Blogging Ballsups

Again, apologies for my less than spectacular record of blog-posting, Christmas is around the corner, I have some work piling up, some party-work piling up too and whatnot…

As many (all, I should think, if you're reading a Scottish political blog!) of you will be aware, the continuing scandal over Mark MacLachlan's blog, the Universality of Cheese, is continuing with gusto.  It was the mainstay of Iain Grey's questions in Thursday's FMQ's (really, it's not that big an issue, surely Copenhagen, the economy, unemployment figures etc. would be a better use of parliamentary time), and we are now learning that according to the D&G Standard, Cllr. Rob Davidson, leader of Dumfries & Galloway's SNP group, apparently lied about not-knowing about UoC.  In fact, according to that paper, he was in e-mail communication with Mark about the blog, suggesting topics for it!
Bad enough that he did so, but worse et that he lied about it.  With Mark making allegations that Mike Russell also knew (allegations that I should add Mr. Russell has strenuously denied, to the point of instructing solicitors) about the blog, this is bad.
It looks even worse than it probably is.  I believe Mike Russell, but members of the public may be less inclined to do so now an SNP Councillor in the area is apparently admitting to having lied about his knowledge of the "attack blog".
I should quietly note that I am not stating these allegations as true or false, merely stating that various other sources are.  I don't want sued for defamation here!

We, as a Party, need to show this kind of stuff the door.  I know there are those that quietly are OK with attack blogs, much as they like the odd negative article from a nom de plume in the local fishrag, but really, the public just see a mud-slinging match, and it turns people off from politics entirely.
As the First Minister said in FMQ's, and in his address to the National Council thingamajig last month, the SNP cannot win a negative campaign with Labour, and we shouldn't want to.  Only by setting out our vision, and giving positive reasons for people to vote for us will we win an election, either next year or any other year following.
We all saw where negative "vote SNP and your babies will be murdered"-style campaigning got Labour in 2007.

To get control over negative blogs will not be easy though.  Many of the more ribald or downright offensive blogs are written by "supporters", who hold no official position in the party, are not in office of any kind, nor in many cases even members.
But we should certainly police our own.  Standards should be laid out regarding online-blogs, and the "anonymity" of members employed by the party or that hold office.  We already have standards for the regular print and tv media, I don't think it would be beyond the pale to have them for bloggers.  Certainly it won't stop the odd "over-enthusiastic" supporter printing various lies, filth, slander or just off-colour jokes, but it would definitely make those whose livelihoods are in professional politics from making the sort of "error of judgement" that it seems some of our members/ex-members in Dumfries are admitting to at the moment.

Blogs, if well managed, could make the difference for the SNP.  Web-activism is very useful for campaigning, and we need to engage with the voters in new and smarter ways if we're to inspire them to come out for us on polling-day, and the internet should most definitely be front and centre in our efforts.

But attack-blogs are not the SNP way.

Why the shame?

First off, my apologies for this post being a bit long.  I have a lot to say, and text is nowhere near as good a medium as speech itself.  So apologies, and please don't just reply with "tl;dr"!

As many will no doubt have read (and if you've not, the Telegraph, Scotsman, BBC and not least the venerable Press&Journal are all going on about it), the First Minister is being criticised for using a painting (apparently he commissioned it) by Gerald Burns, who also painted the splendid painting that hangs in the First Minister's office, "The Rowan".

Amongst those dour souls that did bespeak the painting was David McLetchie, who had a little rant about Alex Salmond's "obsession with independence" (and I'd quietly note that Mr. Salmond never mentioned independence, just used a painting with a Saltire in it for his Christmas card), and Mike Rambles Rumbles, sorry, who accused the FM of finding the most nationalist painting he could.
My question to Mssrs. Rumbles and McLetchie, but not just them, the wider Scots public is this:
Why the shame?
Why are so many Scots ashamed of being Scottish?  I really don't understand it.

As many (nay, anyone) who have met me may have noticed, I am not Scottish.  I have a very acute English accent, albeit one tempered with eight years worth of Scots slang.  I am proud to be an immigrant to Scotland.  The people here are really the most welcoming and hospitable in the world; it is my adopted home.
In England, "Englishness" is a synonym for "Britishness".  Those who perhaps feel the English have no cultural identity don't understand that for the English, "British" means the same thing as "English", since Scotland and Wales don't enter into their frame of reference.  It's not racism or bigotry, merely an accurate reflection that the vast majority of Britain is English, and thus colours everything British with a red-and-white hue.

They're not ashamed of being English/British though.  The far-right may dominate still with the English flag itself, but they're proud of who they are.  The symbols of Britain/England are ones they identify with.  They mostly respect the Queen, they delight in English culture like Brass-bands and the english-breakfast, with real-ale a more recent addition.  They talk longingly of english-summers and west-country cider, of the Proms and piers in Blackpool to walk along in those english summers, usually getting drenched.  In short, they're proud of being English.

In Scotland however, patriotism is an altogether different beast.
A lot of Scots are not proud of being Scottish.  They're sometimes leery of "Britishness",  so synonymous as it is with Englishness that to fully embrace it might risk being English, but all the same, they are ashamed of being Scots.
If you mention the "icons" of Scotland to many, you'll be received with a rolling of eyes, a mumble about "tourists".  There are many who cringe at the mention of shortbread, who'll wear a kilt grudgingly at a wedding but then only.  They'll disparage the Gaelic-speakers in our midsts as being "relics of the past", and talk down the 'pipes.  They'll even attack those who are proud of their country as being "obsessed", as if being patriotic were a bad thing.

Why?  I honestly don't know the answer.  I think it may have something to do with the days of Empire, when if they wanted to get ahead, a Scot would be forced to assume a more english accent, discard Scots words for English ones, and laugh at those who did not, lest they be nicknamed "Jock" and face ridicule from their English cousins.  Yet that doesn't explain it all.  The Welsh faced similar problems; Welsh schools went even further than Scottish ones, with the welsh-knot and other such devices.  Welshman would be called "Taffy", and have jokes made about them and sheep.  Yet the Welsh are rightly proud of their heritage and their culture.  They rejoice in the Eisteddfod, dress up their children on St. David's Day, go to the rugby even if they're not into the game, but because Wales is playing.

In Scotland, you don't see that.  When I first took the missus down to meet my brother and his wife in Aberdare, she was taken aback, amazed at all the welsh flags everywhere.  She asked if it were some sort of holiday, or if Wales had just won a rugby match.
No, was the reply, just a normal day.  She counted no less than 30 flags on the way into the town, some from buildings, many on cars, in windows, from garden sheds and makeshift poles.  Try and do the same in Scotland.  You will not succeed.
Imagine if you would for a second the media reaction to an American President putting a painting with a young american girl looking out into the winter with a US flag on his/her Christmas card.

For me, the arguments about independence are more about fiscal realities and doing what's best for the people of Scotland, and less about symbology, of flags and anthems, embassies and parliaments.
But I can well understand those who seek independence as a way of restoring those symbols in the hearts of the people.
They have accused Alex Salmond of being obsessed with independence, yet I think it is they who are obsessed with independence and their hatred of it.  And ashamed of their own country.  Why else would they attack our flag?

This Hogmanay, wear a saltire with pride.

Oh, what a tangled web we weave

When we do practice to deceive, as the great Scott would have it….

Looks like a spot on Inverclyde Council will be opening up shortly as Councillor Charles McCallum (Labour now Independent) has been accused of three counts of fraud…

Of course, I should note (for the avoidance of doubt) that he is of course only accused and his lawyer asked for the trial to be carried over without plea until "later this year" (although how much later we can really get is unsure; courts tend to take a while so it could well be February!), so if he were to resign from the Council it would be a personal matter at this time, something he might choose to do so as to retain public confidence in the office, or to enable him to concentrate on his defence…

Were he to be found guilty of course, the Standards Commission would probably have something to say about defrauding the Council….
I think there's also the potential for "Misconduct in Public Office" as well, although the bar for prosecution for that is quite high.

I love Wendy...

I really do miss Ms. Alexander as Labour's "leader-in-the-Scottish-Parliament-unless-Jim-Murphy's-around".  Iain Grey just doesn't have the comedic possibilities that Wendy unfailingly delivers.

Today she stood up to ask "Can I ask the First Minister whether he now regrets not taking up my offer some 18 months ago, before the global economic [cannae tell if she says paradigm or cataclysm, it's a little unclear, but we'll go with just "recession"], of parliamentary support for an early referendum?".
Our First Minister's response was the stuff of understated genius:
"I'm not certain this is Wendy Alexander's strongest suit…".
Classic.
He then went on to remark that he's hopeful that since Labour have already changed their minds twice in this Parliament over support for the right of the people to have a say in our future, perhaps a third change isn't beyond the realms of possibility, and that he's hopeful Wendy will try and persuade her colleagues of this right….
She really should learn to keep quiet when grown-ups are talking!  Hope she doesn't though...

Polls for thought...

Forgive the pun in the title, I always try and come up with something vaguely "clever", although you'll be relieved to know that I've gotten the need to oratise out my system for a wee while after my last post, so this is back to the coal-front politics!

As is being noted in SNP press releases and by various sundry bloggers, a new poll by IPSOS-MORI shows SNP support, previously thought in this YouGov poll to have dramatically slipped, to be back up a point or two above Labour…

According to the details, the fieldwork for both polls was done around the same time, and the sample numbers are pretty similar as well, with 1141 for the YouGov and 1009 for the IPSOS.

So why the major difference?

IPSOS has the Westminster headline voting figures as:

SNP: 34%

Labour: 32%

Lib-Dem: 12%

Tory: 12%

Yet YouGov puts the SNP on only 24% with Labour on a whopping 39%.

Clearly both cannot be correct and accurate, unless the SNP have received a massive bump for some reason in the last couple of weeks (before the White Paper was released I'd add).

Jeff earlier in the year noted that we'd gone down a fair whack in a YouGov poll, and also noted that the Labour-affiliated respondents was very high, with 469 out of a sample of 1078, meaning 44% of the population would have to be Labour members…

I'm starting to think that perhaps YouGov's polling method may be flawed.

I am glad to see this IPSOS-MORI poll though. It's a nice reassessment of where we stand. As Richard Thompson said, there was beginning to be the feeling that a media-story was being stirred (as is always the case) but may also have been swallowed that SNP support is falling. Of course, if enough people start to believe the lie it may start to come true.

As the polls show, we're holding our own but I think that Westminster headline is a little soft.

Sure the Holyrood figures look nice (const. vote has us on 36% to Labour's 32%), but even then, we need to be polling higher, if we want to have a resounding victory next year, and a good springboard to launch us into 2011.

The buffeting winds of change

When I woke up this morning, there was a heavy frost on the ground. The cold icy blast of winter, long promised on the winds, has finally arrived.

As I gazed out, up into a crisp, cold, blue sky today, I saw a single flake of snow, slowly making it's way to ground. I looked around and saw scant few others, and within a few moments, the spell had broken, the flurry had stopped.
But we shall see its return. It may be days or weeks, or even months. It may be next winter before it arrives, or even winters still to come, but it shall arrive. You can smell it on the wind.
Yesterday morning, something else arrived, long prophesied by winds of change. We saw the Scottish Government launch their White Paper on Independence. The momentous document lays out the future of Scotland's constitutional change, be it incremental enhancements to the devolution settlement, more drastic overhaul, or complete independence for our country.
The Press, for their part, have been relatively unimpressed. Talk of it all being a sham, just posturing for the 2011 election, abounds.
They miss the point.
It is true we may not see a Referendum Act being enacted next year. We may not see it the year after or even the year after that, but we shall see it. If Labour, the Lib-Dems and the Conservatives refuse to pass the Bill, it will cost them dearly in the 2011 elections. They will say that was the SNP plan all along, that we don't really want a referendum. But if that happens, when the SNP are returned to power, we will again bring forward a Referendum Bill. We will eventually ask the people to decide on our future. The Unionists fear that day. They do not wish to consult the people on their plans for devolution enhancement, nor do they wish the people to have a ballot on independence, because they lack the courage of their convictions.
Scotland stands at a crossroads. In the next few years, be it a 2010 referendum, a 2011 election or a later ballot, the people of Scotland must choose for themselves our country's destiny. As I was thinking this, I looked at a photo of our First Minister presenting the paper, and behind him, our national flag, the Saltire. It made me think that today, we stand together on that Saltire, standing on one of the arms of St. Andrew's Cross, looking ahead.
To the left and right of us stand the Calman proposals and enhanced devolution. Certainly these two options are on the road we travel. Do the people wish Holyrood to have powers over matters that are of scant concern in England, such as air-guns or a more Scottish voice in broadcasting?
Or would they rather that in addition to such limited affairs, the taxes they pay are administered in Edinburgh, by the same people who are responsible for spending most of them?
The issue of enhancing devolution is a relatively new one. The Lib-Dems have always held to the notions of a federalist state, but until recently haven't said much about it. No, these calls for enhancing devolution were only heard in ernest when the SNP gained power in 2007.
Until then, Labour and the Tories didn't care about enhancing the Scottish Parliament, but took the policy on as a bulwark against the SNP's calls for independence. Under these policies, we may yet see a Westminster-sponsored Bill that gives Holyrood some limited powers. But they do not wish to consult the people on their plans.
Under the SNP's plan, the referendum will consult on one or more of these "options", be it a two part question with independence or enhanced powers, or possibly more questions. The option has been left open as a means of securing support for the plebiscite in Parliament next year.

But friends, these options are to the left and right of us on that figurative Saltire. They are not ahead of us. The future may contain those two options, and yet more "enhancement" as well. Over the years, we may see a gradual transfer of powers to Holyrood as London also transfers powers to Brussels. But that is not ahead of us. That is not where we as a people face right now.

Ahead of us is a many-splendered thing, something many in Scotland have dreamt of their entire lives. For three-hundred and two years, Scotland has been governed by London. Ahead of us lies something that would end all that. Ahead lies independence.
It may take some time before we walk together to that future. The Bill may fail in Parliament, the SNP may even fail to secure re-election in 2011. There are those saying that the SNP are a "busted flush", that our day in the sun has been and gone. I do not believe that. I still have hope. Hope for a Scotland that is ruled by those who hold her interests at heart, hope that our resources will no longer be squandered, our children brought up in poverty, our streets littered with 50 years of social neglect, crime and unemployment. Hope that the people of Scotland will be asked one crisp, cold November morning to choose for themselves which road we should take. I have the audacity to hope, to believe that one day we will walk to that future together.
Yesterday, I looked up into the sky, and saw the first snowflake of hope. It may be in the weeks and months ahead that first flurry does not deliver the long promised dream of independence. But you can smell on the wind the changes that lie ahead.

Minor Reshuffle

I was just on the Scottish Government website, looking for a link for my last post, when I read that apparently there's been a minor reshuffle.
Mike Russell is the new Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning, replacing Fiona Hyslop, who will now be the Minister for Culture and External Affairs, with Mike's remaining portfolio of the constitution being handled directly by the First minister.
The BBC are carrying it as well, painting it as a demotion for Fiona, which in reality it is. I'd guessed this was coming and now with the referendum in a white paper, now's a good time to have a switch and put someone more capable of defending the SNP's record on Education in place.

Moving the debate

As I was sitting here, trying to formulate my response to the Scottish Government's White Paper on Independence (which will come a bit later, with slightly more soaring rhetoric; this is more rodental-scurrying politics stuff) I was looking over the press coverage of the event. Truly we live in momentous times.

I've read the words "moving the debate" several times; it seems to almost be a mantra of what the paper's about, since all agree it's "doomed", although I'd like to dissent on that…

We've already moved the debate though. Three years ago, neither Labour nor the Tories wanted to do anything on devolution; it had happened, they were more or less content with the Scotland Act, job done. The Lib-Dems were still making notions about enhancing it as part of their road-map to federalism, but nothing conrete was being said.

Now we're in a position where Labour are in favour of most of Calman, and will do something about it if they get re-elected (so kicked into the long-grass there then), the Tories are grudgingly in favour of most of Calman, albeit they've kicked it into the woods behind the long-grass, and the Lib-Dems are apparently all in favour of something, although quite what I'm not sure. Tavish Scott's performance on Newsight last night didn't really clear it up much either. The debate has moved forwards. But what none of them seem to be talking about is a referendum on devolution-enhancement. Apparently, it will just "happen".
The people deserve a say in this I feel. If we are to change the makeup of our government, to devolve powers from Westminster to Holyrood, the people need to be asked.

Every time the SNP talk about the referendum, the other Parties say "no". They said no before the 2007 election, saying that the election itself was a referendum. Then when the SNP won, they said "well they'll rig the question". Then Labour had a "cunning plan" to "call our bluff" by saying we should have it right then and there. We said "No, we'll have it when we said all along. White paper in 2009, ballot in 2010". Their current line is that the recession that popped up means now isn't the time, otherwise they'd be happy to have a referendum.
This despite the Labour/Lib-Dem/Tory/Plaid Cymru agreed referendum in Wales on more powers for the National Assembly in May, some 6 months before our one would be on the ballot. This despite Labour wanting some sort of referendum on Lords reform. This despite the Tories wanting a question maybe on Europe, perhaps, possibly…

I'm not alone I think when I say that perhaps the 3 main Union parties are not being entirely honest with us with regards their opposition to a Scottish referendum.
They argue that the SNP would lose a referendum right now, and that this is all posturing to help secure a second parliament. But that doesn't hold water. Sure, we might lose the referendum. But if that's the truth, then call us on it. Call our bluff, hold the ballot a year from today. But they wont. In any case, if this were true it would merely be putting off the ballot by a couple of years, since you can guarantee we'll be putting another bill forward in the next Parliament if this one fails. At every possible turn, whenever the SNP call for the referendum, no matter how many concessions are made, or how flexible we are on other options, they say "no". Why?
I think they genuinely fear the people's voice on independence and so seek to deny them a say. That is unacceptable. The very name of this blog proclaims that the "Voice of the People is the Voice of Scotland".
But what says that voice?
According to most polls, around a third hate the idea of independence. Another third love it. The rest aren't sure yet. These numbers fluctuate based on the question, the state of the economy, whether any banks have failed recently, what phase of the moon it is, how many Labour supporters you include in your poll (read a recent one that had about 400 in a poll of around 1000!) etc. but it's roughly a third for, a third against and a third that went "uhhhh".

I think we can persuade the "uhh" crowd that Scotland deserves a chance on her own. I think we can move some of the 'against' third into the 'don't know' or even the 'yes' camp. I also think we have the right to try. The debate in the media at the moment is typically one-sided, with the London-friendly media making vague accusations the SNP are all crazy, the Scottish media siding with Labour in denouncing the "narrow-minded secessionist views of the few", and the BBC trying to appear neutral, even with prominent presenters being good friends with senior Labour MSP's.
If we get a referendum bill through Parliament, that all changes. Sure, the papers will still be biased, and the BBC will still be running rings around itself trying not to anger London bosses, but the debate won't be about the SNP and their "obsessions". It will be about why Scotland should stay in a Union it never asked to be in. It will be the comparative merits of 6 seats as part of the UK in the EU or 14-15 seats on her own. It will be about how Scotland's budget would be in surplus most years at current spending levels, and how the UK Govt. may not be able to afford Scottish Independence without some tough choices.
In short, we'd be moving the debate.
Yesterday, at 10:00am, the debate moved a step closer to that dream. We saw newspapers asking Scotland's First Minister for details about a Government-backed white-paper on whether Scotland should be a free country again. Nothing like that has ever happened before. I'll be posting more in a bit about the actual options for change, and the "audacity of hope" (apologies to one B. Obama), but I thought we should all reflect on that. No one has ever asked the Scottish people if they want to enter, have and continue in a Union with the Kingdom of England. Yesterday, the First Minister said maybe, just maybe, we should be asked.
Truly, we live in momentous times.

The Winter Blues

So the 'flu seems to have no sign of stopping here; I'm sitting typing this with a runny nose, sore throat and all the usuals, despite having had said symptoms off and on since September. According to one MSP (who shall remain nameless), I have a case of "manflu", and Herself has agreed with this diagnosis and has prescribed a treatment of "man up, bitch".

Still, Yule is around the corner, we're busy constructing our gifts for nearest/dearest (we try not to spend money on overpriced tat here, we'll leave someone a little more lavish with their cash to spur the economy, ta) and I am of course busy preparing for the upcoming General Election…

Obviously, given this is an open blog which Labour supporters can (and do, ip listing FTW) read, I won't be going into exactly what I'm doing, but suffice to say 4-5 months out, fundraising and strategy planning is de rigueur…
Consequently, my blog is suffering since I'm writing a few strategy memos and position papers and that leaves little time when I'm not being ill, to write something well-researched and witty here. Consider this my apologies…

There are a few tidbits of vaguely interesting stuff; Tom thinks that since a PR system for an elected upper house would lead to Nick Griffin being a Lord/Senator, the entire idea of an elected Upper House is stupid and should be abandoned forthwith. As I commented in another little piece by him on Lords-reform, not only is it NOT going to happen anyway since they're getting the boot in May, the notion that an elected upper House is wrong because it'd mean (IF we used PR) some right-wing nutter would get in is flawed on a rather major principle:

Right now, to be a Lord, you either need to win the ballot for the hereditary peers (and of course, have a title), or donate a large amount of cash, er, I mean, that is to say, become indispensable to Government. Whilst neither of these methods would particularly be easy to navigate for a far-right agitator, how many hereditary peers could be considered hard-right? How many of those who get elevated may decide to become far-right?
What if they do? We can just elect someone else…oh, no, no wait we can't, because IT'S NOT A DEMOCRACY!!!
Removing the last vestiges of unelected representatives is not only a good idea, it's a moral imperative. I'd consider that Labour's biggest failing (and they have many) in the last 12 years is their complete failure to remove the Lords. Oh, sure, they got rid of some peers and replaced them with more unelected cronies, but that is not good enough. Every time an election comes along, some mouthpiece like Jack Straw pops up and starts the herdy-gerdy, proclaiming as soon as they win the election, change will occur.
Ain't gonna work this time; the English people, in their infinite wisdom will almost certainly be returning a conservative majority, even if it's not an absolute majority and we get a Hung Parliament. Scotland doesn't have enough votes even if we did return solely Labour MP's (and I rather think the SNP group may be needing more than one minibus this time round) to influence that. So it really is all hot air about nothing, much like Labour's sudden calling to reform the Scottish Parliament with tax-raising/governing powers.

Heard a bit from Jim Murphy about how it's vital the SP is given accountability for some of the income-taxes raised in Scotland. Really Jim? Strange therefore that Labour haven't done sod all about it in the last 12 years then. I mean, you guys only formulated the original Scotland Act in the first place. Who'd possibly think that you're lying your collective arses off about being suddenly converted to the matter, just after the SNP get into government and independence starts to become a real possibility.
Pathetic...

A little chat...

Things have been, as ever yet more hectic here, but of interest in the last week has been the National Conversation's visit to Port Glasgow….

Myself and the missus both attended. Also in attendance was a goodly swathe of locals, some other SNP members/councillors/MSP's, not to mention Kenny MacAskill MSP and Roseanna Cunningham MSP.
As you'd imagine, a lot of the questions posed were about independence. Angel herself got a question in about what the SNP will do, both now and in a future independent Scotland about preserving Scotland's history.

It is amazing that many Scottish children come out of school knowing who Queen Elizabeth I was, and what the War of the Roses was about, but no clue about the Union of Crowns, or what precipitated the Union Act in 1707 (particularly the bribery of many Scots). Likewise why are they taught "Scottish Modern English" but not Modern Scots? Historically it's because a lot of the decisions on curriculum were made in London. But that is no longer the case, so why the continuation of english-centric scots-denigrating lessons?
Also dealt with by other questions was the lack of detail the party has put forward so far. We really need to get a bigger white paper out, not on an independence referendum, but on independence itself. Certainly a lot of the details cannot be filled in because we'll have to agree with London the terms, so how many regiments are left, what the Scottish Debt looks like, all this is up in the air. But surely we could publish our aspirations, our intentions? Surely, we can, as a party, and through the aegis of the National Conversation, set down, before we ask the people to decide, what we want for Scotland, a much more comprehensive plan of what we'd like?

OK, so we'd have to make clear that we might not get all of it, that London might negotiate this for that. But this is what we'd like, in good solid numbers. Plans for what happens with Royal Mail and UK-deliveries. Plans for what we'll do regarding cross-border water, electricity, telecoms, gas etc.
Timetables for how long it'll take, budgetary concerns, whether we'll have keep the Scottish Pound pegged with sterling or if we'll let it float free before the Government feel it's time to hold a referendum on the Euro….
All these things should be out there. A lot of people would like to vote YES I think, but without the details are worried and concerned about what would happen.

FUD like the UK Govt.'s claim today that independence would cost business £1 Billion (exactly £1 Billion apparently. Convenient) doesn't help with public confidence at all.
We, as a party need to define what exactly it is we're suggesting and we ned to do it pronto. Then we need to call in every small media favour we have, launch it with a huge razzz-ma-tas and get this ball working. Otherwise no one will vote for it, even if we DO get a referendum.

In other matters, I finally convinced Angel to come to the party's Branch meeting. Very glad she did. Not only was she very constructive and bringing in a female perspective to a Branch that is very male-dominated still, she also enjoyed herself and is gearing up for a fight (namely the General Election). We're going to need every pair of hands we have to win Inverclyde from Labour, but I think, with a good team, the fierce enthusiasm and the righteous belief in our cause, we can do it.
Noble sentiments I know. Now comes the hard work….