MY first taste of Scottish, left-wing politics occurred in the late 1960s, on a bus travelling down to a major demonstration in London. We were as mixed a delight as any sweetie shop of the time could offer. Somewhere on the M1 a fracas erupted in the rear of the bus. Whether it was over some point of ideology or a stray Maoist had made some indecent proposal to one of the Marxist-Leninist shop workers, we’ll never know.
A young and very well-meaning Trotskyist student ran into the fray shouting “Comrades! Solidarity on the Left!”. His message was summarily ended by an Amalgamated Engineers fist in the face. The bus slewed to a halt and an enraged but pragmatic Labour Party and TGWU bus driver told the assembled company that it was his bus, he had the keys and that the combatants were free to carry on the battle – outside, while he drove on to London.
Exhausted, bruised and bloodied, our cadre did not distinguish itself at all well in the next day’s forthcoming clashes. Bit of a pantomime really!
In 1776 during the American War of Independence, the 21-year-old, Nathaniel Hale 1776 was executed. His executioners reported that he was calm and clear as he went to the scaffold. His reported last words, “I only regret that I have but one life to lose for my country”. A true patriot, ready to forgo the personal necessities of the present for the greater cause, “the struggle… for a vast future”.
Only after Yorktown and the surrender of Cornwallis 1781 did the Americans celebrate the establishment of a democratic republic, by getting ripped into one another at the polls – they’ve been at it ever since.
Having taken the Bastille, dispensed with the monarchy and declared the new republic, the Girondins and Jacobins gaily tore into one another. The pattern seems clear. Eliminate the enemy, establish your independence and then sort out the internal factions.
As an ordinary punter, most desirous of Scottish independence, I feel that I’m on that London-bound bus again. Faced by the most right wing and tragically inept UK government (since 1776?) what kind of pantomime are our lead politicians enacting here?
My question to you Mr Salmond is this: How does this rancorous conflict you are now engaged in further the cause of independence? Where does this legal crusade – however justified – fit into the greater struggle for a vast future?
Lewis Waugh
Portobello
DISINFORMATION is false or misleading information that is spread deliberately to deceive.
The rich and powerful in England have been perfecting the art of disinformation since the days of Cardinal Wolsey and independence campaigners are facing it again today.
We saw the effectiveness of 21st century techniques against their own people – convincing more than half to vote for Brexit. Remember such promises as 350 million a week for the NHS?
Mixing of truths, half-truths and outright lies makes knowing who, and what, to believe very difficult.
But you judge people by their actions – not their deceitful promises.
The people of Scotland remember the lies you told in 2014. We remember every single broken promise of The Vow.
Throw as much misinformation against us as you like, for it will make no difference. We have already made up our minds and are immune to your lies.
We will never trust you again.
Alan Surgener
Ayr
ANDREW Tickell’s analysis of the legal complications of the Salmond enquiry in the Sunday National was very informative. I would like to read a similar analysis of the alleged breaches of ministerial code that the Tories keep harping on about, despite going over the same ground repeatedly. I can’t imagine I’m the only person getting rather bored by this.
I have followed some of the Holyrood inquiry live, particularly Nicola Sturgeon’s session. A lot of it seems pretty thin stuff, and much of it based on hearsay without concrete evidence. The only thing of substance is the delayed legal advice.
Of course the Tories aren’t going to give up on this and are getting more and more desperate to pin something on Nicola Sturgeon, presumably orchestrated from Downing Street.
Given their own record, they are masters of hypocrisy. They make ambitious claims of numerous breaches of ministerial code and misleading parliament. What are these and do they have any real substance or material influence on this case?
Hugh Walker
Dunfermline
BORIS Johnson has given struggling towns £1 billion in additional funds. Over four fifths of these have gone to Tory seats. Purely by coincidence Chancellor Rishi Sunak’s Richmond seat is going to get money from a sperate fund. Richmond in Yorkshire is one of the most affluent parts of the UK. All while other non-Tory voting areas of depravation will be ignored.
Boris the risible buffoon has come out to deny the Tories are engaged in any sort of pork-barrel distribution of funds to Tory voting areas. He speaks with a forked tongue.
Meanwhile the Tory Westminster Government have settled a bullying claim made by an ex-civil servant against Home Secretary Priti Patel. An enquiry found Patel had bullied her staff. The settlement plus lawyer’s fees will cost the taxpayer in excess of £1 million.
Douglas Ross, Ruth Davidson and the other Tory freebooters have been screaming for Nicola Sturgeon to go because the bungled Salmond investigation cost the taxpayer £500k. They even put down a motion of no-confidence. Yet here is an even worse situation with a greater cost to the taxpayer. Ross’ response? Nothing, silence.
The Tories are craven unprincipled charlatans who will literally stand and accuse others of the things they are guilty of, but on a much larger scale. The Tories will not be held accountable by the rotten venal Tory in tribalists in the media.
Alan Hinnrichs
Dundee
THE Westminster government has settled with former civil servant Sir Philip Rutman over his claim for unfair dismissal.It was revealed this week that he received £340,000 plus legal costs.
Sir Philip the ex-Home Office boss quit amid bullying claims against Home Secretary Priti Patel.
Sir Philip said that he had been the victim of a “vicious and orchestrated” campaign after trying to get Ms Patel to change her behaviour.
I look forward to Ruth Davidson and her Unionist friends insisting that Ms Patel is forced to sit and be cross-examined for eight hours on live TV to get to the truth of what happened.
Or will the whole thing be brushed under the carpet in the time-honoured Westminster manner.
Harry Key
Largoward, Fife
WATCHED as much as I could of the First Minister’s appearance in front of committee and I don’t think anyone could fail not to be impressed by her honesty and sincerity in answering all questions put to her.
She admitted to the failings of the Scottish Government and her own regrets in this sorry affair.
She came across genuinely concerned over letting down the women complainants and also as someone terribly let down by a man who she clearly idolised for many years – as do most SNP supporters.
In contrast Scottish Tories, shouting for resignations, look like pathetic petty political chancers.
I hope and pray the FM’s popularity increases even further after this is over and she leads us to our long overdue independence.
C Tait
Largs
I WRITE on behalf of revolting pedants everywhere ....
A long time ago, as a former pupil of Holyrood Secondary School in Glasgow, I remember being given the explanation of the school’s name.
The word “rood” derived from the Old English, meaning a pole and a cross, with the “holy rood” referring to a relic of the Christian biblical cross on which Christ was crucified.
So why do media reporters and newsreaders continually refer to ‘hollyrood’ when discussing Scottish Parliament matters?
While I do recognise that language is forever evolving, I also know that the Scottish Government building is not normally decorated in the evergreen shrub usually seen at Christmas, and there are no 50ft letters spelling Hollyrood to be seen on any of Edinburgh’s surrounding hills...
Hope The National keeps up the excellent work and fact-checked reporting.
Michael Gartlan
Glasgow
I WOULD urge readers to register for the UCS Work-In 50th Anniversary online meeting this Wednesday on10th March (https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/the-ucs-work-in-clydebank-tuc-online-public-meeting-tickets-141935339421).
Organised by Clydebank TUC this will be no mere walk down memory lane.
Commemoration of the struggle is important of course. We have one of the leading stewards at the time, Davie Torrance, telling us how it was, also Professor John Foster who along with Professor Charles Woolfson were allowed access to tape the shop steward meetings. The two academics went on to write the seminal book The Politics of the UCS Work-In. These accounts deserve to be heard by a new generation.
The STUC which played such a significant role in building solidarity for the dispute will be represented by the current president Mary Senior.
But the main theme of the meeting will be drawing the lessons from that historic struggle, the stewards’ strategy and tactics, that could aid todays trade union activists.
Considered will be the vanguard leadership provided by communist and left stewards with their political trade unionism shaped to a great extent by the Marxist tutoring provided by the Communist Party.
How did they gain that authority, build unity, and sustain collectivist values in an industry with significant sectional trade differences along with the religious sectarianism rife on Clydeside at the time?
The building of alliances was key.
Such an alliance led by the organised working class, they undermined traditional Tory support amongst the professional classes, self employed, and small and medium business.
They exposed the role of capitalist state power and monopoly capital and forced the government of the day into a U turn.
What was significance of calls for a future Scottish Parliament to be a workers’ parliament?
Is building the required level of class consciousness possible today?
Can popular front, anti monopoly politics be built today as was 50 years ago?
Many activists would say not only is it possible but it is a necessity if we are going to turn the tide in favour of working people and their communities.
Tom Morrison
Secretary, Clydebank TUC
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel