this would require every IF member working more hours than there are in a day, for more days than there are in a year, for more than four years, to collect that number of signatures. This petition would in practice become a recipe for DELAYING a referendum on independence. Unionists would gleefully enquire "How many have you got now?" - in fact, cunning Unionists would probably SIGN the petition, and then claim, later, to have changed their minds, and wonder publicly about how many of the OTHER signatories may have changed their minds.

Yes, I think there has to be pressure from as wide a spectrum as possible OUTSIDE of parliament if we are to get a referendum on independence for Scotland without delay. However, I think there are better ways of exerting this pressure than by the proposed IF petition.

In short, I think this IF petition is a very bad idea, which would use up energies which could more productively be put into other ways of pressing for a referendum on independence without delay. I suspect that the "all embracing conference in the latter part of this year to bring together the Independence forces in a major national campaign which could coalesce around a new mass petition demanding a referendum" which Eric talks about is a way of trying to rope in people from other groups in collecting signatures etc, because Eric is well aware that IF doesn't have the number of troops required for this. Eric implies that anyone who dissents is playing the British Establishment's game of "divide and rule"; but, from my point of view, it is perfectly valid to say that a petition is not the way forward for independence, and, indeed, lots of supporters of independence putting their energies into that, rather than into something more useful, really IS playing the British Establishment's game.

SLG · Posted: Sat Jun 23, 2007 9:10 am Post subject:

Dave, on the matter af a mass petition, I understand that nothing has been approved by IF and that this remains nothing more than just another proposal at the moment.

Niall · Posted: Sat Jun 23, 2007 11:31 am Post subject:

Daibhidh a charaid.

You may believe the mass petition is unworkable. I believe it is feasible over a period of 18 months to 2 years to gather the number of signatures required. We are dealing with a very slippery British Government who will use any excuse in the book to deny Scotland a referendum and even Independence itself. It is no good appealing to the UN when the UK Government can state "There is no demand for independence. Look only xx% of the population voted for the SNP. Its only a small cadre of activists who are agitating for Independence....." However a mass petition of 2.4 Million signatures cannot be denied before the UN itself and as the UK is signatory to the rights of self determination, any referendum cannot be denied under the UN rules.

I have always been in favour of a mass petition. The Clannasaor think tank of which I am a member postulated this idea in 1999. I did find it difficult to get the idea across to certain people in IF especially yourself who poo-pooed the idea. This morning, I see in today’s Scotsman that a proposal has been put to the SNP high heid yins for a 100,000 signature petition. I replied on the forum as follows:

“Independence First the non party political campaign for a referendum on Independence will be meeting in Dundee on Saturday to implement the plans for a 2.4 million signature petition for a referendum. This has been in the planning stage for several months and will take around 18 to 24 months to bring to fruition.

We in Independence First believe a referendum can be won as our research shows:

http://www.independence1st.com/content/polls.shtml

I know Independence First has not got the resources to do this alone, which is why we need a conference of all the pro Indpendence parties, groups, associations and individuals to gain access to the many activists who can make this petition a reality. Will you and the Determination group take part in canvassing signatures or merely sit on the sidelines whilst other activists get their shoulders to the wheel? There are 16 of you and you could easily canvass 500 signatures apiece in just ONE Year. It would take just 2,400 activists two years to gather 1,000 signatures apiece. Its going to be a long hard slog but its a winning strategy which will leave the UK Government with no excuse for denying a referendum. And whats more it will be a referendum BEFORE 2010/11

The reason why I personally believe this petition to be necessary is that the British Government cannot afford to let Scotland become independent for economic and prestige reasons. Economic because Scotland punches well above her weight and contributes far more tax revenues than her population share should do. On average Scotland contributes 10.4% of
all Tax Revenues with just 8.6% of the population share.

The British Government have borrowed heavily to the tune of £512 Billions cumulative deficit and this debt is secured by the Oilfield reserves. Ergo: No Scotland means no Oilfield reserves = an economic recession.

Secondly,
the loss of Scotland means that Britain is diminished in the halls of power such as the UN and the EU. Britains seat on the security council will be on a shoogley peg and her influence in the EU would be far less because Scotland's natural resources such as oil and fish would
disappear as bargaining chips.

Therefore it is necessary to have this petition so that the British Government cannot prevaricate when the people of Scotland claim their right to self determination under article 1 of the UN Charter. The British Government will prevaricate otherwise, claiming there is no demand for independence because only a small percentage voted for the SNP. Whereas many more people want Independence than just those supporting the SNP.

Independence First has members of all political parties (including the three Unionist ones) and people like myself who belong to and support no particular political party at all. By getting 2.4 million signatures demanding a referendum which represents two thirds of all the Scottish electorate, the politicians in Holyrood and Westminster will not be able to thwart the will of the people and will have to legislate for a referendum.

Niall Aslen
National Treasurer
Independence First.
_________________
Cha deanar duine glic ach air a chosd fheinn.

Scott2006 · Posted: Sat Jun 23, 2007 11:45 am Post subject:

2.4 million signatures is a target I expect could not be met if only the population of Scotland currently just over 5 million is the sole constituency to be canvassed.

Adding up the membership of the big 4 political parties in Scotland gives approximately 50,000 combined individual membership.
Labour 18,800
Conservatives 16,500
SNP 10,000
Liberal Democrats 5,000.

Looking at the history of mass petitions since the 19th century and the Chartists where Mr No-Cheese was included and cast doubt on the validity of signatures collected - the same would be true if 2.4 million signatures was actually arrived at.

I may only have one signature and one opinion but I can only see it developing into a petty party political dog fight the closer a sizeable number of names are collected. That is why I believe a potentially achievable number of backers/signatories is 750,000 to at a push 1,000,000.
_________________
Scotland deserves a First rate Parliament for a First rate People
The Scottish Parliamentarians who voted for Treaty of Union in 1706 and signed away Independence had been voted for by less than 2% of the Scottish population

William_Cleland · Posted: Sat Jun 23, 2007 5:54 pm Post subject:

A majority of the adult population in Scotland signed the Covenant in 1949 and 1950 in support of devolution:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_Covenant_Association

If majority support is genuinely there it can be done.

Scott2006 · Posted: Sat Jun 23, 2007 10:02 pm Post subject:

Looking back to 11th September 1997 and the devolution questions asked, it can be seen that 39.6% of the electorate were not sufficently interested to bother to vote either for or against.
On the question of establishing the Scottish Parliament 2,389,445 did vote in almost three-quarters for and one-quarter against.
The position is not the same as either 1949-50 or even 1997. The Scottish Parliament is as far as the Conservatives, Labour and Liberal Democrats are prepared to go. All they argue about is the few areas where the Scottish Parliament might be allowed/given additional powers.

There is a level of distrust and disinterest in politicians and politics such that 30% of the electorate might not be moved under any circumstances to vote on anything except dire big brother or talent/singing contest tv shows.

If you look at the various levels of association and support that exist across the political spectrum - 50,000 or so card-carrying party members; a collection of groupings of people that vote for the same party at every election - certain studies by Kavanagh etc on UK General Elections would suggest about 1,000,000 to 1,500,000 in Scotland decide on a position and stick with it.

The Unionist Parties are not going to be bowed by a propaganda campaign but by a successful track record of the SNP in government. The independence movement needs to demonstrate that it can work within the system and make it work better than before and try harder to connect with the apathetic and marginalised sectors of society. At the moment the main standard bearers of independence are the SNP - so they have to work at proving themselves worthy of the votes of individuals that have until now felt a closer affinity with another political party or none.

To expect fairness from Unionist parties when a question of a referendum, even just a consultative referendum, is to be up for consideration is not a sustainable or rational expectation. Unionism is not based on fairness but an economic partnership that serves those aligned with the interests of the South-East of England.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/politics97/devolution/scotland/live/index.shtml

I agree that there should be a Scottish Parliament. 1,775,045 74.3%

I do not agree that there should be a Scottish Parliament. 614,400 25.7%

I agree that a Scottish Parliament should have tax-varying powers. 1,512,889 63.5%

I do not agree that a Scottish Parliament should have tax-varying powers. 870,263 36.5%

Overall Turnout: 60.4%
_________________
Scotland deserves a First rate Parliament for a First rate People
The Scottish Parliamentarians who voted for Treaty of Union in 1706 and signed away Independence had been voted for by less than 2% of the Scottish population

Holebender · Posted: Sun Jun 24, 2007 6:52 am Post subject:

SLG · Posted: Sun Jun 24, 2007 1:44 pm Post subject:

carol · Posted: Sun Jun 24, 2007 5:19 pm Post subject:

In Swinney's time it dropped to 10k from I think 16k

Carol

Dave Coull · Independentista Joined: 07 Nov 2006 Posts: 2809

Note that, according to the Scotsman, "SNP activists want to by-pass parliament on the issue of independence by starting a massive petition to force MSPs to agree to a referendum, it emerged last night. The SNP National Council is expected to approve a plan today which would give the go-ahead for a nationwide campaign. Activists believe the parliament would be left with no choice but to accept the referendum plan if the petition was signed by 100,000 people or more".

The SNP can mobilise more resources, financial and personnel-wise, than IF can, the "Scotsman" describes 100,000 signatures as a "massive" petition, the SNP National Council apparently believes this would be enough to put major pressure on the Scottish Parliament, and yet IF is talking about aiming at TWENTY FOUR TIMES that "massive" number. Setting such a totally unrealistic target is both un-necessary and an invitation for mischief-making by opponents of independence.

Scott2006 · Posted: Sun Jun 24, 2007 10:13 pm Post subject:

SLG the figure you quote is undoubtedly the more accurate current membership. The SNP can expect to avoid falling back to their bedrock core membership if they deliver better government than has previously been known at Holyrood.

The parliamentary arithmetic of Unionists 78, Pro-Independence 50, and the Presiding Officer with his casting vote in a tie situation, is weighted so heavily on an SNP administration being brought down when the opportunity favours the three unionist parties in the parliament - that 100,000 signatures is not likely to sway the outcome in favour of a referendum, at present on the back burner.

The point I was labouring over is the actual political class in Scotland that makes up the councillors, members of various parliaments and QANGO appointees, and foot soldiers is really only just over 1% of the population.

To have a target of 60% or more of the electorate to engage on a single issue campaign and be prepared to sign up for a future referendum on a date yet to be decided, on a question or questions yet to be decided, is very unlikely when all the unionist parties with very few exceptions give it no serious consideration.
_________________
Scotland deserves a First rate Parliament for a First rate People
The Scottish Parliamentarians who voted for Treaty of Union in 1706 and signed away Independence had been voted for by less than 2% of the Scottish population

William_Cleland · Posted: Mon Jun 25, 2007 12:42 am Post subject:

The idea behind this is probably to keep the Fundi wing of the membership happy that something is still being done about independence.

Dave Coull · Independentista Joined: 07 Nov 2006 Posts: 2809

SLG wrote "Dave, on the matter af a mass petition, I understand that nothing has been approved by IF and that this remains nothing more than just another proposal at the moment" - well the National Convenor of IF has published a statement on behalf of IF in which he says "we have a proposal to organise an all embracing conference in the latter part of this year to bring together the Independence forces in a major national campaign which could coalesce around a new mass petition demanding a referendum"; and the National Treasurer of IF has stated that IF will be meeting "to implement the plans for a 2.4 million signature petition for a referendum". Stating that they _will_ implement these plans sounds pretty definite to me. Besides, even if it is true that this is only a proposal, consider this. If the Convenor of the British Government, who (like the Convenor of IF) also happens to be the Leader of a political party, was to talk with party colleagues about a proposal for an initiative which would involve a lot of people NOT members of their party, then the media would, quite rightly, take this as being of legitimate interest for discussion with the wider public. Now, this proposed IF petition is not on the same scale of media interest as that, but nevertheless the same principle applies. A proposal is being considered which would aim to be "all embracing" of many different groups and individuals, not just the members of IF. That makes the proposal a legitimate matter for public discussion. In my opinion, this well intentioned proposal, put forward by individuals who genuinely want to further the cause of independence, is not only mistaken, but positively damaging to the cause of independence. Note that the SNP national council has approved plans for SNP activists "to by-pass parliament on the issue of independence by starting a massive petition to force MSPs to agree to a referendum", but this "massive petition", backed with more financial and personnel resources than IF could possibly muster, is only aiming at 100,000 signatures. They consider that quite "massive" enough to have an effect. To set a target TWENTY FOUR TIMES HIGHER is both un-necessary, and an invitation to gleefull mischief-making by opponents of independence.