The Scottish Government

Ardnafearn (1404) wrote a response to "1370", which was a message from me, and yet his "reply" bore no relation whatsoever to anything I actually wrote. Ardnafearn says "Now all is clear" - as clear as mud, to me. "It is something in the gift of Gordon Brown" - eh? Who says? "No matter what is said in this debate nothing could stop his government from including terms like his elusive '5 monetary principles for EU' as Chancellor, something he alone can decide, virtually power of veto" - what a load of rubbish! That could only happen if Alex Salmond and his colleagues ALLOWED it to happen. And even if they _wanted_ to allow Gordon to dictate terms (which I don't believe they do) they would only get away with allowing him to dictate if WE allow them to allow him to dictate. YOU might just shrug your shoulders and say "what can we do?", Ardnafearn, but some of us are made of sterner stuff.

To the parochial Londoner who cast us as beggars, please read this:
THE SOUTH FEAST.
When you dig down and add on the cash that is not included in the per capita amounts, you find that the SOUTH EAST U.K. is cushioned by billions of taxpayers money which pours into London from Scotland and the rest of the U.K.
Scotland’s budget administers a geographic area covering one third of the UK landmass.
The present figures per head are. N.I. £9385. Scotland. £8623. Wales. £8139. England. £7121.
These figures only take account of identifiable spending. ie. Money collated to the London account is monies that are spent specifically for the benefit of London.
The figures do not account for, thousands of Civil service jobs stuffed into London because it is “The Capital,” The Foreign Office-The MOD-Dept.of Health-Culture and Sport-The Treasury-The Home Office-MI5-MI6-and Westminster including The Lords, do not count towards the London per capita account as they are regarded as for the common good of the U.K. as a whole.
A massive public subsidy pouring into London that does not show up on the books. These agencies by their very existence create in their wake thousands of spin of industries businesses and job’s to service them. As Scotland is finding out.
Professor James Mitchell of Strathclyde University, there are billions spent on London that are never added to the account’s thousands and thousands of jobs centred in London simply because it is the capital of the U.K. These jobs are counted as part of the shared U.K. total, never added to the London spend. It doesn’t matter if it part of the common U.K. effort, you can’t pretend that all the investment in London is doing any good in Aberdeen or Devon.
The Millennium Dome, cost £789 million, almost twice as much as Holyrood, for what a white tent? Money plundered from the Lottery at the expense of the U.K..
The Olympics are already at £5bn. And will plunder the Lottery again, starving Scottish athletes of funds for development, and with Scotland forced into a U.K. team many Scottish athletes will never see Olympic fame as they would otherwise in a Scottish team.
The Jubilee rail link at £3.5bn. 3.5 times the estimate for a Forth crossing.
Scotland’s entire transport “allowance,” is £2.3bn.
The BBCs budget is £4bn. Half of the Scottish “allowance,” for health.
According to the BBCs annual report, 44,234 hours of TV were produced in London, compared to 2,495 in Scotland. They spent a tiny £106 million in Scotland out of a £505 million outside London. Leaving £3.5 billion INSIDE London, no wonder BBC Scotland is so utterly dire and pathetic.

Institutions classed as “National Resources,” do not count towards London Government spending. The National Gallery gets £26 million. National History Museum gets £45 million. The British Museum gets £45 million. The National Museum of Scotland is classed as “just for Scotland,” and gets £15 million per annum. Most of the UKs citizens will never visit these “national assets,” in London, as it is to expensive to travel and stay there.
The London Centric Scotlandphobic Union is a giant con and propaganda machine.
And then there is GERS which was compiled by Dr. Goudie was ordered by the Tory’s primarily to undermine the truth put forward by the SNP and many financial experts that Scotland was economically viable as an independent country. Dr. Goudie has urged politicians to treat GERS with caution as the figures used are pure mythology and propaganda, and have easily been discredited by many experts and the SNP. The chickens have come home to roost.

1370
Now all is clear then it is somehting in the gift of Gordon Brown whether or not to come up with an enabling act. No matter what is said in this debate nothing could stop his government from including terms like his elusive "5 monetary principles for EU" as Chancellor, something he alone can decide, virtually power of veto.

A number of contributors (eg Alan #1363, Mandy #1382) have commented that if Scotland became Independent that they would leave the country. Besides appearing somewhat flippant with these remarks, these ‘contributors’ appear oblivious of the fact that for many decades within the Union a large number of their fellow Scots have had no choice but to leave Scotland in order to further their career prospects. Never mind the many jobs directly associated with the Government in Westminster, even those in an industry such as Scotch Whisky find that they may have to go to London to gain more opportunities in marketing, sales, management, etc. Of course it is unfortunate that not everyone appears to share the ambition, optimism and vision for Scotland, apparently expressed by those advocating Independence, but if the doubters do truly believe that Scotland can't do better outside of the Union and that their children should not have more control over their destinies, then perhaps a move South may be best for all concerned. I suspect though that those proposing such a move, possibly somewhat tongue-in-cheek, are actually doing OK for themselves at present and therefore would prefer to maintain the 'status quo' irrespective of whether that is likely to be better in the long-term for their compatriots in general, or not!

Is it just me or are these polls over the last few weeks a bit odd?? 51% in favour of independence in Jan. then down to 31% then, recently, down to 23%! There's no way that people's opinions change like that in all seriousness! I'm a supporter of independence but Im quite happy to say that solid support of independence is probably between 30 to 40%. The good thing is that it DOESN'T mean that 60% to 70% are against independence which means that there is a large undecided proportion. Bring on the referendum!

To Sam post #1399. Re: The Preparations for One World Government

My previous post detailed some quotations about control of the issuance of credit (money). The international reserve banking system is connected with the UN organisation, the International Monetary Fund, which oversees coordination of monetary policy in 185 nations of the world.

This serves the interests of the international banking system, not the interests of the people of the nations. Perhaps the following quotations will illustrate what I mean:

"They [bankers] viewed national interests from the windows of the bank parlour. From their point of view, industry, commerce, agriculture, wages, employment, were but counters in the skilled game of international finance. They must be regulated to fit in with the monetary scheme. The monetary scheme must not be regulated to fit in with the needs and necessities of the world." The Money Revolution by Sir Charles Morgan-Webb, 1935.

"It was reported in a fund-raising letter from 50 Years Is Enough that Michel Camdessus, Managing Director of the IMF, in fact, told a group of U. S. religious leaders that he was willing to 'sacrifice a generation’ in order to realize the so-called benefits of the macro-economic model."

"That the fund-raising letter is credible is demonstrated by Camdessus's Structural Adjustment Program for Indonesia. First, a fifty per cent devaluation of currency which means Indonesians will pay a doubled price for imported goods; and second, a sixty per cent decrease in wages for Indonesian workers which will give them sixty percent less money to pay the doubled prices. Typical SAPs also require reduced government employment and reduced public services which creates unemployment, limiting medical, safety net, and educational services, and divestment of government run enterprises. Other requirements may be removal of any restrictions on capital movement in and out of the country and conversion of local life sustaining industry such as agriculture to cash crops for export to earn foreign currency to pay interest on debt. Food is then imported at high prices. The suffering visited upon the people sets off riots and violence which increases suffering and death."

As I mentioned in another post there is a deliberate strategy to form a North American Union underway in the United States under the rubric of the Security and Prosperity Partnership, an outgrowth of the North American Free Trade Agreement. Similar moves are taking place to form an Americas Union encompassing all the nations of South, North and Central America. These will all take many years to implement as has the EU but they will be implemented. The same is true of Asia, Oceania (shades of Orwell?), Africa and Arabia. The IMF is of course an arm of the United Nations and there are plans to integrate all the abovementioned Unions under the umbrella of the UN. It is no accident that the UN is viewed favourably by the majority of people in the UK. The image of respectability and trustworthiness has been carefully cultivated over many decades and even public exposure of its many egregious attributes has not dented this image.

Perhaps you can check out the websites below and see for yourself what is going on, out in the open.

There is also a wonderful book by C.S. Lewis called "The Abolition of Man" that I would recommend to anyone who is interested in the transformation of the people of the UK that has taken place in the past hundred years or so, through our education systems. It has produced what Lewis calls "trousered apes" and "suburban blockheads" with no understanding of WHY any object or action can be perceived as "beautiful" rather than "ugly" or "good" as contrasted with "evil". Such lack of discrimination prepares a people for enslavement.

http://www.africa-union.org/
http://asia-union.org/
http://arabian-union.org/
http://euro-union.org/
http://oceanic-union.org/
http://europa.eu/index_ns_en.htm
http://heal-the-earth.org/
http://protect-the-earth.org/
http://ec.europa.eu/external_relations/asia/index.htm
http://www.imf.org/

To Messrs. Steele, Coull and Sam.

Re: A Federal UK and the EU.

Following up on my previous posts on this subject I have found an excerpt from Konrad Adenauer's Memoirs, 1945-1953, that speaks to the Genesis of the EU and the thinking of its founders. The instigator was the French politician Robert Schuman whose ideas became known as the Schuman Plan. As you will see, the aim is the development of a European Federation.

Here is the excerpt:

"Blankenhorn handed me the letters in the cabinet room. One was a handwritten, personal letter by Robert Schuman. The other was an official covering letter for the project laid down in a memorandum which later became known as the Schuman Plan.

In essence Robert Schuman proposed to place the entire French and German production of coal and steel under a common High Authority within the framework of an organization that should be open to other European countries as well. Schuman explained that the pooling of coal and steel production would immediately provide for the first stage of a European federation, the immediate creation of a common basis for economic development, and for a comprehensive change in their development. The merger of the basic production of coal and steel and the establishment of an authority whose decisions would be binding for France, Germany, and the other member countries, would create the first firm foundations for the European federation which was indispensable for the preservation of peace.

In his personal letter to me Schuman wrote that the purpose of his proposal was not economic, but eminently political. In France there was a fear that once Germany had recovered, she would attack France. He could imagine that the corresponding fears might be present in Germany. Rearmament always showed first in an increased production of coal, iron, and steel. If an organization such as he was proposing were to be set up, it would enable each country to detect the first signs of rearmament, and would have an extraordinarily calming effect in France.

Schuman's plan corresponded entirely with the ideas I had been advocating for a long time concerning the integration of the key industries of Europe. I informed Robert Schuman at once that I accepted his proposal whole-heartedly."

So, there we have it in black and white. Why develop a federal system for the UK when we are already constituent states in a growing European Federation, by any other name? On the Europa website they say this is a matter of debate but they always say that. It is political speak for "we haven't achieved all our goals yet but we shall in due course."

As I have said before, my concern is not that these developments are taking place but rather that the true import of them has been kept hidden from the population at large by the politicians whose job it is to protect our interests. Ian Ross, in posts #1390 and #1391 gives some insights into the working of the eurocracy in Brussels.

My own view is that the larger the political entity the more remote from the people are the final decision making mechanisms. Power gravitates to the centre and power seeking men follow it. Once ensconced in control they develop further means to remain there and serve their own interests out of reach of the people they were elected to serve. There is nothing sinister about this, it is merely the outworking of all our less attractive natural inclinations. This has proven to be the case throughout all history.

If this wee country truly wants to be free of all these entanglements then we have to face the facts head on and come up with the best way to deal with them. Will we do this? Do we really want to be free? Or will we gladly trade our freedom for a measure of security. Will we continue down the path towards comfortable serfdom? We shall see.

No. 1395 David Robertson.
My experience within the EU has been mostly positive. I admire what the established individual states have done. As 99% of my dealings have been with ordinary working people leading much the same kind of life we lead here, I have attempted to explain in other posts what the majority of these people enjoy is a better standard of living than I currently see in Scotland. I am not talking about the groups who live in a bubble with lots of money, but the kind who leave for work and raise a family but don’t live in sink estates or whose kids never see their parents work.
From the conversations I have had they do not have much trust in the EU’s formal governmental set up but they do see the benefits that the single market has provided. I am leaving out Scotland here and only use it as a comparator. However I can not say that anyone that I have met has conjured up a possible World Government scenario in relation to the EU, therefore where do you see the possibility of this nightmare coming from as the people I am referring to as ordinary EU citizens would, unlike the sheep in this country, be more than just upset over this Orwellian suggestion.
I do agree with you over the proposed Federal system.
Mr A. Steel’s idea that we can learn from the mistakes of others is definitely worth consideration but first surely all of the present political establishment who form the Westminster crew would have to fade away as most are incapable of realising that they have made mistakes. I have never heard any one of them say this. I would welcome correction.

No 1390/1 Ian Ross
Once again I bow to your reasoning. Obviously you were at the coalface.
My understanding or lack of it is from the observation that I was making in my travels through the EU. I take your point about the powerlessnesss of states or individuals, but this is where it comes down to having the gumption to walk. Perhaps my simple understanding of ‘if you can not change something then walk’ is not seen as the way things are done, but it then falls to the individual to decide how he can live with his decisions.
Please do not take this as a criticism, but if I had your understanding of these cases where cash diplomacy was present then I would have found some way to let this be known. Certainly the effects of this kind of deal are not immediate and who in reality would find the minute of deals within deals as sexy. The problem, as we can both recognise, is the failing of our independent media to report anything other than 'irritating dross'.
I think we have suffered from lack of serious and affective representation for years. It seems to me that more and more Scots are very slowly beginning to understand this. Unfortunately it’s the dripping roast brigade who arrogantly believes they have a divine right to lead us no matter what the consequences. Therefore to my reasoning, if you carry the political will then the rest of the crew will follow. That includes the journalists, the advisers, the great and the good. But again, it is people who are aware of the machinations who should be informing by whatever means and perhaps this political will might succeed.
I bore people to distraction when I explain what I have seen and what is taken for granted in other parts of the EU. Some good, some bad, but overall I just ask people to look and then compare. I see the obvious non-take up of standards but I also see the way that Industry is encouraged, that ideas are discussed and are pushed to implementation. I see better health services, up to a point less control over our way of life. Much less CCTV. I see a far superior infrastructure. Especially when you compare the E road system with the stupidity of the E/A75, which it is the main feeder route to Northern Ireland yet, it is the only part of the route between Turkey and NI where tractors and horse drawn vehicles are allowed. In the 16 miles between the A74 and Dumfries there is only one point of just over a mile where you can safely overtake the convoys of lorries heading for the NI ferries. Yet not one of our local or national politicians will ‘kick up a fuss’ on this issue. They live with their priorities or what their parties tell them. They don’t walk. They don’t scream. They don’t shout. The gravy train rolls on.

If independence means taking charge of our own destiny here are some thoughts on who is really in charge:

"Permit me to issue and control the money of a nation and I care not who makes its laws." Mayer Amschel Rothschild

"The bank hath benefit of interest on all moneys which it creates out of nothing." William Paterson, founder of the Bank of England, c1694.

"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled." John Kenneth Galbraith.

"Whoever controls the volume of money in any country is absolute master of all industry and commerce." President James Garfield.

"Changes in the quantity of money may originate with actions of the Federal Reserve System (the central bank), depository institutions (principally commercial banks), or the public. The major control, however, rests with the central bank." Modern Money Mechanics, published by FRB Chicago, pg. 3.

"The real menace of our republic is the invisible government, which, like a giant octopus, sprawls its slimy length over our city, state and nation. At the head is a small group of banking houses generally referred to as international bankers. This little coterie of powerful international bankers virtually runs our government for their own selfish ends." New York Mayor John F. Hylan, c1922.

"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. Already they have raised up a money aristocracy that has set the government at defiance. The issuing power should be taken from the banks, and restored to the people." Thomas Jefferson.

"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered." Thomas Jefferson.

"Banking was conceived in iniquity and born in sin. Bankers own the earth; take it away from them but leave them with the power to create credit; and, with a flick of a pen, they will create enough money to buy it back again. Take this power away from them and all great fortunes like mine will disappear, and they ought to disappear, for then this world would be a happier and better world to live in. But if you want to be slaves of bankers and pay the cost of your own slavery, then let the bankers control money and control credit." Sir Josiah Stamp, Director, Bank of England, c1940.