McConnell wonders if he's doing what he believes in!

At the weekend Jack McConnell told a Sunday newspaper that there had been times he wondered if he was doing what he believed in. That has been described as being a very "candid" statement. I don't agree with that description. The truly candid statement would have been that he's not clear what he believes for Scotland but, whatever it is, he knows it would be inconvenient to Labour for him to say what it is. If he had been prepared to be that candid, at least he wouldn't have been lonely. He would probably have been expressing the position of every Labour MSP in Scotland-no vision for Scotland or incapable or feart of saying what it is. No wonder the people know it's time for Alex Salmond to replace him as First Minister, time for the SNP. Lachie McNeill

Glasgow knows it's time for independence

The latest ICM poll shows 57% of Glaswegians would vote yes in a referendum on independence. Of course it's just one poll but it's part of what's now become a steady increase in the majority for independence all across Scotland. The same poll shows SNP and Labour each with a 34% share of the vote in Glasgow. There are 36 of Scotland's 73 Parliamentary Constituencies where SNP was second behind Labour in 2003. A quarter of them are in Glasgow. Glaswegians know it's time for the new Scotland, time for independence. That time is there to be claimed in every constituency in Glasgow-by turning out and voting SNP on 3 May 2007, electing SNP MSPs all across Glasgow and choosing Alex Salmond as First Minister of Scotland.

Lachie McNeill

An Independent Scotland's influence in the world

The now almost daily and increasingly weak, desperate and downright contradictory attempts of Blair, Brown, Straw, McConnell et al to find reasons why it's not time for independence are going to be a recurring theme of mine at the moment.

One that Jack Straw is peddling is that Scotland's influence in the world would be less if it wasn't part of the state called the UK.

Let's deal with that particular piece of piffle.

The first and most important point is that having influence as a member of the family of nations is only worthwhile if it's a capacity to influence for the "good" of the family.

Let's then take a very specific topic. Nuclear weapons.

The world knows that it is unsustainable for the post war 5 to go around demanding that nobody else should have a nuclear "deterrent" but insisting it's ok for the post war 5 to have it.

Independence will ensure that Trident is not replaced in Scotland. You can rest assured that it certainly wouldn't then be replaced by being located in England. Scotland would then be exercising her full voice as a nation in Europe. The only European state that would then continue to possess a nuclear deterrent would be France which would be wholly isolated. A Europe free of nuclear weapons would be beckoning. Decreased influence for good? They must be joking.

Lachie McNeill