Jo voted for war - against her Constituents wishes.

by Campsie SSP member, Neil Scott

Far from NOT being a vote for war, as some like our local MP Jo Swinson have billed the recent Syria motion that was defeated in Westminster, a yes vote would have meant that attacking Syria would have very much been on the cards.  The resulting no vote actually stayed the murderous hands of the US military as well as our own for long enough to ensure that Assad was talked round by the Russians and his chemical arsenal is now being destroyed by international experts.

Jo, as I wrote in a blogpiece, here had a dilemma - she says her instinct is to vote against war, but thought that the international community should be able to rain down from sky borne drone and missile, it's moral authority and disregard the wider authority of the United Nations.  She says as much in the blogpiece.

There is a dichotomy - a contradiction actually - in her words and in her actions.  There is definitely a contradiction in her "relief" at a UN "approach"; the fact that the motion did NOT give the UN primacy and the fact she actually feels that the UN is not the place that the final decision would be made.

On the contrary - Swinson felt that an undefined "international community" should be able to act without the consent of the United Nations.

Who are this "international community?"  The proposed action, of course, was proposed by the US.  An action the UK colaition did all they could to support.  Does Jo think that this country and the US have the moral authority to act alone in intervention in civil wars because other countries like China and Russia have "...such scant regard for the human rights of its own citizens?"

I won't defend obvious human rights abuses by China and Russia - but do we wield moral authority like Gods of Gods? Is she implying the moral authority of the UK is without stain?

The US - a country that has jailed Bradley Manning, the Cuban 5 and many without trial in Guantanamo Bay is unquestionably a moral authority above the rest?  Really?

 And our country that has recently carried out human rights abuses such as the police killings of Jean Charles de Menezes, Azelle Rodney and Ian Tomlinson; the torture and the deaths in UK armed forces custody of Iraqis such as Baha Mousa;  historical torture of Northern Irish political prisoners and the shootings and beatings of demonstrators there; the alleged collusion of security forces in the killings of lawyers, Pat Finnucane and Rosemary Nelson; the death in custody of the refugee Jimmy Mubenga and the continued detention of child refugees, despite assurances from the Liberal Democrats that this practise would stop. Or is it just because we are Western English speakers that gives us moral superiority?

I really am at a loss to see why we above the others are purest.  The list of human rights abuses carried out in this country goes on - but you get the picture. Jo believes that our Government, along with the US, have the moral right to police the world. The fact is, Russia nor China are muscling in on the middle East in quite the same militarist, missile laden and murderous drone way we are.

As well as that, Jo, in her letter below, admits that "all [of those constituents who contacted her prior to the vote]were against the UK taking military action in the immediate future..."

Yet, she felt she had the moral authority to 

1. keep the military option live by voting yes and 

2. by open admission in her blogpiece, ignore the UN if China and Russia had blocked a UN motion to take action ("I accept that the doctrine of ‘Responsibility to Protect’ can mean that action to prevent humanitarian calamity is appropriate.  I don’t accept that a country like Russia or China that has such scant regard for the human rights of its own citizens should always be able to stop an otherwise united and outraged international community from acting in extreme circumstances.")

All of the nonsense in the email below about her voting for this motion because it was not a direct call to arms is negated by her want to disregard how the UN security Council would have most likely voted - ie. no to military intervention in Syria.


Nick Clegg's stuttering and obfuscating on the night of the vote, when asked if this motion would mean that their would be a further Parliamentary debate, in my opinion, meant that the House voted no.  Clegg swung the vote through the perception of his dishonesty.  A man few in the UK now trust.  

Of course he couldn't guarantee that such a mealy mouthed motion would stop the PM bringing us to war by, for example the use of the Queen's Prerogative as Blair did in 2003 when he ordered "our boys" in to Iraq (the Queens Prerogative is a power that should have no place in a modern Western democracy; a power that it is used as a smoke-screen by ministers to obfuscate the use of power for which they are insufficiently accountable and a power that has brought us to war despite the democratic wish of the people or its elected representatives, of the UK).


Jo Swinson has, over and over again, been seen to vote against what the people of East Dunbartonshire first voted her in on.  The Liberal Democrats once proudly boasted their record on voting against war. Jo, swung by the ambitious ex-Tory Nick Clegg has voted against the council of her own constituents. From University fees through to the privatisation of the English NHS, her support for the impoverishing and dreadful welfare bill, some of which has been highlighted by the UN as it expressed it's "shock" at how aspects of it were pushing people into poverty; to rely on foodbanks and to suicide.  

So much for the coalition adhering to the advice of the UN.  

I have reproduced the email I received from Jo below.  Our original FOI request is at the bottom of this article.  

Her statement that it "was not as straightforward as constituents asking me to vote yes or no," would be laughable if it were actually not so sinister.  This was a vote for or against keeping the military on standby - and in fact more than that - it allowed the military to begin a build up towards intervention - an intervention she knew would happen.

If not, she is self deluded about her responsibility to her constituents.  

She obviously thinks she has the authority to overrule the electoral authority those who voted for the "anti-war, anti-tuition fees, left of Labour" Lib Dems.

Dear Mr Scott,



Thank you for your email.



As an MP handling correspondence from constituents, I am not subject to Freedom of Information legislation (but I will do my best to answer your question nevertheless). If you want to make a Freedom of Information request to my Department (which is subject to FOI), details of how to do so can be found here: https://www.gov.uk/make-a-freedom-of-information-request. There is no reason that constituents should attempt to contact me at the Department, however, as I publicise this email address as my constituency address. Personally, I am not aware of any constituents having contacted my via the Department about this.



To answer your question, many of the emails I received where before the motion we were due to vote on was even published, and of those that were sent afterwards hardly any referred to any specifics of the motion itself. Therefore it was not as straightforward as constituents asking me to vote yes or no. In fact from the comments I received I think many people were under the impression that the House of Commons would be voting on military action, which of course as you know, we were not.



You will note, for example, that the motion we were voting on did not permit the UK carrying out military action alone unless a further vote had taken place, and called for the UN weapons inspectors to be allowed to finish their work. Many of those who emailed me argued along similar lines. Whilst all were against the UK taking military action in the immediate future, many people attached conditions in which they felt military action would be justified, whereas others simply stated that there should be no military action at all.



From the end of July until the evening of 29th August (when the vote took place), I received 57 emails from constituents on this issue. This included several from people who emailed more than once. Of those, 22 were sent prior to the motion even being published at 6.55pm on 28th August, and so could not have been specific to the actual motion. Of those sent after, the vast majority continued to comment on the issue generally, rather than the specifics of the motion.



The media so often like to present such matters as ‘for’ and ‘against’. However, these issues are generally more complex than that and I felt I had a responsibility consider what we were actually voting for: a motion condemning the actions of the Syrian regime in using chemical weapons against innocent civilians, noting that the UN weapons inspectors be allowed to finished their work, and noting that no military action would be taken without a further vote. There was nothing I disagreed with in that.



I hope that this answers your question. However, please do let me know if there is anything else I can assist with.



Yours sincerely,



Jo Swinson MP

America; The failed State?

by SSP Campsie Member, Angus Clark.

Angus Clark, right, delivering letter urging local MP, Jo Swinson not to support America's push for war on Syria

The last 300 years of evolutionary progress in the West is coming to an abrupt end with the G20 Summit in Russia exposing the bankruptcy of the neo-conservatives expansionist policy of wars, political corruption, casino capitalism and mass secrecy and spying on populations. The inherent contradiction of the capitalist system in terms of the need for globalisation of markets but within the constraints of the nation state is now exposing itself through massive geo-political fault lines which cannot be repaired.

 It has become increasingly clear that this length of time was needed for the rest of the world to catch on to the fact that western capitalism, and for this read America, is on a downward spiral and is using its military superiority in an attempt to offset its rapidly weakening economy. The impending Syrian ‘intervention’ is the most recent in a long list of wars attempting to establish America’s hegemony of resources and economic influence throughout the world. Various players are involved behind the scenes in this most recent regional campaign, including in particular Saudi Arabia and Israel, whereby the redivision of the middle east for western interests is the principal aim.

It is now evident that the rest of the world’s leaders do not believe Obama‘s lies concerning Syria and they are now prepared to openly display their contempt for his position. Putin has led the way by telling the worlds assembled leaders that the chemical weapons attack was a ‘provocation on behalf of the armed insurgents in hope of the help from outside, from the countries which supported them from day one.’ Putin was supported in this stance by the leaders of China, India, South Africa, Brazil, Indonesia and Argentina.   They were heavily implying that this action would be against international law and would be by implication a war crime, if carried out.

What is driving the west and principally America down this path one may ask? This is a somewhat complicated matter however it needs to be seen in the context of this deepening crisis of the capitalist economic system and the dominant nations need to impose a hegemony over the middle east, which is an area of the world crucial to expanding Americas geo-political and hence economic interests. Israel no doubt is exerting a tremendous political pressure on Washington to bolster its position as the dominant military power within the region and historically no political administration within America has been able to stand up to the Israeli lobby and its associated corporate interests.

America is now beginning to be seen as diplomatically weak and marginalised as it is unable to get the full support from its puppet governments in Western Europe. It does not relish the possibility of having to go it alone militarily, but may have backed itself into a corner. Although this may appear extremely unlikely, any future criminal prosecution for illegal war acts would be more realistic and straightforward if only one country was perceived as the criminal party. Obama is therefore taking a  personal risk if he goes it alone.

Cameron has also lost all credibility with his recent inability to gain a yes vote in the British parliament, but he nevertheless may be able to limp along to the next general election. Despite Britain’s no vote the American foreign secretary counts Britain as one of Americas supporters along with some other countries without any diplomatic influence on a world stage, such as Canada, Australia, South Korea and Japan. Japan has enough problems of its own to consider without being involved in a middle east war with the Fukushima disaster, which has resulted in massive radiation leaks which may require the forced relocation of some 40 million people in and around the Tokyo area.

The rest of the minor players in Europe such as Italy and Spain would like to give practical military support to the Americans if only they had the financial resources. They are so indebted to the financial fraudsters and gangsters of the IMF and the corporate elite that they are hoping that if they say nothing in opposition to war then they may get further bailouts. If not then their future is escalating social unrest in the major cities of Italy and Spain. They have enough problems to worry about.

It is clear that what is going on here is the play out of competing and opposing interests within the ruling and corporate elite of the middle east countries at the regional level. Also at the world level there is a need for America to retain and support its puppet states. At the middle east level the Saudi rulers are aware that their power is balancing on a knife edge, as witnessed by the recent Egyptian revolutions. They are having to implement even more repressive measures to control recent social unrest and it is only a question of time before their grip on power is seriously at stake. Ironically, their interests politically are aligned with Israel and Egypt but in a religious sense are in opposition. At all costs, they cannot afford to see a stronger Iran supported by Syria within the region. From America’s part, it is concerned that the balance of power within the middle east may shift away from Saudi and also Israel and that Israel may become politically isolated. This fear is so great that it is even prepared to support, in the short term, the same extreme terrorist forces and right wing religious mercenaries that the fraudulent ‘War on Terror’ was supposedly aimed at. The hypocritical and fraudulent nature of America’s foreign policy is now open for all working people to see, hence the reluctance of their western leaders to back Americas plans due to the lack of public support. However, the thought of losing out on the ‘spoils of war’ is not something which the European ‘puppet states’ would ideally wish to contemplate and there is no doubt that this will happen if America goes it alone. Much deliberation will therefore take place over how to present an acceptable propaganda ‘package’ to mislead and delude working people into backing the warmongers. The hired hacks in the media will be utilised to the full to dutifully put forward their master’s propaganda message, as and when required. This is already in full flow, particularly in America, with the usual standard list of self-serving neo-con pundits on CNN and Fox News.

Let’s be clear that this redivision of the middle east arises from a conflict of opposing and competing ruling elites between these respective countries, and also at the world scale the need to expand American ruling elite interests. The consequent impact is the mass slaughter being borne by ordinary working people. Those who stand to gain the most are the US Corporations, banks and military manufacturers and their hangers on, and to a lesser extent the Saudi and Israeli ruling elite. However, notwithstanding how events unfold in future weeks and months, America’s credibility and standing will never recover. The G20 Summit illustrated how the rest of the world has caught on to the west and its leaders, and are no longer prepared to play a supporting role in further illegal wars.

Russia, China and some emerging South American countries are now in a position to be economically independent from the dollar standard and their economies are built on stronger foundations, thanks to the American export of jobs and expertise to those countries. This now leaves the American economy in an extremely fragile position with major budget deficits, bankruptcies of major cities such as Detroit, once a manufacturing powerhouse, and a lack of social cohesion.

There is no way back for America now, its weakness having been exposed, and it is clear that its aspirations for world hegemony cannot be realised and will not be accepted by other world players. How much longer will it be before America accepts this fact?

ANGUS CLARK

Swinson's Rung

Article on the Government's Syrian war defeat and its implications for Jo Swinson by SSP Campsie member Neil Scott.

The Libdems who voted for war seem to have changed their minds about capital punishment-or does it not count if the criminals are arabs?

'Kill the bad arabs, but reduced jail sentences for those who have family who might vote for us.'

Another principle floated down the Swannee for another rung up the sleazy, greasy pole for some of the right wing cabal who planned and instigated the coup against the "left" social democrats who had boosted their party through the 90's and 2000's and turned it into a viable force.

Read more of the article here...

Local press article on SSP Campsie war intervention...

CLICK HERE

Also covered by Newsnet Scotland

CLICK HERE

SSP Campsie plea to Minister

SSP Campsie members Neil Scott and Angus Clark delivering a letter on behalf of local Socialists urging  Jo Swinson MP and Tory/Liberal Democrat coalition Minister to vote against murderous military intervention that is being promoted by Tory Prime Minister David Cameron. The letter can be read here

No to war in #Syria

Open letter from Campsie Socialists to Jo Swinson:

Dear Jo Swinson

We understand that Parliament is to be reconvened this Thursday in order for the Prime Minister to put forward a case for intervention in the dreadful Syrian Civil War.  This comes on the back of the US and UK governments already supplying help to the opposition forces – forces that include groups that are linked with terrorism across the world. 

This is a war that has on both sides, what MP Paul Flynn has described as “evil fanatics.”  He has warned that this civil war with large economic powers at loggerheads supporting different outcomes, could very quickly escalate into a regional war and, dreadful to think, a world war.

The use of chemical weapons, and the TV images of this dreadful incident, is abhorrent. But this act of mass murder should not be used as a reason for military intervention that will only make living in that region much more dangerous.  Military intervention will only displace millions more people and lead to many more people losing their lives.

The interventions in the Middle East, and especially in strategic and resource rich countries, is reminiscent of the build up to the situations that led to the two world wars in the early twentieth century.  After both world wars, the middle-east was carved up in the interests of the imperial powers – not of the people in the region.  What happens in Syria in the coming weeks will have huge implications in countries, including ours, across the world as the world powers line up to carve out what the unrest in the Middle East allows them to. 

Western intervention never works, is always self-serving and always increases human suffering.  This should be the lesson of history you take with you to the chamber on Thursday.

Please act with the evidence of history, please act with principle and please act with compassion.  We should not be backing war in this region.

Campsie Branch (East Dunbartonshire) SSP