IN the interests of unity, I refrained from a knee jerk reply to Kevin McKenna’s column in Wednesday’s National, thinking that readers would raise the obvious objections to Labour being described as a “socialist” party with some sort of golden socialist past. The opposite being the case and the politest description one could give Labour’s terms of office in local and “n ational” Governments is that they were and remain a bunch of Lumpen Numpties.
Neither the website Comments section nor the long letters section’, “McKenna’s Scottish Socialist Republic” justified his claim to a “pipe dream”. Or, addressed his claim to Royal Loyal Labour being remotely socialist, or even “republican”. Scotland’s only and last Labour MP owes his seat to tactical Tory, Lib Dem middle-class English Edinburghers and loyalist fitba lumpens.
I could thole his attack on the SNP NEC with some, maybe, some justification. But why was he allowed to accuse the SNP of being in the pockets of big business without producing any evidence or a single example, when the evidence abounds of Labour receiving backhanders, sorry, donation, from mony a capitalist, sorry conglomerate, such as Lord Sainsbury, etc? He could have mentioned Soapy Souter, whose one-off contribution to the SNP was minor, compared to the millions donated to Labour by big business and arms manufacturers, who were eternally grateful to Lords Wilson and Callaghan’s zero per cent pay freeze, backed by corrupt Tame Unions, who were also rewarded by MI5, the House of Lords and other Royal titles. Soapy Souter was not pleased that the SNP ignored his “advice” by not sticking to his last and ceased his donation.
Wot about the English Coop donations and sponsorships? The Coop bank was investigated by another hushed up investigation, a few years ago, that seemed to vanish into thin air. Not a cheep was said about the Coop taking over and asset stripping the SCWS. Not anything said about taking over all the Scottish Trade Unions, making Dick Leonard’s “S”TUC an empty shell, like their HQ in Woodlands Rd, Glasgow, sold off to private developers.
As for Corbyn the Abstainer being a “socialist”, when, where, whit? Apart from his gutless support for Trident, which of his failed minor aspirational reforms could be considered socialist?
His Unionist credentials forbade him to speak to the more radical SNP, but not the reactionary DUP. He did not even have the courtesy to acknowledge that most of his failed aspirational reforms, such as free prescriptions, student grants, etc, etc, were met in full by the Scottish Government and opposed or abstained upon by Labour.
Despite Corbyn being no racist, he was easy meat for his opponents. Despite his endless public opportunities in the media, he failed to explain to punters the simple difference between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism. The Arabs are more Semitic than the Jews, so what is so difficult to explain there? Viscount Lord Atlee was in power for the division of Palestine and India. “His” Welfare State was supported by the wartime coalition, with minor differences. Liberal Lord Beveridge, the architect of the Welfare State, resigned in disgust at Atlee’s timidity. Even socialist hero Bevan, supported the atom bomb in Washington, with a Union jackass label.
That other great Labour “socialist” hero, Tony Wedgwood Benn, was in the Labour Friends of Israel camp also supported Troops IN to Ireland in 1969 and Glasgow, 1974, to scab on workers against a Labour Pay freeze by driving ambulances; fire engines and bin lorries. He built more nuclear plants than the official Tories, such as Torness and Hunterston. He signed the PTA, which made Labour the biggest offender against Human Rights in Europe.
I would also like a small sample of Kevin’s claim of support for a “Scottish Socialist Republic”. As a founder member of the cross-party Scottish Republican Socialist Movement in 1973, I would surely have noticed?
Donald Anderson
Glasgow
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel