The FOUR vital questions, the SNP refuse to answer for this HKF (Hairy Kneed Fundamentalist). - Niall Aslen

QUESTION NUMBER ONE.  Why have the SNP dropped Independence First?

INDEPENDENCE FIRST! This is the vital core of Clannasaor's message to the people of Scotland. Without gaining the freedom to rule ourselves as an independent Nation State, all efforts to improve the lot of the people of Scotland by tinkering round the edges, are merely wasted efforts and worse still make the position of the Unionist parties more entrenched as they lead the Nationalist community off in seeking pots of gold at the rainbow's end! The SNP have split the Nationalist community badly by going for a policy of 'Gradualism' rather than full blooded out and out Independence. They have postured and puffed in the Holyrood Parliament with nothing concrete to show for it. They are like a group of earnest and skilled engineers doing their best to maintain a clapped out old steam engine which is literally falling to bits around them amongst gusts of hot air and steam. 

Scotland needs Independence! We are a small Nation ruled from a long distance away by Bureaucrats in London and Bruxelles, whose abiding priority is to do what is best for England and the E.U.! Our unique needs and Culture are not being satisfied and we stand aghast as our natural resources and treasures are being pillaged for the benefit of strangers. Scotland can stand on it's own two feet Taxation wise, It has done so ever since the Union of the Parliaments in 1707! Even without North Sea Oil coming into the equation, Scotland more than pays it's own way in the world. The Revenues from North Sea Oil since 1975 up to 2000, have given the English Exchequer £185Bn pounds which has largely been frittered away. (Bn = Billion = one thousand Million) These figures are from the Treasury. Not propaganda, such as the constant dripping of Lies from the Unionists that we Scots are subsidized by the English. Or, We cannot rule ourselves, which is a little strange considering Scots have been in the forefront of the UK Government for the past 120 years. Yes we are good enough to govern a United Kingdom, but not good enough to govern ourselves. A Black joke indeed.

Warning shots have been fired across the Gradualist SNP's bows by the estranged members and supporters and until now have largely been ignored. Now it appears there has been a change of mind.  The Party leadership have decided to take the message that we have been thumping out for the past three years, and intend to make it their own. Time alone will tell if this change of mind is really genuine. The SNP have everything to win and nothing to lose, by dropping this policy of gradualism and going all out for Independence!

QUESTION NUMBER TWO.  On Nuclear Weapons.

When I first supported the SNP way back in the early 1970's, there was one policy above all others that made the party different.  The SNP would have Scotland as a Neutral Independent state with NO weapons of mass destruction based upon her soil and furthermore no military alliances with Countries that did have WMD.  Up till 1998 this was still the case and then the SNP started talking about being part of the European defence Forces, concomitant with Scotland joining the EU.  

The European defence forces will be largely led by the French who will provide the largest contingent of all and you will notice, the French are in possession of a fearsome arsenal of Nuclear Weapons, both Sea and Air launched weapons. (There is an annex attached to the back of this letter.) Their arsenal is twice the size of the British deterrent force and begs the question: 'Why do they need Nuclear Weapons at all, in this supposedly peaceful world?'  Furthermore under the European integration rules, European Armed forces can be based in Scotland, thus the possibility exists that French Nukes could be based in Faslane, Rosyth, Leuchars and Lossiemouth with further Anti submarine aircraft armed with Nuclear depth charges at Benbecula and Kinloss.  

Scotland has no Legal remedy to keep them out and any protesters could find themselves confronted by ARMED EUROPEAN STORM TROOPERS who would be authorised to use LETHAL FORCE!  Is this what the SNP really want?

What I want you to do is explain this contradiction between stated SNP Policy and what will happen once the SNP have allowed Scotland to become an insignificant pimple on the backside of Europe.  As yet no one in the SNP have explained this to my satisfaction.

QUESTION NUMBER THREE.  On 'Independence in Europe'.

It may have escaped your attention of the current SNP Leadership, but Europe is not highly popular in Scotland just now, due to the massive kicks in the teeth, our Farmers and Fishermen have suffered, ever since Britain joined the EEC. I have many Farmers and Fishermen who are Clients of my Accountancy Practice and without exception, they want out of Europe FAST! I am against the SNP Policy of 'Independence in Europe' as I have come to believe that becoming part of a European Superstate is exchanging the English Colonial Yoke for an E.U. one. May I bring a few points to illustrate my argument?

Point 1. I Estimate that Scotland's contribution to the EU Budget will be in the order of £860 Millions.  Most of this will be squandered by the out of control bureaucracy and profligate spending and endemic fraud within the Community.  

This money would be better spent in safeguarding our farming and Fishing Communities, as well as providing better Health care, Pensions and schools.

Point 2. The CAP (Common Agricultural Policy) in need of urgent reform which Europe appears to be incapable of doing due to intransigent French and Spanish Farming Interests. A proper system of Upland subsidies will benefit our small crofters and hill farmers, and not the big landowners.  Why does the SNP have no coherent policies on Farming and Agriculture? Why is the demographic time-bomb of Soil erosion and Exhaustion not being addressed? Why are the SNP not campaigning for farming policies to encourage sustainable Organic style farming instead of the helter-skelter downward slide into ecological disaster?

Why are there no policies to clean up the Toxic and Poisoned landscape all around us? SEPA (Scottish Environmental Protection Agency) estimate 80% of all our Agricultural Land is polluted to a greater or lesser extent. The Truth of the matter is that the SNP have no say in the way that European Farming is run. Britains hands are tied by the lunatic Common Agricultural Policy or as I describe it 'MADCAP Farming.'

Point 3. The CFP (Common Fisheries Policy) is in dire straits with our Scottish Fishing Industry in real danger of collapse. Europe appears to be incapable of formulating a sensible policy due to the pressures put on the Fisheries department by competing and powerful political lobbies from which Britain is noticeable by her abscence. Having our own policy on Fishing would allow us to conserve fish stocks for future generations.

Whole communities around our coastline are facing an unmitigated and unprecedented disaster caused by EU Mismanagement of fish stocks. Again the SNP have absolutely no say in the way the Fisheries are run and they NEVER WILL HAVE, while Scotland is part of the EU. Even if the SNP acheive their modest ambition of having a single seat in the council of Ministers, They will be one TINY LITTLE VOICE crying out amidst the roars and bellows of the Big players. We as part of the EU would have no effective means of safeguarding our precious fish stocks from the rapacious attentions of the Spanish, French and Danish fleets who have largely destroyed their own fisheries by over fishing.

The lunacy of this policy results in the Danish Industrial bycatch of Cod being 150% higher than the whole Scottish fleet COD quota! How many Votes would the traditional Tory voting Farmers and Fishermen be worth to the SNP?   The Policy of 'Independence in Europe' means in effect that the SNP abdicates all responsibility for working policies and surrenders them to European Institutions.  With the end result that you cannot take sensible conservation measures because Scotland is being overruled by Greedy National and commercial Interests.

Point 4. The E.U. are moving towards greater harmonisation of National laws through 'Corpus Juris' (an article, I wrote for Siol-nan-Gaidheal two years ago). Our own laws are at this very moment, being swept aside, for those of a totalitarian state. The Europol Police force that has unlimited draconian powers of arrest of any Scot anywhere in Europe, is already operating and expanding. Europol are even now amassing huge databases on criminals and their activities. They are also starting a database of fingerprints and they propose to have each EU Citizen's fingerprints on file by 2012.

Another huge database of DNA Samples will also be expanded to cover all EU Citizens including those countries wanting to join. Do you want to be part of a Totalitarian Regime where Europol like the Gestapo, drag people out of their beds at 4 am? Read 'Brathair Mor an Eorpa II,' ('European Big Brother') on the Siol-nan-Gaidheal website. Is it any wonder that the ordinary man in the street is deeply concerned about being in Europe at all.

A European public prosecutor has already been appointed and does have authority in Britain and throughout the EU, initially only in respect of cases involving fraud against the EU budget (e.g. people who make dishonest claims for EU grants and subsidies, etc.) but this is just the start.  Since September 11th 2001, We now have legislation that exceeds previous legislation limiting the right of people to gather peaceably, (e.g. the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 and the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2000) and intrudes into privacy with increased powers of bugging and burgling for the security services, and even provides for detention without trial. The first example of this in Britain are detention provisions for those said to be 'mentally disturbed' and as a result 'a danger to themselves or the public' Who decides what is meant by these terms and what is a threat to the public? or perhaps the powers running the state.

The new Terrorism bill recently passed through parliament widens the definition of terrorism enormously to include the threat of 'serious violence' against any person or property. How will this definition be interpreted? Who will interpret it? The bill goes further, organisations can be 'outlawed'. Even addressing a meeting at which there is a member of such an organisation will be an offence. There are draconian additional stop and search powers for the police, and expressing support can be treated as 'incitement' (Even calling out, 'That guys innocent! or you've got the wrong guy! will land you in Gaol for incitement.) All newly created terrorist offences will carry very severe penalties, as part of a process (Including Diplock style Courts) which seems set to create a state in which no dissent of any description will be tolerated. The co-operation in justice and home affairs provisions of recent EU treaties after September 11^th, reveals such measures are hurriedly being implemented as policy throughout the EU.

Point 5. Under proposals incorporated in the new treaty signed at the heads of governments summit at Nice just before Christmas 2000, an old European defence pact known as Western European Union has been incorporated into the European union itself. It lay's down the foundation for a European Army, hailed by German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer as another pillar in the process of European unification. Previously at the Helsinki summit in December 1999, agreement was reached for such an army of 60,000 soldiers to be set up along with command, planning and intelligence bases. This is claimed to be the basis of a rapid reaction force, but French PM Lionel Jospin has stated that 'by pooling its armies, Europe will be able to maintain strong internal security as well as prevent conflicts throughout the world.' This basically means that foreign troops can be stationed on our soil to stifle civil dissent or disorder. The good news is that Scottish Soldiers, Sailors and Airmen are going to be killed, or placed in harms way at the dictate of UNELECTED EUROPEAN COMMISSARS!

Let us approach this in a clear Logical manner, the fact is, a trade association like the EU, no more needs an army than it needs a flag. Er, the EU already has one of those. OK, it no more needs an army than it needs its own currency. Oh er It's got the Euro! Or a common passport, Oh it's got one of those in a red cover! Or a single criminal code, ummmm The members have adopted the retrograde Corpus Juris. Or an anthem, they even have that, Schiller's 'Ode to Joy' set to Beethoven's 9th!. After all, why should we be concerned? According to Tony Blair it's not a superstate, or is it?

Take this following quote from Romano Prodi, the President of the European Commission: 'When I was talking about the European army I was not joking. If you don't want to call it a European army, don't call it a European army. You  can find any name you like to describe it, but it is a joint effort for peacekeeping missions-the first time you have a joint, not bilateral, effort at European level.'  This begs the question, Why, if we are not building a superstate, does this non state need an army? This is not a unified command against a common threat, like NATO was. This is an army to project the power of a trade agreement. The fact is that by Tony Blair saying that this is a superpower but not a superstate is taking nuance beyond the point of logical thought and into the extremes of fantasy.

Now Joschka Fischer speaking to the German British Forum has sought to convince us that a future European Union superstate is simply a Eurosceptic fantasy of the Tory Party Paranoia and imagination. But on this issue the German foreign minister lies exposed. He is on record making a lengthy speech last year to Humbolt University to be precise. There he called for a federal constitution for the EU, a legislative parliament in Brussels, a multinational executive and an elected President. Not forgetting his many other statements covertly made to foreign audiences, such as: 'Transforming the European Union into a single State with one army, one constitution and one foreign policy is the critical challenge of the age' (November 1998).  The proposed European agenda involves the formation of a Marxist Superpower/Superstate.  How does a confederal Europe fit into this? See Guardian Fact sheet for more Detail.

Point 6. On the 13th April 2000 The European Parliament finally approved the Dimitrakopoulos_Leinen Report, article 6 of which makes provision for the setting up of EU wide political parties. However, this is subject to the proviso that, 'parties that do not respect human rights and democratic principles as set out in the Treaty of Rome shall be the subject of suspension proceedings in the European Court of Justice' Despite the rhetoric in its preamble, the Treaty of Rome is not based on democratic principles but rather on European integration. The possibility therefore exists that any party opposed to the EU (Like Clannasaor) could be subjected to these proceedings.

A Good example of this, is the Austrian Freedom Party under Jorg Halder, which is opposed to the E.U and has been demonised as fascist by the European Parliament and media.. Whereas the Italian overtly fascist party under Mussolini's Granddaughter Allesandro is welcome because it does support the E.U. Steps are afoot to bring in a law of 'Blasphemy' similar to the English law protecting the Church of England. Only in this case to protect the name of the E.U.

Draconian powers are being proposed to stifle any criticism of the E.U. and its Employees, even if its justified in the case of fraud. Mr Van Buitenan the Dutch Accountant who blew the whistle over fraud and corruption five years ago, would today be liable for 5 Years imprisonment. The banning of political parties is a dangerous road to go down in a democracy. It is worth noting that the Soviet Union never abolished elections the ruling Communist party simply outlawed all other parties as 'fascist' or 'counter revolutionary' and maintained itself in power that way!  

It is well known Scots will never accept the sudden imposition of a totalitarian police state, so if it is to be done, it has to be done gradually by stealth, one step at a time. These various measures should not be seen in isolation. Many people quite close to the top positions of power may not be aware of the full picture. MP's and others do not have time to become familiar with the whole range of bills and proposals that are put before parliament. If the prime Minister allows European legislation to become law without proper debate or on the 'nod' the MP or MSP naturally assumes that the legislation is nothing more than pettifogging detail The security and intelligence services are not answerable to Parliament and their activities remain hidden from view in the interests of so called 'national security'

Our freedoms are being gradually eroded what will come next? As it is, with real power vested in unelected and unaccountable commissioners bankers and bureaucrats, democratic principles are already alien to the EU. I submit that the building blocks are rapidly being put into place whereby soon we could find ourselves living in a dictatorship or Police state in which protest will become increasingly difficult and ultimately will not even be tolerated. All power tends to corrupt but absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Independence in Europe and joining the Euro means complete and abject surrender of our national right to rule ourselves.  Our Taxation and fiscal policies will be taken out of our hands and decided by Brussels alone, again by undemocratic means through unelected commissars.  Scotland will be forced to accept 'Aquis Communitaire' in which all our national assets will be owned and controlled by the EU Superstate.  Our Oil, Gas, Mineral deposits, Water, Forests, Agricultural land, Fishing Grounds, Pension Funds, Council common good funds, Financial services, Gold and foreign currency reserves and all strategic planning for the future will be ceded to Brussels forever.  

You can say goodbye to National identity as we are subsumed into a multicultural amorphous mass called 'European identity'.  The EU needs our Pension Funds to bail out it's own bankrupt Pension funds. These are funds paid in by Scots people who were contributing for security in their old age. This proposal besides being criminal is also ethically and morally corrupt. The European Economies are High Tax and High spend economies in which the Working Man and Woman keeps less than 40% of their earnings. Do you really want this? To work for the European Taxman from January 1^st until August 13^th each year before you get to keep a penny of what tou earn? This snippet from the Guardian Newspaper in February 2002 says it all.

This is to simply play into the hands of our Unionist Colonial masters.  It gives them ample time to wriggle off the hook and counter the referendum with delaying tactics. A majority of 51% of nationalist MSP's returned to the Mound/Holyrood is automatically a mandate for independence without any need for a dubious referendum.

To sum up, SNP Policy on Europe. What makes the SNP think that we will be better off 'Independent in Europe' as part of a Super-powerful United States of Europe. Could it be the case that there are SNP members who are so afraid of jumping in the deep end, that they, like Linus in the 'Peanuts' cartoon strip, seek the security of a European comfort blanket? Yet this course leads to Constitutional death and asphyxiation by the European bureaucracy!  Countries like Norway have disproved these lies and Norwegian Citizens have a high standard of living, so good in fact, that Scots can only dream about it. Independence without the EU baggage would lead to vastly improved Health care, Medical facilities, Schools, Public Transport and Old Age pensions.

Yes, we can go it alone and make our way in the world amongst the community of nation states as an Independent neutral country by trade.  We are a country naturally rich in Resourceful people and blessed with some of the best young brains and talents around.  So come on SNP, answer my four questions honestly if you can.

Saoir Alba!

Niall U'Aislainn.

Fear Riaghlaidh.

Clannasaor

Fact Sheet on the French Nuclear Forces

France has an estimated total of 400-482 strategic nuclear weapons. The French arsenal is currently under a widespread modernization, including its sea-based deterrent force. In January 2000, France deployed a second Triomphant class submarine and a third is expected to enter into service in 2001. France also plans to deploy two more by 2007. Each submarine carries 16 missiles with 6 nuclear warheads on each.

Although inappropriate for quelling Internal dissent within the E.U, they are suitable for browbeating dissident states to fall into line by the sheer overwhelming power of the arsenal. Why does a Trading Bloc like the EU require a standing Army, Air Force and Navy? Even more so is the curious Question of France's Nuclear Arsenal, why has substantial funding for France's nuclear deterrent, (expected to remain fairly steady in 2001and 2002,) of 15.8 billion francs ($2.3 billion) not been challenged by the Council of Ministers? This Force is three times the size of Britains Combined RN and RAF Nuclear strike capability.

For your information the French Nuclear Deterrent is divided up as follows:

Bombers. Three squadrons with 60 Mirage 2000Ns have nuclear roles; two are based at Luxeuil, and one at Istres. However, its primary assignment remains the nuclear strike role. The Rafale (B-301) will be France's multi-purpose navy and air force fighter-bomber for the twenty-first century. Its roles include conventional ground attack, air defence, air superiority, and nuclear delivery of the ASMP and/or ASMP-A.

The navy's Rafale M will enter the inventory this year to form Squadron 12F at Landivisiau. The air force's Rafale D will attain a nuclear strike role around 2005. The air force plans to buy 234 Rafales. The ASMP is equipped with a single TN 81 warhead. France has an estimated 60 operational ASMPs, but more may be in inactive storage. The longer-range ASMP Ameliore, (ASMP-A, sometimes called the ÒASMP PlusÓ), with a 500- rather than 300-kilometer range, is expected to enter service in 2007. The ASMP-A may be equipped with a modified warhead, the TNA (tete nucleaire aero-portee). France has built three aircraft carriers.

The Clemenceau entered service in 1961, and the Foch in 1963. Both were modified to handle the AN 52 nuclear gravity bomb with Super Etendard aircraft; the AN 52 was retired in July 1991. Only the Foch was modified in 1981 to handle and store the replacement ASMP, approximately 20 of which were allocated for two squadrons (about 24) Super Etendard aircraft.

The Foch is thought to have routinely carried nuclear weapons until it was decommissioned for a refit. The Charles de Gaulle aircraft carrier remains hampered by technical problems. Various problems encountered during sea trials delayed its delivery almost five years. The 40,500-ton carrier, with a crew of 1,850, can accommodate 35-40 aircraft. The navy plans to purchase 60 Rafale Ms, of which the first 16 will perform an air-to-air role. Missions for subsequent aircraft may include the ASMP and/or the ASMP-A. Until the first Rafale M squadron is introduced in 2002, the ship will carry a single squadron of Super Etendards (presumably with about 10 ASMPs). About 40 aircraft may be delivered as two-seaters. France has spent over 20 billion francs ($2.8 billion) on the Charles de Gaulle, and is considering whether to include funding in its 2003-2008 defense spending plan for a second, possibly non-nuclear propelled, carrier.

Nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs). France has in operation four SSBNs of three classes: two of the new Triomphant-class subs, one L'Inflexible-class sub, and one Redoubtable-class sub (Le Foudroyant). The two Triomphant subs each carry 16 M45 submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs) with six of the new TN 75 warheads, which are assumed to have been tested at the Mururoa test site in 1995. The first, Le Triomphant, was rolled out from its construction shed in Cherbourg on July 13, 1993, and entered service in September 1996. The second, Le Temeraire, was commissioned six months behind schedule in December 1999 after successfully test launching an M45 missile that May.

The schedule for the third, Le Vigilant, has slipped, and it will not be ready for launch until 2002 and for commissioning until July 2004. Last September, France allocated 1.9 billion francs ($256.5 million) for a fourth Triomphant-class SSBN, scheduled to be operationally available in 2008. The total cost of the Triomphant-class program is estimated at 96.3 billion francs ($13 billion). Until recently, the two older subs each carried 16 M4 SLBMs. Faced with Le Vigilant's delay, however, France has begun refitting L'Inflexible to carry the newer M45 SLBM--a necessary, albeit expensive, solution to match a reduced inventory of only three sets of SLBMs (two M45s and one M4). Without this refit, in certain situations France could deploy only two SSBNs, as opposed to three.

The remaining M4-equipped sub, Le Foudroyant, was refitted to carry the M4 in 1993. This system is widely reported to be armed with TN 70 or TN 71 warheads, although the French Ministry of Defense credits the M4 with only the TN 71. A new SLBM, the M51, will replace the M45, entering service in 2008 to coincide with the commissioning of the fourth Triomphant-class sub. The M51 will eventually be carried on all operating nuclear subs, is expected to have a range of 8,000-10,000 kilometers, and to carry up to six warheads.

The first flight test is scheduled for 2005. France is thought to have already transitioned to an operational inventory of 288 warheads for two sets of M45 SLBMs and one set of M4 SLBMs, enough to arm three of the four SSBNs. Of these four submarines, three are maintained in the operational cycle, although only one or two are normally "on station" in designated patrol areas, compared with three in the early 1990s.

Seriously, this is a bigger deterrent than the UK four Trident Submarines and if Europe is unified with one government whose defence forces have such a horrendous NUCLEAR CAPABILITY how does the SNP's Non Nuclear policy equate with this? This is Question that MUST be answered soon.

Research Sources

French and British Nuclear Forces, 2000 Robert S. Norris, William M. Arkin;

Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, September/October 2000, pp. 69-71.

Plutonium and Highly Enriched Uranium 1996 - World Inventories, Capabilities, and Policies; by Albright, David; Berkhout, Frans; and Walker, William. 1997. SIPRI (Stockholm International Peace Research Institute)/Oxford University Press.

Janes Strategic Weapon Systems by The Janes Information Group;

News agency stories from Associated Press, Agence France-Presse, and Reuters.

Fact Sheet on European Union Number 4.

Article from the Guardian Newspaper May 1^st 2001

John Hooper and Kate Connolly in Berlin

Tuesday May 1, 2001

The Guardian

German leaders of both left and right made it clear yesterday that they were backing an all-out push for the political integration of Europe by the end of the decade. The text of a document drawn up under the guidance of the chancellor, Gerhard Schröder, showed that he was aiming for the key decisions on the continent's future to be taken within the next 10 years. It also showed that Mr Schröder and his fellow Social Democrats see it as essential to harmonise taxes in the European Union: a policy which is anathema to both the main parties in Britain and to governments in some other EU states.

The document, which was leaked at the weekend, was unveiled at a press conference in Berlin by the general secretary of Mr Schröder's Social Democratic party, Franz Münterfering. "The debate must begin urgently, even if everyone does not agree on everything," he said. He and other senior Social Democrats will get their first opportunity to lobby for their ideas at a meeting of the pan-European Party of European Socialists in Berlin on Monday. Mr Münterfering presented the scheme as an attempt to democratise the workings of the EU, and the German opposition seized on this aspect to welcome it. "We have a democratic deficit in the EU and that must change," the leader of the Christian Democrat Union (CDU), Angela Merkel, said. Mr Schröder expressed delight at the reaction of the opposition conservatives, describing it as "great." At the heart of his plan is a transformation of the European commission, the union's unelected executive. "We want the EU commission from now [on] to be strengthened to become a government - a real European government beside the national governments," the SPD's chief spokesman, Michael Donnermeyer, said.

Many of the details of the plan, which is to be put before the SPD's conference in November, have yet to be defined. In essence, senior SPD sources said yesterday, the chancellor would like a set-up similar to that in Germany with the considerable powers of the states serving as a model for the future powers of nation states. But it remains unclear, for example, how the proposed European government would be chosen, and whether its leader would be elected by one or both of the chambers in a new, two-tier legislature.

While the document contains several nods in the direction of preserving national identities, it is emphatic that the SPD wants a pan-continental structure to emerge from talks on the future of Europe due to begin in 2004.

"There is no alternative to further integration and Europeanisation," the paper declares. Its key passage is set out in the language of cast-iron inevitability: "In 10 years we shall live in a Europe with a constitution. In 10 years, we shall live in a Europe with a [single] currency." The document argues that "an internal market and a common currency demand more energetic harmonisation of fiscal policy, especially with regard to taxes on business, the taxation of capital gains, the taxation of investment in energy and the organisation of value added and corporation tax". If that is enough to provoke apoplexy among some British MPs, then there are plenty of other passages able to incite an angry reaction elsewhere in the community.

A proposal that EU spending be controlled by parliament will be seen in France as a bid to slash spending under the Common Agricultural Policy. Likewise, the document proposes devolving structural funding to national governments - a move that would land Spain, Portugal and Greece with the bill for modernising their economies. The chancellor's blueprint represents the latest, and by far the most decisive, attempt by Germany to set a new European agenda. Mr Schröder, his aides and ministers are convinced that an enlarged European Union will prove unmanageable unless it is rapidly integrated politically as well as economically.

Four Questions that the SNP leadership refuse to answer, and no wonder - they demolish the fundamental planks of SNP policy over the past few years.

Which is another reason why patriots are ditching the deadbeat SNP to join Clannasaor.

Isn't it time you did, too?