Why the SDA?

We at Sign for Scotland recently sent out a request to a number of pro-independence political parties asking for a few words about their aspirations for an independent Scotland. We hope to show the different visions for Scotland that we'll be able to vote for in 2016 and beyond, and to help people consider the possibilities that independence can bring.

The first to respond were the Scottish Democratic Alliance (SDA). We'd like to thank them for their speedy and enthusiastic reply.

Why the SDA?

The Scottish Democratic Alliance advocate a progressive, populist small 'c' conservatism that is diametrically opposed to the elitist, dogmatic brand emanating from Westminster's blue, yellow and red Tories. And their puppets here in Scotland.

In a nutshell the SDA's view is to put people first. Not corporations or the rich. We want corporations to be profitable; entrepreneurs to get rich because these are mechanisms which should serve to make people's lives better. The SDA support high-quality public services like free education, and healthcare. We support working folk being paid at least a living wage to ensure a good quality of life - with a citizen's pension providing dignified retirement.

The SDA supports the idea that sovereignty and independence are inseparable, and applauds those who have brought Scotland to this historic referendum. At this crucial time, however, the SDA feels that there is now the danger of losing sight of these principles in favour of political expediency and that the Independence movement is becoming just another group of politicians pursuing power and ending up offering only bland policies which seem designed to create a copy of the current UK - "independence-lite".

This manifests itself in the retention of Sterling and the Bank of England; the switch to becoming a member of NATO and the automatic assumption of membership of the European Union. The SDA considers all of these policies to be fundamental sacrifices of sovereignty and thus assumes to itself a role in preserving the conscience of Scottish Independence.

The SDA offers to 2014 independence referendum voters an alternative vision - a vision of a Scotland quite distinctive from its current persona. It offers a second enlightenment to Scots with the imagination to consider new ways of governing a modern community unencumbered by the 300 years of feudal society and privilege which is fast destroying the United Kingdom. In old fashioned political parlance, the SDA promote policies, some of which could be termed 'right' and others which could be seen as 'left'.

The SDA's commitment is to Scotland's independence and the implimentation of the party's policies after a YES majority referendum vote to build an economically vibrant, socially just, lean but competently governed, successful modern country, for the benefit of all Scottish citizens. If you take the time to look at our website, you will see a radically but intellectually sound basis for government - a different kind of government.

The SDA, the party of true independence, considers sovereignty to be the essence of independence. A Scottish government adopting SDA policies or administered by SDA members will not permit foreign military bases within its territory other than by invitation in times of war or National Emergency - all as provided for, in a new written Constitution for Scotland. Of course the administration will remain free to enter into trade and defence agreements other than under terms which prejudice this sovereignty. That sovereignty extends to the National Currency and the issue of banking licences granted under the terms of the Constitution of Scotland whereby their National Currency shall remain sovereign and protected from predation or manipulation by private interests - whether domestic or foreign.

There is a wealth of further information on our website. See About, Our Vision and Policies.

http://scottishdemocraticalliance.org/about

Twitter: @sdemoalliance
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ScottishDemocraticAlliance
Web: http://scottishdemocraticalliance.org/

 

  

We at Sign for Scotland would once again like to thank the Scottish Democratic Alliance for replying to our request as quickly as they did. They are an example of a political party that could flourish in an independent Scotland and we wish them well. If reading this had made you interested in finding out more about the SDA then please do visit their website and Facebook pages.

 

  

We hope to be able to run more blogs like this in the run up to September's referendum. If you are a member of a pro-independence party and would like to write about what your party could offer, then you can email us at: sign4scotland@gmail.com.

Drew

 

If you like this blog, then please consider visiting our other sites:

Facebook - Sign for Scotland
YouTube - Sign4Scotland
Twitter - Sign4Scotland

Sea of troubles

Ok, or not ok, that is the referendum question according to the 'no' campaign.

If you aren't heading to a food bank yet, if you haven't yet been affected by the endless wars we pay for in tax and in lives, if you can still afford to underwrite HS2, Crossrail and all the other 'UK expenditure' that seems to be almost exclusively for the benefit of the swing seats in the south east of England, then they say that you should be content with your lot. They reason that it is greedy for you to want better and that the problems of those around you are not your problems, because your life is still 'ok'. You don't need to aspire to more, because things are 'ok'.

 

Well today I’m going to say that the way things are, the way they have been, and the way they will be under a Westminster system, are not ok. They are deeply and profoundly wrong. And I’ll go one step further and say how and why an independent Scotland will be better. But first, how is the UK not ok.

 

According to Unisef 19.8% of people under Westminster live in poverty. We spend 30 times as much into researching arms and weapons than renewable energy, despite the latter being 8 times more significant to our economy, and we have an unelected second chamber, where 150 of its members have financial interests in the private healthcare industry, scrutinising and amending our laws. This is appalling.

 

Arrangements such as those in the House of Lords sow the seeds of corruption. Why do those who are paid £300 per day, plus expenses, for a few hours or in some instances a few minutes attendance need to have outside interests at all? Does Westminster find it difficult to attract people to such a role that only those on the payrolls of special interest groups are able to scrutinise our laws?

 

And why, when we are a wealthy nation, are our pensions amongst the lowest in value in Europe? Why do our pensioners receive less than a third of those in Sweden, a small independent country with no significant oil or gas reserves? Why do we receive this lower amount so much later than nearly all of our European friends? Why?

 

Imagine that we can start over. Imagine that we, the people of Scotland, had a rule book in place for how our country is run which we all took a part in writing. Imagine that we, the people of Scotland, have the last and most important say over the decisions facing us, instead of the few who make up parliament. Imagine that we, the people of Scotland, decided our own priorities, and had a wider choice beyond simply the british elite who wear red ties or the british elite who blue ones.

  

You don’t have to imagine. This is the future with independence. We will write a constitution following a Yes vote which will safeguard our rights. We will be sovereign and it is our views that are final. And we will have a proportional electoral system, which means that everyone’s vote counts.

  

Under First Past The Post, the system entrenched at Westminster, the only two parties who can ever form the government are discouraged from debate. They know that to get in they don’t need to prove that they are intelligent, thoughtful, representative or even competent. All they need to do is make the other side seem unelectable, and wait for their turn to govern.

  

Their policies aren’t decided by principle, but by polling, and that is why there is so little difference between the two wings of Westminster. Tell me, who do you vote for if you are against war? The side which brought us the 1990 gulf war or the one who brought us the 2003 version? Who do you vote for if you support the freedom of the press? The side which smashed up computers in the Guardian newspaper’s head office under anti-terror laws, or the side which introduced and abused those very same laws?

  

If believe that employers national insurance should be scrapped, or that Trident should be removed, or that we shouldn’t be paying to station military personnel in 80 countries around the world, or the monarchy, or fracking, or the use of depleted uranium in weapons testing on our coast, who do you vote for?

  

A proportional system is different because it encourages diversity. It is not good enough to say why we shouldn’t vote for so-and-so, you need to say why we should vote for you. You have to show that you are competent, you have to inspire us with a change we want to see, you need to act in the best interests of the people because if you don’t we’ll kick you out and won’t let you waltz back in 8 years later. We can have a Labour Party that represents the interests of the working class. We can have a Tory Party that represents the interests of entrepreneurs and small business owners. We can have a Liberal Democrat Party that can guarantee civil liberties and local democracy and we can have a whole host of new parties which ally with our values.

  

To the Westminster duo who are guaranteed to share power no matter what they do, poverty is ‘ok’, Trident is ‘ok’, and the UK is ‘ok’ because they’re ‘ok’. Well that isn’t good enough for me. Westminster won’t be ok as long as we have children growing up in poverty within a few miles of a stockpile of weapons of mass destruction, or as long as we have elderly people being cold in their homes in sight of north sea platforms, or as long as we have unfair and unjust policies imposed on us from governments we didn’t elect.

  

To me Westminster won’t be ok as long as members of the armed services continue to receive P45s as we waste money on aircraft carriers. They won’t be ok as long as they can enter the offices of newspaper editors and smash up computers, as they did with the Guardian last year, and they won’t be ok as long as they test and dump depleted uranium into our coastline.

  

This is far from ‘ok’, it is abhorrent. To vote ‘no’ is to support and entrench this perverse and immoral system of government. It is to give up hope of a better future and to leave our children powerless to the whims of Westminster. We are the first, and possibly the only, generation that has the chance to bring the power back to Scotland and to right the wrongs that exist in our country. We can’t leave the thinking to Westminster and hope that they somehow slow the decline of Britain or act in the manner we want them to; we have the take responsibility for ourselves and be the change we want to see.

  

Let us ingrain in the minds of our children that they shouldn’t settle for governments that can ignore them. Let us show in deed and in spirit that they should take responsibility for their actions and have the courage to stand by their convictions, and let us place no limits to their ambitions, or say to them ‘we decided this far for you and no further’.

  

  

Is it nobler to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous Westminster, or to vote ‘Yes’ against their Sea of troubles?

   

I want to take part in writing a codified constitution. I want to know that my vote has value and that we can’t be ignored. And I want the wealth of Scotland to be used for the benefit of her people. The things I want can only be achieved with independence, and that is why I want you all to vote ‘Yes’. 

Drew
 

If you like this blog, then please consider visiting our other sites:
Facebook - Sign for Scotland
YouTube - Sign4Scotland
Twitter - Sign4Scotland

Not in the paper review - March

Welcome to the third of our monthly series looking back at the stories which the main stream media in Scotland didn't offer much attention to, and comparing them to those that hit the front pages.

No chance of a referendum?

No, not the referendum on Scottish Independence, but the 2017 vote being promised by Prime Minister David Cameron.

According to the Secretary of State 'for' Scotland, Alistair Carmichael, there is "...no question of there being a referendum [on EU membership]. There is no mechanism for the Conservatives to deliver a referendum in 2017. That is the hard political fact." Farmers Guardian, 18th of March 2014

We're really not sure where to start: do we highlight that Mr Carmichael is calling his own boss a liar and that we can't trust the false promises of a desperate UK Prime Minister, or focus on the utterly ridiculous notion that Westminster cannot host a referendum.

 

But the biggest question is where is the scrutiny from the media? Why, when EU membership is such an important subject in England prior to the upcoming European Elections, are so few of the media outlets reporting this claim? Why wasn't Mr Carmichael being chased by reporters for a response? Is it because this embarrasses the Westminster establishment which wants to be all scares to all people?

 

At least Mr Carmichael is confirming two very important facts: for the people of Scotland to get what we want, we need the powers of independence, and, of course, you can't trust anything that comes out of Westminster.

 
Other stories which didn't make it

Whilst another 'Standard' was making the headlines, Credit Rating Agency Standard and Poor were giving their assessment on the credit worthiness of an independent Scotland. Their conclusion:

"Even excluding North Sea output and calculating per capita GDP only by looking at onshore income, Scotland would qualify for our highest economic assessment. Higher GDP per capita, in our view, gives a country a broader potential tax and funding base to draw from, which supports creditworthiness."

The BBC, alongside the rest of the print media, didn't consider this to be very relevant, and offered minimal coverage. This lack of attention couldn't be because it directly contradicted Westminster MP Danny Alexander's claim in January that Scots would face a £5,200 hike in mortgages due to higher borrowing costs, could it?

  

There was a story which had everything a newsroom could possibly want: a radiation leak which was kept secret from the public. Unfortunately for the people of Scotland, this story embarrasses Westminster and thus won't feature prominently in the media.

Another nuclear story, this time in Plymouth when a torpedo was fired into a nuclear submarine dockyard.

"Workers watched in disbelief as the tube-shaped projectile flew through the air before blasting a hole in a security fence and slamming into a storage container." Telegraph, 14th of March 2014

At least this latest, but certainly not isolated, example of nuclear incompetancy wasn't kept secret from the people who live nearby.

Finally, the funding of the Scottish Parliament was cut in the budget. So of course, the main headline in on the BBC Scotland website was: Chancellor freezes duty of Scotch whisky. Sigh...

And finally, something that did partly manage to get into a few of the papers! Adverts for online website Wings over Scotland that featured on the Glasgow Subway system were pulled by SPT (or perhaps by advertising agency Primesite). At the time of writing no reason that doesn't fall apart at even basic scrutiny has been offered.

 
Glance over the BBC

The third largest party in Scotland held it's annual conference. It's guest speaker was the UK Prime Minister, David Cameron, and it was given massive coverage on the BBC and other Main Stream Media outlets. However, throughout March, there were other large gatherings taking place. Radical Independence attracted a huge crowd to protest outside the Tory Party (Scotlandshire branch) conference and encouraged over 80 people to their second mass canvassing event in Drumchapel. For some reason, the BBC didn't want to offer the same degree of coverage to these.

 

The BBC did manage to cover town hall meetings accross Scotland although...

I asked people as they filed out the door if the [Yes] meeting had helped.
"No, not really," came the reply from one man. "It was good to hear other people's point of view, but it was basically a propaganda meeting. It would be good if the 'No' and the 'Yes' campaigns could get on the same platform and come to towns."

But what the reporter didn't explain was why the two campaigns aren't having more public debates:

"I don’t think that there is a gaping hole in the debate market that we need to fill. I don’t really see the need for us to have a specific debate organised by the campaigns when there are so many debates organised by third parties which both campaigns are participating in." Rob Shorthouse, no campaign director of communications in response to a proposed debate in Glasgow with Yes Scotland.

 

The impression given by the BBC was that there were many meetings being held by both sides, with Yes perhaps offering more, yet this is to massively undersell the chasm between the two camps. Wings over Scotland has provided numerous articles which show the number of Yes and no activists, as well as the reality of no campaign events.

 

Finally (for this month) we had the hard hitting and vitally important "Cows connected to web to boost milk" story featuring on the BBC Scotland News website. We know this was important because it was placed above "Scots constitution to be published". It even got it's own picture!

Got Impartiality? - note this was not the picture the BBC used

On an entirely separate note, we're sure that the news coverage offered the BBC has not, in any way, shape or form, been influenced by the fact that a 'Yes' vote is likely to cost the BBC £193 million every year.

 
Glance over the papers

Embarrassing headline of the month goes to the Mirror with: 'True Brit tennis ace Andy Murray has opposed Scottish independence without actually saying "Vote No".' It defies logic (at least logic in the conventional sense: the notion that someone going out of their way to not give an opinion means that they are actually giving an opinion by not giving an opinion for or against what they had been asked to give an opinion on...my head hurts) in a way that few can hope to achieve. It even goes against what the paper has claimed in the past...

"All this "True Brit" stuff about Murray is true tosh. Come on! Murray is a true Scot and he is proud of it." Mirror newspaper, 30th of June 2008

'True Brit' or not 'true brit', I guess it depends on when you win Wimbledon!
 
The Press In-Action

This is a new section which looks at some of our favourite stories on-line which look at media bias in Scotland. If you know any good blogs that look at media bias, then please leave a comment and we'll check them out!

 
Munguin's Republic - In most countries, the press would brag about this...
Newsnet Scotland - Will the real No campaign please stand up?
BBC presenter Andrew Marr accused of breaking guidelines on referendum coverage
A week in the life of Reporting Scotland Fairness in February and The Dirty Dozen - The case against BBC Scotland
Wings over Scotland - Double Standards and What you didn't read this week
Business for Scotland - 11 good news stories for Yes

Also, happy mothers day! If you are a mum that supports independence (and let's face it, who doesn't like the idea of their kids growing up and leaving home one day!) then Mothers for Change is definitely worth a few moments of your time. They have great videos and features and seem a really friendly bunch.

Join us again for our next 'not in the paper' review in April!
Drew
 
If you like this blog, then please consider visiting our other sites:
Facebook - Sign for Scotland
YouTube - Sign4Scotland
Twitter - Sign4Scotland

P.S - You can see our latest video, 'Sites we recommend' on our YouTube channel!