Independent Sovereign Democratic Britain

I simply cannot find a party for which to vote which adequately covers all the bases I consider necessary; moreover, those that come close on some points have gained track records of breaking promises.

All I want is an Independent Sovereign Democratic Britain:

Independent Britain

Independent, to emphasize that British sovereignty should 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 - the constitutional framework which should be final arbiter over British Citizens

Democratic Britain

Democratic not Bureaucratic: Decision making should wherever possible require or be subject to the endorsement of the people most affected. Our Parliament, as our supreme sovereign authority, subject as it has always meant to be, subject to the democratic will of the British People; its members, our MPs, sitting subject to the goodwill and support of their electing constituents, and hence liable to recall if that goodwill is lost.

It seems to me that my only choice is  to stand again; to stand for North East Fife at the General Election on 7th May 2015.

So today I am launching my appeal to raise money for a deposit and for leaflets if possible.  

Moreover, I have submitted a registration application to the Electoral Commission though they are unlikely to clear it as a "party registration" in time. 

If registered, I will be able to use the description "Independent Sovereign Democratic Britain" on the ballot paper - otherwise I will simply be an Independent.

I will publish a Manifesto here soon. 

Views or comments etc to me via email: independentsovereigndemocraticbritain@outlook.com

Mike Scott-Hayward

United Nations is not fit for purpose

The United Nations Organisation is not fit  for purpose.

How is it that all of the independent sovereign nations of the world there gathered cannot act effectively against ISIL? 

ISIL, after all,  is an unrecognised self-proclaimed rogue “state” which stands condemned by all.

The UN, surely, if able to muster near unanimity, should have the necessary authority to act.

One bar to unanimous action may be the veto wielded by key states in the Security Council.  But do any of those support ISIL?  That is surely inconceivable.

Why no action? Perhaps some reform is needed in any event: should the General Assembly have the power, if wielded by a very high majority, say 80 or 90%, of all member nations, be able to overrule a minority view of just one veto wielding power, or to compel the Security Council to act?

Consensus versus Democracy

There are some issues on which the whole nation needs to pull together - such as in war, when defending our existence against an enemy seeking to overwhelm or destroy us.

When we have internal disputes, even conflict, however, it is only by obtaining the majority democratic view of a free society that we can have some assurance that we, the people, will not be brought to heel by a government or establishment dictatorship.

That is why I cringe when I hear self-interested MPs or vested interest groups say that the only way to handle an issue which is becoming too hot to handle, is not by courageous democratic debate, but by "all parties coming together in a non-partisan way".  

That is the route to putting all power, unchecked and unscrutinised, into the hands of bureaucrats and subservient politicians, or, worse, at first into the hands of an elite clique and then of a demagogue.

Raucous debate across the floor of the House, and widely varying opinions during election campaigns, is a better way, the British way, than cosy, closed door coalition.

Democracy Diminshed.

The Coalition Government has  diminished the political influence of MPs even further than had the Blair Government.

  

Today’s Parties want puppets and clones on their books.  Few MPs dare to act in keeping with the stance they professed when elected.   

Indeed, because of the Act passed by Blair’s government, the Parliamentary Parties, Elections and Referendum Act (PPERA), few candidates dared to put any view at variance with the Party Orders, lest they be forced to stand without Party endorsement, as Independent candidates, unable even to aspire to a description on the ballot paper.

PPERA was introduced because of the introduction of the system of Lists required for the proportional representation for elections to the Scottish Parliament, The Welsh and Northern Ireland Assemblies and the European Parliament.  

For the first time in British history, parties had to register with the state authorities in order to be eligible to field candidates for Parliament.  Prior to that, anyone or any group or party, could be or field candidates who were able to adopt a description, be it a Party Name, or something as simple as ”Independent  Communist”, to fight their corner to take a seat in Parliament.

But no more – since PPERA, only registered parties can have party names or descriptions and the candidates need the specific endorsement of a Nominating Officer, from the registered Party, in order to have the description on the ballot paper.

The exception, for a candidate not accepted to stand for a party, or not wishing to, is to stand as an "Independent”.  So what, you ask?

Well, in the past, a free spirit could distinguish his or her “independent”  status with some description – for example, “Independent Communist”,  "Independent For A Free NHS”, “Independent Conservative” etc.   The rule now is that the only default description is the single word “Independent”.  So two, or three, independent candidates on the same ballot paper cannot explain or describe themselves as in any way different from the others – are they to the left, right or centre?

A small, harmless shift, one night say. Especially if one is a bureaucratic party, determined to keep MPs in line -  lose the label, lose the seat.  Power has shifted, in this as in so much else, towards  the controllers at the centre – party bosses and bureaucrats.

  

That is not good for democracy. 

And the Coalition bent the constitution even further – gone now are the good old days when a Prime Minster had to command the confidence of a majority of individual MPs in the House of Commons. 

Losing an important vote meant being unable to govern as pledge; but the Liberal Democrats and Conservatives in coalition sorted that –  they fixed the term of parliament so that they retain power even if they lose the support of MPs – and that has happened in this parliament. And adjust the margin by which dissent or dissatisfaction amongst MPs is needed before the cosy cartel can be challenged.

Are all our MPs now wimps? Why do they accept all of this?  To keep the job, regardless?

We must restore the convention we had when we were British, that is, that the Government must have the confidence of the House in order to govern, that MPs should not fear for their futures more than they do for the country, and that free spirits can stand as Independents but with some description,  so that the electorate can distinguish their intent.

EU Benefits Ruling

A "win" on one issue in an EU court is not a restoration of our sovereignty or a "victory" - hooting hurrah for this result is understandable but the next EU legal decision may equally go the "other" way.  They are deciding - we are ruled.

Reflection of Farage/Clegg Debate - and the EUs peacocks.

It seems that Nigel Farage and I are in step in our thinking on the Sevastopol issue - the EU has to be careful not to tread deeply into the Russian sphere of influence. At least Obama and the EU are now tacitly acknowledging that military options must be ruled out.
In his debate with Clegg, Farage is reported to have accused the EU of having blood on its hands over the Ukraine. Clegg on the other hand praised the bloc's influence in Eastern Europe; he is reported to have said "It was the British governments that pioneered the enlargement of the European Union so we'd have more peace, more democracy and more rule of law in our European neck of the woods."

Mr Farage responded by saying "we can all hang our heads in shame. We've given a false series of hopes to a group of people in the west of Ukraine; So 'geed' up were they that they actually toppled their own elected leader. That provoked Mr Putin and I think the European Union frankly does have blood on its hands in the Ukraine and I don't want a European army, navy, air force or a European foreign policy."

I think that the way ahead now surely lies in the EU and the USA recognising Crimea as part of Russia, with Russia withdrawing troops from the Ukrainian border and all parties, the USA, the EU's member states, Ukraine and Russia agreeing on Ukrainian neutrality, recognised and guaranteed by all.

Otherwise, we are set for a Black Sea Freeze, if not a wider Cold War II.

EU peacocking is a danger.

The EU is wrong to perform its current diplomatic sabre -rattling routine. 

The reality is that the interest which Russia has in Sevastopol, and hence Crimea, is vital to her; more vital to her than Portsmouth is to the UK. 

The old arrangement, the one put in place by Khrushchev at a time when no one dreamt that the USSR would ever fall or fail, gave Russia all she needed and let Ukraine have her place on the world stage.

The EU has disturbed that when Baroness Ashton (The English Woman) carried out her pas de deux with Kiev.  It is the EU which has the expansionist mindset.

So why all this EU peacocking?  Is it because it takes the eye off the Eurozone crisis?  

I think so: It is an old ploy, and a dangerous one at that.

Sevastopol

The EU has forgotten (or more likely, its unelected bureaucrats are ignorant of) the fact that Russia will hold her need for her Black Sea naval base - and the access that gives her - as vital to her interests - it is within what used to be recognised as the Russian (USSR) sphere of influence.

 

Stupid of the EU and unbelievably naive of Obama to not realise that.

 

A nation does not easily forget 25 million war dead nor which near neighbour was influential in that.

 

Putting it diplomatically.

 

 

We WOULD be better of OUT.

The Express is right - and I hope you all see it.

Oh, well, maybe the Scottish Express will not publish. So take a look at this:

http://www.express.co.uk/comment/expresscomment/416554/EU-membership-now-costs-British-business-billion


And remember, UKIP has being saying this for a wee while now.

BRITAIN MUST LEAVE THE EU TO SAVE HERSELF

Renowned economist and former Treasury Panel “wise man” who advised the Chancellor of the Exchequer from 1992 to 1997, Professor Tim Congdon, is on a speaking tour in Scotland next week.

Professor Congdon is UKIP’s Finance Spokesman. An economist and businessman, he is a strong advocate of sound money and free markets. For over 30 years, he has participated in public policy debates and in the UK’s public policy debates and is often regarded as the UK’s leading “monetarist” economist and as one of its most influential economic commentators.

The talks are open to the public. Mike Scott-Hayward, the Chairman of UKIPScotland said, “All are welcome. Tim’s talk will explain why Britain must leave the EU. In clear terms, he will show how membership of the EU destroys British jobs and makes us poorer."

The tour takes place at four venues: in Links Hotel 4 Alvanley Terrace, Bruntsfield, Edinburgh, EH9 1DU on Wednesday 8^th May at 7.15 pm; on Thursday 9th May at 11 am at The Royal George Hotel, Tay Street, Perth; then at 2.30 pm on Thursday 9^th May at The Braes, 14-18 Perth Road, Dundee; and finally on Thursday 9th May, at 7.00pm at The Salmon Inn, Bank Street in Galashiels.

Venue details and free booking can be found on http://www.ukip.org/scotland/articles/1442-professor-tim-congdons-mini-tour

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.

The EU's British Subjects need to wake up to political realities..

News from The Associated Press

hosted.ap.org

BERLIN (AP) -- German Chancellor Angela Merkel endorsed a proposal for a top European Union official to be given the power to veto member governments' budgets, and suggested Thursday that the bloc could set up a new fund

Edinburgh Agreement on a Scottish Referendum:

UKIP stands four square behind the unity of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

We also firmly believe in the right of the British everywhere to be the final arbiters over their own lives.

That is why we support and would introduce binding (Swiss-style) referenda on vital issues.

That is why we believe it is as much the right of the Scottish nation to determine whether or not Scotland remains an integral part of the United Kingdom, as it is the right of the British people to determine if the UK should remain in the EU.

Our view on those two crucial issues is well known but we will repeat them and fight for them until we achieve what we believe the British people want – the continued integrity of the UK, and full British sovereignty.

So we support the Better Together campaign – we dismiss the SNP 's "wee pretendy Independence" ideas – and we want a referendum to take the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland OUT of the EU to achieve full British sovereignty and true UK Independence.

Vote NO to stop any British break up – and campaign for true British sovereignty thereafter.

Meercats could do it better than Alec

The incompetence of the SNP/Coalition/Brussels Wind Energy policy is horrifying. It lacks common sense and it seems, it also contravenes the Aarhus Convention.

Alec Salmond's pontifications certainly indicate that a so -called independent Scotland would be at risk under the the SNP.   And it is after all only wee pretendy independence anyway - Alex Salmond wants to be in the European Union - nothing independent or sovereign about that!

Once again, I must commend UKIP policy - real independence - sovereignty - for Team GB as a whole; and no wind power - no subsidies, no ROCs, no FITS, no laying the burden on the poorest, cessation of turbines spoiling our landscape. Simples, as the meercat says.

British Sovereignty? My foot.

According to the Daily Telegraph, Alan Duncan, the minister of state for aid, said the Department for International Development (DfID) was “forced to give” British taxpayers’ money to the EU and was powerless over how it was spent.

The charge will raise tensions within the Conservative party because it touches on two of the areas where the Tory Right is most concerned about David Cameron’s policies - foreign aid and Europe.

Brussels insists it does not “impose” its choice of aid projects on Britain but - in an escalation of hostilities - a senior Conservative separately accused the EU of lying. “If you want an EU lie, this is a classic one,” said the senior Tory. “It is a 100 per cent lie. We have been arguing with the EU whenever we can that the money should have a poverty focus.”

So why does Mr Duncan stick it out in the coalition, as subservient to Brussels as Cameron and Clegg?

We have lost our sovereignty because our MPs have lost their moral fibre..

How effective is UKIP?

Could there be a UKIP led political revolution?  

It is entirely possible.

Certainly, UKIP inspired change is on the way. 

The EU's control over us is the bigger part leading to this change - but the wind energy debate is well to the fore.  

The latest YouGov polls show UKIP are now the third most popular party in the UK and in Scotland the poll shows a spectacular change

Scottish Results

Conservative 17% (-2%)
Labour 40% (-1%)
LibDem 4% no change
UKIP 8% (+4%)
SNP 28% (-5%)
Green 1% (-1%)
BNP 2% (+1%)

UKIPScotland is now level pegging with the LibDems in Scotland. The coalition Government will be wide awake to these changes - and worried. The way to stop the Coalition from ignoring popular will is to support UKIP, joining us, voting for us, working with us.

Media Blocks

Pleased to see that Alan Cochrane, writing in Scottish Field,  has taken up the issue of councillors being gagged.

Hurrah! I have been banging on about that for years - and even sent fruitlessly to the media - including the DT.

Ex Cllr Arbuckle used to say nice supportive things when I railed on over the issue in meetings of the Council, and he has since gone to his pet press and published as a journalist on the issue too.  Ironic, as his party was probably the driver for the gagging clause.

Annoying thing is that UKIP policy would put paid to the stupidity but the media seem to have a mental block when they see the letters UKIP - pavlovian beasts, they assume we are a one issue party.

Why don't they read of policies?

British Trade

In or out of the EU, Britain would still trade with the other EU countries.  The UK is the biggest customer of many of these countries. So they would still trade with us.

Moreover, data produced last week shows that we are now increasing our trade with the rest of the expanding world.

We should foster our Commonwealth ties and trade. 

We should leave the EU - switch back from political subservience to free trade.

It started with Blair

We are approaching a period of potentially huge change for the United Kingdom – its possible destruction. Not good news on which to begin 2012. The build up to a referendum which will decide the fate of the United Kingdom has now begun in earnest and the battleground is here, in Scotland. UKIP Scotland is unlikely to be a major player; the media will focus on the establishment and parties with elected parliamentarians – but we can and must be more than observers.

The battle over separatism will be waged over as much as two years and set against the background of the potential, probably pending, collapse of the Euro Zone. Both battles are vital to us and UKIP big guns must deploy here often. The major parties will do so in strength, and we should welcome a strong Unionist fight. Facts and figures and numerous scenarios will be postulated; whilst I believe that ultimately most people will vote based on their emotive roots rather than on sophistry, we must battle to win over the undecided.

The SNP have the upper hand now, the initiative is theirs. It is vital that we all resist any temptation unwittingly to aide and abet separation; the mistake of creating a wholly separate devolved parliament in Scotland, distinct from Britain’s Parliament, must not be replicated elsewhere in Great Britain. Our UKIP policy of abolishing MSPs and replacing them within the Scotland Act with MPs proper is, I believe, right. Indeed, I think an England Act should create devolved parliament on those same lines – existing English MPs sitting for England, with all MPs still together in the House of Commons. We have messed enough with our constitution, an horrendous mistake started by Blair and leading by Coalition complicity towards the unravelling of all thet we have ever been.

English Parliament et al

It is my view that the Scottish Parliament, and the Welsh Assembly, should be made up of those Members of Parliament sitting respectively for Scotland and Wales.

English MPs sitting as such would conducted English business but it may well be that there is a need for an England Act, to formalise English MPs sitting as such, with power to elect a First Minister and to create an English Executive. That English Parliament then would have powers similar to Scotland.

There would, of course, be a need for Acts of Parliament to remove MSPs and Assembly Members, to be replaced by MPs, and possibly also to amend and enhance the Welsh Assembly's powers and status to that of a Welsh Parliament, fully equivalent to the Scottish and English Parliaments.

MPs would continue to serve as they do now at Westminster, working together for the UK, and with their feet on the ground within the devolved Parliaments.