Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org

Dave Coull · Independentista Joined: 07 Nov 2006 Posts: 998

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 · Independentista Joined: 07 Nov 2006 Posts: 998

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 · Posted: Tue Nov 06, 2007 9:04 pm Post subject:

Dave you are beneath contempt

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

SLG · Posted: Tue Nov 06, 2007 9:34 pm Post subject:

Dave Coull · Independentista Joined: 07 Nov 2006 Posts: 998

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 · Posted: Wed Nov 07, 2007 2:10 am Post subject:

carol · Posted: Wed Nov 07, 2007 8:31 am Post subject:

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 · Posted: Wed Nov 07, 2007 5:42 pm Post subject:

Dave Coull · Independentista Joined: 07 Nov 2006 Posts: 998

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 · Independentista Joined: 07 Nov 2006 Posts: 998

Agentmancuso writes "Hayek says"

Ah, so you're a follower of Hayek?

A Hayekist.

Just like followers of Marx are Marxists.

agentmancuso · Posted: Wed Nov 07, 2007 8:07 pm Post subject:

agentmancuso · Posted: Wed Nov 07, 2007 8:10 pm Post subject:

Bob the Builder muttered:

agentmancuso · Posted: Wed Nov 07, 2007 8:43 pm Post subject:

carol · Posted: Wed Nov 07, 2007 9:35 pm Post subject:

Rinty · Posted: Wed Nov 07, 2007 10:03 pm Post subject:

"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 · Posted: Wed Nov 07, 2007 10:19 pm Post subject:

agentmancuso · Posted: Thu Nov 08, 2007 1:26 pm Post subject:

Rinty · Posted: Thu Nov 08, 2007 2:00 pm Post subject:

"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 · Posted: Thu Nov 08, 2007 5:08 pm Post subject: