Monthly Archives: September 2014

Public Bank Option for an independent Scotland

HUMANITY vs INSANITY    23   Scotland   a New Political Paradigm   YouTube

Today Scottish voters will go to the polls to decide whether Scotland should become an independent country.

 

As video blogger Ian R. Crane colorfully puts the issues and possibilities:

[T]he People of Scotland have an opportunity to extricate themselves from the socio-psychopathic global corporatists and the temple of outrageous and excessive abject materialism. However, it is not going to be an easy ride . . . .

If Alex Salmond and the SNP [Scottish National Party] are serious about keeping the Pound Stirling as the Currency of Scotland, there will be no independence. Likewise if Scotland embraces the Euro, Scotland will rapidly become a vassel state of the Euro-Federalists, who will asset strip the nation in the same way that, Greece, Ireland, Portugal and Spain have been stripped of their entire national wealth and much of their national identity.

To achieve true independence, Crane suggests the following, among other mandates:

  • Establish an independent Central Bank of Scotland.
  • Issue a new Scottish (Debt Free) Currency.
  • Settle any outstanding debt with new Scottish Currency.
  • Take Scotland out of the EU.
  • Take Scotland out of NATO.
  • Establish strict currency controls for the first 3 years of independence.
  • Nationalize the Scottish oil & gas industry.
  • Re-take control of the National Health Service.
  • Establish a State Employment Agency to provide work/training for all able-bodied residents.

Arguments against independence include that Scotland’s levels of public spending, which are higher than in the rest of the UK, would be difficult to sustain without raising taxes.  But that assumes the existing UK/EU investment regime.  If Scotland were to say, “We’re starting a new round based on our own assets, via our own new bank,” exciting things might be achieved. A publicly owned bank with a mandate to serve the interests of the Scottish people could help give the newly independent country true economic sovereignty.

I wrote on that possibility in December 2012, after doing a PowerPoint on it at the Royal Society of Arts in Edinburgh. That presentation was followed by one by public sector consultant Ralph Leishman, who made the proposal concrete with facts and figures.  He suggested that the Scottish Investment Bank (SIB) be licensed as a depository bank on the model of the state-owned Bank of North Dakota. I’m reposting the bulk of that article here, in hopes of adding to the current debate.

From Revolving Fund to Credit Machine: What Scotland Could Do with Its Own Bank

The SIB is a division of Scottish Enterprise (SE), a government body that encourages economic development, enterprise, innovation and investment in business.  The SIB provides public sector funding through the Scottish Loan Fund. As noted in a September 2011 government report titled “Government Economic Strategy”:

[S]ecuring affordable finance remains a considerable challenge and further action is needed to ensure that viable businesses have access to the funding they require to grow and support jobs. The recovery is being held back by limited private sector investment – indeed, overall investment in the UK remains some 15% below pre-recession levels. Evidence shows that while many large companies have significant cash holdings or can access capital markets directly, for most Small and Medium-sized companies bank lending remains the key source of finance. Unblocking this is key to helping the recovery gain traction.

The limitation of a public loan fund is that the money can be lent only to one borrower at a time.  Invested as capital in a bank, on the other hand, public funds can be leveraged into nearly ten times that sum in loans.  Liquidity to cover the loans comes from deposits, which remain in the bank, available for the use of the depositors.  As observed by Kurt Von Mettenheim, et al., in a 2008 report titled Government Banking: New Perspectives on Sustainable Development and Social Inclusion from Europe and South America (Konrad Adenauer Foundation), at page 196:

[I]n terms of public policy, government banks can do more for less: Almost ten times more if one compares cash used as capital reserves by banks to other policies that require budgetary outflows.

In 2012, according to Leishman, the SIB had investment funds of £23.2 million from the Scottish government. Rounding this to £25 million, a public depository bank could have sufficient capital to back £250 million in loans. For deposits to cover the loans, the Scottish Government then had £125 million on deposit with private banks, earning very little or no interest.  Adding the revenues of just 14% of Scotland’s local governments would provide another £125 million, reaching the needed deposit total of £250 million.

The Model of the Bank of North Dakota

What the government could do with its own bank, following the model of the Bank of North Dakota (BND), was summarized by Alf Young in a followup article in the Scotsman. He noted that North Dakota is currently the only U.S. state to own its own depository bank.  The BND was founded in 1919 by Norwegian and other immigrants, who were determined, through their Non-Partisan League, to stop rapacious Wall Street money men foreclosing on their farms.

Young observed that all state revenues must be deposited with the BND by law.  The bank pays no bonuses, fees or commissions; does no advertising; and maintains no branches beyond the main office in Bismarck. The bank offers cheap credit lines to state and local government agencies. There are low-interest loans for designated project finance. The BND underwrites municipal bonds, funds disaster relief and supports student loans. It partners with local commercial banks to increase lending across the state and pays competitive interest rates on state deposits. For the past ten years, it has been paying a dividend to the state, with a quite small population of about 680,000, of some $30 million (£18.7 million) a year.

Young wrote:

Intriguingly, North Dakota has not suffered the way much of the rest of the US – indeed much of the western industrialised world – has, from the banking crash and credit crunch of 2008; the subsequent economic slump; and the sovereign debt crisis that has afflicted so many. With an economy based on farming and oil, it has one of the lowest unemployment rates in the US, a rising population and a state budget surplus that is expected to hit $1.6bn by next July. By then North Dakota’s legacy fund is forecast to have swollen to around $1.2bn.

With that kind of resilience, it’s little wonder that twenty American states, some of them close to bankruptcy, are at various stages of legislating to form their own state-owned banks on the North Dakota model. There’s a long-standing tradition of such institutions elsewhere too. Australia had a publicly-owned bank offering credit for infrastructure as early as 1912. New Zealand had one operating in the housing field in the 1930s. Up until 1974, the federal government in Canada borrowed from the Bank of Canada, effectively interest-free.

. . . From our western perspective, we tend to forget that, globally, around 40 per cent of banks are already publicly owned, many of them concentrated in the BRIC economies, Brazil, Russia, India and China.

Banking is not just a market good or service.  It is a vital part of societal infrastructure, which properly belongs in the public sector.  By taking banking back, local governments could regain control of that very large slice (up to 40 per cent) of every public budget that currently goes to interest charged to finance investment programs through the private sector.

Recent academic studies by von Mettenheim et al. and Andrianova et al. show that countries with high degrees of government ownership of banking have grown much faster in the last decade than countries where banking is historically concentrated in the private sector.  Government banks are also LESS corrupt and, surprisingly, have been MORE profitable in recent years than private banks.

Young wrote:

Given the massive price we have all paid for our debt-fuelled crash, surely there is scope for a more fundamental re-think about what we really want from our banks and what structures of ownership are best suited to deliver on those aspirations? . . .

As we left Thursday’s seminar, I asked another member of the audience, someone with more than thirty years’ experience as a corporate financier, whether the concept of a publicly owned bank has any chance of getting off the ground here. “I’ve no doubt it will happen,” came the surprise response. “When I look at the way our collective addiction to debt has ballooned in my lifetime, I’d even say it’s inevitable”.

The Scots are full of surprises, and independence is in their blood.  Recall the heroic battles of William Wallace and Robert the Bruce memorialized by Hollywood in the Academy Award winning movie Braveheart.  Perhaps the Scots will blaze a trail for economic sovereignty in Europe, just as North Dakotans did in the U.S.  A publicly owned bank could help Scotland take control of its own economic destiny, by avoiding unnecessary debt to a private banking system that has become a burden to the economy rather than a pillar in its support.

Ellen Brown is an attorney, founder of the Public Banking Institute, and author of twelve books, including the best-selling Web of Debt. In The Public Bank Solution, her latest book, she explores successful public banking models historically and globally. Her 200+ blog articles are at EllenBrown.com.

First published on Global Research

SCOTLAND : A New Land of Opportunity? Ian R Crane offers final words of encouragement to the People of Scotland before their Historic vote for Independence; and discusses a new Political Paradigm for the remainder of the United Kingdom with Danny Bamping, founder of NoTa (None Of The Above).

No-Ta [The No-Thank-You Party] exists to encourage and energize all of the above and those millions of other voters that are now completely disillusioned by the other party’s and the existing hybrid ‘coalition’ that currently dictates to us, controls us and enslaves us. We exist to give real people, a real alternative option – one with real policies, and real people willing to represent them and do what is right for the people and our country. http://www.no-ta.org.uk/

 

Scots wha hae – Patriotic song of Scotland

Scots Wha Hae (English: Scots, Who Have; Scottish Gaelic: Brosnachadh Bhruis) is a patriotic song of Scotland which served for centuries as an unofficial national anthem of the country, but has lately been largely supplanted by Scotland the Brave and Flower of Scotland.

The lyrics were written by Robert Burns in 1793, in the form of a speech given by Robert the Bruce before the Battle of Bannockburn in 1314, where Scotland maintained its sovereignty from the Kingdom of England.

Although the lyrics are by Burns, he wrote them to the traditional Scottish tune ‘Hey Tuttie Tatie’ which, according to tradition, was played by Bruce’s army at the Battle of Bannockburn, and by the Franco-Scots army at the Siege of Orleans.

Scots, wha hae wi’ Wallace bled,
Scots, wham Bruce has aften led,
Welcome to your gory bed,
Or to victory!

Now’s the day, and now’s the hour;
See the front o’ battle lour,
See approach proud Edward’s power—
Chains and slavery!

Wha will be a traitor-knave?
Wha can fill a coward’s grave?
Wha sae base as be a slave?
Let him turn and flee!

Wha for Scotland’s king and law
Freedom’s sword will strongly draw,
Freeman stand or freeman fa’,
Let him follow me!

By oppression’s woes and pains,
By your sons in servile chains,
We will drain our dearest veins,
But they shall be free!

Lay the proud usurpers low!
Tyrants fall in ev’ry foe!
Liberty’s in ev’ry blow!
Let us do or dee!

Saor Alba! – Scotland and the People’s Parliament!

SNP planning to cut NHS spending by half a billion pounds after referendum

Scotland's independence waits for a referendum. scotland flag

Are the SNP planning to cut half a billion pounds in NHS care spending?

 

A leaked document revealed the SNP government’s ‘secret agenda’ to cut billions of pounds in NHS spending after the referendum.

The ‘Yes’ campaign have been vigorously promoting that Scotland’s NHS is safe with a yes vote and ignoring the threat from the TTIP.

In The Telegraph today:

SNP Government planning half a billion pounds of NHS cutbacks, leaked dossier reveals

Scottish health boards are being asked to make up to £450m in savings over the next two years, a secret document leaked by a whistleblower shows.

The SNP Government is planning almost half a billion pounds worth of cutbacks from Scotland’s NHS according to a controversial leaked document.

A report understood to have been distributed to Scotland’s health boards said that over the next two years up to £450m of additional “savings” must be found.

The secret document also warns that health care executives need to “urgently” establish priorities and says “significant changes” must be rapidly implemented.

Johann Lamont, Scottish Labour leader, said the revelations showed the SNP has a “secret agenda” to cut health care spending after the referendum.

A Scottish Government spokesperson said the document was part of “regular discussions” among health care leaders, adding that the SNP administration was “protecting and increasing” Scotland’s NHS budget.

The dossier, obtained and distributed by the Labour Party, was leaked by an unnamed whistleblower concerned with how the SNP was portraying the NHS in the referendum campaign.

The anonymous source said there were “major problems” with Scotland’s NHS and claimed Yes camp suggestions the UK Government is to blame were “not true”.

It is understood the leaked paper was co-written by the Health Board Finance Directors and the Financial Director for Health Directorate in Scottish Government.

The revelations come with the Yes campaign repeatedly claiming that the only way to protect the NHS from major cuts is to vote for independence on Thursday.

The claims have infuriated the pro-UK camp, which has branded the warnings the biggest lie of the referendum campaign.

While the SNP says any cut to the English health budget would hit the amount of money given to Scotland, control of the NHS is totally controlled by Holyrood. Furthermore, no Westminster party proposes reducing health care spending.

Johann Lamont, Scottish Labour Leader, said: “These papers show that the SNP have a secret agenda to cut health spending after the referendum. Alex Salmond was elected on a manifesto to protect health spending and now he is planning cuts but has decided not to tell anyone until after Thursday’s vote.

“The SNP lied about NHS privatisation. They lied when they said they didn’t have the powers to protect the NHS from cuts. Now they are deceiving the people of Scotland about plans to cut health spending after polling day. Its clear that the SNP cannot be trusted with our NHS.” – read more HERE

THE YES CAMPAIGN HAVE LIED AND DONE SO ALL ALONG!

Whichever way the vote goes on Thursday, the people of Scotland should be demanding the resignation of Alex Salmond et al and be held accountable if this is true!

Alex Salmond is slimier than a slug, a deceitful, lying human being if ever there was one.

Scotland and The People’s Parliament have made it clear that the entire Scottish Government should be booted out one way or another.

We are for independence, but we will expose the lies and deception regardless of who is behind it.

Isn’t it bad enough that the UK parliament have lied and coerced people over the referendum and now the Scottish Government have ‘secret agenda’s’ ? (again I  might add)

So much for:

10599679_843742712303307_3337282476903988318_n

Lying toerags.

Corrupt EU Politicians think they have a right to rob their countries

EU

Corrupt EU politicians think they have a right to rob their countries – Drago Kos, corruption fighter

 

“The European Union boasts of its well-being and the rule of law, but the latest European Commission report on corruption shows something is rotten in the EU.

Billions of euros are eaten up by corruption each year, and no parts of Europe are spared.

Is there no way out of this?

How does corruption find its way into so many nations?

Can it be fought?

To tease this out, we talk with Drago Kos, a professional corruption fighter and OECD head.”  – RT

 

TTIP and the EU’s contempt for democracy

Probably the most dangerous thing about Nigel Farage and UKIP is that they are essentially right about one thing, that the EU is an anti-democratic organisation.

 

Article by Thomas G. Clark – Another Angry Voice

The fact that they are right about the anti-democratic nature of the EU allows them to hide a load of extreme-right Thatcherism on steroids policies behind their stated opposition to the EU.

It is worth noting that UKIP certainly don’t oppose the £millions in EU salaries and expenses they claim, despite having the worst attendance and voting record of any party in the entire EU.

So even if you’re not disinclined to mistrust their extreme-right policies or their rogue’s gallery of ex-Tory party donors and failed Tory politicians, their complete hypocrisy in riding the EU gravy train should be enough to make you mistrust them.

There have been countless demonstrations that UKIP are right, and that the EU has no respect for democracy, especially their absurd decision to make Ireland go back and hold their referendum on the Lisbon Treaty again, until they got the right result.

The latest display of outright contempt for democracy by the EU is their decision to block a Citizen’s Initiative against the so-called Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) because they do not want to allow the citizens of Europe any kind of avenue to prevent this massive corporate power grab from going ahead.

What is TTIP?

 

I’m not going to go into a huge amount of detail about why the TTIP is so bad because there’s far more criticism than could possibly be covered in a single blog post.

Some of the worst things about this proposed TTIP deal between the EU and the US include:

  • Lowering of standards:  If TTIP is signed, it will mean that legislation will be harmonised by lowering standards. Where Europe may have higher environmental standards, they will be lowered to weaker US standards. Where the US may have higher food safety standards, they will be lowered to weaker European levels. Standards won’t be harmonised by bringing them up to the higher level, they will be harmonised by bringing them down to the lowest common denominator.
  • Job losses: It has been estimated that, just like countless other so-called free-trade deals before it, TTIP will end up costing hundreds of thousands of jobs.
  • Undermining democracy and the rule of law: One of the most controversial parts of TTIP is the inclusion of Investor State Dispute Settlements (ISDS). These ISDS provisions are designed to make corporate activities immune to democracy and the rule of law by introducing a new level of secretive tribunal where corporations can completely bypass the legal system in order to sue governments for daring to introduce new laws that may affect their profit margins. Thus the profits of corporations become elevated above the democratic process, and above the rule of law.
  • Secretive and non-transparent negotiations: Even before the EU decided to block the Citizens Initiative against TTIP, negotiations were being carried out in a highly secretive and non-transparent manner. Despite claims from the EU that TTIP is being negotiated in a transparent manner, the chief EU negotiator on the deal has already stated in a letter to his US counterpart that public access to all documents relating to the negotiation and implementation of TTIP will be blocked for up to 30 years.

If you would like more details on TTIP please follow this link to check out John Hilary’s comprehensive critique.

What is a Citizen’s Initiative?

European Citizen’s Initiatives are probably the only decent bit of participatory democracy in the whole EU political system. If one million people (from several different EU states), support a Citizen’s Initiative, a legislative proposal can be tabled in the European Parliament. Ongoing European Citizen’s Initiatives include movements in support of Universal Basic Income, the human right to water and the introduction of traffic calming measures in European towns and cities.

The Citizens Initiative against TTIP

Through the summer of 2014 a number of organisations and individuals opposed to TTIP (and another similar deal between the EU and Canada called CETA) begun the process of starting a European Citizen’s Initiative, with the planned launch in September 2014.

After the organisers had gathered the support of over 230 organisations across Europe, and the backing of the Green/EFA group in the European Parliament, the EU simply turned down the initiative before it could even get started.

The French Green MEP Yannick Jadot described the EU decision to block the Citizen’s Initiative against TTIP as “above all a political decision” and a demonstration of “contempt” for the tens of thousands of people to have spoken out against TTIP already.

The mainstream media response

The mainstream media in the UK completely failed to cover the EU decision to block the Citizen’s Initiative against TTIP. The only articles about the decision to appear were on independent blogs like my own, small independent websites, activist sites, Green party webpages and a single article on politics.co.uk.

This mainstream news blackout might seem surprising given that the majority of the right-wing dominated UK media peddle a staunchly Eurosceptic line. A decision to block a Citizen’s Initiative would seem like the perfect kind of ammunition for journalists who generally describe the EU in terms of being an anti-democratic monstrosity.

One would have thought that this decision to obstruct participatory democracy would have made great ammunition for UKIP too, but as has always been the case, the UKIP leadership has remained absolutely silent about their position on TTIP.

Probably the most likely explanation for this blanket refusal to criticise this obstruction of democracy by the EU, is that UKIP and the right-wing media are all in favour of a gigantic corporate power grab designed to make the pursuit of corporate profits supersede democracy and the rule of law.

When it comes to the minority of traditionally centre-left newspapers (like the Guardian and the Independent) perhaps the explanation for their lack of coverage is that the EU decision to torpedo the Citizen’s Initiative against TTIP came on a Friday, and that they’re so short-staffed that they couldn’t find anyone to write even a few short paragraphs about it over the weekend?

If this is the case, perhaps they’ll get around to informing the public sometime next week?

Conclusion

In my view, the EU decision to block the Citizen’s Initiative against TTIP, is not only a display of outright contempt the concept of participatory democracy and for the citizens of Europe, it is a demonstration that they are desperately afraid of democracy, and of allowing the people of Europe to participate in politics.

They are afraid that if they allow the people of Europe to participate in the political process, it may prevent them from doing whatever the hell they want to do.

The EU will continue with their secretive non-transparent TTIP negotiations, but the fight against TTIP will not be stopped just because the EU decided to obstruct the Citizen’s Initiative against TTIP.

In my view, one of the most important things about the fight against TTIP is the provision of information. By continually treating TTIP as if it were just some kind of benign “trade deal” rather than an outrageous corporate power grab, the majority of the mainstream media have already shown that they are failing in their duty to keep the public informed.

The complete mainstream media blackout on the EU decision to block the Citizen’s Initiative against TTIP just goes to show how unfit for purpose they are. This mainstream news blackout should be a sign to anyone keen to keep themselves abreast of what is going on in the world, that they really must look beyond what the mainstream press is prepared to tell them if they want anything resembling a complete picture.

If people are going to be mobilised in sufficient numbers against TTIP, the most important thing is that as many people as possible in Europe actually know what TTIP is, and it is absolutely clear that the mainstream media is completely unfit for purpose in this regard.

That means it’s down to people like me and you to spread the word.

AAV

Scottish Monarch or English in an Independent Scotland?

The Queen with First Minister Alex Salmond. Picture: PA

The SNP promise that the ‘Queen’ will be retained as head of state in an independent Scotland, but other politicians within the ‘Yes’ campaign have other ideas.

 

Reported in the ‘Scotsman’ in June 2014, an article about left-wing politicians in a ‘plot’ to ditch the ‘Queen’.

Colin Fox, the Yes Scotland advisory board member and national spokesman for the Scottish Socialist Party condemns the decision to keep the ‘Queen’.

Republican plot to ditch the Queen after Yes vote

 

Scotland and The People’s Parliament are of the belief that should Scotland have a monarchy then it should be Scottish, not English/German.

How can we have any kind of true independence with an ‘English’ head of state and be continually referred to as ‘Her Majesties’ subjects?

This is why I find the entire campaign confusing and very frustrating.

Here we are, trying to free ourselves from the UK and yet willingly want to stay with another union (EU) be ruled and governed by them and have an English queen.

Is this the people of Scotland idea of independence?

Although many people are in favour of having Queen Lizzie as head of state, there are many more who do not.

But have the people of Scotland been given a choice on the subject?

No.

Has there been any sort of debate with the people of Scotland?

No.

Can you then explain why the ‘Yes’ campaign insist that ALL decisions will be made by the people of Scotland with independence?

They didn’t let you decide on the monarchy, the EU or central banking.

They didn’t ask you what ‘you’ wanted did they?

They made the decisions for you.

Didn’t they?

1779864_767137193311015_377490508_n

 

The Royal Family

To accept and retain Elizabeth Saxe-Coburg and Gotha (Nee Battenberg/Mountbatten) as head of state, would be the equivalent to accepting the mark of the beast.

Not only has ‘Queen Lizzie’ committed treason many times, including to uphold her ‘oath’, she also signed away our ‘sovereignty’ under the Lisbon Treaty, albeit forced to by Gordon Brown because he had signed the treaty so she was ‘constitutionally’ forced to follow suit.

Gordon Brown forced the treaty into law without the promised referendum.

We are no longer ‘Sovereign’.

We are British Europeans.

Landmark Case Could Stymie Legal System

Elizabeth was coronated on a fake stone in 1953 and thus
has never been lawfully crowned.

There are those who may wish to argue that this point is irrelevant, as Judge Jeffrey Vincent Pegden did at the trial, wrongly thinking the Coronation is just a ceremony because she has been pretending to be the monarch for over 58 years.

In actual fact the Coronation is a binding oath and a contract,
requiring the monarch’s signature.

At that Coronation ceremony, Elizabeth signed a binding contract,
before God and the British people, that she would do her utmost to
maintain The Laws of God.

This she solemnly swore to do, with her hand placed on the Sovereign’s Bible, before kissing The Bible and signing the contract.

Please note well that in The Law of God, found in the first five books of The Bible, man-made legislation is strictly prohibited.

The very first time that she gave “royal assent” to any piece of
man-made legislation, she broke her solemn oath with God and with the
British people and she ceased to be the monarch with immediate effect.

To date, she has broken her oath thousands and thousands of times,
which is a water-proof, iron-clad, undeniable FACT.

She is therefore without question not the monarch, but instead is a criminal guilty of high treason among her other numerous crimes.

Still want her to be the ‘head of state’?

Not only has she robbed this country blind, she claims the ‘seabed’ as her own.

In fact, it belongs to the ‘Monarch of the State’, the ‘crown’ regardless who sat on the throne.

She is also holding Scotland to ransom over the minerals and oil.

But that’s just the small stuff.

The ‘Royal’ family have been implicated in paedophilia many times.

Paedophile Jimmy Savile named members of the royal family in an interview with police, which have since been removed.

scotland

How is it so many paedophiles have been given OBE’s etc and have close links not only to the ‘royals’ but Jimmy Savile also?

The cover-up is immense.

They have also been implicated in child trafficking and murder.

Brandon Turbeville successfully linked proven British pedophile Jimmy Savile to Prince Charles. Conveniently, and follow Savile’s death, his heinous exploits against children were revealed. Among the tales include how he used to tour children’s hospitals and select children for his underground child sex ring. He and the Prince were exceptionally close. In fact, he served as a marriage counselor, of sorts, to Prince Charles. The connections between the two, as pointed out in the Turbeville article, are undeniable. After looking at the evidence, summarized by Turbeville, it is hard to not conclude that Prince Charles did indeed traffic in stolen children. Another royal family member, the Queen, is no stranger to child sex trafficking. – Dave Hodges The Common Sense Show

An interview on BBC Newsnight alleging that Westminster, the Royal Family, top judges and other high authorities have or are linked with the rape of many young boys some 20 years ago, some of which are still in power.

 

Why would anyone want to be associated in any way to anything ‘royal’?

Why would the people of Scotland wish to have such a family as head of state?

More to the point, why does Alex Salmond?

If you had a choice to vote: Scottish or English Monarch, which would you choose?

Vote now in our poll HERE

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/republican-plot-to-ditch-the-queen-after-yes-vote

http://www.thecommonsenseshow.com/2014/05/19/prince-charles-queen-elizabeth-and-pappy-bush-are-leaders-in-child-trafficking/

http://www.henrymakow.com/hill.html

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/52947/Sold-out-to-Europe-Brown-makes-Queen-sign-away-our-sovereignty

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Windsor

*If you feel that any of the information is wrong then please note there is a mountain of evidence to show otherwise. If you have any desire to report this article then please also report the thousands of other articles online. Burying your head in the sand won’t make the problem go away, nor will it make it un-true.

Scottish or English Monarch? (Poll)

249px-Royal_Crown_of_Scotland_(Heraldry).svg

 

In an independent Scotland is it not only right and sovereign to have a Scottish Monarch as head of state rather than an English one?

 

Alex Salmond has already made that decision for you, whether you agree or not.

The people of Scotland have not been given the choice.

What happened to ‘decisions will be made by the people of Scotland’?

Please read the latest article: Scottish Monarch or English in an Independent Scotland? before taking the poll.

In an independent Scotland, would you have a Scottish or English Monarch?

249px-Royal_Crown_of_Scotland_(Heraldry).svgThe Crown of Scotland is the crown used at the coronation of the monarchs of Scotland.

Remade in its current form for King James V of Scotland in 1540, the crown is part of the Honours of Scotland, the oldest set of Crown Jewels in the United Kingdom.

The crown dates from at least 1503 when, in an earlier form, it was depicted in the portrait of James IV of Scotland in the Book of Hours commissioned for his marriage to Margaret Tudor.

Full achievement of Arms as King of Scots Royal Coat of Arms of the Kingdom of Scotland used from the 12th century to 1603. Used by the Kings of Scots up until the Union of the Crowns in 1603 under King James VI & I, of Scotland and England.

Full achievement of Arms as King of Scots
Royal Coat of Arms of the Kingdom of Scotland used from the 12th century to 1603. Used by the Kings of Scots up until the Union of the Crowns in 1603 under King James VI & I, of Scotland and England.

‘Yes’ campaign wont answer simple question on NHS

The ‘official narrative’ of the Yes campaign in regards to Scotland’s NHS is that only a ‘Yes’ vote will protect it from privatisation.

 

This is simply not true and I have asked them via Twitter about the TTIP and Scotland’s NHS as waiting for an email reply takes seven days.

The question has been ignored. Twice.

TTIP  is a proposed free trade agreement between the European Union and the United States and another perfectly good reason to keep us free from the EU.

nhs on twitter yes campaign

nhs question to yes campaignThe question was also put to others.

NHS question on twitter

No response.

Scotland’s NHS is under threat from privatisation (read about it HERE) but the ‘Yes’ campaign is adamant that it is perfectly safe.

A recent article published on their website by Stuart McDonald: No party politicians confirm: England’s NHS privatisation hurts Scotland’s NHS too – ends the post with:

‘The implications could not be clearer. Only a Yes win will protect Scotland’s NHS from the knock-on effects of future cuts and privatisations in England.’ (link)

Yes it will, if we don’t re-join the EU and reject the TTIP.

But the ‘Yes’ campaign and many of their followers are all in favour of re-joining.

The rest of the article is about Labour MP’s warning how Scotland will be harmed due to privatisation.

There is no mention of TTIP.

‘Throughout, either Westminster has not thought about implications for NHS Scotland and the devolved health administrations in Wales and Northern Ireland, or has considered TTIP a covert vehicle for forcing the privatisation agenda.’ (TTIP and independence)

But the ‘Yes’ campaign will not answer any questions on anything that is not government ‘policy’ according to Graham Watson when asked about independence with an EU membership.

I am unable to provide information unrelated to government policy and therefore have nothing to add to my previous response. – Graham Watson Scottish Government.

How is EU membership unrelated to government policy?

As said previously, we will be ruled and governed by the EU even with independence if we ‘re-join’.

That is a fact.

This is not scare mongering and trying to put the fear of God in to Scottish voters, or try to influence their vote in any way.

But why won’t the ‘Yes’ campaign even acknowledge the TTIP and the real threat that it does pose for Scotland’s NHS?

Why don’t you try asking them?

What is TTIP?

The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) also known as the Transatlantic Free Trade Area (TAFTA) is a proposed free trade agreement between the European Union and the United States.

Proponents say the agreement would result in multilateral economic growth, while critics say it would increase corporate power and make it more difficult for governments to regulate markets for public benefit.

The U.S. government considers the TTIP a companion agreement to the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

After a proposed draft was leaked, in March 2014 the European Commission launched a public consultation on a limited set of clauses.

The TTIP free trade agreement could be finalised by the end of 2014.

The TTIP was set up behind closed doors.

Articles: 

‘TTIP will allow private companies to sue govt. for millions’

The lies behind this transatlantic trade deal

TTIP: 9 Risks Clegg And Farage Won’t Tell You About The US-EU Trade Deal

NHS privatisation: Compilation of financial and vested interests.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transatlantic_Trade_and_Investment_Partnership

http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/in-focus/ttip/

 

Scots won’t get independence from a Yes vote

The Scots have no way of keeping a UK link while extending the powers of the Scottish Parliament. This option would have won the day but thanks to David Cameron, it is not on offer

As continually reported on this site, Scotland will NOT gain any sort of independence from a ‘yes’ vote.

 

Vindicated?

I would say so.

An article in the Telegraph on 11th Sept: reads: Scots won’t get independence from a Yes vote – although written by Nigel Farage, it is there in black and white……the truth about Scotland’s independence.

I am no fan of Nigel Farage, or any other political party and their ‘leaders’, especially Alex Salmond, who is very aware that there will be no real independence or freedom but has failed to mention that we will be ruled and governed by the EU.

And just because it is from Farage, doesn’t make it any less true.

The problem for the Scots, though, is if they vote ”yes’’ next week, they will not get independence. Rather, they are voting for rule by Brussels. As Mr Cameron has brutally discovered, no EU member is truly independent.

“Better Together” cannot, of course, say this. To do so would be to admit how little freedom of action the UK retains. A Scotland outside the UK, but in the EU, can no more have its own trade, agriculture, fisheries, immigration, environment or justice policies than any other EU member.

This is where Salmond has not been open with the Scottish voters: he is not admitting the consequences of EU membership. These have a direct impact on people’s lives. –  Nigel Farage: The Telegraph

It isn’t very difficult to understand.

Quite simply, you can not have independence, be ruled by another country, have an English monarch and central banking.

That’s not independence.

However, some people’s idea of ‘independence’ is quite different.

As with one campaigner, who stated on Twitter that Europe was the way forward even after it was pointed out, that we would be ruled and governed by the EU.

From Twitter:

Independent Scotland on Twitter    wearescots  paulwheelhouse I trust the Scottish govt with these matters. Hence Yes for Indy.

 

 

I’m sure the lady was tickled pink when MSP Paul Wheelhouse RT’d and favoured her tweets.

I also doubt that she read the article in question given how quick she replied, nearly 2000 words and three videos and links are a lot to get through in five minutes.

You can read the article HERE

There are also mixed reports about Scotland’s EU status.

I’ve read that membership will continue uninterrupted and then a few days later read someone from the EU said that it would take five years to re-join, which is good news because hopefully in that time, the people of Scotland will have finally realised that they have been led up the garden path and keep us out of Europe.

At the risk of repeating, again, the EU make and implement  ALL UK LAW!

Even with independence, Scotland WILL still be RULED & GOVERNED by the EU!

The Bill of Right 1689:

And I doe declare That noe Forreigne Prince Person Prelate, State or Potentate hath or ought to have any Jurisdiction Power Superiority Preeminence or Authoritie Ecclesiasticall or Spirituall within this Realme Soe helpe me God.

In other words, we may not be ruled in any way, shape or form by any foreign entity.

Scotland’s NHS is also under threat of privatisation through the  Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP).

There is no opt-out for Scotland.

The ‘Yes’ campaign and Alex Salmond are not exactly being kosher with Scotland are they?

I wonder why that would be?

NHS UNDER THREAT FROM 2.87 min

By all means, vote for Independence, but do so with the intention, that if Scotland is FREE on the 18th September, it means going it alone.

No EU.

No English monarch.

No central banking.

Imagine.

Scotland wins independence.

But is ruled and governed by the EU.

And has an ‘English’ monarch as the head of ‘State’.

Oh the shame.

http://www.businessinsider.com/europe-ban-on-scotland-if-it-votes-for-independence-2014-7

http://www.yesscotland.net/news/expert-report-highlights-independent-scotlands-uninterrupted-eu-membership

 

 

Privatisation of the Scottish NHS: TTIP and independence

ttip-08

Neil Bennet (Sept 6, p 843)1 has given stark warnings about irrevocable future privatisation of the National Health Service (NHS) as a result of the proposed Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP).

 

This is an even more serious issue for Scotland, as people decide how to vote on its independence on Sept 18, 2014.

The Scottish NHS would inevitably be drawn into TTIP and privatisation, because the TTIP agreement is with the UK Government in Westminster.

There is no opt-out possible for the currently devolved Scottish NHS.

The planning behind UK involvement in TTIP appears to go back to Margaret Thatcher’s Centre for Policy Studies in the 1980s, designing reforms to open up public services for privatisation.2

Throughout, either Westminster has not thought about implications for NHS Scotland and the devolved health administrations in Wales and Northern Ireland, or has considered TTIP a covert vehicle for forcing the privatisation agenda.

Either way, Scotland has no voice in matters of great importance to its people. For the same reason, Plaid Cymru (Welsh party) has urged the UK Government to make the Welsh NHS exempt from TTIP.3

The NHS in Scotland is now very different from that in the rest of the UK.

It is increasingly under threat because of funding cuts from Westminster.

The plan for the UK to enter TTIP, without an opt-out clause for NHS Scotland, is symptomatic of the way Scotland has been treated in general, and an even more potent reason for Scottish people to be able to elect governments with full economic and bargaining powers through independence.

We declare no competing interests.

The Lancet

1 Bennet N. Health concerns raised over EU—US trade deal. Lancet 2014; 384: 843-844. Full Text | PDF(207KB) | PubMed

2 Reynolds L, McKee M. Opening the oyster: the 2010—11 NHS reforms in England. Clin Med 2012; 12: 128-132. PubMed

3 Anon. Party of Wales calls for NHS exemption from EU—US trade deal. http://www.partyofwales.org/news/2014/09/05/party-of-wales-calls-for-nhs-exemption-from-eu-us-trade-deal/?force=1#.VAmDLXzrGgQ.twitter. (accessed Sept 8, 2014).

(From Occupy London)

1. Health services, medical services (including midwifery and physiotherapy) and dental services are all included in the TTIP negotiations. We already knew this because we saw it with our own eyes in the EU’s draft offer to the USA that was uncovered last month. Indeed, Garcia Bercero’s letter acknowledges that health services are on the table. The only sector that has been excluded from the TTIP talks is audio-visual services, as a result of dogged insistence by the French. All other public services are in, and can be traded away for further liberalisation if the US negotiators so demand.

If David Cameron wished to exclude the NHS or any other public service from the negotiations, he could do as the French government has done. All that is needed for this to happen, as the British Medical Association (BMA) has demanded, is for no mention of health services to appear in TTIP at all. In reality, of course, it is Cameron’s government that has already opened up the NHS to private providers by means of the 2012 Health and Social Care Act. Why would he raise a finger to get it excluded from TTIP?

2. Garcia Bercero’s letter also confirms another key charge from opponents of TTIP: that the NHS is open to attack under the new investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) rules that TTIP would introduce between the EU and USA. For the first time, US corporations would be able to bypass our domestic courts and challenge our national health policy decisions before ad hoc arbitration tribunals, and to sue us for hundreds of millions of dollars in ‘damages’ as a result of future policy changes that might affect their bottom line. This is one clear mechanism that would prevent any future government from bringing the NHS back into public sector hands, as the cost of compensating private providers would render such a move instantly unattractive.

Garcia Bercero would like us to believe that future challenges to the NHS would be ‘unlikely’. Yet the Slovak Republic has already lost a multi-million dollar case under similar rules to Dutch insurance company Achmea for reversing the country’s earlier (and deeply unpopular) privatisation of health insurance. Tobacco giant Philip Morris is currently using ISDS provisions to sue the Australian government for billions of dollars over its new public health law that all cigarettes must be sold in plain paper packaging. Ken Clarke MP, the minister with responsibility for TTIP, has admitted that the UK could face exactly such challenges from US health corporations if the treaty goes through.

3. Garcia Bercero’s next argument invokes the safeguard on services supplied ‘in the exercise of governmental authority’ that was first introduced in the 1994 General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) and has become standard in other trade agreements since. Yet this safeguard is worthless in protecting public services in the modern era, as the definition of services supplied ‘in the exercise of governmental authority’ requires them to be supplied (a) not on a commercial basis, and (b) not in competition with any other service supplier. As trade experts have confirmed over many years now, the NHS does not qualify for this protection on either of the two counts.

4. This brings us to the final reason given by Garcia Bercero as to why we should not worry about the inclusion of public services in TTIP. Individual EU member states are still allowed to register their own special reservations for particular services in the liberalisation tables drawn up by the negotiators and submitted to the other side in the talks. Yet the UK government has entered such a reservation in TTIP for ambulance services only. Under TTIP, US health care companies would have the right to supply hospital services or social services.

International trade negotiations are deliberately complex, and this has long allowed officials to bamboozle the general public with impunity. Releasing Garcia Bercero’s letter into the public domain (it is available here) has allowed TTIP’s supporters to claim that the treaty poses no threat to the NHS. The opposite is true, and our struggle against TTIP continues as before.