Saturday, 13 December 2014

American torture - who knew?

What surprised me about this week’s revelations that America tortured prisoners was that anyone was surprised.

The Senate report certainly provided previously unavailable details of exactly what the CIA was prepared to do in order to extract answers from people it held – people often detained illegally – but the fact America was involved in torturing prisoners is not news.  Neither, by the way, are subsequent media stories reporting that the UK ‘may’ have been complicit in US actions.

Of course, we are now hearing the defence that, in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks on New York’s World Trade Center, the US had to take the gloves off to counter an enemy that did not play by the rules.  Actually, America and the UK have a long history of ignoring ‘the rules’ when it suits them.  It was, of course, the British who first used concentration camps to hold prisoners, while US use of napalm during the Vietnam war resulted in horrific injuries being inflicted on the civilian population.  Then there is the illegality of the attack on the sovereign state of Iraq in 2003, a country that had nothing to do with the Twin Towers attack of two years earlier, despite that accusation being the ‘justification’ given for bombing Iraq back to the stone age.

We are also hearing the public relations spin on what is actually the torturing of human bodies and minds: the US Government has acknowledged that the CIA carried out “enhanced interrogation techniques”.  The Senate report details some of those enhanced techniques, such as detainees being forced to stand on broken limbs for hours; others kept in complete darkness, deprived of sleep for up to 180 hours.  Prisoners were subjected to “rectal feeding” and rectal examinations were conducted with “excessive force”.  

The report also refers to mock executions, US agents threatening to sexually abuse a detainee’s mother, and to physically hurt prisoners’ children.  We’re not talking here of being slapped about a bit.

As for the ‘suspicion’ that the UK may have helped the CIA as it picked-up ‘targets’ on the streets of European cities and transported them to worldwide torture centres, well, evidence to support that claim has also been available for some time.

The US and UK governments say they knew nothing of the CIA’s torture and abuse of people, many who had actually not committed any crime, but they did know.  They just thought if they ignored long enough those of us who called for enquiries and legal action, we would get fed up and go away.  They were wrong.

Just for the record, this is my contribution to a Scottish Parliament debate held on December 22nd 2005.  It was on a Motion proposed by the Scottish Socialist Party and related to ‘rendition flights’, the method used by the CIA to pick up and transport people to be tortured.  Remember, the debate took place 9 years ago.

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

Campbell Martin (West of Scotland):
No one in Parliament endorses or supports torture or kidnap. I am sure the people of Scotland expect Parliament to emphasise that we do not support such practices, so I cannot understand the reluctance to carry out at a Scottish level an investigation to determine whether Scottish airspace or airports have been used to facilitate torture and kidnap.

Yesterday, Tony Blair said at his monthly press briefing that he would not initiate an investigation or allow one to be initiated because he had seen no evidence, which takes the man to a whole new level of hypocrisy. He was not too bothered about evidence when he joined his American buddy to rain ‘shock and awe’ on the people of Iraq, and he is not too bothered about the lack of evidence to justify people being disappeared from streets in Europe and taken to third countries, apparently to be tortured, but he wants to see evidence that Scottish or UK airports have been used to facilitate torture flights.

Let’s talk about what we know: there is a Gulfstream V turbojet, registration N379P, and independent witnesses have confirmed that Jamil Qasim Saeed Mohammed was bundled onto that aircraft and taken to Jordan. He subsequently stated that he was tortured there.

The Swedish parliamentary ombudsman has said that Ahmed Agiza and Mohammed al-Zari were taken from Sweden to Cairo aboard the same aircraft. They claim they were tortured in Cairo.

That aircraft has been photographed on more than one occasion refuelling at Prestwick airport in Ayrshire, which is a ground for suspicion that a crime might have been committed on Scottish soil. I would like to think that Scotland's police forces might investigate that.

The New York Times stated earlier this year that, as far as it can determine, the CIA owns 26 aircraft, 10 of which have been purchased since 2001. The newspaper has also established that the CIA is behind seven shell corporations - not Shell the oil company, but front-companies for the CIA - one of which is called Devon Holding and Leasing Inc. The New York Times investigated the company and discovered it has no employees and no presence at its registered address, yet it apparently owns aircraft that have refuelled at Scottish airports. Surely that is a ground for suspicion that something a wee bit dodgy is going on? Perhaps Scottish police forces should be investigating why such aircraft are landing at a Scottish airport.

Colin Powell, the former United States Secretary of State, has been quoted saying, “The thing that is called rendition is not something that is new or unknown to my European friends”. By the way, if nothing else comes from this debate, let’s make it clear to Colin Powell that his name is pronounced Coll-in, not Cole-in.

If rendition is not new and it is not unknown, why are we so reluctant to investigate it? Why are we arguing about who should hold the investigation? We have a separate justice system in Scotland, so if crimes are being committed in Scotland, why are we reluctant to investigate them? Why do we not authorise our police to go onboard those aircraft to establish whether crimes are being committed?

Italian judges have issued 22 arrest warrants for people who are suspected of being CIA operatives; Germany has initiated an investigation and the European Commission has initiated an investigation.

If a crime is suspected, surely we should investigate to establish the evidence to prosecute? If there is a suspicion that Scottish airports are being used – and there certainly is – then we should investigate in order to bring to justice, not just those who carry out torture but those who allow it to be carried out.

It is an extremely sad day for Scotland if that suspicion reflects badly on us because we will not allow an investigation.


Sunday, 7 December 2014

Women - A personal view



I know some people – particularly men – will think this is not sincere, but it is.
As I have got older, my respect for women has continued to grow, and I decided to write this after seeing statistics that shocked me.

I’ve never understood why some men assault women, particularly women they claim to love. In just 12 months there were 51,926 incidents of domestic abuse recorded by police in Scotland. Of course, some women don’t report being physically or psychologically abused by their partner. On average, women are on the receiving end of domestic abuse 35 times before they report it to police or social services.

North Ayrshire has the highest rate of domestic abuse in Scotland: a report by the local council putting the annual cost of dealing with the ‘problem’ at around £2.9million.

Between 2003/04 and 2011/12 the rate of domestic abuse incidents responded to by police in North Ayrshire increased by 90.5% - from 996 to 1,897. Worryingly, the Council records that the high rate of domestic abuse has not translated into increased ‘homeless’ applications for housing, indicating that in many cases victims are remaining in the home where abuse has occurred.

North Ayrshire Women’s Aid reports that in 2012/13, 95 women and 60 children stayed in local refuges operated by the charity. In addition, 588 women were provided with counselling support.

Alcohol plays a part in men assaulting their partners, but that is no excuse. No-one forces men to get drunk and then take out their frustrations by physically assaulting women. One formidable woman I have worked with in the past, Kay Ullrich, summed-up the paucity of the “But I was drunk” excuse, by asking, “So why did he wait to get home before he decided to punch someone’s face in? Why didn’t he batter the big guy standing next to him in the pub?”

In my life there have always been strong women. My maternal granny was a socialist activist in the Independent Labour Party in the Saltcoats area. My paternal granny was undoubtedly the boss in a household that included a husband and six sons.

My mother was my staunchest defender and supporter – she could criticise me, but no-one else was allowed to do that: she was physically small, but she would have faced a lion to defend her two sons (albeit one needed more defending than the other).

I’m delighted that my daughter is following in the tradition: she is beautiful, intelligent, articulate and funny. She is more than a match for any man.

The human race would have expired centuries ago if child-bearing was not something done by women. Men could never endure the physical pain and stress of giving birth.

Women raise families, run households, have careers and now, in Scotland, run the country. Amazingly, they also find time to ‘look good’, because men expect that of them, even while our beer bellies swell and forests of hair emerge from our ears and noses.

In the early days of the Scottish Parliament I was the only male who attended meetings of the SNP Parliamentary Group Management Team. Other attendees were Kay Ullrich, Nicola Sturgeon, Shona Robison and Fiona Hyslop. No sane man would attempt to stand-up to those women individually, never mind as a group.

During my time as an MSP the Scottish Socialist Party had six members, including Carolyn Leckie, Rosie Kane and Frances Curran. As with the women in the SNP, they were there entirely on merit and proved themselves to be amongst the best politicians in the country.

Then there was my pal, Margo. Despite suffering from a terrible debilitating illness, Margo MacDonald was the brightest star in the parliament. She was so intelligent, so articulate and so funny.

None of these women needed any form of positive discrimination, they achieved their positions through ability and a determination to prove their gender was an asset not a hindrance.

Perhaps it is a misconceived belief of superiority that leads some men to think women are less than their equals. From my experience, in work, in politics, in life in general, women constantly prove themselves to be more than equal to men. When a problem arises, men will form a committee to look at setting-up a focus group that could examine possible options for inclusion in a brainstorming session to set-out ideas that might feed into a matrix of potential solutions. Women will identify the cause of the problem and sort it out.

There is no doubt in my mind that women are the stronger sex. Of course, physically, men are generally bigger and stronger, which is a major factor in the appalling statistics relating to domestic abuse.

So, to any men who might, in the future, find themselves feeling they want to hurt a woman they claim to love: please pause, take a step back and be a real man. Real men don’t hit women.


Alternatively, contact me and I’ll come to take your partner’s place. You can then throw a punch at me instead of her. Of course, I will hit you back.

Friday, 5 December 2014

Still failing the victims of child abuse


Almost 30 people – mostly victims of historic childhood abuse – have informed the UK Home Secretary that they have lost confidence in the government’s inquiry into the issue, even before it has actually got under way.

The actions of the individuals in snubbing Westminster’s inquiry is understandable.  Westminster is at the heart of the British establishment and that very same establishment stands accused of being central to a paedophile ring that abused vulnerable children over many years.  That Home Secretary Theresa May has twice appointed people to head the inquiry who have strong links to the British establishment and individuals who could form part of an investigation is just one reason victims of abuse are losing confidence in the proposed inquiry.

Other concerns expressed by victims and their legal representatives include that the terms of reference of the inquiry do not go far enough.  They insist the UK Government and the establishment should be investigated over cover-ups of paedophiles in their ranks: that, even after two inquiry heads have stood down, there remain other conflicts of interest among members of the panel: and that the investigation should look back as far as 1945 – the current cut-off date is 1970.

Until the concerns of victims are fully addressed, there remains the belief that Westminster’s real intention is not to uncover those who abused children, but to keep a lid on the shocking truth as much as it can.

Ten years ago, to the week, I took part in a Scottish Parliament debate on Institutional Child Abuse.  The issue was brought to the Parliament by the Public Petitions Committee, of which I was then a member.

The Committee had received a petition from survivors of childhood abuse, which called for a public inquiry into what they had suffered and those who had abused them.

On the day of the debate, then First Minister Jack McConnell issued a public apology to children who had been abused after being placed into care by the state: this was the first apology of its kind by anyone representing government in Scotland.  While the country had been run directly from Westminster, a blind eye had been turned on the matter.

It is a disgrace that, ten years since victims lodged their petition calling for a public inquiry, they are still waiting.  It is also a disgrace that the British establishment at Westminster is so enmeshed in the historic abuse of children that victims have little confidence a London-based inquiry would deliver answers, convictions of abusers and closure for those who were abused.

On looking back at what I said in that Scottish Parliament debate ten years ago, I feel real anger that a decade has elapsed and victims are still having to fight for their voices to be heard and for those responsible to be held to account.

---------------------------------------------
Scottish Parliament
Official Report
December 1st 2004

Debate on Institutional Child Abuse

Campbell Martin (West of Scotland):

In 1999, the Irish Taoiseach Bertie Ahern told the Dáil:

"the test of a true democracy is to be found in how it treats its weakest and its most vulnerable members."

On that criterion and on the testimony of far too many Scots who spent time in the care of the state, Scotland has historically failed Bertie Ahern's democracy test.  For generations, Scotland has failed that test because we have failed to listen to the hundreds of people across Scotland who as young children were placed in the care of the state and were abused in our care.  Back then, while they were being abused, the state failed to protect them - the state let them down.  Since then, by failing to listen to them and to offer the solutions they need, successive Governments have compounded that original failure.  I hope the First Minister's apology today finally brings to an end those days of failure.

We know that some of the children who were abused while in the care of the state are in the public gallery today.  Of course, we will not recognise them as children, because they are now adults.  However, in quiet moments and at times of sadness or stress, those adults are again young children.  The memories, the nightmares and the faces have lived with them.  While they were young, vulnerable children, we as the state failed to protect them.  Because of that, we as the state have saddled them with burdens that most of us, thankfully, cannot even begin to imagine.  They do not need to imagine those burdens, because for them abuse was a reality.  They lived it and continue to relive it.

Those children, now adults, need to be able to talk about their experiences.  They need to be able to know that the people to whom they talk will understand what they are talking about and will believe them.  They need to know that the people to whom they talk will help bring closure to what has been a lifelong nightmare.  I believe that a public inquiry would do that.  That is why Chris Daly and the people behind petition PE535 have asked for a public inquiry.

There is too much denial on this issue.  At the meeting of the Public Petitions Committee of September 29th, the minister accepted that institutional child abuse had happened.  We all know that it has happened; we have living proof that is the case.  Surely if those responsible are to be held to account and those who are abused are finally to have closure, we need a public inquiry with the full powers necessary to investigate every case and organisation.

Of course, some people who were abused do not want that aspect of their past to be raised in public and we must respect their position.  A public inquiry would not compel people who had been in the care of the state to come forward to speak about their experiences - it would be for them to make that decision.  However, for those who need finally to put the nightmare behind them, having the option of speaking about their experiences and knowing that the forum to which they speak has the power to act are absolutely essential.

In Ireland, the most significant action that enabled historic institutional child abuse to begin to be addressed was an apology by the Taoiseach. He said:

"On behalf of the State and of all the citizens of the State, the Government wishes to make a sincere and long overdue apology to the victims of childhood abuse for our collective failure to intervene, to detect their pain, to come to their rescue."

An apology from the state is for that collective failure; the First Minister made such an apology for Scotland today.  However, another apology is necessary - one from the organisations that ran the institutions where the state placed children.  Those organisations need to accept their historic responsibility and they need to apologise for their failure to intervene and to protect the children.  Until that happens, we cannot move on and we cannot offer closure to the children who were abused.

The response by the Catholic Church in Scotland to an inquiry last week from The Herald newspaper about whether it would be prepared to release files it holds on the subject was particularly unhelpful.  The Herald reported a spokesman for the church said that: "it had never run children's homes in Scotland."

Apparently, its children's homes: "tended to be operated by autonomous orders of nuns or brothers."

I suggest that, when a young child is being abused by a nun or a priest, the corporate-speak distinction between an autonomous body and the headquarters organisation is not the first or most important thing that goes through that child's mind.  Like every other organisation that had care of some of Scotland's most vulnerable children, the Catholic Church must face up to its responsibilities and co-operate fully in all attempts to bring to justice those who abused children in care.

The cloak of secrecy has to be lifted and we need to get to the truth.  We need to know which organisations were responsible and we need to know that the individuals responsible for abusing children in care will be brought to justice, even if they are now old - we need to know they will pay for their crimes against Scotland's children.  Equally, the people who committed the crimes need to know that, although the abuse might have happened years ago, it has not been forgotten and they have not got away with it.  One day - I hope very soon - the children's time will come and the abusers will pay for their crimes.

Thursday, 20 November 2014

A wee role in the SNP's remarkable turnaround


Last Thursday (November 13), I switched-on the BBC’s Politics Channel and watched the last First Minister’s Questions taken by Alex Salmond.

As usual, he wiped the floor with opponents: in addition, he set-out the SNP’s actions in government and explained why only independence delivers the full powers needed to meet the aspirations of the people of Scotland.  Alex Salmond showed why he is, by far, the best leader our country has ever had.

A day later the Scottish National Party annual conference began in Perth, with delegates ‘officially’ accepting Alex Salmond’s resignation as National Convener, after his second ten-year spell in the job.  The conference also elected Nicola Sturgeon to succeed Salmond.  Next Wednesday (November 19), the Scottish Parliament will elect a new First Minister and will make history when Nicola Sturgeon becomes the first woman to hold the nation’s top political job.

Nicola will assume leadership of a buoyant political party, with membership having soared to a remarkable 82,000 since September’s Independence Referendum.  She will also lead an SNP Government that is even more popular now than when it first took office in 2007.  There are few, if any, comparable situations anywhere else in the world, where support for a political party has not only grown but has taken-off like a rocket after 7 years of being in government.

What is even more remarkable is that just 10 years ago the SNP was on a downward spiral that, had it not been stopped, could have proved fatal.

In April 2004 the National Executive Committee of the SNP suspended my membership of the party.  Three-months later the same committee expelled me.  At the time, I was a Member of the Scottish Parliament and so became the first parliamentarian to be expelled by the SNP in the party’s history (the first from any party in the Scottish Parliament).

My crime, according to the charge against me, had been “actions inimical to the party”, which translates as acting against the interests of the party or even of damaging the party.  Needless to say, I disagreed with the charge and the ‘guilty’ verdicts that led to my suspension and expulsion.

Volumes could be filled explaining why the specific charges laid against me by the then National Secretary Alasdair Allan (now an MSP) were unfounded – and why the party broke its own constitution and rules in taking disciplinary action against me – but, 10 years on, no constructive purpose would be served in restaging those particular arguments.  What is not disputed, nor was it ever, is that I acted to end John Swinney’s leadership of the SNP. 

Today, Mr Swinney has found his perfect niche and, by all accounts, is an effective Cabinet Secretary for Finance in the Scottish Government.  However, from 2000 to 2004, John Swinney’s ‘leadership’ of the SNP almost killed the party.

Swinney was never a leader: his skill-set did not include the ability to inspire and encourage, nor was his political antennae tuned to the needs and aspirations of ordinary Scots.  Under the Swinney leadership, the SNP drifted to the centre-ground of the political spectrum, away from its long-term position as a moderate centre-left party.  This movement – a New Labourisation of the SNP – saw the party lose support from a large swathe of the electorate that had been drawn to the SNP as a centre-left alternative to the Tory-clone New Labour Party created by Tony Blair.  There was also a feeling that independence had become more a long-term aspiration than the core principle of the party.

Ten-years ago I argued that the ‘actions inimical to the party’ were not mine, but were those of John Swinney and a small leadership clique.  The hard facts show that under the Swinney leadership the SNP lost hundreds-of-thousands of votes, one Westminster seat, eight Scottish Parliament seats, twenty council seats and thousands of members.  I acted, with others, to bring to an end the party’s declining fortunes by removing a leader who couldn’t see that he, and the political direction he had taken, were the problem.

In an interview for STV (on the Politics Now programme) I became the first MSP to publicly call on John Swinney to resign as leader.  However, far from being simply a demand that ‘Swinney must go,’ I also set-out my belief that Alex Salmond had to return to lead the party.  Salmond had, of course, stood down from the leadership in 2000.

In the STV interview I made clear my position, saying of a Salmond return, “I think it would be good for the SNP if he came back and I think he could unite the party,” adding, “I think it would be in the greater interests of the Scottish National Party and the independence movement if we could have a new leader who could re-invigorate the party and the independence movement and take this country on to independence.”

I believed it was imperative that John Swinney’s leadership was ended at the earliest opportunity to stem the damage to the party, and to give a returning Alex Salmond sufficient time to turn-around the SNP’s fortunes.  I should also stress that Alex Salmond at no time supported my call for Swinney to resign.

The reason for my urgency was the impending European Elections (June 10 2004).  I believed that John Swinney would attempt to remain as leader, even if the party again performed badly under his leadership, which is exactly what happened.  The SNP polled just 19.7%, the party’s worst performance in 20 years.  Swinney did try to cling onto the leadership, but by then the momentum for him to go was too strong.  He finally resigned on July 22, just 12 days after he had chaired the meeting of the National Executive Committee that expelled me from the party.

Had John Swinney been able to remain as leader of the SNP following the European Election, it was my contention that he would then have led the party into the 2005 Westminster Election, where, in all likelihood given the downward spiral of party fortunes, more seats would have been lost – with the possibility of only Alex Salmond holding his constituency.  If that had happened there would have been serious barriers to Salmond being able to return to the Scottish Parliament in 2007, an intention he had already stated.

Another electoral reverse in 2005 would have been the end for Swinney, but would have meant a new leader had one year less to turn-around the party’s fortunes before the 2007 Scottish Parliament Election (compared with him actually going after the 2004 European Election).

That the SNP has been in government for 7 years; has guided Scotland to a referendum on independence, supported by 45% of the people; has seen party membership and support for independence soar since the referendum; and stands on the brink of a massive success at the 2015 UK General Election, all stems from Alex Salmond’s return to leadership on September 3 2004 and to the SNP re-establishing itself as a centre-left, social democratic party.  Salmond is the most able politician of his generation: he was the only person who could have united the SNP back in 2004 and he has gone on to build a successful government team, including John Swinney in a role more suited to his abilities.

Clearly, Nicola Sturgeon has a very hard act to follow as SNP leader and First Minister of Scotland, but she is more than capable of succeeding in those roles.  I’ve known Nicola for a long time: she was always a very able politician, but in the last few years she has grown way beyond that status. 

In Nicola Sturgeon Scotland will have a leader to match and possibly even surpass Alex Salmond, and he’s the best we’ve had.


Friday, 7 November 2014

Murphy leadership will be great...for the SNP





I saw Labour leadership favourite Jim Murphy being interviewed on television last week.  He came across well.

It seemed Murphy is a politician who actually cares about people and society.  With a slow, thoughtful delivery, it would have been easy for viewers to think the MP for Eastwood understands the hardship being endured by so many Scots and wants to implement policies to lift the suffering.

Who can forget Jim Murphy’s genuine shock as he faced a television camera shortly after being an eyewitness to the terrible tragedy at the Clutha bar in Glasgow when a police helicopter crashed onto the roof of the packed pub?  This, surely, is a caring man.

All of which points to Murphy being the answer to Labour’s prayers in Scotland: a man who can connect with voters and is in tune with the hopes and aspirations of the people.  Of course, after the abrasive and inept Johann Lamont, almost anyone would be an improvement.

There is only one problem with the image being portrayed by Jim Murphy as he seeks the leadership of the Scottish sub-section of the British Labour Party – it does not reflect the real man and his beliefs.

Murphy’s leadership campaign tells us he is the son of a working class Glasgow family, so poor the infant Jim had to sleep in a drawer.  That, apparently, is true: but so is the fact that the Murphy family emigrated to apartheid South Africa, where the young Jim attended a whites-only school.  The future politician returned to Scotland when he was 18 to avoid doing compulsory national service in the South African army.

Back in Scotland the young Jim attended university and got heavily involved in student politics, eventually being elected President of the Scottish National Union of Students, which led to him taking on the same role UK-wide.  During Murphy’s tenure in office, the National Union of Students (NUS) dropped its opposition to the abolition of student grants: this was in line with Labour Party policy but against the agreed position of delegates at the NUS conference.  At the time, then Labour MP Ken Livingstone tabled a parliamentary motion criticising the NUS decision and describing Jim Murphy as “intolerant and dictatorial”.

So involved in Labour and student politics had Murphy become, he did not complete his degree and dropped-out of university.  Immediately, he was offered the position of Special Projects Officer with the Labour Party in Scotland.

Jim Murphy wants us to believe he is a working class man who understands the suffering of ordinary Scots, those unemployed and in-work who are being hit hardest by austerity measures imposed by the right-wing Tory-Lib Dem Government at Westminster.  In reality, Murphy is cut from the same right-wing cloth as the Tories and has never had a real job in his life.

Selected to fight the then Tory-held seat of Eastwood, Jim Murphy was elected as part of the Tony Blair-inspired New Labour landslide of 1997, and quickly settled into life at Westminster as a loyal Blairite.

As Labour abandoned any pretence of being a socialist or even just centre-left party, Murphy was comfortable with the way New Labour embraced market capitalism and distanced itself from the founding principle of the labour movement, which had been to give a parliamentary voice to the working class.  As a Blairite, Jim Murphy was a committed part of the New Labour project, summed-up at the time by Blair confidante Peter Mandelson as Labour now being “extremely relaxed about people becoming filthy rich”.

As a loyal New Labour MP, Murphy supported welfare reform that began the process of hammering the poor – including the introduction of the Bedroom Tax to the private rented sector – and which have formed the bedrock of current Tory-Lib Dem austerity policies.

Jim Murphy also supported British involvement in the 2003 illegal invasion of Iraq.  Remember the shocked man who stared into a television camera after seeing for himself the horrific and deadly impact of a helicopter crashing into the Clutha bar?  This is the same man who readily supported the unleashing of ‘shock and awe’ against the civilian population of Baghdad, and who, as Shadow Defence Secretary, had Labour been in power would have been in charge of Britain’s nuclear arsenal, a first-strike system of mass destruction capable of wiping-out the human race several times over.    

As a right-wing Labour MP, Murphy is a staunch supporter of Israel, which continues to blockade the civilian population of Gaza and has launched ferocious military attacks against densely-populated residential areas of Palestine.  In 2012 the Jewish Chronicle newspaper reported, “Mr Murphy, a former chair of Labour Friends of Israel...has long nailed his colours to the mast,” quoting Murphy as saying that any recognition of Palestinian suffering by some Labour politicians “doesn't mean that Labour is anything other than a staunch supporter of the state of Israel”.

As he attempts to become leader of Labour’s Scottish sub-section, Jim Murphy’s campaign recognises it must distance itself from his long-standing position as a right-wing Blairite within the party.  Scotland has long rejected the Tories and part of the current Labour collapse stems from the party’s re-branding as a Tory clone in England.  Scots recently saw Labour politicians and activists campaigning shoulder-to-shoulder with the Tories in opposition to Scotland re-establishing itself as a normal independent nation.  Very prominent in the Tory-backed and funded Better Together campaign was Jim Murphy.

Last month (October 2014), the Tory-supporting Daily Telegraph reported, “The label attached most often to Jim Murphy is ‘Blairite’ [and] the frontrunner to become the new leader of Scottish Labour was one of the former PM’s most loyal defenders”.  The Telegraph article noted that in an interview with the paper, Murphy railed against the “I don’t need to get out of bed, and the world owes me a living” attitude apparently expressed by some of the country’s unemployed.  According to the newspaper, “It is this kind of robust analysis that makes many on the Labour right wonder if Murphy is their last best hope.”

So, the frontrunner to be the next leader of the Scottish sub-section of the British Labour Party is a man educated in a whites-only school under an apartheid regime, who dodged South African national service by returning to Scotland; a man who neglected his state-funded studies to such an extent he dropped-out of university, then, as President of the National Union of Students, ignored the view of students and backed scrapping the system of grants that funded higher education studies (a move that has brought about the current situation where students have to fund their studies by taking-out loans and where English universities now charge annual tuition fees of up to £9,000). 

With Murphy at the helm, Labour in Scotland would be led by a man who has never had a real job; who, rightly, is shocked by the horrific scenes resulting from a helicopter crash in Glasgow but who voted to bomb thousands of Iraqi men, women and children – and who could have been in charge of the UK’s nuclear weapons of mass destruction; a man who has unflinchingly supported the state of Israel, a country that occupies Palestinian land and regularly launches searing missile attacks against civilians in Gaza.

With Jim Murphy as leader, the ‘Scottish’ Labour Party, which has lost thousands of voters and members because it is now seen as a right-wing clone of the Tories, would be fronted by the man seen as the “last best hope” of those Blairites who are responsible for moving the party to the right and embracing Tory policies.

The SNP, already seeing membership soar beyond 80,000 since the Independence Referendum, must be praying for a Labour Party in Scotland led by Jim Murphy.