Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org

carol · Posted: Sun Nov 04, 2007 7:06 pm Post subject:

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 · Independentista Joined: 07 Nov 2006 Posts: 928

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 · Posted: Sun Nov 04, 2007 8:16 pm Post subject:

carol · Posted: Sun Nov 04, 2007 8:29 pm Post subject:

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 · Independentista Joined: 07 Nov 2006 Posts: 928

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 · Posted: Sun Nov 04, 2007 8:43 pm Post subject:

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

carol · Posted: Sun Nov 04, 2007 8:50 pm Post subject:

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

Dave Coull · Independentista Joined: 07 Nov 2006 Posts: 928

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 · Posted: Sun Nov 04, 2007 8:57 pm Post subject:

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 · Independentista Joined: 07 Nov 2006 Posts: 928

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 · Posted: Mon Nov 05, 2007 4:22 pm Post subject:

Dave Coull · Independentista Joined: 07 Nov 2006 Posts: 928

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 · Posted: Mon Nov 05, 2007 10:25 pm Post subject:

Dave Coull · Independentista Joined: 07 Nov 2006 Posts: 928

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 · Independentista Joined: 07 Nov 2006 Posts: 928

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 · Posted: Tue Nov 06, 2007 12:31 pm Post subject:

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

Dave Coull · Independentista Joined: 07 Nov 2006 Posts: 928

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 · Posted: Tue Nov 06, 2007 2:45 pm Post subject:

Who was that "IF Convenor" that used to post on here? I assume he's related?
_________________
The resident pantomime villain.
'Socialists cry "Power to the people", and raise the clenched fist as they say it. We all know what they really mean—power over people, power to the State.'

Dave Coull · Independentista Joined: 07 Nov 2006 Posts: 928

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 · Posted: Tue Nov 06, 2007 4:14 pm Post subject:

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