Old Lessons to Remember

Cold War II would be a much better option than WW III.

A cold war brings stabilized tension, constant vigilance and constant caution - and with nuclear deterrence at its core - a permanent stand-off.

We face these new choices simply because the EU's little demagogues do not understand the innate fear of a Russian nation which was brought close to extinction by Napoleon and Hitler.

The old "spheres of influence" have been disregarded by the EU, Merkel and the woman the Russians call "that English woman", Baroness Ashton. A British Army subaltern doing War Studies would get it.

And let's not go near to even discussing Sturgeon's Stupidity on Trident.

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.

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.

Bigmouth

Quite the unacceptable face of UKIP: There are uncomfortable people in all parties and sadly the balance seems quite high in UKIP in Scotland.  More's the shame, as years of "co-operation" forced on them by the Party List system, has weakened clear strong policy-making amongst the SNP's main opponents.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/scottish-politics/ukip-in-nazi-jibe-over-new-paper.25999221?utm_source=headlines&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=email%2Balert

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.

Not just immigration

Cameron putting immigration at the centre of his manifesto is not the winning trick - the EU issue is about all of our sovereignty.

World Security

An Independent Scotland might well not be a weak nation, will not be a poor state but will not gain top table status, especially if run by a centralizing, overspending and smug government.

The United Kingdom, broken up by the independence of Scotland, will doubtless be diminished, certainly in the short and medium term.  And that will have an adverse impact on world security and stability.

Any perception that the UK's break up weakens it, will weaken her impact and influence in NATO, multiplying the effect current force reductions.  The reality of Scottish Independence with the subsequent uncertainty over Trident basing will create a shock wave amongst  the allies, and some mirth to say the least in Putin's front office.

The UK's voice in the UN Security Council may be deemed to be toned down - and perhaps her veto questioned.

Scotland is not a colony growing up to make its own way in the world. Scotland is a partner in a Union that has been a world leader and possible the most successful force for good, security and stability, despite an imperfect past.  Churchill might have said that the Union might not always have been perfect, but it has made a most impressive contribution.

I hope Scots will not follow the narrow inward looking selfishness so smugly exuded by Salmond and his people.

No call for bad mouthing First Minister.

As a former Chairman of UKIP in Scotland, I am appalled at reports that Coburn, a UKIP MEP, speaking in London, called the Scottish First Minister a racist, and I deplore the language and rhetoric used by both Coburn and Thackeray, the current unelected chairman of UKIP in Scotland.  Being “in your face” is not the basis upon which a political party can build a respectable image.

UKIP proper has the right perspective on the key issue of British Sovereignty; the twin objectives of keeping the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland intact, and of regaining the sovereignty we have already lost to the European Union.  Those messages have created the momentum which is seeing the rise of UKIP as a major political party in the UK; indeed, the surge created brought its gain in Scotland too.  

Putting forward a positive message is needed; not the vindictive, puerile personal disparagement of elected government ministers.

A fine example of a positive pro UK message is one which, I have long advocated: That the United Kingdom’s MPs should represent us all both in Parliament in Westminster, and also in four national parliaments

It is as wrong to slate the First Minister as it was for idiots to mob Nigel Farage on the Cannongate in Edinburgh.

Unfortunately, UKIP in Scotland is now gaining a less than palatable reputation; something which UKIP elsewhere has with increasing success combatted.   Little wonder that Better Together are concerned the modus operandi of UKIP in Scotland, and the distraction their rally may cause.

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.

 

 

Nationalising Familes in Scotland - State Controlled Childhood

The SNP are planning, or rather plotting, to appoint a so-called named person to be a guardian for each and every child in Scotland, without the consent of parents.

This is state imposition. It is tantamount to national control of families in Scotland - nationalisation of families.

I think that parents' common law rights, or, if you will, their so called human rights, are being usurped.  This must be illegal and is contrary to natural justice.

Not at all  British!

Mandela - Tribute

I was a school boy in South Africa when Nelson Mandela and others were convicted of acts of sabotage.

 The ANC, under Mandela, had resolved to switch from a campaign of non-violence in the face of the intransigence of the Apartheid Regime.   I recall power line pylons being blown up and on one occasion heard that a man had been shot whilst attempting to deposit bags of poison on the reservoir feeding Durban, my home town.

 I also clearly remember the bombing at Johannesburg Central Station, attributed to the African Resistance movement, not to the ANC itself: that bomb, placed by John Harris, killed a 77 year old woman and injured others. The event shocked South Africa and even as a child I had become aware of an often unspoken but palpable public fear as a backdrop to life. Harris was sentenced to hang and was executed in in 1965.

That background of fear in those days in South Africa, a fear that a mass uprising would lead to widespread bloodshed, led to the Apartheid Regime being kept in power by the white only electorate.

 It was as if there were two nations living in the same space but almost completely out of touch with each other, in different worlds.  I don’t doubt that if I’d been born a black South African, I’d have joined the ANC, and would have wanted to rebel. Years later, serving in Northern Ireland, I saw parallels in the Catholic Protestant divide.  These are divisions we still see across the world today – making the change and reconciliation in South Africa all the more remarkable.

Nelson Mandela had embarked on a change from a campaign of non-violence to one of an armed struggled. That led to his arrest and conviction.  One can only guess at how far that armed struggle would have gone, under his power and influence.

Mandela being sentenced to imprisonment on Robben Island surely curtailed ANC violence, and, ironically the 27 years there profoundly influenced Mandela. When he was released, he was a man of peace. 

I visited South Africa the year before the first proper elections: the white population was still in fear – people barricaded their homes at night, avoided sleeping near windows, some even doing so in internal corridors.

But as I travelled about, speaking to all races, I sensed nothing but goodwill within each race. I felt that no one had bad intent though almost all still feared that others did.  Everyone held back and voted in hope. Mandela’s magic worked; the elections were a huge peaceful success.

Robben Island was the making of Mandela, and Mandela was the making of new South Africa, now a free sovereign nation. Living up to his legacy is now South Africa’s greatest goal and its next mountain.

Bedroom Tax - Put in hands of democracy

STOP BEDROOM TAX CHAOS WITH LOCAL DEMOCRACY

The Chairman of UKIP Scotland, Mike Scott-Hayward, wants local democracy restored not least of all to stop the chaos caused by the implementation of the so-called bedroom tax.

His comments come after a landmark ruling in a Fife case which deemed that a rather small room could not be used as a bedroom, and therefore the "tax" could not apply.

"The positive in this is that British justice does, eventually, work. A Judge appointed by the Lord Chancellor, Kenneth Clark, hears these cases and has made the landmark ruling, "Mr Scott-Hayward said.

"The silly side is that we are in this daft position in the first place. The first time I served as a councillor was in the days of North East Fife District Council. On the then Housing Committee, many tricky decision were taken on such matters - evictions, admission to housing lists, appeals against decisions made by officers, etc. - by elected members. We, in a sense, acted as a jury, applied common sense and had the authority as the Housing Authority, to decide to extent to which a pedantic ruling need be applied. Common sense and sensibility ruled the day, and these matters were often conducted in camera, and helped many hard pressed families.

"I contend that an appeal to panel of elected councillors should be the first recourse for any citizen who considers that an officer ruling is unfair. The councillors would therefore, as of old when we were still truly British, rather than as now increasingly continental in having too much direct rule by bureaucrats, use common sense and local knowledge to look after their people, the people who they are elected to serve.

"That would cut the cost of the number of cases that may need to go to a Judge, and go some small way to restoring local democracy."

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.

Fracking

Displace coal and reduce carbon footprint?

https://dub119.mail.live.com/default.aspx#n=992449898&fid=91418cbd74114e1a90fbc774edd49815&mid=95c6f075-e026-11e2-a559-00237de4a7e6&fv=1

Turbine Tally?

http://www.scotsman.com/news/scottish-news/top-stories/birdwatchers-see-rare-bird-killed-by-wind-turbine-1-2980240

Does your councillor or MSP care?

What do you think?

http://joshrjones.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/white-throated-needletail.html

There is no sanity in the SNP or Coalition Governement wind energy policies.  If you voted for one of them - think again.