mediawatch

Donald · mediawatch

Note. The press photo shoe Alayo at the front of the Bannockburn march in the absence of a pipe band?

From: Mediawatch2009@aol.com

Forward March of The SNP
Political commentator Gerry Hassan has just published a new book entitled The Modern SNP,which is summarised in the Sunday Times Ecosse. Due to the fact that many London blats such as the Sunday Times do not publish their Scottish edition on the net we are unable to bring you this story .However the essence of it is that the SNP is moving towards becoming the governing Party in Scotland

Sunday Times Ecosse

The End Really is Nigh

Sunday Sun
27 Sep 2009

Would election loss turn out the lights on Labour?
Oct 4 2009 by Michael Kelly, Sunday

IF Labour loses the next election it may never come to power again. That’s the doomsday scenario of a left-leaning political thinktank which is no friend of the Tories. So are Labour’s days really numbered? Mike Kelly reports . . .
The unpredictability of politics is something the Prime Minister is keenly aware of, seeing his media image go from Capability Brown to Calamity Brown in a matter of months.

For the three months after he came to power in June 2007 he faced down a series of crises with some aplomb which reinforced his apparent statesmanship.

First there was the calmness with which he dealt with the failed terrorist attack in Glasgow within days of him becoming PM. Then the capable way his Government coped with the floods that July and the foot-and-mouth outbreak in August. Even in September as the Northern Rock crisis began it seemed he and Chancellor Alistair Darling had it all under control.

There was talk of a snap General Election but he decided against it and it was to prove a big mistake. From that moment on the wheels fell off.

The Global meltdown spiralled out of control and the resulting credit crunch called into question Brown’s reputation for prudence. The Government’s competence was further questioned when computer disks with the names and personal details of 20 million people was lost after it was posted from the HM Revenue and Customs child benefit office in Washington.

Since then there has been the debacle about Labour’s plan to extend the time suspected terrorists were held to 42 days, the cash for honours scandal and finally the row about MPs expenses claims. Although this was not just a Labour problem it seemed to hurt it more than any other party.

The polls have consistently had Cameron on top - one last week even put Labour in third place behind the Liberal Democrats. But, as Dr Black explained, all is not lost for Labour.

He said: “There’s a long time to before the next election. A lot can change between now and then.”

Even if it were to lose he says it is not a “foregone conclusion” that the Domesday scenario outlined by Compass will come about.

Moves towards Scottish independence could be de-railed by disappointment with the SNP, he said, and the threat to stop union funding is probably scaremongering.

“They might limit the amount of funding but that’s been done a number of times since the Labour party came into being,” Dr Black said. “Some of the unions have already withdrawn funding from Labour, anyway.”

He concedes the cut in MPs would hit Labour the most, but not by as much as predicted.

On the prospects of a Labour defeat, he commented: “Already it seems the problems with the economy are bottoming out. What if things start to pick up, unemployment falls and the housing market improves? People might think Labour has done a good job.

“From the Tory point of view what if it lost the next election? Some might think if it cannot win an election when so much has gone wrong for the Government, the Conservatives, rather than Labour, will never win another election.”

Macwhirter Speculates

Sunday Herald
04 Oct 2009

Almost blue

Published on 4 Oct 2009

On the night of the 1992 general election, a prominent journalist laid on nine bottles of champagne – one for each of the nine Scottish Conservative MPs – to be opened in celebration as each lost their seat.

As the night wore on, the bottles remained unopened and the party went decidedly flat.

To everyone’s shock and dismay, the Tories not only won the 1992 general election, they actually gained two seats in Scotland.

It was the last time the Tories won a general election – until now. The 1992 result led to a largely spontaneous outpouring of anti- Conservative feeling on the streets of Scotland.

The return of Tory rule, following Margaret Thatcher, two devastating recessions and the poll tax, was a profound shock to social democratic Scotland.

Celebrated trades union leader, the late Bill Speirs, led the formation of the Scottish anti-Conservative front Scotland United along with Labour MPs such as George Galloway and John McAllion as well as prominent cultural Scots like Pat Kane of Hue and Cry and Ricky Ross of Deacon Blue.

Even SNP politicians such as Mike Russell, who had boycotted the cross-party Scottish Constitutional Convention only four years previously, joined Scotland United demonstrations, which culminated in a 25,000-strong rally in Edinburgh at the European summit in December 1992.

Could history repeat itself? In a matter of months, Scotland could, if the opinion polls are accurate, wake up to find itself back under Conservative rule from Westminster for the first time in 13 years, and with an increased number of Scottish Conservative MPs. Will it be 1992 all over again?

Could the shock of Tory rule be the spark that reignites the constitutional debate in Scotland and prepares the ground for another referendum, this time on independence? Will Pat Kane come out of semi-retirement and form Scotland Re-United on a bill with a Deacon Blue tribute band? Probably not.

Things are very different today, and popular music has moved on. We also have a Scottish parliament with wide-ranging powers over domestic affairs, which the Conservatives no longer oppose.

But what we are likely to witness if David Cameron wins in May 2010 is the original “nightmare scenario” envisaged 30 years ago by critics of devolution such as Labour MP Tam Dalyell, author of the West Lothian Question, who argued that devolution was “a motorway to independence with no U-turns and no exits”.

It was precisely this combination of a Nationalist government in Edinburgh and a Conservative one in London which opponents of home rule believed would ultimately tear the union apart.

More recently, the deputy leader of the Liberal Democrats, Vince Cable, has echoed this warning, telling last month’s LibDem conference that he expects “conflict and possible secession” after a Tory victory.

Could David Cameron become the last prime minister of the United Kingdom as we know it? Certainly, a Tory government in Westminster is an important element in Alex Salmond’s game plan for winning independence.

David Cameron is not Margaret Thatcher, and he has effectively apologised for the impact of her economic policies on Scotland. He has promised to rule Scotland “with respect”.

But he is also committed to very deep cuts in public spending. Since a disproportionate number of Scots are employed by the public sector, the proposed 10% cuts in departmental budgets – on top of the SNP government’s own 2% efficiency savings – could lead to tens of thousands of lost Scottish jobs.

The SNP will present this as another London-inspired economic holocaust, equivalent to the Thatcherite industrial recessions of the 1980s. Only this time The Proclaimers will be singing: “Schools no more, nurses no more, care homes no more ...”

The Nationalists hope that a Scottish reaction against the Cameron Tories in Westminster will secure them victory in the 2011 Scottish elections, and make the case for a referendum unanswerable. Has not Lord Forsyth, the former Tory Scottish secretary, himself called for a referendum on independence?

Have the Cameron Conservatives not promised a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty on the EU constitution?

How then, say the SNP, could an incoming Tory government refuse a referendum on independence after two SNP election victories in Scotland? Journalists north and south of the Border are already honing their superlatives in anticipation.

It could be a great story: the final unravelling of the United Kingdom constitution after 300 years, destroyed by a collision between the unstoppable force of English Conservatism and the immovable object of Scottish Nationalism.

It’s a plausible enough scenario, but it is all perhaps just a little too neat.

History doesn’t repeat itself as literally as that. Indeed, the danger for the Nationalists, and for Scottish Labour as they brace themselves for the new Tory age, is that they end up fighting the battles of the past, and fail to appreciate that Scotland has changed in the past 20 years.

For many Scots, Thatcher and her poll tax are now ancient history. Scotland is a different country, and in many ways a small-C conservative one – at least in that it is now predominantly middle-class, home-owning and apparently rather conventional in its attitudes to things like multiculturalism and gay rights.

Curiously, the Scottish Tories have singularly failed to capitalise on this to any significant extent, and have actually been losing ground in recent polls on Scottish voting intentions.

There has been no Cameron bounce – which is why the Scottish Sun did not join its UK parent last week in throwing its support behind the Tories.

Yet the Tories remain the only party in Scotland to have won a majority of votes and a majority of seats in a general election – that was in 1955, when people still talked of Glasgow as the Second City of the British Empire.

Protestant Unionism was a powerful force in postwar Scotland and, even as late as 1979, when Margaret Thatcher was elected, the Conservatives had 22 Scottish MPs and dominated politics in both Glasgow and Labour councils.

It was of course “that bloody woman”, as she was called on the doorsteps in the 1987 general election, and her poll tax, which drove the final nails into the coffin of Scottish Conservatism. The two great industrial recessions in the 1980s, from which communities in west-central Scotland have yet to recover, plus the hugely unpopular community charge, have been seared into Scottish political folk memory. “Tory” became a four-letter word and many dismissed them as “the English party”, for their opposition to devolution.

The Conservatives gained two seats in 1992, against the trend, but were wiped out in the 1997 general election – as the Scotland United generation wreaked its vengeance. There remains only one Tory MP in Scotland, and if it hadn’t been for the Scottish parliament and proportional representation, they might have disappeared altogether.

The Conservatives still live under the shadow of the 1980s, which remains an obstacle to their electoral recovery.

But while middle Scotland remains largely immune to the appeal of Conservatism, that doesn’t mean that Scots are going to take instantly to the streets in outrage at David Cameron entering Number 10. The passion isn’t there any more.

The great achievement of the Scottish parliament over the last decade has been to defuse the Scottish grievance culture. We no longer automatically blame London for everything that goes wrong. The Scotland Reunited scenario also assumes that David Cameron will follow the neo-Thatcherite script, which is not certain by any means. The Tory leader does not want to go down in history as the prime minister who presided over the break-up of Britain.

He will do everything in his power to avoid an early confrontation with the Scottish government, and it is not inconceivable that Cameron might even accept a referendum on independence – although only if he is reasonably confident of winning it.

He has been careful not to rule it out. Tory commentators such as Fraser Nelson of The Spectator say a referendum would be a way of rebutting the claim that the Tories have “no mandate to rule” in Scotland by reaffirming support for the union.

But, with or without a referendum on independence, Cameron’s best bet for saving the union would be to adapt it to changed circumstances. Had there been any sign of an imminent Tory revival in Scotland, he might have been able to tough out the inevitable confrontation with the Nationalists. But the signal failure of the Scottish Conservatives to thrive electorally – their best hope for the general election is five or six seats – rules this out. It would look too much like an “English” party imposing a diktat over Scotland. A better option would be to seek a deal with Alex Salmond – a historic compromise between Nationalism and Unionism.

That may seem outlandish, but, remember, Alex Salmond is in Bute House only because the Scottish Tories were prepared to back him as first minister after the 2007 Holyrood election.

After that, the Tories struck a “devil’s bargain” with the SNP, supporting Salmond in power in exchange for influence. Annabel Goldie, the Scottish Tory leader, claimed a series of policy concessions, including more police on the beat and a cut in business rates.

On the whole it has worked: it gave them something to talk about, and the Scottish Tories no longer face electoral oblivion. A new deal on the UK might similarly give the Conservative government in Westminster a “stake” in Scottish

politics and provide the basis for recovery. All David Cameron needs to do is adopt some of the recommendations of the Calman Commission, which the Scottish Conservatives endorsed, and give the Scottish parliament greater tax-raising powers.

This could kill two birds with one stone: diverting attention from the ongoing spending cuts while scrapping the Barnett Formula, which many English Tory MPs believe gives Scotland an unfair advantage in public spending.

There is nothing that says the union would end just because Scotland raised its own taxes. For their part, the SNP might well be in the mood for a compromise, especially since support for independence shows little sign of increasing following the recession which showed the Scottish economy to be dangerously exposed to banking crises.

The SNP has recently been talking increasingly in terms of a new “social Union”: a new relationship in which Scotland retains the Queen as head of state, shares the network of UK embassies abroad, retains the pound as the Scottish currency, and upholds the values of common UK institutions such as the integrated National Health Service.

It could be argued that the SNP has given up on independence, in the old secessionist sense. Perhaps one day we might even see Alex Salmond and David Cameron meeting at Buckingham Palace to unveil to the Queen their blueprint for a new improved federal United Kingdom.

Could the shock of Tory rule be the spark that reignites the constitutional debate in Scotland and prepares the ground for another referendum, this time on independence?

Spelling it Out Again

SNP signals debate legal threat

The SNP may take legal action if Alex Salmond is not allowed to take part in a UK party leader TV debate ahead of the next General Election.
The BBC, ITV and BSkyB jointly proposed three live debates between the Labour, Tory and Liberal Democrat leaders.

SNP Finance Secretary John Swinney said going to court was not being ruled out, but said it was more preferable to come to an agreement with the broadcasters.

Opposition parties accused the SNP of bullying tactics.

Tory leader David Cameron and Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg have welcomed a TV debate, while Gordon Brown has now said he was willing "in principle" to take part.

Mr Cameron has told the BBC he wants a respected independent figure to oversee the negotiations for the TV debates.

'Depriving voters'

But the SNP has threatened to seek to block the screening in Scotland of any debate which did not include Scottish First Minister Mr Salmond.

Mr Swinney told BBC Scotland's Politics show the SNP was the party of government at Holyrood, adding that the UK debates would discuss issues of importance to Scotland, such as the future of nuclear submarines on the Clyde.

Mr Swinney said the SNP was prepared to be flexible, saying of the current arrangements: "It deprives the voters in Scotland of hearing the breadth of political choice that quite clearly exists here in Scotland about the input of Scotland into the UK General Election."

On the issue of legal action, he added: "That might be a possibility, but, long before we get to that judgement, we have to have full and open discussions with the broadcasters about the arrangements that can be put in place."

Also speaking on the programme, shadow Scottish secretary David Mundell said it was not appropriate for Mr Salmond to take part in a debate about who should be the prime minister of Britain.

Labour described the SNP's option of going to court as a "sinister threat", and claimed, along with the Liberal Democrats, the Nationalists were attempting to bully broadcasters.

The broadcasters have said they would each seek "to make suitable arrangements for ensuring due impartiality across the UK", but have not yet explained how that would be achieved.

David Bullies Goliath

The Warminster parties really are up in arms over the SNP 'threats' to force democracy on them.

The Independent
05 Oct 2009

SNP legal threat over TV debate

By Kunal Dutta

Monday, 5 October 2009

The Scottish National Party has threatened legal action if Alex Salmond is forbidden from participating in the proposed television debate between the main UK party leaders.

John Swinney, the SNP finance secretary, yesterday said that a TV debate without its leader would "deprive" Scottish voters of assessing political choice. It has written to the BBC, ITV and Sky arguing that Mr Salmond is legally bound to take part alongside Gordon Brown, David Cameron and Nick Clegg. If refused, the party confirmed it would consider seeking injunctions against the three networks, which could potentially block the broadcast.

The move came just hours after an inaugural US-style television debate between the main party leaders moved a step closer after the Prime Minister agreed "in principle" to the idea.

Scottish opposition parties dismissed the threat, accusing the party of bullying broadcasters. Mr Cameron urged Mr Salmond to concentrate on his responsibilities as Scottish First Minister. "This is a British general election. Alex Salmond is not standing for Westminster," he said. "The choice is between Gordon Brown and a more Conservative government led by me."

Foulkes Dips The Till

Sunday Herald
04 Oct 2009

Labour’s part-time peer claims £100K in Lords expenses

George ‘Two Jobs’ Foulkes revives expenses scandal
ALABOUR MSP is under fire after claiming almost £ 100,000 in expenses for working part-time at the House of Lords. Lord George Foulkes ran up the Westminster bill in just two years while doubling as a list MSP for Lothians. The scale of his claim, which has not yet been made public by the Westminster authorities, was unexpectedly revealed during an investigation by the Holyrood standards watchdog.

Although Stuart Allan, the Scottish Parliamentary Standards Commissioner, threw out a complaint about Foulkes, his inquiry revealed how much the peer had run up on top of his salary.

Between April 2007 and March 2008, Foulkes claimed £ 38,114 in Lords allowances and £ 16,327 in travelling expense. Allan disclosed that the peer then claimed a further £32,558 in allowances and £11,429 in travel in the year to March 2009, bringing his total claims to just shy of six figures, at £98,334.

Some of Foulkes’s claims related to “overnight subsistence” for staying in a London flat which he inherited from his late mother.

Over the same period, Foulkes was also paid around £110,000 in wages for being an MSP, and claimed a further £7000 in expenses from Holyrood. He was also eligible to claim more than £100,000 in staff costs in Edinburgh.

Bob Doris, the SNP MSP for Glasgow, said it was extraordinary that “Two Jobs” George – as Foulkes has been called – had gone through around £250,000 in just half a parliamentary term.

He said: “Lord Foulkes is getting a bumper sum from two jobs. As a campaigner for an elected House of Lords and an opponent of the Holyrood system that saw him elected, Foulkes is doing well out of jobs he doesn’t want.

“ With public finances facing the squeeze as a result of Labour debts, perhaps it’s time for Lord Foulkes to tighten his own belt.”

Foulkes, a former Labour minister, was an Ayrshire MP for 26 years before being ennobled as Lord Foulkes of Cumnock in 2005.

Two years later, he was elected to the Scottish Parliament after a poor showing by Labour in Edinburgh and Lothians seats saw him elected as a topup MSP.

Treaty Of Lisbon

The Irish people voted substantially in favour of this Treaty yesterday after having rejected it on the first referendum 18 months ago.It was in danger of becoming a Neverendum, as it cannot go ahead without the agreement of all member states. Britannia of course as ever made no attempt to consult its people in a referendum,but simply agreed to it. There was an additional danger for Britannia in that the UK electorate would more than likely have rejected it. Then of course the Broon /Labour establishment could hardly have called a referendum on this and rejected one on Scottish independence. Mediawatch is unequivocally opposed to the Lisbon Treaty.It substantially reduces the power of national parliaments and now increases the real possibility of a what could be defined as a Fourth Reich.Up till now it has not engaged the attention of SNP activists or politicians. Perhaps it is time to start.

Cameron faces new referendum revolt

Published Date: 05 October 2009
By Gerri Peev
Political Correspondent
CONSERVATIVE leader David Cameron struggled to keep a lid on an explosive rift in his party over the Lisbon Treaty yesterday after he rejected demands by senior Tory Eurosceptics to commit the UK to a referendum.

In a move seen as an attempt to appease the critics in his own party, Mr Cameron's office revealed that he had written to the president of the Czech Republic to restate his opposition to the treaty.

But that admission came just hours after Mr Cameron had insisted he did not want to make a firm commitment to holding a referendum on the treaty in the UK for fear of prejudicing the decision yet to be taken in the Czech Republic and Poland.

Mr Cameron's stance was further undermined when Tory MEP Daniel Hannan, an arch Eurosceptic, insisted that his party leader was "working privately to get a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty".

Ireland's decisive backing of the treaty on Friday paved the way for it to be adopted across Europe, which only remains to be ratified by Poland and the Czech Republic.

Tory divisions over Europe spilled into the open yesterday as activists began to gather in Manchester for the last party conference before the general election.

The Lisbon Treaty, born out of the rejected European Constitution, was billed as a document of reform to streamline decision-making in Brussels. It will create a president of Europe and an EU foreign minister, reduce a state's ability to veto and increase powers for the European Commission.

Eurosceptics are pushing for a referendum on the treaty to be held in the UK even if the treaty has been fully ratified by the time the Tories come to power, while pro-Europeans in the party warn that such a move would be would be "ludicrous".

Mr Cameron is under intense pressure from the Eurosceptics in his party, many of whom backed him for the leadership on the condition that he pulled the Tories out of the centre-right EPP group in the European Parliament – a vow he has fulfilled.

Expectations have risen that Mr Cameron will adopt a more hardline approach on Europe after linking up with a more right-wing alliance in Brussels.

London Mayor Boris Johnson – who has not ruled out standing as Tory leader in a future contest – said Mr Cameron should hold a referendum whether or not the treaty had been ratified.

In an article in a Sunday newspaper, Mr Johnson said British voters would be "jealous" of the Irish if they were denied a vote.

"I do think it would be right for such a debate to be held, particularly if the upshot of the Lisbon Treaty is going to produce President Blair," Mr Johnson said, referring to the widely held belief that former prime minister Tony Blair is the favourite to become the first president of the European Union.

Eurosceptic veteran Tory backbencher Richard Shepherd said the party must go ahead with a referendum regardless of whether the treaty was already in force.

"We were committed to it and I believe that this is a matter of the deepest trust with the British people that we will honour that which we gave the commitment for," he said.

Conservative Party chairman Eric Pickles waded into the row by predicting that the Czechs and Poles would not have sorted out their positions by the time of a UK general election.

He said: "We know from the Czech Republic that they are going to take between three and six months, we have yet to hear from Poland, so the likelihood is that we (in the UK] will have a general election within seven months and we will be able to name the day of the referendum during the election campaign."

But pro-Europeans in the party warned such a move could damage or sever the UK's membership of the EU. Sir Leon Brittan, the former Tory home secretary and UK commissioner in Brussels, said it would be "ludicrous" to hold a referendum when all 27 member states had ratified the treaty. "You cannot expect the others to untangle the whole treaty. It would be a great error for a new British government to get into this position," he said.

Despite the pressure from Eurosceptics, the Tory leader refused to commit to a retrospective referendum.

Mr Cameron said: "I don't want to say anything or do anything now that would undermine or prejudice what is happening in other countries where they are still debating whether to ratify this treaty.

"I think people will understand this argument that, while there are other countries actually delaying the implementation of this treaty, don't do anything or say anything that stops them from doing that."

However, just hours later, his aides admitted that, in a letter to Czech president Vaclav Klaus before the Irish vote, Mr Cameron had restated his opposition to the Lisbon Treaty.

The vexed issue of the EU Treaty threatens to dominate the conference for Mr Cameron, who has enjoyed high poll ratings at the expense of embattled Prime Minister Gordon Brown.

More than two-thirds of Irish voters backed the referendum, with only Poland and the Czech Republic apart from Britain waiting to vote for it.

The Eurosceptic Bruges Group also had a warning for the Tory leader. The group said: "(David Cameron] must show leadership and announce that a retrospective referendum will be held in Britain. This will rule the Lisbon Treaty null and void in the UK and withdraw us from its provisions."

The full article contains 926 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

Treaty of Lisbon--Details

Treaty of Lisbon amending the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty establishing the European Community

Type of treaty Amender of previous treaties
Drafted 7–8 September 2007
Signed
Location 13 December 2007
Lisbon, Portugal
Sealed 18 December 2007
Signatories EU Member States
Depositary Government of Italy
Languages 23 EU languages
Website europa.eu/lisbon_treaty
Treaty of Lisbon at Wikisource
European Union

This article is part of the series:
Politics and government of
the European Union

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Parliament[show]
President
Jerzy Buzek
Largest groups;
Joseph Daul: EPP
Martin Schulz: S&D

7th session
MEPs (736)
2009-14 term
Bureau
Vice Presidents
Quaestor
Conference
Legislative procedure

European Council[show]
President
Fredrik Reinfeldt
Parties
List of meetings

Council of Ministers[show]
Presidency
Sweden
GAERC
ECOFIN
Eurogroup
Member states
Voting
Secretariat
COREPER

Commission[show]
Barroso Commission
President
José M. Barroso
Vice Presidents
Margot Wallström
Günter Verheugen
Antonio Tajani
Jacques Barrot
Siim Kallas
Commissioners
Civil Service

Other Institutions[show]
Court of Justice
Members
Rulings
Central Bank
President
ESCB
Euro
EMU
Eurozone

Court of Auditors
Budget
OLAF
Other bodies
Agencies

Foreign Relations[show]
High Representative
Javier Solana
Foreign Policy
Defence Policy
Enlargement

Elections[show]
1979, 1984, 1989
1994, 1999, 2004

2009 (last election)
2014 (next election)
Political parties
People's
Socialists
ELDR
Free Alliance
Greens
AEN
Left
Democratic
AIDE
EUDemocrats
Parliamentary groups
EPP
S&D
ALDE
G-EFA
ECR
EUL-NGL
EFD
Constituencies

Law[show]
Acquis communautaire
Treaties;
Rome 1957
Merger 1965
SEA 1986
Maastricht 1992
Amsterdam 1997
Nice 2001
Lisbon 2007
Fundamental Rights

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other countries · Atlas
Politics portal

view • talk • edit
The Treaty of Lisbon (also known as the Reform Treaty) is an international agreement signed in Lisbon on 13 December 2007 that will change the workings of the European Union (EU). The treaty has not yet been ratified by all EU member states, as required for it to take effect.[1] The treaty will amend the Treaty on European Union (TEU, Maastricht; 1992) and the Treaty establishing the European Community (TEC, Rome; 1957). In the process, the TEC is renamed to Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU).

Prominent changes include more qualified majority voting in the Council of Ministers, increased involvement of the European Parliament in the legislative process through extended codecision with the Council of Ministers, eliminating the pillar system, preventing the provision in the Treaty of Nice (2001) reducing the number of commissioners, and the creation of a President of the European Council with a term of two and half years and a High Representative for Foreign Affairs to present a united position on EU policies. If ratified, the Treaty of Lisbon would also make the Union's human rights charter, the Charter of Fundamental Rights, legally binding.

The stated aim of the treaty is "to complete the process started by the Treaty of Amsterdam [1997] and by the Treaty of Nice with a view to enhancing the efficiency and democratic legitimacy of the Union and to improving the coherence of its action."[2] Opponents of the Treaty of Lisbon, such as the British think-tank Open Europe and former Danish MEP Jens-Peter Bonde, argue that it will centralise the EU,[3] and weaken democracy by moving power away from national electorates.[4]

Negotiations to modify EU institutions began in 2001, resulting first in the European Constitution, which failed due to rejection by French and Dutch voters in 2005. The Constitution's replacement, the Lisbon Treaty, was originally intended to have been ratified by all member states by the end of 2008. In the event, this timetable failed, primarily due to the rejection of the Treaty in 2008 by the Irish electorate. A decision which was reversed in a second referendum in 2009.

As of 3 October 2009 (2009 -10-03)[update], 24 of the total 27 member states have ratified the Treaty[5], with formal ratification processes in Ireland, as well as the signature of the Czech President being remaining obstacles before the Treaty can enter into force. This is currently scheduled to take place 1 January 2010.

Comment and Feedback

From Donald Anderson, Glasgow.

Lord Shinwell was indeed a racist and opportunist. Dr Jas D Young deals with Scotland and England differences on racism in his latest update to His "Rousing of the Scottish Working Class".

Lord Shinwell and Kirkwood, along with Sir Patrick Dolan and Ramsay MacDonald, were only a few of the "Red Clyde" traitors as opposed to Republicans John MacLean and Jimmy Maxton, John Wheatley, etc. Maxton said he could achieve more in a (real) Scottish Parliament in 18 months than he could in a lifetime at Warminster. MacDonald was Scottish Republican, until he was given an opportunity to be a Brit Coalition PM. Tom Johnston, ILP was credited with single-handedly building the Hydro schemes in Scotland. I fact, it was Churchill's idea during the wartime coalition cabinet to develop the atom bomb. Johnston refused to take the oath for three months at Westminster, till they taxed him on his earnings. He was a millionaire publisher and did not need the money. He made his point. His family later tried to buy up his "Noble Families" and "History of the Scottish Working Classes". Ramsay Mac also wrote nice socialist pamphlets - in opposition.

During the George Square riots in 1919 Shinwell fled the Square, claiming he only went to his Union office to "protect" some papers. Davie Kirkwood was batoned outside the City Chambers, believing he was immune from the police. The rent strikers demanded his dead body after he took the gravy train to Westminster on a ticket of "rent increases over my dead body"

As a factory shop steward in Pilkington's Fibregalss Possil in the sixties, I was told by older shop stewards that Shinwell, Sir Patrick Dolan, etc, stopped the HLI in Garscube Road from marching to join the strikers against English troops in George Square. They had burned the hated Union Jack in Maryhill Barracks before marching. Shinwell and co promised them that nothing would happen to them when in fact their "leaders" were to receive heavy sentences for mutiny.

John MacLean Said that Patrick Dolan would become Sir Patrick before he would become Saint Patrick and he was proved right again. Patrick Dolan also formed the first (of the four) Scottish Socialist Parties.

Fibreglass, Possilpark, was closed down after a six week strike. We phoned the English stewards in St Helens for solidarity and help but were told, "Every man for himself Jock". The Brit left papers sellers vanished from the factory gate, as they did with every other factory being moved South at that time. Now the English factories, who closed their Scottish branches to protect their English bases, are experiencing closures whilst their bosses move further East to make even more money. Pilkington took over Barr & Stroud at Anniesland and moved it to England, who were taken over by a French firm, whilst the Sun ranted on about foreign takeovers.

I learned more from these old factory socialists than I ever did from the Brit left, or at Strathclyde Uni as a mature student. I have seen nothing of this incident in any books and wonder if anyone can confirm this incident?

Blogs and Websites

Scottish Review http://www.scottishreview.net/KRoy133.html

Politics Blog http://scottishpolitics.blogspot.com/
Ian Hamilton QC www.ianhamiltonqc.com
Bye Election Bulletin http://www.snpforglasgownortheast.blogspot.com/

DestiNATION http://www.destination.sco.eu/ind...;task=view&id=10&Itemid=2

Craig Murray http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/

Keep an eye on Oor Wullie at; www.williebain.com

Anne McLaughlin MSP http://indygalgoestoholyrood.blogspot.com/
(Scottish Independence Convention http://scottishindependenceconvention.org

Scots Independent http://www.scotsindependent.org/
BellgroveBelle: http://www.bellgrovebelle.blogspot.com (new super -glam foti)

Joe Middleton http://www.politicalnewsfromscotland.blogspot.com/

Moridura http://moridura.blogspot.com/

Michael Settle http://www.theherald.co.uk/politics/politicalblogs

Julie Hepburn http://bidforfreedom.blogspot.com/

Labour Blog http://keziadugdale.blogspot.com/
Kezia is Head, office of Lord George Foulkes MSP

Tory Blog . Ruth Davidson's Glasgow NE by-election blog http://www.ruthdavidson.org.uk/home

Calum Cashley http://calumcashley.blogspot.com

Dave Fallows http://www.davefallows.blogspot.com/

Bill Wilson MSP http://www.billwilsonmsp.org/

Bella Caledonia http://bellacaledonia.wordpress.com

Gus Abraham http://1820.org.uk

Additional of Interest

http://scotgoespop.blogspot.com

http://www.christianjones.net/

http://the-universality-of-cheese.blogspot.com/

http://ayewecan.blogspot.com

Mediawatch is prepared by SNP activists in the west of Scotland.It has no official connection whatsoever with the Scottish National Party. The views expressed are not necessarily those of the Party. It is circulated to a substantial number of contacts in politics and in journalism both in Scotland and internationally. Please feel free to forward it to your own contacts. It is sent blind copied to everyone to protect individual E Mail addresses. If you wish it sent to you post send an E mail to this address with 'subscribe ' in the subject bar. Similarly, write 'unsubscribe ' in the subject bar if you no longer wish to receive it.

Posting Number 290
Monday 5/10/09