Scotland rejoices at Powerhouse Parliament

The following is the result of the Smith Commission to 'strengthen' the Scottish Parliament

*Scotland is forbidden from setting a National Minimum Wage
*Scotland is forbidden from setting Inheritance Tax 
*Scotland is forbidden from taxing oil and gas revenue
*Scotland is forbidden from changing taxes on fuel
*Scotland is forbidden from tax incentivisation for clinical research
*Scotland is forbidden from changing duty on tobacco
*Scotland is forbidden from changing duty on alcohol
*Scotland is forbidden from changing more than 30% of its taxes
*Scotland is forbidden from varying Statutory Sick Pay
*Scotland is forbidden from changing the Equality Act
*Scotland receives no extra money from VAT
*Scotland is forbidden from setting Guardian's Allowance
*Scotland is forbidden from setting National Insurance
*Scotland is forbidden from exploring a foreign policy
*Scotland is forbidden from changing the JobCentre network
*Scotland is forbidden from setting Statutory Maternity Pay
*Scotland is forbidden from changing more than 15% of its Welfare powers
*There is a 1960s northern Ireland-style Unionist Veto on electoral reform
*Scotland is forbidden from holding constitutional referendums
*Scotland is forbidden from setting a state pension
*Scotland is forbidden from setting Child Benefit rates
*Scotland is forbidden from changing Universal Credit
*Scotland is forbidden from removing Weapons of Mass Destruction
*Scotland is forbidden from changing the Income Tax allowance
*Scotland is forbidden from renationalising public transport
*Scotland is forbidden from abolishing Labour's Bedroom Tax
*Scotland is forbidden from setting a Bereavement Allowance
*Scotland is forbidden from extricating Housing Benefit from UC
*Scotland is forbidden from receiving revenue from savings and dividends

Last Orders for Socialism in Labour

It’s hard to believe it was only a few short weeks ago that Scottish Labour activists fondly laboured under the misapprehension that the Better Together campaign was one which had as its focus Scotland and the United Kingdom. The events of the past month have shown that Better Together doesn’t refer exclusively to nations, but also to political parties: namely coupling Labour’s vote in Scotland to the ideology of the Conservative Party.

Johann Lamont’s humiliating resignation as branch manager was something which, predictably for a machine politician with the vision and foresight of a particularly myopic cnidarian, she had failed to envisage. But make no mistake about this: Jim Murphy had secured the Scottish Labour Party leadership vacancy before poor Johann had the faintest idea that she was to be resigned. Better Together – funded and staffed until the end of 2014 (in comparison, Yes Scotland closed on 19^th September) – staffers including Blair McDougall and Robert Shorthouse are running the Murphy campaign, and even the booking for the launch of his campaign was made under Better Together’s name.

A right-wing coup of an eviscerated Scottish Labour Party, governing a Scotland nestled smugly in the muscular arms of a Conservative-dominated United Kingdom was always the guiding goal of the Better Together campaign. It is no coincidence that the campaign was dominated by New Labour (or, if you prefer, Red Tory) figures such as McDougall, previously notable only for writing a series of letters to Scottish newspapers in 2003 demanding that his namesake Tony be allowed to bomb the civilians of Iraq in an illegal, genocidal war, to which the roots of today’s Scottish Labour collapse can be directly traced. Better Together failed to attract real Labour figures such as Denis Canavan or Henry McLeish, who either jumped ship to the Yes side with Scotland’s socialist movement, or stayed clear of the official No campaign whilst still supporting the union.

It is in this Better Together milieu of Red Tories and actual Tories that Jim Murphy found his political home. Murphy – notable for being educated at the same whites-only school in Apartheid-era South Africa which also produced Apartheid’s feared chemical weapon chief, Wouter Basson – was instantly at home in a middle-class, right-wing, neo-liberal setting: not surprising for a man who has close links with right-wing Israelis, and the extreme right US group the Henry Jackson Society.

Labour members should go into this leadership election with their eyes wide open: it has already been decided. Jim Murphy would not be giving up his seat in the Shadow Cabinet if he didn’t believe this. His campaign – lauded to the heavens by the Daily Record and Daily Mail (both of which are home to his undeclared running-mate Kezia Dugdale) - is reminiscent of the Better Together campaign itself: it’s Murphy who gets the first item on the news with the other two candidates lucky to get a response. Murphy’s campaign which controls the news agenda.

This is the last chance for socialism to prevail in the Scottish Labour Party, and it seems it has already been lost. Whilst decent Labour members have already fled during the period of Blairism and New Labour (many to the SSP), some remain, desperately trying to bring the party back to socialism. This cannot happen if Jim Murphy is in charge – which is why those who funded and supported the Better Together campaign have redirected their attentions to Murphy: including a donation of no less than £10,000 to Murphy’s leadership campaign from Conservative Party donor Alan M Sharr. Hear that dinging sound? It’s the penny dropping for the Scottish Labour activists duped into campaigning with the Tory-funded Better Together campaign that the concept of Labour and Tory being Better Together didn’t end with the referendum.

The Better Together campaign was desperate to prevent a fair, modern, redistributive Scotland. It was staffed and funded by a right-wing political elite from the halls of Westminster, from the right wing of the Labour Party and from the Conservative Party.

They did not give their time and money to keep Scotland in the United Kingdom to then see the Scottish Labour Party turn back to socialism. That is why they are now fighting for their man, the conservative candidate, Jim Murphy, to take control of the party. And that is why the socialists in Scottish Labour should be scared: for this is their last chance.

It's all about talent

There's some debate about whether the present crisis engulfing the Labour Party in Scotland is a product of a lack of political talent in the serried ranks of red Tories. 

Labour say this is nonsense, that their production line of charm and intelligence has never yet failed them: why, just look at James Kelly!

I would shy from offering an opinion on the matter, but would perhaps find it instructive to reflect on Labour's first Holyrood frontbench and last month's one. Some positions have changed names and responsibilities, for example, 'Children and Education' is now 'Education'. Other positions were filled by Liberal Democrats in 1999.

Leader of the Labour group:
Then Donald Dewar
Now Johann Lamont

Justice:
Then n/a
Now Graeme Pearson

Education:
Then Sam Galbraith
Now Daily Mail columnist Kezia Dugdale

Local Government:
Then Wendy Alexander
Now Sarah Boyack

Enterprise and Lifelong Learning:
Then Henry McLeish
Now Daily Mail columnist Kezia Dugdale

Finance:
Then Jack McConnell
Now Iain Gray

Health:
Then Susan Deacon
Now Neil Findlay

Chief Whip:
Then Tom McCabe
Now Lewis MacDonald

Rural Affairs:
Then n/a
Now Claire Baker

Transport:
Then Sarah Boyack
Now James Kelly

Is there a single position in which they are stronger now than they were then, and I include the positions which were vacant then in my question?

Labour in crisis: but surely even they wouldn't be stupid enough....

Nothing became Johann Lamont quite like the manner of the humiliating departure which has plunged what remains into the Labour Party into not just a crisis, but a desperate struggle for its very existence.

Demitting office with howls of bilious invective, spite-filled attacks on her political opponents, and a sense that she was dancing on the very margins of reality, the Glasgow Pollok MSP left office comporting herself in much the same self-pitying, self-entitled manner in which she spent her entire time in the position.

However, it would not be inaccurate to say that there is no sense of pity abroad for Lamont. Psychologists say that it is easier to tell the truth than a lie: recall is simpler than invention. All those times Lamont came on television, was asked what she thought of, for instance, the Bedroom Tax, or Trident, and was entirely unable to articulate her own viewpoints on such questions, she came across as a complete dolt with no ability to think on the spot. And whilst that certainly is true (her cringeworthy performances at First Minister’s Questions spring to mind, where – presented with a script by her intrepid adviser Paul Sinclair – she doggedly followed it even where it was clear events had deviated from the hitherto-forseen sequence), it is also clear that her performances were borne out of an instruction from her bosses – yes, it appears that the “undisputed leader of the entire Scottish Labour Party, including Westminster MPs” has bosses – that she must not tack to the Left of London Labour before they had decided what her beliefs are.

The upshot of her departure, which – hilariously – she attributes to London Labour having too much control over their neighbours in Scotland (surely it is best that Scottish Labour pool and share their resources with the big boys and give up lots of sovereignty?) is that Labour is in crisis.

Not crisis as in when a Minister is forced to resign. Not crisis as in when they suffer mild disappointment in a by-election. Not even the normal sort of reasonably enjoyable crisis caused by the departure of a leader, or a “leader”, but an existential crisis: Labour is now fighting for its very existence, racked by civil war on a multitude of fronts.

Political history is littered with “natural parties of government” which no longer exist, or have been shattered into irrelevance. In Italy, the Christian Democrats dominated Italian politics from their inception at the end of the war until the party quite suddenly ceased to exist in 1994. A series of corruption scandals and heavy defeats in provincial and local elections coupled with a public perception that the party had lost touch with its electorate through a sense of entitlement (sound familiar?) led its remaining members to close the party down.

In Canada, there is an even more spectacular example. The Progressive Conservatives, which traces its history back to 1867 when it became the first party government of Canada and governed the country for forty of its first seventy years of existence. Virulently anti-Québec and identified with British imperialism and a closeness to the United States of America,(sound familiar?) it went from being in government to being the fifth largest party in the Commons, with only two seats. It never recovered, and closed down in 2003.

A similar example can be found in Ireland where in 2011, the Green Party went from being the junior party of the coalition government to being swept out of the Oireachtas, losing every seat in the Dáil and failing to receive any nominations to the Seanad. This may not be a direct example to the Scottish Labour Party, but to another pro-Westminster political party. However, a far more interesting Hibernian example, for Labour supporters, can be found in the shape of the once-mighty Fianna Fáil party. Founded by Éamon de Valera in 1926 as a spin-off from Sinn Féin, it formed its first government in the general election six years later. For the next 79 years, FF was in power for 61 of them. It was a mighty behemoth: “the government” was as synonymous with FF as “the Prime Minister” was with Harold Wilson for 1960s and 70s children. In the 2011 election, it suffered the worst defeat of any government in the history of the Irish state, losing 75% of its electorate along the way. FF was seen as a “big tent” party, and surveys and opinion polls consistently point to an electorate completely unable to distinguish between the Soldiers of Destiny and their perennial rivals for power, Fine Gael. It was considered to have lost touch with the electorate and have too obvious a sense of entitlement, and was punished by the electorate, losing three-quarters of its seats in the Dáil. Interestingly, once the electorate got the hang of kicking FF, they seemed to rather enjoy the experience, and continued to do it: at the recent European Parliament election, they managed to gain only one of Ireland’s 11 MEPs*. In the last Presidential Election, not only were they not able to field a candidate, but the mere suggestion that the independent candidate who was the favourite until the last week of the campaign had links to FF torpedoed his campaign, such is their unpopularity.

And so, from the Soldiers of Destiny to the Soldiers of Density. It would be crude, and it would be uncharitable, and it would be boorish to maintain that the Scottish Labour group of MSPs is the stupidest, lackwitted gang of dullards ever to have sat in a parliament in Scotland, and perhaps in the whole of western Europe. But it’s still true, nonetheless. Their caucus is a veritable Who’s That? of Scottish politics. From over-promoted councillors who accidentally found themselves in Parliament because of the collapse of support for Labour in constituencies up and down the country (hi, Hanzala!), to scabs whose commitment to the socialist cause goes as far as contributing articles to your actual Daily fucking Mail (hi, Scabdale!), to the children of Tory peers (hi, Claudia!), double-jobbers (hi, Cara!), political failures (hi, Iain! Hi, Johann!), privately-educated millionaires (hi, Jackie!) and those whose political careers owe nothing to talent and all to the nepotism which has so destroyed the Labour Party (hi, Paul! Hi, Siobhan), the Labour benches are a talent-vacuum upon which one cannot find a single figure who you’d trust to run a ménage, never mind a country. Or, indeed, a region.

So with the party suffering the complete surprise of realising that when you try to send your second-string to Holyrood, and they all lose their seats, the third team aren’t very good. And when you’re looking at people like Drew Smith and Mark Griffin and wondering whether they might be the sorts of chaps who can persuade people in the west of Scotland who have ditched the Labour Party because they see them as political sell-outs who, instead of fighting for working people attract only middle-class politics graduates in suits who have never had real jobs, one can see their problem.

They need, therefore, to look elsewhere. And with the highest-profile Labour councillor being Gordon Matheson, it’s not going to be to local Labour. To Westminster then (where the Deputy Leader and Shadow Scottish Secretary sit already) for talent. And a quick scan of the benches reveals people awaiting trial for assaulting a child for wanting independence (hi, Michael!), the man who is so collegiate and unifying that he rejected negotiations on a “Progressive Coalition” because he hated the SNP so much he wanted a Tory government instead (hi, Gordon!), a woman who refused to vote against the Bedroom Tax because she thought it more important to get pished in Vienna (hi, Pamela!), and a millionaire whose daddy bought his seat and who sends his kids to private school lest they come into contact with working-class kids (you already know who we’re waving to with that one).

The only MP who wants the job and is remotely credible is Apartheid Jim Murphy. And this is a problem for Labour for a few reasons.

Murphy sits in Westminster. Given their two most senior folk already sit there, another one there wouldn’t really show that Labour is committed to Holyrood and takes it seriously, as Lamont spat (failing, incidentally, to recognise the only reason she’s at Holyrood is because Labour don’t take it seriously). So Murphy needs a seat in Holyrood. The only problem there is that there isn’t such a thing as a safe Labour seat in Holyrood – their largest majority is just over 3.000 and it isn’t difficult to see the circumstances under which Murphy could face such concerted opposition in Eastwood (the most likely seat in which he’d stand, given it mirrors his seat in East Renfrewshire and of which the current occupant is his familiar, one Ken Macintosh) that he would lose the seat in a Patrick Gordon-Walker style scenario. This would leave the Labour Party leaderless over Christmas for a new election, probably into February. Not the best preparation for a May general election, the first since standing shoulder-to-shoulder with the Tories against the working class and being soundly beaten in Labour heartlands across the west and central Scotland.

Other Murphy problems are more related to him as a person. For instance, it is generally acknowledged that the event which finally pushed Labour into their current condition was the Iraq War, which aftermath was partly responsible for its shattering defeat to the SNP in 2007, and failure to repent for its even more shattering defeat in 2011.

But Jim Murphy loves war. He was a cheerleader for the Iraq War. Did he know the British government’s “evidence” was a lie? I would suggest he ought to have done. He is a fanatical Zionist, who is a member of the shadowy “Labour Friends of Israel” group, through which he has developed some very worrying far-right friends in the United States of America.

And, of course, his past is shrouded in controversy. When his family chose to move to Apartheid South Africa in order to benefit from the racially-discriminatory system, condemned by the UN decades previously, he chose, as an adult, to remain at a private, whites-only school which banned black children from enrolling. His school was so extreme that it also produced Wouter Bassoon, the pro-Apartheid extremist who spent his career working at the head of a team developing chemical weapons for the Apartheid regime.

Murphy was so “distressed” by these experiences that, as he admitted at a raucous meeting in Shawlands during the referendum campaign, he took up arms and joined PW Botha’s South African Defence Forces in defence of the Apartheid system.

A Zionist ideologue with a dodgy past. A war criminal. An expenses fraudster. A millionaire with shadowy US links.

It’s just like Blair all over again. Let’s hope he gets it. A Murphy leadership of Labour would be the political version of Dignitas for them. This is Scotland’s chance to rid ourselves of an organisation which has been a malignant cancer upon the soul of Scottish society for a generation. An organisation which no longer reflects or looks like the working people of Scotland but is distinguishable only in terms of degree, not ideology, from the Tory friends they spent so long in coalition with against the people of Scotland. An organisation which is no longer wanted, or relevant.

In the first Parliament election, in 1999, Labour got 908.932 votes in the constituencies of Scotland. In 2011, that was down to 630.461. Losing a third of your electorate is not the way to survive. Alienating the other two-thirds with an alliance with the Tories and big business is an excellent way of ensuring they join the 33%.

Labour’s disconnect with Scotland, and its enmity to its people, reminds me of Berthold Brecht:

After the uprising of the 17th of June
The Secretary of the Writers' Union
Had leaflets distributed in the Stalinallee
Stating that the people
Had forfeited the confidence of the government
And could win it back only
By redoubled efforts. Would it not be easier
In that case for the government
To dissolve the people
And elect another?

* there are 14 MEPs sitting for Ireland, three of which sit in the north, in which FF organise but do not contest elections.



BBC crisis deepens over CBI "cover-up"

The BBC is in a state of crisis tonight over the revelation that it has been a member of the right-wing Confederation of British Industry for at least three and a half decades. 

Earlier, the Unionists' in-house broadcaster, which is now under sustained pressure from its own journalists to sever its ties with the anti-Trade Union organisation, which registered as an official member of the No campaign two weeks ago, claimed that it had been a member of CBI for "ten years", paying over £22.000 per annum in membership fees.

Assuming that the membership fee has been constant and adjusted for inflation, then the latest revelation shows that the Corporation - a public service broadcaster funded by direct taxation on pain of imprisonment - has secretly funnelled at least £770.000 to the CBI, a shadowy lobbyist with close links to the British regime, the Conservative Party and Better Together: CBI's deputy director general in Scotland, a Conservative candidate, is on the BetterTogether advisory board.

The emergence of this news has come as a shattering blow to the few remaining defenders of the BBC's credibility and impartiality in Scotland, particularly in regard to the independence referendum, where it is viewed by most as an active and committed part of the Tory-funded No campaign.

It is a fact that the BBC was a member of the anti-Trade Union CBI during the period of the Miners' Strike, a time where its coverage brought widespread condemnation for its portrayal of the miners. Indeed, it was viewed at the time as an unashamed Government propagandist; going to the extent of reversing footage to portray the miners as out-of-control thugs. 

At one conflict in Yorkshire, the police and British army attacked and charged the miners, who regrouped and charged at the police themselves in retaliation. The BBC chose to broadcast the events in reverse. 

The revelation that they were a paid-up member of the CBI at this time goes some way to explaining their behaviour at the time. 

The BBC has come under sustained pressure to leave the CBI, at a time where almost all of its members in Scotland have already done so. BBC's major broadcasting rivals, Scottish Television, have already resigned, as has every Government department and university, as well as many private organisations. Its refusal to do so raises serious questions over its impartiality when reporting on the referendum. 

On an unrelated note about the BBC, I submitted a Freedom of Information request to the Corporation last week, noting that the Socialist Party has more elected representatives in Scotland than UKIP, and asking for a breakdown of how often representatives from both parties were asked to appear on shows broadcast in Scotland. There is a clear perception that UKIP are semi-permanent guests on BBC shows, and that the Corporation is desperately trying to push UKIP as a mainstream, credible party. 

My FOI request came before the revelation that the BBC was a member of CBI for over thirty years: but with the full knowledge that UKIP share many of the anti-worker policies of the CBI, including resistance to the minimum wage, Scottish devolution, maternity leave and paid holiday. 

It will come as no surprise to anyone that the BBC has refused to answer the request. 

I have therefore written to the Information Commissioner, asking that office to adjudicate. 

The BBC is in an existential crisis this evening. It is becoming increasingly difficult to justify its existence. The game seems well and truly up, and the BBC exposed for what it is: an organisation which is the creature of the British regime and big business, and which does all it can to oppose Scottish independence on that basis.

This is the largest crisis the BBC has been embroiled in since Iraq.

On the "Interim Constitution"

It was with great interest that I watched the speech given at Cardiff by the Depute First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon last month. Of specific interest was Ms. Sturgeon’s apparently unilateral decision that the SNP will write a so-called “interim constitution” for Scotland. 

As socialists who have spent many years arguing for independence in order that working people can take control of Scotland’s industry and economy on the basis that only with independence can we ensure the communal ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange, establishing the best possible administration of community ownership and control of Scotland’s industry and services, we ought to be extremely wary of this development. 

The SNP was elected to govern Scotland in 2011 with a quite astounding majority, and one cannot but respect their mandate to govern the Scottish Parliament. They are our colleagues in Yes Scotland, and we accept, in principle, that they are entitled to govern this country through the Referendum and beyond and to form the provisional government between Independence Day and the first election after Independence. 

However, we cannot and must not accept that they have any class of mandate to write, or indeed impose, this “interim constitution” upon Scotland. There was no mention of any “interim constitution” in the manifesto upon which they achieved election in 2011. Indeed, there was no mention of any such “interim manifesto” until Ms. Sturgeon’s address at Cardiff. 

From where did this concept come? When was it born? From whom - most importantly - did it come? This country has already a constitution. It is one which is certainly unfit for purpose, and its lack of codification is, to be sure, a handicap for any modern 21st century state. I have in front of me as I write a copy of the 2009-2011 Constitution of Ireland, a document which boasts 186 pages, 93 each in English and Irish. Would that our country have such a readily-accessible, simple document, laying out to each citizen our rights from and responsibilities to the State. 

But is the imperfection of the British constitution really so incredibly pressing that it requires the imposition, immediately, of an entirely new constitution without reference to the other parties which make up Yes Scotland, far less the people of this country?

Surely, following independence in March 2016, it would be simpler to retain the current Scotland Act - which serves, in effect, as the Scottish constitution - with an addendum stating that all Acts of the UK Parliament which have not been specifically repudiated are to apply to Scotland. 

The first Independence elections may provide any sort of Government: it is not for us to second-guess the choice of the electorate. But surely the Scottish constitution, the document which will serve not just our generation, but many generations to come, should not be written to reflect the opinions of a Government which is merely a snapshot of time. Even less so should it reflect that of a Government which has no mandate whatsoever to impose a Constitution.

The very point of independence for us, as socialists, is to build a Scotland which is not for the governing class. How, therefore, can a document written by the governing class ab urbe condita, achieve our aims of returning Scotland’s wealth to Scotland’s people?

Indeed, can one not argue, and reasonably, that if the SNP achieve their aim of an “interim constitution”, one which will inevitably pander to their aims of succour to corporations and the rich, and one which will equally inevitably see any references to the rights of organised labour be inexplicably overlooked, that should they - as seems likely - win the 2016 election, they would be able to argue that they have a mandate to impose the “interim constitution” as the national constitution? For this reason alone, let us be wary of false friends. Colleagues certainly, but the SNP as comrades? I think not.

The Scottish Socialist Party, as Scotland’s socialist movement, and as the Left wing of the Yes campaign, ought to vehemently oppose any moves in this direction. 

Rather, the current constitution should remain in place, and a new constitutional convention should take inspiration from that of our friends and neighbours in the Republic of Iceland after the collapse of the Reykjavik banking system: a constitution of the people - a People’s Constitution, sourced from individuals the length and breath of this land, from the ordinary working man and woman, with contributions from working mothers, from the unemployed, from carers and the disabled: and this People’s Constitution ought to exist to serve, not govern, the people. 

Surely the entire point of independence is to achieve this, rather than to have grey-suited, grey men with grey hair writing a grey, sterile constitution on behalf of a grey organisation with no mandate whatever to impose it.

If we don’t have a People’s Constitution, and instead have an SNP constitution, then what will independence have gained other than the lowering of the Union Jack, the raising of the Saltire, and a slight change in the accents of those who govern us?

The European elections and a worrying democratic deficit

The nation awaits, agape and expectant, searching frantically for information on the various prospectuses. The feeling of anticipation is tangible, the excitement almost spine-tingling as the democratic process of a nation reaches its greatest conclusion. 

Yes, in little over a month, the polling station doors will open at 7am to relieve the pressure of a seething mass of voters desperate to make their mark on the European Parliament elections (Scotland constituency). We will have our choice to make. Shall we re-elect the sitting Labour MEPs? Or the sitting Nationalist MEPs? Quite how spectacularly will poor old George Lyon, the Scottish Liberal Democrat (at the time of writing, I mean the Scottish Liberal Democrat member of the European Parliament, although at their present rate of collapse, it is quite conceivable that when you read this, he will be the only Scottish Liberal Democrat member overall) lose his seat? Will we vote for a Tory? (No). Will UKIP, the gutter-dwelling filthy remnants of the British far-right pip the Scottish Green Party to the post? (No).

Something's missing, though. 

Since Scotland became a unified constituency in the European Parliament in 1999, the one thing that has marked it out has been its plurality in terms of choice. 

In that first nationwide election, electors could choose between not only the three main parties and the Liberal Democrats, but also the Scottish Green Party, the Scottish Socialist Party (declaration of interest: I'm a member of the SSP and have stood for election for them), the Pro-Euro Conservatives (hi, Ken!), UKIP, Arthur Scargill's Socialist Labour Party (their name is the Socialist Labour Party, but they're never seen without the "Arthur Scargill's" prefix, much in the same way as one always sees "Love Rat Darren Day", "Gaffe-prone Prince Philip", and "Lee McCulloch (pen)"), Johann Lamont's chums in the British National Party (not to be confused with UKIP, who are completely different. UKIP wear purple, the BNP blue), the Natural Law Party, and a one-candidate party, Accountant For Lower Scottish Taxes (I'm not sure what his manifesto is). 

Aside from the BNP, Natural Law, and the Accountant for &c, every single party in 1999 gained at least one per cent of the vote.

In the next, 2004, election, the Acc &c had sadly left the scene. Arthur Scargill had retired to spend more time with his houses, and thus the 9.385 Scots who voted for his party had to find a new (ironically) home. The electorate of Scotland were also deprived of the mercies of the Natural Law Party. 

However, this motley crew were replaced, in part, by Operation Christian Vote (if they didn't have an advertising campaign based around putting your cross (geddit?) in the box, they're missing a trick), Scottish Wind Watch (me neither) and an Independent, one Fergus Tait.

In 2009, Socialist Labour was back, and they were joined by the Jury Team (no, sorry), and the NO2EU party, which second-last finish may have been caused by the dishonourable activities of its lead candidate's member. Fergus Tait had withdrawn, a wiser and doubtless poorer man, and was replaced as Independent candidate by Duncan Robertson (who tripled, incidentally, the Independent vote). 

The point? 

In 1999, the electorate was able to choose between eleven different policy platforms. In 2004, ten, and in 2009, a frankly erection-inducing thirteen parties. 

This year, Scots will go to the polls able to choose between only six parties. Most of which are, fundamentally, identical. 

Labour, the Conservatives, and the Liberal Democrats are part of a formal extraparliamentary coalition, BetterTogether, and each share a similar manifesto in terms of middle-of-the-road capitalist, austerity economics. The SNP share a similar platform, with the sole exception being that they prefer to manage capitalism from Edinburgh rather than Westminster. 

UKIP, of course, is different. A proto-fascist party similar in tone and rhetoric to Oswald Mosely (whom Labour chose to make a government minister) in its extreme-right, anti-worker polices and xenophobia, they have only twice kept their deposit in Scotland, and have neither councillors, MPs, MSPs or MEPs, this dismal political failure even despite a concerted effort by both BBC Scotland and STV to promote UKIP as an actual thing in Scotland. Their "Scottish lead candidate" is the chairman of the London Branch of the anti-foreigner party. 

The Greens are the only party which are outside the moat, and, if you vote, I would urge that you give your first preference to the Greens. I, personally, won't be voting (well, I will, but I shall be casting a blank ballot. I refuse to vote for BetterTogether, refuse to vote for the Nazis of UKIP, and I shan't be voting for the SNP for fear that it may allow Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh, their third candidate and a political butterfly who has been in more parties than Paris Hilton, into the Parliament). 

But where does this leave socialists? The Greens are well-meaning, and the best of the above, but they're not a socialist party (they voted, for instance, against our Bills for free prescriptions in the Second Parliament and continue to oppose our plans to nationalise the means of production, transport and exchange). 

In previous elections, we had a smorgasbord of parties to choose from: we had the SSP, we've had NO2EU and Arthur Scargill's Socialist Labour. 

Now? If you're a socialist, the best choice is the Greens. 

If you're a Nazi, you're even worse off. There's no BNP. There's UKIP, but I rather imagine that despite UKIP's proto-fascism, the proper Nazis like the security guard in the Edinburgh Co-operative with the Union Jack tattoo on his head, are sitting muttering into their jackboots about UKIP being "race traitors" or whatever. 

And if you're a Natural Law type, you're totally fucked. 

In this election, we can choose from less than half the average number of political parties that our predecessors have been able to choose from. 

This is not healthy for democracy. 

The reason, of course, is the deposit. It is free to stand in Local Authority elections. To stand in Holyrood, a party needs find £500. It's the same sum to stand in Westminster. Why, therefore, should it be ten times higher to stand in the European Parliament elections?

If a £500 deposit is deemed high enough to put off oddballs for Holyrood and Westminster, why not in Straßburg and Brussel? It seems that the system is designed to ward off smaller parties. 

People want the Scottish Socialist Party to stand in this election (we've been asked often enough). And they have a right to be able to choose us. But with a referendum to fight, small parties (and particularly ours, given our prominent position in the Yes campaign) simply can't afford to thrown £5000 at a deposit we may not get back. £5000 is a lot of money when you don't take donations from corporate donors. Perhaps that's why the threshold is £5000...

Instead of a financial deposit, which ring-fences politics for the rich, why can't we have a system where your argument entitles you to a place on the ballot paper?

Why can't, for instance, a party which receives, say, 100 signatures in each region of Scotland be entitled to a place on the paper? That would show that there is a genuine demand for that organisation to be on the ballot paper, far more than some fat wank in a suit writing a cheque for five grand does. 

It is a disgrace to the Scottish democracy that we have such a limited choice for the most important elections in our political calendar.