Earthlinggb's Blog

SNP checkmate!

Posted in Law, Political History, Politics by earthling on July 8, 2011

Update December 5th 2011:

Kirk, What were you saying lad? Do you want to have another stab at your answer and your ignorant suggestion that the Crown Estates belong to the Crown but not to Her Majesty?
Or would you like to explain to the people of Scotland (and of the UK) the difference between “The Crown” and “Her Majesty”? Would you wish to explain what the “Crown Corporation” is? Thanks buddy!

RENT (AGRICULTURE) BILL

HL Deb 11 November 1976 vol 377 cc659-754

Lord PARGITER
My Lords, may I draw attention to one thing that is rather interesting. I think this is the first occasion on which the immunity of the Crown has been challenged.

§The Earl of KINNOULL
My Lords, I think I can answer the noble Lord on that point. I am speaking about the Crown Estates, which is a corporate body, a very large landowner and is nothing to do with the Crown itself. It is a corporate semi-quasi public Government body.

§Lord PARGITER
Belonging to Her Majesty, my Lords.

§The Earl of KINNOULL
No, my Lords; it does not belong to Her Majesty. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Peart, will confirm that.

The Earl of CAITHNESS
My Lords, I should like to answer on behalf of the foresters, having put my name to the Amendment. I think the reason why we have excluded forestry is that there has not been a report satisfactorily conducted at the moment. There is a report in progress and I think we deleted forestry until that report had been put before the public.

§The Earl of PERTH
My Lords, perhaps I may just intervene about the position of the Crown estates, because I happen to be the first Crown Estate Commissioner. The noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, is wrong in saying that the property does not belong to the Crown: it does. What happens is that the Crown of its own volition may cede its rights for the period of the reign but when the time comes a new Sovereign has the opportunity of resuming the property. I hope that this will help the House and clear up the point.

 I think the above puts paid to wee Kirk’s ignorance (or innocence?). Grow up lad and stop being such a condescending little fool to your elders who may just know a thing or two more than you! After all, Alex wouldn’t want you or your SNP sheep to understand this now would he?

 

 

 

I had a response from some young condescending little prat by the name of Kirk Torrance from the SNP. He can’t quite grasp it can he?

Whereas, I sincerely hope YOU can. At the very least, even if you can’t – as an SNP supporter – I’d think you’d wish to understand it rather than just accept the ignorant dismissiveness of a young lad who gets paid to do a media job by the party and has not been out of diapers that long!

While the thing is, I have the arrogant little ass over a barrel (as I do Salmond) because, as you will note, he states it clearly that only if Scotland gets control of the Crown Estate, can we benefit financially from it. Do you see the absolute admission in that? No?

Well, it’s this: IF Scotland were truly sovereign and independent, then we would not need to control a “Crown Estate” because the Crown Estate would have ZERO to do with Scotland (no matter WHO currently controls it). And THAT is where the little lad makes this bullshit clear as day. So let’s see Salmond drop the monarchy and drop the Crown Estate. If Scotland is sovereign then it’s sovereign. We’ll create our OWN Crown eh Alex? CHECKMATE asshole!

Now, I am happy to have this “debate” in public SNP. Are you?

Meanwhile, you evade the direct questions Kirky! Perhaps it’s more than your job’s worth to do so huh? 😉

UPDATE Wed 13 July 2011:

From: Earthling
To: kirk.torrance@snp.org; info@snp.org
Subject: RE: Sovereignty, Independence and the Salmond deception.
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 14:25:38 +0000

Oh dear Kirk! Seems I have upset you! I’m not on the defensive lad, you are. Don’t apologise – it’s empty and you’ll get none from me!

Meanwhile, you ignore every factual element of that which I have brought to your attention. Not me making sweeping generalizations Kirk. Not at all.

Fantasizing and moaning about invisible enemies? LOL
How old are you Kirk? And is it difficult for you to follow logical, factually based reasoning?
You’ve failed to respond in any way to absolute fact you have been presented with. No comment on Bernanke and his remark. Or the parliamentary minutes over decades to support it all. I guess Douglas Carswell, Captain Kerby and Lord Sudeley as well as a host of American Congressmen are all “Conspiracy theorists Kirk? Is that what you’re saying? Or is it just that you don’t understand it? Are you thick Kirk?
You have not responded to the CIA issue in funding the European Movement during the early 70s campaign. You brush it all off as “fantasy” and fallacious”. What drug are you on Kirk? Ritalin?
You admit the Crown Estate administers and profits from the resources throughout the UK and yet you can’t grasp that, if Scotland were a fully independent nation, then the we wouldn’t require the profit from the Crown Estate because the Crown Estate would then only have England, N Ireland and Wales. Are you seriously incapable of logically deducing this?
But that is not going to happen is it? Because the Crown Estate won’t LET Scotland go and Salmond needs to negotiate to access Scotland’s portion of the estate WHEREAS, if we were truly independent, no negotiation is necessary because we would tell the Crown Estate where to go.
But Kirk refuses to see this. And you wonder why anyone would consider taking the proverbial out of you? 🙂
Working hard? You could work as hard as you want Kirk but if you’re ignorant it’s a total waste of energy. Try working smart but then, no, the SNP doesn’t want SMART they just want you to stay dumb!
Question them Kirk and see how long you’d last! But you don’t have the balls do you? It’s a nice little number working in the SNP office.
You’re a boy doing a wee job for the SNP in media and you think you have it sussed. Oh the arrogance!
Proof by verbosity? The writings are backed up and mostly from Parliament! Seriously, how hard are the arteries in your brain Kirk? You’re a little too young for that aren’t you?
Kirk take your accusations re “Culture of Conspiracy” and stick them where the sun don’t shine lad. If you’re incapable and impotent minded to simply throw wild unsubstantiated tripe like that then I just haven’t got the time or inclination to educate you.
The only reason I’ve bothered to take the time to respond to you today is because your demonstrable willful ignorance and stupidity is just providing a little fun. The big fish is a Salmond! 😉
I wish you all the best though. Another few years and you’ll grasp a little more I’m sure. Once life hits a little harder!
Earthling

Subject: Re: Sovereignty, Independence and the Salmond deception.
From: kirk.torrance@snp.org
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 14:48:48 +0100
CC: snp.hq@snp.org
To: Earthling

You’ve clearly been upset with what I said and for that I’m sorry – it wasn’t my intention to put you on the defensive.

But I must say that your repeated emails with wild and unsubstantiated assertions about me, and how I’m somehow facilitating a coverup; satisfies me that I was completely correct in my analysis of your positions. In a phrase: you’re talking absolute nonsense!

By all means entertain your beliefs, but know this, those of us who see [substantiated rather than fallacious] problems in the system are working hard to make this country the best it can be as opposed to fantasising and moaning about invisible enemies.

Everyone flirts with conspiracy theories at some point in their lives because they are exciting and give you a sense that you know things that others don’t – which can give a sense of empowerment. But, in complex reality simple conspiracy theory models just don’t stack up to scrutiny.

To address the only point you’ve made that values consideration: “Now, in my belief that we still have a democracy, when it comes to the point you have just made re “causes”, I would consider it democratic to allow Scottish nationals to state their views (not MY “cause”) on a Scottish Nationalist page.

There are two fallacies here:

The Fallacy of Accident or Sweeping Generalisation AND the Fallacy of False Clause
Firstly, the SNP Facebook page is property of the Scottish National Party which is a political party – you seem to be confusing the party with the Scottish Government – they are not the same thing. The SNP forms the Government of Scotland and if you would like to make your claims on Scottish Government websites then that is your prerogative and it would be up to the Civil Service to decide whether or not to allow you to do so.

Because you understand the SNP form the Government of Scotland you believe they are one and the same [sweeping generalisation]. Now since you feel hard done by because the SNP (as a party), don’t think it’s reasonable to endorse your beliefs by allowing you to post them on party property, you jumping to the conclusion that the SNP Scottish Government are silencing you and in doing so are acting undemocratically [in you doing so, you are committing the fallacy of False Cause [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_(logic)].

Additionally…

You then go on to commit the fallacy of Irrelevant Conclusion and Affirming the Consequent by saying: “Furthermore, if it is not a “cause” that the entire Scottish public should know about from your perspective, then I would have to assume, as I do, that the SNP is defrauding the Scottish people.”All conspiracy theorists and cranks use a tactical approach that is very well demonstrated in your videos and writings. It’s called, “Proof by Verbosity” and it is a rhetorical technique that tries to persuade by overwhelming those considering an argument with such a volume of material that the argument sounds plausible, superficially appears to be well-researched, and it is so laborious to untangle and check supporting facts that the argument might be allowed to slide by unchallenged.
It is very likely that the ideas of others you’re read and which have brought you to your conclusions would have used this technique to convince you of all this “forbidden knowledge”. In actuality, it’s all nonsense.This is the only reason that I’ve bothared to take the time to reply to you today – I won’t let such gumf be spoken about the SNP and the decision we’ve made in keeping discussions around the party web properties in the realms of reality and logical reasoning.
You’re clearly passionate and talented, however the content of your arguments are totally built on fallacies (no matter how much you assume that correlation implies causation – because it simply doesn’t).
I sincerely hope that you’d put your energies into something more constructive and worthwhile by perhaps in the first instance seeing that your arguments are built on very unstable ground.

I’d like to suggest a good book for you to read called: “A Culture of Conspiracy” [read for free here http://www.scribd.com/doc/11443886/A-Culture-of-Conspiracy] or buy at http://amzn.to/r0MxhL .I think this will be the only reply you’ll be getting from me as I just don’t have time for email sparring – particularly when I am appalled at the errors in deduction.
I wish you all the very best though.
Kirk

From: Earthling

To: kirk.torrance@snp.org; snp.hq@snp.org
Subject: FW: Sovereignty, Independence and the Salmond deception.
Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2011 17:17:49 +0000

And one further thing Kirk buddy!

Nothing “sinister” re the EU? Really?
Now tell me – were you even remotely aware of this? Meanwhile, do you understand the first thing about Constitutional Law?
You need to learn a few things Kirk!
Pause and listen before you consider the fact that the CIA were involved in funding the European Movement in the 1970s as some “fallacy”.
As I said Mr Torrance. Consider before assuming the intellect of those you respond to and dismiss. Dismissiveness in ignorance is not an attractive quality, it is just simple arrogance.
Regards,
Earthling


From: Earthling
To: kirk.torrance@snp.org; snp.hq@snp.org
Subject: RE: Sovereignty, Independence and the Salmond deception.
Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2011 16:50:36 +0000

Hi Kirk,

May I first state that this so called “abuse and insult” has nothing to do with people simply not accepting MY world view. I tend not to wish to be abusive nor insulting in any way but when faced with what I consider insulting condescension, I tend not to take that too well either. So the point may be made – who’s opinion do you find it useful to agree with? I tend, however, not to go running off making complaints about what I find insulting. I tend to have a stronger disposition that some it would seem.
As for having my “own cause”. That is patently ridiculous to suggest such. Furthermore, this is a democracy am I right? What is the SNP page if not one for your “own cause”? Such hypocrisy in your remarks Kirk. Now, in my belief that we still have a democracy, when it comes to the point you have just made re “causes”, I would consider it democratic to allow Scottish nationals to state their views (not MY “cause”) on a Scottish Nationalist page. Furthermore, if it is not a “cause” that the entire Scottish public should know about from your perspective, then I would have to assume, as I do, that the SNP is defrauding the Scottish people.
Please be more specific with regard to which style or type of logical fallacy you refer to. I think it is clear to a blind man to be honest Kirk, that once you consider the attached document from Hansard, which states it quite clearly, that the oil/petroleum is vested in Her Majesty; when you consider the £38m that the monarchy (the Queen personally) is making from the offshore windfarm income and once you consider facts such as there is NO true allodial title to land for anyone in this country; it is patently obvious that Her Majesty controls practically every resource in this country. I find your naivety and ignorance overwhelming. So, if you would be so kind, do not attempt to brush me off with some assumption that I accept internet information at face value without fact checking or accuracy. Unless, of course, you wish to state that the information which is posted in Hansard is fallacious and untrustworthy? By all means do!
You may also, then, wish to state that our printed media perpetrates a lie when stating categorically that the Queen owns the seabed? If that is so, then I suggest you and the government of the United Kingdom sue them for libel!
I fully recognise that “Crown property” should NOT be the personal property of the Queen for the Queen is but a CONSTITUTIONAL MONARCH and holds an office by swearing an oath at her Coronation which she has since broken MANY times! However, as Upton Beall Sinclair stated: “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.” That quote would most certainly apply to you in this instance! While the fact remains, the Queen is personally profiting o the tune of £38m. Do you contest this? If you do, Mr Torrance, then please do so constructively, intelligently and in precise detail.
It matters not who administers the Crown Estate and, in fact, that is precisely my point: Alex Salmond wishes to administer it, in part, and that is precisely why he is wishing to retain the monarchy as the Scottish Head of State. How simple must this be for you? I can appreciate YOUR confusion however!
“Additionally, everyone is entitled to their own opinions on matters such as Europe; but to suggest there is something sinister going on is fear-mongering and incorrect”. Please do not presume to make simple statements and dismiss a subject you either are very poorly versed upon or, alternatively, you simply wish to shut down debate on. Who exactly are you to state what you do and believe it to be the last word on the matter? That is just sheer arrogance Mr Torrance!
Meanwhile, you may rest assured I have contacted the Scottish Executive regarding this. I do note, however, you have made absolutely no comment on the matter of a Scottish sovereign currency. Do you even understand this issue? I would guess the answer is either “No” or, again, you simply wish it to be ignored and dismissed.
I suggest you consider carefully before you make assumptions regarding the intelligence of people and the due diligence and care they take to check their facts. You may also wish to fully consider the currency issue before responding on it for you can rest assured I have a significant amount of factual data related to it and if you think for one moment you can dismiss it with one of your “statements” you are sadly mistaken.
Your response thus far is insulting but I shall choose to refrain from reciprocating too drastically.
I await your comments on it.
Regards,
Earthling

Subject: Re: Sovereignty, Independence and the Salmond deception.
From: kirk.torrance@snp.org
Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2011 16:54:50 +0100
To: Earthling

Hi Earthling,

Thanks for getting in touch – apologies for the delay in reply, I’m sure you can appreciate how busy we’ve been of late with the by-election, etc.
You’re clearly talented at creating video presentations.
Regarding your commenting ban: in checking the records, I notice the reason why you were banned was because of some abusive and insulting comments made by you towards others who didn’t accept your world view.
Our policy is clear – we encourage intelligent and positive conversations about Scotland and the governance of the country and her Independent future, but we cannot allow our conversation forums (either online or offline) to be used as a platform by people who want to promote their own causes – especially when they are of a dubiousness and discredited nature.
For instance, your claim that the Queen owns Scotland’s oil fields and wind turbines and suggestions of conspiracy involving the First Minister of Scotland is at best a logical fallacy [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy] and at worst quackery. The Crown Estate is indeed property and area belonging to The Crown. However, it is not the private property of the monarch and is administered by Crown Estate Commissioners, who are accountable to the Westminster Parliament. I can understand however why people might get confused.
If control of the Crown Estate was devolved to Scotland then it would be Scottish Parliament that would be accountable for its management with any excess revenue from the estate going to the Scottish Government. As reported yesterday the Crown Estate has achieved record profits this year, with access to these funds the Scottish Government would be able to provide better support to our economy and help create jobs and support employment. The SNP has been and continues to campaign for control of Scotland’s share of the Crown Estate.
Additionally, everyone is entitled to their own opinions on matters such as Europe; but to suggest there is something sinister going on is fear-mongering and incorrect.
The Internet is a terrific tool and has opened up information and knowledge to billions of people around the World. Unfortunately, it has also means that people often accept information at face value without fact checking for accuracy. As a result fallacious arguments and untruths are propagated time and time again.
At this time, I’m afraid we cannot re-instate your commenting privileges as there is a 12 month ‘cooling off’ period before consideration to lift any bans.
Please feel free to get in touch directly with the appropriate offices for answers to any questions you may have in order to get the full picture of events. Contact details for MSPs can be found here: http://voteSNP.com/sh
Regards,
Kirk

— 
Kirk J. Torrance

New-Media Strategist | Scottish National Party


On 4 Jul 2011, at 16:46, SNP HQ wrote:

FYA

———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Earthling
Date: Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 3:18 PM
Subject: RE: Sovereignty, Independence and the Salmond deception.
To: snp.hq@snp.org

Hi Susan,
Any thoughts on what I sent? Do you think the penny will drop? 🙂

An additional one Susan. Guernsey Susan. Ask Salmond about Guernsey. Ask him to explain what all of this is I’m talking about.

Meanwhile, I STILL haven’t heard from the Facebook people regarding my reinstatement. I suggested to you I wouldn’t while you promised I would.
I’m not surprised however but I would appreciate it if you would advise me why I have not heard. Thanks.
Regards,
Earthling


Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2011 16:30:45 +0100
Subject: Re: FW: Sovereignty, Independence and the Salmond deception.
From: snp.hq@snp.org
To:  Earthling

Hi Earthling,
I have the email thank you.
Susan

On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 12:27 PM, Earthling wrote:

Hello again Susan,

Can you please just acknowledge receipt of this email so that I know, for sure, you have it?
Thanks,
Earthling


From: Earthling
To: info@snp.org
Subject: Sovereignty, Independence and the Salmond deception.
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2011 16:13:22 +0000

Hello Susan,

I started off putting together a highly detailed explanation on video for you but I’m afraid I felt it may be too much to “hit” you with for the moment so i have kept it as succinct and to the main points as possible. I believe it is detailed enough and more than adequate to capture your and your colleagues attention to issues you may have no idea about – not many people do unless they have taken the time I have (and others) to study it. I have studied this entire issue in depth and very widely over the course of almost 4 years since returning to the UK having spent 10 years as an expat in Asia.
I do not hold a PhD nor an MSC or MA in Finance, I just hold a humble degree in Physics and a University Diploma in Business Studies. I simply add that to ensure you I am no idiot! Meanwhile, you can rest assured that if Mr Salmond were presented this information by you, he would completely dismiss it and myself as ridiculous no matter whether what he is presented with is all verifiable fact which he cannot deny.
Please watch the video and then read through the detail of the attachments: All UK Parliament and House of Lords.
This entire “story” or “picture” is immense in its connotations but it is something which, unless the Scottish public and the world at large can grasp (it is simple but for some reason people cannot take it onboard), people like Alex Salmond, David Cameron, the EU bureaucrats, her majesty’s loyal opposition (if they were to get back in government) all our Chancellors (and I have called out Darling and Osborne on this as well as my local MP – they refuse to answer and/or evade) will continue this con on you, me, everyone including your own SNP colleagues who have to pay their taxes, their petrol, their heating, gas, electricity, mortgages etc etc. Sovereignty and Independence is a joke and the joke is on us.
Mr Salmond wants his little piece of the power within the EU. he simply does not wish to play second fiddle to a UK government. It is transparent when you understand what I have presented to you here. I want what you want and we all want but none of us shall have it unless we call these people to answer. To do that, it needs good intentioned, intelligent people to bring this into focus and call Salmond to account. There is simply no other way. So the question is whether people just wish to be part of a group, a “bandwagon” and toe the party line which SUGGESTS it is for the best interests of Scotland, or whether they wish to seriously work for the best interests of people. And remember, we have people dying due to these issues and this corruption.
I hope you will take this, understand it and share it. It is of fundamental importance and I, for one, despise being lied to. That is why I may occasionally use language which may offend but ask yourself, would you rather be offended by language or be lied to and offended by action which steals your wealth and freedom and makes a mockery of this so called “democracy”?
This is all just the “tip of the iceberg” regarding the information, evidence I can produce to back it all up but, in itself, it is clear anyhow. I would be keen, if the opportunity ever arose, to call Mr Salmond to account on every point made and so much more within a public forum so that the people of Scotland recognise how they are being told what they wish to hear but not the true, honest reality. That reality meaning that, effectively, nothing will improve for them “Independence” or not.
Thanks for listening.
Earthling

SNP SUPPORTERS…..

Posted in Finance, Politics by earthling on July 5, 2011

The SNP are the right way for Scotland.
The SNP think first and foremost of Scotland and the Scottish people.
The SNP are concerned for the people of Scotland’s well being and that of the old people who cannot afford their heating bills.
The SNP want to eradicate poverty in Scotland.
The SNP have multiple projects which they wish to work upon but find are finding the money difficult to come by and are anticipating cuts from Westminster.
The SNP want Scottish Independence.

The Scottish people have strongly voted for SNP and Alex Salmond, your leader, has promised he will improve Scotland for the Scottish people and that he will improve employment and social conditions etc.

All I am asking you SNP supporters then is this: Ask Mr Salmond to explain the following to you and to promise you he will introduce a Scottish sovereign currency. This means that the Scottish government would NEVER borrow money based upon a debt, thereby paying interest. A Sovereign currency means that there is no need for the Scottish government to have Scotland caught up in a spiral of National debt. There would BE no debt.

What is the bottom line? The bottom line is this: If there is no National debt, due to issuing sovereign Scottish currency, then there is no need for a tax (income tax and others) to service the interest on that debt. It would also mean that Scotland would NEVER have to sell/privatise any single piece of land or infrastructure to pay off such a debt (this is essentially bankruptcy of course).

Now, if YOU, as an SNP supporter who truly wants what is best for Scotland and you are not just supporting the SNP for your own gain but for the gain of the nation as a whole (and this gain would be enormous), then please demand that Mr Salmond and/or your local SNP MSP explain all of this to you. If they refuse or if they evade or dismiss it then please again demand they explain, in detail, what this is all about.

Ultimately, if they choose not to (and they will) then I am quite happy to explain this to any and all SNP supporters in a public forum with or without MSPs present. I will provide all factual evidence to support what I am telling you and you will, finally, understand the enormity and the positive effect upon Scotland that the implementation of such a currency would have upon the Nation.

If, however, you choose to ignore all of this, then that is unfortunate and you are doing this nation and the people within it a disservice in fact. If you then wish to proclaim yourself a Scottish nationalist then I am afraid your proclamation is empty. It holds no legitimacy and you are nothing more than a follower of the “cult” of the SNP.

I am a Scottish nationalist and I want what is best for each and every one of you and I understand how it can be achieved VERY simply. But you will never see me on TV shaking hands and smiling nor will you see me in the Scottish parliament making strong “nationalistic” sounding speeches.
I leave that to the Politicians.

I always find it strange however, that people, in general, distrust politicians and the working classes hold the upper classes in disdain and speak about they would trust their own before trusting the establishment YET, because you give the establishment some form of greater knowledge and ability (because they wouldn’t be where they are without it you convince yourselves), you will generally, not listen to someone who is not in that “circle”. So while you hold these people in disdain, you prop them up by offering them this.
You vote for the SNP candidates because you BELIEVE they are “your people” simply because they have the label of SNP and they speak like you – so that shows that you trust them well before you’d trust a British party and a David Cameron. You see? You DO like to listen to “your own”. BUT the problem is this: “Your own” are every bit as controlled a party, and individuals within the party, as are the David Camerons of this world.

So, once more, I ask you: Demand from the SNP and particularly the First Minister, to explain to you what I mean by a Scottish sovereign currency. Then watch how you are evaded or how the question is somehow dismissed.

Please do not let yourself and the question be dismissed. If you do, you are allowing yourself to be lied to and defrauded.

Scottish Independence? Yes

Scottish Independence without a sovereign currency? Impossible and a lie.

SNP: The party of “Independence”. Altogether now: hahahahahahahaha

Posted in Uncategorized by earthling on June 21, 2011

 

 

From: Earthling
To: lazarowiczm@parliament.uk; malcolm.chisholm.msp@scottish.parliament.uk
Subject: FW: Sovereignty, Independence and the Salmond deception.
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2011 16:46:32 +0000

I thought I may as well send you two a copy of this too. If nothing else it may educate you.

An yes gentlemen, I am well aware of how “dangerous” all of this information is. That’s why you won’t listen – you have no “proverbials”.

Earthling.


From: Earthling
To: info@snp.org
Subject: Sovereignty, Independence and the Salmond deception.
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2011 16:13:22 +0000

Hello,

I started off putting together a highly detailed explanation on video for you but I’m afraid I felt it may be too much to “hit” you with for the moment so i have kept it as succinct and to the main points as possible. I believe it is detailed enough and more than adequate to capture your and your colleagues attention to issues you may have no idea about – not many people do unless they have taken the time I have (and others) to study it. I have studied this entire issue in depth and very widely over the course of almost 4 years since returning to the UK having spent 10 years as an expat in Asia.
I do not hold a PhD nor an MSC or MA in Finance, I just hold a humble degree in Physics and a University Diploma in Business Studies. I simply add that to ensure you I am no idiot! Meanwhile, you can rest assured that if Mr Salmond were presented this information by you, he would completely dismiss it and myself as ridiculous no matter whether what he is presented with is all verifiable fact which he cannot deny.
Please watch the video and then read through the detail of the attachments: All UK Parliament and House of Lords.
This entire “story” or “picture” is immense in its connotations but it is something which, unless the Scottish public and the world at large can grasp (it is simple but for some reason people cannot take it onboard), people like Alex Salmond, David Cameron, the EU bureaucrats, her majesty’s loyal opposition (if they were to get back in government) all our Chancellors (and I have called out Darling and Osborne on this as well as my local MP – they refuse to answer and/or evade) will continue this con on you, me, everyone including your own SNP colleagues who have to pay their taxes, their petrol, their heating, gas, electricity, mortgages etc etc. Sovereignty and Independence is a joke and the joke is on us.
Mr Salmond wants his little piece of the power within the EU. he simply does not wish to play second fiddle to a UK government. It is transparent when you understand what I have presented to you here. I want what you want and we all want but none of us shall have it unless we call these people to answer. To do that, it needs good intentioned, intelligent people to bring this into focus and call Salmond to account. There is simply no other way. So the question is whether people just wish to be part of a group, a “bandwagon” and toe the party line which SUGGESTS it is for the best interests of Scotland, or whether they wish to seriously work for the best interests of people. And remember, we have people dying due to these issues and this corruption.
I hope you will take this, understand it and share it. It is of fundamental importance and I, for one, despise being lied to. That is why I may occasionally use language which may offend but ask yourself, would you rather be offended by language or be lied to and offended by action which steals your wealth and freedom and makes a mockery of this so called “democracy”?
This is all just the “tip of the iceberg” regarding the information, evidence I can produce to back it all up but, in itself, it is clear anyhow. I would be keen, if the opportunity ever arose, to call Mr Salmond to account on every point made and so much more within a public forum so that the people of Scotland recognise how they are being told what they wish to hear but not the true, honest reality. That reality meaning that, effectively, nothing will improve for them “Independence” or not.
Thanks for listening.
Earthling

2nd November 1998 –

Lord SudeleyMy Lords, to what extent does the Minister recognise the problem of fractional reserve banking in this situation whereby banks lend out more than they have in the proportion of 10:1 of the reality? That situation would not exist if, as happened under the old thinking, banks were forbidden to lend money without taking a share of the risk.

 

 

§Lord McIntosh of HaringeyMy Lords, the noble Lord is surprisingly modest. Many hedge funds, such as long-term capital management, lend out far more than a multiple of 10 of their reserves. It is a very real problem, which is referred to in detail in the Statement. We have to balance the risks, as do the investors concerned, of lending, investing or gambling, if you like, beyond the available reserves, against the undoubted benefits to the global economy of wider credit which have arisen over recent decades. It is a difficult balance to sustain.

 

 

§Lord GrenfellMy Lords, first, does my noble friend agree that although one welcomes the idea of precautionary credit lines, that idea is still far from being properly thought through? What happens if a country is accorded a credit line on the strength of good policy and those policies deteriorate after the credit line has been started? That would put the IMF in an extraordinarily difficult situation. I would not like to be in its place and to have to decide whether or not to withdraw the line of credit.

Secondly, I am not sure whether I heard an answer to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, about the role of the World Bank and the new facility. I thought that we were trying to get away from the idea of having the World Bank issue liquidity and were trying to get it to maintain its position as a development financing agency. There seems to have been a change of heart.

 

 

§Lord McIntosh of HaringeyMy Lords, perhaps I may answer my noble friend’s second question first. If I gave any suggestion in an answer that we were proposing a change in the role of the World Bank, I did so mistakenly. I do not think that I did so. There have been questions on that point, but I was not conscious of indicating that we expected the World Bank to develop its role in that direction. I think that I gave the same answer when we debated the European Central Bank.

With regard to lines of credit, I do not underestimate the difficulty of dealing with a country which changes its policies once a line of credit is available. The very fact that lines of credit will be followed up by further financing and that that further financing is contingent on continuing with policies which will have to be satisfactory to the IMF is some satisfaction against the kind of dangers that my noble friend fears.

26th January 1999 –

Lord Sudeley

My Lords, the proper way to tackle the question of this debate would be the eradication of usury in its old sense of lending money without taking a share of the risk. However, instead of that, we really need to go back to the Moslem system of banks entering into business partnerships. The case against usury has been well represented by the Christian Council of Monetary Justice, meetings of which in the other place are chaired by the honourable Member for Great Grimsby and also by the Federation of Small Businesses. I am very conscious about how many parliamentarians shy away from opposition to usury because it is so embedded in our system. So this evening I shall ask for less.

The parties which are exceptionally informative on the subject of this debate would, I believe, be the Independent Banking Advisory Service, the Bankruptcy Association, the Federation of Small Businesses and two academics, Prem Sikka and Professor Christer of the University of Salford. In considering the problem posed by the debate we need to be mindful of the view of the Independent Banking Advisory Service that 30 per cent. of business failures would not have occurred during the last recession if banks had not been in a hurry to get their money back. The Bank of England’s quarterly report on small business statistics dated December 1998 reflects the fact that business failures rose by more than 6.2 per cent. last year. We also need to have regard to the lack of sufficient bank regulation. The ombudsman is concerned only with small cases and the Financial Services Authority will not comment on individual cases.

The report in the Daily Mail on 20th January headed, “Beware On Demand Bank Loans” was largely concerned with the case of Lloyd’s Bank versus Heritage Plc—distributing household wares to major superstores—in which the courts upheld that “on demand” means immediate repayment. Here lies the problem. The British Bankers Association is not collecting information about on demand loans in the belief that they are rare. On the contrary, the Independent Banking Advisory Service finds that the number of such loans is growing.

942In repaying a loan it is crucial that a debtor should have sufficient time so that his assets can be sold at a comfortable pace to fetch their proper value. Otherwise, the assets go for a decimated value. The proper role of the investigatory accountant, therefore, is to ensure that that should not happen. He should be acting as a debtor’s physician and not as his mortician.

Why is that not happening? It is because of the conflict of interest with which this debate is concerned where the investigatory accountant is appointed a receiver and so has a vested interest from the initial investigation, thereby knowing the lucrative fee income available. There is also the problem and foul practice of collusion with outside parties waiting in the wings to acquire the debtor’s assets at under-value. Hard though it may be to prove collusion, the opportunity is there. I hope, therefore, that Parliament will be sufficiently sagacious to judge that it is.

In conclusion, this debate is concerned with the questionable methods by which banks pursue many small debtors who would otherwise survive. But which party is chiefly in debt? Obviously the banks themselves, with a fraction in reserve, lending fraudulently way beyond their resources. I thought that the proportion was 10:1 but, when repeating the Statement on international finance on 2nd November, I was delighted to hear the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, inform the House that, with hedge funding, that proportion is much higher.

4th November 1999 –

Lord SudeleyMy Lords, there are three submissions in this report opposed to usury in its old sense of “lending money at no risk”. Drawing on those submissions and on other sources—there is a large literature on the subject—perhaps I may paint with a broad brush what is wrong with usury and the banks creating money out of nothing, and what we should do about it.

There is no doubt that banks should not finance business enterprises with loans where they charge interest. Instead, they should enter into partnership agreements, where, as in Islamic banking, the business risk is shared equally between entrepreneurs and financiers.

The use of bank credit consists—as I shall explain in a moment—not only of loans but of the creation of additional money. Money is cut loose from the real economy where goods and services are exchanged. Treated in that way as a commodity, money loses its value and stability as a medium of exchange. Money should therefore be a record of transactions for real goods and services. The fact that the medium-of exchange function of money is not adequately met is indicated by the growing emergence of local, LETS, private, Air Miles, and barter trade credit currencies.

How has money been cut loose from the real economy where goods and services are exchanged? The ancestors of the present banking industry in Tudor times were the goldsmiths, who realised that not all the gold plate and bullion deposited with them would be withdrawn at the same time. They therefore invented the audacious and fraudulent trick of issuing promissory notes, which are the origin of our present bank notes, to represent an excess of what they really had.

That policy of lending out more than one has was continued by the banks with their system of fractional reserve, sometimes given as a proportion of 10 to one, but hedge funding is really far higher. We see that at two levels: national and private debt. The mechanism of national debt is quite simple. It involved the assumption of debt by the Government to obtain additional revenue to cover annual shortfall in taxation. Therefore, to pay for the war against Louis XIV, the Bank of England was chartered in 1694 and started out in the business of lending out several times over the money that it held in reserves, all at interest.

Such lending at a prudent rate took a quantum leap with World War I. It was extended further to pay for World War II, and in the United States of America it took an even greater quantum leap to pay for the Vietnam War. Therefore, by 1971, it became unbridgeable, and at a rate of growth beyond control. President Nixon had no choice but to cancel the right of the Government to exchange dollars for gold, which removed the gap altogether.

The level of private debt escalated in a similar fashion. During the 10 years from 1980, consumer debt rose from £11 billion to £43 billion, while mortgage borrowing increased more than five-fold.

1069What are the bad effects of all this? There is no doubt that usury intensifies business cycles. Bank lending enabled share prices to rise to unsustainable levels in 1929; the Depression followed. Over-availability of credit caused a massive increase in house prices, followed by a dramatic fall in the late 1980s and early 1990s. In recession, interest acts as a fixed cost outside the company’s control, unlike share dividends. The higher its debt-equity ratio, the worse are the implications.

The basic cause of inflation, then, must be the banks’ use of fractional reserve in lending out more than they have. To reduce inflation, governments put up interest rates, which increases the profits made by the banks and encourages them to lend out more. Meanwhile, the high interest rates lead to a decline of economic activity because they increase production costs.

What is the way to curb the evils of usury which I have just described? The only way in particular to stop inflation is to stop banks from creating credit. The supply of money should be removed from banks and should be assumed by governments, who should issue it on a debt-free basis. Such a view is supported by five disparate quarters: the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, in the debate which he introduced to this House in 1985, Disraeli, the Vatican under Pope Pius XI in his Encyclical Quadragesimo Anno in 1931, the Tsars of Russia in the last century, who prevented the setting up of a privately owned central bank, and, above all, Abraham Lincoln, who said that governments should create, issue, and circulate all currency and credits needed to satisfy the spending power of governments and the buying power of consumers.

By adopting those principles, the taxpayer would be saved immense sums of interest. Lincoln’s greenbacks were generally popular, and their existence let the genie out of the bottle with the public becoming accustomed to government-issued, debt-free money. The year after Lincoln’s assassination, Congress set to work at the bidding of the European central banking interests to retire the greenbacks from circulation and to ensure the reinstitution of a privately owned central bank under the usurers’ control.

During the history of the United States, the money power has gone back and forth between Congress and some privately owned central bank. The American people fought off four privately owned central banks before succumbing to a fifth privately owned central bank, at that time essential, owing to the period of weakness during the Civil War.

The founding fathers of the United States knew the evils of a privately owned central bank. They had seen how the Bank of England ran up the British national debt to such an extent that Parliament was forced to place unfair taxes on the American colonies, leading to their loss following, the American Revolution.

I now conclude. Once the fundamental decision is taken to prevent sterling from being debt-based, the Commonwealth could act as the right monetary union to use sterling debt-free as a genuine alternative to the dollar and the euro.

1070

THE QUEEN, UKIP, NIGEL FARAGE, LORD PEARSON & THE EU

Posted in Law, Politics by earthling on May 31, 2011

We have a corrupt Monarch who has now just released comments to the media that she believes she may be the last monarch of the United Kingdom. She cites concern regarding the potential for a Scottish referendum voting for total Scottish Independence – which, it must be added, is a joke and a lie on the Scottish people since there is NO independence while a nation is controlled by Private Banking interests through affiliation with the IMF and while, just as today all laws adopted in Scotland and the UK as a whole, are originating from our new Big Brother state, the EU, the same shall continue when Scotland simply becomes another small state like Ireland. The split up of the United Kingdom has been a long time coming and has been a necessity for the EU to take full control over this powerful, relatively rich and patriotic nation – but the Queen has known for decades this day was coming (since 1972 when we joined the EEC if not well before) ad the writing was firmly on the wall 20 years later in 1992 with the Maastricht treaty. The fact is that the Monarch has never been sovereign for decades. The even sadder fact is, she knows it and she has worked hand in hand with the agenda because it is precisely what she wishes for.

So now, your (and my) “Queen” is softening the UK public up to accept the reality of the EU. To all those Royalists and those who have scoffed at those of us who have said you no longer HAVE a real Queen or Monarchy while you waved your flags and bought your mugs and got all patriotic and teary eyed at the Royal Weddings, rather than BUY your mug don’t you FEEL like one?

She broke her Coronation Oath from the minute she stood up from the throne having been given her Crown!

 

 

182540.html

 

 

So you believe that the Royals are “concerned” about this beloved United Kingdom of theirs splitting up into nice easier swallowed chunks by the EU do you? You think Salmond’s rhetoric and the step by step approach to devolution over the years since, strangely, we joined the EEC in 1972, is al just “coincidence” do you? Are you SO blind to be unable to recognise you’ve been had and your blindness and unwillingness to listen to those who you believe are just “anti monarchists” and therefore, unpatriotic (when in fact is more precisely the opposite but we see what the Queen and Her Majesty’s Government have been doing these last few decades) STILL will have you remain in denial.

Yes Charlie, the Royals and Salmond clearly look as if they are serious foes! He’s been doing the job of suckering the Scots into the pathetic “Bannockburn” mentality for years and all for his and their benefit and the ultimate benefit of the EU. And Scots (and the entire UK as a whole) are seriously dumbed down enough to just not get it. Too proud perhaps to admit they’ve been screwed by people they trusted so they say nothing, do nothing and allow the screws to get tighter.

Imbeciles!

 

Alex-Salmond-and-the-Prince-of-Wales-are-old-chums.html

 

 

So then on to this group of people called UKIP and, particularly, their “Leaders” Farage and Pearson. Let’s look at political rhetoric and the “Pied Piper” effect it has on the blind followers who watch the antics of Farage on his Youtube EU Parliament rants as opposed to the actual facts of the matter and the LAW of the land which, if UKIP were serious in their intent to have the UK OUT of the EU, they would have attacked the core issue and the establishment powers with this a LONG time ago but refuse to do so.

You see, it’s not just Salmond who plays a Pied Piper for Scots but Farage and UKIP do a fairly decent job in a kind of reverse fashion on the English. Yet you are ALL being “had”.

 

 

The questions which would not only shake UKIP but shake the entire system. Question is: Do you wish to use and pursue them with power? Ask yourself “How much AM I really wanting to change this country and eradicate the lies and the corrupt?” Your call.

Questions:

1. Does Lord Pearson have ANY affiliation with the Rothschild family or close associates either professionally or personally?

2. Is UKIP aligned with Zionist policy?

3. If the answer to 2 above is yes then please justify the existence of a “Jewish state” when, across the world, the ideology of having a state dedicated to a particular, racial, cultural or religious philosophy is considered racist and bigoted? As you are well aware, when the BNP suggest such in any manner for the UK, they are demonised as hardened racists. YET, the British government have the audacity to support – and demand British people support – a state of Israel which is precisely the antithesis of that of the multiculturalism they demand at home.

4. Please state those documents which, together, compose the British Constitution.

5. Please confirm your understanding of the current English Bill of Rights in terms of its legality on statute and the meaning of the phrase:

“And I do declare that no foreign prince, person, prelate, state or potentate hath or ought to have any jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence or authority, ecclesiastical or spiritual, within this realm. So help me God.”
6. Do you agree with both, David Cameron and Tony Benn, that politicians do not, never have and never should have, the power to transfer such powers (i.e. the sovereignty of our laws) to any other entity?
7. For Mr Cameron to state such emphatically as he does, he must draw this conclusion from some form of written (constituted) document which is binding by law otherwise he is speaking purely for himself and has no valid basis for making such a statement. Therefore, from WHERE does he draw this conclusion?
8. Do you agree that, as a government for and BY the people, such individuals in office and entrusted with the proper lawful use of such power, have a fiduciary duty toward the people of the United Kingdom?
9. Do you agree that David Cameron, by his own words, has implicated himself for continuing the same policy which he states, absolutely clearly and unambiguously, has never been within a politician’s power to do so?
10. Do you agree that the statement by Roy Hattersley regarding the deception by our governments in the 1970s regarding our participation in the EEC not affecting our sovereignty is, therefore, tantamount to treason and sedition at law?
11. Do you agree that with the monarch taking an oath to the British people – WHICH SHE MUST DO OTHERWISE SHE WOULD NEVER BE CROWNED BECAUSE HER POWERS ARE DEPENDENT UPON HER MAKING THAT OATH – that those servants of the Crown, and in particular, Parliamentarians and the Privy Council, when swearing an oath to the Queen, are, insodoing, simply swearing, once more to the people, that their entire raison d’etre is to support and protect the monarch in HER duties to the people who she sore HER oath to?
12. Do you agree that it does not necessarily require an army or force to subvert the sovereignty of a nation but such can be accomplished “peacefully” through economic warfare and for those in governmental office to legislate supportively of such? This would, therefore, be where the crimes of sedition and treason by certain members of government such as, of all people, our very own Lord Chief Justice Ken Clarke, would enter the frame. This harks back to the question I raised to Lord Pearson regarding Bilderberg and which Malcolm Wood readily acknowledged as of concern. Yourself, Lord Pearson and others know precisely why this is of concern and your acknowledgement of it makes clear you appreciate the issue. Mr Clarke IS a serious issue! He is a steering committee member and is fully involved in the organisation as are many others.

13. Do you agree that it is pure fallacy to suggest that the United Kingdom does NOT have a Constitution codified or otherwise for, if to suggest such would suggest there is no fundamental laws which apply to the governance of this country and, therefore, it would be, in fact, an anarchy with “government” and the state simply being an apparatus by the ruling class to impose their own wishes upon the people without having any lawful basis for such? Therefore, the word “democracy” would not apply and neither would the rule of law. Do you agree it is an absolute fallacy purely from the perspective that, for a sovereign nation to exist (or have existed) would require a constitution as is the case for any nation, organisation, political party and Corporation?

14. Why are you not bringing this solidly to the attention of the British public? Considering it destroys the whole validity of the EU.