PROTEST FOR PALESTINE

Edinburgh RIC at the Protest for Palestine (09/08/2014)

SCOTTISH INDEPENDENCE AND THE EUROPEAN UNION

SCOTTISH INDEPENDENCE AND THE EUROPEAN UNION, 4.8.14

Kimon, a member of the Greek political organisation, Antarsya and Real Democracy Now (a group of Greeks living in Edinburgh) 

1.         The appeal of the EU includes the ideas of:-

i)                    Nations working together

ii)                  Free movement of workers

iii)                A safeguard against fascism

BUT

i)                    EU nations are actually forced to continuously compete – “Competitiveness” is the main EU goal. Also the EU itself is imperialistic.

ii)                  The EU borders themselves are guarded with an iron grip, leading to tragedies like at Lampendousa and Farmakonisi.

iii)                The EU supported openly Nazis in the Ukraine and fascists (e.g the LAOS party) in Greece.

1.                  The Greek crisis

The EU didn’t cause it, but it played a major part with the impact of:-

i)        Imposed neo-liberal reforms

ii)      Greece’s competitive disadvantage against the major EU powers

iii)    Whole sectors of the economy being shut down (eg agriculture because of restrictive EU measures)

Greece did not have the financial tools to deal with the crisis

2/3 members of the Troika which is enforcing brutal austerity represent the EU.

The measures passed more easily because “the EU demands it”

The Greek case is an example of the erosion of popular sovereignty, but not the only one. EU restrictions and penalties regarding budget deficits, do the same in other countries.

2.                  Maybe what we can do is change the EU from within?

      

            i)          However the EU has an undemocratic structure

            ii)         Only a third of the EU institutions are elected (the Parliament)

            iii)        This is the weakest institution

            iv)        You can’t change the individuals at the top of the EU institutions

             v)        These institutions are immune to street demonstrations, etc

            vi)        The transnational corporations have influence in institutions.

            viii)      They participate in the experts groups of the European Commission

            viii)      They help to draft EU legislation

            ix)        These expert groups designed the Euro and the main lines of the Lisbon Agenda

            x)         Corporate lobbyists are often the last people Ministers see before entering negotiations

            xi)        There is 1obbyist representing trade unions for every 60  representing corporate interests

             xii)      If the EU Commission has the monopoly of making legislative proposals the corporations have the monopoly of influencing the Commission

Therefore it is impossible to change the strategic aims and working culture to serve society

3.                  Why not break the weakest links if we can?

A potential left wing government can not do much without breaking some EU  treaty and in the end coming into an all-out conflict with it. A potential left wing government in Greece for example, should nationalize banks. This is impossible without coming into an all-out conflict with the EU.

4.                  The Eurosceptics

i)                      One reason for their success is the fact that they have absorbed people’s anger towards the EU. This is helped by the failure of the European Left to oppose it.

ii)                    They take the ‘law of the jungle’ competitive culture one step further

5.                  Scottish independence and the EU

Joining the EU would negate some of the best arguments for independence:

i)                    We would leave one imperialist, only to join another.

ii)                  Instead of Westminster, it would be Brussels calling the shots, not the “people of Scotland”.

6.                  Summary

i)                    The EU should be seen as a weapon in the hands of the enemy.

ii)                  Leaving it, or dissolving it, would not improve the situation by default, but it is a necessary step on a different path.

iii)                It is very important that we oppose the EU not from a nationalistic point of view, but on the basis of a different, internationalist, framework for cooperation and solidarity between the peoples of Europe, in their own interest not in the interest of capital.

WALES AND SCOTTISH INDEPENDENCE LEANNE WOOD, PRESIDENT OF PLAID CYMRU

WALES AND SCOTTISH INDEPENDENCE

LEANNE WOOD, PRESIDENT OF PLAID CYMRU

Last year, in the run-up to the second RIC Conference, the Edinburgh  branch put forward a proposal to organise a session on ‘Internationalism from below and the break-up of the UK, with speakers from Scotland, Ireland, England and Wales, This was agreed agreed and Mary MacGregor ( Dundee RIC), Bernadette McAliskey, Steve Freeman (Republican Socialist Alliance in England)  and Leanne Wood (President, Plaid Cymru) were all invited to speak. Unfortunately, Leanne had another engagement and sent her apologies.

In June, some Plaid Cymru activists met with Pat Smith and Allan Armstrong of the Edinburgh RIC branch, and with Glasgow RIC members. The net result of this was decision to reinvite Leanne to speak in Scotland.

In the event, the venue chosen was Glasgow. And, as you will to read from Leanne’s talk below, this was a particularly appropriate decision. However, this meant that most Edinburgh RIC members did not hear Leanne’s talk. It is not on the national RIC blog. This is why we have reposted it below on the Edinburgh RIC blog.

_________

I want to thank you for the invitation to speak to you this evening. 
It is a particular pleasure to address you at this venue.



The last Welsh political leader to visit this building, as I understand, was David Lloyd George back in 1917 as Prime Minister, when this building was known as St Andrew’s Hall.



I’ve had a better reception tonight than he did almost a century ago when an angry protest awaited him outside.

 The night is still young but I’m hopeful I won’t need to be escorted out of here under military guard as Lloyd George was that day.



Lloyd George was here to attend a ceremony where he received the freedom of the city of Glasgow.

The protest was assembled to register anger at the imprisonment of socialist leader John Maclean.



It was a tumultuous time and regardless of people’s views of Maclean’s politics, no one can doubt the lasting impression he has made on left-wing politics in Scotland and indeed further afield.



And the protest that day in 1917 certainly left an impression on my compatriot – Maclean was released from jail the following day!

The people have power.

It's good to be in Glasgow.



This city has a proud tradition of amplifying the radicalism of your nation.

In that sense there are parallels, commonalities between my home - the Rhondda valley and this great city. 

In the respective histories of both our nations, particularly in our industrial and social history, the Rhondda and Glasgow have taken leading roles.



Maclean himself visited the Rhondda in 1911 during a dispute between miners and managers.

 There was a lockout of 800 men by the owners of the Cambrian Combine - where my grandfather went on to work - because some of them who were working in particularly dangerous conditions had the temerity to demand a fair wage.



The lockout prompted a downing of tools by 12,000 Rhondda miners and Maclean came down to Tonypandy and saw first hand the dispute and the impact it was having.

He issued an appeal to miners in Scotland to stand side by side with the miners of Wales in demanding a minimum wage and by supporting a general strike, if necessary.



Maclean's letter was typically eloquent and it stands as an example of the strong bond between our two nations, and particularly the working people of our two countries.

 It was a letter written at a time of industrial excitement.

 An historic and formative period for both Wales and Scotland.

 And we’re living through an historic, formative period once again. 

It is an historic period for all the nations of these islands.


But of course especially for Scotland.

 From outside Scotland we are watching with great interest. 

I have been very conscious throughout the course of your national conversation not to come here and lecture you.

 You’ve had too many people coming over Hadrian’s Wall to talk down to you.

 To suggest that they are better placed to determine the destiny of Scotland than you - the people IN Scotland.

 You won’t get that from me tonight or ever.



Yes - I believe that a ‘yes’ vote in September would be the best outcome for people here in Scotland.

Yes - I believe that a ‘yes’ vote in September would be best for Wales.

Yes - I believe that a ‘yes’ vote in September will be best for all the peoples and nations of these islands.

 But it is your referendum.

 Your choice.



This evening I wanted to share with you my thoughts on a number of issues.

 First, I want to tackle this claim that's perpetuated by the No Camp that a ‘yes’ vote in Scotland would be a betrayal, a letting down or an abandonment of people in the rest of Britain.



Secondly, I will address the social and political opportunities that independence would provide, to you here, but to those of us outside Scotland too.



Finally, while all eyes will understandably be focused on Scotland over the coming fifty-eight days, there are, too, developments in Wales.



I thought you might be interested to hear a little about Plaid Cymru’s vision for Wales to firstly develop our self-government, then moving on to emerge as the fourth independent state of these islands.



It’s worth noting, I think, that the United Kingdom and, more generally, the political arrangements on islands, have been subject to constant change.

 The current UK constitution can be traced back to the advent of devolution in 1999.



 Prior to that, the United Kingdom’s constitutional composition was amended in 1948 with the Ireland Act and again before then 1922 with the creation of the Irish Free State.

 And so on and so on.



You get the picture.

 To claim that we live in a centuries old, static, union is incorrect.

 The union remains and always has been, fluid.

 The question people in Scotland are now asking, and a question that people in my nation will ask too - is whether or not our relationship with one another on these islands is best served through partnership and through a social union...

or whether we should remain part of a more rigid and unequal union.


A union that will centre on the sovereignty of Westminster. 
And let's make sure we always remember - the sovereignty of Westminster always trumps the demands, hopes and aspirations of the people.



A political elite in London will prevail over the will of our peoples for as long as the political union is upheld.

 They choose not to hear the people.

 There are numerous examples that can be cited to illustrate this point.



One that sticks in my mind is that day in February 2003 when millions of us marched to stop the illegal and bloody invasion of Iraq.

 There are no circumstances I can see whereby an independent Scotland or an independent Wales would have collaborated and joined in that illegal war. 

But by virtue of our membership of the union, that war was fought in our collective name.

In September you have your chance to ensure that never ever again will your country be dragged into an illegal war against the will of its people.


That in itself would seem to me to be a good reason for starting afresh with independence.

 But of course the opportunities are greater than in just one policy area, even one as big as war.



You may have heard the phrase - from Wales, that devolution is a process not an event.

 That statement appears to have been accepted.

 But although even those who want to preserve this political union accept that devolution is a process and not an event, they have never spelt out the destination, the end-point to their process.

Where do they want to go?



It's quite peculiar, from a pro-union point of view, to accept that your nation is involved in a process to which you are unwilling or unable to describe the destination.



Could it be that there is no destination in their minds? 

Is their vision of a process one that is knee-jerk in nature? One that gives as little as possible and only when the political circumstances demand.



It was Tony Blair who said "power devolved, is power retained. "

Not only is independence an articulation of self-empowerment, the purest form of democratic expression, it is also the logical progression of the devolution journey.



There is no predetermined destination, of course.

 The most exciting aspect of your national conversation for me, as an outsider looking in, has been the excitement and the engagement the conversation itself has created.



Town halls full.

People in shopping centres, in pubs and on social media wanting to engage.

 This process and the conversation it has generated has reinvigorated democracy in Scotland.

 That's what it looks like from outside anyway.



Scottish people will themselves decide on the 18th of September, the outcome of this national conversation.

 That outcome is in the hands of the people.



It's been argued by some that Scotland’s decision to become independent would in some way be an abandonment of the peoples in the rest of these islands.

 The inference is that a yes vote would be a selfish act, contrary to a spirit of solidarity.

 That it would confine the rest of us – especially working people to decades of unabated Tory rule.



I have to tackle this point head on. It is simply wrong to say that Scottish votes will save us from Tory rule.

Wales and Scotland both voted Labour at the last UK general election, but that made no difference.

 Both our countries are enduring a government in London that has no mandate from our people.



I'm as keen as anyone to be freed of the shackles of Tory rule, but to argue that we should all endure it together, whether we voted for it or not...

that for some reason, solidarity has to equate to collective suffering is to argue for a position that is both perverse and illogical.



To those who argue that solidarity can only be expressed through the collective suffering of all of the peoples of these islands, then surely the logical conclusion is that they should be arguing for an end to the devolution of education and health. 

Should not Scots and Welsh students have to endure £9,000 a year tuition fees as an act of solidarity with the people of England?

 Should not Scots and Welsh patients have to accept the privatisation and the break up of their health services as an act of solidarity?



Of course not.

 Collective suffering, disguised as solidarity, is a cynical ploy on the part of the No Campaign. 

Solidarity through uniformity of policy is no solidarity at all.

And the ‘no’ camp know that.

 An attempt at guilting Scots that I’m sure will back fire.

For those of us on the left, solidarity with others, of course is a central part of our political paradigm.



And I believe the best way for Scots to show solidarity with the rest of us is through voting ‘yes’.

 Because a yes vote here will usher in a new period of solidarity through divergence.



On the face of it that might appear as a contradiction. 

But let me outline how solidarity through divergence can work and how it has, in some respects, already begun.



The United Kingdom is an unbalanced state. 

We know that from every single economic indicator.

 Average wages.

 House prices.

 GVA per head.

 Unemployment levels.

 On every indicator, the London city-state bears almost no resemblance to the rest of the UK.



Never mind Scotland declaring independence – London was effectively granted it three decades ago with no referendum.

 When the Westminster political elite all agreed on a policy to intentionally deindustrialise places like Wales and Scotland and instead to prioritise the wholesale deregulation of the City, they placed all economic eggs in the one financial services basket.

London was granted effective independence and it was granted at the expense of the rest of us.



Devolution has started to address the political imbalance of the UK, but without the economic levers that come with being independent, there will always be a limit to our ability to deliver equality, prosperity and social justice.



As I have mentioned, we can already point to Scotland as an example in terms of the different way they have prioritised public health and free education.

 Scotland gives us in Wales and our progressive friends in England opportunities to point to demonstrable examples of an alternative to neo-liberalism and the politics of austerity.



Just imagine what we could point to if Scotland emerges as an independent country.

  Having a new state on our doorstep approaching public services in a different, more progressive way compared to what will be left of the UK.

 Pursuing collaboration not competition. 

A Scottish state with control over its social protection policy.



This ability to create a different social security regime - one that will refuse to penalise and punish the unemployed, the sick and the disabled.



Friends, the greatest act of solidarity you can show us in Wales is to create in your nation a society that rejects the poison of spiteful right-wing rule and build instead a socially just country that will show the way for us all as a beacon in these islands.



I call it solidarity through divergence.

 By building for yourselves a new future, an alternative future, that will provide us with the context and the opportunity to tangibly point to alternatives as we confront the forces of neo-liberalism in the UK.



Scots are known throughout the world for your oil, your food and your whisky.

 But your greatest export to us after September will be social justice, Scotia style. 

Solidarity through divergence, isn’t introverted, inward-looking or selfish.

Solidarity through divergence is internally selfless, within Scotland, because its basis is standing by those in need.



Externally, solidarity through divergence is selfless because you’ll be setting an example to all your neighbours of what is possible when the social tools are used for the good of society as a whole.



And there will be some who argue, ‘there are already examples of different approaches to social and economic policies elsewhere throughout Europe, yet what good has that done in building an alternative to austerity on the island of Britain?’



There’s merit in that observation.



 But I would respond by saying that the geography, culture and political position of the island of Britain has created several barriers in attempts to import alternatives.

 Britain is a largely English-speaking island, on the political and geographic periphery of Europe.



Free market-ism & neo-liberalism has meant that looking to the Unites States has been favoured  in some powerful quarters, over looking towards Europe.

 We can see that from the difference given in media coverage to elections in the United States compared to say Germany, even though both have arguably as much of an impact upon our lives.



Imagine, a nation on this island, a new state on our doorstep pursuing a different set of political priorities, building a society based on a different set of values.

It would be inescapable.

 We already see that when Scottish health and education policies are pointed to by English and Welsh politicians.



We saw it in practice when the other administrations of the UK followed your lead in public health policies such as the banning of smoking in public places.

 And we’ll see it again when you abolish the bedroom tax and provide for your people a wage upon which they can live.



The naysayers tell us that a "yes" vote will create a border, a barrier between Scotland and the rest of us.

 To me, that says a lot about how they look at the world.

 I see borders as gateways not barriers.

 And you have an opportunity for your border to become a new gateway for Scotland to the world.



That border has the potential to open up new opportunities for people England too. 

It could help people in England to find their own national voice and their own new place in the world. If that is what they want.

And what about Wales?



How does the Scottish referendum itself impact upon our political debates?

 What will the impact on Wales be of either a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ vote in Scotland in September? 

These are valid questions of course, but are they are questions that up until very recently were limited to a few anoraks and specialist commentators.

Increasingly, people in Wales are beginning to consider their own national future.

More and more people are closely watching events here and pondering the possibilities for Wales.

Wales and Scotland are two nations.

 Of that there is no debate.

 Wales and Scotland, to coin a phrase, were offered national legislatures because they are nations.

 The powers of our respective legislatures have been limited in case we act like nations.



I again turn to Blair’s assertion that power devolved is power retained to qualify that view (and I promise you I don't make a habit of quoting the former prime minister). 

Our two countries are on national journeys.

 Wales is at a different stage in our national journey to where you are in Scotland.

 That doesn’t mean in any way that I don’t aspire to Wales having the same national conversation you are having now...

And for the people of Wales to one day having our own referendum so that we too can decide whether or not to emerge from the shadows as an independent nation.



But the very basis of self-determination is that the peoples of nations themselves decide the pace and nature of their national progression.

 There is no one size fits all route map to statehood.

Indeed, we can see that in these islands.

 Following the establishment of the Irish Free State and the creation of a Parliament at Stormont following partition in 1922, a number of home rule groups emerged in Scotland, anticipating home rule here.



There was an air of inevitability at that time.

 As history has shown there is nothing inevitable about the course of history.

Scotland had to wait, like Wales, until 1999 for the first taste of home rule.

 A lesson for Wales and for Scotland, is that our own fate is in our own hands – if we want it to be.



Essentially, that’s the very essence of the question you and your fellow citizens will be answering in September.

 Do you want control over decisions like war and peace?

 About a public or private health service?

 A non-judgemental social security system that meets the needs of those unable to fully meet their own?
 About child care?

 About the ability to properly protect yourselves with similar trades union rights to the ones that were taken away from you by Thatcher and kept from you by a Labour Westminster government?

 Having decent trades union laws in place may well have protected some of the downgrading in workers terms and conditions we have seen in recent years.



They have kept telling us that there is no alternative.

 Well the people of Scotland are showing us that there absolutely is an alternative.

And it is within your grasp.

You are being given the chance to decide whether your next steps and your political direction lies in your hands or in the hands of others.



The same applies to Wales.

Plaid Cymru advocates that at the very least, Wales must move from a model of devolution now to a model of self-government. 

That’s more than a matter of semantics.

 Yes, we believe in a powers reserved model of government, but unlike the London-based parties, the Party of Wales wants powers reserved to Wales – not London.



It should be up to the people of Wales to decide what decisions are made at home and what powers we choose to share with others.

 There shouldn’t simply be a division of responsibility where powers are transferred to Wales but for those powers kept at London, Wales has no say at all.

I’ll give you what I consider to be a powerful example of why powers should be shared on certain matters in the meantime, rather than powers being wholly reserved to London on behalf of Wales.



Following a ‘yes’ vote in September among your country’s priorities will be the removal of nuclear weapons from Scottish territorial waters.

 That process will involve their relocation, probably to another part of what is left of the UK.



I say, under no circumstances at all, should those weapons be relocated to Wales against the wishes of the people of Wales. 

And I can tell you tonight, that the Plaid Cymru government I will lead from 2016, will not, under any circumstances, allow our nation to be the dumping ground for unwanted, immoral, weapons of mass destruction.



It is my view, that moving to a model of self-government, where the sovereignty of the people of Wales is enshrined and respected, will give us in Wales the opportunities to begin the process of building the national infrastructure we need to deliver for our communities and our people.



But of course, Plaid Cymru’s aim is to secure independence for Wales.

 That is the normal status enjoyed by the vast majority of nations and there is no reason why Wales should continue forever as an international anomaly.

 Becoming independent is essential if the full potential of a nation and its people is to be unleashed. 

For too long in Wales we’ve expected others to deliver for us.



But there is a growing realisation now, that we have to do things for ourselves.

 Our recent experiences should act as a reminder to us that a culture of dependency will only deliver the same old disappointments.



I became politically conscious during the dark days of the miners’ strike of 1984/85.

I know that time was equally significant for communities here too.

In the eighties, the collective hope of so many Welsh communities was to see the Tories defeated. To see an end to Thatcherite policies.

 For most in such communities that hope of a better future was staked on Labour being returned to government.



Of course our countries had to endure two more terms of Tory rule against the democratic wishes of our two peoples. 

And then, when eventually a Labour government was returned to office, it was a New Labour government led by Tony Blair (that's three times he's been mentioned now)



Even when we voted Labour and Labour won, we didn’t get what we wanted!
 PAUSE
1984 and 1997.

 Both equally significant years in Wales’ history.

 The first a year where for a majority, a clear alternative was yearned for.

 1997 the year that should have provided a new dawn.



It did not, because as we know, whatever the colour of the rosette or the ties of the party winning a UK election, their priorities will not be our priorities.



I began this evening by discussing the shared industrial experiences of our two nations and specifically of the city of Glasgow and my home valley of the Rhondda.

 Both places led their respective nations in political and social change.

 Radical change.



I very much look forward to this great city again leading a new beginning for the people of Scotland in September.

 And I’ll ask you, in a few years from now, to take time out of your efforts of building a new country from an old nation, to keep an eye on the Rhondda playing its part in the building of a new, fair and free Wales.



Diolch yn fawr.

Leanne’s talk was first posted at:-

https://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/leanne-wood/solidarity-through-divergence-leanne-woods-speech-on-scottish-independence

also see:-

http://radicalindependence.org/2014/07/03/ric-lecture-with-leanne-wood-am/

WOMEN AND SCOTTISH INDEPENDENCE

 Cat Grant, 21.7.14

Cat spoke about how independence could help women. There’s 60 days to go – so what to concentrate on? There is a gender difference in voting intentions, with more women appearing to be in the ‘don’t know’ camp according to latest poll by the Social Attitudes survey. This doesn’t mean they are not going to vote but that they are still unsure. Frustrating that ‘women’s’ issues are always seen to be about childcare – when this should be a joint responsibility for us all as the most important time of a person’s life. There are other more important issues such as unequal pay that need to be demanded – and workers who care for children (usually women) have had their hours cut and have no national bargaining framework.

The apparent reticence in making up their minds is because women have to take the risks in life and are naturally more analytical about what it will mean for them, particularly in relation to economic issues. They have a lot more questions about what will happen – about the economy, the welfare state.

But if it’s about risk taking, we should take that risk – it’s not being more conservative but more pragmatic. 4 out of 5 people applying to food banks are women because they have to organise their household and children’s welfare in the main. Labour is not promising to reverse any of the austerity cuts when £11 out of the £15 million of cuts affect women.

On the 19th September we should make demands for women in Scotland. In other small countries women have the support of a written constitution so they can go to the European Human Rights Court for cases of domestic violence etc. On Clydeside  there is a statue of La Passionara erected on the Broomielaw to pay tribute to the International Brigade volunteers from Scotland who fought for socialism in the Spanish Civil war. What would she say if she could see the position of women in Scotland now – she would probably be under a control order.

We need a written constitution that enshrines women’s rights for good. We also need to learn more about the economy- perhaps economy classes would help??

     Discussion

Need to include play areas within meetings so children can be brought along

Need to learn from the experience of Iceland, in writing a new constitution. The long 2 year process was constantly eaten away by the opposition, people got worn down and now the old political structures are back in play.

The demands from the Women’s movement in the 60’s are still not achieved

 How to get more women to meetings – crèche/daytime meetings/topics

To publicise events for ‘families’. Efforts to link with toddler groups 

Not to forget how many women work in the public services – should approach branches of Unions and get invited along to speak.       

The drop in cafes and politician free zones set up by WFI I work well in encouraging women to come. Most talked about issue – the NHS.

Not to be afraid of sounding ‘negative’ by warning people the status quo will only get worse under the Westminster regime. We need to emphasise that change is GOOD! 

We’ve only ever got progress through fighting and demanding – no use waiting for a wonderful politician – this is a chance to fight for change and to think again about the kind of country we want to live in.

To attach our names to campaigns for equal pay/to protect the NHS/ CND removal of nuclear weapons.

THE CAMPAIGN FOR A LIVING WAGE

Peter McColl (Greens), Alex Lunn (SNP), 23.6.14 

Peter said the campaign originated in London, during the last Mayoral Election. The two major issues had been the Living Wage and Congestion Charges. The Living Wage campaign pointed out that the Minimum Wage was too low to live off, and some workers had to take three jobs to survive. The campaign commanded wide enough support that even the successful Tory candidate, Boris Johnson, bowed to this.

Then Maggie Chapman, Green councillor, took up the issue on Edinburgh City Council. The Liberal group opposed this, so it was not taken up. However, Glasgow Labour leader, Stephen Purcell took up the issue, and thus it came back on to the political agenda.

T
he reason we need a Living Wage is because the Minimum Wage is far too low. The main form of poverty today, is poverty in work. This does not correspond to the Daily Mail view of the world. No do they point out that there are also fewer jobs than there are unemployed.

We need to transform the economy from its current model of a small percentage of super rich at the top - the London plutocrats – and a huge number of low-paid and relatively unskilled at the bottom; to one where there are many more well-paid and skilled jobs, with a more even income spread.

Things have got so bad that even George Osborne wants to lift the Minimum Wage. He is not doing this for any altruistic reasons, but because the state has to pay out so much to subsidised low wage employers. Boris Johnson supports higher wage levels for similar reasons.

I suggest a  Living Wage level could be £14,000 p.a.

It is easier to force public rather than private sector employers to concede this. When the issue was raised at Edinburgh University, they backed down.

It needs community campaigns to back those inside workers inside low wage workplaces.

____

Alex is the SNP councillor for Craigentinny.

He said that when living in Gilmerton, where he had been brought up, he had been forced to sign on in 2001. He was told that if he wanted a flat he should move in with his girlfriend and try to find a job. He benefitted from the New Deal Scheme and was able to rent a flat in Albert Street. That would not be possible now.

His friend, Paul, has been working at Sainsburys at Cameron Toll since 1996. He rented a small house in The Inch. However, he can o longer afford to stay there, because rents have become so high. He has had to move out to Dalkeith, considerably further from his work. Paul is not on the Minimum Wage, but earns £12 an hour as a manager, yet he still can not afford to rent a flat in Edinburgh.

Alex still works 2 days a week at a local bank. His manager earns £19,000 p.a. but still faces considerable problems making ends meet.

Therefore, the Living Wage needs to be set at a proper rate. However, there also needs to be laws to control rent levels. Renting can be quite an attractive option. As a young person I did not want to shoulder the responsibility for repair. But the government also need to ensure there is affordable housing.

Eventually, my rent went up so much, I was forced to take out a mortgage, because it was £200 cheaper per month.

Therefore a Living Wage is not enough. It would be a useful symbolic event, a sign to employers that they had to take more care of their workers. However, we need housing controls as well.

Discussion

Eric said that the reason for escalating property prices and rents is all the money created by private banks. We needed a land value tax to prevent property prices from rising. Not only is property not properly taxed at the moment, but agricultural land received large subsidies from the EU, and the more property you have the more subsidies you get.

Pat said that poor people don’t buy stocks and shares. They have to spend money on commodities and services. In the past, the way better pay and conditions were won was by workers in trade unions organising and exerting pressure. The way that rents were brought under control was through rent strikes. Social housing was a post-war gain. Rather than more affordable housing we needed more social housing.

Andy said there is a trade union dimension. He had worked in Macdonalds for 3 years. Here you are on the minimum wage and work up to 50 hours a week. It is very hard to try and organise under such conditions. You are so exhausted all you want to do after you have finished work is to go out and get pissed. The company’s profits and our lives are in contradiction.

RIC hasn’t gone out to workplaces and job centres. We should be doing this as part of the independence campaign.

Chris said that it possible to organise workers in such workplaces. In the School of Oriental and African Studies in London cleaners had won a Living Wage. They included many migrant workers. The Bakers Union has organised a Fast Food Rights campaign. It is targeting Macdonalds and Burger King.

However, these campaigns also need outside support. There is currently a campaign to organise some cinema workers in London. They are working for the same group, which owns the Cameo in Edinburgh. We could organise some solidarity support.

Aly said that £14,000 p.a. was too low a figure for a Living Wage. In Edinburgh is tough for a family to live on £20,000 p.a. and there is also very low pay in the public sector, particularly the NHS.

There has been a whole number of campaigns amongst low paid and particularly migrant workers in London. However, they have often faced obstruction and worse form trade union officials.

Stuart said that we should also be raising the issue of a Maximum Wage. Furthermore, there is a problem of unoccupied houses, only they are owned by the rich. We need redistribution too.

David said that another issue was Fuel Poverty. We could make more use of the Greenhouse Gases Reduction policy to push for the insulation of housing. Neither the private landlords nor the fuel companies have any incentive to do this. This will require a full scale campaign.

Richard said that rent controls will be opposed by private landlords. This is why we need more social housing to increase the pressure.

Willy said that Edinburgh is becoming more and more like London. If there is a little bit of a boom, then property prices will go up. Currently the Community Empowerment (CE) Bill is going through Holyrood. Companies have been involved in land banking on a massive scale. Land that is already owned by us has been put up for sale. This further contributes to rising property prices. Only the property companies can raise the development money at these prices, so a CE Act will have little effect.

If you go to Ferry Road Drive you can already see the difference between private and council rented housing. Those renting privately are paying £500 a month but get no house repairs. The roofs and roans are overgrown. However, councils can be forced to make improvements.

We need to think about new ways of organising. The old IWW used music in its campaigns. Young people have become interested in the ‘Yes’ campaign. There was a meeting earlier this evening at Craigroyston School with 25 young people wanting to organise.

Callum said that the Living Wage was currently £9 an hour. However, there was also the problem of Zero Hours contracts

The SSP had been linking the Living Wage with Scottish independence in its campaigning. People had been asked where is this more likely to be passed - Westminster of Holyrood?

Allan said in reply to Willy on community empowerment, that to be effective, it would first need to be accompanied by the sort of land tax proposals, Eric had suggested. This would prevent property speculators hoarding unused land and property. Councils could also use land use zoning powers to ensure that land was reserved for housing or community uses.

Luke said that he worked at Macdonalds to help pay his way through university. Sometimes he had to work double shifts. This undermined his university course work.

He also thought we should be pushing for an agreed ratio between the maximum and minimum earnings in any particular company or public body. Furthermore, there should be guaranteed trade union representation at workplace level.

Jim said that taxation was also an issue. There was a real mismatch between the tax thresholds on Personal Tax set at £100,000 p,a. and National Insurance set at only £6000 p.a. The SNP had originally proposed the abolition of the Council Tax in 2007, and its replacement by a Local Income Tax, but this was opposed at the time. Westminster puts taxes into separate pots, and imposes different levels in each to hide the total taxation picture.

Peter replied that a Living Wage campaign could be a winner. There were indeed problems with official trade unions. Low paid workers occupying University College of London had found a sell-out agreement signed by UCL and UNISON. The levels of obstruction and opposition mounted by some union officials had led to many cleaners and other low paid workers turning to unions like the Independent Workers Union of Great Britain in London.

There certainly needed to be a wealth tax on landlords. Rent controls are also needed.

Various European Directives offering some protection also need to be pursued.

To sum up – if Boris Johnson can be forced to concede a Living wage, then we can do this in Scotland. The battle begins on September 19^th.

Alex replied by saying we need a mixture of social housing and affordable private housing.  There were other things that needed to be brought under control to bring down the cost of living. Both the fuel companies and the railway companies should be nationalised.

There is indeed a problem with existing unions. Their officials don’t share the problems of their members, Len McCluskey of UNITE earns over £120,000 p.a. There was also a case n another union, where the general secretary received a union loan at 1.7% interest to buy a second house in the Algarve.

Franklin Roosevelt and Clement Attlee are two of my heroes. Attlee was originally a Conservative supporter, but working in London’s East End converted him to socialism. He was a doer. When senior civil servants said they wanted to go over some new government proposals with them, he replied that these weren’t proposals but decisions already taken by the Cabinet, so get on with it.

Edinburgh has big problems with private landlords. There are also accidental landlords, who start to rent out flats because they can not sell them.  They have no training and do not know what tit involves. So, as well as regulation of landlords, we need training of landlords.

If there is a ‘No’ vote in September.  Cameron’s Tories will walk over not only Scotland, but England too. Scottish independence can inspire workers in England.

I support a federal Scotland. Both Labour and the SNP are too centralist. More powers need to be devolved to a local level. Local councils should even have the powers to decide what form of taxation they use, just as states and cities do in the USA. Edinburgh could use a Sales Tax, to take advantage of the large number of tourists coming to the city.

23.6.14

TALKS GIVEN BY PAUL McLAUGHLIN OF MOJO AND PADDY HILL OF THE ‘BIRMINGHAM SIX’

 8.6.14

 1. Paul McLauglin, Miscarriages of Justice Organisation

The Miscarriages of Justice Organisation (MOJO) was formed as a result of what happened to the Birmingham Six. We are a support organisation to help those who have been wrongly accused and convicted of crimes they did not commit. At any one time MOJO has been used by 65-80 people. We provide legal support and try to ensure after-care for people who have had their convictions quashed. There is only so much MOJO can do without proper funding.

The Scottish government provides us with some financial support, but at nothing like the levels we need. The UK government accepts there is a problem and they have a duty of care. But it does nothing about it. There is no financial backing at this level from the UK Government.

When you are released after wrongful conviction, you are given a travel warrant and £40. That is it. You are sent home with no support.

The official UK state position is – ‘the least said the better’. There is no real investigation into the Crown or Police when a miscarriage of justice occurs. There is a little more openness in Scotland, because of MOJO’s relationship with the government here.

People who have been wrongly convicted face a terrible choice. If someone maintains their innocence, then they get no parole or home release. Contesting a miscarriage of justice can result in the person being imprisoned for longer than if they served the sentence they have been given.

One person we are working with currently was eventually released after being falsely convicted of attempted rape, and sentenced to 7 years. He served 17 years, an extra 10 years because he protested his innocence. He had made several earlier appeals, which failed. His calls to review his conviction were ignored are after that as fishing expeditions.

MOJO goes into prison to give support to lifers and other prisoners who are maintaining their innocence. For the Scottish Prison Office (SPO) the issue is control. They see MOJO as helping them in this, and providing a safety valve. However, MOJO does not want to give the SPO an easy ride. MOJO wants justice.

There is a Scottish Criminal Case Review Commission, which has statutory responsibility for examining cases of miscarriage of justice.

One of the biggest failings is the UK Government takes no responsibility for the Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) suffered by those who have had their convictions quashed. This has a major effect on the Innocent person after they are released. It has been shown in the only study done by Adrian Grounds that the PTSD suffered by innocent prisoners takes a more acute form, the longer someone has been imprisoned.

Speaking personally, I think that Scottish independence could provide a situation where the limited support currently received in Scotland, compared to England, could be extended. However, this has to be qualified with an emphasis on the need to have transparency within the Judiciary, the Crown and Procurator Fiscals Service (COPFS) and the Police with an need for independent oversight put in place to ensure that the causes of miscarriages of justice are examined in order to put in place solutions to prevent further miscarriages of justice. This does not appear to happen currently.

The present government has further centralised Police powers with the setting up of a Scottish unitary Police Force. We need to ensure more scrutiny of the Police with independent over sight similar to the Independent Review Service/Tribunals Service, which is made up of people from all walks of life adjudicating in civil cases. This means we need to continue campaigning and putting pressure on MSPs and councillors.

At present the Police Force is increasingly being armed, but this is not being admitted publicly. So we have an undeclared armed Police Force. This is a major concern and can only reduce public confidence in the Police.

There have been many more miscarriages of justice since the Birmingham Six in 1974. But only one policeman has been convicted for their role in these, Inspector Richard Munro held back information in a murder trial which could have exonerated two of our clients. 5 years earlier than then were. The usual grounds for failing to follow-up such cases are “maintaining police integrity”. Or that to pursue Officers is not in the public interest.

There is no independent oversight of the Crown, judiciary or police force. There are no public explanations or transparency.

No criminal justice system is flawless. There will always be miscarriages of justice. The problem is the failure to address these. We use the National Lottery slogan when it comes to miscarriages of justice, bear in mind “It Really Could Be You” Remember that people from all backgrounds have suffered from miscarriages of justice.

 2. Paddy Hill, Birmingham Six

Before 1974 the IRA planted bombs in the Midlands and other parts of England and warnings were given. There was no loss of life or injuries. I can even remember people coming to see a bomb going off at the Rotunda in Birmingham.

Then suddenly a coach was bombed. The IRA later claimed that this was a coach with soldiers being sent to Northern Ireland. It was in fact a coach with the wives and families of soldiers returning from holiday in Germany. The Guildford, Woolwich and Birmingham bombings were all ‘no warnings’ bombings.

The British media went into overdrive. The atmosphere was created that led to my false conviction for the Birmingham bombing.

I was 16 and a half years in prison. I was never arrested. I initially talked to the police of my own free volition, in order to be dismissed from their enquiries. British intelligence knew that I wasn’t involved in Republicanism. I had 3 brothers in the British Army. The third of these was just then about to serve in Ireland. My father was in the British Army for 30 years.

However, I had been at school with IRA member, James McDaid. This was in Ardoyne, a nationalist area in North Belfast, surrounded by Protestant areas. It was known as the ‘Murder Mile’. It was a close community, where people knew each other, and could have acquaintances, friends and family who were involved in the IRA, although the majority were not.

When the official statements about the number of bombs used at Birmingham – 6, 8 and 12 – were shown to be contradictory, the state prosecutor said that the people being interrogated were highly trained in counter-terrorism techniques. Yet, the person providing this information was interrogated only from 9.00 am to 10.05 am! It was also stated that the bombs were planted outside the pub, when they were planted inside.

My first involvement was when in going back to Belfast by ferry from Morecambe, I saw a line of desks, each with 2 cops behind it. I had a record of trouble with the police. I had been involved in the violence that comes from football (I was a Celtic supporter) and alcohol in a city, which still had houses with notices, ‘No Paddies, No Wogs, No Dogs’. This sort of violence was endemic to the situation.

I did not resist questioning. Indeed I had a friendly conversation with Detective Constable Willoughby from Morecombe, about football.

However, the next stage was very different. Myself and my five co-defendants faced police officers, Brand and Bennett. These two said that, we know you didn’t do the bombing, but we have to keep the public off our backs. So you have a choice. You are going to make a confession – you can do it the hard way or the easy way. When, there was some opposition to making a false confession, the police resorted to burning us with cigarettes.

When we were put in prison, the prison officers paid people to stab us, crushed glass was put in our food and they pissed in our tea. I spent over 8 years of my sentence in solitary confinement. I saw nobody but immediate family and close friends.

Despite constantly expressing my innocence, I spent 10 years in prison before the first break. It was actually the local Tory MP, Sir Arnold Farr, whose constituency covered Gartree Prison, in Market Harbourough, who first listened to me. This resulted my first appeal in 1987. There were 22 Crown witnesses. The Lord Chief Justice, Lord Lane rejected any evidence which questioned the police.

It was only in 1991, after another investigation, that the role of Doctor Skuse, the forensic ‘expert’ was exposed. He had a history of making claims based on his own specialist forensic techniques that were found to be completely bogus. He was a fantasist. It was also found that the police had fabricated their notes.

However, I have found myself in a worse situation since I was released. I had learned how to cope inside jail. I had internalised the responses need to deal with the situation there 24/7. I was not prepared for what would happen to me outside the jail.

One year later I ‘hit the floor’. The doctors said I was suffering from depression. Well I could see that. My body and brain had accustomed itself to thinking that tension was normal. I faced any challenge, just as I would have in prison.

However, there was no treatment for this. Those who have been involved in other situations like the sinking of the Marchioness, or the Lockerbie bombings, were immediately given counselling.

On release I was given £46 and my papers. Sometime later I received £50,000, upped to £100,000 in compensation, pending a final financial settlement of £964,000.  From this were deducted several costs, including for ‘bed and breakfast’ whilst in prison!

Before this, though, I bought a flat in Muswell Hill, and spent most of the rest of the money on campaigning, buying a car and touring the length and breadth of these islands, and to the USA, to wherever anyone would listen. Whilst doing this I accumulated debts of £30,000, but could not claim welfare benefits.

I had grown unaccustomed to living outside prison. Even shopping was difficult. I still cannot sleep for more than one to one and a half hours. At night, I get up and go out for a drive in the car, or take the dog for a walk. Two and a half years after coming out of prison I was finally diagnosed with PTSD – the highest level, worse than that which affects some soldiers in war zones.

The psychologist in Edinburgh said they had no treatment for somebody so highly traumatised. In July 2010, I was sent to the Capio Nightingale Hospital, in Marylebone, London, which deals with trauma victims. However, they were unable to deal with somebody who had been in long-term imprisonment. Indeed, it seemed to me to reproduce the conditions I had found in prison – being put in rooms, told to wait and being told what to do. I reacted accordingly, and threatened one of the staff. I was put out, without any arrangements being made, or any regard to what would then happen to me.

What clearly needs to be developed here in Scotland, where I now live in Ayrshire, is a proper Trauma Centre, where every case could be dealt with. There are people like Paul Miller, Dr, Gordon Turnbull and Adrian Groves, who could do this. Indeed, helping with this could well be the job for me – I have the experience! 

WHAT IS THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE EURO-ELECTION FOR SCOTTISH INDEPENDENCE?

Sarah-Beattie-Smith, Green Party co-convenor, 12.5.14

This year is about all of us deciding what kind of Scotland we want to live in, what kind of Scotland we want to build and the message we want to send to the rest of the world. In that respect, I think there's a clear and important connection between the European election and the referendum.

Don't get me wrong, I know European elections don't always ignite the flames of passion in most people - not even in hardened campaigners like all of you. But this one is important, and I'll tell you why.

Every European election has a story - in 2009 it was the elections scandal, in 2004 it was Kilroy. In 2014 it's UKIP, whether we like it or not. The whole UK media is intent on giving Farage and his fruitcakes as much airtime as they want. This is a UKIP election. So of course the story here, if we allow them in, is that Scotland's not that different - we elect racists and homophobes just like England so what's all this independence nonsense we keep banging on about? We can't afford that. Not now, not ever, and especially not when we're trying to build a new nation.

This year we have the chance to elect not only Scotland's first Green MEP, but a woman who shares our beliefs and who will fight for a just and welcoming Scotland.

And I think the campaign we're running fits really well with a lot of what RIC is campaigning on this year. We have three main pillars to our campaign -

a just economy where public services are in public hands and where we attack poverty, not the poor;

a welcoming Scotland which is grateful for the people who come to Scotland and choose to make it their home and doesn't blame them for the troubles caused by elites;

and for a nation of peace which rejects Cold War relics like NATO, stands against the militarisation of Europe and gets rid of trident - not just by shifting it somewhere else but by disarming it for good.

Who wins sends a message about what kind of country we want. By electing Maggie Chapman as our MEP, we are choosing a just economy, where we attack poverty, not the poor, and defend our public services from the relentless drive to privatise. We are choosing a welcoming Scotland, where people who want to be part of building our nation are treated as comrades, not criminals. We are choosing a nation of peace, not the NATO nuclear alliance.

All of that is the starkest possible contrast with the vile rhetoric peddled by UKIP..

We stand a real chance, for the first time, of electing a socialist, feminist, pro-immigration, pro-independence candidate who stands for everything that this campaign believes. We have a chance to set the tone for the whole summer and beyond. Let me be clear - if there's no change at this election, then we're sending a signal that we don't really need change as a nation.

So I  hope you'll vote Green next Thursday. And if I can make a cheeky plea, I hope you'll keep helping us to get out the vote and reach even more people.

Thanks.

Discussion

John asked who the Green Euro-candidates were and what type of election it was?

Sarah replied, that they were Maggie Chapman, Edinburgh councilor, Chas Booth, Grace Murray, Green worker in European parliament, Alistair Whitelaw, Glasgow and Ann Thomas, Highlands.

Mike came in and said that there were 6 Scottish Euro-seats ( a reduction of 1 after boundary changes) and that they were elected o the basis of proportional representation, after voters had given their single vote to the party of their choice.

Bob said that as a socialist he agreed that Maggie should be given a tactical vote in the Euro-election.

Irene said she was quite keen on Europe. When she had been in Brussels she had first heard of the debate over fracking, which she found informative.

Andy asked what the Greens had organised in the run-up to the election on May 24^th. He also asked how Scottish independence would effect Scotland;s position in the EU.

Mike said that people could help in canvassing on Sunday, 18^th May, meeting at Haymarket at 2.00  pm, and again on Tuesday, 20^th May, meeting at the Tron pub at 6.00 pm. There was also a Facebook event organised.

He said that Denmark, which currently has approximately the same population as Scotland has 13 seats in the Euro-parliament compared to Scotland’s 6. However, he was critical of the EU set-up, which was dominated by appointed Commissioners from each of the member countries, He thought that there should be elected Commissioners. Mike also thought that unlike the Tories  at present, representatives from an independent Scotland would be likely to support the proposed Robin Hood Tax on international financial transactions, and not block the proposed limits on bankers’ bonuses.

Donny said that he also supported Maggie Chapman. However, he had a more critical attitude towards the EU. The EU leaders had been responsible for imposing horrific austerity measures on Ireland, Greece, Italy and Spain. The City of London opposed the EU because it doesn’t like the prospect of greater financial regulation, whilst the CBI wants to overthrow the limited social and other rights that still exist under the EU. But both the EU and UK want to impose austerity on workers.

Allan thought it was important to discuss the way that RIC operated with regard to participating political parties, RIC is a wider movement that includes people from an anti-party, non-party, anarchist and movementist backgrounds. It would not be appropriate for Edinburgh RIC to give specific backing to Green or to other parties. However, it was perfectly in order for RIC to host discussions like today’s. Edinburgh RIC had a particularly good record of encouraging wider political debate.

He said that RIC members participating in the EU-election campaign should be aware that there was another group, claiming to be socialist, which was putting forward candidates – No2EU. However, he argued that they were not mounting an internationalist campaign. Allan, as an SSP member, had participated in the 2009 Euro-election campaign. The SSP was part of the internationals European Anti-Capitalist Alliance and brought a French car worker across as part of its campaign. No2EU, however, is a purely British national campaign, and comes across as UKIP-Lite for the working class. Allan said that he would be supporting Maggie Chapman in the Euro-election.

Mike said that No2EU had also come under attack when it stood its own candidates against well-placed Green candidates in Lancashire in the 2009 Euro-elections. This had helped the BNP win a North West England seat.

He argued that the EU had a positive element of pan-Europeanism and socialists should not be arguing for pulling out of the EU. There was also an inconsistency between those Tory Right and UKIP supporters in Scotland, that wanted independence for Europe but not for Scotland.

Bob said that if you are staying in then you must have a strategy to democratise the EU. Its structures were eve more undemocratic than Westminster. It was important to wrest powers from the bureaucracy. To do this we needed more international links.

Iain said that we would have to discuss Europe more fully after the election,

Sarah agreed with the principle of an elected Commissioner. UKIP are having some impact in Scotland, as she discovered when canvassing. They are attracting an anti-system protest vote.

Talat said that the pan-nationalism of the EU looked very different form a Third World perspective. It is the pan-nationalism of a European elite. The EU represented a continuation of European imperialism with regard to much of Africa. The EU had imposed structural adjustment programs upon the Third World, which preceded its current austerity programme in Greece. Racism is growing in Europe in response to the economic crisis and far right and fascist parties are rising on that basis.

She also argued that we should oppose the No2EU approach as well as Fortress Europe with its immigration controls and anti-refugee policies.

Andy asked what the Green policy was with regard to refugees and asylum seekers, and particularly with regard to Dungavel detention centre.

Sarah said the Greens are against the vilification of refugees and asylum seekers, and certainly support the losing down of Dungavel. The UK is the main enemy when it comes to its treatment of refugees and asylum seekers, and also its restrictions on overseas students.

Mike said that the Greens were ultimately for a world with no borders.  When he had suggested automatic citizenship for migrants after 5 years at  a Scottish Green conference, he had been opposed by someone wanting to lower that to 2 years, which gave some indication of the nature of the debate amongst the Greens.

Vincent argued with a strong note of caution. He said that in his experience in working class Muirhouse and Pilton, racism was not confined to Scottish-born residents, where it did have quite an impact. He found that Poles, in particular, expressed racist views, particularly towards Africans.

Sarah said this was an understandable response when you were treated badly with regard to jobs, housing, schools and health care, and felt powerless. You take it out on others.

Talat said that this is what the scapegoating of others tries to do. People of one particular group start to blame others, rather than focusing on the real cause of their problems. This is the language, not only of UKIP and the Tories, but increasingly of Labour too. Farage and UKOP are currently calling the shots, which is why they need to be opposed.

Sean said there were contradictory feelings involved. He had been canvassing Niddrie Mains Road, and came to a house with a mixed partnership. The Scottish husband supported a ‘Yes’ vote in the referendum, whilst his Indian partner supported a ‘No’ vote. He thought it was necessary to look to other countries to see how they approached the migration issue.

Sarah said that one particular prejudice was directed against migrants begging in the streets. It was not widely appreciated that asylum seekers tare not allowed to work.

Andy said that it was important that we could relate to people who are low paid, and are experiencing benefit cuts. Not all socialists were able to do this well.

Amie was encouraged by the fact that RIC was developing as a grass roots campaign.

Vince provided the example of he North Edinburgh Fights Back as a vibrant local working class campaign.

Pat said that in her experience she often found people who were quite rightly angry, but hit out at the wrong targets. It is possible to turn around such attitudes through argument. She said that pointing to people who make the real decisions affecting people’s lives, they could be won over.

She also said that although the official platform adopted by UKIP is not specifically racist, but UKIP attracts racists and fascists. She argued that it was important to give help to Maggie and the Greens’ campaign. A UKIP MEP in Scotland would represent a setback for the independence movement.

Donny said that UKIP is a racist party, which draws most of its support form the middle class. It is also gaining from the massive exposure it is getting in the media. A vote for independence is a vote against the British state.

Iain though that the best recent analysis of UKIP was an article in New Statesman  Welcome to Militant England by Rafael Behr (http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/04/welcome-militant-england)

_________

THE AFTERMATH OF THE EURO-ELECTION AND ITS SIGNIFICANCE FOR THE SCOTTISH INDEPENDENCE

General Discussion (following from previous RIC branch meeting on the 12.5.14 and election on 22.5.14)

Pat said there had been a move to the Right across Europe. This reflects a failure of the Left. However, in Greece the socialist Syriza had emerged as the top party. In Britain although right wing UKIP had topped the poll, the fascist BNP had lost both its MSPs.

Iain said that UKIP in Scotland had been massively helped by all the publicity it received from the BBC. UKIP had also repeated a couple of simple messages – anti-immigration, anti-EU.

Pete said there had been a division between the results in those countries in northern Europe which had not been at the receiving end of the Troika imposed austerity measures and those in the south which had. In northern Europe there had been a move to the Right, whilst in southern Europe – Greece, Spain, Ireland and Italy - there had been a move to the Left.

Pete also said that we were just at the beginning of a long struggle which began back in 2007-8. This would take longer to have an impact in Scotland. From his canvassing experience for the Greens, the EU election was of little interest to people in Scotland until the last two weeks of the election.

The SNP leadership had reacted to the rise of UKIP by claiming only by voting SNP could you keep out UKIP. This had an effect on the Green vote.

Allan said that you had to look at the impact of UKIP from an all-UK perspective. The emergence of right populist and neo-fascist parties reflects a growing concern about the future of the UK state, in a period of on-going economic and social crisis. The Right, however, understand this better than the Left. Only the BNP, Britain First the Conservatives and UKIP pursue an all-UK strategy. In the Euro-elections in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, UKIP emerged as the largest pro-unionist party amongst these all-UK forces. This will push Better Together even further Right.

Although UKIP is predominantly a right wing English nationalist party, it has been able to extend its influence into Scotland, England and Wales by championing all the worst aspects of British nationalism – generalised British chauvinist anti-immigration and anti-European sentiment; homophobia and misogyny amongst considerable sections of the population; Orangeism, loyalism and anti-Irish racism in Northern Ireland and Scotland; and anti-Welsh language sentiment in Wales. Much of this draws its sustenance from the very nature of the UK state, with its unionist and anti-democratic set-up. This state perpetuates the rule of the British ruling class, especially the City of London with its ability to impose austerity and bloated arms expenditure through all the mainstream parties. The imperial and unionist nature of the UK encourages war mongering, racism, chauvinism and national divide-and-rule politics. Having an established religion, represented in the House of Lords gives official encouragement to wider reactionary attitudes to women and gays.

The Greens have tried to counter this with some limited effect. It was good to see Maggie Chapman and the Greens beating UKIP in Edinburgh*, especially after being prominent in the anti-Farage demo.

Those socialists behind No2EU/Yes to Democracy had only stood in British constituencies (not the whole of the UK, and certainly not elsewhere in the EU), hardly an expression of internationalism. Furthermore, they gave the impression that there was something worthwhile to defend in ‘British democracy’, ignoring the profoundly anti-democratic nature of the UK state. To counter this insularity, RIC should see its campaign for Scottish independence as part of a wider all-islands ‘internationalism from below’ campaign, bringing in England, Wales and the whole of Ireland.

(* The Greens also beat UKIP in Glasgow, Stirling, Orkney and Shetland.)

Gary said that Maggie Chapman had run an exemplary campaign for the Greens in Edinburgh. He would like to publicly give thanks to Maggie for this.

Sean said the right wing media dominated. UKIP got four times more coverage than the SNP. The Greens were ignored. We must develop our own ways of promoting our message to counter this.

Iain said that people have still not come to terms with the degree the Right wing establishment now controls the BBC.

The independence campaign had had some effect on voter participation in the EU elections. It had only increased by 1% in England, but by 5% in Scotland. Although the Tories had also increased their vote, the SNP had held its position, despite being the incumbent Scottish government for 7 years.

Mike said there had been a lot of complacency. Quite a lot of people had thought that UKIP was a south of the border phenomenon and would not be able to win a seat in Scotland.  Labour’s response is constantly to appease UKIP. They could well take up UKIP’s call for an EU referendum, which would only play into UKIP’s hands.

Anne said that a lot of people vote UKIP because they felt excluded from politics. All the mainstream parties appeared the same. In contrast, Farage is a populist who can speak to the people.

Pete said that there is no great pro- or anti-Euro feeling in Scotland. He had been to a European hustings in Glasgow. Only 7 people turned up. The next night 250 people attended an independence meeting.

RIC must be involved in a grassroots campaign. We face a series of fights, and not just over independence.

UKIP’s new Scottish MEP, David Cockburn, is an idiot. He said he would abolish all the EU regulations. When asked which he would start with, he couldn’t name one! It should be relatively easy to expose his politics.

Stuart said that the significance of the UKIP vote in Scotland is overstated. However, after all the Better Together talk about independence threatening EU membership, it is clear that the main threat lies at UK level if there is a ‘No’ vote. The ugly face of nationalism is British nationalism. There is now a threat of a Tory/UKIP pact.

Luke said that the EU election was a passing event. Many more people were interested and involved in the Scottish independence campaign. We had to concentrate on this.

Annie said there was an obvious contradiction between UKIP calling for British independence, whilst denying independence for Scotland.

Mike said that UKIP are just one in a long list of unionist parries that needed to be countered.

Iain said that Johann Lamont had called for a union of progressives to counter the nationalism of the SNP and UKIP. Presumably that would be the ‘progressive’ Tory party and their Lib-Dem allies!