Tag: referendum

UK lax tax laws provide a myriad of loopholes which are widely used for tax avoidance and the Treasury is losing many £ billions of tax revenues each and every year.

Five of the UK’ largest banks use tax havens, namely Barclays, Lloyds, TSB, HSBC, and the Royal Bank of Scotland.

Just about all of the larger retailers, (supermarkets) and food manufacturers compete for places in the top 10 tax haven users A survey of the UK’s largest 100 public companies revealed that there are over 8,000 linking offshoots involved in business activities, (onshore and offshore) all registered in tax havens. Only 2 out of the 100 public companies had no offshoots registered in tax havens.

George Osborne, in a recent speech brought the issue to the attention of the UK public stating the matter needed to be resolved. The task of closing the loopholes and recovering tax due is proving to be just about impossible since the bulk of the offshoot companies were registered in UK Crown dependencies such as, Bermuda, Gibraltar and Jersey.

Recent Scare stories broadcast by Asda, John Lewis, B&Q, Tesco, Virgin, Timpsons and many of the other large retailers providing goods & services to Scotland should be considered against the fact that just about all of them and their management teams pay little or no tax to the UK Treasury.

So a load of tax dodgers, briefed, instructed and to be rewarded by David Cameron, (over 100 lords created in 3 years) fully utilizing a Westminster compliant and corrupt BBC, press and other media outlets spread rumor an innuendo about unspecified price increases just before the referendum .

Cameron and Osborne and the rest of the political elite at Westminster should be ashamed allowing Trillions of tax to be dodged by billionaire owners and their management teams whilst harassing Scot’s earning a pittance for every penny they are able to screw them for.

Not any more I fully expect Scot’s will exact their right next week and vote, “Yes” in the referendum so that our nation can once more stand proud amongst all the other countries of the world

Powers There will be no more Powers

So much for Gordon Brown and his new set of devolved powers, details of which only Gordon knows. What we do know is that there is absolutely no chance of anything more being devolved. The reverse is the future if Scotland votes no. A Scotland capable of challenging the Status Quo will not be allowed to remain a threat. Scotland will be neutered, powers removed and other methods of control introduced.

The last time Scotland stood up and said, “I want to be free” Thatcher moved in and removed Scotland’s perceived power; Coal, Steel, Ship Building, Car Production, any manufacturing company employing more than 500 staff e.g. Caterpiller production at Uddingston. Anything and everything that exuded power was removed from Scotland and transferred to England. Scotland was well and truly sorted. Thatcher did what Westminster excels at subjugation.

So, here we are again; echoing a well loved figure from the past Robert Bruce who said to the Scot’s at Bannockburn, “Do you want to be free to decide your own future and that of your children, OR are you content to remain subjects of a political system that is corrupt and bloated with money stripped from your purses, leaving you at the mercy of, “Wonga” money lenders and wholly reliant on food banks to feed your children and yourselves”?

Remember this. Devolution was not given freely to Scotland in 1997. Westminster was instructed to decentralize government as a condition of membership of the EU. Even then it took Westminster MP’s, (including those Scotland sent to London to fight their corner) 20 years to comply with the European Commission. They fought tooth and nail to protect what they believed was theirs.

Even then devolution was designed, organized and implemented in such a way as to ensure, through a hybrid, “hotch potch” electoral voting system of proportional representation that the Scottish National Party would never be able to have an overall majority in the new Scottish parliament. So Westminster cooked the books, yet again so as to ensure continued dominance over Scotland. Thatchers Legacy lived on.

But the civil servant’s and their masters got their figures wrong, (seems to be a bad habit picked up and absorbed by Westminster). The Scottish National Party turned devolution on it’s ugly head and here we are again. This time I urge Scot’s not to believe anything Westminster politicians say in defense of retaining the status quo. They will lie, threaten and in any other way seek to cajole our nation. Love bombing, hate bombing, promises, promises, everything the Westminster elite has in it’s formidable armory will be used against Scotland all with the single purpose of continued subjugation. If Scotland blinks next week and succumbing to the subterfuge elects to stay with the Union then shades of Thatcher you ain’t seen nuthin’ yet.

Any remaining asset of any economic strength e.g. banking will be removed from Scotland. Delegated powers will be stripped away and taken back to Westminster e.g. Health, Energy policy, Planning, Welfare. Holyrood will become a wee talking shop filled with nobody’s.

Scotland has a choice a, “Yes” vote will transfer power back to the Scot’s, (not just to Scotland). We will then be enabled as is our right as a nation, once more to decide for ourselves the nature, policies and governance we wish to be in place.

“Welcome to your gory bed or to victory”

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=592543857520831capable of challenging the Status Quo will not be allowed to

The Long & Winding Road to Independence

1. Opening Narrative

a. Demands for Scottish self-rule stem from the fact that Scotland, (unlike any other region in the UK) enjoys a historic status as a nation dating back to before the Tenth Century. Notwithstanding the 1707, Treaty of Union, (imposed upon Scotland against the wishes of it’s people) Scotland retains a distinct set of legal, educational and religious institutions ensuring retention of a separate Scottish identity.

b. UK membership of the European Union (EU) in the late 1960’s brought with it a realization that traditional relationships with England had not, (with the exception of a major depression) delivered anything of note. Conversely power had been systematically removed from Scotland to Westminster. Of particular concern was the removal of heavy industry, (ship building, car manufacture, coal and steel making) which brought with it severe financial hardships, deprivation and child poverty.

c. The Tory party, (through the dictatorial leadership of Margaret Thatcher) was deemed guilty of the rapid and sustained downturn in the fortunes of Scotland and their parliamentary representation in Scotland went into terminal decline throughout the period 1973-1997. In that period, despite the lack of political representation in Scotland, the Tory Party was returned to power in Westminster, for 18 years creating the offensive anomaly that Scottish political institutions had to be managed by MPs from English constituencies.

d. Undaunted the, “right wing” Tory government set about dismantling the, “Welfare State” an institution held dear in the hearts of many Scot’s. It was this dogma, (finally rejected by the UK electorate) that brought Tony Blair and the Labour party to power in 1997. The success, (in that year) of pro-devolution parties, (not the Tory Party) bringing through legislation, following the successful referendum allowed the creation of a Scottish Parliament for the first time in 300 years.

2. The Tory Party’s Journey to 2014

a. The Tory Party arrogantly maintained their position as a unionist party and had a clear anti-devolution policy for Scotland in the period up to 1945. After the war the Labour government of Attlee nationalized Scottish industries, an action vehemently opposed by the Tory Party who, (when they were returned to power in 1951), gave a small measure of solace to the restless Scot’s, establishing a Royal Commission, (talking shop) on Scottish needs, the outcome of which was the introduction of some debating time within Westminster for Scottish matters. The Tory government did not however support Scottish devolution and the thirteen year period of Tory government, (1951-1964) was devoid of any hope of change for those who desired Scottish self rule.

b. It was the electoral rise of the SNP, (through the election of Winnie Ewing in Hamilton) that changed the Tory Party’s views on Scottish devolution. In 1968 Edward Heath, Tory Party leader gave his, “Declaration of Perth” statement supporting the establishment of a Scottish Assembly. But the issue of devolution lapsed with the Tory Party victory in the 1970 General Election and the failure of the SNP to increase their Westminster representation. The 1968, “Declaration of Perth” was quietly put on the, “back burner” due to other more pressing issues of state.

c. The Labour Party successes in the two 1974 elections and the rise to power of Margaret Thatcher as Tory leader in 1976 brought with it yet another change in the Tory Party’s attitude to Scottish devolution. Thatcher was bitterly opposed to any measure of Scottish self-rule. Her policy did have repercussions however, Alick Buchanan-Smith and his junior and future Secretary of State, Malcolm Rifkind both resigned from cabinet in protest.

d. John Major took up the reins of power from Thatcher in 1992. Faced within the party with a growing movement for change in Scotland he asked a number of senior colleagues to review the matter. The Tory Party was re-elected in the 1992 general election. The clamor for change increased in intensity but John Major dithered and did nothing.

3. The Labour Party’s Journey to 2014

a. The Labour Party, (with it’s centralized approach to government) found it extremely difficult, (still does) to be at peace with the conflicting demands of Socialist ideals within the wider UK and the desire for home rule on the part of the Scot’s.

b. Nevertheless support for Scottish Home Rule, from the formation of the Labour Party had been strong. The Party took a prominent role within the, Scottish Home Rule Association, (SHRA) and the relationship was rewarded when the SHRA supported Keir Hardie’s unsuccessful bid for the Mid-Lanark constituency by-election. However after the 1945 General Election and the euphoria of power that followed the matter of Scottish devolution was considered an irritating sideline by the Labour Party leadership in England, who had, “bigger fish to fry”.

c. Scottish devolution continued to be supported in the period, (1945-1951) by the Scottish Press, who regularly canvassed socialist voters, (support was as high as 80% at times). But the Secretary of State for Scotland, Arthur Woodburn took the view that such sentiment had more to do with austerity measures being forced upon the voters, than any Nationalist fervor. Any expression of disquiet in favor of Scottish home rule was bought off by short term financial improvements. the strong unionist position of the party remained in force as Labour policy until the electoral success of Winnie Ewing and other SNP figures in the late 1960s.

d. It was Harold Wilson’s government that belatedly formed a Royal Commission, (mirroring the 1951 effort) in 1969. The, “Kilbrandon Commission” reported back 4 year’s later in 1973, (they were in no hurry) with a qualified majority report recommending a system of limited home rule. But to no avail since the Labour Party were no longer the Party of government.

e. Two, “on the bounce” General Elections of 1974 brought about the rapid rise of the SNP, and the Labour Party suddenly found it’s voice and added their support in favor of of devolution. But there were serious divisions within the UK Labour Party over the level of home rule to be supported and Jim Sillars together with other labour home rule supporters, unhappy about the watering down of the, “Kilbrandon Commission” recommendations broke free from the English based UK Labour Party and formed the Scottish Labour Party, (SLP). The (SLP) was short-lived and suffered much abuse from the English based Labour party, but it’s policies were influential in shaping the direction of the SNP. Jim stood for election, won and represented the SNP in the UK parliament after a stunning win in the November 1988 Govan by-election.

4. The Liberal Democratic Party’s Journey to 2014

a. The Liberal Party, in opposition from 1922 has been consistent in it’s approach to Scottish home rule, but as a package of measures taking in Wales and Northern Ireland. But the party does get actively involved in any discussions with other parties who might be considering introducing Scottish home rule.

5. The Scottish National Party’s Journey to 2014

a. The SNP mission statement contains one purpose, “Scottish Self Government”. Over the years the aim has become clouded from time to time, some taking the view that a devolved parliament would be a suitable compromise but many others advocating complete independence as the only acceptable outcome of the struggle to recovery Scotland from a one-sided treaty that had brought a once proud nation to it’s knees.

b. The rise to prominence of the Scottish Nationalist Party, (SNP) since 1968, has been breathtakingly fast. Indeed the Party’s share of the vote from that year to 1974 rose to 30.4% taking the party to second place, behind labour in Scotland. It was this sustained rise and cry for independence that brought about the 1979 and 1997 referendums. Both were supported by the Labour Party so why did the first one fail and the second succeed?

6. The 1979 Referendum

a. The 1974-79 Labour Party exercised power as a minority government with the support of the SNP and Liberal party. The Labour Party was divided over the issue of devolution and the passage through Westminster of the necessary legislation for a referendum was fraught with disagreement and took a long time to legislate. The most contentious clause was insisted upon by, George Cunningham, a Scots MP representing a London constituency. The, “Cunningham Amendment” imposed a previously unheard of spoiler (named afterwards as the, “40% rule”), meaning that any registered voter who did not vote would be counted as a, “No” vote. and there needed to be at least 40% of the electorate in favor of the proposal. An almost impossible task for those who favored home rule.

b. But even with a, “loaded dice” the Labour Party remained reluctant to proceed with the referendum. It took a full scale back-bench revolt to drag the Labour party leadership to the ballot box. The referendum failed, entirely due to the 40% rule. A significant majority voted in favor of home rule but just short of the 40%. The Scottish nation was hugely disappointed in the Labour Party rightly believing it’s heart had never been with Scot’s aspirations.

7. The 1997 referendum

a. The Labour Party came to government in 1997 in a landslide election with a clear mandated policy of constitutional change within the UK. proposals included devolution for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland as well as the possibility of regional assemblies in England, an elected Mayor for London and the reform of the House of Lords. Issues of devolution were now much less controversial.

b. The other factor clearly distinguishing 1979 from 1997 was the existence of the Scottish Constitutional Convention (SCC), comprised of non-partisan campaigners for home rule and representation from the Labour Party and Liberal Democrats. The SCC had been in existence, in various forms throughout the period 1980 -1997, with the purpose of keeping the agenda for change in the public eye. The Tory Party, “Think Twice” campaign lost out badly to the positive, “Yes Yes” campaign mounted by those in favor of home rule.

8. Summary

Careful study of the foregoing reveals the tortuous route we Scot’s have been forced to take by both Tory & Labour governments who have taken our nation, time and time again to the door of freedom only to slam it shut, just as we Scot’s are about to step through. In compiling the precis I was struck, in the course of my investigations by the number of Scottish rogues featuring in many devious acts of betrayal over the year’s, all embarked on with the purpose of retaining the staus quo, protecting their highly paid salaries and expenses scams in Westminster together with many very well paid consultancy posts with private companies and the nod to get the ermine on at the end of their time in the commons taking up unelected well reimbursed peerages.

Scotland’s time has come. Ignore those who would deny you your right to be governed by politicians you elect. Remain stout of heart. Vote “Yes” in the referendum. Good luck.

Gordon Brown is not a man of his word. Read on McDuff

After 300 years of an imposed treaty 2014 is the year Scotland will finally exert it’s right to be free. In 1707 the Scottish Parliament was first suspended then dissolved, (against the will of the people), on the order of group of corrupt peers. Scottish Sovereignty was then moved from Edinburgh to London.

Scot’s never accepted English rule and rebelled in 1715 and 1745. The last rebellion was put down by the Duke of Cumberland and a horde of English and German troops with savagery and 100 years of on-going land and property asset stripping, people expulsion and many other acts of brutality. Written records of which are retained in libraries and homes throughout Scotland and in many other countries of the world where poor unfortunate Scot’s highlanders and their families had been transported to.

It was not until the latter part of the twentieth century that Scot’s were given two constitutional referendums to establish Scottish devolution and even then the powers of full self rule were denied. Whilst responsibility was to be delegated across a restricted range of governance this was tempered with a restriction on authority, which was retained in Westminster through the treasury and MP’s. Scotland, by result remained to be a province of the UK

In an extraordinary turn of events the, “European Union” (EU) surfaced, bringing with it an end to English independence. Tony Blair, Prime Minister signed off the original European constitution then formally negotiated the new European treaty on 20 April 2004 . With the 2005 General Election looming, it was agreed in Westminster that the public would be asked to vote, (after the election) in a referendum for or against acceptance of the new European treaty. As was indeed the case for a number of other countries, some of which voted against acceptance, (France and Holland). There was much panic in Europe following the rejection of the new Treaty. A large number of meetings were held, over a period of time designed to arrive at a consensus finding a way forward. Many changes, (largely superficial) were made and the revamped document the, “Treaty of Lisbon” was created replacing the Constitutional Treaty. In mainland Europe governments voted the revised constitution through their parliaments without undue fuss.

The UK decided upon a different course of action. In their MANIFESTO the newly elected Labour government had included a solemn PLEDGE to give the UK electorate their say in a referendum on the treaty. Gordon Brown, Prime Minister, (who took up post, following the resignation of Tony Blair), elected neither by his MPs nor his party members nor his country insisted there was no need for a referendum. Hardened cynics and europhiles were extremely angered by Brown’s refusal to let the people have their say. This was a Prime Minister who had finally been awarded, (through nepotism) the most powerful job in the land promising, “I will listen and I will learn. I want to lead a government humble enough to know its place, where I will always strive to be – and that’s on the people’s side.” “We’ve got to honour that manifesto. It is an issue of trust for me with the electorate.”

Defending his plan of action Gordon Brown repeatedly quoted his glorious-sounding, “red lines” (key areas of national interest such as justice, home affairs, social security and foreign policy which he had promised to safeguard) as a reason not to hold the referendum – we have protected our national interests, so we have nothing to fear. Dogmatic in his approach he stated the revised treaty was no longer a constitutional matter, although it still contained 40 substantial constitutional changes, and they were the same as were contained in the original constitutional treaty itself. It was therefore fraudulent to pretend the new treaty did not have the same significance as the one previously rejected. The Labour government, elected on a promise to hold a referendum did not have one. The treaty was signed in 2007 by Gordon Brown then ratified 1 December 2009. The UK was now effectively a different country, (against the wishes of the electorate) it had been deprived of it’s independence in 2007, just as as Scotland did in 1707. A scandalous abuse of public trust. Acting as he did, Brown failed to give consideration to the hearts and minds of English national patriotism which is just as potent a subject to the English as independence is to the Scot’s. Politics and trust are intrinsic, without trust politicians are loathed, ridiculed and ignored.

There was perhaps a time when the United Kingdom was of benefit to England and to Scotland. It certainly helped the English to achieve great things. The, “British” did much to save the world from tyranny at the time of the Napoleonic wars, and again in the two world wars of the twentieth century. On balance, the, “British Empire” has been a force for good in the world. But Westminster is too distant and detached from the nationalism of the nations that form it. Lessons from history provide guidance that independence is not the property of a parliament. It is owned instead by the people. The days of the empire have gone forever and Scot’s have a right, enshrined in their constitution to regain their independence, if that is the settled will of the nation. Scottish independence is not a matter for any English person to become actively involved in, (except within the agreed terms of the referendum).

Pros and Cons of Independence

“Thatcher was despised by both unionist and nationalists alike,,,much like slavery! yet are you suggesting that the call for independence should be based on a hatred of a woman who was after all heaved out of office by her own party?”

Scottish unhappiness with Westminster, (the entity not just Thatcher) reflects the immorality of a long line of Westminster Governments which encouraged by the lack of a written constitution has abused power without limit.

“Let us turn our backs on fishing communities like Peterhead, Fraserburgh, Arbroath.” “Your link to the well being of our fishing community is from a yes site,,,lol”

Edward Heath and the Conservative Government betrayed Scotland in 1973, at the time they sacrificed, without representation Scotland’s booming fishing industry in order to gain UK membership of the EEC. The cavalier action destroyed Scotland’s fishing communities, who were subjected to the rules of the 1970 Common Fisheries Policy which, by statute provided equal access to Scottish waters of all fishing vessels of EEC member states.

“We as the uk share an essential plethora of information on cyber threats within our respective borders, how weakened will we be as a separate commodity? and at what cost?”

Security is the prime responsibility of Government and politics coupled with governing facts mean that Scotland and the UKr, through common interest will remain close security partners. There is the added assurance that Scotland will continue to partner the other Nations of the Five Eyes intelligence group enhancing security through intelligence gathering and information sharing.

“regarding your perception of foreign policy I would rather be in a position to offer a strong voice in the aid of a country in need,,c,mon jocky what could an independent Scotland offer apart from condescending words of sympathy.”

It is ever more evident that a free internet, (we need to ensure it is never subject to government control) is an extremely effective alternative to Westminster and other Government’s oppressive complexities that seek to establish and maintain control of, “the news” and associated political propaganda. This is why it’s essential that the internet remains free of government regulation.

“Save the union or destroy and tear apart a proud nation,,,,whats your goal?”

The guiding principle of, “Habeas Corpus”, introduced into English law when King John added his signature and seal in 1215 to the, “Magna Carta” has been lost. Consequent with the loss the nations pride has been sacrificed. This has resulted in a succession of increasingly authoritarian governments obsessed with war and political aggrandizement. I believe the Referendum, providing an opportunity for change, will allow Scotland to establish once more a society based on individual freedom. One bold step forward is what Scot’s need to take, not a hesitant step backward, as the Unionist wish. The UKr will benefit since it’s citizens will be able to command politicians to introduce a written constitution, re-establishing, “Habeas Corpus”, limiting, government powers and eliminating all forms of abuse of citizens.

“Thatcher, Blair, Salmond,,,,I cant decide who is worst but i wont turn my back or use anyone of them as an excuse to destroy the UK”

I note you are intent upon sticking with the UK as it is. Accepting the right of the UK government to enforce polices devoid of compassion, driven by class warfare and intolerance of others . Conceived in an environment of government belief that, “might is right”, allowing it to dictate to citizens, denying their rights to liberty, peace and prosperity.

The Calton Hill Declaration (Scottish: Tory, Labour and Liberal Party Leaders)

The famous Calton Hill folly in Edinburgh, (modelled on the Parthenon in Athens) commissioned, (was to be built, in memorium to many thousands of Scot’s service personnel sacrificed, in war, by ambitious Westminster politicians) but never finished, (money was diverted away from the project to fund another war) was today the unfortunate choice of venue of the leaders of the Scottish Liberal Democrats, Scottish Labour Party and the Scottish Conservatives, the (wee3) to declare their joint support for more powers to be devolved to Scotland, (in the event of a ‘no’ vote). Details of any new powers were not to hand for publication/discussion since the, “wee3)” are in no position to deliver anything but hot air. Paraphrasing parts of their joint statement;

1. Setting out their jointly held views they stated, “We live in the same house, but this has never been a country that has demanded we conform to the same house rules”.

Comment. I expect they are referring to the Westminster Parliament, in which a majority of those sent to represent constituents seemingly regard house rules as being in place, to be ignored or twisted or abused, (eg. expenses) to suit their own or their Party’s aims and aspirations. Clearly the views of the (wee3) echo that of their colleagues in Westminster. A very worrying attitude indeed.

2. They added, “all three of us have said we will legislate as soon as possible afterwards. No ifs, no buts – we are all committed to deliver.”

Comment. Deliver what!!! Nothing!! The, (wee3) have no authority to devolve or to legislate anything. Such powers rest with their, “Political Masters” in Westminster and, to date, (less than a year from the next General Election) there has been very little, if any, devolution discussion or consensus within any of the three England based political party’s with result there has been no cross party dialogue. The, (wee3) party’s operating in Scotland are mildly autonomous extensions of their English colleagues, but they have no executive policy as it pertains to Westminster. Beware of voting for, “jam tomorrow”. A “no” vote gained on empty promises will be, a hard pill to swallow” for, “Yes” voters, but the harsh punishment that will be meted out in the year’s to come will be very painful. Westminster does not look kindly upon any nation that might dare to, “rock their boat”.

3. Seeking understanding and forgiveness of the Scottish electorate the (WEE3) further stated, “we all accept, for differing reasons, that Westmister has got things wrong in the past”, “but it, (presumably the MP’s & non-elected Lords) learns and builds together, indeed the Union is evolving allowing, “space and freedom for England and Scotland prosper and thrive.”

Comment. A joke!!! Scotland contributes finance, through taxation and other commercial activities, to Westminster, well in excess of that which it is allocated. Many of our young men and women, (continue to die and/or suffer terrible injury) after being sent to war on the orders of Westminster despite Scotland’s people voting against said war’s. Large sections of our population continue to live and die early deaths due to poverty, brought about by policies ordered by successive Westminster governments elected by England but rejected by Scotland. Infant mortality in Scotland is excessively high.

Vote, “Yes” to independence Don’t be fooled.