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?

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.

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.

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.

 

 

Now is the time to join UKIP

UKIP in Scotland is growing behind the scenes.  We are planning to form new branches and I urge people who have thought about it to start acting - the time to join UKIP is now.

Nigel Farage has been on STV again and this will awaken the printed media; they have ignored us for too long.    They cannot ignore our growing support - up to at least 8% now.

Hat's off to STV for opening up democracy - it is not for the chatteratti to decide who gets publicity. 
The role of reporters is to report, not to pontificate!

UKIP will breakthrough in Scotland at the next European elections. That is because we know that people want to escape from the EU, not from the UK.