Well, it's finally happened. The people of Scotland are going to have the question of whether or not to become an independent state put to them in a democratic referendum. A lot of nationalists may be forgiven for thinking that this was it, we've won. After all, for the past few years we've been so fixated on simply getting the referendum, that it was easy to forget that we still have to win the thing!
Well, if nothing else, the results of the Scottish elections definitively put an end to any quibbling or petty arguments about the people of Scotland's choosing of their constitutional future. The starkness and definitive nature of the result can be seen in the raw parliamentary arithmetic, the electoral map, and on Youtube, in the shocked faces of candidates, both SNP and otherwise, as their results came in. All uncertainty has been removed, on both sides of the argument. Unionists have had to face up to the fact that, like it or not, there will be a referendum in which the people will exercise their democratic right to choose. To their credit, most of the intelligent ones among them (they do exist) have done so with good grace, and recognise their need to build a positive case for the Union if it is to be preserved. No doubt these same intelligent Unionists are thoroughly dismayed by the recent rumours that Lord Reid will be the man to lead their campaign.....
However, the immediacy and tangibility of the referendum we have long campaigned for also provides some challenges for we nationalists. Politically, nationalism and a desire for independence is what defines us, and it is the only thing that fully unites the SNP. We are a broad church, and whisper it, but without independence many of us would be very at home with Labour, the Lib Dems or the Tories. And yet, in recent years, we have not been doing much talking about independence. This is entirely understandable. The SNP is a nationalist party, but it rightly is also a realist and gradualist party. It has spent the last four years governing competently, addressing the major domestic policy issues and not wasting its time trying to persuade the Unionist majority in the parliament to take their heads out of the sand long enough to hold a referendum.
However this is no longer the case. The election result has put independence right into the spotlight, and has had many of us re-examining our reasons for wanting independence, of which there are as many as there are nationalists. Sometimes, hanging around only with nationalists means we can forget why we want independence, as we all take turns to agree with each other in conversation. Now, with independence cropping up in conversations with other friends, who may not necessarily immediately agree with us, we must get used to hearing our ideas challenged.
So, why do you want independence?
Wednesday, 22 June 2011
Monday, 7 March 2011
EUSNA on the campaign trail
With the Holyrood elections just around the corner, members of EUSNA have been getting involved in the campaign to re-elect the SNP. Over the last four years, the SNP has delivered for Scotland, and come May the people will have a straight choice between the SNP, fighting on a strong record of government and Labour, who over the last four years have offered nothing but negativity and knee-jerk reactionary responses to every initiative.
Members of EUSNA have been out leafleting for Marco Biagi, the SNP's candidate for Edinburgh Central. (visit the Facebook page for Marco's campaign here: http://www.facebook.com/Marco.Biagi.SNPforEdinburghCentral )
We will be getting ever more involved as the election draws nearer. Leafleting, hustings, debates... if you want to get involved, email us as: eusna@hotmail.co.uk
EUSNA members with Jim Eadie, the SNP's candidate for Edinburgh Southern (visit his campaign page here: http://www.edinburghsouthernsnp.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3&Itemid=5 )
Members of EUSNA have been out leafleting for Marco Biagi, the SNP's candidate for Edinburgh Central. (visit the Facebook page for Marco's campaign here: http://www.facebook.com/Marco.Biagi.SNPforEdinburghCentral )
We will be getting ever more involved as the election draws nearer. Leafleting, hustings, debates... if you want to get involved, email us as: eusna@hotmail.co.uk
EUSNA members with Jim Eadie, the SNP's candidate for Edinburgh Southern (visit his campaign page here: http://www.edinburghsouthernsnp.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3&Itemid=5 )
Monday, 28 February 2011
Report from the debate...
A week or so back there was a debate at the University of Edinburgh about how best to respond to the cuts and fees currently dominating education debates. Our newest member, George Lerner, spoke on behalf of EUSNA. He reports...
A panel ended last Thursday to discuss the cuts, our SNP representative, just one of eight, concluded that the general mood was to chastise the major political parties, rile the fifty-person audience with unnerving commendation of bankers, and be subjected to the fawning ferocity of utopic talk that read very little into the problems and solutions faced by Scotland.
It began with an introduction; the beginning of a welcome political dialogue that was not reciprocated with reason granted by the expansive girth of the panel’s Scottish political connections. It included a Conservative, a Labour member, a Lib-Dem, and a Socialist in addition to an Anarchist, a Green, and a Feminist.
While each speaker was asked a question and each one granted the ability to give what was supposed to be a prompt reply, the overall topic of the debate was not Scotland. Indeed, a bystander could have been taken back; temporarily confused that he or she was seated near Westminster, discussing its problems, then really a mere three miles away from Scottish parliament and hundred times at that from London. Despite questions from our own Ben MacPherson and Euan Campbell, a scrappy performance was brought to bear coalescing under an umbrella of either the meanderingly redundant, involving stating with a remedial ‘if bankers do that, we’d be happy to have them leave,’ and party-toeing nihilism to include, ‘well Labour’s policy in Scotland doesn’t exist, so I guess I’ll just make it up as I go along.’ One must question whether bashing bankers, and it came up quite often, does any good. While I agreed that bankers and the banking sector needs to come under major restrictions, one should have mentioned that the banks which were bailed out or nationalized were all South of the Border. Most of the speakers believed that the protesters were doing the right thing. While I agreed that civil disobedience is necessary, nothing has ever accomplished by protesting your way out of it.
It should be noted, though, that the Feminist speaker, who did not have had applause in mind, should nonetheless be congratulated for not conforming to expectation, and discussing the problems directly. She said, ‘women could be most affected by the cuts since they are disproportionately represented in the humanities which are being cut 40 to 60 percent, than the marketable (science and business) degree.’
My thoughts from beginning to end were that the debate ignited few sparks. There were some passionate, albeit, pointed remarks from myself, George Lerner, but overall the mood was acquisitive and not dynamic. Intellectual debate was scorned and riding the bandwagon seemed like a much more enviable opportunity than seeing if Scotland’s perfunctory union with England could get any better. Indeed, not one member of the panel included a singular word in just one their remarks beginning or ending with: ‘Scotland.’ Instead, while the moderator tried their best to keep the panel, and the audience, at ease, the questions and answers were petty, trivial, vague and generalized.
To give one example of what I tried to do when the topic was close to tackling the deficit and cuts, it asked: are there alternatives to the cuts? To which my reply was: why not make it more efficient and save money that way? Surely, cutting out some English bureaucracy in the form of Trident, education, and other public services would go a long way to lessening the stranglehold of £170.8 billion? A budget deficient, which should have been pointed out, is greater than at any time in Scottish and English history except for the wartime needs of just two periods: the 1910s and 1940s. However, while
trying to conjure some reasoned arguments which could step the problems; I myself sometimes showed a lack of concision than the others had.
Speaking for the SNP is possibly one of the most difficult but rewarding opportunities that I could have enjoyed. And, while I should deal with the rancor of the audience and speakers more pristinely, I will make sure that the problems discussed in Scotland should have something to do with Scotland. That’s why I came onto the panel, and I think the audience, through grit and groaning understood my message to them at the end. It’s a much better solution for the SNP to be fighting battles against the banal interlocutors from other parties by explaining to them that if they live in Scotland they should help fight and put the priorities of the people living around the University of Edinburgh first before those of Westminster. That, without touching the education budget, the SNP is going to free up SNP £100m in local NHS spending, what would the other parties do? More cuts, ignore existing solutions for the deficit, and ignore Scotland.
- George Lerner
A panel ended last Thursday to discuss the cuts, our SNP representative, just one of eight, concluded that the general mood was to chastise the major political parties, rile the fifty-person audience with unnerving commendation of bankers, and be subjected to the fawning ferocity of utopic talk that read very little into the problems and solutions faced by Scotland.
It began with an introduction; the beginning of a welcome political dialogue that was not reciprocated with reason granted by the expansive girth of the panel’s Scottish political connections. It included a Conservative, a Labour member, a Lib-Dem, and a Socialist in addition to an Anarchist, a Green, and a Feminist.
While each speaker was asked a question and each one granted the ability to give what was supposed to be a prompt reply, the overall topic of the debate was not Scotland. Indeed, a bystander could have been taken back; temporarily confused that he or she was seated near Westminster, discussing its problems, then really a mere three miles away from Scottish parliament and hundred times at that from London. Despite questions from our own Ben MacPherson and Euan Campbell, a scrappy performance was brought to bear coalescing under an umbrella of either the meanderingly redundant, involving stating with a remedial ‘if bankers do that, we’d be happy to have them leave,’ and party-toeing nihilism to include, ‘well Labour’s policy in Scotland doesn’t exist, so I guess I’ll just make it up as I go along.’ One must question whether bashing bankers, and it came up quite often, does any good. While I agreed that bankers and the banking sector needs to come under major restrictions, one should have mentioned that the banks which were bailed out or nationalized were all South of the Border. Most of the speakers believed that the protesters were doing the right thing. While I agreed that civil disobedience is necessary, nothing has ever accomplished by protesting your way out of it.
It should be noted, though, that the Feminist speaker, who did not have had applause in mind, should nonetheless be congratulated for not conforming to expectation, and discussing the problems directly. She said, ‘women could be most affected by the cuts since they are disproportionately represented in the humanities which are being cut 40 to 60 percent, than the marketable (science and business) degree.’
My thoughts from beginning to end were that the debate ignited few sparks. There were some passionate, albeit, pointed remarks from myself, George Lerner, but overall the mood was acquisitive and not dynamic. Intellectual debate was scorned and riding the bandwagon seemed like a much more enviable opportunity than seeing if Scotland’s perfunctory union with England could get any better. Indeed, not one member of the panel included a singular word in just one their remarks beginning or ending with: ‘Scotland.’ Instead, while the moderator tried their best to keep the panel, and the audience, at ease, the questions and answers were petty, trivial, vague and generalized.
To give one example of what I tried to do when the topic was close to tackling the deficit and cuts, it asked: are there alternatives to the cuts? To which my reply was: why not make it more efficient and save money that way? Surely, cutting out some English bureaucracy in the form of Trident, education, and other public services would go a long way to lessening the stranglehold of £170.8 billion? A budget deficient, which should have been pointed out, is greater than at any time in Scottish and English history except for the wartime needs of just two periods: the 1910s and 1940s. However, while
trying to conjure some reasoned arguments which could step the problems; I myself sometimes showed a lack of concision than the others had.
Speaking for the SNP is possibly one of the most difficult but rewarding opportunities that I could have enjoyed. And, while I should deal with the rancor of the audience and speakers more pristinely, I will make sure that the problems discussed in Scotland should have something to do with Scotland. That’s why I came onto the panel, and I think the audience, through grit and groaning understood my message to them at the end. It’s a much better solution for the SNP to be fighting battles against the banal interlocutors from other parties by explaining to them that if they live in Scotland they should help fight and put the priorities of the people living around the University of Edinburgh first before those of Westminster. That, without touching the education budget, the SNP is going to free up SNP £100m in local NHS spending, what would the other parties do? More cuts, ignore existing solutions for the deficit, and ignore Scotland.
- George Lerner
Tuesday, 11 January 2011
Iain Gray's at it again...
A while ago, I blogged on here about the economic dangers of letting Iain Gray’s fiscal illiteracy loose on Scotland’s economy. That a man who doesn’t know how Norway structures its $510,000,000,000 oil fund thinks he is qualified to say Scotland shouldn’t do the same is odd. That a man who hasn’t a clue about how the financial sector is structured should seek to be first minister of a country which has a large financial sector is worrying. But, perhaps we shouldn’t be surprised. Gray himself opened a speech at the Fabian society some years back by admitting he knew nothing about the economy (http://joanmcalpine.typepad.com/joan_mcalpine/2010/12/oh-dear-kevin-the-teenager-has-got-over-excited-again-iain-gray-according-to-an-interview-in-scotland-on-sundaythinks-he.html). Perhaps he’ll take a crash course should his cohorts emerge victorious in May.
But while overseeing economic development is an important part of the job of First Minister, there are other things for the top man (or woman) in Scotland to see to. One if these is diplomacy. Iain Gray has demonstrated as poor a grasp of diplomacy as he has of economics during his lamentable tenure as Labour’s leader in the Scottish Parliament. He has drawn criticism from Ireland and Norway for misrepresenting them in his attacks on the SNP. Gray can now add Montenegro to his list – perhaps he’s trying to complete a set. Prior to Holyrood’s Christmas break, Gray attacked Alex Salmond for holding up Montenegro as an example of how independence could be achieved. When Salmond noted how the nation of Montenegro went from a plebiscite to UN membership in forty days, Gray lowped to his feet and immediately started mouthing off about ethnic cleansing (which didn’t happen in Montenegro) and two World Wars also being involved… the wars of course, had nothing to do with Montenegro’s independence and I seem to recall hearing that most of the rest of the world suffered then as well, but no matter. Just Gray getting his facts wrong again, nothing to see here, folks.
But, of course, it does matter. It matters to the people of Montenegro when they see their history being misrepresented in public by someone who ought to know matter, and it matters to the people of Scotland that their relations with other nations are not soured by such ill thought out rhetoric. Mark McLachlan at the Universality of Cheese reproduces an email from a Montenegrin friend about how this matters to them, (http://the-universality-of-cheese.blogspot.com/2011/01/nezavisna-crna-gora-nezavisna-scotland.html). The Montenegrin ambassador in London has written to Gray, Ed Milliband and several Scottish newspapers, but of course the arrogant Labour leadership have not bothered to issue an apology.
From the Scotsman:
In it [the letter], the Montenegro Charge D'Affairs, Marijana Zivkovic, writes: "I cannot help but feel deep regret about the way you chose to depict it (Montenegro] in your public statement." The sharply-worded letter to Gray has been copied to Labour leader Ed Miliband. Last night, the SNP said that Gray should withdraw his comments immediately.
Montenegro achieved independence in 2006 after a referendum and is an official candidate for membership of the European Union. In the letter to Gray, Zivkovic says: "Your statement that Montenegro was involved in 'ethnic cleansing' including your references to 'a war crimes tribunal and a UN peacekeeping mission' is simply incorrect.'
She adds: "It was the only former Yugoslav republic where neither war nor devastation took place in the last decade of the 20th century."
Is this really the kind of representation for our country that we want at international level? Gray and Labour are an embarrassment to Scotland, and we cannot let them get their grubby, blundering hands on power to embarrass us even more.
But while overseeing economic development is an important part of the job of First Minister, there are other things for the top man (or woman) in Scotland to see to. One if these is diplomacy. Iain Gray has demonstrated as poor a grasp of diplomacy as he has of economics during his lamentable tenure as Labour’s leader in the Scottish Parliament. He has drawn criticism from Ireland and Norway for misrepresenting them in his attacks on the SNP. Gray can now add Montenegro to his list – perhaps he’s trying to complete a set. Prior to Holyrood’s Christmas break, Gray attacked Alex Salmond for holding up Montenegro as an example of how independence could be achieved. When Salmond noted how the nation of Montenegro went from a plebiscite to UN membership in forty days, Gray lowped to his feet and immediately started mouthing off about ethnic cleansing (which didn’t happen in Montenegro) and two World Wars also being involved… the wars of course, had nothing to do with Montenegro’s independence and I seem to recall hearing that most of the rest of the world suffered then as well, but no matter. Just Gray getting his facts wrong again, nothing to see here, folks.
But, of course, it does matter. It matters to the people of Montenegro when they see their history being misrepresented in public by someone who ought to know matter, and it matters to the people of Scotland that their relations with other nations are not soured by such ill thought out rhetoric. Mark McLachlan at the Universality of Cheese reproduces an email from a Montenegrin friend about how this matters to them, (http://the-universality-of-cheese.blogspot.com/2011/01/nezavisna-crna-gora-nezavisna-scotland.html). The Montenegrin ambassador in London has written to Gray, Ed Milliband and several Scottish newspapers, but of course the arrogant Labour leadership have not bothered to issue an apology.
From the Scotsman:
In it [the letter], the Montenegro Charge D'Affairs, Marijana Zivkovic, writes: "I cannot help but feel deep regret about the way you chose to depict it (Montenegro] in your public statement." The sharply-worded letter to Gray has been copied to Labour leader Ed Miliband. Last night, the SNP said that Gray should withdraw his comments immediately.
Montenegro achieved independence in 2006 after a referendum and is an official candidate for membership of the European Union. In the letter to Gray, Zivkovic says: "Your statement that Montenegro was involved in 'ethnic cleansing' including your references to 'a war crimes tribunal and a UN peacekeeping mission' is simply incorrect.'
She adds: "It was the only former Yugoslav republic where neither war nor devastation took place in the last decade of the 20th century."
Is this really the kind of representation for our country that we want at international level? Gray and Labour are an embarrassment to Scotland, and we cannot let them get their grubby, blundering hands on power to embarrass us even more.
Tuesday, 12 October 2010
The Problem(s) with our Parliament
The Problem(s) with our Parliament…
Since the fall of the Berlin wall in 1989, countries across Europe have had to adapt their structures and functions due to global and regional pressures. Indeed, nation states have had to move away from the traditional nation state model, with sovereign and legislative powers being devolved to local, regional and European levels.
Amongst this back drop of structural change, minority national parties across Europe have campaigned for their respective regions to have some form of political and financial autonomy. This challenge to the centralist notion of power has resulted in regions across Europe being given substantial powers concerning domestic matters.
And indeed, we in Scotland have recently celebrated the tenth anniversary of our very own devolved parliament. However, instead of this moment being generally one of celebration there has been a dispute over the benefits of the parliament and a debate about the future of the Scottish parliament.
Firstly, it has to be conceded that the parliament did have considerable teething problems, however the parliament has delivered some significant policies such as free personal care for the elderly, the banning of smoking in public places and the abolishment of tuition fees just to name a few. Furthermore, the parliament has made considerable progress in allowing the parliament to be as accessible and open to the Scottish public.
So, yes, the parliament has had, and I am sure will continue having a positive impact on Scotland. However, the future impact it will have is directly linked to the constitutional future in Scotland. Should the Scottish parliament have more powers? Indeed should it have full fiscal powers?
Well, yes, the Scottish parliament needs more powers, especially fiscal powers. Currently, the Scottish parliament is one of the few, if not the only parliament in the world which doesn’t raise the money it spends. The potential of the parliament is being limited due to the absence of fiscal powers.
When one considers the potential of renewable energy supplies in Scotland, one has to realise that for Scotland to reach its potential in this field, the parliament needs full fiscal powers. It needs to be allowed to set competitive rates for businesses to come and develop and harness our renewable energies. Indeed, if the parliament had the ability to raise a public debt, the government in Scotland could invest in an industry which needs large amounts of capital to establish and build the structures needed. This money would create jobs and create the biggest renewable energy industry in all of Europe.
However, even if the parliament does get more powers, this will not be solely enough to improve it. For too long many of the political parties have hindered the development of the parliament. Partisanship too often dominates debate after debate. Instead of debating the actual detail of the policies, the politicians at times have refused to move towards a common consensus due to the hard work of party whips and the impact of the political culture.
What needs to happen is for politicians to break away from the old political culture of Westminster. Parties need to encourage bills from committees and individuals. Indeed, all parties in opposition need to use the committees to influence and enhance the legislative programme of the parliament.
With more powers and resources, along with a change of political culture at Holyrood, the Scottish parliament can only then try and work towards its full potential.
Independence anyone?
Since the fall of the Berlin wall in 1989, countries across Europe have had to adapt their structures and functions due to global and regional pressures. Indeed, nation states have had to move away from the traditional nation state model, with sovereign and legislative powers being devolved to local, regional and European levels.
Amongst this back drop of structural change, minority national parties across Europe have campaigned for their respective regions to have some form of political and financial autonomy. This challenge to the centralist notion of power has resulted in regions across Europe being given substantial powers concerning domestic matters.
And indeed, we in Scotland have recently celebrated the tenth anniversary of our very own devolved parliament. However, instead of this moment being generally one of celebration there has been a dispute over the benefits of the parliament and a debate about the future of the Scottish parliament.
Firstly, it has to be conceded that the parliament did have considerable teething problems, however the parliament has delivered some significant policies such as free personal care for the elderly, the banning of smoking in public places and the abolishment of tuition fees just to name a few. Furthermore, the parliament has made considerable progress in allowing the parliament to be as accessible and open to the Scottish public.
So, yes, the parliament has had, and I am sure will continue having a positive impact on Scotland. However, the future impact it will have is directly linked to the constitutional future in Scotland. Should the Scottish parliament have more powers? Indeed should it have full fiscal powers?
Well, yes, the Scottish parliament needs more powers, especially fiscal powers. Currently, the Scottish parliament is one of the few, if not the only parliament in the world which doesn’t raise the money it spends. The potential of the parliament is being limited due to the absence of fiscal powers.
When one considers the potential of renewable energy supplies in Scotland, one has to realise that for Scotland to reach its potential in this field, the parliament needs full fiscal powers. It needs to be allowed to set competitive rates for businesses to come and develop and harness our renewable energies. Indeed, if the parliament had the ability to raise a public debt, the government in Scotland could invest in an industry which needs large amounts of capital to establish and build the structures needed. This money would create jobs and create the biggest renewable energy industry in all of Europe.
However, even if the parliament does get more powers, this will not be solely enough to improve it. For too long many of the political parties have hindered the development of the parliament. Partisanship too often dominates debate after debate. Instead of debating the actual detail of the policies, the politicians at times have refused to move towards a common consensus due to the hard work of party whips and the impact of the political culture.
What needs to happen is for politicians to break away from the old political culture of Westminster. Parties need to encourage bills from committees and individuals. Indeed, all parties in opposition need to use the committees to influence and enhance the legislative programme of the parliament.
With more powers and resources, along with a change of political culture at Holyrood, the Scottish parliament can only then try and work towards its full potential.
Independence anyone?
Monday, 4 October 2010
Iain Gray's Ecnomik ill-iterasee
Poor, poor Iain Gray. You have to feel sorry a man whose economic illiteracy has been so painfully exposed twice in less than a week. On Thursday, First Minister Alex Salmond laid bare Gray’s apparant failure to know the difference between cash injections into banks and support for the general money system, having moments earlier shown up Gray’s total ignorance of the structure of Norway’s economy. If Iain Gray is serious about becoming Scotland’s First Minister next year, he’s going to have do some serious clueing up regarding basic economics. It is worrying that the man who wants to lead a country with significant oil and banking revenues if flummoxed by simple facts about the operation of those industries in countries of similar size and economic structures to Scoland. How can Iain Gray stand and oppose the establishment of a Scottish Oil Fund (against the opinion of Nobel Prize winning economist Josef Stiglitz http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7LnPL96D72M&feature=player_embedded ) when he doesn’t even know how the Oil Fund in Norway is structured? How can Iain Gray make any judgement about the level of state support for Scottish banks if he cannot tell the difference between money given to individual banks and the support given to the financial system in general?
Here is Iain Gray being given a basic lesson in economics: http://news.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/hi/scotland/default.stm
And it gets worse for the leader of the Labour Group in the Scottish Parliament. Gray, and his party might well expect to be attacked by Mr. Salmond - he is, after all, the leader of a different political party. His criticisms, however valid, will doubtless be ignored by them (if not by the general public). But it’s a different matter when Marc Coleman, one of Ireland’s leading economists and the economics editor of Newstalk, weighs in and lays bare just how poor Gray’s understanding of the Irish economy is (http://newsnetscotland.com/economy/728-ireland-economy-defended-after-attack-by-labours-iain-gray?awesm=fbshare.me_AUPAL ).
With regard to Labour’s oft repeated rhetoric about the “arc of insolvency”, by the way, just how well do they think Unionist Great Britian is going to emerge from the upcoming Tory cuts? And just how well would Scotland fare under those cuts if a man with Gray’s poor economic understanding was at the helm?
Here is Iain Gray being given a basic lesson in economics: http://news.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/hi/scotland/default.stm
And it gets worse for the leader of the Labour Group in the Scottish Parliament. Gray, and his party might well expect to be attacked by Mr. Salmond - he is, after all, the leader of a different political party. His criticisms, however valid, will doubtless be ignored by them (if not by the general public). But it’s a different matter when Marc Coleman, one of Ireland’s leading economists and the economics editor of Newstalk, weighs in and lays bare just how poor Gray’s understanding of the Irish economy is (http://newsnetscotland.com/economy/728-ireland-economy-defended-after-attack-by-labours-iain-gray?awesm=fbshare.me_AUPAL ).
With regard to Labour’s oft repeated rhetoric about the “arc of insolvency”, by the way, just how well do they think Unionist Great Britian is going to emerge from the upcoming Tory cuts? And just how well would Scotland fare under those cuts if a man with Gray’s poor economic understanding was at the helm?
Tuesday, 14 September 2010
Calling all Freshers!
First of all, I’d like to welcome any and all Freshers to Edinburgh University on behalf of EUSNA. It’s a great university in a great city and I’m sure you’ll enjoy your time here.
Any new students who are looking for a politcal party that will stand up for Scotland are in luck... we’re here! To join EUSNA, or simply to have a wee blether with us to find out what EUSNA and the SNP are all about, you’ll find us in the Cabaret Bar at the Pleasance – just look for the desk with the Saltire banner.
See you there!
I’d also like to just write a wee note about our usage of the word “Nationalist” in our name. Some students have questioned us about the term, sometimes feeling a little apprehensive because of the negative connotations associated with the word in some places, especially in Eastern Europe. I’ll just take this opportunity to emphasise that EUSNA and the SNP are NOT far-right, racist or ethnically based in any way whatsoever. The SNP is a civic nationalist party, which seeks Scottish independece from the United Kingdom, and welcomes people to our country and party regardless of race, country of birth, religion, gender, sexuality, shoe-size or anything else. Some of the party’s most committed members are of Pakistani, Polish, English, Italian or Irish origin. Some are Muslims, some are Catholics, some are Protestants, some are Jews, some are of no religious faith at all. All of these people are welcome – if you love Scotland you are welcome to join our cause.
Any new students who are looking for a politcal party that will stand up for Scotland are in luck... we’re here! To join EUSNA, or simply to have a wee blether with us to find out what EUSNA and the SNP are all about, you’ll find us in the Cabaret Bar at the Pleasance – just look for the desk with the Saltire banner.
See you there!
I’d also like to just write a wee note about our usage of the word “Nationalist” in our name. Some students have questioned us about the term, sometimes feeling a little apprehensive because of the negative connotations associated with the word in some places, especially in Eastern Europe. I’ll just take this opportunity to emphasise that EUSNA and the SNP are NOT far-right, racist or ethnically based in any way whatsoever. The SNP is a civic nationalist party, which seeks Scottish independece from the United Kingdom, and welcomes people to our country and party regardless of race, country of birth, religion, gender, sexuality, shoe-size or anything else. Some of the party’s most committed members are of Pakistani, Polish, English, Italian or Irish origin. Some are Muslims, some are Catholics, some are Protestants, some are Jews, some are of no religious faith at all. All of these people are welcome – if you love Scotland you are welcome to join our cause.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)