Solidarity - Renfrewshire's Socialist Movement

Barclays gags Guardian over tax - THE LENGTHS BUSINESS GOES TO AVOID PAYING TAX

2009-03-17T22:16:00.005Z

Barclays gags Guardian over tax

Injunction forces news website to remove seven leaked memos showing how bank avoided hundreds of millions of pounds in tax

Staff reporter guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 17 March 2009

Barclays Bank obtained a court order early today banning the Guardian from publishing documents which showed how the bank set up companies to avoid hundreds of millions of pounds in tax.

The gagging order was granted by Mr Justice Ouseley after Barclays complained about seven documents on the Guardian's website which had been leaked to the Liberal Democrats' deputy leader, Vince Cable.

The internal Barclays memos – leaked by a Barclays whistleblower – showed executives from SCM, Barclays's structured capital markets division, seeking approval for a 2007 plan to sink more than $16bn (£11.4bn) into US loans.

Tax benefits were to be generated by an elaborate circuit of Cayman islands companies, US partnerships and Luxembourg subsidiaries.

The documents had been leaked to Cable by a former employee of the bank, who wrote a long account of how the bank works.

The anonymous whistleblower wrote to Cable: "The last year has seen the global taxpayer having to rescue the global financial system. The taxpayer has already had a gun put to their head and been told to pay up or watch the financial system and life as we know it disappear into a black hole.

"It is a commonly held view that no agency in the US or the UK has the resources or the commitment to challenge SCM. SCM has huge amounts of resources, the best minds rewarded by millions of pounds. Compare this with HMRC [Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs] recently advertising for a tax and accounting expert with the pay at £45,000.

"Through the use of lawyers and client confidentiality SCM regularly circumvents these rules, just one example of why HMRC will never, in its current state, be up to the job of combating this business."

The Guardian's decision to publish the documents came on a day when the chancellor, Alistair Darling, told parliament he had asked HMRC to publish shortly a draft code of practice on taxation for banks "so that banks will comply not just with the letter of the law but the spirit of the law".

Barclays's lawyers, Freshfields, worked into the early hours to force the Guardian to remove the documents from the website. They argued that the documents were the property of Barclays and could only have been leaked by someone who acquired them wrongfully and in breach of confidentiality agreements.

The Guardian's solicitor, Geraldine Proudler, was woken by the judge at 2am and asked to argue the Guardian's case by telephone. Around 2.31am, Mr Justice Ouseley issued an order for the documents to be removed from the Guardian's website.

Cable said it was both "incongruous" and "offensive" that banks that rely on state support should avoid paying tax and therefore be "selling the taxpayer short". Although the taxpayer has not had to directly support Barclays by taking an equity stake, the bank had relied on the government's special liquidity scheme to provide funding for loans.

"The banks are able to organise their activities in such a way that they can run rings around the Inland Revenue," he told the Telegraph. "It serves no other purpose than to reduce tax. The fundamental point is that it is incongruous and offensive that banks which are either directly or indirectly dependent on the government should be systematically finding ways to avoid tax."

Cable, who passed the documents to HMRC and the Financial Services Authority, told the Sunday Times this week: "The documents suggest a deeply ingrained culture of tax avoidance. The Barclays team looks like the spider at the centre of a highly artificial web of non-transparent transactions through tax havens. Reputable banks don't turn tax avoidance into a profit machine."

A Guardian spokesman said this morning that the paper would appeal against the order. "Tax avoidance is a matter of high public and political interest. These documents showed for the first time how major banks set up artificial schemes with the aim of earning hundreds of millions in tax-free money, which is why the Barclays whistleblower leaked them.

"All decisions about tax are taken in secret, hidden from public view. It is not right for a judge to prevent daylight from shining on the few documents ever to have emerged which graphically demonstrate what HMRC is up against."

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News and Media Limited 2009

The State That Tolerates No Criticism - ONE VIEW OF THE STATE of ISRAEL

2009-03-17T22:10:00.000Z

The State That Tolerates No Criticism
How Israel Gives Jews a Bad Name
By SAUL LANDAU

March 15, 2009 "Counterpunch" --- Most Jews I know get little pleasure from the existence of Israel; just the opposite. They feel disgusted by the behavior of their tribal kin toward Palestinians. This antipathy doesn’t concern Israel’s right to exist, a phony argument still maintained by hard line Zionists. Israel exists, period. Most of the world recognizes that. Anyone wanting to eliminate it belongs in the loony bin or prison.

Israelis have just elected a right wing majority. The number three vote-getting party, Yisrael Beytenu led by Avigdor Lieberman, will occupy a strong place in the new government. Lieberman will become a Minister in the Netanyahu Cabinet. Last year, Lieberman rammed through Israel’s Central Election Committee a ban on Arab political parties. The Israeli Supreme Court ruled the ban unconstitutional before the recent election. Lieberman also demanded the Knesset expel Arab Members. He went further. If Arab citizens of Israel don’t sign oaths of loyalty to Israel, they should have their citizenship revoked. Disloyalty for Arabs included students wearing kefiyahs to school; Muslim Israelis collecting medicine and aid for Gaza relief also falls into the non-trustworthy category.

During the 2008-9 invasion of Gaza, Lieberman wanted the military operation to continue until Hamas “loses the will to fight.” In a speech at Bar-Ilan University, he said Israel’s government had “to come to a decision that we will break the will of Hamas to keep fighting.” Lieberman concluded in the January 13 Jerusalem Post: “We must continue to fight Hamas just like the United States did with the Japanese in World War II. Then, too, the occupation of the country was unnecessary.” In 1945, US Air Force planes dropped atomic bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Japan surrendered unconditionally.

Lieberman has acquired a powerful defender in the United States. Abraham Foxman, National Director of the Anti-Defamation League, backed Lieberman’s plan to require Israeli Arab citizens to sign an oath of allegiance to the Jewish state.” (Feb 10, Jewish Telegraphic Agency)

Foxman ignored the ADL’s mission, opposing racial discrimination and the words of the ADL Charter. The Anti-Defamation League aims “to secure justice and fair treatment to all.” In Israel, it’s apparently OK with Foxman to strip an Arab wearing the wrong covering of citizenship. Without citizenship, Arabs can’t vote or participate in politics; very old Jews from some European countries may recall similar rules.

My grandfather taught me, growing up during the Holocaust, that Jewish tradition teaches each person to strive to become a pillar of ethics, learn the law and behave so as to answer to God for transgressions – not to rulers of a so-called Jewish state.

Ironically, in the name of all Jews, Foxman and colleagues in AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) and other Israeli lobby groups along with right wing and centrist political parties in Israel invoke the Holocaust to justify the very behavior embodied by Holocaust initiators. Israel calls itself a Jewish state. Yet, one fifth of Israel’s population is non-Jewish. I don’t belong to that state and despise its policies of constant war and occupation.

Count Israel’s wars: 1948, 1956, 1967, 1973, 1982, plus civil wars against two Intifadas in the 1980s and 2000, and finally the invasions of Lebanon in 2006 and Gaza in late 2008, the latter leaving in its wake 1,300 plus dead Palestinians, most of them civilians and less than 20 Israelis, some from “friendly fire.”

Condemned by the Red Cross, Amnesty International and a host of organizations for violating human rights of Gaza’s people, Israel’s new government will almost certainly continue or even harden the policies. They don’t care what others say.

Dr. Erik Fosse, a Norwegian cardiologist, working in Gaza hospitals during the Israeli invasion described his patients’ wounds. “It was as if they had stepped on a mine,” he says of certain Palestinian. “But there was no shrapnel in the wound. Some had lost their legs. It looked as though they had been sliced off. I have been to war zones for 30 years, but I have never seen such injuries before.”

The “focused lethality” weapon, to which Fosse referred does minimal damage to buildings, but catastrophic harm to humans. The United States supplied these to Israel.

Israeli Defense Forces have also used white phosphorus in Beirut in 1982 and again in Gaza. The intense heat of the metal inflicts appalling damage. The IDF knows international law prohibits its use near populated areas. Donatella Rovera of Amnesty International labeled as “a war crime” the use of phosphorous “in Gaza’s densely-populated residential neighborhoods.” (Guardian, January 21, 2009)

Israel initially denied using the chemical. On January 13, Israeli Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi solemnly declared: “The IDF acts only in accordance with what is permitted by international law and does not use white phosphorus.” Gazans and Israelis, however, saw the material and the victims of it. On January 20, the IDF admitted using phosphorus artillery and mortar shells on “Hamas fighters and rocket launching crews in northern Gaza.”

On January 15, three shells hit the UN Relief and Works Agency compound. The resulting fire destroyed tons of humanitarian supplies. A phosphorus shell also hit Al-Quds hospital in Gaza City. According to the Guardian, the Israelis claimed Hamas fighters had hidden near the two targets. Witnesses denied the charge. (January 21, 2009)

UN officials cited witnesses who claimed Israel killed 31 family members whom Israeli troops had led into a house in Zeitun. Twenty four hours after the IDF warned the Palestinians to remain, the IDF shelled the dwelling. Half of the dead were children. The UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) called it “one of the gravest incidents since the beginning of operations” by Israeli forces in Gaza. (AFP, December 27, 2008).

Such facts caused distinguished people like Jimmy Carter and Bill Moyers to question Israeli behavior. Foxman quickly labeled Moyers as anti-Semitic. Those opposing Israel’s invasion of Gaza, or her occupying of Palestinian territory (for 40 plus years), or her mistreatment of all Palestinians receive the anti-Semitic label. Any criticism of Israel begets that description.

In discussions with Jewish defenders of the recent invasion of Gaza, however, I found more defensiveness. During one argument an ardent pro Israeli changed the subject. “But Israel enjoys free speech and press!”

Yes, a small minority vigorously criticize Israeli government policy – there, not here in the United States where a Member of Congress characterized an attack by the Israeli lobby as the equivalent of a pit bull biting him in the leg. Israeli’s daily Ha’aretz provides an example of such criticism, including articles damning the latest invasion as both a failure and immoral (Gideon Levy, February 19, 2009). Similar criticism in a US newspaper would cause Foxman and company to call major press conferences to “expose anti-Semitism.” When Jimmy Carter published his 2006 book, Palestine Peace Not Apartheid, critical of Israeli policy, Foxman stopped just short of accusing the former President of anti-semitism. “You have been feeding into conspiracy theories about excessive Jewish power and control,” he wrote in a letter. “Considering the history of anti-Semitism, even in our great country, this is very dangerous stuff.” (Shmuel Rosner, Ha’artez Dec. 20, 2006)

When less powerful Jewish American scholars write books or give lectures attacking Israeli policy, they get fired or their tenure withheld. Norman Finkelstein (son of Holocaust survivors) was denied tenure in 2007 by the President of DePaul University, despite favorable recommendations by faculty and students. In 2000, he published The Holocaust Industry: Reflections on the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering. The President of Bard College recently dismissed Joel Kovel, another internationally applauded scholar. Kovel’s 2007 book, Overcoming Zionism, triggered the action.

In the Finkelstein case, an important Zionist activist, Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz, demanded the action. He had threatened Finkelstein with law suits after Finkelstein accused him of plagiarism and lying – charges documented in his 2005 book, Beyond Chutzpah: On the Misuse of Anti-Semitism and the Abuse of History. (University of California Press) Kovel attacked militant Israeli supporter Martin Peretz, longtime editor of The New Republic.

The ADL supported both dismissals. In past decades, ADL vibrated with anger over anti-Semitic signs spray painted on subway bathroom walls. Now, its leader endorses a McCarthyite platform in his beloved Israel. Anyone who does not conform to ADL’s fiercely pro Zionist agenda becomes vulnerable to accusations of anti-Semitism.

From 1998-2006, I occasionally invited speakers to campus who criticized Israeli policy. Inevitably, I would then receive letters, e-mails (copies to the University President), and phone calls accusing me of bias or being a “self-hating Jew.”

“How can you say that?” I asked one caller. “You don’t know me.”

“You’re all alike, you people who hate Israel,” the man responded.

“You’re the Jew-hating Jew,” I responded. “You hate me and don’t know me. I wish you could listen to your own voice.”

“I know anti-Semites when I talk to them,” he shouted into the phone and hung up.

“Long Live Israel,” scream the US fans. “Anyone who doesn’t like our team is an anti-Semite.”

I want to shout: “Go Back to Israel where you didn’t come from.”

Saul Landau is an IPS Fellow, author of A BUSH AND BOTOX WORLD (Counterpunch) and director of forty films, available on dvd from roundworldproductions.com

PUBLIC MEETING IN GLASGOW

2009-03-07T19:52:00.003Z

Come and hear the case for socialism in Scotland and how some workers are fighting back.

All welcome

It was 25 years ago

2009-03-07T19:47:00.002Z

The miners strike - a bitter class war of 12 months came to an end this month.

The Depression

2009-02-14T14:32:00.005Z

Justice For Jean - no cover up

2007-12-24T01:17:00.000Z

MENEZES FAMILY BRAND IPCC DISCIPLINARY DECISION A 'SCANDAL'

The family of Jean Charles de Menezes reacted with anger today at the decision by the IPCC not to recommend disciplinary action against the four senior officers involved in the botched anti-terrorism operation that led to the fatal shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes.

Vivian Figuierdo, cousin of Jean, who lived with him at the time of the shooting said:

"The decision today is a scandal. It is entirely premature for the IPCC to do this before an inquest where vital evidence about the actions of these officers could come to light. Sadly we have come to expect this from the IPCC – they have done nothing to hold the police to account for the killing of an innocent man. Time after time they simply bow down to police pressure and protect the status quo. If the jury at the health and safety trial found the police guilty of catastrophic errors – why is it that no police officer is being held individually accountable? This decision comes at the end of a very difficult year for us; to be told, just before Christmas that not a single police officer will be held responsible has ruined our festive season when we have already suffered enough. It's the worst Christmas present we could get"

Harriet Wistrich, solicitor for the Menezes family said

"Twice the IPCC have invited us to make representations as to the timing of a decision in relation to discipline. On both occasions we strongly urged the IPCC not to announce the decision prior to all the evidence being explored. It is disappointing that the IPCC have disregarded the serious objections raised and that this decision is made before the family's legal representatives have been given any disclosure of the evidence other than the IPCC report. We fear that if new evidence emerges at the inquest it may be harder to bring disciplinary decisions in the future as officers could argue abuse of process"

A spokesperson for the Justice4Jean campaign said

"It is nothing short of a public scandal that despite two lengthy and critical IPCC reports and a damning jury verdict at the Old Bailey, the IPCC and the MPA still cannot find any reason to bring disciplinary action against a single person for the shooting dead of Jean Charles de Menezes. The IPCC has shown it is no better than the discredited Police Complaints Authority that it replaced in holding police to account. The cynical and disgusting timing of this announcement is a clear attempt to bury bad news. It is clearly time for the government to review the effectiveness of the IPCC"

Money as Debt - how we are robbed by capitalism

2007-09-19T14:04:00.000+01:00

Here is a great explanation of the world money system. It is done in an informal way using cartoons and graphics.

NB: A warning this video is over 45 mins long

Summer's almost gone -

2007-08-29T23:09:00.000+01:00

The nights are creeping in and the leaves start to turn. The weather has been atrocious this summer but the industrial climate has been red hot. The posties, social work staff, even prison officers! are taking or have taken strike action to defend jobs and services.

The need to support these workers has been at the forefront of our party's work and will continue into the autumn.

The branch will be meeting again to discuss.........details in your Inbox!

Post 9/11 Blues

2007-07-06T15:11:00.000+01:00

Found this on the net - great tune, great lyrics......enjoy friends

CWU - National Strike 29th June

2007-06-29T22:37:00.000+01:00

Solidarity members visited the pickets lines at Underwood Road sorting office to show support for the Post Office workers taking national industrial action for the first time in 11 years.

We spoke to a local official who told us that support for the strike was overwhelming in the area with only a handful of non-members at work.

We brought Solidarity bulletins to the CWU picket lines which were well received. We offered to assist the strikers where we are able to and promised that we will return on future strike days.

Dropzone Records - rap on a scottish tip

2007-06-19T16:29:00.001+01:00

Check it out!!!!!

To wet your appetite - Sicko - The Movie

2007-06-11T17:34:00.001+01:00

Award-winning director Michael Moore, director of 'Bowling For Columbine' and 'Fahrenheit 911', has a new movie out later this year.

In 'Sicko' Moore examines the health care system in the world's richest nation and just why so many US citizens just cannot afford to be ill. This system is the model of neo-liberals everywhere! It doesn't matter what the major UK parties say, they are all slaves to this dangerous ideology.

Beware coming to a hospital near you very soon!!

Watch a preview here!

Balls up at the Ballot - Your responses needed

2007-06-10T12:30:00.000+01:00

Solidarity Calls on their supporters to get their voices heard

With one month gone since the Election night shambles Solidarity-Scotland’s Socialist Movement is calling on all people who feel they were disenfranchised to make their views known to the investigation set up by the Electoral Commission led by Ron Gould.

WE ARE MOST INTERESTED IN THOSE PEOPLE WHO VOTED FOR SOLIDARITY AND THINK THEIR VOTES MAY NOT HAVE COUNTED OR WERE PUT OFF BY THE COMPLICATED BA LLOT FORMS.

Write to us at

Solidarity –Scotland’s Socialist Movement
West of Scotland Region
17 Roffey Park Road
PAISLEY
PA1 3JL

The Revolution Will XXX Be Televised

2007-06-05T01:10:00.000+01:00

THE REVOLUTION WILL NOT BE TELEVISED
DIRECTED AND PHOTOGRAPHED BY KIM BARTLEY AND DONNACHA O'BRIAIN
IRELAND, 2003

74 MINUTES
» SPANISH WITH ENGLISH SUBTITLES

HUGO CHAVEZ ELECTED PRESIDENT OF VENEZUELA IN 1998, IS A COLOURFUL, UNPREDICTABLE FOLK HERO, beloved by his nation's working class and a tough-as-nails, quixotic opponent to the power structure that would see him deposed.

Two independent filmmakers were inside the presidential palace on April 11, 2002, when he was forcibly removed from office. They were also present 48 hours later when, remarkably, he returned to power amid cheering aides. Their film records what was probably history's shortest-lived coup d'état.

It's a unique document about political muscle and an extraordinary portrait of the man The Wall Street Journal credits with making Venezuela "Washington's biggest Latin American headache after the old standby, Cuba." «

From http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5832390545689805144

2007-05-10T12:06:00.000+01:00

LABOUR ROCKED AS SNP WIN

Necessity to build socialist alternative to big business parties is more urgent than ever

Phillip Stott, International Socialists (CWI Scotland)
Labour lost their first election in Scotland since 1955 as the Scottish National Party (SNP) made history by becoming the largest party in the Scottish parliament following last Thursday’s election. For the first time in a Scottish election, the SNP won a bigger share of the vote than Labour winning by 33% to 32% on the constituency vote and 31% to 29% on the regional list vote. The SNP now hold 47 seats, one ahead of Labour on 46, with the Tories on 17, Lib Dems on 16, Greens 2 and Margo McDonald elected as an independent.

This outcome means that no one party holds a majority in the parliament. Even a two party coalition would not command enough Members of the Scottish Parliament (MSPs) to run the Executive. As a minimum, a three way agreement between the parties would be necessary. This outcome means that it is likely to be days and possibly weeks before any deal over the political make up of a new executive can be agreed.

There was also real anger at the record levels of ballot papers being ruled out as invalid as a result of confusion over how to fill them in and the use of two different voting systems on the same day. Incredibly more than 100,000 people had their votes invalidated – many of them in working class areas. This scandal brought comparisons with the flawed election in the US in 2000 when the result in Florida was effectively stolen by invalidating the votes of many Black voters.

Polarised
The election was extremely polarised with many people using the SNP as a way of hitting back at New Labour and their record of war, privatisation and increasing inequality. The run up to the election had been completely dominated by the Labour/SNP head-to-head battle. For many people, the election became a referendum on not only the record of the Scottish Executive, but also on Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and the New Labour project, including the disastrous Iraq policy.

The SNP were the big winners increasing their number of MSPs by 20 to 47. Labour lost 4 seats, with the Lib Dems and the Tories losing 1 each.

It was the smaller parties that saw their electoral position squeezed. The Greens lost 5 of their 7 seats while the SSP and Solidarity were unable to hold on to any of their combined 6 MSPs. The SNP vote, compared to 2003, increased by 9% in the constituencies and by 10% on the regional party lists, with Labour’s falling by 3% and 5% respectively.

This surge to the SNP and the desire to hit back at Labour affected the smaller parties. The SNP were able to pick up support as an "anti-war" party and effectively used their opposition to Trident and the hated council tax to pose as being to the left of New Labour. However, the SNP also spent a large part of their election campaign trading blows with New Labour. Both parties wheeled out one millionaire after another to show their support from Scottish big business figures. The SNP also effectively "parked" their independence for Scotland policy by promising a referendum in 2010 – hoping to undermine Labour’s and a majority of the Scottish press’s attempts to undercut the SNP’s support by warning of the dangers of the "break up of Britain".

What now?
Alex Salmond and the SNP will try and form an Executive, but they need the support of the Lib Dems and the Greens to achieve a working majority of 1. Before the election, the Lib Dems insisted that there would be no deal if the SNP pushed ahead with their plans to hold a referendum on independence in 2010. Salmond offered the proposal of a multi-option referendum including a question for more powers for the parliament, short of independence. This was also rejected by the "democratic" liberals whose leader stated that they would always oppose a referendum if it contained a question offering independence as an option. This means that either the SNP or the Lib Dems have to concede something. It is also possible that an Executive could be formed without an agreement on this question which would allow the SNP to move a proposal that would not be binding on the Executive – effectively a free vote of the parliament.

However, there is also the possibility that a "government of the losers" – Labour/Lib Dems with the effective backing of the Tories could be cobbled together. This pro-union coalition would hold a majority – but would be seen by many as an illegitimate government if it excludes the SNP. The other option is for an SNP minority government. Whatever Executive is cobbled together, the pro-business agenda of the main parties will continue and the need to build a socialist alternative to the parties of big business is as urgent as ever.

Solidarity and the SSP
The absence of socialist MSPs in the Scottish parliament represents a serious setback. The responsibility for this lies with the actions and policies of the SSP leadership that led to a split and the formation of the new socialist party – Solidarity - in September last year. The SSP leadership were widely seen to have backed Rupert Murdoch’s News of the World against Tommy Sheridan and they paid a devastating price at this election. Not only were the SSP wiped out in terms of parliamentary representation but it was Solidarity that clearly emerged as the main socialist force winning 70% of the socialist vote. Alan McCombes, the SSP’s policy spokesperson, described the outcome for the SSP as a "massacre."

Solidarity out-polled the SSP everywhere in Scotland winning 31,066 (1.6% of the national vote) votes to the SSP’s 12,831 (0.6%). In Glasgow, where Tommy Sheridan, was standing to be elected, Solidarity polled 8,525 votes which was 4.15% of the Glasgow wide vote compared to 2,579 - 1.25% for the SSP. Tommy Sheridan missed out on winning a seat by just over 2,000 votes – but it was clear that Solidarity suffered disproportionally from the thousands of rejected ballot papers in Glasgow, many of which showed that people had voted for Solidarity.

Nationally the SSP came behind the BNP and Arthur Scargill’s SLP as well as the Scottish Christian Party. Even where SSP MSPs were standing as councillors they failed to be elected. Glasgow SSP MSP Rosie Kane came last in the council seat she stood in. In contrast Solidarity won a council seat in Glasgow Craigton when Ruth Black was elected. The SSP lost their only council seat in Glasgow. In the West of Scotland, where International Socialist (CWI Scotland) member Jim Halfpenny was the lead candidate, Solidarity polled 4,774 votes (1.8%) while in Central Region, Solidarity won over 5,000 votes (1,8%). In South Scotland Solidarity polled 3,400 votes, a very creditable 2.3% which was not enough for MSP Rosemary Byrne to be returned to parliament.

A combination of the squeeze on the smaller parties and the inevitable disappointment at the split in the socialist movement meant that Solidarity just failed to gain an MSP. However, as Tommy Sheridan commented: "From the launch of Solidarity 8 months ago to being the biggest socialist party in Scotland is no mean feat." The decision to launch Solidarity in an effort to rebuild a viable socialist force in Scotland was underlined by this result. The SSP is finished as a serious force in Scotland and the task now is to try and deepen the roots and influence of Solidarity as a socialist party by taking up the issues facing working class communities and young people. The International Socialists, whose members play a key role in Solidarity, will campaign to build Solidarity and the forces of Marxism in Scotland. Whatever combination of big business parties form the new Executive, working class people need a fighting socialist party to defend their interests and we will work to build that alternative.

====== copyright CWI Scotland - reproduced by permission ======

Thank you Renfrewshire, from Solidarity - Scotland's Socialist Movement

2007-05-08T12:14:00.000+01:00

As your local candidates we would like to thank you for your support in the local elections this year.

Although we failed to secure places in the Council chambers this time around, you can be assured that we will be campaigning on the issues that affect you in the next four years. Whether that be the continuing selling off of our parks and leisure facilities; to cuts in jobs and services; to the dumping of the detested Council Tax, we will be looking at building our presence in an area close to you.

Jim Halfpenny (Erskine and Inchinnan)
Sean Hurl (Paisley East and Ralston)
Gerry Kavanagh (Johnstone South, Elderslie and Howwood)
Fiona Macdonald (Paisley South)
Gille Macdonald (Renfrew South and Gallowhill)
Robert Muir (Paisley North West)
Harry Pfaff (Bishopton, Bridge of Weir and Langbank)
Danny Williamson (Paisley South West)

SNP-Labour tied 17 each in local elections - Who are the Lib-Dems gonna get into bed with??

2007-05-04T23:28:00.000+01:00

After the most exhaustive and protracted voting and counting process there are no outright winners in the Renfrewshire Elections.

Labour, who were buoyant after sweeping the board in the Scottish Parliamentary Elections the night before, looked sick as the proverbial household macaw as the STV system returned 17 SNP councillors, 17 Labour Councillors with 4 Liberal Democrats and 2 Tories.

Immediately pressure falls on the Liberal Democrats who can act as 'kingmakers' here? Will they prop up the failed and distrusted New Labour or can they deal with SNP?

We will keep a close eye on the reponse of Susan Macdonald, the new Lib-Dem for the Ralston and East Centre, will she prop up a regime that plans to kick the community out of Penilee Pavilion. Welcome to Cotton Street, Susie!!

VOTE SOLIDARITY - Tommy Sheridan

2007-05-01T16:11:00.001+01:00

The Socialist Party

The Anti-Poverty Party

The Anti-War Party

The Anti-Nuclear Party

The Pro-Workers Party

The Pro-Socialist, Independence Party

The Pro-Pensioners and Asylum Seekers Party

Tommy Sheridan on Newsnight Scotland

2007-04-30T17:55:00.000+01:00

An interview with Tommy Sheridan, co-convenor of Solidarity, Scotland's Socialist Movement, gives an interview on the BBC and outlines the policies and platforms of the party.

Not nationalist but internationalist, Solidarity in deed, name and outlook.

2007-04-25T17:48:00.000+01:00

Welcome to the web of Solidarity- Scotland's Socialist Movement in Renfrewshire.

We are campaigning for independent socialist Scotland, a country independent of poverty, of racism, of nuclear weaponry and energy, of privilege and inequality.

If you share this same vision then join us and vote for us in May.

Solidarity is the party founded by the Members of the Scottish Parliament, Rosemary Byrne MSP and Tommy Sheridan MSP, and other socialists in 2006. Many of us were former members of the SSP but left in the wake of the attacks made on Tommy and us by the News of the World, aided and abetted by a clique, in and around the leadership of that organisation. That clique refused to act on the democratic will of the party and closed the structures and party offices to socialists.

Solidarity -Scotland's Socialist Movement Party Election Broadcast

2007-04-25T16:01:00.000+01:00

Inspired by the the 'bug in the car' - this is the real nitty gritty - Solidarity The Socialist party - that stands on the age-old principle - if the bosses come for one of you, they come for us all - Vote Solidarity - X - For all the regions of Scotland - Vote Solidarity - 1 - for the Council

WE ENDORSE NO OTHER PARTY _ NO OTHER WAY OF VOTING _ SEND SOCIALISTS TO HOLYROOD AND COTTON STREET _

George Galloway and Tommy Sheridan GLASGOW RALLY

2007-04-24T20:44:00.000+01:00

Wednesday 25th April
7.00pm
Royal Concert Halls

Get there early! Or be disappointed.

Renfrewshire Council Elections

2007-04-21T00:51:00.000+01:00

Solidarity – Scotland’s Socialist Movement, the political party founded by Tommy Sheridan MSP and Rosemary Byrne MSP, will be standing 8 candidates in the Renfrewshire Council Elections on May 3rd.

The priority will be our call for the immediate scrapping of the unfair Council Tax and its replacement by a local income tax. The Scottish Service Tax, which is worked out with experts at Paisley University, will mean that those on incomes of less than £10,000 per year will pay nothing but those on excessive salaries will pay more. Over 75% of people will see no change or be better off at a stroke but the super-rich who have benefited under Blair’s New Labour Tories will be contributing more.

Locally the campaigns Solidarity will be campaigning against the selling off of council parks and services. The disgraceful and dangerous developments at Seedhill Playing fields where the health of local people is being put at risk and the giving away of the Penilee Pavilion in Ralston, to St. Mirren FC, over the heads of the local community, are just two examples of the New Labour fire sale of our assets.

Solidarity say, enough is enough. We will not stand idly by and let the community’s assets be sold to the highest bidder. The continuing privatisation of resources can be resisted, as Solidarity members, with other community campaigner,s showed in the housing stock privatisation scam of New Labour.

Our candidates are all committed to changing Renfrewshire for the better, we ask you put your first choice against our candidates in the following areas

Ward Name	Party Name	Candidate Name with Logo above	Vote
Renfrew South and Gallowhill	Solidarity - Tommy Sheridan	Gillie Macdonald	1
Paisley South	Solidarity - Tommy Sheridan	Fiona Macdonald	1
Paisley South West	Solidarity - Tommy Sheridan	Danny Williamson	1
Paisley East and Ralston	Solidarity - Tommy Sheridan	Sean Hurl	1
Paisley North West	Solidarity - Tommy Sheridan	Robert Muir	1
Bishopton, Bridge of Weir and Langbank	Solidarity - Tommy Sheridan	Harry Pfaff	1
Erskine and Inchinnan	Solidarity - Tommy Sheridan	Jim Halfpenny	1
Johnstone South, Elderslie and Howwood	Solidarity - Tommy Sheridan	Gerry Kavanagh	1

INFO 4 VOTING

2007-04-20T21:05:00.000+01:00

Look Left 4 Our logo on the Ballot papers

Our party name will read Solidarity - Tommy Sheridan and the box will need a 'X' for the Scottish Parliament seats and a '1' against the Candidates Name for the Council Seats.

Campaigning in Paisley March 2007

2007-04-20T20:46:00.000+01:00

We receive a warm welcome from the Paisley Buddies to our election campaigns on both local and national issues.

We find that there is widespread disgust at Blair's disasterous Iraqui adventure for his American master but no enthusiasm for the watered down independence offered by the SNP either.

Stopping the Sale of Renfrewshire's Parks

The Ban On Airguns

Scrapping the Council Tax