The MP for North East Fife will serve at Westminster, not Holyrood.

There are important local matters that an MP can fight on: For example, our landscape is changing, with wind turbines becoming an increasingly obvious and mostly unwelcome feature. That happens because Westminster has accepted EU renewable energy targets and carbon footprint thresholds. And sanctions paying subsidies for uneconomic wind energy systems which the people who are now setting them up know that they would not pursue if they had to pay foot the bill. Instead, energy users have their bills loaded with a surcharge to bung the wind industry - FITs or Feed In Tariffs cost all of us and benefit the few. Westminster should stop that nonsense.

Defence too, matters locally. Changes at Leuchars will be sorted out in the medium term as the Army replaces the RAF as the main unit there but the change was a mistake. Ming Campbell said it was a strategic mistake. In a way, but not as he meant it, he was right. The strategic error is in the dangerous cut in defences, the reduced size of the RAF fast jet fleet, not so much where the vestiges of the RAF as we knew it are based.

But even on his own measure, that closing RAF Leuchars was a strategic error, the Liberal Democrat's past Leader and Defence Spokesman, rolled with the decision and continued to support the coalition which made, in Ming's terms, the disastrous mistake. He should have really stood up for us and resigned the whip, not back off on a matter of principle. He must have known he was going to retire, so he had little to loose, surely? The impact of a senior resignation would have rattled a cage or two.

We have to restore defence spending to at least meet the agreed NATO targets; it does many things beyond the obvious necessary restoration of defence capacity. It is one of the few real ways in which a government can create real jobs, in the armed services, and in the defence industry. My manifesto, written in March, also advanced my view that we need to strengthen the RFA (Royal Fleet Auxiliary) with hospital ships - in fact with purpose built hospital, rescue and support ships. They would be roled to do what the Prime Minister has now tasked HMS Bulwark to do - a humanitarian mission to rescue and help people in distress; they'd be able also to deploy Field Hospitals ashore (useful for Refugee situations, or for survivors of Natural Disasters), produce water and supply energy, whilst still having the ability to carry out their normal role of RAS (Resupply At Sea).

There are many issues for your MP to address, like those above. It is, now, for your MSP and councillors to try to get the NHS and Education right in Scotland: I assume all the other candidates do accept the existence of the Scottish Parliament.

AN INDEPENDENT’S MANIFESTO

Mike Scott-Hayward

AN INDEPENDENT’S  MANIFESTO FOR AN

Independent Sovereign Democratic Britain

26 March 2015

OVERARCHING PRINCIPLES

Independent Britain

                Independent, to emphasise that British sovereignty shall no longer be shared or surrendered.

Britain Governing herself, not governed by any supra national authority – and therefore not in the EU.

Britain represented only by the British Government abroad and in all international organisations – such as the UNO, IMF, IMO, NATO, EFTA, et al.

Sovereign Britain

                The Sovereign-in-Parliament final arbiter over British Citizens

Democratic Britain

Democratic not Bureaucratic

POLICY GUIDELINES

·         Defence

o   SLBM based Nuclear Deterrent.

o   Carrier Force – cover roles across Atlantic/Mediterranean, Asian and Pacific regions.

o   Home Based and Quick Reaction Mobile Regular Forces.

o   National Service including Civilian Overseas Service and Volunteers.

o   Reserve Forces for Emergencies and to provide a Resilience Corps.

o   Commonwealth Links – establish Commonwealth Naval Task Groups/Squadrons etc

o   East of Suez Base/s

o   Strengthen the Royal fleet Auxiliary – emphasise on new additional Disaster Relief role, including hospital ships.

·         Overseas Aid and Development: 

o    Switch to predominance of assistance provided through Armed Forces, National Service, RFA and Civilian Overseas Service and Volunteers on development and aid  projects coordinated by FCO and MOD.

o   Minimal Financial Support through partial funding of projects delivered by British Companies

·         Security, Intelligence and Surveillance – better resources.

·         Immigration

o   Principle that the UK Border Controls and Immigration are wholly subject to the sovereign will of Parliament which alone sets and alters law and rules as required from time to time.

o   Immigration Quotas will be set when and if necessary based on impact on UK infrastructure and needs.

o   Refugees – People seeking Asylum will always be treated as special case with decisions taken under the Royal Prerogative.

o   Immigrants

§  People seeking permanent British Residential Status and Citizenship, either: 

·         Having British Roots:  Will become British Subjects and Citizens of UK and Colonies upon proof of connection which meets  criteria set by Parliament from time to time, or

·         Not having British roots but seeking full British Citizenship:  May become British Subjects and Citizens of UK and Colonies on application and meeting criteria set by Parliament from time to time, after 5 year qualification and contribution period during which time they must have held an appropriate Entry Visa.

§  People seeking Limited Residential Status (Renewable periodically), for the purpose of work, study or investment:

·         Entry Visa conditional upon holding proof, and continued applicability, of full medical insurance cover and proof of:

o   Employment Position covered by Employers Certificate of necessity and  remunerated sufficiently so as to ensure the entrant will be fully self-financing in respect of all own living, accommodation needs and of any admissible accompanying dependents; or

o   Fully funded University (or other approved establishment) place including full living and accommodation expenses or

o   Fully Self Financing in all respect, including medical insurance and ability to maintain investment or bank deposit holdings at level set from time to time by Parliament.

o   Tourists – Time limited Visas subject to proof of Medical Care Insurance and sufficient holding of funds for intended visit activities.

·         The Commonwealth. 

o   Renew emphasis on cooperation with Commonwealth in international affairs

o   Renew and encourage trade with and within the Commonwealth.  Propose a Commonwealth Free Trade Agreement.

·         Small Business:

o   Solution to Late Payment Problem – HMRC penalise late payers, via VAT returns.

o   Business Rates – based directly on premises size (area/square footage), not location, use, etc, in two bands: PLCs and SMEs

·         NHS: 

o   NHS UK – stronger Hospital Based structure with autonomous GP practices

o   Care Homes – sourced by Hospitals, from Council, Social, Charity and Private Sector (Nanny cannot do it all)

·         Democracy

o   Parliament

§  Cohesive Parliamentary Structure 

§  Westminster integrated with four National Parliaments – MPs sit at Westminster and in National Parliaments, with additional National Members for PR balance.

§  Repeal the Coalition clamp on motions of confidence and the fixed term restriction of democracy.

o   Recall - Simple system of by election called when 30% of registered voters sign petition.          

o   Binding Local Referenda: Council Decisions, including Planning Consents, overturned by referendum of voters in affected wards when appeal called by 20% of the relevant voters.

·         Smaller Government – Guiding Principle should be to not legislate unless doing so is only solution.

·         Housing – Remit of the National Parliaments but need for a UK regime encouraging first/single home ownership.

·         International Trade –Engage in full trading relationships worldwide with an emphasis on trade with the Commonwealth, EFTA and the USA.

·         Energy

o   Full mix led by nuclear with clean oil, gas and coal technology, fracking, tidal, solar and riparian power.

o   No subsidy, support or targets for intermittent wind or wave power but no bar to private development if Planning Consent, decided “in county”, is agreed. (See Planning).

·         Railways

o   HS2 becomes United Kingdom High Speed Railway (UK HSR):  Floated for public and private investment, build from both ends (and even the middle outwards), including Scotland and Wales.  Must have high freight capacity.

o   Encourage investment in new rail links using fiscal leniency.

o   Review Rail Franchises- longer term investments 

·         Personal Taxation and Welfare Support

o   Properly establish system as advocated by the tax Payers Alliance, whereby a choice between a Citizen Benefit and a Tax free Allowance, removes benefit trap and encourages people to take employment without facing claw-backs.

·         Space Exploration:  Tax free unsubsidized environment to encourage British ventures.

·         Human Trafficking:   Human trafficking has increased; it is abhorrent and a prime cause involves prostitution.    Prostitution cannot be stopped but a safer environment can be created to protect for sex workers as well and creating a disincentive, taking the profit out of human trafficking. 

o   Regulation a preferred,  safer and better route than unenforceable wholesale prohibition

o   License sex workers’ register, approved and held by local authority.

o   Human Trafficking (for any purpose) to carry minimum sentence of 10 years imprisonment without parole

·         Coalition- in extremis only – supply and confidence support

Mike Scott-Hayward

Scottish Nanny Party

The Scottish Nanny Party is starting its next roll towards total state insanity. The unbelievable legislation to appoint a state nanny for every child will be one of the biggest steps ever taken anywhere to undermine family life, individual rights and democracy.

The very concept of handing control and coordination of your child to the state from shortly after its conception, to age 16, is now a virtual certainty. I wish No to a Named Person (NO2NP) every success – they will need all of our support.


As yet, I have not seen any mention or answers to some issues that will worry all sane folk:

• Will this idiocy apply to the children of all EU citizens in Scotland?
• Will this idiocy apply to the children of non- EU citizens in Scotland?
• Will parents have the right of access to the personal records of the named person, to ensure they are not criminals or potential paedophiles?
• For how many children will each named person have responsibility?

That’s for starters.

It seems to me this is a policy designed to send the sane south.

Scotland - aspire!

A better Britain, really sovereign, true Independence, not the pretendy independence farce of SNP separatism

 

Take a look  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZ0nxtmrZDQ

EU OIL GRAB - UK/SCOTLAND BEWARE!

IMMEDIATE

Not only the SNP but the whole Scottish Nation has to wake up to the realities of sovereignty.

Mr Salmond wants out of the UK and into the EU - Amendment 63 to the Fisheries' Policy should wake him up. It is a the clear intention of the EU body politic to take full central control of, basically, everything. Here that foreign collective bureaucracy wants to sneak in central sovereign control of our sea bed - UK or Scottish, whatever the result of the Scottish Referendum

That means the EU is staging a oil grab - and a lot more.

Scotland ; wake up! We need a United Kingdom that has wrestled itself free from the central control of the EU body politic. There is no such thing as Independence in the EU, Alex. And the UK itself is in the same trap. We most certainly would be Better Together and Better of Out - and UKIP alone, it seems, offers that."

NOTES

---

EU threatens Essential Sovereignty:

Time for that Referendum Dave?

Hidden in an amendment within a huge report on the EU’s Common Fisheries policy, UKIP has discovered an attempt by Brussels to seize control of the UK seabed, owned by the UK Crown: A power grab that should trigger a UK Referendum.

The vast majority of the mineral rich seabed, inside the 12 mile limit of British Territorial Waters, is Crown Estate, or property of the Crown and the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall.

Yet Amendment 63 would permit the EU to claim ownership via a direct power grab, without any consultation or prior approval from British people, the British Parliament or the Queen.

Under David Cameron’s “Referendum Lock” this should be subject to a direct appeal to British voters.

Speaking in the debate in Strasbourg this morning, Stuart Agnew MEP, the UKIP fisheries spokesman, said of the amendment, tabled by a Spanish MEPs,

"The British people, Parliament and Her Majesty the Queen will also be alarmed to discover that Amendment 63 would create a new power without a word of objection by Her Majesty's Government or the Tories.

“That power is sovereignty over the seabed as opposed to merely controlling the fish in the water above it. Any new power must mean a UK referendum.

“Therefore if this amendment is carried it must be the subject of a UK referendum under Mr Cameron's ‘referendum lock’.”

Later Mr Agnew said, “If this legislation is passed, then Cameron is duty bound to give us that vote under his own law”.

Notes

Statement by David Cameron, 25/5/2010

“My Government will introduce legislation to ensure that in future this Parliament and the British people have their say on any proposed transfer of powers to the European Union.”

The amendment

Amendment 63

Proposal for a regulation

Part I – Article 5 –indent 1

Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
– ‘Union waters’ means the waters under the sovereignty or jurisdiction of the Member States with the exception of the waters adjacent to the territories listed in Annex II to the Treaty;	– ‘Union waters’ means the waters and the seabed under the sovereignty or jurisdiction of the Member States with the exception of those adjacent to the territories listed in Annex II to the Treaty;

Justification

In order to include sessile species.

Video of Speech by Stuart Agnew

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J9ELeQM4Tq0--

Gawain Towler
Press Officer
EFD Group in the European Parliament
UK Independence Party

Tel: +44 (0)207 2229365

GSM: +44 (0) 7879339509
Skype: gawain.towler1

http://www.efdgroup.eu/
http://www.ukip.org
http://englandexpects.blogspot.com/
www.twitter.com/gawain.towler1

UKIP is turning the screw on the complacent governing elite.

A little anecdote for you all on lobbying methodology whilst the topic is in the air.

Demonstrations work, and I advocate regularity, e.g. a frequent demo at the Council and outside the MP and MSP surgeries, whenever they have them. As well as the bigger events.

But my anecdote relates to subtle political pressure: the ruling class is now very aware of the surge in membership and rise in popularity of UKIP, and are on watch to see that they are not outflanked by us. Is that so, you say? How does Mike know this?

Well, a few weeks ago I published a Press Release to the effect that UKIP will monitor cases for fraud etc. The Press ignored this but I published it on FB and Blogger, but I have since had several direct approaches by people suffering the blight of turbines, and at a loss as to what to do. They have all asked their elected representatives for help, and to little avail. So they called me, having found me via FB, my blog etc.

I am no expert, but have political experience and am now in the process of advising them - still to get round them all, some far afield, but I will do it. 

Now, here's the rub: I advised one caller, amongst other things, to write to a party leader specifically outlining the mix of horrors suffered and the lack of help received from the elected.  I also advised that the point should be made that UKIP had been approached - i.e. I was cc'd into the email to the said party leader. The point was to rattle a cage. Politics, you see. I also arranged to call to discuss the case.

Last week, I was able to visit as promised and on arrival was surprised to see another caller already there, discussing the case. The woman visitor concerned seemed a bit embarrassed when we were introduced, and she left without further ado. 

So what?

Well, it transpired that the visitor was an elected local councillor, and had revealed that she was calling on behalf of the said party leader and on behalf of the party's local MSP as well.  There is no doubt in my mind that the sudden and immediate attention, where previously there had been lethargy, was clearly a direct result of UKIP involvement and a party attempt to defend their indefensible policies and to cover their flank.

Salmond wants to many dictatorial powers.....

Scotsman: Westminster blocks Holyrood plan for random breath tests. Scott-Hayward: Good, we don't need a police state in Scotland. Rule Britannia.

Sea Change - too slow - take five easy steps now.

The vote was a good call, and the media does need to take notice of the real sea change,  but a far more effective measure would be for the dissenting Tories to take five simple steps to put it all right. 

They simply need to take five steps across the floor, become UKIP MPs and bring real infleunce to the House.

Battle for British Unity

It is time that people realise that the Battle for British unity will be fought in Scotland.

The future of the United Kingdom will be decided right here, in Scotland. This is the political battleground. The attack on the UK began when a Labour Government and Donald Dewar created the Scottish Parliament. That was the equivalent of offering the SNP a beachhead and Alex Salmond has long since secured it.

The SNP have carried out political guerrilla raids, creating as many divides as possible, giving away freebies here to cause disgruntlement in England. The Scottish Parliament has been the battlefield tank forcing divides over student fees, prescription charges, and so called free home care. Even Tories in Holyrood have succumbed to the momentum, believing somehow that more autonomous power will mend the widening gap.

The shockwaves are now rippling to the surface, discombobulating the English, many of whom are now reacting exactly as Salmond wishes. We now see the predictable reaction which Salmond wanted as formerly sober minds in England call for an English Parliament.

They would rue it - we all will.

Already, in Scotland, MPs and the proper Parliament are being alienated from the electorate.

Very few people ever go to see an MP about a reserved powers issue - people need to see their highest elected representatives about more domestic concerns: housing, hospitals, pharmacies or schools threatened with closure, vandalism, crime rates and police numbers, yes, even dog dirt. In Scotland, this means that MSPs have the better interface with the electorate while our Scottish MPs become aloof, are channelled towards weighty national and international issues.

These are vital issues but the interaction of Westminster MPs and British subjects in Scotland, and Wales, is waning; the domestic issues that keep MPs in touch, which keep their feet on the ground, are no longer there in Scotland.

The same happening in England as well, will make the UK government increasingly remote from the people. The "assemblies" will become the focus and the Union will erode; that is why I say we must not replicate the error of the devolved bodies as constituted.

UKIP has a firm and sensible policy on this: the electorate should elect one MP for their constituency and that MP should be in Westminster most of the time and in the devolved more local parliament for the remainder.

The devolved body, the Scottish Parliament here, would continue as it is, but devoid of MSPs. In England, when Welsh and Scottish MPs are at work in their devolved home, English MPs would deal with England’s devolved issues. That means both UK national and domestic roles remained linked, through MPs who will keep a direct interface with the electorate and, exactly what is needed, excessive government is cut with fewer politicians overall with time on their hands to think of ways to rule us.

UK party leaders must not be tempted to balance the books by adding more overloaded assemblies to the mix - trim out instead - and engage the UK's number 1 enemy, Salmond, here, in the beachhead which he has established in Scotland

Fife Council - Pick a School - but only the one we allow....

Mike Scott-Hayward, UKIP councillor, has declared that Fife Council is now seen BY MANY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC as being guilty of using guesswork to determine public opinion, and technological flannel to circumvent consultation.

"The councillors on the Education Committee should avoid the mistakes made by the Policy Finance and Asset Management Committee (PFAM) when deciding the future of secondary education in North East Fife. PFAM rejected a proposal to have a referendum of parents and locals to assess whether or not full reliance should fall on a single new, and therefore large, secondary on a site in St Andrews, or two smaller schools - one for St Andrews and the other for the Tay Bridgehead.

"The view in support of two schools has been quoted in local newspapers, but mention of that is ruled out, almost forbidden, by the parties in power; one of which was elected on the promise of two schools. Labour opposition also stands against a Bridgehead school.

"The rejection of asking the people, whom we trust to elect governments, means we are now either in the hands of the unelected wielding complex matrixes, the tick box approach, or in the hands of ad hoc groups pushing single views. I applaud the effort of those who have raised a petition of over 2000 names but note that sadly, those signing were offered only one choice to support.

"Others have raised the very valid point that one option, South Street, is ruled out simply because the size of school serving the whole area won't fit there, and on transportation grounds, too many busses: a two school option would allow that choice to be on the table and also cut bussing - now a seemingly also banned topic.

"No one now knows what level of support there is in reality for two schools; nor does anyone really know the level of support for each possible site in St Andrews. We would do, though, had PFAM not chucked out the idea of a referendum, which the Conservatives and I had proposed. This way, the Council's way, means we will all still be in the dark. The lid will not go back on this can of worms by these means. Do the public even know that they could have had a referendum?"

Cllr Scott-Hayward was also critical of the consultation with parents. "The first meeting of the so called working group, decided that the impact of public opinion had to be a criteria in the magic matrix, the table to be used to assess options. I asked if the assessing group would include parents or public and was soundly told that the assessment was a matter for the experts! At the meeting of Fife Council, I asked how officers would determine 'public opinion' and the Leader of the Administration told me that there are officers who are well versed in assessing public reactions. Yet at the meeting informing parents of the result of the deliberations, the first point made by officers was that they had decided to merge that criteria with others as they found it too difficult to assess and so public views will only be able to made as part of the planning application process. That, of course, is post decision.

"It's a mess"

Falkland Responds

Thanks to the Fife Herald publishing my call for a referendum in Falkland, local people got up a petition. Now the SNP councillor is delighted!

And I don't mind in the least that he is now following UKIP policy. He might have said thanks!

He will now carry the message of the people to the Council - they do not want "no alcohol" on the village green. We'll see; local Lib Dems are for the ban - one of them, a leading light, even said that I should stay away as he was best placed to decide who should vote in any referendum...........

You couldn't make it up.

Bats - did you know?

The Committee of Auchtermuchty Landscape and Environment Group are concerned about windfarms being installed throughout Fife and beyond. You may not be aware of the threat to bats posed by wind turbines and the fact that the legal position in Europe is that in order to implement the EU Habitats and Species Directive, Member States have to enact their own domestic legislation, and in the UK this is done through the Conservation (Natural Habitats etc.) Regulations 1994 (amended in Scotland in 2004). The European Commission keeps a close eye on how well member States are implementing the Directive. During the past couple of years, the UK has been obliged to make some changes. Thus in the UK, the legal protection of bats was strengthened in relation to the EU Habitats Directive, and in Scotland the previous laws were again amended. We now have: The Conservation (Natural Habitats etc.) Amendment (Scotland) Regulations 2007. This states that “It is an Offence, intentionally or recklessly, to kill, injure or take a bat.”

Moving towards more Private Care Homes

Scotland's only UKIP councillor, Mike Scott-Hayward, believes that there should be an end to the expressions of alarm at the change in direction of the management and operation of Fife Council care homes.

"As long ago as 2001, I could see that the direction now decided upon was necessary: the Council simply does not deliver as much care as can be achieved by using the private and voluntary sector. There are too many people, some councillors included, who are hung up on an ideology that the job can only be safely done by the council.

"That simply is not the case. Already, nine out of ten people in care homes in Fife are in the private and voluntary sector. The Care Commission sets and inspects the standards, be that in private or public sector. Clearly, the 3000 spaces delivered in Fife, only ten percent of which are by the Council, meet the standards and generally do so well.

"I have no criticism of the standard of care in council run homes; and certainly no criticism of the staff. Indeed, many staff in private homes joined from council run homes. The problem with delivery by the Council is in the nature of the beast: budgets are set by a bureaucracy, then spent regardless, mostly using laborious and convoluted procurement processes. The "state" usually makes a pig's ear of delivering new builds. The cost of new council owned and operated homes is not as efficient as can be achieved in the private sector.

"Moreover, the running cost, because of the bureaucrat systems, of a council home is more expensive, approaching almost twice as much, as the private sector.

"Ten years ago, and repeatedly since then, I advanced the budget proposal for a phased changeover to increased private sector use. The move now, belated as it is, was inevitable - it is a logical and sensible step, and not one for any alarm.

"Councillors, both in the opposition and some in the administration who equivocate seeking popularity, should stop disparaging this new sensible approach. The provision will still be local, will still be subject to the Care Commission regime, and will be able to provide for more people who need the care. The plan does not portend the end of care, or the turfing out of those currently in council care."

Finally, before you place your cross today....

A remimder:

The Treaty of Lisbon (initially known as the Reform Treaty) is a treaty that was signed by the European Union (EU) member states on 13 December 2007, and entered into force on 1 December 2009. It amends the Treaty on European Union (TEU, Maastricht; 1992) and the Treaty establishing the European Community (TEC, Rome; 1957). In this process, the TEC was renamed to Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU).

Of which Article 288 states:

A regulation shall have general application. It shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

A directive shall be binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon each Member State to which it is addressed, but shall leave to the national authorities the choice of form and methods.

A decision shall be binding in its entirety. A decision which specifies those to whom it is addressed shall be binding only on them.

Recommendations and opinions shall have no binding force.

It's nearly time......

You should vote for UKIP for North East Fife because our policies would

• End the poverty trap with the combination of benefits and income tax plans
• Make no cuts in NHS frontline services
• Move to a universal non means tested Citizen’s Pension of £130 pw each
• Invest £1.5bn in new social housing immediately we are free of the EU
• Invest £3bn in the UK’s road and railway infrastructure
• Introduce binding local referenda on important major planning decisions
• End undemocratic planning targets in favour of local decision-making
• Old railway lines to be re-opened: a chance for St Andrews rail link.
• Abolish the Scottish Reporter: Local Referenda have final say.
• Bring RAF up to strength with extra 6,000 personnel
• Buy C17s, add 50 more Typhoons.
• Enlarge the tanker fleet
• Buy more helicopters and put Maritime Patrol aircraft back on track.


You should vote for me as I have shown my commitment as a long standing councillor and I am the only candidate who cares enough for North East Fife to have made my home here. I will work as ever without fear or favour.

Candidate Briggs (Con)

Miles Briggs (con), in his election address, a "record of action" in North East Fife, says "I believe we live in one of the best parts of Scotland." Implication?

Truth: Miles lives in Edinburgh. What's the harm in that?


Promoted by Mike Scott-Hayward of Sawmill House, Kemback Bridge, Fife KY15 5TP on his own behalf.

Who rules your life?

Some would dispute that the EU is now in charge of most law-making in our country - and are dismissive of those who are concerned about the loss of our sovereignty.

Most folk have heard, however vaguely, of "EU Directives" but many still think that these are simply ideas from Brussels which are dealt with by our Parliament on a take it or leave it basis.

Well, now use the link and discover the new reality of the way in which you are governed. But first, here is Article 288 of the Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union:

THE LEGAL ACTS OF THE UNION
Article 288
ex Article 249 TEC)

To exercise the Union's competences, the institutions shall adopt regulations, directives, decisions,recommendations and opinions.

A regulation shall have general application. It shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

A directive shall be binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon each Member State to which it is addressed, but shall leave to the national authorities the choice of form and methods.

A decision shall be binding in its entirety. A decision which specifies those to whom it is addressed shall be binding only on them.

Recommendations and opinions shall have no binding force.


For the full document:http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cmsUpload/st06655-re01.en08.pdf

Saving St Andrews and others from the Planners, the UKIP way.

I fervently hope that residents of North East Fife, especially those concerned about the autocratic and often crippling Fife Structure Plan, have read the UKIP policy on Housing and Planning.

St Andrews and Cupar, facing massive developer led over-development, could both be saved from those dire consequences, were UKIP policy to prevail.

Here are some highlights from the Executive Summary:

UKIP will abolish the Planning Inspectorate (Scottish Reporter) and end appeals to
Government Ministers. Planning decisions will be taken by local authorities and local
Referenda with a final right of appeal to the High Court.

There will be direct binding Referenda on all major housing schemes and economic
developments such as supermarkets, housing developments of more than 50 homes and
other major building projects.

UKIP will abolish centrally and regionally directed housing requirements.

UKIP will scrap centrally and regionally directed targets. UKIP will also abolish
Regional Development Agencies and Regional Assemblies.

UKIP will return to county, local and district plans that will be under the control of the local authorities. UKIP will also introduce a UK National Plan that will provide an overview and guidance for local authorities. This won’t be a rigid framework as is currently the case.

UKIP is opposed to mass housing estates.

UKIP will encourage the building of more ‘community’ housing such as the Dorchester
suburb of Poundbury as well as smaller developments of fewer than 50 homes.

UKIP will demand higher quality and standards of material, craft, soundproofing and
spacing for new homes to ensure that any new houses last as long as Edwardian and
Victorian homes.

From the saved UK contributions to the EU, UKIP will spend 1.5 billion a year on
building new quality social housing and demolishing poor quality houses.

UKIP will encourage the building of new local council homes by local councils instead of forcing developers to provide social housing on new developments which amounts to a ‘homeowners development tax’. That puts house prices up.

UKIP will remove VAT and its replacement Local Sales Tax from the costs of
conversion of listed buildings, buildings in conservation areas and on empty buildings.

UKIP will encourage the return to productive use of the nearly one million homes that are currently empty.

An unfortunate coincidence?

What a shame for the Lib Dems in North East Fife: their candididate's campain poster is the same shape as a scatter cushion......a constant reminder of the expenses scandal.