University College London’s Institute for Security & Resilience Studies (ISRS)

The ISRS was founded in 2008 by former “New Labour” Defence Secretary, John Reid.

Reid was a key Blair ally in the run-up to the Iraq war deployment of British forces to Afganistan and earned the reputation as Blair’s ‘enforcer’.

He was appointed Home Secretary following Robin Cook’s resignation to ensure few others would follow suit.

Reid was known in Whitehall as ‘Minister for Newsnight’ for his skill in pushing the Bush/Blair line in media appearances.

The invasion of Iraq may well be remembered as ‘Blair’s war’, and not without some justification.

But there are many people who bear a great deal of responsibility for that criminal act. John Reid is one of them.

 

 

 

 

Blair, arms dealers & Britain’s universities

In November 2012, Tony Blair was the headline speaker for the inaugural conference of the (ISRS)

This was a departure from Blair’s recent public engagements, which were focused more on the religious community.

It is, however, perhaps more in tune with his employment by the government of Kazakhstan, who currently pay him £8 million a year to whitewash their human rights record.

In its corporate brochure, the ISRS presents itself more as a consultancy for hire than a serious academic endeavour.

Full of corporate jargon it offers services in “event driven scenarios” (war games) and securing an “authoritative media presence” (spin).

The ISRS sits alongside several other academic institutes and university groups up and down the country that have close links with arms companies and the military.

It reflects a trend in higher education to be active participants in legitimating imperial state power, not to mention providing subsidised research and much needed credibility for the arms industry.

One well known example of such a school is the Department of War Studies at King’s College London.

Department members Michael Goodman and David Omand (1) in 2007 wrote an article for one of the CIA’s in-house journals.

In it, they noted that following the Iraq invasion the British government felt the need to promote “greater professionalism in analysis” and commissioned King’s to develop a course that would “help to generate this sense of profession, albeit a virtual one.”

Note 1: Omand, a civil servant who was security and intelligence co-ordinator from 2002 to 2005. He was key in pursuing the late David Kelly (the top weapons inspector who spoke out against Blair’s claims that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction)  for talking to the media.

Other staff in the War Studies department include former foreign policy adviser to Blair, Lawrence Freedman, recently spotted as contender for most obscene appointment to the Iraq Inquiry committee.

The Centre for Studies in Terrorism and political Violence at St Andrews holds similarly dubious connections.

The private military company Janusian Security Risk Management Ltd was one of the first outfits to provide mercenary services in Iraq following the invasion, and boasted of:

“a unique collaboration with the Centre for the Study of Terrorism and Political Violence at the University of St Andrews, includ[ing] shared access to research, intelligence sources and databases, and the expertise of the Centre’s staff”

‘Academic expertise’ on questions of terror, war and ‘security and resilience’ is often far from an exercise in dispassionate inquiry.

As with government and the corporate world, there exists a revolving-door between the military, arms companies and certain parts of ‘respectable’ academia.

A look at the LinkedIn profiles of staff at the ISRS is revealing as to how it fits within this framework.

Before joining the ISRS as Research Manager, Mandeep Bhandal was at Lehman Brothers.

Chief Operating Officer Jas Mahrra previously co-founded consultancy Analytic Red LLP with propagandist Mils Hills.

Their clients included arms giant QinetiQ as well as various government defence agencies.

Director of Programmes Jamie MacIntosh was a research scientist for the MoD, before that serving in the Army with a final tour in Bosnia in 1993.

MacIntosh spoke representing the ISRS at the DSEi arms fair last year.

The problems are greater than a few individuals with interesting pasts.

Engineering departments around the country are quite nakedly in the business of doing basic research for weapons manufacturers.

Almost all the top UK universities take thousands of pounds from arms companies every year.

Between 2008 and 2011 of the 24 Russell Group universities just one, LSE, claimed not to receive military funding.

The rest between them received at least £83 million from arms companies and government military agencies.

Two “founding partners”helped launch the ISRS. They are Ultra Electronics and EADS. Both, as you might expect at this point, are in the defence industry.

Ultra Electronics is a big player in the drone business, specialising in the video-game like controllers that drone operators use to fly the machines.

Ultra are also working on a newer type of weapon called “loitering munitions”.

These hover above a target area for up to ten hours waiting for an enemy to wander underneath, before plummeting to the ground to incinerate whatever is below.

As with the other drone programs in Afghanistan and Pakistan, we are sure to be told that only “militants” are targeted or killed in these attacks.

So expect to see the definition of “terrorist activity” include ‘walking underneath loitering munitions’, should this technology see deployment.

Another of Ultra’s flagship products is the ‘HyperSpike’, and is a competitor to the better known ‘LRAD’.

In a promotional video it is marketed as a “mass notification device”.

Another use to the “everyday warfighter” is as a mass torture device.

The HyperSpike is a sonic weapon capable of blasting high-pitched noises over long distances, causing extreme pain and potentially lasting damage to those in its path.

Sonic weapons like this are increasingly deployed by US police forces to attack demonstrators. Ultra are also active in cyber warfare equipment and services.

EADS is the other founding partner. EADS is a partner in the Eurofighter programme, helped produce nuclear weapons for the French government, and through a partnership with BAE Systems and Finmeccanica, developed the ‘Storm Shadow’ cruise missiles used to bomb Iraq in 2003.

More recently, EADS (though subsidiary GPT) has been accused of paying bribes of £14.5 million to dignitaries in Saudi Arabia between 2007 and 2010, in order to secure lucrative arms deals there.

The payments were made to two companies registered in the Cayman Islands, Simec International and Duranton International.

According to Exaro News, the three executives at GPT who signed off on the bribes are Malcolm Peto, Jeff Cook and Laurence Bryant.

Cook previously worked for the Ministry of Defence. Along with Peto he authorised cheques to pay for luxury cars for two Saudi commanders, Mohammed bin Khalid al-Nahed — head of the signal corps of the Saudi national guard — and his deputy, Abdul Rahman bin Abdullah al-Ayaddi.  Two civilian advisers also received new cars.

In a development that will shock no one, officials at the MoD are said to have known about the offshore payments, but have done nothing.

Simec is named in a recently leaked MoD memo from 1976 discussing “agency fees” paid to secure Saudi deals.

It would thus appear that Saudi officials have been receiving payments through the same company — one based in British territory — for a staggering 36 straight years.

The other mysterious Cayman company, Duranton, was recently reported by the Telegraph as intending to sue GPT for breach of contract, after GPT terminated their agreement. Some world we live in if you can sue for failure to pay bribes.

The Serious Fraud Office is now supposedly investigating GPT over the payments.

The last time the SFO investigated an arms company over bribery in Saudi Arabia was when BAE Systems were accused (amongst other misdeeds) of paying Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan hundreds of millions of pounds in bribes.

The Right Honourable Tony Blair forced the SFO investigation to be dropped so as not to embarrass the House of Saud, or as he would put it ‘endanger Britain’s national security’. Small wonder then that he topped the bill for the symposium.

Those speaking alongside include Blair include John Browne (of tuition fee trebling fame), Michael Gove (“one of the Cabinet’s most original thinkers”) and, um, Ross Kemp.

It is a disgrace that Blair should show his face anywhere in public, least of all in a place of learning.

The damage this conference will do, indeed has already done, to the reputation of higher education only compounds that of the gross involvement of the arms industry. (Stop the War Coalition)

 

 

What is State Capture?

Transparency International, the anti-corruption watchdog, defines it as:

“a situation where powerful individuals, institutions, companies or groups within or outside a country use corruption to shape a nation’s policies, legal environment and economy to benefit their own private interests”.

An online search of ex-New Labour ministers career choices after moving on from government reveals a disturbing pattern. Many have taken up positions with major weaponry manufacturers.

Former Foreign Secretary, the late Robin Cook said of his time in office that he:

“came to learn that the chairman of BAE appeared to have the key to the garden door to number 10.  Certainly I never knew No 10 to come up with any decision which would be incommoding to BAE.”

As well as employing in-house lobbyists, BAE Systems also employs a lobbying agency called Portland PR.

Many of Portland PR’s staff have worked at the upper echelons of both Labour and Conservative governments.

Portland Communications Ltd is a political consultancy and public relations agency set up in 2001 by Tim Allan, a former adviser to Tony Blair and Director of Communications at BSkyB. Portland provides communications and public affairs advice to brands and high-profile individuals. Portland’s website states:

“Our team is recruited from the highest levels of the media, politics and government.”

In 2016, political blog The Canary alleged that Portland staff were behind the orchestration of a “coup” against, Jeremy Corbyn, after a wave of mass resignations from his front bench. Len McCluskey of British and Irish trade union Unite told Andrew Marr on his Sunday morning programme:

“I’m amazed that some of the MPs have fallen into a trap.”

Referring to Portland Communications as:

“a sinister force”

McCluskey said:

“This is a PR company with strong links to Tony Blair and right-wing Labour MPs who’ve been involved in this orchestrated coup, and the coup has failed”.

Gordon Brown and new Labour Embraced the Practice

During his 10 years as Chancellor of the Exchequer and then as Prime Minister and First Lord of the Treasury, Gordon Brown cultivated a carefully crafted reputation as a prudent politician and trustworthy custodian of the public purse. Indeed, such was his penchant for using the word ‘prudence’ that political journalists took to playing a fun game of counting the number of times it was mentioned in his budget speeches, and then comparing it with appearances in previous deliveries at the despatch box – to gauge his commitment to balancing the books. Some even jokingly suggested that Prudence was the name of his girlfriend, who had been kept out of the public eye. Either way, managing the nation’s finances is no joke and Brown’s record in office, as a fiscally prudent politician, does not tally with the evidence. In his autobiography My Life, Our Times, Brown discusses among other things the financial crises, his economic record and that fateful promise made by Tony Blair. Not surprisingly, there is no mention of one of most disgraceful actions of his government. It concerns state-sponsored protectionism, blatant favouritism and failure to install genuinely independent regulators. This shameful episode, which marred Brown’s time in office, relates to the procurement of military equipment.

New Labour Government Procurement Policy in Practice

What has been clear for many years is that, public subsidies handed out to defence equipment manufacturers over several decades, is the reason why they have failed so miserably, to deliver equipment to the Armed Forces which is fit for purpose, adequately sustained in-service and constitutes value for money through-life. In the UK, as in many western countries, the means of defence production, distribution and exchange is exclusively in the hands of private interests, that is to say, the State is entirely dependent on for-profit organisations for the design, development, manufacture and delivery of new military equipment to the Armed Forces. Consequently, the government has no choice but to rely on the Private Sector for all its military equipment needs, including its subsequent upkeep when in-service with the user. The harsh reality is that, no department of state in Whitehall is as dependent on the Private Sector, as is the Ministry of Defence – putting it at serious risk of capture by private interests (if it hasn’t already been) which allows them to bend policy to their will, as it relates to the expenditure of public funds. Equally, these private interests are entirely dependent upon a steady flow of taxpayer funds for their very survival – no least, because they have not bothered to diversify at all. It may be that senior executives seconded from the defence industry and embedded within the Ministry of Defence, who remain in the pay of their employers, may have something to do with this skewing of spending decisions, to favour their narrow commercial interests – at the expense of taxpayers and the national interest.

Secret Deals

Consider the case of the Terms of Business Agreement on naval shipbuilding, signed by the Brown government with BAE Systems during the dying days of the 2005-10 Parliament, which left the incoming administration no room for manoeuvre at all, as it set about undertaking a comprehensive Strategic Defence & Security Review – for the first time in 12 years. In fact, this agreement was signed in secret, in 2009, precisely because it locked the government into an appallingly poor 15-year contract laced with a punitive get-out clause which, if made public at the time, would have attracted criticism and negative publicity in the press and media during the run-up to the 2010 general election, potentially swinging the result in favour of the other party. The existence of the TOBA was only revealed to Parliament in 2011 by the Cameron-led coalition government, when it was confronted with the undeniable truth that MoD finances were in pretty bad shape and needed to be declared publicly, to garner public support for deep cuts in the defence budget that ensued.

Lack of Fiscal Prudence

It is an open secret that the even the most fiscally prudent people in government are prone to softening their hard-line stance just before a general election, when they are up for re-election, which makes them more likely to open-up the public purse. Equally, defence contractors are aware of this weakness in top politicians and will take full advantage, by surreptitiously intensifying their lobbying efforts in cahoots with labour trade unions, to apply political pressure spliced with threats of massive lay-offs, timed to coincide with the electoral cycle, to relieve politicians of taxpayers’ money and maximise their take – which is exactly what happened with this TOBA. So, instead of exposing defence equipment manufacturers to the full rigours of the free market, that is, not shielding them from “feeling the heat” of competitive market forces, the Brown government chose to engage in protectionism and favouritism by handing out uncontested, long-term shipbuilding contracts worth billions of pounds – with virtually no checks and controls, or even guarantees.

Summary and the Way Ahead

People at the Ministry of Defence are, without exception, favourably disposed towards the defence industry because they are completely dependent upon it for their subsequent career choices (via the revolving door), when their time in public service comes to an end, or their employment contract is terminated abruptly by political edict. Indeed, it is very hard to find anyone at MoD who will aggressively defend taxpayers’ interests once they have enjoyed a cosy relationship with contractors. It is fair to say that they certainly know which side their ‘bread is buttered’! It is precisely to overcome this disastrous state of affairs that the government should set the objective of pulling back from the defence equipment market and allow the Private Sector to take-over, so that it can make the necessary capital allocation decisions for itself, as it relates to the development of its own products – instead of continually looking to intervene in the market with public funds which, as history has shown, will always be squandered. An innovative proposal on how to go about eliciting Private Sector investment capital in defence procurement programmes was set out in a written submission to the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee, which reported on its inquiry into Industrial Strategy in the last Parliament. It introduces a modern Defence Industrial Strategy that puts financial security and the national interest first, not military equipment manufacturers’ commercial interests.

Composed by Jag Patel

The pdf copy of the paper can be downloaded from here: http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/business-innovation-and-skills-committee/industrial-strategy/written/36606.pdf

And the Arms dealers have wormed their way into UK Schools and Colleges

In allowing the arms trade into schools and colleges we are teaching children that innovation for the sake of destruction is acceptable. Private arms companies and government-owned military organisations have wormed their way into the British education system. Global arms companies have links with many UK Universities; investing in research programmes, poaching recent graduates and funding new buildings.

But these links stretch further than this into our education system, as weapons manufacturers also invest their time and money into schools across the country. Raytheon, an American weapons and cyber security company with multiple UK sites, holds an annual “Quadcopter Challenge” in which children are encouraged to design the best drone they can. Billed as a means for the company to ‘invest in its future workforce’ by promoting STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) subjects, this programme reached over 1,000 teenagers nationwide in 2018 with the full backing of the Westminster government. Pushing STEM subjects is most common amongst private arms manufacturers and government-funded military organisations; QinetiQ and BAE Systems each boast various outreach programmes. In 2017, BAE partnered up with the Royal Navy and the RAF to visit 420 schools with a workshop designed to encourage the uptake of science and maths amongst 10-13 year olds. That year, BAE Systems also joined forces with the Royal Navy, QinetiQ and the University of Portsmouth to open a college. Portsmouth’s University Technical College (UTC) allows students to complete GCSEs and further educational qualifications in STEM subjects, whilst giving them ‘regular engagement’ with ‘employers and partners’. These partners include the likes of Airbus, who build the fighter jets used by Saudi Arabia in the war on Yemen; and BAE Systems, who produced the missiles used by the UK in its bombing of Syria. In addition to encouraging young children and teenagers to take up sciences, dozens of universities from Southampton to Sheffield are making millions of pounds from arms industry investment. The University of Cambridge, for example, received £13.7m from private arms companies between 2008 and 2011. The University of Sheffield was also funded £13.7m during this period, along with Imperial College London, which was granted over £16m between 2008 and 2017. BAE Systems in particular has a vested interest in British higher education. Southampton, Strathclyde, Manchester, Cranfield and Birmingham are five “strategic partner universities”, which have all signed long-term partnership deals with BAE to be ‘mutually productive’.  Recently, the company handed out awards to PhD students from each of these institutions for various research projects. The overall winner was a project from the University of Strathclyde that developed new technology for detecting far away targets. The company responsible for the deaths of thousands of innocent Yemenis through the selling of arms to the Saudi-led Coalition, is being facilitated by universities and students across the country. BAE took on 700 apprentices in 2019 and boasts that it is ‘one of the biggest UK supporters of education’ that has links to ‘approximately 100 universities’ worldwide. It remains unclear if this commitment to education extends to the two million Yemeni children who can’t go to school because of the war BAE Systems is helping wage. These companies gloat that by promoting STEM subjects they are pioneering a better, safer future. The arms industry puts on a front of humanity and tells us that the good work it does in this country outweighs the destruction it unleashes overseas.  This is simply not the case. By allowing the arms trade into schools, colleges and universities, we are teaching children that innovation for the sake of destruction is acceptable and desirable. There is only a small leap between teaching schoolchildren to make toy drones and getting graduates to build real ones. (Stop the War coalition)

 

 

 

 

The terrible truth about Gordon Brown’s criminal miscalculations – A devastating indictment of his time as Chancellor and Prime Minister.

Now available, figures of the “New labour” Government spending before and during the recession, and Government losses since the recession began expose the total cost of Gordon Brown’s mishandling of the economy topped an eye-watering £3 trillion.

 

 

The shocking truth about Brown’s overspending since 1997, shows that:

• Since 1997 around £1.5 trillion of taxpayers’ money was squandered on an acceleration in profligate government spending fuelled by an unsustainable economic boom; and around another £1.5 trillion simply evaporated in the inevitable bust
• Government spending more than doubled in real terms since 1997 to the extent that even if a future government tried to trim spending by 5 or 10%, it will take many years, probably even decades, to bring the economy back under control, and this could cost upwards of a further £1 trillion 
• Gordon Brown took public spending to a level similar to that of the governments of Harold Wilson and James Callaghan – when the country went bankrupt  after Callaghan increased spending as a percentage of GDP to almost 50% forcing Britain to go to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) for a bailout, which was granted on condition that the then Labour government would make significant reductions in public spending.
• Brown’s failure (as both PM and Chancellor) to tackle the public-sector pensions time-bomb means that the projected future costs of public-sector pensions  will rise from around £360 billion in 1997 to around £1.2 trillion.

 

 

Westminster Governance of the economy is corrupt

Dumping the electorate in the deepest recession in Britain since the Great Depression, the horrifying mistakes, jaw-dropping incompetence and widespread greed and malpractice in Whitehall and the City of London cost British taxpayers over £3 trillion –A pile of banknotes higher than the House of Commons.

Extracted from “Fleeced!” co-authored by Matthew Elliott, CEO of the TaxPayers’ Alliance and David Craig, author and management consultant

 

 

 

Statement by:

Matthew Elliott, Founder and Chief Executive of the TaxPayers’ Alliance said:

‘It would be easy to dismiss the figure of £3 trillion as being too big to contemplate or unreasonably high, but to do so would be to ignore the sheer scale of the financial disaster that twelve years of Gordon Brown’s tax-a-lot and spend-more policies have done to the British economy.

‘In the light of our analysis, £3 trillion is actually a best possible scenario. We hope that Fleeced! finally ends Gordon Brown’s oft repeated and frankly slanderous claim that Britain’s credit crunch began in the United States.

Had this Government not spent at levels far beyond our means while the economy was booming, the UK would have been in a much better condition to withstand the collapse in the US markets.’

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Reverend v Ms Dugdale

Extracts from the judgement are entered below together with comments as necessary setting out the judgement was in favour of The Reverend.

Sheriff Ross

Ms Dugdale denied that she intended to go beyond criticising the tweet itself. She said she did not intend to label the author.

Her intentions, however, do not resolve matters.

The test is not what the writer intended, but what the reasonable reader would think, and is an objective question of law.

In my view the reasonable reader would inevitably conclude that the meaning of the article, as a reasonable, natural or necessary interpretation of its terms, was that Mr Campbell, and not just his tweet, was homophobic.

That is unavoidable because of the language used, including:

“a pro-independence blogger’s homophobic tweets”;

“twitter tirade against David Mundell”;

“face abuse because of their sexuality”;

“such comments are, of course, not unique to the man who tweets as Wings over Scotland”

“someone who spouts hatred and homophobia towards others”.

The “man” is clearly identifiable as Mr Campbell, and the reference is to more than one tweet, and to an apparent practice of spouting hatred and homophobia. It is not possible fairly to read this as referring only to a single tweet, restricted to a jibe about fatherhood.

In sporting terms Ms Dugdale, whether intentionally or not, played the player, not just the ball. During her evidence she appeared eventually to accept that was so.

Comment: A soccer player tackling an opponent “studs up” would be red carded immediately.

The article did bear a defamatory meaning.

 

 

 

 

 

Sheriff Ross

No doubt Ms Dugdale does not like Mr Campbell and what he does, but I accept her evidence that the article was motivated by genuine dismay at what she understood the tweet to mean and not by malice.

My comment:

But the judge misjudged Dugdale’s intent. At the time she wrote the article for her column in the Daily Record she was working to a contract as a political correspondent committing her to submitting up to six briefs for political discussion. Her written attack on the Reverend reveals malice aforethought revealed by her own words given in her defence to the Judge.

Ms Dugdale

“The purpose in writing the article, and in subsequently raising the issue in the Scottish Parliament, was to discuss the damage done by such material, that it is poisonous to political debate, and that the SNP should not encourage it.”

My comment: So it wasn’t about the reverend after all. It was a thinly veiled attack on the SNP!!!!!!

 

 

 

 

Sheriff Ross  – Amount of damages, had they been awarded

In my view, Mr Campbell cannot be described as someone who has lost all value in his public reputation. There is no evidential basis to conclude that, in the two years since the article, he has lost any influence, reputation or credibility as either a social media commentator or as a campaigner for equal rights.

There was no evidence of loss of followers, loss of opportunity, diminished influence or of outrage amongst the public (other than the customary exchange of robust views on his twitter feed).

There is no proven loss of reputation of any type. There is therefore no basis for an award for anything other than wounded feelings.

When it comes to valuation of Mr Campbell’s distress, I do not accept that he can hold others to a higher standard of respect than he is willing himself to adopt.

He has chosen insult and condemnation as his style. He has received these in return.

To use defence counsel’s analogy, having entered the political arena with a quiver of poisoned arrows, to receive an arrow in return might be seen as no more than collateral damage, not an unjust wound.

I do not accept that he can dismiss the feelings or reputations of his opponents cheaply, but receive a high valuation of his own.

Had I been awarding damages, those damages would have been assessed at £100

My comment: So there you have it. The Reverend won.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The  Tory Government the BBC and the Pensioners

The BBC licence fee was frozen throughout the period of austerity following the worldwide financial meltdown.

In 2015, the Corporation claimed to be in deep financial trouble and pleaded to be allowed to increase the licence fee for all subscribers.

The corporation, in 2015, negotiated a deal, with the Tory government permitting increases to the annual compulsory subscription charge to the UK taxpayers.

The revised contract between government and the BBC contained a rider that the corporation would absorb the cost of free licence provision for pensioners over the age of 75, until after the General Election, (June 2020).

The cost of providing free licence fees for pensioners over the age of 75 was previously charged to “Welfare” expenditure and Chancellor Osborne had imposed a £12 billion expenditure ceiling on the department.

The BBC agreed to contain the (time limited) estimated £700 million annual cost, anticipating in return, it would be given free rein over setting the level of the annual licence fee.

Their projection was that a fee of around £200 per annum would need to be charged to the taxpayers (after June 2020) offsetting the cost of maintaining free licences for pensioners over the age of 75.

 

 

Noteworthy is the introduction of the 2011, 5 year fixed term Parliament Act, retaining the Tory Party, in government, from 2015 until until May 2020, thereby setting the date of any change to June 2020.

Cameron and Osborne screwed the deal by resigning in 2016, handing the reins of power to Theresa May who called for a snap General Election in that same year. The Tory Party was returned to power, with the dubious support of the Ulster Democratic Unionist Party.

The next General Election is scheduled for May 2022 and it was proposed that the concluding the commitment the Tory Government and the BBC entered into in 2015, should be deferred until after May 2022.

But Jeremy Wright, the current Tory Party, Culture Secretary refused to become involved stating: “The decision is not for the government to make any longer. It is for the BBC to make”.

 

 

The fiasco has been a well planned orchestration of events by the Tory Party, transferring the momentum of change away from government to the taxpayers, who will need to decide if they are content to subsidize, (through their annual subscription), the continuance of free licences to pensioners over the age of 75. Likely annual fee in excess of £200.

Meantime BBC management are beavering away preparing the Corporation for a backlash from the taxpayers, who, it is expected will demand a major restructuring of the Corporation meeting the challenges of Netflix, Amazon Prime, etc.

 

 

See my other recent posts:

https://caltonjock.com/2019/03/02/my-attempt-to-unravel-just-a-little-bit-of-the-tangled-web-of-deceit-spun-by-the-bbc-300m-plus-scottish-licence-fee-money-routinely-handed-over-to-commercial-concerns-controlled-by-tax-avoiding-bermuda-based-conglomerates/

https://caltonjock.com/2019/03/01/media-provision-through-the-eyes-of-the-welsh-devolution-has-demonstrated-just-how-british-the-bbc-is-and-it-is-probably-unreasonable-to-expect-that-it-can-evolve-into-an-organisation-that-can-truly-service-the-nations-of-the-UK.

 

 

 

 

 

 

2003: International Monetary Fund Call for Chancellor Brown Not to abandon “Prudence” Policies

Gordon Brown was warned by the International Monetary Fund that his borrowing and spending gamble on public services may be going to waste.

In a damaging blow to his recently announced Chancellor’s tax-and-spend strategy,  the IMF said he was being too confident that a rebound in tax revenues will allow him to steer the nation’s finances back into the black.

Mr Brown also unveiled plans last week to borrow an extra £34 billion over five years to keep his spending plans intact.

But the IMF called on him to make early cuts in his plans to put the nation’s finances on a surer footing. It said that the sharp increases in spending on the NHS and teaching carried the “risk of inefficiencies.”

Brown ignored the warning and forged ahead believing he knew better.

The Health Service did indeed gain the benefit of loadsamoney but this was  not properly invested due to the poor negotiating skills of the Health Secretary, John Reid who squandered the bulk of the new money through massive salary increases (while largely maintaining existing terms and conditions of service) in medical staff and other management fields.

New Labour, under Brown’s financial stewardship appeared to be atop the “crest of the financial wave.”

Brown’s strategy needed the economy and tax receipts to remain buoyant,  they didn’t and borrowing increased further between 2003-2007 placing the UK economy at greater risk of a financial downturn for which the country’s finances were ill prepared.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Austerity-An unnecessary Hardship Imposed on Scotland By Westminster nefarious Spivs

In 2008, Northern Rock, RBS, HBOS and other UK banking institutions seemed destined to fail, largely due to criminal behavior.

80% of losses were attributed to their London and foreign based businesses.

The Westminster government intervened and bailed out the banks.

But in doing so Alistair Darling and Gordon Brown lumbered Scots with repayment of massive debt, added to with extortionate interest charges.

The UK government’s bail out had also lead to the reclassification of  banks as  “public sector assets.”

In consequence public sector liabilities increased from 126% of GDP to 335% of GDP  between 2007 and 2009.  Over 200% !!!!!!!!!!

 

 

 

The UK National Debt

The UK national debt is the total quantity of money borrowed by the Government of the United Kingdom through the issue of securities by the British Treasury and other government agencies.

At the beginning of 2018 UK debt amounted to £1.78 trillion, or 86.58% of total GDP, at which time the annual cost of servicing (paying the interest) amounted to around £48 billion (roughly 4% of GDP or 8% of UK government tax income).

Approximately a third of this debt is owned by the British government due to the Bank of England’s quantitative easing programme.

The debt equates to approximately £40,000 per employed person.

The knock on effect is that each household in Britain pays an average of around £2,000 per year in taxes to just to finance the interest payments.

At the start of 2018  an assessment of the UK’s assets and liabilities indicated that the UK public finances to be among the weakest in the world. Just behind Gambia, Uganda and Kenya.

It was also revealed that around £1 trillion had been wiped off the wealth of the UK’s public sector since the financial crisis, putting it in the second weakest position of the 31 nations assessed. Only Portugal’s public finances were in a worse state.

National debt increased significantly (2010-2015) under the Tory/LibDem coalition government .

The present Tory government has not reversed the trend.  The national debt increased (by £46 billion in 2017) and the chancellor gave up the ghost of forecasting a time when structural debt would be eliminated.

Scots might be lumbered with it forever or until independence is gained

 

 

 

Quantitative Easing (QE)

The start point was with the Bank of England Governor who, (acting on instructions from the Chancellor Alistair Darling),  by sleight of hand created £435bn digital new money.

This, “funny money” finance was then used by the bank to compulsory purchase bonds from controlled resources within the UK.

The real money gilts purchased were then used to bail out the banking sector preventing the failure of the banking sector.

Pension funds were subject to the asset stripping and they want their money back!!!!. but their is no indication of this from the government.

 

 

 

 

Drawbacks of Quantative Easing (QE)

The practice was first implemented, in 2008, in an attempt by the Bank of England to  buy time so that new financial strategies could be put in place.

But the crisis was created through the public taking up offers of low interest payments and easy credit and excessive borrowing for mortgages.

Nothing much has changed in the banking sector since 2008 and in consequence the practice of QE  may need to be retained which brings negative consequences for Scots.

The UK economy is headed for another financial crisis.

 

 

 

What about criminality? 

The banking system including, hedge fund investors, staff and management were not subjected to any formal police or public enquiry with result that it continued operating almost completely unaffected.

No UK banker ever faced criminal behaviour charges.

Bonus schemes were retained and in many cases expanded and London’s financial hub has enjoyed many years of good living at the expense of the Scottish taxpayer.

Adding insult to injury not long after the financial crisis, the UK loaned Ireland £20 billion, (at a knock-down rate of interest) proving that bailing out banks–like reinsurance–is a risk which is global in nature and shared between countries.

In a statement, seeking understanding of his decision to, “prop up” the Irish economy George Osborne, UK Chancellor said, “Ireland is our very closest economic neighbour and we must assist.”

 

 

 

In the aftermath of the crisis, Bank of England officials claimed the UK Chancellor had botched the banking bailout and the Bank would never be able to recover all of the loans let alone match the performance of the US Federal Reserve which reported a $billions profit (out of the crisis). No austerity for the American public.

Sir Mervyn King, Governor of the Bank of England, said: “The sad truth is, in 2008, the idea of focusing efforts on recapitalizing the banking system was a UK idea. We got there first but, like many UK ideas, the Americans developed it much faster and much better.”

The US forced all major banks to take Federal Reserve money, purchasing substantial stakes at around “half their book value.”

The Bank of England, directed by Brown and Darling, acting against the bank governor’s advice, purchased similar financial stakes, but at “full book value.”

A Treasury source later said: “The Government judged that without a taxpayer injection the banks would have collapsed, with consequences for financial stability and people’s money, and it judged that was an unacceptable risk to take.”

 

 

 

But the Westminster government had bailed out banks with global operations and the former chairman of RBS, Sir Philip Hampton,(retd) in November 2012, in his evidence to the House of Lords reminded was very clear that bankers:

Had used many countries central banks as lenders of last resort for many operations in jurisdictions in which they operate.

This is a key part of what central banks do in the jurisdictions that they control.

Just because there might be an independent Scottish Government did not mean that all lender of last resort facilities would disappear. They would be continued.

This also works when a country has a banking and a fiscal union, as in the UK.

The Bank of England would provide “bank of last resort” support to Scotland, if needed.

But should difficulties arise with the foregoing arrangements the final fall-back position (assuming Scotland retained membership of the EU) would be for Scotland to seek assistance from their EU partners.

Requests simply require a majority vote in favour, but the decision is binding on all EU members.

Provision of financial support would not be breaking new ground since this is exactly what happened when Ireland, Spain, Portugal and Greece were extended “bank of last resort” backing from the EU and the Bank of England donated its £20 billion share.

In the last “face to face” with Alex Salmond, in the 2014 Independence Referendum campaign, Alistair Darling, accepted Scotland had every right to use sterling and this would not need the authority of the Bank of England.

The mendacious “mantra of fear” propaganda of “Better Together” that the Bank of England, would not provide a “lender of last resort” facility to Scotland was scurrilous myth.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Gordon Brown Duped His Mugs-R- US Party and Conned Scots For Years

Scots would be well advised to remember the 2014 Independence Referendum and Brown’s heavily promoted (by the BBC, who also provided him a prime time 2 hour slot) address to a group of pensioners just before their weekly bingo session during which he took the level of Better Together’s negativity and scaremongering to a new level.

Repetitive and lacking in credibility he trotted out unsubstantiated scare story’s, previously voiced by Ruth Davidson, about pensions.

It was surprising that Brown chose to speak about pensions, given his appalling record first as Chancellor then as Prime Minister.

Setting the record straight, it was the 1979 Tory Government that systematically reduced the long term value of the state pension by abolishing the link between the state pension and earnings.

New Labour had the chance to reverse the punitive strike against the poorest pensioners in Europe. But failed to do so.

Instead, rubbing salt to the wounds Brown introduced the notorious “pension stealth tax” further reducing the value of pensioners retirement funds by at least £100 billion.

Mocking the electorate in 2000, he then had the temerity to announce that “New Labour” would be be assisting the “poorest” pensioners increasing the state pension by a massive 75p (before tax).

Scots should ignore lying economists. In an independent Scotland pensions will be paid in full and on time, just as they are now.

Scotland is also much better placed to afford pension plan costs than the UK as a whole.

This is evidenced by the fact that expenditure on social protection, which includes pensions, was lower in Scotland than the UK over the last decade.

In all 42% of Scottish tax revenues are spent on social protection in comparison with 43% for the UK.  And 1% is a whole lot of money.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

BBC News & current affairs presenters biased against Scottish Independence

A video was released on UTube casting significant doubt on the willingness and ability of the BBC to cover Scottish independence campaigners in an impartial manner.  The leaked videos featured in-house presentations by four senior BBC presenters giving explanatory background briefings to an audience of junior BBC staff.

The presenters, including BBC Scotland’s political editor Brian Taylor, are shown attacking the SNP’s proposed referendum question while claiming that Alex Salmond is ‘not impregnable’. He is also accused of wanting a devo-max option on the ballot paper in order to ensure a parachute would be in place should Scots fail to back independence.

In the presentations, Scotland is mockingly described as being in financial deficit and requiring subsidy. Taylor claims that Alex Salmond wished to delay a referendum in order to ‘sow dissent’ among Unionist parties, stating:

“Salmond wants a contest as close as possible to the next UK general election because he believes that by then his Unionist opponents will be fighting each other rather than fighting independence and Alex Salmond. He wants to sow dissent among them”.

Taylor further claimed that the Scottish government’s proposed referendum question was not straightforward and simple suggesting that it was designed to elicit a positive response. On the proposed question: “Do you agree that Scotland should be an independent country?”

Taylor said: “Straight forward, simple – except it’s not. The word ‘agree’ according to psephologists is a welcoming word, it draws people in. People like to agree, they don’t like to disagree so the word there is good. Adding: “Why does Alex Salmond favour a second question, Devo max, and Devo plus, why not just go for independence, which is the one he has the mandate for? Because he wants a fall-back, he wants a parachute should independence fail to win”.

Also featured on the videos is BBC TV political commentator, Andrew Neil, a former editor of The Scotsman and the Sunday Times, BBC TV’s UK political editor, Nick Robinson, and BBC TV’s economics editor. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IepO9cnIk-w) (The Drum)

 

 

 

 

 

Scots have their say on the video

Proof of institutionalized BBC bias against Scottish Independence. The BBC purports to be even-handed this. This proves otherwise.

I find this to be genuinely disturbing. Any doubters that the staff of the BBC are past-masters in deception and double-speak watch this video and learn!

The sole message of the seminar is: “Scottish nationalists are the enemies of the BBC. This is how we will misrepresent them.”

I am delighted that this is being picked up by the wider media community, having found this and other material including the Andrew Neil briefing while searching for BBC footage on other issues.

I was struck by the impression that this event was nothing short of a Ministry of Propaganda meeting to discuss State TV strategy. Taylor is fully dependent on maintaining the union.

Neil. An exiled Scot with very few ties to Scotland. He supports the union so that he can keep pretending London is the same country as Scotland. The current arrangement works for him and he will fight tooth and nail to retain it.

The usual BBC propaganda and Scots sellouts trying to save their high salary, low effort jobs.

Interesting that most of the facts here are positive for an Independent Scotland, the economy for example. Almost like ok guys how do we make all this stuff look bad. Also, the UK can’t exist with the Kingdom of Scotland. Wales and Ireland (Northern) didn’t join the UK they were already part of the Kingdom of England.

Where is the part where they tell the audience of journalists from the BBC how to be impartial when dealing with the facts? I must have missed that bit. Can you imagine some of the other meetings which take place well behind closed doors?

The “How to Stop the Scots” seminar.

The BBC shows its true red white and blue colours and its inability to provide the impartial reporting its own charter declares is its founding principle. Basically, when it comes to anything anti-Westminster establishment the BBC are full of bile.

At 30:00 a really key admission. For the UK it’s a ‘deficit’ (which nearly all countries big and small are dealing with), however. For Scotland, it’s a ‘subsidy’ (which we generously receive from London- even though the English are sick of paying it). Ladies and gentlemen of the BBC, there’s yer bias.

Who attended this presentation? Are we now to assume that all BBC presenters, producers & editorial staff will follow the lead of Brian Taylor & Andrew Neil?

Andrew Neil has been Westminster based since the ’80s, he probably won’t even be eligible to vote (assuming he doesn’t have a rarely used Scottish residence). Remember, we pay for this ex Rupert Murdoch mouthpiece and his oversized friend.

Hey if Scotland isn’t a successor state to the UK we don’t have to inherit their debt. Yay for us.

They closed down comments contributions to conceal the real tenor of public opinion. Perhaps the upcoming vote is going to be jiggered with fake votes. In Quebec in 1995, the unconstitutional and illegal referendum was NOT about “secession” or “independence.” It was an attempt to blackmail Canadians into accepting the EU system for ALL of Canada, as the basis of the North American Union. Some quarter million FAKE citizenship ID’s were created in the half-decade prior: 217,000+ people ALL now UNTRACEABLE.

My response to this… I’m not paying your license tax for this Pravda bias!  Stick your BBC up your backside! As for Andrew Neil…

I’m not sure whether to like this, ’cause it proves how biased the BBC is, or dislike it, because of the content.

Taylor gets paid too much by the BBC and he spends his wages on steaks and chips. What a waste of our TV license fee!

BBC Scotland’s online department is coming under increasing pressure, (without response) to explain their decision to suspend comments from political blogs.

Alone among BBC broadcast regions, the blogs of veteran editor Brian Taylor and Douglas Fraser have been closed down to comments from the general public for months.

The Union of the UK is between two countries Scotland and England. Scotland leaving ends that and creates two new states. If Scotland has to re-apply to the EU then so must England/rUK. Schengen and the Euro are not preconditions of membership.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ruth Davidson – Is she the spy who just wont leave us

Ruth Davidson’s leg up from the British Secret Services propelled her to a new role as a Baroness in the House of Lords. But despite giving up her interest in Scottish politics (keeping the paycheck) she insists on hanging around queering the pitch of any Tory Party official, activist or member who might dare to voice an opinion which does not concur with her views. Time to just go away Ruth. Scots no longer heed your vitriol.

 

 

 

 

Jun 2016: Words of advice from soon to be Baroness BBC correspondent Ruth Davidson 

Reflecting on her very short career as a BBC reporter and her even shorter stint as a part time weekend warrior defending the halls of Glasgow University OTC buildings, advised “newbie” journalists that they should be guided in their political behaviour by the standards she had herself observed. Namely that they should always:

“Keep your personal politics out of your reporting. The job, particularly in broadcast, is to tell people what’s going on; it is not to be an active agent of change and try and shape what’s going on – it is to be an honest narrator.”

“Folk can smell spin a mile off. They aren’t stupid. They know if you are not answering a question or if you don’t really mean what you say. So my best advice is to just try not to say anything you don’t mean and you’ll never be caught out.”

Interview in Full: Danielle Gibson: (https://danigibsonblog.wordpress.com/2016/06/14/an-interview-with-ruth-davidson/)

Comment: Voters can detect bullshit a mile off. Yet she and her Unionist friends at the BBC continue to ignore Ruth’s advice to students of journalism.

 

More bullshit !!!

 

 

Sep 2013 – On her time at Glasgow University where she joined the University Officer Training Corps (OTC). She said:

“I was so proud we stopped the slaughter in Kosovo. Security with our armed forces and our NHS means we get the best of both worlds and stand up better together.”

Comment: But she failed to mention that the wars and the accompanying slaughter, in the Balkans were a product of political “giggery-pokery” orchestrated by the controller of the British Secret Services, Martin Rifkind  greatly assisted by the  British “Spymaster” Andrew Fulton and his team of operatives.

Rifkind and Fulton were the “Ham & Bud” of  British spying operations for many years and although supposedly retired and out to pasture from mainstream activity they continue function at the highest level through Rifkind’s company “Orbis”.

Knowledgeable readers will be alerted that this is the company behind the discredited “Trump Russia” dossier.

 

 

 

Unionist Spymaster (s) and Protegee Get to Grips with the Scots

The appointment, of Fulton, in February 2008, by David Cameron, to the post of Chairman of the Scottish Conservative Party was not an unsurprising tactic since the threat to the “Unionist” part of the Party was very real and needed a character of the calibre of Fulton to rid the Party of anyone not fully subscribing to the ideals of the Conservative & Unionist Party.

The execution of  Cameron’s plans for reformation was a bit of a bloodbath, much of which was conducted in public and with the assistance of the Unionist press.

Annabel Goldie was sidelined then sacked. Many long serving Party members resigned. Some did so with grace and were rewarded with peerages. Those who chose to stand their ground fight to retain their place within the Party were publicly castigated and forced to leave.

Party membership in Scotland which had shrunk to under 10,000 was also aging and ineffectual.

Young Tory’s were recruited from Scottish Universities and actively canvassed and campaigned increasing the Party membership with “new young and active blood”.

The final piece of the puzzle was revealed with the appointment by Fulton of the previously unknown and politically inexperienced Ruth Davidson. The question raised by many Scottish Tory’s was Ruth Who?? Some conjectured she was a secret service plant groomed for office by Fulton.

Davidson, with the unqualified support of David Cameron, the Tory Government, Mundell, the other Fulton and her mentor Fulton and the British Secret Services, answered the question with actions, not words. She summarily removed every person previously nominated for political office then interviewed and appointed every candidate for the next General Election.

Young Tory’s, provided with substantial financial resources and experienced political guidance from Tory Party Officials from Westminster became active within constituencies and on social media. Their work raised the profile of the new “Ruth Davidson Tory Party Branch Office” in Scotland.

The Tory Party in Scotland manifesto for the 2017 General Election was quiet remarkable, for its absence. The Party campaigned solely on the personality of Ruth Davidson who studiously avoided any situation or circumstance which might require her to tell the Scottish public what her Party had to offer.

Instead she grand-standed throughout the campaign selling herself to the electorate as a modern day “Joan of Arc” who would save Scots from the claws of the SNP. And other historical heroic females were fair game for Ruth. She mimicked “Boadicea” with an armoured tank and “Catherine the Great” with a musk ox. 

High profile exposure but without a word on policy. And it worked. The Tory Party branch in Scotland increased its representation of Scots at Westminster for the first time in over 20 years.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Jun 2016: European Referendum- BBC televised discussion – Davidson and Johnson Clash

Boris Johnson criticized the UK and associated European troops’ failure to stop the massacres during the Balkans wars which left 140,000 people dead and many more displaced.

He said the killing was only halted and peace brokered after an American-led Nato force, “asserted its primacy.”

Davidson, whose claim to fame is that, as a reporter she was in the war zone of Kosovo for a few days, rounded on Boris saying:

“I think Boris maybe misjudged this panel by talking about the Balkans because what he probably doesn’t know is that I was sent to the Balkans at the end of the Kosovo war as a reporter and I have never been more proud of being British in my life than watching British troops with a union jack on their arms, believing in something, pulling their weight, and helping in the European Union. That’s what caused me to join up and serve.

I think I am the only one on this panel that has ever worn the Queen’s uniform and whilst I have deep respect for military figures like Field Marshal Lord Guthrie, the former Chief of the Defence Staff, who backs Brexit, that as a retired general he is not presently in charge of the safety and security of the nation. And all of those people who are currently charged, every single one of them and every single one of our major allies, says we are safer within the European Union.”

Comment: Wow!!!! Over-stretching Incredulity. Here are the facts:

Davidson went to Kosovo in 2001 as a reporter with a local newspaper in Fife, reporting on the work of the “Black Watch”, who were in the country assisting with rebuilding work post conflict. But this was a full two years after the war had ended.

Yet press releases, uncorrected by Davidson routinely quote her saying, “I was sent to the Balkans at the end of the Kosovo war as a reporter and I have never been more proud of being British in my life.” She is clearly embellishing events saying she was there at, “the end of the war”.

She also describes Kosovo in 2001 as a “war zone” and a recent BBC piece enhanced her CV with an illusion stating that she had, “served” in Kosovo as a reservist which is incorrect.

Yet another political “sales pitch” designed to enhance her near non-existent military service quotes her as saying it was the Bosnia conflict and the performance of British forces that had inspired her to join up.

But the Balkan wars were genocidal in their execution and the UK and European forces hardly distinguished themselves failing to take any action against the many differing groups of mercenaries who terrorized millions of innocent people for a number of years.

 

How she see’s herself  !!!!

 

 

Mar 2014: A few months before the 2014 Independence Referendum Struan Stevenson, former Tory MEP challenged the Scottish Tories to get devolution right saying:

“I am confident of a referendum “No” vote.

I think then that we Unionists have to live up to our pledge that we will give Scots more robust reforms.

I would like to see Holyrood’s powers extended to raising all income and business tax and a “substantial” cut of North Sea oil revenue.

Scots should be fiscally responsible for raising and spending all of their own money.  In the long term, I think that is the only way to stop the drift to independence.

Having had the begging bowl system in place in Scotland for the past 15 years we Unionists are finding ourselves yet again on the threshold of Scottish independence.”

Comment: His advice fell upon deaf ears.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Former Tory MEP Struan Stevenson warns of Brexit farm ‘meltdown’

Stevenson, Tory MEP between 1999-2014 said:

“Farmers and landowners, far from benefiting from the Arch-Brexters, much promised new worldwide trade deals will see their markets decline sharply as competition from cheap imports expands. Subsidies will disappear and land values will collapse.

Most farmers operate within thin margins of profit and the European Commission estimates that land prices would fall by 30% if farm subsidies were totally abolished in the UK and they would fall sharply if subsidies were reduced.

For farmers who have taken out bank loans against the value of their land, a loss of value would be fatal.

Many UK farmers currently receive 60% of their income from EU subsidies, and the UK government needs to commit to maintaining subsidies beyond 2020.

The Brexiters also claim that the EU’s protectionist policies discriminate against cheap food imports and force up food prices for British consumers. They want cheaper food following Brexit.

That means throwing open UK markets to cheap food from Africa, Australia, North America, Brazil and Argentina, causing chaos for UK farm gate prices, a further fall in land values and widespread bankruptcies.

A deal between the UK and the US could also lead to hormone-treated beef and chlorine-washed chicken being imported – both of which are banned under EU regulations.”

 

 

But UK environment secretary Michael Gove insisted that leaving the EU would be an “opportunity” for farmers.

A spokeswoman for the UK government’s Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) said it was committed to continuing the same cash total in funds for farm support at least until the end of this Parliament.  Adding:

“We are absolutely determined to get a good Brexit deal for Britain. Leaving the EU provides us with a golden opportunity to better support our farmers to grow more,  sell more and export more great British food,  while continuing tariff-free trade for all our goods. We have also been clear we will in no way dilute our high quality environmental and animal welfare standards.”

 

 

Stewart Stevenson, SNP MSP, commented:

“More and more senior figures are condemning the UK government’s failing Brexit approach and their desperation to broker trade deals with new partners that will have devastating consequences for Scotland’s fishing and farming industries – sectors which pride themselves on high-quality produce.

But the Tories in power are still blind to the dangers, unable to think outside their narrow party interests and face up to the facts about a hard Brexit and what it will mean for our rural industries.

The Tory government’s Brexit plans continue to present a huge threat to jobs, investment and living standards in Scotland and Ruth Davidson and the Scottish Tories’ fulsome embrace of this prospect is truly shameless.”

 

 

 

Comments from readers

01. I totally agree. I wish you could convince Ruth Davidson but I suspect she’s waiting for Theresa May’s view so that she doesn’t get out of step. I used to respect her but now she’s turned into a puppet with no policies.

02. As ye sew so shall ye reap. Perhaps Scots will not be so keen to vote Tory in the future. They truly have the anti-midas touch as everything is turning to farmers’ manure.

03. UK environment secretary Michael Gove has insisted that leaving the EU would be an ‘opportunity’ for farmers. Hmmm, who to believe – Michael Gove, or literally anybody else in the entire world…? I’ll say the latter.

04. Not just farms, every aspect of the Scottish economy will be adversely impacted. If the uk sign a trade deal with US, GM crops will pour into Scotland, Scottish producers will see the EU say no to Scottish exports if there is the slightest chance they could be contaminated or part contain, any GM products. Fishing, uk will use it as a bargaining chip to secure London’s banking status.

05. UK environment secretary Michael Gove has insisted that leaving the EU would be an “opportunity” for farmers. Well, it will be. In the same way the aftermath of the Black Death also was.

06. Nobody knows what is going to happen to trade post Brexit – that was the risk that 17m people took last June.What we do know is: No ECJ, No CAP and at long last control over fishing in our own waters.Stevenson was bound to come out with that garbage.he was a europhile MEP for 14 years! You can’t stop Brexit as this would be undemocratic. Sick of people telling me they know whats best for me

07. A former Tory MEP has said Brexit will lead to “certain meltdown” in rural Scotland with cheap food imports pushing farmers out of business. Its the Tories who are in meltdown. May is pleading to the SNP and even Labour to save her skin.

08. Any excuse to peddle out the blame Westminster/Tories Dogma.”

09. The Tories have made an complete mess of this…..good to see at least one of them admit that Brexit is a disaster (whereas other have completely changed their stance purely to save their own careers)there is only one option….Independence !!

10. It seems quite apt to be able to say “You reap what you sow” This’ll teach the farmers & fishermen to vote Tory 🙂 nothing good ever comes from voting for them, so hell mend them.

11. Scottish unemployment rate better than UK. Economic growth 4 times better than UK. Business leaders say the major threat to this continuing is Brexit. Now it’s clear that the farmers will suffer big time. However, these will be the same farmers who’ve been ranting against the SNP about delays to their EU subsidy payments. Wonder if they realise only the SNP can stop them going bankrupt?

12. The amount of farms with ‘for sale’ signs on them around my way is astonishing and not something I’ve seen in my 50 years living here. Farmers know if they have to face free trade competition with the likes of Brazil, Africa and the US they wont be able to compete. Free trade deal precludes subsidies and they wont be able to produce the quality they are used to. Decimation awaits.

13. All member states have been struggling with subsidy payments because of their complexity, so don’t blame the SNP for that. But the real problem is the UK governments obsession with leaving the EU, the single market, the customs union and the ECJ without any real idea of what will follow. But one thing is certain – the USA wants a trade deal that will allow their sub-standard food in to undercut us

14. The best Brexit deal for the whole of the UK is the one we have now. Recind Article 50 and carry on. Leaving EU means leaving EASA and ECAA (look them up) and without the ECAA in place there are no bi-laterals to anywhere in Europe and same for USA and Canada open skies. No flights to EU, USA, Canada. Do you really want that. BTW if we make our farmers bankrupt then we are open to food blackmail.

15. The good old farmers whinging about subsidies again, the very same mugs who back the tories to the hilt, they obviously don’t realise the only way we got to brexit was through internal Tory party splits!!!! As the old saying goes ” you reap what you sow”.

16. Worth mentioning that these farm subsidies are actually our cheap food subsidies. The payments cover the disparity between production costs and sale price. Our Agriculture industry across the UK has some of the best production and highest welfare standards across the globe and it must be protected in the brexit negotiations. Chlorinated chicken and GSH should not be available for sale here

17. Friends, Brits, countrymen, lend me your ears; I come to bury EU, not to praise it. The evil that foriegners do lives after them. The good is oft interred with their bones; So let it be with EU. The noble Gove Hath told you EU was ambitious: If it were so, it was a grievous fault, and grievously hath EU answer’d it. Here, under leave of Gove and the rest–For Gove is an honourable man;

18. And so now a Tory MEP speaks out about the Brexit doomsday scenario for the farming community. Is the penny beginning to drop? The silence from the 3 Brexiteers, Boris, David, Liam and their puppet master in chief, Maybot is deafening. Any trade deals to announce? No, I thought not…

19. Cheap food from wherever it comes is what the punters want. Like every other business , agriculture will have to adapt to the market. If individuals cannot make the grade, then they must give way to those who can. There will still be subsidies, only now , it will be our governments deciding who gets our tax cash and for what as subsidy. Remember ,it was our money given as subsidies not EU money.

20. I don’t always agree with Struan Stevenson, but he was an effective and very thoughtful MEP. He was a rare voice within the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party advocating a Scottish Parliament in the 1980s and 1990s – I greatly respect him for that. I believe that he is absolutely right about the potentially disastrous consequences of Brexit; he raises very important concerns.

21. Tories are so thick it is amazing that one of their number has worked out so quickly the disaster that awaits their couthie pals in the countryside. Great that Nicola is meeting the EU Brexit negotiator directly and bypassing the Westminster numties.

22. We are absolutely determined to get a good Brexit deal for Britain’ said an unnamed spokeswoman for the Government. No wonder she wanted to remain anonymous uttering such rubbish. We all know that no deal will emerge which will benefit the farming community. When will politicians speak the truth or will hell freeze over first!

23. If the farmers have to sell their land cheaply then who will buy it. The Government only has money for the DUP. The rich will buy some it but they only want the most profitable GM cash crops. The Indians and Chinese are always looking for investment. They will need land to house the waves of visa immigrants they will send.
We will soon have to learn to speak Chinese to get a job.

24. The land will be bought up cheaply as an investment like they do with property in London and like property it will lie empty. Some time in the future, perhaps after a period of recession we will have rejoined the EU, land will regain its value and they will profit. There is a lot of money to be made from others misery if you live by playing the markets. Look to them that funded Brexit.

25. I don’t want to burst any of the Bexiteers’ unicorn balloons but British farmers can kiss those fat subsidies good-bye if PM May-hem intends on signing a free trade agreement with the US. They really need tolook at NAFTA.

26. He is only saying what has been blindingly obvious to anyone who has any financial competence. The UK cannot compete with free trade imports of lamb and other sheep products from Australia or beef from America. Hill farmers costs are too high and will go to the wall. Only the very large farms will survive. The only way they can survive is to continue paying large subsidies as they do at present.

27. So the tax payer subsidises farmers to produce food that they make little or no profit from because the monopolised food buyers like Tesco etc drive down the prices and take all the profit. Thus the wealth of farmers and the public is harvested and extracted by the big multinationals that transfer it offshore and pay little or no tax. Brexit will not change that! It’s a wealthy elite hegemony

28. With the danger of GM crop fed beef and GM cereals being imported from the USA after this special deal with them is worked out – benefiting their side much more than us no doubt in line with Trumps aspirations – our farmers won’t be able to compete unless massive subsidies are in place. Add to that NZ lamb and you have a disaster zone scenario for UK farmers. Struan Stevenson only spoke the truth.

29. Still astounded that 13 Scots constituencies elected Tories ! bit like the fools who voted for Hitler .As for land value that some of you are going on about, 3 grand for an acre of grass land is average in Scotland up to 12 grand for good crop land. Prices won’t collapse as Irish farmers buy up more than 50% of ALL Scottish farms that become available.

30. Interesting that you say would should be worried about NZ lamb given that NZ simply stopped all farm subsidies in the 1980s. Their farming certainly had to change but it has thrived and competes worldwide – all without any subsidy at all – hence the reason the EU want to keep them out. GM isn’t the issue from USA, rather it is the use of growth hormones in animals. (BBC Scotland)