Add Comment

Elaine C Smith is quite right. Had Cairns been alive when the "Parcel of Rogues" sold the Nation down the cludgie, you can just envisage him being the first to pull the chain. I agree with the Scottish Convention on Independence. It is the people who should be given the chance to determine their future, not a few narrow minded pol;iticians down in Westminster (or Holyrood for that matter). Cairns and his confused party should sort themselves out before they try and tell the rest of us what to do

What a pathological liar Cairns is-exposed again on Newsnight, brainwashed, uses "we" to often - ideal material for being a priest

Cairns comes across as a pious, hypocritical bellend. Slots in well in New Labour Sleaze and Corruption. Roll on election day when the 'MacChattering' classes give him the doing he so richly deserves.

Personally I don't much care what Cairns thinks. Labour just can't get it together enough to keep rules that they themselves introduced, let alone have a cohesive policy on any subject at all. The economy going down the pan, home office still in tatters, military being disgracefully treated , the list goes on and on. "Failing to keep pace" ??? more like running at high speed the opposite way if you ask me.

Oh big surprise that the Nats "BIGGEST" comedian and supporter Elaine c sMITH comes out to support the NAt cause, I nearly collapsed with shock! Thought she might have been too busy opening supermarkets, getting the dosh for doing that and driving her porsche. Where does she find the time to sit as Convenor on the Nat fronted Scottish Ind Convention, aye a talking-shop for the McChattering classes for sure and talking about something which is opposed by the vast majority of Scottish people.

Newsnight seemed to bring out the mantra that 'we know what is right and you don't' 'from Cairns, did'nt it? Andy Kerr was the same last night - po faced and repeating his lines parrot style, without conviction and making no attempt to explain why they thought this. It is pathetic.

That was Des McNulty last night, these New Labour drones all look alike. Des Browne, Andy Kerr and Des McNulty- whixch is which?

[quote]"If Wendy Alexander is to lead the Labour Party in Scotland she needs the backing of the party across the country and in both parliaments. It is clear she does not have that."[/quote]

How dare Elaine C Smith make a living for herself. What a scandal, opening supermarkets, driving a car!!. Now that the Convention are aware of these despicable actions, I am sure they will wish her to consider her position. She certainly would be no use to whichever sad collective M Simpleson belongs to. She hasnt broken the law, lied to the punters in the way that all good labour luvvies appear to be required to do.

Mike Homer Simpson[quote]Thought she might have been too busy opening supermarkets, getting the dosh for doing that and driving her porsche[/quote] You must know that bilge is is crapology but as it's all you have, what the heck, post it. Base insult is better than nothing. If you'd be invited to contribute to a convention you would call it enlightened democracy.

Elaine C Smith is in her own milieu a pantomime dame in a long running pantomime.

Mercutio "Oh no she's not", sorry nothing if not predictable

elaine c smith is a lady with a highly developed sense of what is right and just. she 'crossed the bridge' realising that scots were being denied the basic human right of self determination. her profession has nothing to do with her political views everyone has to earn a living folks.

Elaine C Smith has always spoken her mind on social and political matters, the SNP is lucky to have her, as is the Convention. several posters have mentioned Cairns, Kerr et al on recent political programmes. I must agree their does seem to be a bit more of the parrot about much of what they say. Clearly the Labour spin doctors are working overtime for their front men and women. But actions speak louder than words. Labour is beginning to look silly now with it's continuing doom and gloom negative chat while all the public can see is things happening at a pace never before seen in Scotland courtesy of the SNP Government. The completion of the road in Glasgow and the Tolls now gone on the bridges. Not to mention free prescriptions for the over 60s and the chronically sick and of course hospital parking charges being halved in most hospitals oh yes, Council tax freeze. Nae wonnur the Labour heids are fair spinnin.

Well said ECS. David Cairns is scared..and rattled. Independence is nigh amd him and rest of the pigs in trough are scared that their number is up!

[quote][bold]Mike Simpson[/bold] wrote: Oh big surprise that the Nats "BIGGEST" comedian and supporter Elaine c sMITH comes out to support the NAt cause, I nearly collapsed with shock! Thought she might have been too busy opening supermarkets, getting the dosh for doing that and driving her porsche. Where does she find the time to sit as Convenor on the Nat fronted Scottish Ind Convention, aye a talking-shop for the McChattering classes for sure and talking about something which is opposed by the vast majority of Scottish people.[/quote] Mike, Mike, Mike..do you have anything important to say? I have read all your posts on all threads for the last few days and all you seem to do is insult and wind up. Is that really how you wish to be remembered? A number of Nationalist posters made a pact to avoid the insulting behaivour that lead to the Herald suspending this site ( unfortunately not all). Is it not time for our unionist friends to take the same pledge? Lead the way, Mike. Either to enlightening comment or to more of the same bilge. We await your decision.

Mike Simpson wrote: [quote]Oh big surprise that the Nats "BIGGEST" comedian and supporter Elaine c sMITH comes out to support the NAt cause, I nearly collapsed with shock! Thought she might have been too busy opening supermarkets, getting the dosh for doing that and driving her porsche. Where does she find the time to sit as Convenor on the Nat fronted Scottish Ind Convention, aye a talking-shop for the McChattering classes for sure and talking about something which is opposed by the vast majority of Scottish people.[/quote] Considering she used to be an active member of the Labour party a few years ago your attitude shows why Labour is losing it. Maybe if you address the causes of why you lose the support of people like Elaine C Smith instead of slag them off then you might be able to recover. As it is the "end of the world" scaremongering, arrogance and growing divisions show a party on the way to even more defeats. Tell me Mike. What road are you going to follow when the Tories get back in down south? I suppose you'll try and avoid this inevitability but it's one you will one day have to face. If not the next election, the one after that. But no party stays in power indefinitely. So it's something to face up to and a question you'll constantly be asked. What are you goung to do? Accept it like the Labour party did the 80's when Thatcher did what she liked?

[quote][bold]Mike Simpson[/bold] wrote: Oh big surprise that the Nats "BIGGEST" comedian and supporter Elaine c sMITH comes out to support the NAt cause, I nearly collapsed with shock! Thought she might have been too busy opening supermarkets, getting the dosh for doing that and driving her porsche. Where does she find the time to sit as Convenor on the Nat fronted Scottish Ind Convention, aye a talking-shop for the McChattering classes for sure and talking about something which is opposed by the vast majority of Scottish people.[/quote] As you said before Mike, You know wendy. Good for you. It is heartening to see she has such amiable company. As an Ex Labour suppporter, I actually say that with pride. It was a proud party that did a lot for the poor in the past. And did try in it's formative years to do what was right. The problem for Labour was this. It got filled up with office seekers like yourself. Willing to forgive anything and put on a veneer of dismissive unity. Meanwhile the rank and file who did not have degrees or family members or close friends in the party. were left to do the work whilst their party was snatched by tories seeking a vehicle. We earnestly seeked changed you and your type earnestly wanted office. Unfortunately Mike. The game is now up. The folk cottoned on, gave your party 2 terms in goverment and many many more years in places like Glasgow ,and saw no difference. We no longer feel your fit for purpose and your usage of socialist dogma whenever your facing a left facing crowd is running thin. In short Mike. Shame on you and your ilk. You sucessfully stole the voices of milllions in an elaborate political smash and grab raid. Just like some multinationals stole the heart of Africa and other poor countries. You did it to your own poor. You stood by and were complicit or just were silent enough to let it happen. So coming on here and spouting of rhetoric is all your fit for. Any substance to your waffle is like your party. All window dressing.

Very well said, juankerr.

Nice one Juankerr. Tell it like it is.

Here's what Enoch Powell said about the labour party in 1964 It is no accident that the Labour Party of 1964 should share this craving for autocracy, for economic self-sufficiency, with the pre-war Fascist régimes and the present-day Communist states. They are all at heart totalitarian In the end, the Labour party could cease to represent labour. Stranger historic ironies have happened than that Speech to the Dulwich Conservative Association (29 February, 1964 Wise words and very true. Enoch must have been psychic.

At least Eliane has more substance and grit than the current Labour Comedians. Royal Labour must be proud of their Court Jester, Lord Fooks of Johnnie Walkers'.

At least Eliane has more substance and grit than the current Labour Comedians. Royal Labour must be proud of their Court Jester, Lord Fooks of Johnnie Walkers'.

Yes she's wonderful. Always has been.

oh no she's not!

Juan Kerr, Congratulations mate, you summed it up spot on. This is exactly the point that Labour and the other Britnat Parties dont get. If a fellow Scot is going through harder times, dont exploit them for your own greedy interests. If you say you want to help them put out a helping hand, not a hand for a brown envelope. The Britnats dont understand that many Scots just want to help their own kind help themselves, and if they try really hard and dont succeed, we will make sure they do. Thats what being part of the Scottish Nation should be about. Every one of us trying to build a once more great Scottish Society who feel comfortable putting in the work, to leave a better future for our ane bairns, so they wont be conned into believing that they are somehow inferior to other nations. Saor Alba

Posted by: Colin B, Bearsden on 12:40am today What a pathological liar Cairns is-exposed again on Newsnight, brainwashed, uses "we" to often - ideal material for being a priest What a pathological liar Cairns is-exposed again on Newsnight, brainwashed, uses "we" to often - ideal material for being a priest Yeah I saw him last night, We this that and the other. All the time supposing that "we" were superior to you. his disgust and contempt not to mention his whole condescending attitude were there for all to see. I quite liked this new presentor though, I hope he lasts.

Check out Realm of Scotland to find out why it became a priority to give Scotland a Parliament. In the mean time read these exerts from the same pages. The Sovereignty of the People of Scotland The Parliament of Scotland met on 25 March 1707 to give final approval to the Treaty of Union with England, which came into force on 1 May 1707 under the terms of the two enabling acts of the Scottish and English parliaments. Article 1 of the treaty - which remains to this day the constitutional basis of the UK, united the crowns of the two independent kingdoms of Scotland and England (which since 1603 had been held simultaneously by one and the same monarch in a purely personal union) into a single United Kingdom of Great Britain. Having passed the enabling Act of Union, Scotland’s Parliament was “adjourned to 22 April next”. Fixing a date for its next meeting was the Scottish Parliament’s last decision to date, because we are still awaiting the opening of that session which was adjourned ad interim. Article 3 of the Treaty of Union and its two enabling acts - which, unlike Article 1, is a non-entrenched clause which can be altered at any time - created the new joint Parliament to legislate for the affairs of the new United Kingdom. Like the legendary but in reality non-existent “Union of the Crowns” in 1603, the so-called “Union of Parliaments” in 1707 is pure mythology. What Article 3 did was to set up a totally new legislature. It is certainly not the English Parliament continuing. Just as important is that fact that neither the Scottish nor the English Parliament was formally abolished; there is not a single word in the treaty and the acts to this effect. They both simply stopped meeting after the new Union Parliament at Westminster started legislating for the Union. In modern terms, therefore, there would be no constitutional obstacle to recalling the Scottish Parliament to deal with exclusively Scottish affairs, as distinct from those of the Union. This could be done without one word of alteration to the union agreement - if the will were there! Opinion polls and other evidence demonstrate that the will to recall the Scottish Parliament clearly exists amongst the Scottish population, but it is conspicuous by its absence amongst leading figures - Scottish and English alike - who wield political power at UK level. The basically unionist and centralist Labour Party, alarmed by the potential disappearance of its power base in Scotland, and in an attempt to forestall this through a sop to the will of the Scottish people, proposes to introduce a measure of devolution after its hoped-for election victory in 1997. In doing so, however, the Labour Party has made it clear that it regards the Westminster Parliament as having unlimited sovereignty over the result of the Party’s proposed referendum on the devolution plan, which amounts to a proclamation of the sovereignty of the Westminster Parliament over the Scottish people.

Juan Kerr, STANDING OVATION MATE, WELL SAID SIR

Are we talking about the same Elaine C Smith who said Gordon Brown would make 'mincemeat' of David Cameron in her Daily Record column and is now the 'darling' (not Darlilng) of the SNP? Lets all make a mental note of that one. Our Elaine got her 'degree' in Physical Education from Stirling 'University'. That must have been mentally taxing for her, eh? Up until a certain court case recently, Elaine C Smith hailed Tommy Sheridan as a very 'moral' person. The point is that celebrities like Elaine C Smith and politcians like Sheridan make some of us cringe especially when they are idolised by some Glaswegians who need to get our more often.

I'd just like to say before anyone goes on about,rivers of blood and Shankhill atrocities. Enoch Powell was an incredible guy that lost it all and I'll agree the reasoning behind 'rivers of blood " was insane and the pending result was the correct one,but let us not forget he was the greatest orator of his generation,and the most brilliant mind. Upon the outbreak of war he left University Oxford I think and joined the Guards as a Guardsman,amazing not an officer,and demobed at the end a Brigadier,you know Montgomery at one stage went through a Brigadier at the rate of one a week-sacked. When making his maiden speech as a novice MP,there was not a dry eye in the House,He stood and wondered with all the trappings surrounding him if he really morally should be there with the loss of so many friends across the path of the war. I have often wondered why a man of such acute intellect would have embedded himself into such a bunch of bigots the like the Ulster Unionists.Maybe to keep them down who knows. Anyway I look forward to be vilified.

[quote][bold]W Smith[/bold] wrote: Are we talking about the same Elaine C Smith who said Gordon Brown would make 'mincemeat' of David Cameron in her Daily Record column and is now the 'darling' (not Darlilng) of the SNP? Lets all make a mental note of that one. Our Elaine got her 'degree' in Physical Education from Stirling 'University'. That must have been mentally taxing for her, eh? Up until a certain court case recently, Elaine C Smith hailed Tommy Sheridan as a very 'moral' person. The point is that celebrities like Elaine C Smith and politcians like Sheridan make some of us cringe especially when they are idolised by some Glaswegians who need to get our more often.[/quote] A degree in physical education? That must be the last time Fatty Smith did any exercise. Who ate all the pies Elaine?

A copy of the Memorandum that the Scottish/UN Commitee sent to the European Commitee, which led to Tony Blair introducing proposals for a Scottish Parliament even though he was privately totally against it. Now remember that The Entire New Labour Party kept this quiet in collaboration with the EU, to stop Scottish People knowing the facts. Memorandum To the Heads of State and Government of the Council of Europe Vienna, 8/9 October 1993 Presented by The Scotland-UN Committee The Scotland-UN Committee, being appraised of the purpose of the Council of Europe's Summit Meeting in Vienna, desire to place on record their total and unqualified support for the Council as an essential component of the new European political architecture which is presently taking shape. We trust that the planned redefinition of the Council's functions within the overall European structure will be successful. The Committee do, however, wish to acquaint the Council with their views on a matter which we understand is to be a subject of discussion at the Summit Meeting. Furthermore - in pursuance of our Committee's basic function - we wish to place before the Council the relevant facts concerning the present situation in Scotland. 1. Nationalism in Europe The disintegration of the bipolar world system has had global consequences. Within Europe, one of the results has been an upsurge of national feeling, as previously repressed ethnic, cultural, linguistic and religious minorities have made use of their new freedom to assert their collective right to self-determination. In a number of cases, the assertion of national autonomy has resulted in the formation of new sovereign states. This must be regarded in general as a healthy and positive development which is a precondition for broader European integration, as multinational states break down into units which are more suitable components of the new European structure. Regrettably, however, there have been more negative results of these developments, as other groups have descended into chauvinism, intolerance, racism, xenophobia and even imperialism. While these may be regarded as temporary excesses during a transitional period, this does not make them any the less reprehensible. The Council of Europe would be failing in its duty as the guardian of human rights and fundamental freedoms within Europe if it did not condemn these excesses in the strongest possible terms. The Scotland-UN Committee are nevertheless concerned that this might be done in a manner which itself could have negative consequences. We cannot warn strongly enough that an unqualified blanket condemnation of "nationalism" backed by the authority of the Council of Europe could put a weapon into the hands of chauvinist and imperialist majorities for use against the very national minorities the Council is endeavouring to protect. If the rights of national groups are to be shielded from abuse, then a clear distinction must be drawn between the various senses in which the expressions "nationalism" and "nationalist" are currently used. In the positive sense, there is nothing reprehensible about a sense of national identity. No man or woman is an island. We all need the emotional security of belonging to a coherent social group with a recognisable identity, to the extent that, when necessary, we will be prepared to put the interests of the community above our own individual interests. The disastrous social disintegration resulting from more than a decade of exaggerated emphasis on the individual can be seen all too clearly in the United Kingdom. It is emphatically the concern of the Council of Europe to foster that social and political stability which arises from such a sense of community. This can thrive only in units of "human" dimensions which share a multitude of geographical, ethnic, social, historical and cultural bonds. There can be no internationalism without nationalism. It is extremely important that whatever attitude the Council adopts towards the present problems should do nothing to undermine the formation of cohesive and stable national communities. We therefore strongly recommend that any statement issued by the Council should avoid the use of the words "nationalism" and "nationalist" completely. The current problems in Europe are not a result of this vital sense of national identity, but of the above-mentioned pathologically exaggerated forms - chauvinism, intolerance, racism, xenophobia, imperialism, etc. - the intolerance of national groups other than one's own, and the imposition of one's own values, identity and institutions on others. These excesses should be named for what they are, and condemned as they deserve, without at the same time lending support to imperialist majorities which might misuse the authority of the Council's statement as an excuse to repress national minorities within their states. 2. Democratic standards in Europe The disintegration of the Soviet Union has to some extent confused the definition of what exactly is "Europe" or "European". The Scotland-UN Committee feel that any nations which consider themselves to be European, and which share European cultural, social, economic and political values, should be accepted as such. We are in full agreement with the attitude adopted by the Council of Europe that such nations must be prepared to demonstrate their adherence to the European norms of statehood before they can be considered component parts of this community of values. These nations must be left in no doubt as to the criteria by which they will be judged, and the means by which they will be assessed. If there are to be criteria for admission to membership, it follows that there ought to be a system for monitoring the maintenance of these standards after entry. Logic demands that, if states failing to meet the criteria are not to be admitted, then existing member states which fail to maintain the same standards after entry must have their membership reviewed. There must be sanctions available for use in the event of any regression to undemocratic and oppressive practices. This might involve, in the first instance, relegation to observer status until such time as the Council's standards are restored. In the event that this does not take place within a stipulated period of time, then the extreme sanction of expulsion should be used. It is unlikely that any government would allow matters to go that far, and public opinion within the country concerned would no doubt ensure that it did not. We therefore strongly recommend that the Council of Europe should establish a mechanism for monitoring the maintenance of democratic standards within member states, analogous to the procedures which have been set up for monitoring penal institutions, etc. These democratic standards must include the freedom of identifiable peoples to exercise their right of self-determination as guaranteed under international law. 3. The Scottish situation Following upon the above observations, the Scotland-UN Committee wish to appraise the Council of Europe of the political situation presently prevailing in Scotland. This situation is one of the most barefaced violations of collective human rights in the world, and is certainly the worst surviving example in Europe of the political repression of an entire people. Scotland is presently ruled by a government consisting of a Secretary of State and four ministers. The Scots do not elect this government. It is appointed over their heads by the British Prime Minister without reference to the outcome of the elections in Scotland. The present Secretary of State and his colleagues have the support of only 6 Scottish Conservative members of the Westminster Parliament, who are opposed by 61 members from the other three parties. In any normal democratic system it would be impossible for such a tiny minority to govern a country without the consent of the people, or at least the people's elected representatives. Yet these five individuals are enabled to carry through the most extreme ideological measures without reference to anyone. They command an army of civil servants whose actions are subject to completely inadequate democratic scrutiny. Furthermore, they exercise a monstrous patronage over thousands of appointments, with all the scope which this provides for packing their own supporters into a multitude of non-governmental organisations which exercise national functions but are in practice answerable to nobody. We will not require to emphasise the scope for corruption and discrimination which such a system provides for those who attain power within it. The degree of absolute rule which the Secretary of State for Scotland and his colleagues exercise would hardly be believed in other European countries. Not even their own political party conferences are permitted to have a say in the formulation of Scottish governmental policy. The votes of the Scottish members of Parliament on purely Scottish measures have no influence on policy, and the total opposition of the Scottish people to particular items of legislation is simply ignored. Legislation affecting Scotland alone is forced "democratically" through the Union Parliament at Westminster by the huge English majority there, even if every Scottish member votes against it. There are innumerable examples which can be quoted in support of the above statements. It is by means of such a travesty of democracy that Scotland - a nation with one of the oldest parliamentary traditions in the world - is governed as a colonial province. The system does not even possess the trappings of democracy which existed in Eastern Europe under communist dictatorship. Furthermore, Scotland possesses an ancient and distinct legal system which has evolved over the centuries in harmony with continental European systems. Yet Scotland is the one and only country in the entire world with such an indigenous system of law and no national legislature to sustain it. 4. The development of the Scottish situation This situation has its roots in a dynastic marriage between the Scottish and English royal houses. In the course of time the Scottish king inherited the throne of England - the Scots took over England, not the reverse - although both countries remained otherwise independent. A century later the two monarchies were united to form a single United Kingdom of Great Britain. A new parliament was set up to administer the affairs of the new political union - the present United Kingdom legislature at Westminster. The national parliaments of Scotland and England were never formally abolished; in fact, the final action of the Scottish Parliament was to fix a date and time for its next meeting, but neither that adjourned session nor any succeeding one has ever been held. The union agreement, however, contains no provisions of any kind for winding up the Scottish legislature. That means that it can be recalled at any time to deal with national matters, as distinct from those of the Union. Since then, England has grown to have ten times the population of Scotland, and the affairs of the smaller partner in the Union are constantly subordinated to the interests of the larger one. Furthermore, the affairs of state have reached a degree of complexity never before seen in history, and the functions of government have expanded to cover almost every aspect of people's lives. The necessity of decentralised regional government is now accepted the length and breadth of Europe, with the single exception of the United Kingdom. 5. Scottish demands for democracy For more than a hundred years the Scottish people have been attempting to have their ancient national Parliament recalled to deal with Scottish affairs. To date, no fewer than 34 bills and motions to this effect have been introduced in the Westminster Parliament. These measures were supported by the overwhelming majority of the Scottish members. Despite this fact, and in flagrant contempt of the international law governing the self-determination of peoples, every one of these measures was either killed by procedural chicanery, or simply voted down "democratically" by the huge English majority. The demand for the restoration of democracy in Scotland is overwhelming and long-standing. Since long before the Second World War opinion polls have with monotonous regularity reported majorities of the Scottish people, bordering on unanimity, to be in favour of having their own legislature again. In 1950 almost two and a half million out of three and a half million Scottish voters signed a National Covenant requesting the recall of the Scottish Parliament. Yet when the delegation arrived in London to present the petition all the government doors were contemptuously shut in their faces. In March 1979 a national referendum was held in Scotland to decide whether a certain scheme to set up a Scottish legislature was to be implemented. Despite the obvious weaknesses of the plan in question, this Scotland Act was adopted for implementation by the Scottish electorate, with virtually the same support that was given to membership of the European Economic Communities in the 1975 referendum, and in the recent French and Danish polls on the Maastricht proposals. It was a clear and constitutionally valid decision by the country's highest constitutional authority that legislative facilities are to be restored to Scotland, and one which stands for all time. The implementation of the Scotland Act was subsequently supported by an overwhelming majority of more than two thirds of the Scottish elected representatives in a vote in the House of Commons, the usual standard for the adoption of a constitutional law. Despite this, the incoming Conservative government, who by then had no mandate to govern in Scotland at all, pushed through a constitutionally meaningless "repeal" of the Scotland Act, with the use of their overwhelming English majority in the Westminster Parliament and against the bitter opposition of the Scottish Members of Parliament. In spite of their own solemn promises to set up a Scottish legislature with even stronger powers than those contained in the Scotland Act, they flatly refuse to do anything at all to rectify the situation, which is now blatantly unconstitutional. Those members of the Council of Europe Summit Meeting who attended the European Community Summit Meeting in Edinburgh in December 1992 will recall the demonstration in front of Holyrood Palace by 25,000 Scots demanding the recall of their national Parliament - a demonstration which was totally ignored by the British government, and also by the London media. We assume that those hundreds of prominent eye-witnesses will have taken note of what they saw then. 6. Scotland's status as a nation We must point out that these are not mere regional demands. The Scots have occupied their national territory for at least 1,400 years. The first record of the consecration of a Scottish king dates from the year 574. There has never been another occupant of the country since prehistoric times. Few Europeans will be unaware of Scotland's unique and distinctive national dress, culture and traditions, many of them shared with our Irish cousins. Indeed, Scotland and Ireland are among the few custodians of Europe's ancient Celtic culture, the preservation of which is surely a matter of prime interest to the Council of Europe. The Scottish legal, school and university systems, among others, are also distinctive and more akin to continental institutions than to English ones. Scotland is also one of the world's oldest monarchies, and reputedly the first nation state in Europe. The ancient Scottish Crown, Sceptre and Sword of State in Edinburgh Castle testify to this, while the Parliament House of Scotland, built in 1632, testifies to this day to the antiquity of Scotland's tradition of democracy in a national Assembly for which a chronicler used the Latin designation "parlamentum" as early as the year 1174. Quite apart from the centuries of democratic tradition, under no circumstances can a dynastic marriage in the late Middle Ages between the Scottish and English royal families be considered a basis for determining the country's legislative structure in the late 20th century. Scotland is a distinct and distinctive geographical, ethnic, social, cultural, economic, legal and constitutional entity whose needs are vastly different from those of the larger partner England, and which require independent powers of decision-making within the wider European framework. 7. Additional comments We must make it clear to the Council of Europe what we are attempting to combat. We are campaigning against centralisation, foreign rule and colonisation, foreign control of the media, political brainwashing, cold-bloodedly deliberate cultural genocide (e.g. the virtual abolition of the teaching of Scottish history in Scottish schools), autocracy, arbitrary rule, and above all contempt for the democratic processes and the rule of law. This includes systematic discrimination against "dissidents" - in this case known advocates of restoring a democratic governmental system in Scotland. We are not attempting to overthrow the democratic order. That is being done by those United Kingdom politicians who, in the face of overwhelming demand, flagrantly and illegally refuse to obey a clear decision by the country's supreme constitutional authority that democratic government in Scotland is to be restored with the recall of the Scottish national legislature. No doubt the Secretary of State and the other people concerned do not regard themselves as subversive elements, but that is indeed what they are - because they are not only destroying democracy in Scotland, but also undermining the whole scale of Western democratic values that have been established over the centuries at horrendous cost in human blood. It goes without saying that the present method of governing Scotland is found advantageous by vested interests - mostly external - who have good reason to fear the light of day which would be shed on it by the restoration of democratic scrutiny. That is why everything that is done is subordinated to the unreasoning ideology of preserving the existing political structure at all costs, irrespective of its suitability for contemporary purposes. In the final analysis, this is not even a question of nationalism or any other "ism". It is a question of good government, and of the structures which are necessary to achieve that end under conditions which are vastly different from those prevailing at the time the present set-up was devised. 8. Action by the Council of Europe It would be sheer hypocrisy, and diplomatically untenable, for the Council of Europe to insist on basic standards of democracy from applicants for membership, while at the same time turning a blind eye to flagrant violations of some of the basic canons of democracy by an existing member country. We have no doubt whatever that those countries which are presently on the waiting list for membership, and which are meanwhile being exhorted to bring their democratic systems up to the standards required by the Council of Europe, will take particular note of the Scottish situation in this context. That situation falls well short of the Council's conditions for membership in all respects: The failure to maintain pluralist democracy in Scotland is self-evident from the facts mentioned above. It is the worst remaining example in Europe of a pseudo-democratic autocracy. It violates all the relevant international instruments of human rights and fundamental freedoms such as Article 1 of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and of the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, as well as the Helsinki Final Act and a number of other codified guarantees of the right to self-determination. Furthermore, the disadvantages and discrimination which have been suffered by known advocates of recalling the Scottish Parliament - a perfectly normal democratic institution - are a clear breach of internationally guaranteed individual rights. The London-inspired resistance against the campaign to restore democracy in Scotland, and the stubborn retention of the present autocratic governmental system in defiance of public and political opinion as well as a clear and valid decision by the country's highest constitutional authority, is an obvious breach of the Council's requirement to maintain the rule of law. There is therefore no way that the Council of Europe can overlook or ignore the political situation presently prevailing in Scotland. According to the Council's own rules, action will require to be taken. The Scotland-UN Committee propose two alternative or concurrent courses of action: a. That the Council should appoint a special commission to investigate the Scottish political structure in the light of the democratic standards which the Council has set for new members, and to report back with its findings and recommendations for structural improvements. b. That the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland be relegated to observer status within the Council, that is to the same level as the present applicants for membership, until such time as its democratic system is improved sufficiently to meet the Council's requirements for membership. 9. The Scotland-UN Committee The Committee was formed in June 1979, with influential support, when the incoming Thatcher government in London forced through the above-mentioned so-called "repeal" of the law which had been enacted to restore legislative facilities to Scotland, after that had been adopted by the constitutionally supreme Scottish people in a national referendum in full accordance with all the relevant principles and precedents in Scottish, British, European and international law. It was obvious that this unconstitutional (and hence to this day invalid) move called for action at international level in order to have constitutional law and order restored in Scotland. The Committee have therefore presented the Scottish case to the UN Commission on Human Rights, the European Community, the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, and every national government in the world, among others. The Committee's mandate is contained in a petition signed by one third of a million Scots requesting the Committee to take diplomatic action at international level on their behalf. The Scotland-UN Committee, while exclusively active at international level, cooperates closely with the Campaign for a Scottish Parliament and a number of similar organisations working at national level for the restoration of democratic institutions in Scotland. We are therefore in a position to arrange for a representative delegation of prominent people from the major national institutions to meet with the Council's representatives to discuss the matter further, and to coordinate any action which the Council might propose. We request that such contacts be established as soon as possible. 10. Conclusion Finally, we must point out that the world would have taken notice of Scotland long ago if we had resorted to violence to advance our cause. We must make it clear, though, that the fact that the Scots are too civilised to resort to such methods does not indicate any weakness in the case or in the level of demand. This in itself places an obligation on the Council of Europe. In view of what has been happening in other parts of the continent in recent years, it is unthinkable that the Council can in effect place a premium on violence by indicating through inaction that only violent methods produce concrete results. Peoples who refrain from such action must be visibly rewarded for their restraint. In the interests of the democratic security of Europe as a whole it must be clearly demonstrated that political and constitutional ends can be attained through rational and non-violent methods. We put it to the Council of Europe that visible action towards that end, beginning with the example of Scotland, will have a greater and more positive international effect than any verbal strictures on the alleged evils of nationalism. For and on behalf of the Scotland-UN Committee John G. McGill Secretary 25 Wallace View, Riccarton Kilmarnock KA1 4EN Scotland Tel/Fax: (01563) 528 505 September 1993