INDEPENDENCE: PAST and FUTURE

Article originally published by Off Topic Scotland.

I recently had the privilege of speaking with members of the Alba Party's International Branch, via Zoom. It was great to speak with people so committed to Scotland's independence, and determined to deliver.

Those Alba activists were, like me, former members and activists in the Scottish National Party (SNP). In fact, many of today's Alba activists are the people who built the SNP from a talking-shop on the fringes of Scottish politics to a party of government. The fact they now find themselves, not only outside the SNP but building a new pro-independence party, represents just how massively the SNP has lost the trust of its activists and the voting public.

This fact was brought home to me a few days ago when I bumped into a man I knew from my SNP days. For the record, I was expelled by the party in 2004 – the story is covered in my autobiography, 'Was It Something I Said?'. The conversation I had with the man I met in the car-park of a Largs supermarket was brief – it was raining at the time – but he wanted to tell me that he had recently left the SNP.

The Largs man had been one of the hardest workers for the party in the Cunninghame North constituency. He told me, “The final straw was the appointment of Murray Foote as chief-executive of the party”.

In the rain, I quickly explained what happened the last time the SNP appointed a Labour defector to a senior position within the party. This is one of the subjects covered in my book 'OUTSPOKEN – Part Two'. The book – and 'OUTSPOKEN – Part One' – tells the story of the eventful last ten-years in Scottish and UK politics, from the campaign for the Independence Referendum, to the outcome of the referendum, to the SNP 2015 landslide and right up to 2023. In articles written at the time, I give my view on what has happened to our country. As the opinions are mine, the books also reflect my journey from a position where I still voted SNP, and asked others to vote SNP, to the present day, where I make clear I can no longer vote for the party.

When I recently spoke with members of the Alba Party, I suggested that 'Scotland United' was the way forward for the independence movement – one pro-independence candidate in each constituency, around whom the pro-independence electorate could unite. This tactic could result in a large pro-independence majority, and could deliver what should be an undeniable mandate for Scotland to retake its political independence.

Since I spoke to the Alba Party meeting, events have shifted and my opinion has changed.

I still think 'Scotland United' is a good idea but, in reality, it won't work. To be honest, I should have known it wouldn't work. I was a member of the Scottish National Party for 27-years before being expelled. From my experience in the party, I know the SNP is precious about independence. Back then it wasn't prepared to share it with anyone and, today, that remains the case.

The first time I encountered the SNP's refusal to countenance sharing the cause of independence was when the Scottish Socialist Party (SSP) began to emerge on the political scene in the late 1990s. Within the SNP at that time, people angrily argued that the SSP was 'just using independence to steal SNP votes'. I tried to point out that there were socialists in Scotland who would never dream of voting for the SNP, adding that if those socialists could be persuaded to support independence through voting for the SSP, then surely that was a good thing and a positive contribution to the independence movement. The SNP would have none of it. Independence belonged to the SNP and they were not prepared to share it. Sadly, the same applies today.

We have all seen social media posts from some senior members of the SNP, attacking the Alba Party in general and Alex Salmond in particular. There have also been Alba members attacking the SNP, but there is a significant difference between the motivation for the respective posts.

The Alba attacks are because today's SNP has sold-out on the cause of independence. Today's SNP is a 'devolutionist' party, content to manage the devolved Scottish Government within the so-called United Kingdom. Today's SNP is not going to deliver independence. The attacks from members of the Alba Party are largely motivated by trying to save the SNP from itself and return it to fighting for independence. The 'Scotland United' initiative emerged from the Alba Party: it was an attempt, once again, to bring the SNP back to the independence cause and to unite disparate strands of the independence movement.

In contrast, SNP attacks on the Alba Party show the SNP still retains its arrogant position from when the SSP first emerged – independence belongs to the SNP and the party is not prepared to share it. How dare the Alba Party seek independence votes, those belong to the SNP, even though today's SNP doesn't any longer actually seek to deliver independence.

When I spoke with the International Branch of the Alba Party, I did suggest 'Scotland United' should be given a chance, but I also argued that it is my belief there would come a time when the Alba Party had to take-off the gloves and actually challenge the SNP. Alba Party members largely built the SNP, and if, in order to deliver independence for Scotland, we have to go back to square-one and start all over again, then those Alba Party members are the people to do it.

I realise that starting again means I, personally, might not see independence. It could be a longer journey than we would like. Starting again means having to persuade the public that independence does not belong to the SNP. Starting again means showing why independence is the best option for Scotland, and that the SNP's failure to deliver for Scotland resulted from the failure of that particular party. Independence was never the problem, what has failed Scotland is an SNP that abandoned the cause.

To put it bluntly, as far as independence is concerned, the SNP is the past; Alba is the future.

I should make clear that I am not a member of any political party. I am an individual who has always believed in independence, nothing less. I will vote for candidates who actually believe in delivering independence for Scotland, and that is no longer the SNP.

NOTES

Links to books:

WAS IT SOMETHING I SAID?

OUTSPOKEN - Part One

OUTSPOKEN - Part Two

SCOTLAND WITHIN THE SO-CALLED UNITED KINGDOM

 This article was recently published in the United States. It seeks to explain contemporary Scotland for Americans of Scottish descent. 

As citizens of the United States of America, how would you feel if the American Revolutionary War – the American War of Independence (1775-1783) – had not taken place, or had resulted in victory for British forces?

How would you feel if, right now, America was still governed directly from the English parliament in London, with a devolved American parliament only allowed to legislate in very limited areas of government? How would you feel if the English parliament in London retained powers over major areas of government, such as taxation, macro-economic policy, national defence and security, foreign affairs, and even what the American parliament was allowed to discuss or vote on? How would you feel if it was made clear to Americans that the English parliament was the sovereign, ultimate power, and could overturn any decision taken by the devolved American parliament?

Obviously, those questions are entirely hypothetical because the 18^th Century American revolutionaries were successful, securing victory and America's independence from England. So, why am I asking you those questions? I want to explain the political relationship Scotland currently has with England.

If you substitute Scotland and Scottish for America and American in the questions, you might begin to understand why some of us in Scotland continue to fight for our national independence. I say 'fight', but unlike the American revolutionaries or our Celtic cousins in Ireland, Scots have never actually taken-up arms to free our country from English control. We have pursued a democratic path - through the ballot box - and, to be honest, it hasn't got us all that far.

If you follow Scottish politics, you might question why I say we haven't got too far towards re-taking our independence. We do have a Scottish Parliament, established in 1999, but that parliament is as described in the questions posed at the start of this article: the limited powers it has are devolved from the English Parliament in London. Known as the UK Parliament, but effectively being the parliament of England, Westminster is the sovereign power.

Since 2007, we have had a pro-independence Scottish National Party (SNP) government in Scotland. In 2014, then First Minister Alex Salmond actually managed to deliver an Independence Referendum. Even then, though, this was only possible because the English government in London agreed to let Scotland hold a referendum. The English were positive they would win, which was why they agreed to the referendum. The result saw a 10% majority for Scotland remaining in the so-called UK. For London, the result was too close for comfort, and since then the English parliament has refused to allow Scotland another referendum, despite the SNP being re-elected in Scotland on a mandate to hold such a referendum in 2011, 2016 and 2021.

It's worth mentioning at this point the control exerted over Scotland through the English media. All-but one newspaper sold in Scotland opposes Scottish independence. So called 'national' news is broadcast from studios in London and reflects an English perspective on the stories of the day. Throughout the 2014 Independence Referendum campaign, newspapers and the broadcast media continued with wall-to-wall coverage opposing Scottish independence. Against that background, it is remarkable the referendum result was so close.

Every night in Scotland, television channels broadcast English programmes: news, entertainment shows, dramas, comedies – all featuring English people, speaking in English accents, set in English towns and cities, relating to English issues. Going back to the questions posed at the start of this piece, how would you feel, as Americans, if the only programmes you could watch on your televisions were broadcast for an English audience? Having said that, I should make clear that satellite and streaming-systems now mean Scots can enjoy some excellent American dramas. It would be nice to hear Scottish accents and watch Scottish dramas, though.

I should also clarify that there are two Scottish TV channels, which broadcast Scottish news-bulletins, but those are normally aired after the English news, telling Scots where we rank in the scheme of things.

Since the departure of Alex Salmond in 2014 following the referendum result, the SNP Scottish Government has, sadly, adopted a 'devolutionist' agenda, rather than taking us forward to independence. The current SNP is more focussed on managing devolution within the so-called United Kingdom, but there is hope of progress. Alex Salmond has now formed the Alba Party, which puts independence front-and-centre, and looks to challenge the SNP for the independence vote.

The last paragraph is my opinion: SNP supporters would dispute it, but the political reality of Scotland today would seem to back my position.

Today, Scotland remains a devolved 'region' of the so-called United Kingdom, with our parliament subservient to the 'sovereign' English parliament in London. However, under Scots law, the people of Scotland are the sovereign power, not any parliament or King.

Some of us are determined that, one day, Scotland will re-establish itself as a normal, independent nation, and we will take our place alongside our American friends as a country that has secured our independence from England.

BRITISH STATE INFILTRATION OF THE SNP - THE REACTION

Most people with any knowledge of the independence movement in Scotland accept that the Scottish National Party (SNP) has been infiltrated by agents of the British State. It would be insane to think that the British State's security services would not have infiltrated a political party that still cites breaking-up the British State as its raison d'etre.

In books and in articles, I have written that the SNP has been infiltrated by MI5 and Special Branch, and that this infiltration has been a fact since the party was little more than a talking-shop on the fringes of Scottish politics. I have argued that British State infiltration of the SNP stepped-up significantly from 1999, when the party went from having just six MPs at Westminster to forming the official opposition in the newly-created Scottish Parliament, with 35 MSPs.

With its massive increase in elected representatives, and associated staff-members, the SNP was suddenly seen as a potential future government of Scotland, which would mean it could be in a position to actually break-up the British State. Far from a talking-shop fringe party, the SNP was now seen as a real threat. Accordingly, British State security services stepped-up their infiltration of the party.

Prior to 1999, MI5 and Special Branch assets in the SNP were relatively low-level members. Their roles were to listen to party conversations and pass anything of interest to their British State contacts. However, with the advancement of the SNP at the '99 election, greater emphasis was placed by British State forces into placing actual agents into the party. The difference between an asset and an agent is that the latter is placed into an organisation with clear instructions on what they should seek to achieve on behalf of the British State. Assets continued to simply listen to conversations and pass information to their contacts.

In an article I wrote in August 2023, I argued that the difference between British State infiltrators of the SNP in 1999 and today, is that MI5 and Special Branch agents have, over the intervening years, advanced within the party. They are no longer relatively low-level members. Some have reached such elevated positions within the SNP that they are able to influence party policy and direction. For the avoidance of doubt, some British State agents have held, and some still hold, positions within the leadership of the SNP, both elected members and unelected advisors.

I have argued that influence of British State agents within the SNP can be seen in the party's reluctance to actually deliver on the series of mandates for independence provided by the people of Scotland at election-after-election. Promoting policies that are hugely unpopular with the public, such as Gender Self-Identification and allowing male sex-offenders into female prisons and safe spaces, has resulted in huge swathes of the public finding the SNP to be out-of-touch and unelectable. These are not the actions of a political party that actually seeks to garner public support and deliver independence for Scotland.

My article in August 2023 was carried by two pro-independence websites: 'Barrhead Boy', run by Roddy MacLeod who hosts the excellent 'Through A Scottish Prism' show, broadcast weekly on YouTube; and the 'Grouse Beater' site, run by one of Scotland's most thoughtful and articulate writers, Gareth Wardell.

Within days of the article appearing it had been picked-up by almost every British nationalist newspaper, and a far-right English broadcaster. All attacked the content of the article, and some attempted to rubbish me personally. One 'Tame Jock', writing for the right-wing, Tory-supporting Times, used his opinion column to add to what certainly appeared to be a co-ordinated attack. What I found significant about the articles carried by the British nationalist newspapers, was that they were virtually identical, some almost word-for-word. I can remember the days when plagiarism was a sackable offence in journalism, but, apparently, not any more. Different journalists, apparently working independently, had remarkably managed to write virtually the same story. I saw five newspapers carrying the story, and I was told there were more. It was almost as if a 'central organisation' had provided the British nationalist media-outlets with a story to use, and instructed them to use it. Now, which 'central organisation' could co-ordinate and pull-off such media manipulation, and which 'central organisation' would want to rubbish an article discussing the extent of British State infiltration of the SNP?

With stories attacking my article being carried extensively in the British nationalist media, it was inevitable that my social media also went a bit crazy. On Twitter/X, a series of posters – most with bios bedecked in British Union flags - took their lead from the British State's paid propagandists in the so-called 'mainstream media'. I found blocking them was immensely cathartic.

There were, though, a number of Twitter posters who posed the same question, which, on the face of it, might seem reasonable. It went along the lines of: 'So, who are the British spies in the SNP? Name names'.

I say the question might seem reasonable, but there is a major problem in directly answering it. I know several members of the SNP who work for the British State. I could name them. However, as I said in response to one of the Twitter posters who posed the question, “I quite like being alive,” and suggested they check-out Willie McRae.

I wasn't being entirely serious. For the record, I don't believe I am important enough for the British State to 'take me out'. Having said that, Willie McRae was killed, almost certainly by agents of the British State, in 1985. McRae, a prominent member of the SNP, had information that could have exposed more than one issue the British State did not want to be made public. Rather than go into more detail here, I suggest anyone interested in what actually happened to Willie McRae should read the book 'Firebrand' by Ron Culley (available from Amazon Books). The point I was making is that the British State does have a history of 'dealing with' anyone who makes public information they would rather you didn't know.

It is also the case that revealing the names of British State agents within the SNP would serve little purpose at this time. As I have previously said, the British State has played a blinder: the SNP is now so compromised and controlled by agents of MI5 and Special Branch that the party no longer represents a threat to the British State. The SNP has been destroyed as an electoral threat. It faces a significant reverse of fortunes at next year's UK Election. It could be that the British State will consider its job is done with regards to the SNP.

Finally, to those SNP loyalists who have argued that the party is not infiltrated and controlled by the British State: you do realise that your argument means the SNP has turned itself into an unelectable, non-threat to the British State through nothing more than colossal incompetence? Does that make you feel better about those in leadership roles within the party?

NOTES

My life-story is told in my first book - Was It Something I Said? - including my time in politics and what actually happened during my time in the SNP Whips Office, and as a Member of the Scottish Parliament. My two other books, Outspoken - Part One and Outspoken - Part Two, take us through the eventful last ten-years of Scottish and UK politics, from the Independence Referendum to the present day and the British State capture of the SNP. All three are available from Amazon Books. If you don’t want to buy from Amazon, they are also available from Lulu Publishing.

BRITISH STATE INFILTRATION OF THE SNP

I recently had a conversation with Roddy MacLeod, Barrhead Boy of Through A Scottish Prism. Roddy reminded me of a time when some people considered me to be a rising star of the Scottish National Party, which, in turn, reminded me of an article in a newspaper from when I was an MSP. The article stated: “Martin is spoken of as a possible future leader of the SNP,” but it concluded with a quote from an unnamed SNP parliamentary colleague, which said: “Yeah, but there are a number of us who will do whatever it takes to make sure that never happens” – and they did.

I was elected as an SNP MSP in 2003…and expelled by the party in 2004. That has to be some sort of a record. It only took them a year to decide they had to get rid of me. I was the first SNP parliamentarian to be expelled by the party and the first MSP of any party to be expelled. My ‘offence’ that led to my expulsion was to have publicly criticised the ‘leadership’ of John Swinney – the Doyen of Devolution – and to have argued that the SNP should be demanding ‘independence, nothing less’, rather than seeking to manage the devolved Scottish Parliament within the United Kingdom.

My time at the Scottish Parliament actually started in its first days, in 1999. I was employed as the Parliamentary Assistant to the legendary Kay Ullrich. In addition to constituency work, I helped Kay in her role as the SNP Shadow Minister for Health and Community Care. In 2000, when Kay became the SNP Chief Whip, I moved with her to the Whips Office and took on the role of SNP Whips Administrator. This position meant I was privy to a lot of sensitive information about SNP MSPs. In my autobiography – Was It Something I Said? – I set-out some of the issues we had to deal with in the Whips Office. I’ll refer to all three of my books at the end of this piece.

Back in those very early days of the Scottish Parliament, I remember having a conversation with a few SNP MSPs about how many people on the SNP floor of the parliamentary offices would

actually be working for the other side, for the British State. It seemed to us to be a certainty that there would be British State assets amongst us, both MSPs and staffers. It was, and remains, insane to think that the British State would not have infiltrated the SNP, a political party that claimed to have as its raison d’etre the break-up of the British State.

The difference between those early days of the Scottish Parliament and today, is that the British State assets in the SNP have, over the intervening years, risen-through the ranks and now hold senior positions that have allowed them to influence party policies and direction, such as adopting a lack of urgency in delivering independence…and that’s putting it mildly.

John Swinney has always been a devolutionist. He once told me he admired what Tony Blair had done with the Labour Party, and his ambition was to re-create that transformation with the SNP, to create New SNP. His plan was for the SNP to copy New Labour by moving the party from its traditional, moderate left-of-centre position to adopting a moderate, right-of-centre position. As happened with New Labour, Swinney’s vision was for New SNP to become a Tory-lite party, and that is what happened when he succeeded Alex Salmond as party leader in 2000.

Swinney almost killed the SNP, which was why I spoke-out publicly, calling for him to resign and for Alex Salmond to return as party leader.

I was expelled in 2004, just before Swinney resigned as leader. He orchestrated my expulsion, which he demanded should happen before he tendered his resignation. Within a couple of weeks, Alex Salmond returned and saved the SNP.

I was approached about re-joining the party, but I asked why I would want to be a member of a political party that had broken its own constitution and rules in order to expel me, and I declined the invitation. I served the remaining three-years of the parliamentary term as an Independent MSP, sitting beside a legend of the independence movement who also found herself outside of the SNP, a woman who became a great friend of mine, Margo MacDonald.

Having saved the SNP, Alex Salmond turned around the party’s fortunes and took Scotland to the brink of independence in the 2014 referendum. Sadly, the immediate aftermath of the referendum saw what I believe was a rare error on Alex’s part: he decided he should stand down as leader. I don’t think he had to stand down, but as a man of integrity he probably felt he failed to deliver for the independence movement. I think that judgement was too harsh. If Alex had remained leader of the SNP in 2014, I firmly believe Scotland would be an independent country today.

What we got when Alex stood down, though, was a return to devolutionist leadership of the SNP.

Nicola Sturgeon was the new leader, but Devo-John (Swinney) was back in a very influential position. This also brings us back to British State infiltration of the SNP.

Within espionage circles there are four accepted reasons for why people betray a cause. The acronym for those reasons is MICE, which stands for: M – money; I – ideology; C- compromise; and E – ego. Compromise is, essentially, blackmail. I’ll leave it to others to decide who within the SNP might fall into each category.

It’s also worth mentioning that there are different types of traitors. Not everyone is an agent of MI5 or Special Branch: some are known as ‘assets’. Their job is simply to listen to what they hear from colleagues or party members, and pass-back anything they think would be of interest to the British State. Agents are different: they have been placed within an organisation, such as the SNP, and have been given specific tasks to carry out. Tasks such as undermining the organisation and neutralising its effectiveness in challenging the control of the British State.

How many British State agents and assets are there within the SNP? Who knows? Well, obviously, the British State knows. I will say, though, that I remember reading a statement made by a former Special Branch agent who had infiltrated the Socialist Workers Party. The SWP was a tiny left-wing political party, but it had been so heavily infiltrated that the agent recorded in his statement that he felt when he attended some meetings most people there were either MI5 or Special Branch. Agents and Assets didn’t know each other, they were all carrying out their roles independently.

If the British State had so heavily infiltrated a tiny socialist party, how much attention would it have directed to a Scottish political party that had risen to the brink of power? Today, after all that has happened, I still see SNP loyalists claim the party has not been infiltrated. That assertion is just insane.

During ‘the troubles’ in the north of Ireland, the British State had infiltrated the IRA to such an extent that one its agents was a man called Freddie Scapiticci, codenamed ‘Steaknife’. Scapiticci was the IRA’s Head of Internal Security, and he was an MI5 agent.

In the 1970s, when British governments feared powerful trade unions, particularly the National Union of Mineworkers, a Special Branch agent was a man called Joe Gormley: he was the National President of the Mineworkers Union. You can’t get higher than National President, and he was a Special Branch asset. In the bitter, year-long Miners’ Strike of 1984-85, papers prepared for then Tory Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher showed MI5 were receiving reports from one of their agents called Roger Windsor. Windsor was the Chief Executive of the NUM. Still, though, SNP loyalists argue the British State has not infiltrated the party.

In 1984, a woman called Cathy Massiter went public about her former work as an MI5 officer. One of the reasons Cathy Massiter gave for leaving MI5 was that the job had changed, she said it had become more political. She added that the role of MI5 had changed from counter-espionage to domestic surveillance.

Recently, I spoke with a senior serving-officer of Police Scotland. They spoke on condition of anonymity and stated there were some questions they would not answer. I started the interview with the core question: has Police Scotland infiltrated the SNP? The officer replied that they could not answer that question. Before I said anything more, the officer added, ‘Although, by giving that answer, I have probably told you what you want to know’.

Police Scotland does not actually have a Special Branch, but if you press them on the matter, they do admit to having officers who carry out duties that are normally associated with the work of a Special Branch. One other thing the Police Scotland officer said chimed with what Cathy Massiter said when she left MI5. The officer said that since the creation of Police Scotland, the job had become much more political. They felt that the most senior officers in the force were taking direction from politicians and Civil Servants. They also offered the opinion that the same relationships existed in the Crown Office Procurator Fiscal Service.

If that is the case, it certainly explains some recent prosecutions in Scotland. It would also throw light onto the comment by outgoing Police Scotland Chief Constable Iain Livingstone, when he told The Times newspaper that, “our close relationship with Nicola Sturgeon complicated the criminal investigation into the SNP’s finances”.

I used to know Nicola well. We are both from North Ayrshire and cut our political-teeth fighting a dominant Labour Party in our local area. We also later served together as SNP MSPs, albeit for only a year, before the party expelled me. Nicola’s leadership of the SNP – with the input of Devo-John Swinney and Angus ‘BBC World Service’ Robertson – has returned the party to the brink of disaster. Back in the mists of time, I once suggested that Swinney and his clique were not interested in independence. They would take it if it fell into their laps, but they were never going to fight for it. All they wanted was to get their backsides onto the back-seats of Ministerial Mondeos and to be ‘important’ Government Ministers in a devolved Scottish government within the British Union.

How captured the SNP has become was encapsulated for me in the final letter Nicola Sturgeon wrote as First Minister of Scotland. It was a letter of resignation to the English King, Charles III. The final sentence of the letter, just above Nicola Sturgeon’s signature, read: ‘I have the honour to be, Sir, Your Majesty’s humble and obedient servant’. No-one who sees Scotland as a progressive, potentially independent country, could have signed their name to such a grovelling letter to the pinnacle of the English/British establishment. To also see Nicola and then Humza Yousaf bow their heads to the English King confirmed the total capture of the SNP by the British State.

When I saw Nicola’s letter and the bowing and scraping to the English King, I was reminded of an incident that took place in Ireland in 1916, shortly after the Easter Rising by Irish freedom-fighters. Edinburgh-born James Connolly was the Commander of the Irish Citizens Army at the rising. He had been so badly wounded during the fighting that the British had to strap him to a chair in order to execute him by firing squad. A few days later, Lillie Connolly, James’ widow, went to the British headquarters to retrieve her husband’s effects. She was met by the man who had ordered James’ execution, Major General Sir John Maxwell, who held out his hand as Lillie approached him. Lillie held his gaze and her hands remained firmly behind her back.

One of the many messages Scots need to learn from Ireland is the actions of Lillie Connolly. Some things do not deserve civility or respect or obedience. She faced-down the authority and power of the English. While Scotland has leaders who bow to the English King, and who sign letters as the King’s ‘humble and obedient servant’, Scotland will never be an independent country.

The SNP is completely compromised, it has been captured and controlled by the British State. I’m now in my sixties and for the first time in my life I am thinking that I might not see independence. In the last two years, four of my best friends have died. They all supported independence and voted SNP. They never lived to see the sun rise on the morning of Independence Day. I know all of us have lost such friends who fought so hard over the years for independence, but never lived to see it.

The reality we face means we may have to go back to square-one and start all over again, build the independence movement all over again, through the Alba Party led by Alex Salmond. There are so many of us who built the SNP from a party on the fringes of the political spectrum to a party the people of Scotland trusted sufficiently to put them into government. If we have to do it all over again, we can. This time, though, we need to look-out for those whose loyalties lie not with the interests of Scotland, but in maintaining British State control of our people and assets.

You have to hand it to the British State, it has played a blinder: today’s SNP is so corrupted by British agents that it has sidelined independence and embraced gender policies that make the party unelectable. For the British State that is job done.

The people of Scotland are the sovereign power, not the SNP. In terms of the Independence Movement, the SNP is the past. The future is Scotland United for Independence. One pro-independence candidate in each constituency that the people can unite behind. Despite the SNP, independence is still achievable.

NOTES

My life-story is told in my first book – Was It Something I Said? – including my time in politics and what actually happened during my time in the SNP Whips Office, and as a Member of the Scottish Parliament. My two other books, Outspoken – Part One and Outspoken– Part Two, take us through the eventful last ten-years of Scottish and UK politics, from the Independence Referendum to the present day and the British State capture of the SNP. All three are available from Amazon Books. If you don’t want to buy from Amazon, they are also available from Lulu Publishing.

This article was first published in August 2023 by barrheadboy.com and grousebeater.wordpress.com. 

BOOKS BY CAMPBELL MARTIN

 

Campbell Martin is the author of three books.

The first, 'Was It Something I Said?', is his autobiography and tells the story of what has been described as “an often troubled life”. Campbell was raised in a working-class family in the west of Scotland and went on to become a Member of the Scottish Parliament. His story recalls his time in the Whips Office of the Scottish National Party, his time as an MSP, and his expulsion from the SNP. Away from politics, Campbell describes issues that have impacted on his life from childhood to the present day.

Campbell's two other books – 'OUTSPOKEN – Part One' and 'OUTSPOKEN – Part Two' – are contemporary accounts of the eventful past ten-years (2013-2023) in Scottish and UK politics, issues affecting society and international affairs. Part One includes the build-up to Scotland's referendum on independence, the vote and the aftermath. Part Two takes us from the SNP's landslide victory at the 2015 UK Election, through subsequent headline-grabbing issues and concludes in July 2023.

The content of the OUTSPOKEN books has been described as “writing that never strays far from controversial”. 

Was It Something I Said?

OUTSPOKEN - Part One 

OUTSPOKEN - Part Two

 

 

SCOTLAND WITHIN THE UNITED KINGDOM (2007)

 

 Sixteen-years-ago today – March 22, 2007 - this was my final contribution to the Scottish Parliament. It came in a Labour-LibDem Scottish Executive (government) debate on a motion titled 'Scotland in the United Kingdom'. It was supposed to be a platform for Labour and the other British unionist parties to promote Scotland the devolved region of the UK ahead of the 2007 Scottish Parliament Election to be held a few weeks later.

 

My speech features a short intervention from my old pal Margo MacDonald. It should be noted that Margo and I were sitting as Independents: I had been expelled by the SNP and Margo was forced-out of the party under the disastrous 'leadership' of devolutionist John Swinney.

 

Regarding my comment in the last sentence, I never for one moment thought we would still be waiting 16-years-later.

 

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

 

Scottish Parliament Official Report

March 22 2007

 

Debate on Scottish Executive Motion 'Scotland in the United Kingdom'

 

Campbell Martin (Ind):

The Minister for Parliamentary Business said that she - I think she meant the Labour Party - came to the Parliament to manage devolution. Well, I did not come here to manage devolution, which partly explains why I now sit as an Independent.

 

Personally, I came here to do my best for the people of Scotland. I do not think we can achieve the best for the people of Scotland in a devolved, constrained, limited Parliament.

 

Margaret Curran (Minister for Parliamentary Business):

Will the member take an intervention?

 

Campbell Martin:

No thanks. We have had three-hundred years of apologists for the British Union. We don't need to hear any more.

 

The people of Scotland have always known their place within the Union, because we have always been told our place within the Union. The Scots' role has been as a labour-force and, in times of war, cannon-fodder.

 

It is not just British political parties or the British establishment that have kept Scotland in its place within the Union; the north-British subsections of the British Labour Party and the other Unionist parties, members of which have spoken in this debate, have conspired to tell the people of Scotland that we are too wee, too poor and too stupid to govern ourselves. That is the reality of Scotland within the United Kingdom.

 

It is not normal for one nation to be governed by another. However, that is the situation we have today. This is only a devolved Parliament, which is answerable to the Westminster Parliament. This Parliament is totally subservient to the Parliament in London.

 

We need independence because only with independence can we deal with the bread-and-butter issues that affect Scots every day of their lives. The Unionist parties have told us they want the election to be about the bread-and-butter issues, not about constitutional change. I argue that we need constitutional change to give us the full powers and full resources we require to deal with the problems - the bread-and-butter issues - affecting Scots today. Without the powers that come only with independence, we will continue to target initiatives at symptoms, rather than at the actual problems.

 

We know that Unionist political parties do not always tell the truth when they are talking about the constitution and independence. Back when the constitutional reality was a Scotland governed directly from London, we were told that devolution would be a leap in the dark and probably would be the end of civilisation as we knew it. That, clearly, was not true. Now we are told that, if we move to independence, it will be a leap in the dark and probably the end of civilisation as we know it. That, too, is untrue. Then again, as I said, Unionist parties have a history of not telling the truth.

 

Charlie Gordon referred to the sweeping-to-power of the Wilson Government in the mid-1970s and how great that was. I remember that, too. I was a teenager in the mid-1970s, and I remember being told by the then Labour Government that Scotland was an economic basket-case and that we couldn't stand on our own two feet and govern ourselves.

 

Margo MacDonald (Ind):

Will Campbell give way?

 

Campbell Martin:

Of course.

 

Margo MacDonald:

I was not at school in the mid-1970s; I was in Westminster. I was told, privately, by the Chancellor of the Exchequer a few years later that Scotland was not, in fact, an economic basket-case; that my case was watertight, but that he would oppose me every inch of the way. That was Denis Healey.

 

Campbell Martin:

Yet Denis Healey was the very man who said, publicly, that we were an economic basket-case and could not stand on our own two feet. As I said, unionist politicians and political parties do not always tell the truth when they are talking about the constitution.

 

Dr Gavin McCrone supplied a report to the Labour Government at that time. The Labour Government had told us that Scotland was an economic basket-case and that we were too wee, too poor and too stupid, but, at the same time, McCrone was telling them that Scotland could quickly become one of Europe's strongest economies with embarrassingly large surpluses. McCrone told the Labour Government that oil revenue would: "transform Scotland into a country with a substantial and chronic surplus." I imagine, from a Unionist perspective, such Scottish wealth would result from a 'plague' of oil.

So, British Unionist parties have a track record of not telling the truth. The people of Scotland would vote for independence if Unionist politicians did not lie to them. Those politicians know they are lying because they are intelligent people; well, relatively intelligent people.

 

Why is Scotland - alone among all the nations in the world - unable to stand on its own two feet or to manage its affairs better in its people's interests? Why do Unionist political parties have to do Scotland down and scare the people of Scotland away from their democratic right to retake their independence?

 

Roll on the day - it is coming, and members know it - when the people of Scotland retake their independence for the benefit of all the people of Scotland.

 

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

 

Books by Campbell Martin:

 

Was It Something I Said?

ANYONE FANCY A BY-ELECTION IN GLASGOW SOUTHSIDE?

Just a thought: what if Nicola Sturgeon didn't put her feet up and settle into the back-benches at Holyrood until the next Scottish Parliament Election in three-years time? What if, instead, Nicola Sturgeon stood-down as MSP for the Glasgow Southside constituency?

If the outgoing First Minister took that course of action, there would be a by-election to select a new MSP for the Glasgow constituency. At the 2021 Scottish Parliament Election, the Labour candidate in Glasgow Southside was Anas Sarwar. A candidate cannot contest an election to the Scottish Parliament if they already hold a seat at Holyrood [Scotland Act 1998: Section 9]. So, if Sarwar was to contest a by-election in Glasgow Southside, he would first have to stand-down as a Regional List MSP for Glasgow.

Of course, Sarwar might choose not to be the Labour candidate at such a by-election, but what would that say about how he thinks his party is likely to perform in Scotland? Would the leader of the Labour Party in Scotland really allow the country to see that he, personally, was feart to fight the SNP in a one-off by-election?

So, if Nicola Sturgeon stood down as an MSP, creating a by-election in Glasgow Southside, the pressure would be on Anas Sarwar to lead from the front for Labour and to contest the seat. Would Sarwar have the courage to do that, given he would have to stand-down from his current position as a List MSP for Glasgow and, if he didn't win the by-election, he would be out of the Scottish Parliament until 2026? On the plus side for Anas Sarwar, though, is the chance he could be the Labour candidate who took the seat of the former SNP First Minister.

Just for background: the first Scottish Parliament constituency by-election was in March 2000, just 10-months after the first full elections in 1999. Labour MSP Ian Welsh stood-down in the Ayr constituency. At the 1999 Election, the Tory candidate was Phil Gallie, who had previously been the MP for Ayr. Labour's majority was just 25. Despite this, Gallie chose not to fight the by-election, which would have required him to stand-down as a List MSP for South of Scotland. In the 2000 by-election, the Tories took Ayr with Labour falling to third behind the SNP.

In 2006, on the death of SNP MSP Margaret Ewing, there was a by-election in the Moray constituency. Richard Lochhead for the SNP and Mary Scanlon for the Tories were both sitting List MSPs representing the North East Scotland Region. Both stood-down to contest the constituency by-election. Richard Lochhead won for the SNP, while Mary Scanlon finished second and was out of parliament until the 2007 Scottish Parliament Election when she was again returned as a Regional List MSP for North East Scotland.

So, if Nicola Sturgeon stood-down as an MSP and created a by-election in the Glasgow Southside constituency, would Anas Sarwar be prepared to stand-down as a Regional List MSP for Glasgow to contest the constituency seat, or would he bottle-it, remain as a List MSP and send the message that he doesn't think Labour would win with him as the candidate?

Ultimately, a decision on whether or not to call a by-election in Glasgow Southside lies with Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP. If they haven't considered the position a by-election would place Anas Sarwar, they should have. Of course the SNP would have to consider that they might lose a by-election. However, given that the SNP majority in Glasgow Southside at the 2021 Scottish Parliament Election was 9,465, surely the party could not throw away such a massive electoral advantage. Actually, given the state of today's gender-obsessed SNP, they might want to sit tight, even if that lets Anas Sarwar off the by-election hook.