Earthling

Don’t be SILLY! “They” can’t control the entire world!!

Posted in Gross stupidity within society, Paedophilia, Politics by earthling on July 1, 2019

It’s now well over 10 years since I started talking about all of this. I’ve had to pay for it in various ways over that time. I have also had to take the bullshit of people dismissing it all and throwing accusations and have even landed in court due to it. I’ll land in court again if I have to.

That said, will I stick my neck out as far as I have in the past? I would if it meant anything to people (en masse) but it just seems the masses are accepting it.

Here is the CLEAREST (by far) video of part of the agenda AND a demonstration of how a man (and this stretches to ANYONE in any sector of public service including police, education, you name it) will go against what he knows to be true because “it is policy”. 1+1=3.

There is nothing to argue here. This is a man in sheer turmoil because he cannot argue what he doesn’t believe in. He is in between knowing the kid is right but knowing what acknowledgement of that would do to his career, and having to “lay down the ‘law'” purely from an authoritarian standpoint and he will take the latter route because the kid is easier to handle than the system.

How far does that go? How far would he go, depending upon the power bestowed to him, to shut the kid up? Step by step, anyone stepping out of line on “policy” and “law” WILL be dealt with more and more vigorously. And the world just says “Don’t rock the boat” just as this teacher is saying.

If you (the teacher in this scenario) just happen to stumble upon this blogpost – LOOK AT YOURSELF IN THE MIRROR AND ASK YOURSELF “WHO AND WHAT AM I?” I know what you are but you need to answer it for yourself.

It would not surprise me if this video is removed from Youtube at some point so I suggest, if you can, download it.

BUT PLEASE, FOR GOD’S SAKES, SHARE IT!

Just stop and THINK Scotland!

Posted in Politics by earthling on September 8, 2014

That is ALL I’m asking you to do!

And I’m doing so because I have a VERY grave fear that something terrible is about to happen! I despise the Westminster government and I’m Scottish. I also, however, despise the man Salmond and his government because they are ALL part of the same group. Sure they are “fighting” this out but it is ALL a show for your benefit!

Think of some thing such as:

1. Northern Ireland

“What?? Northern Ireland?? What are you going on about you idiot?”

Ok so that’s what some of you are saying, but THINK. Just for a moment. Let it seep into your brain and consider something VERY strange!

WHY did the British Army spend decades in Northern Ireland? WHY?

Well, it was to ensure that Northern Ireland remained part of the union. And yet, just as there is the “Yes” camp and the “No” camp in Scotland right now, the powers that be have literally handed you independence and the splitting of that union on a plate! And Scotland is a MUCH bigger loss that N. Ireland I’m sure you would agree?

So, once more, think: WHY, after all those decades protecting the union in N. Ireland, would they do this?

Why is the British Army not in Scotland right now protecting the union? Why did the UK/Westminster government even start the devolution road? Why did they allow it to come to this? WHEN did it start? Well it all started essentially at the same time as the EEC (which was sold to the entire UK as a lie about sovereignty). It was mid 1970s that we had that referendum (filled with lies AND funded by the CIA – documented fact!).

2. The EU, Germany and France

Who gains big time out of Scotland being “independent”? (and you’re not going to be by the way but I’ve covered that elsewhere). Well the EU does! This strong competitor of GERMANY and France will no longer exist! Germany will be BY FAR the largest economy in the EU, France next and then – no UK remember – will it be England? Probably but with far less clout. Scotland will have next to zero clout either. You are being led by the tail by Alex Salmond.

THIS IS THE EQUIVALENT OF AN IPO (Initial Public Offering) OF A NATION. This is NOT “Independence”.

3. Head of State

Once more, why have you, the people of Scotland, not had any serious debates regarding WHO will be your Head of State?

WHY? BECAUSE YOU HAVE NO CHOICE! Salmond has no choice either! It is the CROWN who owns the seabed, the minerals and the OIL! The OIL DOES NOT BELONG TO SCOTLAND OR ENGLAND. IT BELONGS TO THE CROWN!

NOW I DARE YOU! DEMAND, IN THE NEXT 10 DAYS, THAT YOU GET RID OF HER MAJESTY AS YOUR HEAD OF STATE!

THAT would be INDEPENDENCE (Sovereignty)

And then, tell Salmond to screw his ideas of keeping the British pound OR even introducing a new Scottish “sovereign” currency. Demand that the Scottish government gives YOU, the Scottish people, the power to research, understand and debate what is known as MPE (Mathematically Perfected Economy). IF you were to, then the following would not even be of a concern AND you would be truly sovereign and independent. But then, if you were, watch out for the NATO bombs!!

 

Yes and mortgages

 

4. Sectarianism

I’ve been hearing (even from family members) how there is a great deal of bad blood over the border between the two camps! They are even dividing a nation! There is vandalism toward those saying “Better Together” and it is reported widely. You will end up with sectarianism and a divided country. It COULD even become a Northern Ireland! But then the powers that be and the EU will just LOVE that! By GOD you’re voting yourselves into a trap! Look at what is happening even BEFORE the vote! What comes after? What kind of government (either side of the border) is it which is quite happily walking into a situation where it has to govern a divided country? Well it’s the kind of government that just doesn’t give a shit about what actually happens to you on the streets as a nation. In fact, if all hell breaks out they’ll love having to bring in peace keeping forces of one form or another. It’ll be Tony Blair’s “Big Brother” state on steroids!

Yet all of you – Yes or NO voters – are ALLOWING yourselves to be put in a position where, when you SHOULD be coming together, THEY are splitting you apart! PERFEKT RODNEY!!!

5. Mortgage Meltdown

So what happens if the above DOES happen re mortgages (and that article is a valid issue which Salmond hasn’t even touched on – he’ll just say something sarky as he always does, the sinister little git)?

THOUSANDS of people in negative equity. Thousands losing their homes or needing to sell for pennies on the pound. And who buys it all up for pennies on the pound? You guessed it! The bankers. Greece Part 2!

6. Scotland’s oil

Shut up and stop being so wilfully bloody ignorant when the answer to THAT canard is put in front of you (as I have done time and again!!):

The OIL belongs to the CROWN!. It belongs neither to Scotland not England!! You, the Scottish people, will NOT EVER benefit from it! It’s like saying you will benefit from having the RBS. Do you? Did you? Oh just stop talking shit people please!! It’s embarrassing! You are So naive it’s painful!

queen-oil

 

LOOK IT UP!!! UK PARLIAMENTARY ARCHIVES!! STOP BEING SO BLOODY LAZY! NO WONDER THEY’RE GONNA HAVE YOU OVER A BARREL  (no pun intended!).

The OIL DOES NOT BELONG TO YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It belongs to the Crown!!!! Don’t you get it??? – NO you bloody well don’t and never will!!

 

YOU NEVER INSTIGATED ANY OF THIS! THE EXISTING OWNERS OF THIS COUNTRY DID AND YOU ARE BEING HAD!

THE PROMISSORY NOTE (SCOTLAND)

Posted in Uncategorized by earthling on July 16, 2013

I have to admit, it sometimes is very tiring constantly trying to dredge up more and more proof and evidence of things I wrote about on here. It’s like hardly anyone listens and, even if they do, so what? Nothing is ever done!

It’s like people just want to remain in a state of abject fear and ignorance and never wish to use the evidence toward any direct action.

I know I speak to an “audience” but does that audience ever use the information in any way whatsoever? Or just acknowledge the info as “interesting”?

Anyhow, enough of the rant. Forgive me, I just feel sometimes I’m knocking my head against a brick wall.

THE PROMISSORY NOTE IN SCOTLAND (for that is all you have AND all you need).

For all you out there who do not understand the MPE/Promissory note issue and think it is some form of “mad theorem” I ask you to think again. Scotland already works on the very basis of Promissory notes. Every single person in Scotland does not buy and sell with legal currency but with Promissory notes. NOW do you want to learn?

Mr. Jenkin: This group of amendments falls into exactly the same category as the previous one, in that if there was one matter over which the Scottish Parliament would be expected to take control, it would be an issue of such symbolic importance as the Scottish bank note.

I understand that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Gorrie) is not correct about the issue of the euro, as Scottish bank notes are not themselves legal tender; they are merely promissory notes issued under the Bank Notes (Scotland) Act 1845 and the Currency and Bank Notes Act 1928. They are backed by reserves in the banks concerned, but they are not themselves legal tender. For that reason, they could remain in circulation as promissory notes if they were reissued as euro notes in the event that we joined the single currency. Of course, the European central bank and the other member states would not recognise them as legal tender, but, as they do not have such recognition in England or, indeed, in Scotland, that would not be a problem. However, it would be interesting to hear on the record whether that is also the Government’s view.

The issue has symbolic importance. As the United Kingdom Parliament allowed Scottish notes to continue in issue long after the currency union between England and Scotland, it is extraordinary that they should not become the responsibility of the Scottish Parliament.

Of course, the Government must reserve legal tender as United Kingdom issue over anything to do directly with currency, but, as Scottish bank notes are technically not currency, I fail to understand, and ask the Minister to explain, why promissory notes could not become a matter for the Scottish Parliament, rather than the United Kingdom Government, to supervise.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199798/cmhansrd/vo980330/debtext/80330-22.htm

So Scotland already is ACKNOWLEDGED as working on the basis of PROMISSORY NOTES. Do you see ANY difference between YOUR lives north of the border in terms of how you use “money” to that south of the border or anywhere else?

No, you don’t! And there’s a reason for that. The reason being is that just as you accept and consider these acknowledged promissory notes (obligations) as your currency, the rest of the world does precisely the same because, as explained in my blog “The new economics will be mathematics”, ALL currency throughout the world are simply no more and no less than PROMISSORY NOTES which represent each and every one of our promissory obligations to one another.

THE ONLY PROBLEM WITH USING THE BANKS’ RE-PRESENTATIONS OF OUR OWN PROMISSORY OBLIGATIONS IS THAT WE NEED TO PAY INTEREST TO THESE BANKS FOR THE SIMPLE USE OF THEIR REPRESENTATION (i.e. BANK  NOTES) OF OUR OWN MONEY! THAT IS ALL WE PAY INTEREST FOR YET, IF WE SIMPLY RECORDED EACH AND EVERY PROMISSORY TRANSACTION ON THE MPE (Mathematically Perfected Economy) Common Monetary Infrastructure (CMI) then we pay no interest for goods and assets we buy and, therefore, there is NO ever spiralling upward NATIONAL DEBT because the REAL economy would be perfectly reflected by the amount of promissory obligations in circulation.

THE BANKS STEAL OUR OWN PROMISSORY NOTES AND REPRESENT THEM AS THEIRS. DOING SO, THEY THEN CHARGE INTEREST AND THAT INTEREST DOES NOT EXIST IN THE REAL ECONOMY THEREFORE IT CAN NEVER EVER BE PAID OFF!

Monetary table

Because interest can never be re-paid, the economy must borrow MORE money from the banks to service the debt. The more that is borrowed the more interest owed which can NEVER be paid off. It is a TERMINAL system and it will eat up every living being like a form of monetary black hole. We are approaching the event horizon of this black hole and it is NOT going to be pretty and GOLD does not stop it!

zf-Money-Black-Hole

The ONLY solution (because it is the true representation of what money actually is) is Mathematically Perfected Economy!

Climate Change: Lord Rothschild will make it all go away!

Posted in "Climate Change" by earthling on December 14, 2011

DEAR LORD ROTHSCHILD, IF SCOTLAND, ENGLAND, IRELAND AND WALES, SELL ALL OUR NATIONAL ASSETS TO YOU FOR YOUR EXPLOITATION AND CONTROL, WILL YOU PLEASE ENSURE CLIMATE CHANGE DOES NOT EFFECT THE BRITISH ISLES?

Jacob: YES MY SON.

Is Alex Salmond your man?

Jacob: YES MY SON.

 

Jim Hume (Liberal Democrat)

Needless to say, I am delighted to participate in the debate, which highlights the success of the Lib Dem-led campaign to save our forests. Roseanna Cunningham showed excellent timing when she announced the U-turn on the morning of the upbeat Lib Dem conference, so I thank her for that.

As Sarah Boyack was correct to say, it is time to move on, and the Liberal Democrat amendment does so constructively. What we witnessed in the past few months was not about new inventive ideas to tackle climate change or being creative, although those terms were drummed into us; rather, a brazen and reckless attempt was made to undermine one of Scotland’s most valuable assets by selling it off to the highest bidder.

Throughout the discussion, the Government resorted to petty personalised attacks on the Liberal Democrat campaign and treated industry, individuals and organisations—indeed, anyone who disagreed with its so-called great proposal—with contempt. Mike Russell even accused others of being theatrical. Such an attitude from a minister is shocking and, considering the potential impacts of leasing on Scotland and the scale of what was proposed, it was sheer arrogance to assume that the proposal could be pushed through Parliament by piggybacking on the simplistic idea that it would solve all our climate change problems.

Throughout the debate in January, Mr Russell accused the Liberal Democrat contribution and response to the consultation of being “fact free”. He said:

“There is nothing so dishonourable as politicians who don’t do their homework while confidently trotting out wildly inaccurate statements for political benefit.”—[Official Report, 29 January 2009; c 14498.]

In fact, the Liberal Democrat response has proven to be entirely accurate and has reflected the views of land-based organisations, tourism providers, foresters and wood processors at every stage. Those businesses have been in serious limbo since last November and, in January, 19 of the main wood processors sent the minister a letter stating exactly that. That limbo was due to the Government’s mad proposal and to the Tories, who did not stand up against it initially and made their U-turn only after their Scottish National Party masters. Mike Russell ignored everyone, decried their expertise and passed them off as scaremongers who did not do their homework—what arrogance and ignorance.

Throughout the debate, references were made to the Stern report, but nowhere in that document did Lord Stern conclude that 100,000 hectares of Scotland’s most commercially viable forests should be sold to the Rothschild banking group for a notional sum of up to £200 million for 75 years. In that same debate, Mike Russell pronounced in prophetic fashion:

“Although leasing is not a new idea, I believe that its time has come.”—[Official Report, 29 January 2009; c 14497.]

Its time had come—its time to be buried with all the SNP’s other misguided flights of fancy.

Who would have thought that, within a month, Mr Russell would be removed from his minister’s position, obviously for flogging that dead horse? I welcome the new minister’s U-turn, even though Ms Cunningham had thought the leasing proposal a “cunning plan” in January. I am sincerely relieved that sense has prevailed: the decision has removed the guillotine of uncertainty that was hanging over rural communities, which can now invest for the future.

It is now time to move on. We have an opportunity to implement, under the Forestry Commission’s stewardship, sensible measures that will generate income for renewables, access, tourism and new tree planting and will guarantee the wood supply for our businesses. The Government should now concentrate on doing its best for Scotland through real and tangible measures to tackle climate change.

I move amendment S3M-3727.4, to insert at end:

“and further calls on the Scottish Government to introduce a comprehensive sustainable land-use strategy, taking into account the strategic economic, social and environmental impacts and benefits of forestry, agriculture, recreation and other land uses and setting out, where appropriate, the contribution each can make in dealing with the consequences of climate change.”

God Help us! Are we truly run by incompetent imbeciles in the Scottish Executive?

Posted in Finance, Politics by earthling on July 30, 2011

JESUS CHRIST! This is painful!

 

 

From: Earthling

To: malcolm.chisholm.msp@scottish.parliament.uk

Subject: RE: Complaint

Date: Sat, 30 Jul 2011 20:04:41 +0000

 

Malcolm,

 

I am sorry but this is painful. It was once amusing but now it is simply painful. I will respond by giving you the benefit of the doubt that either:

1. You did not bother to read this or,

2. You sincerely do not understand what I am talking about.

 

Now correct me if I am wrong but I am sure that I have previously sent you the parliamentary minutes and House of Lords minutes by both a Captain Henry Kerby in 1965 and Lord Sudeley in 1999 respectively. I also believe I have sent you the video showing Douglas Carswell MP stating the fact, within the House of Commons, last year, that the World monetary system is a Ponzi scheme. Further, I believe I have sent you the video of Ben Bernanke, Chairman of the Federal Reserve system, stating clearly that a National debt is unnecessary in totality. Now the last time I checked, neither Alan Greenspan (one corrupt individual) nor Ben Bernanke (another) ever considered or discussed the ISSUANCE of money and how that impacted upon Economics and that is because it has NO impact on the supply and demand of goods and services. The issuance of money is not even taught in Economics and Business tertiary education (or, in fact, at any level within our educational system). Meanwhile, we have Ben Bernanke having been put on the spot by a US Congressman asking him if it were correct to say that there is no need for a national debt and Bernanke replying “Yes”.

 

NONE of the above has the slightest thing to do with Economics, whether that be Keynesian or Austrian or any other form. It is a basic function of how money is created and not to do with the laws of supply and demand in any way whatsoever.

 

Let me put it this way: I am advising you that, instead of producing milk from a goat which demands we must pay the goat back all the milk we have consumed PLUS interest of another quart of milk (which was never brought into existence by the goat in the first place), we should have it produced by a cow which allows the constant circulation of the milk and ZERO interest to be paid upon it.

 

You have responded by saying that by producing it from a cow would have been disastrous for the country. You are assuming that money needs to be borrowed AT ALL. There is NO NEED for the government to borrow ANY money whatsoever. Therefore, there is NO NEED for the country to have a National debt of ONE PENNY. Therefore there is NO NEED for any form of AUSTERITY MEASURES! There is no need for Government borrowing FULL STOP. There is, therefore, no need for the Scottish (or British) or ANY government to have a debt, therefore there is no need for the immense imposition of tax upon the Scottish or British people. Therefore there is no need for there to be no money available for any and all infrastructure projects, education, health, employment. The Scottish government could have FULL employment in Scotland and a fully funded infrastructure, education, health etc etc. I assume, now, the point I am making is CRYSTAL clear?

 

The Scottish government simply needs to stop the FRAUD of borrowing money from private interests (i.e. Private Central Banks) and issuing gilts/bonds (government collateral) and simply issue it’s currency and credit directly from the Scottish Government/treasury to the nation.

 

Malcolm, this is not rocket science and it has ZERO to do with Economics!

 

Now, I will ask you once more to act upon this and bring it to the attention of the Scottish Executive and to the Scottish Public.

 

Please do so for the humour in what seems to be a broad incapability to grasp logical, simple concepts is running dry while there are people in this country losing their entire livelihoods and, with respect to the aged, their lives due to a system which, perhaps through your ignorance it would seem from your reply, is being protected and supported by you. Please consider the deaths of people due to this system when you consider your actions in ignorantly (perhaps) supporting this ponzi scheme.

 

Lastly, if I have not sent you the items I list above then please advise because they entirely support what it is I am advising you of. There are no “ifs buts and maybes” here.

 

Now will you please deal with this matter properly or I shall have no alternative but to make a solid complaint to the Scottish Executive regarding the capability of my MSP to hold office given he is displaying some form of mental incapacity to grasp a VERY simple point. I would, therefore, have to assume that he cannot carry out his duties effectively in representing my or any of his other constituents’ interests.

 

 

Earthling

 

From: Malcolm.Chisholm.msp@scottish.parliament.uk

To: Earthling

Subject: RE: Complaint

Date: Sat, 30 Jul 2011 15:27:10 +0000

 

Well there are just different economic views on this Earthling. You are expressing a pre-Keynesian approach which in my opinion would  have been totally disastrous for this country,. Without borrowing the recession would have been a slump and unemployment would have been sky high. Of course the deficit must be dealt with but a too extreme approach is counter-productive  which is what I believe is happening right now.

Best wishes

Malcolm Chisholm

 

 

From: Earthling

Sent: 28 July 2011 00:15

To: Chisholm M (Malcolm), MSP

Cc: scottish.ministers@scotland.gsi.gov.uk

Subject: FW: Complaint

 

Malcolm,

 

As my MSP and representative, I expect you to act upon this complaint since, having sent it into the Scottish Executive, they, of course, have ignored it. They do so by their determination that complaints about the Scottish Executive/Government are only on procedural points. Poor “service” therefore to minor issues which one may raise. As you are fully aware, this is not a minor issue.

 

Now, I will state this quite clearly: The Scottish Government (as are the UK Government) are defrauding the nation by way of borrowing money/credit and having the people of Scotland pay an interest on a debt which was and is unnecessary in it’s entirety.

I have previously provided support of such an allegation by way of Parliamentary and House of Lords minutes plus a definitive confirmation of the issue by Ben Bernanke of the Federal Reserve System (for it is an entire western monetary issue) so Malcolm, please do not treat this as some “off the wall” issue. Please do not insult my intelligence and please confirm you have read this – I know you fully understand the issue – and that you are bringing it to the attention of the Scottish Executive.

 

There is no “explanation” of this issue required since, frankly, there is none. The Scottish Executive must “come clean” and advise the Scottish public that such a fraudulent misrepresentation of money and credit and the need for borrowing at all shall be given a full, frank, open hearing.

 

Please respond and acknowledge this communication with some immediacy.

 

Earthling

 

From: Earthling

To: scottish.ministers@scotland.gsi.gov.uk

Subject: Complaint

Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2011 14:17:16 +0000

Dear Mr Salmond and Ministers,

 

On the Scottish Executive website, it has the following regarding complaint procedure:

 

The Scottish Government Complaints Procedure

It is important to the Scottish Government that complaints about service are dealt with by the right person at the right time.

If you have a complaint about the service you have received from a department or official, the Government will work with you to resolve the complaint in a full and fair way, keeping you informed of progress.

Complaints Procedure

·         First, you must speak to the officials in the business area or department that your complaint is about. Working with you, they will aim to resolve your complaint. You can reach officials through the Main Addresses and Contact Points of the Scottish Government.

·         If, working together, you are unable to resolve the issue, the officials will ask you to confirm if you wish to move on to the next stage. A senior official will appoint a Complaints Officer who is completely independent of the business area involved in the stage above. They will look into your complaint and aim to help you resolve it. If your complaint is still not resolved it will be subject to a final review by the relevant Director. If you remain dissatisfied, you then have the option of taking up your complaint with the Ombudsman.

 

Here is my service complaint and the right person is you Mr Salmond. After all, the “buck stops” with the First Minister on something as fundamental as this. Furthermore, it impacts and applies to ALL departments whether that be finance, social care, Justice, you name it. So let us “work together” to resolve the issue shall we? After all the role of government is to govern by consent is it not? Please answer this first question. Is this a correct statement? The people of Scotland elect their government to represent them and, thereby, are governed by consent. I am sure I have heard you say words to the effect “The people of Scotland have spoken”. So then, let us work together to enlighten the people of Scotland further and ask them to speak once more shall we?

Or do we have something other than a democratically elected devolved government? Please be specific while concise.

 

You see the fundamental issue with people voting at the ballot box and that being considered “democracy” is that, if the people voting have not been given all the facts and information they require to make an educated and informed decision, then such “democracy” (and the subsequent “contract” between the electorate and the political party for the latter’s legitimacy to govern) is based upon deception. Before anyone signs for their mortgage or any other financial transaction, they are provided with terms and conditions of contract. IF those terms and conditions are judged as not having given the buyer full and frank disclosure, then the contract is considered void and the legal establishment would rightly consider such practice by the seller as fraudulent and deceptive practice. I hope this clarifies my point Mr Salmond?

 

Now, regarding your service Alex and the service to the people of Scotland of your entire party. My complaint is this: Fraud and deception – plain and simple. Whether intentionally or otherwise perhaps you can clarify? The remedy for this is also very simple however. You advise the Scottish public that, in fact, there is no need whatsoever for a public/national/government debt. You cease borrowing the nation’s currency (and yes I am well aware that, right now, such currency is a UK currency. I am also aware of the fact that, in terms of notes and coins, neither Bank of England nor Bank of Scotland or Clydesdale Bank notes are legal tender in Scotland). I am talking about the issuance of the nation’s credit in total Mr Salmond. The fact that it is issued as a debt and bears interest.

 

So let us “collaborate” and work together as your Complaints Procedure above suggests so that you may bring this issue to the attention of the Scottish public immediately. Work with me. Let’s resolve the complaint in a full and fair way.

 

I don’t think there is any need for a Complaints Officer and next stages but, if you are unwilling to “work together” on this issue then I guess it must progress to that stage. However, will the “Senior Official” appoint such an officer to handle the complaint objectively or will he have been told precisely how to handle it to the satisfaction of Mr Salmond and the Scottish government rather than to the satisfaction of the people of Scotland?

 

Please keep me informed of the progress.

 

Kind Regards,

 

Earthling

 

 

 

 

I mean SERIOUSLY! How many F***ING times does this have to be repeated?

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: 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