Bella Caledonia

SLG · Bella Caledonia

You may be interested in the launch of a new newspaper in Edinburgh the other day...

http://kevinwilliamson.blogspot.c...th-launch-of-bella-caledonia.html

agentmancuso

I liked this bit:

Cado

TBH - I still haven't got a clue what Marxism is, Trotshyism for that matter.

Been trying to figure it out. The only clues Ive had to work with is that some people refered to NuLabs social re-engineering project as 'Marxism'.

In which case it simply involves screaming at everyone until they

a) don't care
b) blow up the country
c) both

in which case...whats the point? - unless that is the point.

And if that is the point - Ive never seen it mentioned anywhere in 'Das Capital'; then again it probably wouldn't sell too well.

Though as long as book writers and political party membership sellers continue to make a fortune out of...... actually, no, it does work well.

Rinty

agentmancuso

Rinty

"Labour retains the authoritarianism, bureaucracy and control-freakery common to all Marxist parties/states."

you can do better than that littlejohn-esque attempt.

Labour's authoritarianism and bureaucracy can be seen in parties and states left and right. Many, such as anti-abortionists or those who believe in state sector employment, would obviously disagree with your control-based picture, but Labour's draconian attacks on civil liberties coincide with the same moves in USA where, according to you, George Bush just cannot shake of his core marxist values. We ban smoking in public places, again following a lead from states (marxist states?) in the USA.

European countries are notorious for having far more bureacracy than us, is that because of their marxist leanings? Are the control feaks in Saudi marxists?

In 1984, in my home town, when you couldnt move anywhere without police stopping you and van loads of police at every corner, police stopping people leaving the county, we all rolled our eyes and wished that thatcher wasn't such a marxist.

New Labour, like all power-driven monoliths will abandon any principle for power and control. They behave, not like a marxist party as such, more like a typical large american or european political party, left or right.

agentmancuso

Rinty

"Show me a Marxist state that has not relied on authoritarianism, bureaucracy and control-freakery. Show me a Marxist party that has not included in its programme measures to increase the power of the state, and to use the power of the state to advance its own ideological fantasies."

And that would prove that New Labour are marxist?

"I didn't say all control freaks are Marxists. I said all Marxists are control freaks. M is a subset of CF."

No, you said that Labour were marxist.

agentmancuso

Rinty

"No. It would prove that Marxists are control freaks. Like Labour. It might just be a coincidence of course. Or it might be because, despite jettisoning Marxist economics, Labour retain the moral authoritarianism common to all Marxist parties and states."

Or, it could be that they had never had marxist economics to jettison, and that, after jettisoning their state capitalism approach, they are left in the position of the vast majority of political parties, left or right, especially the large ones, they are only interested in winning and retaining power.

"They have retained the control-freakery element common to Marxists, yes. And the moral authoritarianism."

Or they have the control-freakery and moral authoritarian element common to all morally authoritarian control feaks, left or right, Saudi or American, Chinese or British.

"And the socialist assumption that it is morally acceptable for the government to use the machinery of state to artificially engineer any social situation it deems desirable. Which is Marxist."

Of course there is nothing wrong (or marxist) in theory, in using state as a tool to engineer social conditions. On a very basic level, taking tax revenues to provide transport links would be common to most countries. Whether something is morrally acceptable or not is far too subjective to introduce in this debate as an absolute. It is morally acceptable to most people if the outcome is one that most share in or agree with.

So, if a country introduces laws banning women from revealing bare skin in public, most would consider that to be morally unnacceptable but perhaps not where the law is introduced. It certainly wouldn't be considered a marxist policy on the simplistic basis of your argument that - social enginneering by state = marxism.

That actual action of interfering by state is not in itself morally unnacceptable to most people, it would be what it was used for that would be where the moral judgement comes in.

For instance, if this Labour govt introduced tighter border controls, this would be social engineering and a restriction of freedoms. I think you would find that most in the country would find this morally acceptable, and that it would be marxists that find it unacceptable.

Dave Coull

Cado wrote "Ive never seen it mentioned anywhere in Das Capital" - I once tried to read Das Capital. I gave up about page three. It puzzles me that so many folk have been bamboozled into thinking such a boring book "revolutionary". However, some folk in the USA were so impressed with what I said about not being impressed with Marx, they actually made a car sticker quoting me on this. Seriously. They really did. I have no idea how many of those car stickers they sold, or how many cars in the USA ever carried a sticker with my name. Probably not many. Just as well. I don't really like the idea of having "followers".

So Kevin Williamson is claiming to be a "libertarian" these days?

Could this possibly be the same Kevin Williamson who supported the suppression of internal dissent in Independence First? The same Kevin Williamson who was in favour of censorship?

Well, they do say there is more rejoicing for one sinner that repents than for those who have never strayed.

As for "redefining democracy", well, yes, in my experience, Kevin and co do give it a new meaning. In fact, some might say, an entirely opposite meaning.

"By-and-large the remnants of the old centralist left stayed away" - apart from Kev Williamson, that is.

Cado

Been having a quick delve into Marxism

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

Got to say at the outset it seems to have more factions than the judeans peoples front (recalling comments made when the SSP went belly up).

Had a skim through Das Capital - I was looking for some of the more fundamental economic relationships that I could use to get a 'grip' on understanding economics - couldn't be arsed reading the whole thing though, in any case - its just one mans opinion - all I needed was a few pointers and I'd happily continue working out the rest for myself.

Just feel he uses mental 'pictures' to good effect - unlike other economics books which just give you list upon list of equations and graphs.

Aventinian

Dave Coull

For all I know, "Bella Caledonia" may be a very worthwhile project which deserves support, or, at least, a well-meaning project which deserves not to be pre-judged. And I do usually try to look at things in terms of principles, rather than in terms of personalities. But from what I have heard (from usually reliable sources), this is very much Kev Williamson's project. I have been told that the others he has managed to rope in are exactly that, others he has managed to rope in.

However, as I see it, if a pacifist were to beat up a warmonger, that would be ironic. If a conservative (one who wishes to conserve) should behave in a destructive way, that would be ironic. If a liberal democrat should behave in a way that is neither liberal nor democratic, that would be ironic. When supporters of "labour" behave in a way that is anti-working class, that is ironic. And when somebody who supported censorship of internal dissent in Independence First proclaims that they are "libertarian", that is ironic. Now, of course, there should be rejoicing over a sinner who repents and turns over a new leaf. Maybe I just didn't notice the "repenting" stage where Kev is concerned. Kev Williamson says "perhaps the one-trick pony of Marxist denunciations of all heretics has run its infantile course". I don't know, Kevin, I've never been a Marxist, so you tell me. When you look in the mirror, do you see somebody for whom denunciations of all heretics has run its course? If you do, could you please refer me, by date and by place of publication, to the article in which you stated that you now repented of your past support for suppression of dissident views? It is worrying that control of a new allegedly "libertarian" publication should be so clearly in the hands of someone who has in the past shown some intolerance of dissent. It would be a bit less worrying if there was any actual evidence of a change of heart.

carol

Kev's more likely to be daft as a brush, rather than mad, is a sound enough guy, pretty approachable and ok to get on with.

Dave re IF and Kev, firstly there's no need to draw IF into it, secondly factually you are wrong on this issue.

Dave Coull

Carol wrote "Dave re IF and Kev, firstly there's no need to draw IF into it, secondly factually you are wrong on this issue".

We can only go by our own experience. My experience of Kev Williamson consists entirely of his involvement with IF, nothing else. Now, you might think, why not let bygones be bygones? Well, I'm happy to do so, but first of all I do have to say that I find Kev's claim to being a "libertarian" rather ironic. Like I said, "could you please refer me, by date and by place of publication, to the article in which you stated that you now repented of your past support for suppression of dissident views? It is worrying that control of a new allegedly 'libertarian' publication should be so clearly in the hands of someone who has in the past shown some intolerance of dissent. It would be a bit less worrying if there was any actual evidence of a change of heart".

Dave Coull

Carol wrote that Kev Williamson is "pretty approachable".

That is a very odd expression, if you think about it.

Postal workers, plumbers, nurses, dustmen, all perform essential work in society. But nobody describes their local postman, plumber, nurse, or refuse collector as "pretty approachable". The only people I have ever heard using the expression "pretty approachable" were public relations folk (whether paid or voluntary) and the only people I have ever heard them using that expression about were politicians and other celebrities.

The implication is that Kev Williamson is a celebrity and we should be grateful that we are allowed to approach him.

Bollocks to that.

The people promoting "Bella Caledonia" are seeking our support. Since it is them that seek our support, it is up to them to try to convince us why we should give it. It doesn't matter how "approachable" they are. The "approach" comes from THEM.

carol

Once again you are manipulating things to suit your own means. Kev is a genuinely nice guy, and your accusations are way out of order. Why do you insist on dragging IF or individuals within IF through the mire? You have no evidence to back up what you're saying. Where and when did he ever support 'censorship of internal dissent in Independence First'.

Rinty

I find Kevin an inspirational figure and if the project is entirely of his making then that will do for me nine times out of ten, reason enough to buy it as far as I am concerned.

Dave Coull

Carol asks "Why do you insist on dragging IF or individuals within IF through the mire?"

Carol, it is just over six months since the IF meeting which decided to close down the members forum and ban all e-mail contact between members. Yet you seem to want to say "that is ancient history, and must never be discussed". In a country where people still argue over events which happened in 1560, or in 1320, etc etc etc, I think you are being completely unrealistic in expecting to totally suppress all discussion of events just a few months old. Yes, of course, we should actively co-operate wherever this is possible. But "co-operating" where possible can never mean adopting a completely un-critical attitude. Of course if somebody who supported that suppression of internal dissent should later claim to be a "libertarian", that is bound to lead to scepticism being expressed.

"You have no evidence to back up what you're saying. Where and when did he ever support 'censorship of internal dissent in Independence First'." okay, I admit I may not have kept all of the relevant e-mails etc. However, to my certain knowledge, at least fifteen members of Independence First found that censorship of internal dissent so objectionable, they resigned from IF. It is possible there may have been others I'm not aware of. But if you are now saying that Kev resigned from IF because he objected to censorship of internal dissent, that is news to me.

I do know that the treasurer of Independence First, Niall Aslen, decided not to resign from IF, but he decided also that he would, while remaining a member, condemn the suppression of internal dissent which had led fifteen others to resign. But I am not aware of any such condemnation from Kev.

Rinty wrote "I find Kevin an inspirational figure". Okay, and maybe others agree with you, but so far as him being a "libertarian" or not is concerned, I'm afraid "inspirational" or otherwise is completely beside the point. Many people found Joseph Stalin an inspirational figure. Many people found Adolf Hitler an inspirational figure. No, that doesn't mean I think Kev is as bad as either Hitler or Stalin, what it means is that being "inspirational" may be enough to secure enough support to be "successfull", but it is not enough to convince the sceptics and the dissidents.

Carol wrote "Kev is a genuinely nice guy" - lots of charismatic politicians have been considered by their admirers to be "genuinely nice guys". But this is also completely beside the point, I'm afraid.

The word about which I expressed scepticism was "libertarian". Being a libertarian does not mean being a nice guy. Some libertarians are nice guys, some are not, and some, like most of us, are a mixture of naughty and nice. There have been authoritarians who were nice guys who felt they had to, regrettably, be authoritarian, for the best of reasons. And there have been genuine libertarians who were not very nice at all. "Niceness" is beside the point.

Read what Kev Williamson wrote again. He made no claim of being "nice". He DID claim to be "libertarian". And it is THAT claim which I find rather ironic.

carol

Typical trying to get yourself out of it Dave, you have no evidence as there isn't any.

Now you're dragging Niall into it, he has not been vocal on the issue at all.

The only discredit is to yourself for conducting this type of behaviour

Dave Coull

In response to something Carol said about Kev Williamson, I wrote "The only people I have ever heard using that expression 'pretty approachable' were public relations folk (whether paid or voluntary) and the only people I have ever heard them using that expression about were politicians and other celebrities."

I have just remembered a specific example of this.

At an event at Dunottar a few years ago I got talking with somebody who turned out to be a supporter of Prince Michael of Albany. He described the Prince as "pretty approachable". Now, of course, he wasn't a PR man in any professional sense, nobody was paying him for doing this, he was simply expressing his sincere opinion. But nevertheless, this makes my point. People do not describe their local posties, plumbers, nurses, or refuse collectors as "pretty approachable". This description is always used about somebody who the person using it considers to be something of a celebrity. "He may be a prince/rock star/famous author/whatever, but he is not too grand to talk to somebody as common as you". Well, in this case, let's not lose sight of the fact that it was Kev and his colleagues who did the "approaching", in seeking support for their project.

Aventinian

carol

it is your perception of him. I don't read his material. On a personal basis I have no probs with him.

regards

Carol

Dave Coull

I can understand some members of IF trying to claim that the authoritarian actions of dealing with internal dissent by closing down the members forum and banning all e-mails between members were regrettable, but necessary. But by no conceivable stretch of the imagination could these actions possibly be described as "libertarian", and nobody claiming to be "libertarian" could possibly support them. I was under the impression that Kev Williamson did indeed support them. If he did not, he kept quite remarkably (and uncharacteristically) quiet about not supporting them.

Carol wrote "you have no evidence as there isn't any".

Okay. I can't be bothered dredging through hundreds of old e-mails to try to find what may or may not be there. So let's just suppose for a minute I am mis-remembering things. Does that make Kev's claim to be a "libertarian" sound? Of course it doesn't. For any member of IF claiming any sort of "libertarian" credentials, there were three possible courses of action when the dominant faction of IF decided to close down the members forum, and to ban all e-mail contact between members. These three possible courses of action for members of a more "libertarian" outlook were (1) to resign from IF and to join a new group (2) to resign from IF, not join a new group, but publicly denounce the suppression of internal dissent, or (3) not actually resign, but make it quite clear to everybody, both internally AND publicly, that the suppression of internal dissent was totally unacceptable, and steps had to be taken to ensure there could never be a repeat of such authoritarian behaviour.

I chose option (1), but I do recognise that either of the other two could have been taken by a "libertarian" member of IF.

If Kev Williamson had done any of these things, I think I would have heard about it, don't you?

Why does this matter? Because this new publication, Bella Caledonia, is claiming to be, amongst other things, "libertarian". If it is, in practice, in the hands of someone whose libertarian credentials are questionable, then that is worrying.

carol

Get your facts right regards Kev before spouting Dave. If you've any problems with him, contact him as he is very approachable.

carol

should've added approachable as in ........ Easy to talk to or deal with; friendly

Dave Coull

Carol wrote "Get your facts right regards Kev before spouting Dave"

A lack of knowledge has never prevented you from spouting, Carol. For instance, your knowledge of the study of history was so limited, you didn't even know that genuine historians have major reservations about that word "heritage".

"he is very approachable" - already dealt with. "This description is always used about somebody who the person using it considers to be something of a celebrity. 'He may be a prince/rock star/famous author/whatever, but he is not too grand to talk to somebody as common as you'. Well, in this case, let's not lose sight of the fact that it was Kev and his colleagues who did the 'approaching', in seeking support for their project."

carol

caught out Dave so in turn you continually try to discredit me

I may not be on the same intellectual level as you, but I'll give myself credit for having more common sense

Dave Coull

I have been checking through some old emails and I have found one in which Kev Williamson did indeed say "the decision to autocratically and bureacratically shut down the IF Forum was nothing more than crass censorship, and tactical ineptitude into the bargain that defies belief". However, (1) that e-mail was not sent to me, it was sent to somebody who forwarded it to me, (2) so far as I am aware, Kev Williamson never did make these views public.

Carol, who certainly did support "the decision to autocratically and bureacratically shut down the IF Forum" which "was nothing more than crass censorship" now writes "caught out Dave".

I don't think so.

While I was wrong about Kev never having made any such criticism, I don't think whispering things like that to a handfull of folk is the LIBERTARIAN thing to do. The libertarian thing to do would have been to say this publicly. As already pointed out

"Does that make Kev's claim to be a 'libertarian' sound? Of course it doesn't. For any member of IF claiming any sort of 'libertarian' credentials, there were three possible courses of action when the dominant faction of IF decided to close down the members forum, and to ban all e-mail contact between members. These three possible courses of action for members of a more 'libertarian' outlook were (1) to resign from IF and to join a new group (2) to resign from IF, not join a new group, but publicly denounce the suppression of internal dissent, or (3) not actually resign, but make it quite clear to everybody, both internally and publicly, that the suppression of internal dissent was totally unacceptable, and steps had to be taken to ensure there could never be a repeat of such authoritarian behaviour."

Aventinian

Dave Coull

Aventinian wrote "this chap certainly does not put forward remotely Libertarian views on his blog."

Since I haven't actually read Kevin's blog, I can't comment on that. However, I note the significant fact that you use a capital L for "Libertarian views". This makes me suspect that you are talking about the views of a political party, such as the Libertarian Party of the USA, or those in the UK who sympathise with that party.

"Libertarianism concerns itself with the relationship between the individual and the state, not the governance of private organisations."

Again, these sound like the doctrines espoused by the Libertarian Party.

Let me make it clear that when I use the term "libertarian" I am not referring to the views of groupings such as the Libertarian Party.

The term "libertarian" first appeared in the 19th Century, in Europe. At that time, those who used this term about themselves, as well as in a positive way about others, did so more or less interchangeably with "anarchist", in referring to ideas, and people, and movements, which were both anti-state and anti-capitalist. The term usually used, in the 19th Century, for a minimal-state capitalism was "liberal", NOT "libertarian".

It was only in the second half of the 20th Century, and, to begin with at least, only in the USA (which did not have the "left"-libertarian traditions of some European countries) that supporters of minimal-state capitalism started to call themselves "libertarians".

My assumption is that, in using the term "libertarian", Kev Williamson, as someone on the "left" of politics, was seeking to associate himself with the anarchist tradition of anti-state anti-capitalism. My criticism that I find his use of the term ironic is based on this assumption.

You say that libertarianism is not concerned with "the governance of private organisations". That begs the question, what is a "private organisation"? There are some multi-national capitalist firms, nowadays, whose budgets are bigger than the budgets of many states. There are even some private companies which control armies bigger than those of many states. Some of the private "security companies" which have been providing thousands of personnel for the "pacification" of Iraq could field an army bigger, and better equipped, than those of many countries. To say that libertarianism is not concerned with the governance of private organisations ignores the effect which some "private" organisations can have on the life and liberty of many indivdiuals.

Okay, so, obviously, "Independence First" does not come into that category! But, nevertheless, I would argue that, in its origins, libertarianism is on the side of the individual against authority. Not just the authority of the state, but authority in general. I would argue that libertarianism is in favour of liberty. Amongst the aspects of liberty which my idea of libertarianism would favour is freedom of speech. Now, there can be arguments about limits on freedom of speech. It could be argued, for instance, that there should be some limit on the freedom to incite violence against individuals. But, generally speaking, individuals should be free to express dissenting views. And one of the good things about the internet is that it has made this liberty more widely possible. If you write a letter to a newspaper, the editor may decide not to print it, citing "reasons of space". And it is quite true that newspapers do have finite space in which to print things. But the internet does not have a specific number of pages. So, for instance, organisations (such as Independence First, for example) can set up "members forums" in which members of the group can freely discuss their views on the campaign etc. And if such a forum should be closed down by those in charge, because they didn't like the dissenting views being expressed through that forum, then that would be an example of authoritarianism, not libertarianism. And any alleged "libertarian" connected with that organisation would, of course, denounce such authoritarianism. Openly. Publicly.

Aventinian

Dave Coull

Aventinian wrote "I don't know how you relate to this chap"

The first time I met Kev Williamson was when I signed him up as a member of Independence First in March 2006. As a matter of fact, I actually recruited more individual members of IF than anybody else.

"or this Independence First group"

The idea for a single issue, non-party-political, campaign for a referendum on independence for Scotland was first suggested by me, on the internet, to a number of interested folk, in September 2004. For some time we continued to discuss the idea on the internet. By late October 2004, one of these folk, Chic MacGregor, had come up with a name for the campaign - "Independence First". Chic suggested that name in order to emphasise our view that a referendum on independence had to happen first, before any other referendum, for instance, a referendum about Europe. The first draft of the group's Charter was written by me in October 2004, the first draft of the group's constitution was written by me, and the very first actual face-to-face IF meeting was organised by me. That meeting was held just four miles from where I live, but folk came to it from as far apart as Glasgow and Fraserburgh.

As with virtually any group including people with very different views and attitudes who really only agree on one thing, there were tensions. So far as I was concerned, these were to be expected. But some others appeared to expect a greater degree of agreement, almost as if they thought the campaign ought to be like a political party, and everybody should repeat the same party line in public.

One of the provisions in the constitution (as proposed by me) was that we took it in turns to chair meetings. We didn't have one permanent chairman. The general meeting held in March 2007 was, for the first time, chaired by myself. At that meeting, Eric Canning, who had just joined IF one month before, was elected as Honorary Convenor. On the first count, I made it a draw. On the second count, I declared Eric elected by a majority of one vote. It was only after that meeting that some of us realised we had a problem. Eric was the National Secretary of the Communist Party of Scotland. Where Communist parties are concerned, "National Secretary" doesn't mean the person who types up the letters. It means The Leader. Okay, the Leader of a very small party, but a Party Leader nevertheless. Some of us thought that having the Leader, or a National Official, of any political party, holding a prominent position in a "non-party-political" campaign, would detract from the "non-party-political" nature of that campaign. We politely suggested to Eric that perhaps he should quit as the Leader of the Communist Party, and continue as Honorary Convenor of IF. This suggestion was rejected. The members forum became increasingly dominated by discussion about the problems posed by having a Party Leader as the figurehead of a "non-party-political" campaign.

At an IF general meeting two months later (which I didn't attend, and whose decisions were of somewhat questionable validity under the constitution), several major changes were made. One was to drop the "honorary" bit and make Eric "The Convenor". Another was to scrap the practice of having different people chairing meetings, and have the same person, the Convenor, chair all meetings. But the worst decision was to close down the Members Forum, and to ban all e-mail communication between members. Some of us found that completely unacceptable. Fifteen of us resigned from IF as a matter of principle, and formed a new group, Determination, the non-aligned campaign for self-determination for Scotland.

"It does not give you a right to waltz into someone's party uninvited and start pontificating pet ideas to those who do not want to listen"

IF was not a party in any sense of the word, but, if it had been, then I was one of the main organisers of the event, and I issued most of the invitations to the dance.

Dave Coull

In response to Aventinian, I wrote about IF, including "It was only after that meeting that some of us realised we had a problem. Eric was the National Secretary of the Communist Party of Scotland."

Now, for all I know (that was the only time I ever met him), Eric may be a very nice man personally, and his politics is his own business. The problem was having a senior official of any political party in a prominent role with a "non-party-political" campaign. At that meeting, the two candidates were each allowed five minutes to speak about themselves. The other guy declined to do so on the grounds that most members already knew him. Eric then addressed the meeting for five minutes about himself but somehow forgot to mention "Oh, by the way, I'm the National Secretary of a small political party, the Communist Party of Scotland".

Just think what a suspicious mind could make of that sequence of events. The Leader of the Communist Party is a candidate for office, but somehow forgets to mention that he is the Leader of the Communist Party. On a recount, the Leader of the Communist Party is elected convenor by a majority of just one vote. Shortly afterwards, there are changes to the constitution, which give the convenor more powers; and the members forum is closed down, to silence those dissenting from such moves.

Now, I know that is an over-simplification of events. Over-simplified, but, nevertheless, it is factual. Any member of IF claiming to be a libertarian socialist (as Kev Williamson does) had a clear duty to speak out publicly against such Stalinist manouverings as the closing down of the IF members forum. Kev did not. The fact, that he did not, does not augur well for the "libertarian" nature of this Bella Caledonia of which he is the central figure.

carol

manipulating things to suit as usual Dave, you just keep stirring the pot where IF is concerned

Dave Coull

There is a saying about telling "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth".

But from the point of view of a Muslim, "the whole truth" includes that "there is no God but God, and Mohamed is His Prophet". From the point of view of a psychiatrist, "the whole truth" could involve us in analysing the childhoods of all of the participants in an event or a series of events. From the point of view of a Marxist, "the whole truth" will include their, Marxist, version of class analysis. And so on, and so on. In reality, all that any of us can do is to tell the truth as we see it.

Carol writes "manipulating things to suit as usual Dave"

What I wrote was factually correct, Carol. You may dislike my interpretation of the factual events described, but you just have to learn to accept that different people will have different interpretations of the same events.

People should tell the truth as they see it. But it is not my responsibility to tell the truth as Carol Roscoe sees it. That is Carol Roscoe's responsibility, not anybody else's.

"you just keep stirring the pot where IF is concerned"

No, I don't "just" do that. I do loads of other things. For instance, I am involved in a local campaign here in Angus. Also, responding to Alex Salmond's invitation to all of us, I am playing a very active part in the "National Conversation". And apart from political matters, I do shopping for my 85 year old sister, I help my 15 year old step-daughter with her homework and with her revision for her exams, I watch too much television, etc etc etc.

As for "keep stirring the pot where IF is concerned", if it seems to me that events relating to IF are relevant to a subject under discussion, then of course I will give my account of these events. That's my account, not Carol Roscoe's, which isn't my responsibility. The way that the subject cropped up on this particular occasion was that Kev Williamson is a central figure in a new project, "Bella Caledonia". Kev describes himself as a "libertarian socialist" and Bella Caledonia claims to be, amongst other things, "libertarian". That being so, Kev's reaction (or lack of it) to the closing down of the IF members forum (in order to suppress dissent) is relevant to the question of just how "libertarian" we can expect "Bella Caledonia" to be.

Aventinian

Who was that "IF Convenor" that used to post on here? I assume he's related?

Dave Coull

Aventinian asked "Who was that 'IF Convenor' that used to post on here?"

He is still here. He changed his pseudonym after losing to Eric by one vote on the second count. From my point of view, the important thing is not the particular personality who holds a particular office, but the principles involved. As I saw it, a non-party-political campaign could have individual members of political parties holding office, but not national officials of political parties. So, after it became clear that Eric as convenor meant a problem for the non-party-political nature of the campaign, I suggested to him that he should quit as Leader of the Communist Party of Scotland, and continue as convenor of IF. This helpfull suggestion for resolving the problem was indignantly refused. Eric apparently quite genuinely could see no reason why he should not hold both offices, which seemed remarkably short-sighted to me.

"I assume he's related?"

Related to who?

carol

Honorary Convenor was Neil's correct title, although I think he displayed IF Convenor as his pseudo at the time.

Dave as for Eric's nomination, the election could've been challenged on the day, or at the following meeting it wasn't

agentmancuso

Dave Coull

There is a new publication, "Bella Caledonia", which claims, amongst other things, to be "libertarian". The central figure in this project is Kev Williamson, who describes himself as a "libertarian socialist". I said I found this ironic, because of Kev's membership of IF, and because of his reaction (or non-reaction) to the closing down of the Members Forum. Kev's "libertarian" (or otherwise) record is relevant to what we can expect from "Bella Caledonia".

The reason the Members Forum was closed down was in order to seek to suppress internal dissent over the direction in which IF was heading, for instance, people pointing out that it seems a bit inconsistent to have, as the public face of a "non-party-political" campaign, the Leader of the Communist Party.

Carol now says "Dave as for Eric's nomination, the election could've been challenged on the day, or at the following meeting it wasn't".

Carol, that is IRRELEVANT.

Even some people who had absolutely no problem over Eric's election, and were perfectly willing to support him in his role as convenor of IF, certainly did see a problem over closing down the Members Forum, and banning all e-mail communication between members.

The issue is not whether Eric's election was proper or not. The issue is the attempt to censor dissenting views.

"How DARE you say we are becoming more and more like an authoritarian political party? Just for that, we will close down the Members Forum, and ban all e-mail communication between members, so there!"

And the issue, so far as the topic of "Bella Caledonia" is concerned, is how much reliance the wider public should put on the "libertarian" nature of a member of IF who did not strongly and publicly condemn such blatant censorship.

Dave Coull

Carol wrote "as for Eric's nomination, the election could've been challenged on the day, or at the following meeting"

As I pointed out, this is actually irrelevant (a) to the closing down of the members forum and the banning of e-mail contact between members, (b) to the sort of reaction you would expect from any "libertarian" to such measures as these, and therefore (c) to how much reliance should be placed on the "libertarian" nature of 'Bella Caledonia'.

However, regarding "the election could've been challenged on the day", (1) there was no mention of Eric as a possible candidate until the meeting itself. If there had been any mention of him as a possible candidate before the meeting, then I for one would definitely have checked out his actual position with the CPS before the meeting. (2) although I was at least aware that Eric was a member of the CPS, there were some other folk at that meeting whose knowledge of Eric was limited to what they saw before them - a rather distinguished looking elderly gentleman (3) although Eric did give a five minute talk about himself before we took the vote, he didn't mention his position with the Communist Party, or even his membership of any political party, during that five minute "personal introduction".

It was only after that meeting that some folk became aware we had actually elected a Party Leader as convenor of IF. And it was politely suggested to Eric that there was a way of resolving the dilemma - he could quit as leader of the CPS, but still carry on his membership of the party, and carry on as convenor of IF. This way of resolving the problem was rejected. Then, to quote from the collective statement of resignation, "The last straw came when the April general meeting closed down the members forum and banned e-mail between members. This crude authoritarian attempt to stifle internal dissent makes it impossible for working groups to function. We are forming a campaign called Determination, the non-aligned campaign for self-determination for Scotland. As well as campaigning for a referendum, Determination will pursue other avenues to independence, and will co-operate with IF where possible. Although we are resigning from IF, Determination will have no ban on dual membership".

So, no ban on dual membership, willing to co-operate where possible, but of course closing down a members forum in an attempt to stifle criticism is not the kind of thing some of us are likely to forget. And, when a member of IF who did not , to my knowledge, strongly and publicly denounce that "crude authoritarian attempt to stifle internal dissent", claims to be a "libertarian", of course the inconsistency is going to be pointed out.

carol

Dave you are beneath contempt

You are coming across completely bonkers, unlikely anyone will take you seriously

SLG

Dave Coull

SLG wrote "which is it? You do not want to prejudge, but then you do pre-judge".

Making some inferences based on the limited knowledge that we do have is not "pre-judging". It is making use of the limited information that we have. Any tentative "judgements" based on limited information can be revised if fuller information make this seem advisable. It's called scientific method. Or even just common sense. .

"You do not want to look at the project in terms of personalities"

What I said was that "I usually try to look at things in terms of principles, rather than in terms of personalities". Which is exactly what I was trying to do. One of my principles is freedom of discussion. In newspapers, this can be limited by "reasons of space", but no such limitation applies to the internet Members Forum of a campaign. Of course there should be some guidelines, such as not using foul language etc, but, generally speaking, there is no reason not to let members discuss things freely and openly. Such as, for instance, saying that it doesn't make sense for a "non-party-political" campaign to have national officials of political parties in prominent positions. Which is what made the closing down of the IF members forum, together with the banning of all e-mails between members, such a blatant attempt to suppress freedom of discussion. It is regrettable that Kev Williamson, as someone with greater access to the media than many other members, apparently chose to keep so quiet about that. For me, that silence raises a question about his commitment to libertarian principles. But he could still, belatedly, try to put that right. If he doesn't, then that raises a question about how this "Bella Caledonia" will operate. Maybe I will be pleasantly surprised by the answer. Or maybe not. It remains to be seen.

"but you then proceed to go into great detail"

Quite a lot of the detail was in fact in response to things said by either Carol or Aventinian.

"regarding one particular personality who is involved in this project."

Well, like I said, for all I know, "Bella Caledonia" might be a worthwhile project which deserves support. Or it might not. I just don't know. I am open to persuasion. So far, I haven't even seen it. At present, I know just two things about "Bella Caledonia". (1) Kev Williamson is playing a central role, and (2) the "libertarian" claim rings a bit hollow to anybody who is aware that Kev was a member of IF who, unlike some others, did not publcly denounce the "crude authoritarian attempt to stifle internal dissent".

Aventinian

carol

hopefully my last words on this topic. Dave you have used Bella Caledonia to deliberately drag IF (once again) and Kev Williamson through the mire. You are the most despicable, destructive person I know on the net. You discredit anyone who dare challenges you and attempt to bring them down to nothing.

I have a lot of respect for individuals within Determination, I have no respect for you, you do nothing for Determination's credibility with this type of behaviour. I cannot for one minute understand why they let you continue running IF down, and other individuals in the process. As a whole your behaviour does nothing to unite groups, but if anything causes further divisions. I don't see anyone else, from Determination condemning Kevin or supporting your allegations, or a public display of contempt towards IF

agentmancuso

Dave Coull

Carol wrote "You are the most despicable, destructive person I know on the net"

The "despicable" bit I will ignore. I'm interested in discussing principles, not personalities. But as for "destructive", I worked for many years in the construction industry. I could show you houses, schools, shops, nursing homes, etc etc, which I helped to build. I can be constructive sometimes, Carol, it's just that, where organising is concerned, you and I disagree over what is "constructive". I tend to take a more libertarian approach, while you take an authoritarian approach. For instance, I'm in favour of rotating the chairing of meetings, while you are in favour of having a strong leader in charge. I'm in favour of people using their initiative, whereas you think everything has to be decided by committee. I think it is a positive thing for individual members of a campaign to freely express their individual views, whereas you think a party line should be agreed and then everybody has to toe the party line.

Regarding Determination, you say "I cannot for one minute understand why they let you continue running IF down, and other individuals in the process" - see what I mean? You think there should be a party line and nobody should say anything in public which has not been vetted by the Party. Having failed to get us all to toe your party line with IF, you are now trying to get folk who have emphatically rejected being part of the same group as you, to toe your line!

"you have used Bella Caledonia"

No, I have not "used Bella Caledonia". What happened was that SLG posted about Bella Caledonia. When people post about things, they have to expect to receive responses. It hardly ever happens that all of the responses on a topic are to the liking of the original poster. Sometimes, the discussion can go off at a bit of a tangent which they hadn't anticipated. People need to be aware of that possibility, also.

"to deliberately drag IF (once again) and Kev Williamson through the mire".

Believe me, it gave me no pleasure at all to have to raise a question about Kev's commitment to libertarian principles. In fact I felt a bit sad about having to do so. But the IF members forum was closed down, and e-mails between members were banned, and there are good reasons for thinking this was for the purpose of suppressing internal dissent. In these circumstances, the only possible response from any member of IF with a libertarian outlook was to publicly condemn such actions. So far as I know, Kev didn't do this. So when I learned that he was the central figure in "Bella Caledonia" and he was claiming to be a "libertarian", my reaction was "surely he must realise that claim is bound to be questioned, in the circumstances".

Dave Coull

Agentmancuso writes "Hayek says"

Ah, so you're a follower of Hayek?

A Hayekist.

Just like followers of Marx are Marxists.

agentmancuso

agentmancuso

Bob the Builder muttered:

agentmancuso

carol

Rinty

"Nationalising industry? Punitive taxes aimed at 'redistributing' wealth? Trade Unions deciding economic policy?"

Not marxist policies any more than any other nation that employs redistributive progressive taxes, such as the USA, do they have ahigher rate of tax for higher earners because they are marxists? Are the state owned oil companies in the middle east the result of the marxist approach of the royal familes? Trade unions have never decided economic policy, I think you will find that trade union action against government policy incereases when labour are in power.

"Yes there is. The state has no business engineering social conditions; it's simply ultra vires."

But it is common practice and not necessarily marxist. Labours tendency to do this is matched by other centre parties across the world never mind extremists. The tories have been fond of social engineering in the past including massive building programmes of council housing.

"No. Politics is applied morality."

It can be but that is another argument. Your point that it is morally unacceptable for state to interfere in social conditions is a minority belief, to most it is acceptable and that is why it is widespread and not confined to marxists.

"Whatever 'most people' think, the degree of interference is the crucial issue. Where the state interferes in order to carry out its essential functions, we have no right to complain. Where the state interferes in the delirious attempt to engineer society according to some idiot-utopian schema then we have every right to complain."

Whether you complain or not I am glad that you now seem to be agreeing that it is not unacceptable for state interference in theory, only a metter of what that interference is.

If a govt was delirious and trying to introduce a utopia we would have a problem, but I still dont see how that makes New labour marxist. Reigious nuts trying to impose a holy utopia wouldnt be doing so because they are marxists would they?

carol

agentmancuso

Rinty

"That's one of the ways in which Trade Unions attempt to decide economic policy, to the benefit of their own members, and at the expense of everyone else."

It is one of the ways that workers, represent their collective interests to whatever govt in place. But that is a whole different argument to labour allowing trade unions to decide policy. In fact, when labour is in power the unions dont get anymore concessions than normal and often get less as labour expect them to capitulate for the good of the "movement".

"A shark is always a fish, even if a fish is not always a shark."

Exactly, just because labour have tendencies that are similar to some sharks, they share those tendencies with other fish that are not sharks, meaning their control freakery doesnt make them a shark, just a fish with an authoritarian streak.

"Social Democracy (i.e. watered-down Marxism) is everywhere."

You think the tories are watered down marxists?

"Labour have abandoned economic utopianism, but they have a firm grip on Marxist interventionism, Marxist bureaucracy and Marxist moral authoritarianism."

I think that we have now established that interventionism, bureaucracy and moral authoritarianism are not necessarily marxist.

"Marxism is a tawdry kind of religion; a pale imitation of the Slaves' Revolt aspect of Christianity that irritated Nietzsche so much, coupled with messianism, true believers, self-righteousness, heretics, martyrs, a ridiculous afterlife, the whole works."

With such a caricature you are describing some small marxist groups perhaps but not marxism. Marxism is simple a perspective on looking at power relationships between people, capital and class.

agentmancuso

Rinty

"It's one of the ways some workers in positions of relative power try to improve their own position at the expense of other workers."

Its what all groups with shared agendas and issues do whether they are religious, unions, CBI etc.

"Remember Biffen, conservative leader of the commons c 1980- "We are all social democrats now""

Well, if that is the criteria, in your view, of being a marxist then I have lost the argument as, if you are describing the Tories as watered down marxists, then Labour must be too as the parties are so very similar.

"History has established that Marxism is necessarily interventionist, bureaucratic and authoritarian."

Personally, I think that history has shown us that government and states are........

"No. Marxism is a messianic attempt to overthrow the social order and replace it with something perfect."

Or an analysis of capital and power relationships that reaches conclusions that there are better ways of doing it.

agentmancuso