THERE WAS ANOTHER COURT RULING TODAY

Much is being made by the tabloids (and that really means all papers in the UK now) of the SNP losing the case against a Christian organisation in the matter of the Named Person legislation. Although it's rather less cut and dried than they have made out, as a glance at Lallands Peat Worrier will tell you, let's not get too cross at the opposition parties for getting all worked up with excitement. It isn't often they have anything to get worked up about, after all.

But for all the bluster, the court only pointed out that the legislation needed refining. Mr Swinney has said they will do that. Barnardos Scotland seems happy with that result.

Update: The BBC has finally changed their story. Maybe some of the Unionists who were making capital out of this would like to apologise.

The Christian Institute, as Lallands point out have won a Pyrrhic Victory.  

Just as an aside you wonder at a Christian organisation being so dead set against legislation so likely to be helpful to kids in danger. Don't you?

Anyway, as I said, there was another court case today. This time not perhaps so grand as the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, but the English High Court, and august enough organisation, has ruled that Mr Corbyn has every right to stand for the leadership of the Labour Party without having to be nominated.

Mr Corbyn replied:

So the fight is on. It's Jeremy versus Own.

I wonder if the people backing Owen Smith have wondered where the funding and support will come from in a Labour Party led by the right winger.  Possibly not from Unite or Unison it seems. Still maybe Barclays, Lloyds and Mr Murdoch will take over as long as he pursues the "right" agenda.

So, this is the kind of man Jeremy is... Just like the SNP he knows he can't rely on the  right wing press to give him a fair hearing.

And he can't be accused, like so many of his contemporaries, of having his head in the sand (as it were) over the Iraq war. He knew what would happen, he predicted it, and he was right.

On the other hand, we have a man who inspires such enthusiasm in his followers that they look either like they have been drugged, hypnotised, or are just plain bored to death!

When are the tea and biscuits? That what we came for!

Not sure we could make enough tea and biscuits for this lot though. Still they don't look like that's what they came for.

OH REALLY, RUTH, GET A GRIP...

Probably the most offensive thing in this is the use of the word "decent".

WE MIGHT HAVE HAD THE POWER TO STOP THIS IN SCOTLAND...BUT LABOUR VOTED WITH THE TORIES TO KEEP IT IN LONDON

I am totally in agreement with this. We must work together to prevent the passing of the horrific legislation that the Tories are proposing which will remove the rights from workers. The Tory trade Union Bill is a step WAY too far.

However,  if they are serious about beating the Tories on unions, why did they fight tooth and nail with the very same Tories to maintain Westminster hegemony over trades union legislation. Surely even the meanest intelligence would know that in an independent Scotland, the various possibilities of government, coalition or single party, will not (at least for a VERY long time) include the Tories. Surely they understood that Labour or the SNP, or even the Greens or Liberals would never propose this kind of legislation? No, agreeing with the Tories and doing down the SNP was more important than the union law which may very well pass despite the combined efforts of Corbyn's Labour Party, the SNP and the smaller parties. When will Labour understand that London doesn't give a stuff about trades unions or the working person?

SNAPS ON SUNDAY...THE NEW ERA FOR NEW OLD LABOUR...or something

We'll have a little more fun at Jim and Kez's expense, then, we promise, we shall move on.

A good deal has already been said on these pages about the strange choice of a right wing leader and deputy leader for a party which appears to need, more than anything, to shore up its left of centre votes; about the choice of a party leader, in a branch desperately trying to show that London does not control what Scottish Labour thinks or does, who sits in Westminster and was the clear choice of the Westminster management to sort out the rebellious Jocks, and at least at this moment, who has shadow cabinet responsibility under Ed Miliband for a non devolved area.

Of course we can expect him to get an easy ride from the BBC... and from what I heard he got exactly that this morning. No-one questioned what he will do about his Westminster seat come May; no one asked what he will do if he fails to be elected to either Westminster or Holyrood.

If you want to bunk off from your job, surely the right time do do it
is when the chamber is doing something as totally unproductive as
licking Mrs Thatcher's boots. Not when they are discussing a living wage.
Of course, some people already get a living wage.
Silly me, I forgot that.

But at some stage in the future, surely someone from the BBC is bound to, even in the interests of appearing to be some sort of serious journalist... (so that means Brewer, and not Smith) ... question what his line is now on tuition fees, privatisation of health and water, post office, rail, electricity and gas; on nuclear weapons (that the Scottish branch voted against) 25 miles from Glasgow; on Palestine, MPs' expenses, the House of Lords, royals, benefit caps, Atos-style assessments, benefit sanctioning, bedroom tax, pensions; on Israel, Iraq, Syria, Scottish complicity in torture... (he was SoS when the torturees were landing at Prestwick) and why in 2009, he was allegedly involved in the setting up of a cross party coalition which wanted to stop there even being a referendum in Scotland, whilst operating a scam on his rent!

We can be fairly certain of what his views were on some of these issues last week... but it would be interesting to know what are they now, and what they might be if ever he were to be first minister of our country?

Aww isn't that nice.  Con and Lab are all friends now.
Sod the poor then?

It must be comforting though, for Jim to know, that he has already started to do what any new leader should, and attracted new members to the party....albeit from the Conservatives (their money is as good as anyone's... and there's usually a lot of it). Nice folk too... if you like that sort of thing.

Anyway... here are a few of my favourite snaps on this Sunday, celebrating Jim and Kez's crowning.

Yep! Seems like a reasonable assumption.

My ex-MP seems to have seen what Labour hasn't.

Russell Brand started a craze. 

Is that tree in London?

Seriously ...these people fund Labour.

He must be very rich by now...
Rich enough to be a Tory.

On education – “How do you get the youngsters to a better position? It’s about the mums being better readers and preparing the kids for day one at school.”

The mums? Back to nice, neat, gendered roles then? And of course playing to a ludicrous notion that working class women can’t read.

On tax relief for firms – “We also need to get better at using the tools available to our local authorities, such as tax relief for firms paying the Living Wage.”

Eh…no. Why should the public purse subsidise profit-making companies?

On the Smith Commission – “As we implement the Smith Agreement we should seek to bring these new powers as close to local communities as is possible. We should devolve not just to councils but also to local coalitions involving councils, business, charities and other government agencies like the NHS.”

That would be a postcode lottery then…and it would be a lottery that allows businesses to influence (read “lobby”) local politicians’ decisions in terms of welfare. Not a good idea.

Sarah Collins

1. Authoritarianism. In 1996 Jim Murphy graced the House of Commons for the first time when he was the subject of an unprecedented ‘Early Day Motion’ which condemned his presidency of the National Union of Students (NUS) for “intolerant and dictatorial behaviour”. He had engaged in a furious campaign of persecution against NUS officials who supported NUS policy of free education at a time when (as today) Labour Party policy was against free education. Murphy left the NUS for a job in the Labour Party.

2. Fingers in the till. In 2012 Jim Murphy was found to have exploited a loophole in his parliamentary expenses, by letting out his London address at the same time as claiming its rent. He is believed to have made anywhere up to £20,000. Incredibly, he was carrying out this scheme when in 2009 he apologised “on behalf of all politicians” for expenses theft.

3. Staunch defence of Israel. In 2001 and 2002 Jim Murphy was the chair of ‘Labour Friends of Israel’. During his tenure war criminal and architect of the massacres at Sabra and Shatila, Ariel Sharon, became Prime Minister of Israel and construction of the now infamous West Bank Barrier began.

In 2011 he attacked the Trades Union Congress for supporting the boycott, calling it “a big step backwards” and also criticised student campaigners pushing for an academic boycott. He dismissed a UN vote to recognise the Palestinian state as ‘symbolic’. He insisted that the Labour Party under Ed Miliband must remain a ‘staunch supporter of Israel’. There is no evidence that recent massacres -particularly in Gaza – have changed is attitude.

Support for the Apartheid state was once widespread in the Labour party. Following decades of genocide against the Palestinians it is now widely recognised as an extremist position.

4. Leading Membership of the Henry Jackson Society. Blairism in foreign policy terms is a form of Neo-Conservatism. But it is very rare for a Blairite to openly subscribe to Neo-Conservative ideology.

Jim Murphy is a member of the ‘Political Council’ of the HJS – he is one of a few fanatical Blairites on the Political Council which is utterly dominated by Conservative ultra-reactionary back benchers – the same ones who are now calling for a coalition with UKIP.

Henry Jackson was a military hawk and ‘anti-communist’ McCarthyite senator. The society named after him, founded in the U.S but transported to London in the run-up to the Iraq war, is the main bastion of Neo-Conservatism on these islands. 

David Jamieson RIC

Yes, Westminster knows best, Neil.
That's why they couldn't let you be leader!

If the unions disaffiliate, Labour will have to become even more
right wing to attract big business's money.

But it seems his meeting with the ex-pope has bestowed
something upon him.

Small problem!

I'd hang on to that jaicket if I were you!

But certainly a patroniser of women, none the less!

Yes Frankie, here is it.

Lewis...

"YOUR TIME HAS COME , DARLING"

By Allan Grogan

Twa Rich Embra Lawyers

Going against the grain can be a daunting, yet sometimes, uplifting experience. But in politics it is often viewed as an ink blot on your copybook – by both sides. Disagreeing with the Labour Party in its opposition to independence and founding Labour for Independence guaranteed an uncomfortable ride. Suspicion among some Nationalists as to our intentions was to be expected. But it has been closer to home where we have faced our harshest critics.

Labelled a front for the SNP by no less a figure than our Deputy Scottish Leader Anas Sarwar, we at Scottish Labour for Independence (SLFI) have taken these accusations on the chin while insisting that independence will not only be good for Scotland, but for the Labour Party too.

Funnily enough, we never attended an SNP conference, meeting or social event. So it came as some surprise to me when I read that our former Chancellor, eminent Labour politician and Chairman of the Better Together campaign, Alistair Darling, was to appear at the Scottish Conservative conference in Stirling.

If nothing else comes from this referendum, surely this indicates a seismic shift within the Labour Party in Scotland. The sight of a senior Labour politician at a Tory conference must have Keir Hardie, Bevan, Smith and Dewar burling in their graves.

The Labour Party's very foundations are fairness and equality, so in the interests of these values let's ask: If I were to represent SLFI by speaking at the SNP conference, how many of my party members would call for my immediate expulsion?

Other questions about Mr Darling’s curious decision need to be asked. Was our Scottish leader Johann Lamont, for example, aware of this engagement? If so did she try to forbid it?

If the answer is yes, then surely Mr Darling’s actions present a clear and present danger to the Scottish Labour Party.

The truth is that many within Labour are no longer sure where their party lies within the No camp. Was it a voice of protest from within the membership calling for a removal of Labour from Better Together that prompted the creation of United with Labour? If this is the case, then why is Mr Darling still the head of BT? More importantly, why is he given carte blanche to speak at another party's conference?

One Posh Boy from Oxford

I accept that currently SLFI is in a minority within the Labour Party in relation to the referendum. I also concede that when I speak, I do not do so for the Labour Party; I do not have that mandate. But nor does the Labour leadership, because they have acted without a members’ vote on such a crucial issue.

Yet I want to make clear that our issue is not with the Labour Party, the members, supporters and voters... we are still among you. Our battle is against the top brass taking our party to the brink of the abyss in Scotland.

In Westminster we are seeing Labour chase the tail of UKIP and the Tories. The desire to gain election-winning votes in Southern England is causing Labour to be further removed from its values and founding principles. One need only look at Ed Balls for proof of this. Despite demanding a Plan B for three years, he now declares Labour will continue the austerity package. This means further cuts, harder days and nights ahead for the poorest and most vulnerable. Some of the poorest right here in this country.

This is not why I, nor most Labour members in Scotland, joined the party.

Independence is not, of course a silver bullet. There is no magic potion to Scotland's ills. But many a learner driver will tell you that the only way to succeed is to have full control of all the levers of power.

For those within my party who say that a change of government is all that's needed, let me say this: If the imposition of the Bedroom Tax, ATOS deciding disability benefits, and anti -trade union laws, are not enough to convince you Scotland can do better, then the fact that the Labour Party in Westminster either voted for or abstained on these issues surely must.

It occurs to me that the longer Labour for Independence has been in existence the further the UK Labour Party moves to the right. But the more this happens, the more it proves our message to be true. Labour for Independence doesn’t just believe in Labour policy. We believe in what Labour truly stands for. We believe in a vision of a society based on equality, fairness and justice. We believe in a society for all. This vision is not only shared by members of our party but by former members, voters and supporters yet to come.

We are proud of Labour's trade union links, not because they fund us, but of who and what they represent. Most importantly we are proud to support Scottish independence, not as a final destination, but a starting point to a better, fairer and more socially just society.

At the Stirling Conference there were those listening to Mr Darling - and there were many more outside protesting the UK Government’s actions.

Labour for Independence was outside, with the people, where Labour belongs.

  

This is the full version of the extract that appeared in the Daily Record on Saturday 15th June, 2013 and has been lifted by me (Tris) from the Labour for Independence site.