I COULD BE WRONG. I COULD BE RIGHT.

When I was at university there was a dazzling array of political parties, most of them left-wing, who tried their best to dominate Students Union meetings. I know it was the same at all universities and probably still is. Some of these parties were lucky if they had half-a-dozen members (I knew of one that only had two) but, as far as they were concerned, they were right and everybody else was wrong and their noise and disruptiveness was usually in inverse proportion to their size. If it looked as if some resolution might be passed that they didn't like, then the cry was 'Quorum Count!' More often than not the meeting wasn't quorate; most students weren't interested in the workings of the Students Union, apart from the bars.

I first went to university in 1978, got kicked out and then got back in in 1983. It was amazing the changes those five years had wrought. In 1978 the Students Union led a rent strike against the university authorities, who were dumping first-year students into a kind of hostel, a few miles away from the university, with no facilities and very little public transport. The students occupied the administration block and, eventually, the university gave in and provided  decent facilities and a free bus. It was a great feeling being involved in such radicalism and most students got involved in some way. In 1983 things were totally different. There seemed to be no appetite for any radicalism and even folk involved with the Students Union spoke of a 'new professionalism'. Four years of Thatcherism had beaten everybody into submission.

Well, not quite everybody. There were still those that were attracted to left-wing politics and even anarchy and joined all the different groups available or set up their own. Many of these groups had broken away from larger groups over some disagreement or other; if you've seen 'Life of Brian' you'll know what I'm talking about. To make an impact in university politics these groups would have had to work together, something they found it impossible to do. They appeared to hate each other much more than they hated the Tories. They all blamed each other when resolutions failed or the meeting was declared inquorate. They made themselves a complete laughing stock.

As well as being notorious for fighting each other these tiny political parties were also renowned for one other thing; they were all infested with police informers. I actually knew somebody that was involved in this game and, according to him, the police kept tabs on all parties, even the Tories! I also knew folk that were involved in these political groups and my impression was that they weren't that serious about it; it was a sort of hobby and they would be perfectly happy to be part of the system once they'd graduated. The ones that were serious were, understandably, suspicious of everybody.

It's the same out in the real world. The police, under the aegis of MI5, keep an eye on all political parties, campaigning groups and trades unions. I remember seeing a play once where it turned out that all the members of a tiny political group were either undercover journalists or police informers. I quite believe that this could possibly be true! Hunt Saboteurs, Animals Rights campaigners and the like all have informers in their midst, usually at a high, decision-making level.

You only have to look at the Scottish Socialist Party to see how disagreements and personality clashes can cause splits, just like in the university groups. I would imagine that encouraging splits and keeping such parties small and feuding with each other is one of the remits of those members working for the police. Divide and rule is a tried-and-trusted tactic by our Establishment. Which makes it surprising that many of these parties have now decided to work together under an umbrella organisation called RISE. Have those working for the police and, ultimately, MI5 failed?

It's surely not a coincidence that these parties got together almost immediately after the SNP's triumph in the General Election. To my mind, it's not only not a coincidence but highly suspicious. During the Referendum campaign the consensus was that the priority should be Scottish independence; after that we could all vote for the parties we wanted and the kind of Scottish Parliament we'd like to see. For most of us this is still the case, whereas this RISE bunch seems to have moved the goalposts.

I might not agree with some of the SNP's policies, such as keeping the monarch or getting rid of RC schools without a radical change in the education system, but I certainly agree with their fundamental policy of Scottish independence. A vote for the SNP is a vote in favour of independence and helps to bring it a step closer. Conversely, a vote against the SNP is a step backwards. Why would an organisation that ostensibly wants independence put it in jeopardy this way? They say that they want to provide a proper opposition in the Scottish Parliament, which, to me, smacks of wishing to maintain the status quo. Shouldn't they be looking to provide an opposition, or even the government, in an independent Scottish Parliament, instead of looking to make gains in the current set-up?

There's another referendum coming up, this time on whether or not to stay in the EU. There is a strong possibility that England will vote to leave, while Scotland wants to stay. Nicola Sturgeon has made it clear that Scotland will not be forced into leaving the EU by Little Englanders and envisages Scotland breaking away from the UK to remain in the EU. To manage this, Scotland's First Minister will need to operate from a position of strength. Relying on the backing of a bunch of backbiting MSPs involved in petty feuds with each other is hardly going to help the situation. And feud they most certainly will. Remember, this is an ad hoc alliance; they're still going to be members of their divers little political groups, while, already, Tommy Sheridan's Solidarity group has been unceremoniously left out in the cold. How is this going to help the cause of Scottish independence?

My suspicion is that the agents of the Establishment have had a hand in the setting-up of this new organisation and will be pulling the strings. Otherwise, what the hell is the point? The stuff that RISE is coming out with regarding the SNP looks as if it's been lifted straight from the pages of the Daily Record. They accuse the Scottish Government of not doing enough to fight the Tories and one phrase crops up time and again on every website dedicated to or discussing RISE: "the scale of the current Tory onslaught on the welfare state and the failure of the SNP to offer more than token resistance to it". That, as we know, is complete nonsense and sounds more like something Kezia Dugdale might say, rather than a group supposedly in favour of working with the SNP toward independence.

For those of us that want Scottish independence there's only one party to vote for and that's the SNP. This new bunch might say they want independence  but how can we trust them when they don't even trust each other?

"We're no' playin' if ye're lettin' that Tommy Sheridan play!"