Independent Sovereign Democratic Britain

Happily, we will now get an Independent Sovereign Democratic Britain, delivered by Brexit.

British sovereignty should no longer be shared and we should be represented abroad by only the British Government; the Sovereign-in-Parliament should be the final arbiter over British Subjects; and we should be Democratic not Bureaucratic.

I stood fast for this—I even had to leave Cameron’s Conservatives—but now the Referendum has delivered our British Will on this, even though the Liberal Democrats do not understand that. I want to be in Parliament to see that this is delivered.

I want to see stronger Defence—it has been cut too far; by definition,  no crystal ball can forecast when we may face an unforeseen danger.

I also want to see better use of the Armed Services abroad, used together with a Civilian Overseas Aid Service, to deliver Foreign Aid in kind on scene (no money handed over); and to be ready to help when Humanitarian and Natural Disasters occur. We need some change in Force structures and some new ships—Logistics, Humanitarian and Military Command and Support ships.  We should consider National Citizenship Service to augment Defence and Humanitarian Aid capabilities.

A Strategic Defence Review should look again at Force roles across the Globe, at Home Based Quick Reaction Mobile Regular Forces and at establishing Commonwealth Naval Task Groups, not least to share meeting Disaster Relief scenarios.

Security, Intelligence and Surveillance must be fully funded.

UK Border Controls and Immigration, post Brexit, should be wholly subject to the sovereign will of Parliament which alone should set and alter these laws and rules as required from time to time. 

Parliament should establish new criteria for British Citizenship, Immigration and Visa entry policies. 

I consider that we should avoid setting Migration level targets—the numbers are always arbitrary—but rely instead on sensible and balanced criteria.

For example, except for security reasons, tourists and visitors should be able to enter with minimal fuss, albeit with an insistence on the visitor being self sufficient and holding health cover insurance for the duration of the agreed length of stay.  Work Visas should be issued when jobs have been secured and health cover insurance provided by the visitor or employer. The employer might need to show that local recruitment was impractical.  A variety of visas would be needed -to cover students, for example.

Refugees should always be given exactly that— safe refuge—where there is a genuine need and usually where a proper approach has been made to the first British Authority with whom the refugee can make contact.  Refugees should be brought to Britain under proper control and suitably accommodated; their aim should be to return home when safe; otherwise, after a period set by Parliament, they should apply for citizenship and full residential status.

As I would like to introduce National Citizenship Service after the age of 18, I would like so see  all applicants for citizenship having to undertake such service, and to pass an English test.

Our Commonwealth Links have sadly diminished since we joined the EC/EU and we must revitalise those relationships in terms of free trade, cultural exchange and strengthen Defence co-operation. I’d propose a Commonwealth Free Trade Agreement.

Small Business: I have a solution to Late Payment Problem: HMRC should penalise late payers, via VAT returns. And I think the Business Rates system across the UK must be radically simplified to be based only on premises size (square footage), regardless of  site location or use, etc, in two bands: one for PLCs and a capped lower rate for SMEs.

National Lottery Ticket’s should include five option boxes so we can direct what benefits:  Research, NHS, Defence, Art & Culture and Community.

 Farming and Fishing should continue to receive, directly from the British Government, the subsidies currently received via Brussels.  Parliament should then, consulting with those industries, change  policies so that both CFP and the CAP fits our circumstances.

Universities  need a guarantee that there will be no non-security restrictions on visas for foreign staff or students.  Attracting foreign investment should be encouraged.

The NHS is vital but a thorough review is needed to get the available money more directly to the point of need.

Food and Fuel Poverty is best combatted by a good economy but we should immediately defy EU restraints and stop VAT on domestic energy.

Space Exploration:  Create a tax free unsubsidized regime to build the British Space Industry.

No more Onshore Wind Turbines unless directly owned, unsubsidized and run by local communities themselves.

Housing needs should be supported with any available public monies primarily being injected to support start up private home ownership.

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.

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.