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?