I've been left questioning real purpose of Alba Party
So many great independence supporters I believed were giving the movement a new start – James Kelly, Denise Findlay, Eva Comrie, Chris McEleny and scores of others – have found themselves expelled or forced out. Party membership has halved.
Like most decent people, I feel desperate to do anything I can to help stop the genocide in Gaza. I first authored the strategy to take Israel to the International Court of Justice and was there inside the courtroom in the Hague.
READ MORE: What would posing MPs say of the suffragettes?
I later travelled to Lebanon and for five months reported from the frontline, on Israeli atrocities there. So when George Galloway – whom I have known almost 50 years, although we have disagreed on independence – asked me if I would fight Blackburn on the issue of Gaza at last year's election, I flew from Switzerland to meet him. I had fought Blackburn against Jack Straw as an Independent in 2005 on the issue of the Iraq War, gaining 5% of the vote. Local Muslims I met with George said they wanted the chance to redeem themselves for backing Straw.
I told George I would get back to him. I would need to get permission from Alex Salmond first as I was a member of Alba.
(Image: JASON REDMOND)
Alex and I had previously agreed I should not stand for Alba at the General Election as it was still too close to my imprisonment. The Unionist press would make mischief. I should wait for the 2026 Holyrood election.
Alex was enthusiastic about Blackburn. He did not set any condition. Had he not agreed, I would not have done it. I published why I was standing, that Alex had agreed, that I was campaigning purely on Gaza, and that I remained an Alba member. I came within 3000 votes of being elected.
The Alba member who got the next best result at the GE was Yvonne Ridley standing as an Independent in Newcastle. Also over Gaza. She also had Alex's permission, in writing. Yvonne has also just been blocked as a candidate by Alba.
She was not even a Workers Party candidate, so the claim that the problem is the Workers Party standing against two Alba candidates in Scotland is evidently a lie.
At this spring's Alba conference, I made a speech asking the party to stop expelling people, which was well received. All weekend, nobody mentioned Blackburn.
At the All Under One Banner march in Glasgow, I had a conversation with Alba leader Kenny MacAskill over which Holyrood region I might stand in.
Kenny indicated no reservation whatsoever. I was therefore astonished to receive a week later an email from the party stating that my vetting application had been rejected paper and I would not be allowed to go forward to the panel.
The reasons given were my standing in Blackburn, and my failure to volunteer my imprisonment on my application form. As though every member of Alba did not know I was imprisoned, and exactly why.
I remain urgently committed to the cause of Scottish Independence, and have recently been introducing the case to diplomats at the UN on behalf of Liberation Scotland and Salvo. Being stabbed in the back at this moment is unhelpful.
I am sorry to say I am entirely unconvinced the SNP has any genuine intention to do anything about Independence. The SNP accept the Westminster veto, and therefore do not really believe in Scotland's right to self-determination.
But no progress can be possible if the more radical wing of the Independence movement continues to fracture itself into ever-smaller splinters.
So I intend to stay in Alba and try to reform it.
I fear it is becoming a vehicle whose entire purpose is to get a clique of former SNP MPs and MSPs back on to the gravy train. They are being positioned to dominate the party regional lists. Those forced out or expelled have all been outsiders.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The National
an hour ago
- The National
What has and hasn't changed in Scotland since 2014
Eleven years on, much has changed, including a precipitous socioeconomic decline of which Brexit has been part. What has not changed is the interest in Scotland in the US (perhaps because 250 years ago it too sought independence from British rule). In the early 2000s, I had the privilege of hosting the late Alex Salmond at the Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs in New York. Alex began with a characteristically amusing and telling anecdote: 'When I first visited the US, about 10% of Americans claimed Scottish ancestry. Then I heard 20%. And now it's 25% – maybe if I stayed for a while longer ...' READ MORE: Scotland among seven countries to sign landmark independence declaration In any event, Scotland and Scottish affairs hold a special place in American hearts, as well an awareness that Scotland and its people have punched above their weight in the world (the Carnegie name is on foundations, think tanks and, of course, libraries across the US, for example). The article appeared at a time when the No forces had mounted a full court press against independence. Virtually all major media, all parties other than the SNP, titans of business and other leadership figures presented a tsunami of opposition. One scholar, Historian and broadcaster Simon Schama said in the Financial Times: 'Scotland's exit from the rich, creative and multicultural unity of Britain would be a catastrophe'. I can just hear the classic Glasgow response: 'Aye, right!' What weapons did the Better Together clique wage against us Yes folks? The heaviest mallet was, of course, economic. The English chancellor of the exchequer, George Osborne, delivered what came to be known as 'the sermon on the pound', basically threatening any efforts at a Scots currency. A deputy head of the World Bank refuted this, saying a Scots pound was achievable. Various luminaries warned an independent Scotland would find itself isolated and would have 'great difficulty' in achieving membership of the European Union. Since the end of the Cold War, nine small, newly independent states have become EU members. To deny an independent Scotland would be egregious. (Of course, English voters removed us from Europe two years later.) Then there was the straw man fear that a 'hard border' between Scotland and England might stir up centuries-old animosity. Nonsense. Norway and Sweden were essentially one country until 125 years ago. Bilateral peace has reigned since. To turn the conversation from the negative to the positive, I asked: 'What might be the benefits of an independent Scotland, for itself and the world beyond?' Schama, in the same FT article, extolled the achievements of Scots in the 300-plus years of the UK – in the sciences and engineering, arts, philosophy, global exploration, public service, architecture et al. Yes, and these achievements surely emphasise Scotland's indisputable capacity for independence. I once debated the Canadian politician and public intellectual Michael Ignatieff, who had the temerity to suggest that Scots should be happy with the status quo since so many of us had found fame and fortune in London. My response was: 'And why on Earth should Scots have to go to London to accomplish this? Why not enrich themselves and Glasgow, Edinburgh, Aberdeen, Dundee?' A view of London Possibly under more severe threat than it was 11 years ago is the social contract of Scotland with its people. In the preface to the 2014 report Scotland's Future, Salmond wrote: 'Our national story has been shaped down the generations by values of compassion, equality, an unrivalled commitment to the power of education.' While these ideals are fragile and under attack, I firmly hold to the belief that Scotland has historically had a social-democratic conscience, a commitment to basic services for all that is far different from what has been called the 'madcap capitalist laboratory' of London. This leads me to the third, and most difficult challenge for Scotland – and the most compelling argument for addressing the challenges as an independent nation. READ MORE: Details emerge of Scottish arm of new Corbyn project The 11 years since 2014 are nothing less than an indictment of a Westminster Parliament for its cynical misrule – known more euphemistically as 'austerity'. These years brought no fewer than five Tory prime ministers, all of them inept. We now have, under Starmer, a Labour Government that is a travesty of the Labour movement in its disregard for the needs of the most vulnerable in Britain. But sadder yet for a Scots expat who benefited from Salmond's passion, intellect and deep commitment to independence has been the precipitous decline of the SNP since Alex relinquished the leadership. In his stead we have had a series of feckless successors. Something Fergus Ewing said articulates perfectly the SNP's demise: 'We have lost three-quarters of our MPs, 65,000 members, and seen a 10%-15% drop in the polls. Who, hand on heart, can defend that record?' The record has been deservedly earned. On visits to Scotland since 2014, I have seen or heard from others deterioration in education, transport, health services and business and industry. The closing of the Grangemouth oil refinery amid the most feeble opposition from the SNP is a metaphor for Scotland's decline. What I wrote in 2014 was a rallying call in support of the SNP as the referendum loomed. No more. I am now a supporter of, and donor to, the Alba Party. Under the decisive leadership of Kenny MacAskill – who I am proud to call a friend, and believe is Salmond's true and rightful successor – Alba are the only party to have put forward a comprehensive and compelling blueprint for the overriding issue facing Scotland today, even more so than in 2014, ie independence, and detailed plans for the socioeconomic ills that will be tackled under Alba. Both a re-energised campaign for independence and the work that will follow present challenges for Scots and Scotland, not least for a native cautiousness that is often most commendable. I am reminded of the words of the great Scots socialist intellectual, Tom Nairn, who once rued the fact that Scots sometimes lacked the decisiveness 'to walk through an open door.'. It's time to stride through that door, if only because history has shown that allowing Westminster to call the shots had been nothing short of disastrous. I noted at the end of the 2014 article that the independence case was most clearly and succinctly put by an Indian gentleman in Hyderabad: Writing in the FT, he said: 'The Scots have always been a nation, and are now asking for their own state.' That seems to express the obvious – and the essential. David Speedie was awarded a Kennedy Scholarship to Harvard after three years as a lecturer in English Language at the University of St Andrews and has been a resident of the US since then. Most recently he was chair of the programme on International Peace and Security at Carnegie Corporation of New York and senior fellow at the Carnegie Council on Ethics in International Affairs in New York, as director of the programme on US Global Engagement, which he created. He was a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, and is a founding member of the American Council for US-Russia Accord. He is now a consultant based in Virginia.
The National
an hour ago
- The National
How UK media are covering up British spy flights for Israel
BRITAIN'S mainstream media have not carried out a single investigation into the extent, impact or legal status of the more than 500 surveillance flights over Gaza the RAF has carried out since December 2023. The Ministry of Defence continues to insist the operations carried out by Shadow R1 aircraft based at RAF Akrotiri in Cyprus are designed purely to assist with the discovery of Israeli hostages taken by Hamas on October 7, 2023. It appears that Britain's obedient defence correspondents have no appetite to challenge this or even to raise the slightest concern about the legal or ethical implications of providing intelligence support to Israel in the middle of a genocide. Yet thanks to dogged work by campaigners, independent journalists and pro-Palestine MPs, we know both that the flights are continuing to operate – as they did even throughout the ceasefire – and that spikes in the number of flights have coincided with especially deadly Israeli attacks on Gaza. The lack of curiosity on the part of mainstream media is perhaps not surprising but it is deeply troubling. What spy flights? ACTION on Armed Violence, which has investigated the flights, points to the opacity of the intelligence and criticises the UK Government for its repeated refusal to talk about how it has been used and who it has been shared with, adding: 'Once shared with Israel or the United States, Britain loses control of how the data is used.' Israel's incendiary attack on Iran on June 13 has led to a flurry of stories mentioning RAF Akrotiri as a potential target for Iranian retaliation given its status as the UK base for what the BBC admitted is a 'rapid deployment force available for contingencies in the Middle East'. READ MORE: David Pratt: The shadowy figures behind US-Israeli aid operation in Gaza The defacing of two military planes at RAF Brize Norton by members of Palestine Action – which led to the unprecedented decision by the Home Secretary to proscribe the group – saw many mainstream news outlets briefly citing the activists' claim that the RAF was involved in what most stories referred to as 'military operations in the Middle East'. Unusually, the BBC's account did at least mention the activists' claim that Britain was continuing to 'fly spy planes over Gaza'. However, neither these stories nor indeed any of the ones since the flights started operating in December 2023 have actually investigated these claims. Of the 1359 pieces in UK-based media between December 2, 2023 and June 14, 2025 referencing 'Akrotiri', none in the mainstream media has focused specifically on the spy flights. This is in direct contravention of a significant public interest in covering the flights as an ongoing controversy. Even Google's AI overview acknowledges this. Based on search results for 'surveillance flights, Gaza AND Cyprus', Google's conclusion is that 'it appears there has been considerable discussion and concern surrounding British surveillance flights operating out of RAF Akrotiri, a military base in Cyprus, and flying over Gaza'. Despite the fact that independent sources such as The National, Declassified UK and Middle East Eye have repeatedly drawn attention to the flights and the implications of supplying intelligence to Israeli forces, mainstream news media have refused to amplify this 'discussion and concern'. The vast majority of stories that reference Akrotiri are instead in relation to its role as a base for attacks on Houthi rebels in Yemen in January 2024 ('Brits hits Houthis' was the headline in The Sun), the repatriation of UK citizens from Lebanon in summer 2024 and the surveillance of the base by an alleged Iranian spy in June 2025. Hard news THIS lack of coverage is certainly not because the flights exist only in the imaginations of Declassified UK journalists or pro-Palestine activists. When pressed, the Ministry of Defence admits they are taking place. For example, on December 2, 2023, the BBC acknowledged the launch of surveillance flights to Gaza in order to 'search for Hamas hostage locations', still the official MoD narrative. The following October, the BBC reported that the UK was willing to hand over 'Gaza intelligence' to the International Criminal Court, if requested, as part of the ICC's investigation into alleged war crimes carried out by Israel. Other than that, however, the BBC has remained silent on the nature of this 'intelligence' and whether the flights might make the UK complicit with war crimes if found to be the case by the ICC. It has utterly failed to follow up the story. Search the BBC's 'Ministry of Defence' thread and you will find it bare. When challenged about this by Declassified, the BBC's director of news content, Richard Burgess, said: 'I don't think we should overplay the UK's contribution to what's happening in Israel.' READ MORE: 'Hold its head in shame': Gary Lineker hits out at BBC for dropping Gaza documentary The Guardian has published three comment pieces – by Jeremy Corbyn MP, Bradford University professor Paul Rogers and commentator Owen Jones – and a joint signatory letter, all of which have made brief reference to the spy flights. In hard news, however, the newspaper has barely acknowledged the existence of the flights: confined to one line in a Patrick Wintour story on Foreign Office staff being told to resign after challenging UK policy on Gaza, and a mention of '500 surveillance flights' in response to the activities of Palestine Action. The i paper ran a single story in October 2024 stating that 'British military aircraft have reportedly flown hundreds of reconnaissance missions over Gaza in the past year to gather intelligence for Israel' but, like so many other news outlets, has not returned in any meaningful way to the topic since. Deafening silence DESPITE official acknowledgement that the flights continue to take place, and despite multiple questions raised in Parliament by concerned MPs such as Jeremy Corbyn, Shockat Adam, Scott Arthur, Brendan O'Hara and Calvin Bailey, the silence on the intelligence-gathering nature of the spy flights has been deafening. It's hard to reconcile this silence with the energy with which mainstream media have investigated Russian spy planes flying over Ukraine and other military manoeuvres related to Putin's invasion. It is all the more hypocritical considering their claim to be watchdogs scrutinising Government actions. Only recently, Katharine Viner, the editor of The Guardian, wrote about her paper's record in 'scrutinising power with complete independence for decades'. In reality, it's precisely the opposite. Leading news organisations are amplifying MoD talking points and Foreign Office priorities but then remaining quiet and toeing the line when it comes to identifying potential military support for Israel's genocide. This is similar to the total lack of critical voices in their reporting of the defence review announced last month by Keir Starmer. READ MORE: 111 BBC journalists demand change at top as Israel-Palestine reporting 'crippled' Out of 993 stories on the 'defence review' in UK media on June 2, a tiny handful took the time even to acknowledge the existence of significant public opposition to increases in defence spending, particularly at the expense of cuts to public services. The vast majority of published criticism of Labour's defence plans come from the Conservatives, or military voices arguing 'this is too little, too late' or that it isn't clear where the money will come from. There is, apparently, no space for hard news content that investigates whether increased defence spending is either effective or necessary. Meanwhile, the mainstream media's continuing silence on RAF spy flights over Gaza is a flagrant abdication of their stated responsibility to ask tough questions of military planners. Far from holding power to account, mainstream media – through their silence and meekness – are allowing the UK Government to get away with murder in Gaza. Des Freedman is a professor of media and communications at Goldsmiths, University of London and a founding member of the Media Reform Coalition
The National
an hour ago
- The National
Big decision now looms for Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves
On the world stage, it is frankly embarrassing. Across the Pond, Donald Trump mobilises the mob behind tax cuts for the rich and health cuts for the poor. Liberal democratic leaders throughout Europe keep their distance, but Starmer can't cosy up enough. The character of this Labour Government is dispiriting. It prefers re-armament over aid, as people who look like they've never had so much as a playground scrap strike a pose as the new world warriors. UK Defence Secretary John Healey doubles his budget on the frankly absurd assumption that we must prepare for our first military invasion since 1066. Meanwhile, people worry their kids will face conscription. READ MORE: Devolved relations reset with Labour has 'failed', says SNP official This Labour Government is authoritarian and illiberal. Intent on banning musicians for expressing a point of view. Making terrorists of activists spray-painting a plane while supporting the Israeli state whose military use starving people for target practice. But it is on the economic front that the wasted opportunities are most manifest. Labour have used up vast amounts of political capital on attacking the poor – keeping the two-child cap, axing the Winter Fuel Payment and threatening to cut disability benefits. One year and several U-turns later, these look like major strategic errors. Apart from not achieving anything, they have left the party divided internally and run off the park by Nigel Farage. Why did they do it? The answer to that lies in the nature of their victory last year. Labour got 33% of the vote in an election in which fewer than three in five people voted. That's fewer than 10 million votes from an electorate of nearly 50 million. The corrupting first-past-the-post system airbrushed this mediocre result into a landslide majority because the right of British politics was hopelessly divided. But the reality is that the election result wasn't much of a mandate for anything. A sensible strategy in such circumstances would have been to deliver for the people who did vote for you and then use the authority of the majority to build support further with policies that benefited most people at the expense of the privileged. The problem was that the Starmer/Reeves project had ruled out in advance the use of major tax levers to achieve precisely this aim. And so, rather than increase revenues, they set about cutting welfare spending. It looked like turning on the very people who voted for them. No doubt some Labour strategists even hoped that looking hard on welfare would win support from the right. It didn't. Attacking the poor just legitimises the parties who want to do it for real. In fact, these actions drove down Labour support. Part of this will be from the vulnerable and marginalised whose despair of and alienation from the political process increases. But it will also be from so many decent Labour voters who might not depend on these benefits themselves but still harbour a belief in social solidarity and looking after those less fortunate. And this is still where we are. Labour need to decide, and soon, whether they will continue to eschew the tax system as a means of redistribution. READ MORE: Details emerge of Scottish arm of new Corbyn project Capitalism creates inequality. Throughout its history, reformers have understood tax is an essential tool to tackle that inequality. Tax means that private wealth can be marshalled for public good. This socialisation of the economy has been at the core of social democracy. The greater the proportion of any country's economy that is deployed in the public realm, the more equal, and the more prosperous, it becomes. But this is not just about the overall amount of social spending. Who pays is important too. There's no point taking more off people who have barely enough to live on while the rich get richer. It's time for the wealthiest to pay more. A wealth tax of 2% and equalising income and capital gains taxes could raise £50 billion a year. If the UK copied Scotland's marginally higher tax rates, it could raise billions more. If Labour refuse to consider these measures, then they will have no alternative but to squeeze up taxes for everyone, by freezing thresholds and allowances. This will increase the cost of living and, by protecting the wealthy, undermine public support for an increasingly unfair tax system. Moving to a higher tax/higher spend economy won't be welcomed by the 1%, but it won't spook the stock markets, either. Perversely, for an economic model built on risk, markets don't like uncertainty. But if governments are clear, markets adjust. The big decision for any government is whether it will set the rules by which the markets must play – or accept it happening the other way around. I have low hopes of this Labour Government changing now. It lacks the conviction and shows no sign of building the necessary political consensus for reform. But its refusal to intervene in the economy in a way which benefits the majority of its citizens will continue to underline the opportunities on offer if and when we choose to establish an independent Scottish government for ourselves.
