General
By a Newsnet reporter
A Labour peer has caused outrage after suggesting that any scepticism of the Labour party’s historic claims on Devolution was “akin to holocaust denial”.
Former Labour MP and MSP, George Foulkes, posted the remark in response to an opinion piece by Dr. James Wilkie of the SDA in which he cast doubt on claims by the Labour party that it was always fully committed to Devolution for Scotland.
The controversial piece by Dr. Wilkie, published on Newsnet Scotland, claimed that Westminster was forced into granting Scotland a devolved parliament only after pressure from the Council of Europe.
Dr. Wilkie, who is a representative of the Scottish Democratic Alliance, also claimed that a pressure group called the Scotland-UN Committee was key to the process that ended with the creation of the new Scottish Parliament.
Tweeting in response to the article, George Foulkes said: “CyberNat myth that Devolution was forced on the Labour Govt.by EU or Council of Europe (stories vary) is akin to Holocaust denial”
Cybernat is a derogatory term adopted by Unionists in order to describe online opponents of Unionism. When an MSP, Foulkes coined the term ‘Cybernats’ in order to describe those he termed “insomniac Nationalist bloggers”.
The holocaust remark has provoked responses from SNP politicians angry at the slur which comes soon after Holocaust Memorial Day.
SNP MSP Shona Robison called on the Labour peer to withdraw the remark and said: “You should withdraw this George before you are forced to. Totally insensitive given we’ve just marked Holocaust Memorial Day.”
SNP MP Stewart Hosie called the comment “low even by Labour standards”.
Earlier the Labour peer had said “members of SNP, who boycotted the Constitutional Convention, are lying that Council of Europe forced Devo on Labour- laughable!”
However Lord Foulkes appeared to backtrack on his earlier tweets suggesting members of the SNP were behind the claims when he tweeted: “Not everyone who supports Independence Referendum is CyberNat, but only those who dissemble and abuse the truth.”
Holocaust denial is the term used to describe the practice of refusing to believe the atrocities committed against Jews by Nazis during World War II that resulted in the deaths of an estimated six million people.
In 2006, British historian David Irving was found guilty in Vienna of denying the Holocaust of and sentenced to three years in prison.
The attacks on anyone not accepting Labour’s claims on Devolution follow revelations contained in the Sunday Herald that UK Government Ministers had blocked a Freedom of Information request to publish official documents relating to the lead up to the devolution referendum.
According to the newspaper, Scottish Secretary Michael Moore and other senior LibDems vetoed the release by over-ruling a judgment of the UK’s Information Commissioner.
The Sunday Herald said the files contain material that is “still so sensitive it could deepen current rows between the devolved governments and even spark new fights.”
The paper quote Attorney General Dominic Grieve as saying that the documents expose “divergent ministerial views”, which would “seriously prejudice” the practice of collective cabinet responsibility, which obliges ministers to back government decisions.
According to the paper, in a statement of reasons, he said: “The matters discussed are manifestly not of purely historical interest and importance. Disclosure of minutes also gives rise to a real and significant risk that debates and discussions between the administrations would be prejudiced.
“A number of individuals have comments attributed to them in the minutes, including where they are not in agreement on certain policy issues.”
All that is needed is to match up Wilkies theory,
John Major is alive and kicking so should be able to confirm Dr. Wilkie’s assertion of the impact of the Council of Europe on the devolution debate.
Something must have irked Tony Blair against Scotland and the return of its parliament. What could that be ?, a dictate from another body that could not be ignored ?. Could not be ignored but overlaid by sufficient fog to prevent the CofE from ever finding out just how little was ‘given away’.
Why would Foulkes react so angrily to Dr. Wilkies assertion if there wasn’t more than a grain of truth to it ?.
Labour have form remember, lying and obfuscation are second nature to them. No different on this story.
And why is it necessary to lock down cabinet papers on the subject? The official reasons given are just patronising pap. If there was nothing to hide they would be in the public domain. If it reeks of hypocrisy and lies it sure is unionist. The union is built and maintained on such standards.
Firstly,I would think that Foulkes outburst is likely to damage the pro-union movement.People who were unaware of the contribution of the involvemt of the Council of Europe in the push for devolution, now will be.Also a lot of people are likely to view Foulkes behaviour as innapropriate.
Secondly,as an SNP activist in the 1970’s,I know that labour were reluctant converts to devolution.What focused their minds was 11 SNP MP’s at Westminster and the SNP in second place in more than 15 labour held constituencies.
During the first referendum campaign labour activists were thin on the ground.The people who transported elderly people to the polls to put their cross for labour,were invisible.On the evening of polling day.I noticed that the lights were out in the Labour office of my Glasgow constiturncy.A handful of SNP activists and even fewer liberals were desperately trying to pull out the YES vote.I called my local labour councillor for help,only to be informed that he was having a few drinks in the pub with his mates.When we place this alongside the 40% rule where dead people and non voters were counted as a NO vote,and Callaghans refusal to put out a three line whip following a majority YES vote,I think we can say that labour were playing games with us.
In the 1990’s the SNP were regulrly second behind labour in opinion polls,but apart from Jim Sillers byelection victory in Govan,were not as strong during Westminster elections, as they were in the 1970’s.I cannot believe that one byelection win and two SNP MEP’s was enough to interest Blair in Devolution.There were other groups campaigning for Devolution,incl uding Dr Wilkies organisation.Something must have spooked Blair because he did not appear to have much enthusiasm for Scottish Devolution.This was apparent when he referred to the Scottish Parliament as a parish council. The negative attitude from Labour was also emphasised by one of their MP;s who stated that:”They can call it the white heather club,but they will never be the Scottish Government.”Whatever,the exact facts are,Labour cannot claim a monopoly of the push for devolution.They simply reacted to events occurring around them,fo defend their own interests.
Isn’t there ANYONE in Whitehall with a few morals
You are right ituna semea.
George Foulkes deliberately provokes so he is best completely ignored.
Its what he likes least.
Mac said:”To equate Scottish nationalism to Holocaust denial shows that Labour politicians have no sense of objectivity, balance and morality.”
Hang on Foulkes never came anywhere near to saying that. You should refrain from putting words in his admittedly large mouth.
NNS gave him a platform
The odd thing is, George seems to be reacting as if this was a new story. Wilkie has been promoting his fairy-tale about the Council of Europe for years, anywhere he could find a platform. He was pushing it on the old Herald comments threads four or five years ago. That “realmofscotland ” web site is essentially unchanged in all that time.
The only thing that’s new is that Wilkie is linking his tale to the recent story about the FoI denial of the devolution cabinet papers, and that NNS gave him a platform for an article that was a bit higher profile than his previous publicity attempts.
If George was previously unaware of Wilkie’s claims, he doesn’t get out much.
I am not a religious person but Foulkes is causing me to believe in re-incarnation as it seems, the same people who sold us out in 1707 are back again to a repeat performance. But this time.
Totally ignorant about all this Scamp (weren’t you going to write an article to educate us? 😉 ). Why do you have no hopes for tidal technology in Scotland?
Now that Newsnet Scotland seems to have been identified as a “talking shop for Cybernats”, can I ask you all, please, not to become embroiled in internecine posting.
It serves nobody well, least of all the posters who are responsible for some of the most informed comments I’ve ever seen on Forums. There have already been comments about schism within the SNP, and this site was actually quoted “for those who want to see for themselves”. This site is a beacon for people who want to find the truth – and I, like many others, have directed people here; I don’t want for them to feel that it is all about who did what.
We are all better than that.
Does it matter whether Dr Wilkie had any input? Really?
Now that Newsnet Scotland seems to have been identified as a “talking shop for Cybernats”, can I ask you all, please, not to become embroiled in internecine posting.
It serves nobody well, least of all the posters who are responsible for some of the most informed comments I’ve ever seen on Forums. There have already been comments about schism within the SNP, and this site was actually quoted “for those who want to see for themselves”. This site is a beacon for people who want to find the truth – and I, like many others, have directed people here; I don’t want for them to feel that it is all about who did what.
We are all better than that.
Does it matter whether Dr Wilkie had any input? Really?
Quoting brusque:Now that Newsnet Scotland seems to have been identified as a “talking shop for Cybernats”, can I ask you all, please, not to become embroiled in internecine posting.
It serves nobody well, least of all the posters who are responsible for some of the most informed comments I’ve ever seen on Forums. There have already been comments about schism within the SNP, and this site was actually quoted “for those who want to see for themselves”. This site is a beacon for people who want to find the truth – and I, like many others, have directed people here; I don’t want for them to feel that it is all about who did what.
We are all better than that.
Does it matter whether Dr Wilkie had any input? Really?
Absolutely agree with you, Brusque, and snecked again above.
Let’s have some informed comment instead of division, especially since almost all here (including myself) are NOT party to the facts in their entirety on Scotland-UN. I have been as guilty as others but have wised up to what is happening.
Let me urge those who are indulging their opinions, to please, please remember, there are absolutely those amongst us who would seek to very slowly and very carefully create divisions. I have seen others on these forums at NNS who have tried to in the most subtle way, create division.
Divide and conquer, that will be the mantra. Do not be taken for fools,. and jump headfirst. As in 1707, there will surely be those who would seek to become part of the independence movement, with the intention of seeking nothing but division.
The enemy within, often appears to be your greatest friend.
osé Manuel Barroso, the European Commission President, said in November that no more countries would be allowed to opt out from the single currency.
Willie Rennie, Scottish Liberal Democrat leader, said: “Passport controls between England and Scotland would have a significant impact on the ease of travel between our two nations.
Imagine Geordie trying to visit Scotland after Independence and he is turned back at Scotland Border Control :-))