Open Letter to local Labour Party activists

from Willie Telfer, SSP Campsie Strathkelvin Organiser

Many groupings look to their elders for sage advice on the future. This should be the case in relation to local labour activists approaching the independence referendum next year.

Willie Telfer (left) "Labour Party activists would do well to listen to Canavan and Charlie Gray - stalwarts of long standing commitment to true 'Labour' values."

Look at the position of the once giants of the local Labour party, Dennis Canavan and Charlie Gray. Names from the local past when a labour party branch was an integral part of the life of every town and village in Strathkelvin, where the pursuit through representation of social justice provoked large numbers of ordinary folk to become active to ensure their election to Westminster and to the Strathclyde region.

With their experience and their long standing commitment to true Labour values surely the modern day Labour activist would be well advised to listen to them on independence. Denis is of course a national co-chair for a Yes vote and is proving a powerful advocate who is respected by all in Scottish politics, he links independence  with the opportunity to build a progressive society which could show the way for other progressive forces in UK . Gray would agree with that opportunity,though his recent declaration for independence is perhaps more targeted at the heart and soul of Scottish Labour and those activists that still carry the torch for socialism in an organization embarrassed by the very word.

The fact is that the Labour party in an independent Scotland would and should go back to being the mass party of the people,of the working class. It would be free of the shackles of chasing the minds of middle England, placating the Sun, the Mail and the Express, Old Scottish labour values for Scottish people, I believe they would see a regeneration of activism as they rediscover the cause.

The recent white paper on independence shows at present that amongst the larger parties the SNP have at least a decent idea of politics for a cause and in coalition with the SSP, the Greens and other forces on the left, the message of a fairer more just Scotland will gain the day.

I say the only place for a true socialist to be,no matter which party banner they fly, is in the yes camp. Don't take my word for it comrades, Canavan and Gray are calling you again to build a better country and to save the soul of the Scottish Labour party itself.

Yes Scotland: a 16 year old writes...

Saying Yes to Scottish Independence: An opportunity for social justice.

16 year old Michael Scott, who will vote in next year's Independence referendum, writes about why he will vote YES.

Work as if you live in the early days of a better nation - Alasdair Gray[1]

Do you want the chance to create a better Scotland? In the 2014 referendum on independence you’ll get that opportunity. Given the choice, I for one will be saying yes. Too many important matters are still controlled, and I would argue controlled badly, by Westminster. The democratic deficit and the ever-growing chasm between the values of the MPs in London and the people of Scotland are now impossible to ignore. Independence offers the possibility of a different political road; the case for change is strong.

First and foremost there is a lack of democracy for Scottish voters within the current political union. Over the last 30 years we have been governed, more often than not, by a political party which the majority of people didn’t vote for. In the most recent general election, only 11% of those eligible to vote in Scotland voted for the Conservative Party and only 23% voted for the Conservatives and Liberals combined[2]. The House of Commons’ report, on the 2010 general election results, notes the “complete detachment”2(p14) of Scotland from political trends in England and Wales. This political detachment is both determined by and reflected in the different socioeconomic values displayed by Westminster and Holyrood.

A number of important matters of government are already devolved including education and health and where we have had the power to make our own decisions we have chosen radically different policies. A good example of this is the difference between the management of the NHS in Scotland compared with what is happening to the NHS in England following the introduction of the new Health and Social Care Act. While the former Scottish Secretary of State for Health has categorically stated her opposition to private sector involvement in healthcare[3], the new English health act has sown the seeds of privatisation within the NHS in England[4]. Similarly in education there is a distinct difference in attitudes towards undergraduate tuition fees between the two governments. On the one hand, First Minister Alex Salmond has been unequivocal in his opposition to fees stating “The rocks will melt with the sun before I allow tuition fees to be imposed on Scottish students”[5] while on the other hand the Coalition government has allowed universities in the rest of the UK to charge fees of up to £9000 a year.[6]

Unfortunately however, under devolution a number of significant matters are still controlled by Westminster including the economy, welfare, and defence. Although Scotland has a traditional commitment to centre left political parties2, lack of control over these important areas means that substantial parts of our society can be determined by policies that the majority of the population are unlikely to agree with. For example, it is hard to imagine the combination of swingeing cuts to the welfare budget affecting the most vulnerable in our society[7] and reduction of the top rate of tax for high earners[8] being popular with the majority of Scottish voters. Similarly it has been estimated that 73% of Scots are opposed to government plans to renew Trident. And yet, these decisions and other important matters are imposed on us by a government which less than a quarter of the eligible Scottish electorate has voted for.


Finally, I would like to allay some of the main fears surrounding independence. The three main arguments against Scottish Independence seem to consist of us being too small, too stupid and too poor to stand on our own two feet.[9] Let me tackle each of these in turn. First, as to being too small, we don’t have to look too far afield to see many small countries prospering. A prime example of this would be Norway, which, like Scotland, has a population of about 5 million and off shore oil. However, unlike Scotland, Norway has complete control of the revenue of its oil resource and as a result has been able to use the accumulated surplus (approx £368bn) as a pension fund.[10] Another example of a small economy thriving is that of Iceland, which, with a population of just over 300,000, is bucking the European trend in terms of economic recovery from the financial crisis.[11]

 Secondly with respect to being too inexperienced to run our own affairs I’d argue that we already run many important national matters from Holyrood successfully including health, education and justice.

 Thirdly, as to us being too poor, a recent New Statesman article stated “not only does Scotland more than pay its way in the Union, but its overall fiscal position would actually be stronger as a fully sovereign nation”[12] The author of this article goes on to point out that although Scots represent just 8.4% of the UK’s total population they contribute 9.4% to its tax revenues which is equivalent to an extra £1000 for every person in Scotland relative to the contribution of others in the UK.

 An argument against Scottish Independence with which I do have sympathy is that it will ultimately decrease the chance of achieving a more socially democratic society on a UK wide basis. In the short-term I appreciate that the loss of Scottish voters may result in an increased proportion of right wing political representatives in the UK parliament. However, in the longer term I hope that having a neighbouring, flourishing, social democratic society may more powerfully change political attitudes across the rest of the UK than we have been able to do in recent years.

In conclusion, I would argue that fear of change is the only thing holding us back. Some change however, is good; and if we work as if we are in the early days of a better nation then this change will be for the good and the opportunity to create a more socially just society will be realised.




REFERENCES

[1] Gray A. Work as if you live in the early days of a better nation. Herald Scotland. May 5 2007. http://www.heraldscotland.com/work-as-if-you-live-in-the-early-days-of-a-better-nation-1.827519 (accessed 15 September 2012).


[2] Electoral Reform Society. The UK General Election 2010: In depth. House of Commons. 2010.


[3] Torrance D. Scottish Health Secretary: England will end NHS as we know it. The Guardian. March 22 2012 http://www.guardian.co.uk/healthcare-network/2011/mar/22/scottish-health-secretary-england-ending-nhs (accessed 15 September 2012)


[4] Campbell D. BMA's new leader: 'There's no evidence that a part-privatised NHS runs better'. The Guardian. August 31 2012. http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/aug/31/bma-leader-nhs-privatisation (accessed 15 September 2012)


[5] BBC News. SNP Conference: Salmond in free education pledge. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-12711509 (accessed 15 September 2012)


[6] BBC News. Students face tuition fees rising to £9000. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-11677862 (accessed 15 September 2012)


[7] UN urged to monitor welfare cuts. The HeraldScotland. September 21 2012. http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/un-urged-to-monitor-welfare-cuts.18934095 (accessed 21 September 2012)


[8] Stewart H. Budget 2012: 50p tax rate scrapped and allowance raised. The Guardian. March 21 2012 http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/mar/21/budget-2012-50p-tax-rate-scrapped-allowances (accessed 15 September 2012)


[9]Scottish Independence: It’ll Cost You. The Economist. http://www.economist.com/node/21552564 (accessed 21 September 2012)


[10]Wikipedia. The Government Pension Fund of Norway. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Government_Pension_Fund_of_Norway (accessed 21 September 2012)


[11] Lyall S. A Bruised Iceland Heals Amid Europe’s Malaise. New York Times. July 12 2012. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/08/world/europe/icelands-economy-is-mending-amid-europes-malaise.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 (accessed 21 September 2012).


[12] Maxwell J. Enough of The Scottish subsidy myth. The New Statesman. November 06 2011. http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2011/11/scotland-12288-union-public (accessed 21 September 2012).

Despite New Labour divisive words, Glasgow Hiroshima commemoration retains dignity

a personal view, by Campsie SSP member Neil Scott (@nwsocialist)

Tonight across Scotland, Peace activists commemorated the dreadful mass murder of over 200,000 Japanese children, women and men by the US use of nuclear weapons during the closing weeks of World War 2.  These weapons did not- and do not- distinguish between civilians and military, nor do they distinguish between BAE / Serco/ G4s shareholders, workers, politicians, soldiers nor peace protestors.

These weapons have been used in conflict twice in history, by the USA, and are weapons of mass murder that no sane person will ever use, yet in these times of Tory and Liberal Democrat cuts, all three main unionist parties in Westminster support their estimated at least £65-100 billion replacement and upgrade.

All of the UK's nuclear weapons- around 200 of them, each with power at least eight times that of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs are all housed 30 miles from Glasgow on the Clyde.

Tonight I joined with SSP Campsie members and peace protestors from CND to walk from the peace tree in Botanic Gardens to the peace tree in Kelvingrove Park.

The demonstration was dignified- poetry was read and a Scottish woman who had family friends killed by the dreadful weapon laid chrysanthemums in memory of those she had known.

Speakers from across the political benches spoke of their want for a nuclear free world. Most agreed with the CND stance that a yes in next years referendum would rid Scotland- and most probably by example lead to the disarming of the rest of the British isles and beyond.

Bill Butler, New Labour Councillor, caused discord during an empty New Labour speech heavy on meaningless spun buzz words.  He expressed how New Labour agreed with the Liberal Democrat and Tory Westminster coalition partners nuclear stance. He blindly quoted the no campaign partners policy of using nukes as bargaining chips. 

Pulling the independence referendum debate further into the no campaign gutter, he accused previous fellow Councillor speakers Green Party representative Martha Wardrop ( @MarthaWardrop ) and SNP representative Feargal Dalton ( @PartickFeargal ) & @ScottishCND of "infantilism"for their support of a Yes next year.

But most disgustingly of all he twisted the words of Nagasaki and Hiroshima politicians to make it sound that they supported Westminster rule.

CND organiser, Brian Quail, along with SSP members, voiced thei disgust and anger at Butler's divisive speech.

Despite Butlers bitter words, the dignity and integrity of the principled commemoration shone through.

90 year old CND peace activist and Scottish Socialist Party member Ron Mackay rounded the demonstration off with protest music on his saxaphone.

For more details on anti nuclear demonstration and activity, check www.banthebomb.org and https://www.facebook.com/sspcndnetwork

Campsie Socialist dates for your diary

Campsie Socialists met today and organised dates for people to add to their diaries - some especially pertinent if you are in the Kirkintilloch area.

Most importantly, the group are screening the Ken Loach film,  "The Spirit of 45" on 5 October - venue and time to be confirmed.

We will also be running two stalls to gather signatures for a petition against the dreadful bedroom tax (more HERE from Richie Venton) - both in Kirkintilloch - 31st August and 14th September at 11am outside The Regents' Centre.  We will also have YES declarations - your chance to sign up to show you will be voting YES in the independence referendum next year!

We will also be leafleting invitations throughout Kirkintilloch - delivering them to houses - in the leadup to the screening of the film - so please - if you would like to help, email us eastdunbartonshiressp@hotmail.co.uk or contact @the_ssp_ on twitter or contact us via Facebook - SSP mainpage or Campsie Socialists on Facebook.

We also spoke about the rally for Scottish Independence in Edinburgh on 21st September and a number of Campsie members will be travelling through with our banners!


You can join the SSP HERE

recent SSP anti-Bedroom Tax public meeting

Yes to Independence! Yes to a nuclear free Scotland!

Visit Faslane  Peace Camp

The Trident nuclear weapons system is based at Faslane on the Clyde.

This June sees the 31st anniversary of the Faslane Peace Camp.

The SSP locally are organising a solidarity trip to the Peace Camp on 28 June. Get in touch via our website or email address(eastdunbartonshiressp@hotmail.co.uk) if you would like to come along—all welcome!
Entertainment from Acting Strange Theatre company, Rosie Kane, Citizen Smart and others!
Marie Collins will play at the camp again this year - this was her performance last year...

Trident is the UK nuclear weapons system

There are 4 nuclear submarines

Each sub has 8 missiles

Each missile can have 5 nuclear warheads (bombs)

Each bomb is 8 times as destructive as the Hiroshima bomb

In 1945, at Hiroshima, more than 140,000 civilians were killed

Nuclear weapons are immoral

Over the next 30 years, the UK Government wants to spend around £100 billion on a new Trident system

An independent Scotland would be nuclear free!

The setting up of a Scottish Parliament was a small step forward. But the big decisions that affect Scotland are still taken elsewhere.

Our elected parliament is powerless to stop young Scottish soldiers dying in the killing fields of Afghanistan.

It cannot tackle pensioner poverty or increase the pitifully low minimum wage. It has no control over the monstrous nuclear weapons of mass destruction stationed on the Clyde.

Our aim is to transform Scotland into an outward-looking, 21st century socialist democracy that puts people before profit.

Scotland is a wealthy country with a skilled, educated workforce and natural resources in abundance. 

Yet we live in a country that is scarred by poverty, low pay, decaying public services, sub-standard housing, ill health, crime, alcohol and hard drug abuse.

That’s because we have no real control over our own resources. Our land is owned by aristocratic lairds and absentee landlords.

Our oil, gas, electricity and transport are owned by business tycoons. Our financial institutions are controlled by millionaire bankers.

The SSP wants to build a new, socialist Scotland - a Scotland based on the principles of equality, peace, freedom, direct democracy, diversity, social ownership and wealth redistribution.

What are you doing on 21st September?

#indyref #yesscot

Independence:

SSP Campsie blogger, Neil Scott "Labour Commentators Are Wrong to Pull Independence Debate Ultra-Right" HERE via @huffingtonpost

Scotland's Currency

in support of Colin Fox's blogpiece

 

by Bill Newman

 

 

Suddenly everyone wants to speculate on what form an independent Scotland's currency should take and it is not surprising that the No campaign should use its usual scare tactics to frighten the electorate. It is nonsense to pretend that an independent Scotland would be compelled to use the Euro, just as it is absurd to insist that a link to the sterling would inevitably mean that an independent Scotland would necessitate an economic policy beholden to Westminster.

However, it has been unwise of the SNP to insist that an independent Scotland would continue to use the pound sterling, dependent on the monetary policy pursued by the Bank of England (and, inevitably, to Westminster). Even if the English authorities were to acquiesce to a Scottish Government's request for a member on the Bank of England's Monetary Policy Committee, is it seriously believed that such a presence would make the slightest difference to policy decisions? Indeed, Scotland' s monetary policy decisions would have to be those determined by the Bank of England (and, again, inevitably, by Westminster). It's true that Scotland would be able to make its own fiscal policy, but fiscal policy is heavily dependent on monetary policy.

There are, though they are unsurprisingly not publicly stated, good reasons why Westminster would want to continue to dominate Scotland's economic policy decisions through monetary ties. There can be no doubt that the UK's balance of payments would suffer drastically without Scotland and some continued hold on Scotland's monetary policy would at least alleviate a crisis in confidence in sterling. But why should Scotland not want to sever formal links to the Rest of the UK's currency when its external balances would be so far superior to the RUK's? For the Scottish government to demand such an unwise subservience to an English currency in these circumstances seems perverse, and not all nationalists agree with this stance. Margo McDonald has expressed a wish for an initial parity link with sterling and it is such an informal link that makes sense. The arguments put forward by Gordon Macintyre Kemp and the eminent economists cited in newsnet Scotland for a continued link with the pound sterling are compelling, not least as a free-floating Scottish currency would appreciate rapidly on positive prospects for Scotland's current account of the Balance of Payments, damaging prospects for Scotland's exports and tourist earnings, but any such tie need not be formal or depend on the whims of the Bank of England. An informal link by an independent country of its currency to another or to a basket of other currencies is by no means uncommon and would seem to be, at least as an interim measure, the most sensible course for an independent Scotland to take. Certainly, Scotland would need an independent Currency Board of its own with powers determined by the Scottish Government. Given the scale of Scotland-RUK economic transactions and a rational desire not to disrupt such transactions, then an initial establishment of parity between a Scottish currency and a RUK pound would seem sensible, at least in the short to medium term. What future arrangements could be made with the Bank of England and the Westminster government could happily be left to time and the development of relations between the two states.

Colin Fox was, of course right, in his recent blog to point out that there are no simple, infallible solutions to the establishment of a future Scottish currency. He was also right to mention that any of the possibilities being currently discussed are all within the framework of a capitalist economy within a capitalist world, but that is the present reality of Scotland's situation and practical solutions are needed to practical questions. In these circumstances, the establishment of an independent currency linked for the time being to the pound sterling would seem to be the best solution for an independent Scotland.

Bill Newman spent most of his working life in banking, latterly as head of economics and then as Assistant General Manager of a City of London bank. For some 15 years he was also editor of and wrote for a journal on international monetary economics.

He has an interest in African matters, having been responsible for economic and political reporting on sub-Saharan Africa for Westminster Bank and writing for some years for the Europa Yearbook on Somalia and Ethiopia.

He was also on the Executive Committee and the Management Committee of the Banking, Insurance and Finance Union (BIFU) and a delegate to the TUC.

Singing Down the Government!

Celebrating the Scottish Socialist Party, 2013

 

Conference TODAY - Saturday 20th April, 10am, Augustine United Church, Edinburgh.

Join the revolution!

The SSP say Scrap Trident!

A large contingient of SSP members and supporters marched in support if the calls to Scrap Trident today in Glasgow.

SSP co-convenor, Sandra Webster said, "It is so inspiring to see so many people fighting for the future of our country. This proves we are a caring nation. No-one in Scotland would want our nation to be the launch-pad for weapons that could annihilate entire cities of poor and working people.

"A Yes vote in the referendum next year will, I am convinced, mean the eradication of nuclear weapons from the British Isles, and quite possibly, Europe!"

Scottish Socialist Party Conference

- Saturday 20th April, 10am, Augustine United Church, Edinburgh.

Join the revolution!

One reason why I support Independence...

By Neil Scott, Campsie Branch.

How do I explain my want for an independent Scotland? Ok. Lets do that using one example. Excess.

It's clear I am a socialist, so surplus in my independent Scotland would be used to ensure those with little access to something they need, get it. Excess or surplus or profit would not bolster the bank accounts of those who have so much they will never use it.

In Scotland, over 2000 people MORE die in the four winter months than they do in the previous four and the following four. A lot of those deaths are because of hypothermia in the home. This is in a country in which we have an excess of oil and an excess of electricity produced. This surplus is not given to our pensioners and poor to ensure they live through these harsh Scottish months. Both are sold in London or through a majority of London based companies for the profit boosting of the top six power companies who make more than £30 billion a year to cushion billionaires from the harsh winters on their yachts in the Carribean or at the most local, their well heated second, third or forth homes they keep in Scotland for the Grouse shoot or a wee visit at Hogmanay.

£30 billion a year that is mostly generated in Scotland through our excess of power. And this figure does not factor in the oil drained from our shores to bolster those bank accounts of the millionaires and billionaires who can afford to invest in the oil companies. Money they will in all probability never spend, while the lives of the poor and old are sacrificed.

Fighting this greed and fighting to share out our plentiful resources to ensure people have better, longer and more productive lives has not happened with Scotland in the UK. The UK is not OK for Scotand's vulnerable.

Scotland has voted continuously and decisively for a more socially just system since the days of Thatcher and before. But what have we had? Our budgets and welfare controlled by the Tories, Liberal Democrats and New Labour- all who have deep relationships with the power and oil profiteers.

None of the above really want to ensure our pensioners and vulnerable are safe and warm. In fact all of the above support welfare cuts and bleeding more money from the most vulnerable of our people in order to boost profits and pay off bankers.

Can staying in the UK change this? The evidence of the past forty years is evidence itself.

Can an Independent Scotland change this? I believe so, as the people of Scotland have been proven to vote for fairness and increasingly so, from election to election.

My reasons why Scotland should be independent

Mark Callaghan, Lennoxtown.

 

Due to the slavish following of neo-liberal economy policies over the last 30 years by governments of all shades, the British economy is now over-dependent on one very precarious and inefficient sector. The powers that be seem unwilling to prevent this.  By its very nature free-market capitalism is a reactive rather than pro-active system, short term with no contingency for long or even mid-term planning, so we are doomed to be adrift and to be engulfed by any tsunamis that come our way if we stay part of the union. We will get steadily worse and worse off - even those at the top of the tree due to this seeming blindness to the fact that the system that they espouse is based on a premise which is disastrous on any reckoning.

In an independent Scotland we will have the foresight to introduce some sort of planning into the economy, so as to help us diversify the economic base that we have to cope with the waves of terror-filled scenarios dreamed up by those who are opposed to this idea.

 

Secondly, our historic system of society were very different, i.e the feudal system was a very top-down one whereas the clan system was much more communal in basis.

Why I am voting Yes

Workers for independence 

By Richie Venton, shop stewards convenor & SSP national workplace organiser


Low paid workers often ask me 'would we be any better off under independence'? That's the kind of issue we need to convince people on if we are to win a Yes vote.

The 'Bitter' Together's poster boy, Alistair Darling, has issued dire warnings that those of us supporting independence threaten our children with a very uncertain future. 

The vast army of workers struggling to survive on or around the pathetic £6.19 minimum wage are guaranteed the certainty of more of the same exploitation and in-work poverty under Westminster's dictatorship of the rich...which guarantees children a very certain future of cruel, crushing poverty.

And that's the case regardless of whether it's Tory, LibDem or Labour in charge.
Low pay is the single biggest cause of poverty. The SSP's fight for a national minimum wage calculated as two-thirds average male earnings - over £9 an hour in current figures - for all over 16, with equal pay for women, requires the powers that go with independence. 

Likewise if workers are to escape the most repressive workplace laws in western Europe - ushered in by Thatcher's Tories, retained by New Labour, made even worse by Cameron and Clegg's millionaire regime, and left unchallenged by Miliband's Labour - we need the independent powers to scrap them and set an international example of decent rights at work.

Tackling poverty pay, fuel poverty, job insecurity, public service cuts and the brutal assault on benefits all require powers for change that only independence offers - such as the powers to tax the rich and big business; take banks, big enterprises, energy and transport into democratic public ownership, and radically redistribute wealth. 

But merely swapping flags and emblems; switching from rule by the Bank of England to rule by the Bank of Scotland (or both!); swapping being exploited by tax-dodging, profiteering British bosses for their tartan-clad and multinational capitalist counterparts inspires nobody. 

That's why socialism and independence are inseparable. The goal of an independent socialist Scotland which the SSP has fought for since our formation 14years ago will attract workers to voting Yes - where the SNP leadership's "nothing will really change" message is a downright put-off. 

And a Yes vote will greatly speed up the prospects of socialism in Scotland. Workers need independence and socialism.

Why I support an independent Scotland

by 89 year old retired teacher, Ron Mackay

When asked why I wish for an independent Scotland I find it difficult to give a short answer – there are so many reasons. 

There's been a long tradition, going back beyond Burns favouring Scottish independence while maintaining an international outlook. 

“Man to man the world o'er should brothers be for aw' that.” 

Defending welfare programs and promoting genuine socialist policies would be much more possible for an independent Scottish Parliament. 

Some of the policies of the SNP I object to but the opposition to weapons of mass destruction and the call for full independence have my full support . I oppose war – all wars and see a nation free of all nuclear weapons as a progressive step in the struggle for peace in the world. 

The big powers all have major economic problems. We've had two world wars where the big powers sought to solve economic problems by resort to war. 

For the sake of the whole of humanity this situation must not be allowed to develop again. Scotland, a small nation dedicated to peace, could play it's part.

Watch:  A time lapse map of every nuclear blast since 1945.  A compelling yet horrific video... 

YES for a confident, fair, Independent Scotland!

Click HERE to sign the declaration

Slactivism, Bono, Tax and Kony

Huffington Post article by SSP Campsie member, Neil Scott

Pictures by Gwen Penner

Until recently I didn't fully understand the danger suggested by the term "slactivism."

What is slactivism?

Slactivism is someone who jumps from cause to cause - each cause being, to the slactivist, as worthy as the next. The term could, at its least dangerous, be given to those who loosely link causes together and change focus regularly. Each cause is, on the surface, one that can be supported by activists, each cause bringing with it a new meme or a new trendy logo and visuals. It brings with it a kind of "altruistic street-cred." A selfish altruism.

But its seeming legitimacy is its inherent danger as imperialist governments and oil companies take advantage of the slactivist's lack of focus and in depth critical thinking.

White teeshirts and tax evasion

Back in 2005, we were told that clicking our fingers would "Make Poverty History." Bob Geldof, aproven tax dodger, made us feel guilty. Of course his altruism does not extend to the poor in his own adopted home - welfare projects and education and health benefit lightly from his taxes as he has found out how to hide money in properties purchased abroad. Bono and his pompous band are the same - Ireland is in huge crises - poverty in his own country is increasing hugely, but to him, his tax millions are better in his own offshore accounts.

Slactivists clicked fingers, pounded the streets of Edinburgh, listened to Annie Lennox and wore white shirts.

Geldof labelled anti-poverty demonstrators "good and bad," to refer to the rubber wrist band wearing MTV slactivist as opposed to the anti-poverty groups that had been lobbying the capitalist governments of the world for years. Good = concert goer, bad = poverty groups demonstrating near the G8 summit.

REST OF THEARTICLE HERE

Local teacher, Neil Scott to stand in Bearsden North in May's council election

Statement:

“East Dunbartonshire has, in recent years, had the misfortune of having had a Liberal Democrat Council followed by a coalition of Labour and Tories. The mishandling of the council by these three versions of the same thing has seen an attempt to close schools in the past two years; terrible deals with corporations that have meant millions of pounds of our Council Tax money being given over to massive PPP/PFI “Guaranteed returns on investment” for minimum outlay; a decimation of our local services from Libraries through to schools, and more. If any of these parties gain the council in May, there will be more of the same, and in fact the deferred closure of East Dunbartonshire Schools will go ahead.

 As a father and a teacher I have a different vision for East Dunbartonshire services. Our area is a well off council area, one in which money could be invested in our services rather than further job-losses and cuts. I see a clear need to renegotiate PPP/PFI deals. Some of these venture capitalists are making millions of pounds of our tax money with investments of a few hundred pounds. I see East Dunbartonshire being a place of opportunity for all; a place where our money is invested in real jobs and services which will help stimulate the Scottish economy. The real drivers of any economy are people. The profits creamed off by corporations from our Council tax should be reclaimed and invested in real jobs and in our people.”

Scottish Independence - the Chelsea set accuse Scotland of "Munching through taxes like deep-fried Mars-bars..."

In reaction to this article in the "Kensington and Chelsea Today" newspaper, Dave Coull wrote the following response on Facebook. With his kind permission, I reproduce this below.

 "Some towns got big because they produced something. For instance, Bradford's textile mills, Stoke-on-Trent's potteries, Birmingham's engineering workshops, Sheffield's fine quality steel products, Glasgow's shipbuilding, and so on. Other towns got big because the king was there. London is a town that got big because the king was there.

By the beginning of modern times London was already big. The formation of the United Kingdom made it even bigger. Precisely BECAUSE it was the centre of government, it became the "centre" of the biggest free trade area in all of Europe, and the capital of the most highly centralised state in all of Europe. The growth of the British Empire made it also the centre of government of the biggest empire on Earth. Even after the Empire became the Commonwealth, London remained the centre of the Sterling area. The centre of the world empire remained a centre of world business out of sheer force of habit, because businessmen for the most part lack the imagination to do things differently.

London remained a centre of world banking, a centre for the offices of multi-national companies, and all of this happened because, to begin with, the king was there. So the government was there. So all the companies who wanted to get contracts from the government were there. This process is continuing to this very day. Many, many billions of pounds of OUR money is being spent on glorifying London still further for the Olympics.

Of course they will try to tell you it is for the benefit of all of us, but the truth is, the Olympics are for the benefit of London. I lived in London for twelve years, working as a bricklayer. That's a useful job, you might think. But what was I building? Sometimes it was office blocks for the millions of pen-pushing bureaucrats. Sometimes it was houses for the millions of pen-pushing bureaucrats. Sometimes it was houses for the people who provided services for the millions of pen-pushing bureaucrats.

Hardly anybody at all in London actually PRODUCES anything at all. They are all there because the government is there. This entire mega city is just one great big pile of bureaucracy. This idiot claims their taxes subsudize us. The truth is, everybody in London is subsidized by the taxes paid by the rest of the UK."

Dave Coull was born in 1941, and left school to start full time work at the age of 15. He worked at many different jobs, always for a weekly wage rather than a salary, and mostly in the building industry, as a bricklayer. Dave has been active in various campaigns but has always avoided joining any political party (unless you count anarchists as a party). While acting as a site steward for building workers in London, Dave was sacked, which led to a (successful) unofficial strike by his fellow workers for his reinstatement. Nowadays Dave has slowed down a bit and tends to feel it’s mostly up to younger folk to carry on the fight.

Attacking Teachers Professionalism...

A teacher's response to McCormac's review of Scottish Education...

Prior to the findings of the McCormac review I feared the worst. The reality is somewhat different; the 35 hour week survives (in theory) and the need for preparation time is acknowledged. However, to accept McCormac on a superficial level, and regard it as an innocuous document, would be naïve. The cynic in me says that it is both a monstrous perversion of the English language and a pernicious attack upon our conditions.

My fears stem from the sheer number of contradictions contained in the report. The document claims to advance teacher professionalism. Introducing unqualified staff does not advance professionalism; it is the very opposite. Introducing a convoluted system of calculating class contact time will not be “flexible”- it will be exploitative. On the one hand it claims to want an end to hour counting; on the other, having to calculate their contact time on an annual basis will leave teachers with the choice of counting or being exploited. You can only fear the worse when they claim that they want teachers to be more “mobile”. What does that mean? Greater employment instability? More short-term contracts? In an attempt to simultaneously attack conditions yet be inoffensive to teachers, McCormac has ended up as a report that in many instances simply doesn’t make sense.

There is a saying that ‘if it ain’t broke don’t fix it’. Industrial relations in teaching have enjoyed a harmonious period during the last ten years. The report even acknowledges this. It states that Scotland has “a well-qualified and committed teaching profession that provides a positive and stimulating environment for young people's learning”. Nonetheless, the authors have launched a sustained attack on teachers, their conditions and, the corollary of attacking either of these two, the welfare of young people.

The McCormac Review’s official title is Advancing Professionalism in Teaching. The irony is that by scrapping the Chartered Teacher Scheme, and introducing non-qualified staff, the report is in fact eroding professionalism in teaching. From the outset the report exudes an arrogant assumption that only management control – as opposed to teacher autonomy – can offer greater professionalism. The proposed end of the right for staff to work off-site is indicative of this; the implication being that we are not professional enough to work outwith the guise of management.

54% of responses to the McCormac review felt that Annex E should not be revised. By this, the report acknowledges that a majority of respondents do not feel that teachers should be carrying out any of the duties in Annex E. So, in what must considered a wholly disproportionate act, McCormac has recommended axing Annex E altogether.

There are a handful of positives that can be taken. The introduction of a national system for annual review will be a relief to those of us who have had to negotiate the dissimilar ways in which respective local authorities handle these matters. CPD requirements will be linked to this system. However, it is not clear what the report’s proposed changes to CPD will look like in practice.

Probationers will remain on the same contact time but it is calculated over a four week period. This potentially opens the way for probationers being taken for cover. This forces the probationer to hour count, keep a log of when they are taken for cover, so as to prevent management from exploiting them. Once again we face hour counting.

Unqualified staff are to be allowed to work with classes on their own given the assent of the Headteacher. The GTCS are to approve which unqualified individuals are allowed to do this, but by using the money that we pay them each year. In other words, we are paying for a move that could potentially lead to our own job losses. In another of the report’s wonderful contradictions, it is interesting to note that unqualified staff are to be allowed to look after children unsupervised, but experienced classroom teachers will not even be allowed off-site to complete their marking!

Advancing Professionalism in Teaching, is a misnamed, misguided and for the most part unnecessary document. It has been composed to ensure that Scotland’s local authorities fall into line with David Cameron’s sustained assault upon the public sector. The changes to working hours will allow authorities to hire fewer staff. As with all decisions in the public sector nowadays, its recommendations are driven by cost; the welfare of young people is afforded only lip service. However, in a rather perverse way, we are lucky. While London governs in a dictatorial fashion, in Scotland the authorities have to proceed with caution. McCormac is not as detrimental as it could have been, but it is far from an encouraging development for the teaching profession in Scotland.