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!

Sturgeon and Tavistock

Posted in Politics by earthling on April 18, 2015

Nicola-Sturgeon-Aberdeen

First of all, I’ll be upfront – I don’t like this “wee nippy sweetie” called Sturgeon.

As a “woman” she needs some botox on her top lip (or, perhaps a moustache) but even that wouldn’t help.

Screencaps-rab-c-nesbitt-12361996-449-360

Also, I hear continuously in her voice (and I’m scottish) an aggressive arrogance while selling my scottish brethren bullshit. She knows, as much as any other “leader”, that the monetary system and the “economy” she speaks of, is built upon a basic lie – that lie being that banks create money. That lie being that there has to be a National debt. She also lies when she uses the word “independence”. But the SNP followers simply never listen to sense or logic. You cannot have independence while part of the EU.2952222_953710d6d3_m

At this point, however, I wish to alert you to her comments re migration in the video below. It is extremely interesting to hear her speak about the need for migration into Scotland. A lot of the migration we have seen into the UK has been into areas of England. She seems to wish to increase the population of Scotland (then ask the scots to have more babies no? Ah, no. That’s not the idea. The idea is a political one for political aims. She’s looking to do a “Labour” migration policy into Scotland). She talks of having a “sensible migration policy”. Isn’t that precisely what UKIP are suggesting? Or is her “sensible” ideas not quite the same? What does she mean by a “sensible migration policy”? She does not elaborate here. It would be interesting to know would it not? And how does she intend to enforce that when we all know it is the EU (which SNP say Scotland will be “Independent” within) which determines such policy? Her comments come at around the 22 minute mark.vubery8a

The woman is full of shit (as was Salmond). And no, I’m not coming from the perspective of supporting any other Political Party because I support none of them. They are ALL full of shit. That said, if I still were in the “matrix” of believing in the system, my vote would go to UKIP, but I’m not. UKIP is as much zionist controlled as the rest of the parties. That’s why there is a UKIP “Friends of Israel” and that’s why Farage met Murdoch. The people who steer ALL of these parties lurk quietly (and in Murdoch’s case, not so quietly) behind the scenes. But Murdoch, himself, isn’t even a decision maker; he is an enabler through his media and he works for the decision makers.

 

Sturgeon talks at UCL TAVISTOCK School of Public Policy.

Our aims
To influence public policy through high quality academic research;
The School acts as the bridge between UCL’s world-class research and the policy-making community in Britain and internationally.
The School’s academic discipline is political science, including the fields of international relations and political theory. From 2001, the School has built up a core faculty of many academic staff across these fields, with a Department of Political Science coming formally into being in 2005. In addition the Constitution Unit specialises in constitutional reform and comparative constitutional studies.

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/spp/aboutus

It’s not just a University – it’s a Think Tank. And if you know Tavistock at all, then I need say no more.
Why does Sturgeon feel it necessary to “sell” Scottish Independence to a University in London? I’ll leave you to consider that.

 

Tavistock Institute Of Human Relations

(layer of The Committee of 300)

This group was formed at Oxford University, London, by the Royal Institute of Of International Affairs in 1922. Major John Rawlings Reese, a British Army technician, was instructed to set up the largest brainwashing facility in the world at the Tavistock Institute for Human Relations as a part of Sussex University.

This became the core of Britain’s Psychological Warfare Bureau. It was Tavistock-designed methods that got the United States into the Second World War and which, under the guidance of Dr. Kurt Lewin, established the OSS, the forerunner of the CIA. Lewin became the director of the Strategic Bombing Survey, which was a plan for the Royal Air Force to concentrate on bombing German worker housing while leaving military targets, such as munition plants, alone. The munition plants on both sides belonged to the international bankers who had no wish to see their assets destroyed. The idea behind saturation bombing of civilian worker housing was to break the morale of the German worker.

It was not designed to affect the war effort against the German military machine. Lewin and his team of actuaries reached a target figure, that if 65% of German worker housing was destroyed by nightly RAF bombing, the morale of the civilian population would collapse. The actual document was prepared by the Pru-dential Assurance Company. The RAF, under the command of “Bomber” Harris, carried out Lewin’s plans, culminating in the terror firestorm bombing of Dresden, in which over 125,000, mainly old men, women and children, were killed.

The truth of “Bomber” Harris’s horror raids on German civilians was a well kept secret until long after the end of WW II. Today its primary mission is to establish a global brainwashing and opinion forming network. This institute is the originator of the Aquarian Conspiracy, designed to weaken the nations of the world by encouraging drug use, free sex, homosexuality and lesbianism. It has been very successful in the United States. It works through many research institutes and think tanks. The principal ones in the United States are the Stanford Research Institute, Rand Research and Development Corporation, the Institute For Policy Studies, the Aspen Institute, the Hudson Institute, and the Brookings Institute. Tavistock runs over 30 research institutions in the United States.

These Tavistock-U.S. institutions have in many cases grown into gargantuan monsters, penetrating every aspect of our government agencies and taking command of all policy making. One of Tavistock’s chief wreckers of our way of life was Dr. Alexander King, a founder member of NATO and a favorite with the Committee of 300, as well as an outstanding member of the Club of Rome.

When it was decided that a super-body would control European affairs, the RIIA founded the Tavistock Institute, which in turn created NATO. For Five years NATO was financed by the German Marshall Fund. Dr. King was assigned by the Club of Rome to destroy America’s education by taking control of the National Teachers Association and working in close conjunction with certain law makers and judges. Scientists engaged in the process of conditioning are called “social engineers” or “new-science social scientists” and they play an integral part in what we see, hear and read. The “old school” social engineers were Kurt K. Lewin, Professor Hadley Cantril, Margaret Meade, Professor Derwin Cartwright and Professor Lipssitt who, together with John Rawlings Reese, made up the backbone of new-science scientists at Tavistock Institute.

 

According to its website, the Institute engages in educational, research, and consultancy work in the social sciences and applied psychology. Its clients are chiefly public sector organizations, including the European Union, several British government departments, and some private clients. The Institute owns Human Relations, the international social sciences journal. It also edits the journal Evaluation.

Kurt Lewin, a member of the Frankfurt school in America, was an important influence on the work of the Tavistock, according to Eric Trist, who expresses his admiration for Lewin in his autobiography.Kurt Lewin

Lewin had originally been involved with schools of behavioral psychology before changing directions in research and undertaking work with psychologists of the Gestalt school of psychology, including Max Wertheimer and Wolfgang Kohler. He also joined the Psychological Institute of the University of Berlin where he lectured and gave seminars on both philosophy and psychology. Lewin often associated with the early Frankfurt School, originated by an influential group of largely Jewish Marxists at the Institute for Social Research in Germany. But when Hitler came to power in Germany in 1933 the Institute members had to disband, moving to England and then to America. In that year, he met with Eric Trist, of the London Tavistock Clinic. Trist was impressed with his theories and went on to use them in his studies on soldiers during the Second World War.

Prominent psychologists mentored by Kurt Lewin included Leon Festinger (1919–1989), who became known for his cognitive dissonance theory (1956).

Change process
An early model of change developed by Lewin described change as a three-stage process. The first stage he called “unfreezing”. It involved overcoming inertia and dismantling the existing “mind set”. It must be part of surviving. Defense mechanisms have to be bypassed. In the second stage the change occurs. This is typically a period of confusion and transition. We are aware that the old ways are being challenged but we do not have a clear picture as to what we are replacing them with yet. The third and final stage he called “freezing”. The new mindset is crystallizing and one’s comfort level is returning to previous levels. This is often misquoted as “refreezing” (see Lewin,1947).

What the UK is currently ongoing is that “change” and it is being managed – not by the political parties presented to you, but by organisations which have been put in place to dramatically re-orient society across every element of its fabric.

We’re now seeing debates for the General Election – not based upon left and right politics so much (Labour and Conservative – because, in fact, there is no difference between them) but based upon SEVEN parties. Think about it. This is unheard of in UK politics. Not only that but the main three parties are now finding themselves becoming less and less relevant to the electorate. Why? Do you think that WE, the populace, have achieved this? Do you think WE have pressured the media to have 7 different representatives on our debates?

Not in your dreams! This is for the purpose of redefining what Britain is while having you believe there is a voice (an MP) somewhere in Her Majesty’s government, speaking for you on some subject. While the real power behind it all is still in power. You’re being had!

STURGEON ISN’T IN CONTROL OF SCOTLAND’S FATE. THE ROYAL INSTITUTE OF INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS, THE TAVISTOCK INSTITUTE, THE COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS, CIA (YES the CIA) and HER MAJESTIC ONE are!

STURGEBUM is nothing but another “Right Honourable member of the Privy Council, CHANGE AGENT.

You want a single party government? Have one! You want Communism in the UK? Have it!

CBnbU_DWgAAn1Jo.jpg-large

 

Oh and one last thing Sturge:

SNP’s “Named Person” legislation for all children from birth to what is it? 18 years old?

Named person

So, while the Scottish SNP government believe that 16 and 17 year olds need a state guardian (of course they do. Just to make sure the state ensures their brainwashing), it seems Nickelarse believes they are sufficiently adult and capable to vote for the future of the country!

Announcing the measure as part of the The Scottish Referendum (Franchise) Bill earlier this year, Deputy First Minister Nicola Sturgeon said young people had the biggest stake in the future of the country.

16 yr old vote

 

FULL OF HYPOCRITICAL SHITE LIKE THE REST NICOLA. AS LONG AS THE DECISIONS ARE TO YOUR PERCEIVED BENEFIT.

SCOTLAND: THE “NANNY STATE” OF THE WORLD. AND NICOLA IS “BIG SISTER”!

Be careful what you vote for. You might just get it! The sheer fact that you still vote at all guarantees you’ll get it!

Scotland’s “Crown”: Solid proof the Queen runs the show!

Posted in Political History, Politics by earthling on March 8, 2014
HC Deb 10 February 1998 vol 306 cc185-201185

§Mr. Dennis Canavan (Falkirk, West)I beg to move amendment No. 44, in page 18, line 11, leave out from `be’ to end of line 13 and insert `elected by the members of the Parliament’.

§The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Alan Haselhurst)With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 254, in page 18, leave out lines 19 to 27.

No. 313, in clause 43, page 18, line 36, leave out ‘or’.

No. 275, in page 18, line 38, at end insert ‘or— 

  1. (e) the First Minister being admitted to a hospital under the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984, becoming subject to a guardianship order or having a curator bonis appointed on his estate’.

No. 76, in clause 44, page 19, line 9, leave out `with the approval of Her Majesty’. No. 276, in page 19, line 10, after ‘appoint’, insert `up to a total of ten’. No. 277, in page 19, leave out lines 11 and 12.

No. 87, in page 19, line 11, leave out `seek Her Majesty’s approval for’ and insert ‘make’.

No. 88, in page 19, leave out line 14.

No. 89, in clause 46, page 19, line 32, leave out `with the approval of Her Majesty’. No. 75, in page 19, line 35, at end insert— ‘(2A) The First Minister shall not make any appointment under this section without the agreement of the Parliament.’. 186No. 90, in page 19, leave out line 37.

§Mr. CanavanI shall speak to amendment No. 44 and the other amendments in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion). Amendments Nos. 44, 76 and 75 are substantive and the others are consequential.

Amendment No. 44 proposes that the First Minister should be elected by Members of the Scottish Parliament rather than being appointed by the Queen and holding office at Her Majesty’s pleasure. As the First Minister will be primus in paribus, or first among equals, it is more appropriate that he or she is elected by his or her parliamentary colleagues than appointed by the Crown.

In the early stages of the Scottish Constitutional Convention, members of the convention signed a document referring to the sovereignty of the people of Scotland. It seems to me that the concepts of the sovereignty of the people of Scotland and of the sovereignty of a monarch are mutually exclusive. (Yes, indeed they are!) The amendments propose that, if the First Minister is not directly elected by the people of Scotland, he or she should be elected by the people’s representatives in the Scottish Parliament.

I dare say that Opposition Members, and perhaps the Minister, will argue that the role of the monarchy is a mere formality in respect of the governance of the country or the countries that used to be part of the British empire. However, not all that long ago a Labour Prime Minister was ousted from his job in Australia because of the interference of the Governor-General, the Queen’s representative. (And I have previously written about Gough Whitlam, the Australian PM and how all of it came about via the Queen’s mafia. Glad to see confirmation of it once more in parliament)

In 1974, there were two general elections, and the first resulted in a hung parliament. No party had an overall majority in Parliament, and Harold Wilson was the leader of the party with the largest number of Members. However, the Queen did not call Harold Wilson to the palace. In fact, she called the defeated Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), to the palace and asked him to cobble up some kind of coalition agreement with Jeremy Thorpe, the then leader of the Liberal party. There was a long hiatus in which, in effect, there was no Government. Harold Wilson, who was the leader of the biggest party, had to wait in the wings until he was called to the palace to form a Government.

§Mr. WallaceI am following the hon. Gentleman’s argument and I am sure that he would not want there to be any inaccuracy. He will also agree that Jeremy Thorpe and his Liberal colleagues showed good sense by not supporting Edward Heath. Is not the point that Edward Heath had the advantage of incumbency—

§The ChairmanOrder. I remind the hon. and learned Gentleman that he is referring to a right hon. Member. (and paedophile)

§Mr. WallaceI apologise, Sir Alan. I was speaking from a sense of history, as I was just a boy at the time. It was actually my first vote.

The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) was the incumbent Prime Minister at the time, so it was not a matter of the Queen sending for him. He had to tender his resignation. I am sure that even the 187hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) would have thought it an abuse if the sovereign had summoned the Prime Minister and demanded his resignation.

§Mr. CanavanThat is exactly what the Queen should have done after the February 1974 general election. Whatever the will of the British people, as expressed at the ballot box, it was quite clear that they no longer wanted the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup to be their Prime Minister. The Queen should have summoned him to the palace and sacked him and then called Harold Wilson, but for reasons best known to herself, she did not do that. Sometimes I wonder about the so-called neutral role of the monarchy in respect of politics. (Do you really or are you just gently making the point?)

§Ms Roseanna CunninghamThe hon. Gentleman will know that I am very much in favour of reducing the work load of the monarch—preferably to zero. I was interested to hear the intervention of the hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace). I do not know whether he knows what happened in Australia, but in contradiction to his point about 1974—which may be true, but I do not know as I was not here at the time—when the Australian Labour Government were sacked and a general election was called, the Liberals, or the Tories, were appointed in the interim and therefore were in government throughout the election. That is an interesting point as it illustrates the other side of the coin from that referred to by the hon. and learned Gentleman. I agree with the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) about the monarch’s neutrality, which remains to be proved. (How is it, if we live in a true, free, open democratic country, that even our MPs and Lords question and do not know the exact position of our constitutional monarchy who, we are told, has no power?)

§Mr. CanavanI am grateful to the hon. Lady for that intervention as it shows the inconsistency of the monarchy or its representatives when they take a role in the running of Governments or Parliaments.

We have to bear in mind too that, if the political pundits are correct, there will be a much greater probability of a hung Parliament in the Scottish Parliament because of the system of proportional representation. The amendments would minimise—in fact remove—the possibility of any interference by the monarchy as to who should be the First Minister and form the Government.

My amendments Nos. 76 and 75 propose that Parliament’s agreement should be required in appointing not only the First Minister but other Ministers and that there should be no role for the monarchy in appointing other Ministers or junior Ministers.

Another anomaly in the Bill is that, under clause 46, the First Minister would require Parliament’s agreement before seeking the Crown’s approval of the appointment of a Minister, whereas the First Minister could appoint junior Ministers without seeking Parliament’s approval. I think that that would be a bad thing and that all ministerial appointments should be subject to Parliament’s approval. A Scottish Parliament should not simply ape the patronage system of this place, where the power of patronage is widely open to abuse. As I had started to say, the Crown is the very pinnacle of the patronage system, although in practice the Prime Minister exercises many of those powers.

We have witnessed many examples—and are perhaps witnessing current examples—of appointments that are made without any reference to Parliament or much democratic accountability. We must remember that the 188First Minister of Scotland will have tremendous patronage powers, because, presumably, he or she will inherit all the patronage powers currently held by the Secretary of State for Scotland, who is responsible for hundreds of public appointments across Scotland. We are talking not about the appointment of a mere coterie of Scottish Cabinet members and junior Ministers but about patronage over hundreds of public positions across Scotland. (So what this is saying is that, once Alex is in, he has total control of who he appoints to ensure he has all his buddies surrounding him to fully support his exploitation of Scotland and become a very very rich little fat bastard. With the Queen’s acceptance that is)

We should make the First Minister and the First Minister’s ministerial colleagues as accountable as possible to the people of Scotland through elected representatives.

§Mr. SalmondI am very sympathetic to many of the points that the hon. Gentleman is making. However, it seems that clause 43 is something of an advance on the current situation at Westminster, where someone is to be called to the palace—presumably the head of the leading party in the general election. The clause states that the Scottish Parliament will nominate one of its members for appointment as First Minister. That seems to go part of the way towards achieving the more satisfactory situation that the hon. Gentleman outlined, and away from the process of mystification that we could have in this place if there were a hung Parliament.

§Mr. CanavanI agree that the Bill proposes a ministerial appointment system that is better than our current system at Westminster, where Ministers can be appointed without any reference to Parliament. We once had a rule in the parliamentary Labour party that, if someone was an elected member of the shadow Cabinet, he or she would automatically become a Cabinet member when Labour was elected to government. In at least two cases that I know of, that did not happen after 1 May. Furthermore, I know of at least one Minister whose appointment might not have been accepted had it required parliamentary approval. [HON. MEMBERS: “Name him.”] I forget his constituency, but I believe that he has something to do with the millennium dome.[Interruption.] Yes, he is the Minister for the dome.

§Mr. SalmondIs the hon. Gentleman’s bleeper going off?

§Mr. CanavanI have it switched off.

As I said, the two concepts of sovereignty of the people and sovereignty of the monarch are mutually exclusive. If we really believe in sovereignty of the people, Members of the Scottish Parliament should—as proposed—be elected by the people and accountable to the people. Similarly, Ministers should be elected by the elected representatives of the people. In that way, the Scottish Government or the Scottish Executive would be more accountable to the people of Scotland.

(Notice, at this point, Alex Salmond keeps his powder dry and says nothing in response to this statement by Canavan. Now why do you think that would be? It’s because he is not going to agree to sovereignty of the people when he knows he must retain sovereignty for the Crown and Queen)
6.15 pm

§Dr. Liam Fox (Woodspring)I am rather sorry that the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore)—who said that Labour Members are clones—was not in the Chamber to hear the speech of the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan). It is nice to know that he still shops for his speeches at Republicans—’R—Us, adding a bit of colour to the Labour Benches. (Liam Fox: Zionist ass licker of her majesty and liar who used depleted uranium against Libya)

189I shall speak to amendment No. 275, which deals with the important issue of the mental health of Members of Parliament, which is not a laughing matter but a serious issue that is important both for Members of Parliament and for the protection of their electorate—to ensure that representation of the electorate is maintained.

§Mr. McLeishJust for the record, is present company excepted from the deliberations?

§Dr. FoxThe Minister is asking me to give a professional opinion, which I do not think I want to stray into right now.

I wonder how many hon. Members realise that the Mental Health Act 1983 has special provisions for section orders for Members of Parliament. Should, for example, an hon. Member fall ill with a mental health problem, a complex procedure will come into play. First, the doctor signing a section order or the person who is in charge of the hospital where the Member is detained will notify the Speaker. Secondly, the Speaker will appoint someone from the Royal College of Psychiatrists to look after the Member. If that Member is still detained under a section order after six months, the seat will become vacant.

I do not know why there should be such a provision for hon. Members in this place, but not for those in the Scottish Parliament. I think that Ministers have simply overlooked the matter, and I look forward to the Minister bringing the Scottish Parliament into line on that point. It is quite a serious and important matter, which should not be belittled.

§Dr. Lynda ClarkCould the hon. Gentleman advise the Committee of the number of occasions when that provision has been used?

§Dr. FoxI do not think that it matters whether it has been used: the provision is there to protect the electorate should a Member of Parliament be absent for six months and unable to represent his or her constituents. One would hope that the provision would never have to be used and that hon. Members do not suffer in that way, but it is there to protect the electorate. It is, therefore, important.

In tabling amendment No. 276, we wanted to examine a different aspect of the Bill. Our amendment would limit the size of the Scottish Executive. “Erskine May”, for example, limits the Prime Minister’s freedom of manoeuvre in establishing the number of places in his Cabinet, yet this Bill places no limitation on the size of the Scottish Executive. The Bill provides for an unspecified number of Ministers plus an unspecified number of junior Ministers. The Scottish Office is currently run by the Secretary of State and five Ministers. One would not wish a situation to arise—which has occurred elsewhere—in which the number of Ministers was increased simply to keep Members quiet, by appointing more of them as Ministers. The hon. Member for Falkirk, West dealt with the matter of patronage in his speech.

When I was at the Foreign Office—although I do not suggest that it might happen in the Scottish Parliament—one of the Governments whom I dealt with was the Government of Nepal. As the coalition Government started to crumble, one side of the Parliament consisted of 130 Members, of whom 85 were Ministers. I see the hon. Member for Falkirk, West smiling—perhaps because 190he foresees the possible bonanza. However, it will happen only at the taxpayers’ expense. If we are to avoid “jobs for the boys” gibes, we shall have to ensure that we are not writing a blank cheque for Members of the Scottish Parliament or giving unlimited powers of patronage to the First Minister.

§Mr. Andrew Welsh (Angus)Not content with limiting the powers of a Scottish Parliament, the Tories want to limit the number of Scottish Ministers to fewer than those in a football team—and for ever more. Surely the size and shape of the Scottish Cabinet is up to the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament. It is again clear that the Tories have no trust or faith in the Scottish people or their democracy. (Nothing to do with trust in the scottish people. It is to do with there being no trust in politicians by another politician because he knows what a bunch of corrupt gits look like because he is one. Neither are YOU saying that such a call would be made by the scottish people themselves but by the scottish government ministers, so we’re back to square one asshole!)

§Dr. FoxQuite the reverse—the issue is about having less faith in politicians than in the people. (Hah! I hadn’t even read this before I made the above comment! How about that?! :-))‘t are concerned with the ability of politicians to rein themselves in when offered a blank cheque. We have tabled the amendments from the point of view of protecting the electorate from politicians. (This is Liam Fox saying this! How do these people say what they say without going red in the face? How about protecting us from you then you corrupt bastard!) When the people of Scotland voted in large numbers in favour of the proposals in the referendum, I do not think that they ever wanted to give such a blank cheque to the Parliament or for there to be an unspecified number of Ministers.

Given that in this House Ministers are appointed by the Prime Minister, and that the First Minister will have to have the Scottish Parliament’s approval, it would be excessive to stipulate that all Ministers had to be approved by the Scottish Parliament. To introduce an American style of approval of Ministers, such as that welcomed by the hon. Member for Falkirk, West, would be excessive control over the First Minister’s freedom. Such control does not apply in Westminster, and the case has not been made for it to apply in the Scottish Parliament. I hope that the Minister will reconsider.

Now we get into the “meat” of it all…..

§Mr. John McAllion (Dundee, East)I shall speak in support of the amendments tabled in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan). The amendments would delete the following phrases: appointed by Her Majesty from among the members of the Parliament and shall hold office at Her Majesty’s pleasure”, with the approval of Her Majesty”—in clauses 44 and 46— seek Her Majesty’s approval”, and shall hold office at Her Majesty’s pleasure”. in clauses 44 and 46.

I would not want the group of amendments to be represented as an attack on either Her Majesty or the monarchy. That would be a misreading of the intent behind them. It is true that my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West and I hold certain views about the legitimacy of an hereditary institution exercising what should be democratic power in a democratic society. I for one have never understood those who argue for modernising the British constitution and who speak about sweeping away powers of hereditary peers, while at the same time talking about entrenching the powers of an hereditary monarch. (No mate, neither do I nor many of us)

191 I very much take to heart my hon. Friend’s arguments, particularly those on the 1974 election and what happened to Gough Whitlam in Australia. (Now, you SNP supporters out there: If you do not understand what happened in this case, for one, then you have no idea what this has to do with Scottish “independence” do you? And why you NEED to know!) The future role of the monarchy is not at the heart of the amendments. The amendments focus on the Scottish Parliament’s right democratically to elect Ministers who will hold office in the Scottish Government after 1999.

The Bill technically says that the First Minister shall be appointed by Her Majesty and hold office at Her Majesty’s approval. We know that that is a constitutional fiction. We know that the Queen will not in fact appoint anybody in the Scottish Parliament. She will do so only on the advice of the British Prime Minister and the British Cabinet of the day. (as you will see, this isn’t actually true and he may well have been playing “Devil’s advocate” here. On the face of it, she “takes advice” but she already tells her ministers what “advice” she wishes to take and they simply then tell her majesty what she wishes to hear) We are really talking about the right of the United Kingdom Government and Cabinet to appoint the First Minister, other Ministers and junior Ministers in a Scottish Parliament. Without the approval of the UK Cabinet, that could not go ahead—otherwise, the provision would not be in the Bill. Even the right to hold office is contingent on the continuing approval of the British Government and Cabinet.

There is danger in such a system. The hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) said in an earlier debate that we cannot always assume that the British Cabinet will be in sympathy with the Scottish Parliament and necessarily want it to stand on its own feet, as the Minister would like.

§Mr. Tim Collins (Westmorland and Lonsdale)I am following the hon. Gentleman’s argument most closely. He seems to be making a case for a separate Scottish Head of State. If that is so, why is he sitting on the Government Benches and not with the Scottish nationalists? (Interesting comment because, as you are aware, the SNP as “Scottish nationalists” do not make the case for a separate Head of state do they? At least not a change of who that Head of state is!)

§Mr. McAllionI do not think that I have referred to the Head of State. My opinion on the Head of State—which I presume the hon. Gentleman seriously wants to hear, or he would not have asked—is that the Queen could do a lot worse than put herself forward for a referendum to endorse whether she should be the Head of State. The legitimacy of the Queen’s role will always be questioned as long as she does not subject herself to the consent of the people.

If I were a monarchist—which I am not—I would be arguing for the Queen to call a referendum on her role in the British constitution. If, in such a referendum, she received the endorsement of a huge majority, as everybody says she would, I am sure that that would improve her situation. Others of us would also like a referendum so that we could vote for the kind of Head of State we wanted. It is not a matter of treason to want a democratically elected Head of State—although, judging from the Tories’ comments, it would sometimes seem so.

The heart of the problem is the relationship between the United Kingdom Parliament and the Scottish Parliament. All the phrases—which the amendments would delete—mean this: the Scottish Parliament would be allowed to appoint its own Ministers only so long as they met with the approval of the Westminster Parliament and Government. That lies at the heart of my objections.

§Mr. Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield)I think that the clauses about which the hon. Gentleman is complaining mean the complete opposite of what he is saying. The very reason why it is stipulated that the Scottish First 192Minister will hold office at Her Majesty’s pleasure is that that asserts absolutely and categorically that he has a direct link with the sovereign, which cannot be overridden by the United Kingdom Prime Minister in devolved matters. That is an essential protection under our present constitutional arrangements. (Question: Why does he need the link? ;-))

§Mr. McAllionThe hon. Gentleman is arguing as if the Queen had real constitutional powers. (Yes he is, because she does as is becoming obvious with every word) We have always been told that, of course, she does not have any real powers, because all constitutional power is exercised on the advice of the British Prime Minister. She would not dare to do anything on her own that a British Prime Minister would not allow her to do. (Of course not because that would give the game away. So, with the PM being a Crown Minister also, he keeps Her Majesty’s secrets, one of which is that he “advises” her rather than the reality which is she tells him what it is she wants him to advise her of! She gets rid of PMs she doesn’t like! Gough Whitlam being just one. I would posit that Maggie Thatcher was another due to her “No!” stance on Europe) Now, all of a sudden, the argument is very different. The hon. Gentleman is saying, “Yes, the Queen does have constitutional powers.” He is agreeing with my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West, who is concerned about the powers that an unelected monarchy exercises in the British constitution. I am increasingly concerned about the hon. Gentleman’s tone and the way in which the argument is developing. (You know precisely what the “Crown” is mate so don’t play silly buggers!)

§Mr. John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings)The hon. Gentleman needs to consider the implications of what he is saying. As my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) suggested, it matters not whether in practical terms the Head of State uses the power, but it matters from where the power is derived. The practical exercise of power and the source of power are two quite different things. The hon. Gentleman misunderstands the clauses. (No they are not two different things. Only power can exercise power. The PM exercises that power delegated to him/her. This was a bullshit statement and transparent)

§Mr. McAllionThe hon. Gentleman, who goes to Scotland on holiday only occasionally, also totally misunderstands the situation. I will tell him where the source of the power of appointment in a Scottish Parliament is. It is the people who elect that Scottish Parliament. There is no need for any reference to the United Kingdom Government, Cabinet or heir to the Head of State. A Scottish Parliament will be democratically legitimate because it will be elected by the Scottish people; it should be allowed freely to appoint its Ministers. That is the bottom line for those of us who agree with the Claim of Right and who believe that sovereignty rests with the people and not with the institution in Westminster. (He’s right in his ideology but totally naive! Or, again, is he just playing a game here? Feigning ignorance?)

Worse than that, throughout the debates, there has been a tension between the UK Parliament wanting to keep control and a leash on what the Scottish Parliament might do, and those of us who want the Scottish Parliament to get on with the job of governing Scotland’s domestic affairs free from interference, control and any dependence on the British Parliament.

§Dr. FoxBut the logic of that position is to move to independence, not devolution. The hon. Gentleman is arguing for a separate Scottish Parliament. (Never Liam! Very observant of you!)

§Mr. McAllionThe Tories have a blanket approach to this debate. They envisage only two possibilities: either there is a toy town Parliament that is under the control of the British Parliament, or there is independence. They say that time and again, but they are wrong. There is a middle position, in which sovereignty is shared between the Scottish and United Kingdom Parliaments. The Scottish Parliament does not need to seek anyone’s approval for 193the appointment of Ministers—it has the approval of the Scottish people, which is all the sovereignty that is required. That is not to argue for independence. (Notice the word “sovereignty” in all of this and notice he makes the point that there is a difference between the words “sovereignty” and “independence”. This is why I ask Scottish nationalists what it is they want? You see, I have no interest in “Independence”. I want sovereignty! Yet, many nationalists can’t understand what I’m saying so they lambast me for being a unionist! Yet the reality is that I am WAY more “nationalist” than they are!)

Earlier, we debated whether, if the Scottish Parliament broke down and did not work, that would lead to independence or whether it would benefit the Tories and lead us back to a United Kingdom unitary state. I tend to agree with the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond): if the Scottish Parliament is a success, it will greatly increase the confidence among the Scottish people. Yes, the Scottish Parliament will argue for more and more powers to be devolved to it—there is nothing wrong with that. The real wreckers of the Scottish Parliament, who are sitting on the official Opposition Benches, do not want the Scottish Parliament to work, so they want the Bill to contain all these various control mechanisms.

6.30 pm

I have great sympathy with the idea that the number of Ministers should be restricted, not only in the Scottish Parliament but in this Parliament. The example of Nepal was cited, where of 130 Members 85 are Ministers. Everyone who is not a Minister wants to be one, so the Executive have complete control over the legislature, much as they have in this Parliament. As a point of principle, I want the Executive to be limited, but not to 10. I want a series of Departments to be set up under the Scottish Parliament, each with its own Minister, so that there are separate Departments for housing, health and local government. The Scottish Parliament should be able to decide on the number of Ministers and whether that number should be limited.

There is much to be said for Bank Benchers having the power to hold the Executive to account. Any Parliament that is worth its salt has to have a number of independent Back Benchers. The trouble with the Westminster Parliament is that there are not enough independent Back Benchers—the Executive tightly control the Back Benchers, which is the wrong way round. We could easily ensure that the Scottish Parliament gets things the right way round, but that will not happen if we check and limit its powers to get on with its own business.

The aim of the amendments is simple. It is for the Scottish Parliament—not for Westminster, the monarch of the United Kingdom state or anyone else—to decide who the Ministers are in the Government of the day in Scotland, as the Scottish Parliament alone will be elected by the Scottish people to fulfil that task.

§Mr. Donald Gorrie (Edinburgh, West)There is only one Liberal Democrat amendment in this group. It is a tidying-up amendment that relates to amendment No. 275, which was tabled by the Conservatives. We fully support that amendment, as it deals with the important issue of the mental health of the First Minister. There is a risk that the First Minister will suffer from megalomania. We already have a Secretary of State who single-handedly decides where the Parliament should be, so there is no knowing what may happen when power goes to people’s heads in the Scottish Parliament and they are corrupted, as all people in power always are. By the law of averages, Conservative Members must sometimes be right—on this occasion, we believe that they have a good point.

We do not agree with the two other points that Conservative Members have made. First, we do not see why there should be a limit on the number of Ministers 194in the Scottish Cabinet. The Scottish Parliament may decide to operate totally differently from Westminster—for example, there may be a flat structure rather than one that includes Secretaries of State and junior Ministers. It should have the scope to approach matters in a modern way and to organise its affairs as it wishes. The electorate will soon respond if there are jobs for the boys and girls, and will punish those responsible. Things can be left to the good sense not of the politicians, but of the electorate. (That’s what the US Constitution framers thought! Look what’s happened there! Are these people for real?)

Secondly, the Conservatives have moved against what we believe is one of the Bill’s best proposals—the introduction of the concept, which is new to Britain, that Parliament must approve all the Ministers. That is a great step towards democracy, and it is a pity that the Conservatives want to remove it.

I shall now deal with the points made by the hon. Members for Falkirk and for Dundee, East and West respectively, I think, although I never remember—

§Mr. John Home Robertson (East Lothian)There is a subtle difference.

§Mr. GorrieThe difference is not so subtle.

The hon. Members for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) and for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) are two of the most refreshing hon. Members, and we have the greatest sympathy with the angle from which they are coming. On this occasion, however, although we understand their argument, we do not agree with it. We believe that the matter is covered in clause 43(1), which states: the Parliament shall within the period allowed nominate one of its members for appointment as First Minister”. That makes it clear that the Parliament chooses the First Minister. As I said, it also has the power to approve the Ministers.

There is a good argument for continuing to mention the Queen in this context. People may feel that there should be a different constitutional structure, but that is a debate for another day. Under the existing structure, the fact that the Queen has the same relationship to the Scottish premier as she does to the British premier gives legitimacy and status to the Scottish Parliament. It demonstrates that the Scottish Parliament is not a toy town Parliament, a parish council, a regional council or a city chambers—it is a Parliament with a direct relationship to the Queen. (Note: ONLY legitimacy IF a direct relationship with the Queen!)

The language may be archaic, but the point at issue is sound—the Scottish Parliament should choose the First Minister. The Parliament will meet to elect the First Minister; he or she will not have to drive in a horse and carriage across the road to Holyrood palace, although the Queen will do whatever she usually does and bless the premier, perhaps—I do not know, as I have never been present at such an occasion.

Clause 47 deals with civil servants. Liberal Democrats strongly believe that a new atmosphere should be created, in which the civil servants are responsible to the Parliament and do not work for the Government only. This is not the appropriate time to ensure that that happens, but when the Parliament’s methods of operation and Standing Orders are considered, we shall push strongly in that direction. Civil servants should continue 195to advise Ministers, but they should also give information to and have much more open discussions with Members from all parties in the Scottish Parliament.

§Mr. DalyellGiven the opening remarks of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Gorrie), I have a sneaking suspicion that he has read the first leader in this morning’s The Scotsman.

I should like to ask my hon. Friend the Minister a question. If there is a conflict of opinion over a United Kingdom reserved matter, whose advice will the Queen take? Will she take the advice of the First Minister of the Scottish Parliament or that of the Prime Minister of the UK? If the matter is a devolved one, will the Queen take the advice of the Prime Minister or of the First Minister? Furthermore, if the matter is devolved but the UK Parliament is legislating under clause 27(7), whose advice will the Queen take—that of the Prime Minister or of the First Minister? (And here you have the strongest of evidence of the Queen’s ultimate power: The two PM’s -or, in this case, at the time, the PM of Great Britain and the First Minister of Scotland – have to COMPETE regarding who’s advice the Queen ultimately takes. It shows, then that it is not the Prime Minister’s advice to the Queen today which the queen just accepts in some form of acquiescence, but she CHOOSES which advice she wishes to take. That is, after all, what makes her and her Crown “SOVEREIGN”. No-one dictates to her, it is quite the opposite. If she decides on one of their “advices” then the other has to take it on the chin. SHE is the decision maker! And it is the decision maker who wields the power! Just as in the case of a board meeting with the CEO – the Directors can make their pitches and give their advice but once that CEO decides, that’s it. The Directors do his bidding or else)

§Mr. GrieveI broadly welcome clause 42. Its purpose is to emphasise the importance of the First Minister’s role and his direct relationship with the sovereign. I appreciate the fact that the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) does not like the principles underlying that but, as has properly been said, unless there is a change in our constitutional arrangements, it will be wise to observe constitutional conventions, so as to ensure a good working relationship between Westminster and Edinburgh and to secure the status of the Edinburgh Parliament. The First Minister should be appointed by Her Majesty and hold office at her pleasure; that will be an important constitutional safeguard, which will be to the advantage of the Scots.

In tabling amendment No. 254, my concern was that, although clause 42 (1) to (3) properly sets out the First Minister’s role, subsections (4) and (5) go off the boil and refer to a curious hybrid entity. Subsection (4) mentions a person designated by the Presiding Officer in circumstances where, I infer, the Parliament has not nominated someone for appointment. I do not want to get involved in an exercise in semantics, but as the Secretary of State and the Minister for Home Affairs and Devolution are here, I ask them to consider carefully whether clause 42 is properly drafted. The references in it to the designation “by the Presiding Officer” of a First Minister ad interim, while Parliament makes up its mind, would be better transferred to clause 43.

Clause 42 should define simply and neatly what the First Minister is supposed to do. Some other part of the Bill should emphasise what the designated First Minister is supposed to be. I assume that he or she is to be the person appointed to stand in for the First Minister if the office is vacant, and so is supposed to have all the powers, rights and obligations that the First Minister has. If that is the case, it would be sensible not to leave the wording in this hybrid condition. The legislation should make it clear that we are talking about a First Minister ad interim, who holds office at Her Majesty’s pleasure exactly as any other Minister would do. As that is a non-party political issue, will the Minister for Home Affairs and Devolution look into it?

In conclusion, there has been some discussion of the role of the advice given by the First Minister and by the Prime Minister in the event of conflict—a matter 196raised by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). It is obvious that that is a real live issue. In defining the role of the First Minister, it is important that his status should be emphasised and that his direct position as the adviser of the Queen on matters relating to devolved issues should be at the forefront. In so far as clause 42 does not do so, I ask the Minister to look at it again and consider whether there should be some rejigging along the lines I have suggested in amendment No. 254 and the associated amendment, No. 255, which has not been selected because it relates to clause 43.

§Mr. SalmondI am surprised that there was not more enthusiasm from the hon. Members for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) and for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) for limiting the number of Ministers. If the Minister of the dome has any say in the appointments, I suspect that neither of those hon. Gentlemen is knocking at the door of ministerial office at present. Indeed, if the Minister of the dome has anything to do with it, the public gallery is the nearest that they may get to the Scottish Parliament. We all hope that that will not be the case and that more democratic processes will be allowed to be carried forward. However, we should be grateful to those two hon. Gentlemen for enabling us to have an important debate.

Tory Members should not misunderstand the position that has been put forward in the amendments. It is not an attack on the monarchy, or the Queen as Head of State, but an attack on one aspect of the royal prerogative, particularly as it applies to the choice of Ministers. That is a legitimate argument. If the amendments were successful, the Queen would remain Head of State, but one aspect of the royal prerogative as regards the appointment of Ministers in a Scottish Parliament would have been removed.

Certainly, it is difficult to argue with the logic of the argument of the hon. Member for Falkirk, West that the position of the First Minister, and indeed other Ministers, should depend on the approval and appointment of the Scottish Parliament as opposed to an aspect of the royal prerogative.

6.45 pm

We heard a fascinating interchange between the hon. Members for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) and for Dundee, East. The latter argued that because the Queen normally takes advice from her first Minister, the Prime Minister, and therefore exercises the functions of the royal prerogative on the advice of that person, it could be a dangerous intervention in the ability of a Scottish Parliament to choose its own Ministers. On the other hand, the hon. Member for Beaconsfield says that the clause is some form of entrenchment because it would give the First Minister of a Scottish Parliament a direct line to the head of state and therefore would put that person as a Prime Minister inter pares with the United Kingdom Prime Minister in terms of the relationship with their Head of State.

The interchange was fascinating and not one to which I had paid close attention before this debate. (Bloody lying toad. He’d have given every thought to it. He’s playing ignorant) The question has to be resolved one way or the other and the Minister for Home Affairs and Devolution would do the Committee a service if he could adjudicate and tell us whether the interpretation of the hon. Member for 197Beaconsfield or that of the hon. Member for Dundee, East was correct. The logic of the hon. Member for Falkirk, West is impeccable in the amendments and I am sympathetic to them, but that issue, which determines in practical terms the position of the Scottish Parliament and its standing with regard to the sovereign and her advisers, needs to be clarified.

Finally and briefly, Conservative Members seemed concerned about protecting the people from the Scottish Parliament, but many people in Scotland voted for that Parliament to protect them from the Conservative party. (Because they’re ignorant enough Alex, to vote for the lesser of two evils rather than work on a real workable solution to both of you) The need to box in the Scottish Parliament’s powers, as opposed to leaving them for the Standing Orders of a Scottish Parliament, betrays an underlying attitude that is not reconciled to the reality of that Scottish Parliament. The Conservative Front-Bench spokesmen, although perhaps not some of the Back Benchers, are still in a process of denial as far as the Scottish Parliament is concerned. They may not like hearing this, but the Conservative recovery will not start until that process of denial in Westminster comes to an end.

§Mr. McLeishFirst, on the point made by the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) about mental health issues, I have consulted the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, my hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) who is a neuro-surgeon, but he did not want to offer any suggestions to the Committee at this point. However, he suggested that the Scots are slightly better at differentiating between those who have a mental health problem and those who do not. I shall leave that as a question for the Committee. (haha! Cracking. Talk about a put down!) Interestingly, paragraph 9 of schedule 7 amends the Mental Health Act 1983, so the procedures to which the hon. Member for Woodspring referred will apply in a modified way to the Scottish Parliament. I will touch on some of the more serious issues when I refer to the amendments.

To answer my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) who made a point about this—I do not know whether it was a slip—the Bill provides no role for the United Kingdom Government in the selection of the First Minister, the Scottish Ministers and junior Ministers, so there is no locus for this Parliament or this Government in that regard. I do not know whether that was his point.

§Mr. McAllionCan my hon. Friend make clear the distinction to which the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) referred? If the Scottish Parliament chooses a First Minister and proffers that choice to the Queen for appointment, but the advice of the British Prime Minister is not to accept the choice, whose advice would the Queen follow? (So. Repeated. And the fact that she chooses who to follow is the proof of her power. If, as the government continuously wishes to tell us, she must follow the advice of her Prime Minister, then how could it possibly be that a PM would end up putting himself in the position where he has competition? Logic, my friends, logic! They give the entire game away with this debate.)

§Mr. McLeishThe British Prime Minister would have no locus in that appointment.

§Mr. McAllionMy hon. Friend is clearly stating that the Queen would take the side of the Scottish Parliament, as set out in the Bill, against the British Prime Minister. Therefore, the British Prime Minister does not exercise sovereign control over the affairs of this country. (Absolutely correct! BINGO!)

§Mr. McLeishThe Scottish Parliament would approve the appointment of the First Minister. The Presiding Officer would submit that appointment to the Queen and that would be it. We are talking about a substantial 198devolution of power and responsibility to the Scottish Parliament. Devolution means devolution. It will be up to the Scottish Parliament to approve the First Minister, the Scottish Ministers and the junior Ministers. Of course, those appointments will then be approved by the Queen. It is straightforward and there are no complications.

§Mr. DalyellI will not ask my hon. Friend for an answer off the top of his head, but will he write to me, because this question is not as simple as he makes out? Clause 27(7) states: This section does not affect the power of the Parliament of the United Kingdom to make laws for Scotland. In the light of that, I think that my hon. Friend should give me a considered answer in a letter.

§Mr. McLeishI shall be happy to write to my hon. Friend, but we should make it clear that clause 27(7), and the debate on it, is about sovereignty and the ability of the Westminster Parliament to make laws in any area, devolved or reserved. This evening, we are talking about the First Minister, and I repeat that he or she will be selected by the Parliament after the election and the choice will be passed to the Queen by the Presiding Officer. That is the process.

§Mr. SalmondThe point made by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) is wrong, because it relates to legislation, not to appointments. However, is it not correct that, under clause 27(7), the UK Parliament could legislate to change the method of appointing the Scottish First Minister?

§Mr. McLeishWe have debated the issue and points have been exchanged across the Committee; the view taken depends on one’s political perspective. We have made the point that this measure devolves substantial powers to Scotland—it is about devolution, not separation or independence.

The Government cannot agree to amendments Nos. 44, 76 and 87 to 90, which were tabled by my hon. Friends the Members for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) and for Dundee, East. The amendments would remove the involvement of Her Majesty in the appointment of the First Minister, other Scottish Ministers appointed under clause 44 and junior Ministers appointed under clause 46.

The Scottish Ministers, headed by the First Minister and assisted by the junior Scottish Ministers, will exercise, on behalf of Her Majesty, her prerogative and other executive functions in relation to devolved matters. (They are DELEGATED her power. It is exercised on BEHALF of her. It is not THEIR power) They will, in effect, be Her Majesty’s Government in Scotland (not a scottish sovereign government. Not even under independence with the Queen as Head of state) in relation to devolved matters. It is, therefore, entirely appropriate that the Queen should appoint the First Minister; that she should approve the appointment of other Ministers and junior Ministers to the Scottish administration; and that each of those appointees should hold office at her pleasure.

The involvement of Her Majesty does not, of course, exclude the involvement of the Parliament. On the contrary, in line with the White Paper, the Bill provides a significant role for the Scottish Parliament in the appointment of the Scottish Executive. It is a point worth making that in this place, Ministers are not approved or, selected by the House, but the Scottish First Minister and the other Scottish Ministers will be approved and voted on by the Scottish Parliament.

199That is a significant step forward in the scrutiny of the Executive. It starts at the foundation: the people will have spoken in electing Members of the Scottish Parliament who then, for the first time and unlike here, will have the ability to influence who represents the people of Scotland in ministerial posts. The significance of that step should not be lost on the Committee this evening. We see no need to amend the Bill in the way proposed, and I urge my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West withdraw the amendment.

I have listened carefully to the arguments put forward by my hon. Friends the Members for Falkirk, West and for Dundee, East in support of amendment No. 75. The nature of the post of junior Scottish Minister will differ from that of a member of the Scottish Executive. The nature of their task will be to assist the Scottish Ministers in the exercise of their functions. With that in mind, the Bill proposes a simpler mechanism for their appointment. Nevertheless, I am also aware that the Scottish Constitutional Convention recommended that all Ministers should require to be confirmed by simple majority of the full Parliament.

I am therefore happy to accept the intention behind amendment No. 75 that the Parliament should be involved in the appointment of junior Scottish Ministers. I therefore undertake to bring forward an appropriate Government amendment on Report. With that undertaking, I invite my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West not to press the amendment.

The Government cannot agree to amendment No. 254. The provisions in the Bill are intended to ensure that there is always someone able to perform the functions of the First Minister and act as head of the Scottish Administration. In practice, it is expected that each First Minister will hold office until replaced by his or her successor. However, circumstances could arise where the post falls vacant, for example on the death of the First Minister or if the First Minister is temporarily unable to act—that may fall partly into the definition proposed by the hon. Member for Woodspring. In such an event, a caretaker can be appointed to fulfil the role, pending the nomination and appointment of a new First Minister.

§Mr. GrieveI understand that point, but the clause as it stands conveys the impression—it may be no more than an impression—that the person who is acting is somehow a different animal from the First Minister, whereas my understanding is that an acting First Minister would still hold office at the Queen’s pleasure and have all the First Minister’s powers. That is the point that is opaque in the clause as it stands.

§Mr. McLeishThat is a reasonable reflection, but I must get on and cover some more of the points raised in the debate.

The mechanism for appointment of such a caretaker reflects the exceptional and transitory nature of the appointment. It lacks the formalities of the appointment of the First Minister precisely so as to avoid conveying the impression that the person is the First Minister rather than a temporary incumbent. On balance, the Government believe that the arrangements should be kept as simple as possible. The Presiding Officer is well placed to be able 200to judge which Member of the Scottish Parliament has the capacity and political credibility to fulfil that important role and I believe that it should be left to the Presiding Officer’s discretion.

The Government do not accept amendments Nos. 276 and 277. Amendment No. 276 would restrict the number of Scottish Ministers whom the First Minister can appoint. It would be inappropriate to do that, for a variety of reasons. The First Minister will have to seek the agreement of the Scottish Parliament; therefore, within the group of 129 MSPs, there is accountability and a chance to make a judgment on the number of Scottish Ministers. The Parliament will be able to withhold its approval if it thinks that there are too many nominations. In addition, through its control of salaries and allowances, the Parliament will be able to limit to a reasonable sum the expenditure on ministerial salaries.

There is a feeling on both sides of the Committee that the matter should be left to the Parliament. It is a question of maturity and of adopting a sensible perspective. Ultimately, the First Minister and the Scottish Parliament will be accountable to the people of Scotland for their actions. That will, in our view, provide the proper means of ensuring that the size of the membership of the Scottish Executive is truly appropriate.

§Dr. FoxWe are missing a great opportunity. Such a self-denying ordinance would have sent a signal to the Scottish electorate that a blank cheque is not being handed over. I am sorry that the Minister cannot accept the amendment, but we shall press it to a Division.

§Mr. McLeishThe Committee is not offering a blank cheque to anyone. We are setting up a mature, serious and responsible Parliament, and it will be up to the Members of that Parliament to decide what Ministers are required to carry out the functions and represent the interests of the Scottish people. That is appropriate and proper. We do not share the Opposition’s concerns, and I hope that they will not press the amendment.

The Government cannot accept amendments Nos. 275 and 313, which are both unnecessary and inappropriate. The circumstances described are unlikely to arise in practice, and if they did, there are mechanisms in the Bill to deal with the problem. If at any time it appeared to the Presiding Officer that the First Minister was unable to act for whatever reason, including mental illness, it would be open to him or her under clause 42(4) to designate an MSP to exercise the functions of the First Minister.

Should it become clear that the First Minister’s inability to carry out his functions was not going to be merely temporary, he would be expected to resign. In the unlikely event of his being unwilling to resign, the Scottish Parliament could effectively remove him and his Executive through a vote of no confidence. That would require the First Minister to resign and would, in turn, lead to the appointment of a new First Minister. That may seem a drastic course of action, but the likely political reality is that there would be a general recognition of the need to address the problem and the Parliament could act to ensure that the matter was resolved without delay. In any case, I submit that clauses 42(4) and 43 provide a serious process to deal with a potential problem. First, there is a temporary acceptance and accommodation of the fact that the First Minister is unable to do the job; then there is a proper procedure to repair the situation.

201The Government cannot accept amendment No. 278, which would remove from the First Minister some valuable flexibility to tailor the structure of the Scottish Administration to the demands upon it. In view of the time, I shall now sit down.

§Mr. CanavanThis is a somewhat historic occasion, as it has been many years since I last tabled an amendment that was accepted in principle by the Government. I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for that. I am pleased that the appointment of all Scottish Ministers, whether the First Minister, other Scottish Ministers or junior Ministers, will be subject to the approval of the Scottish Parliament. I am not convinced of the arguments for the role of the monarchy in the appointment of Ministers, but I shall not press that point. I shall seek to withdraw amendment No. 44 at the end of the debate and I look forward to the Government tabling an amendment similar to my amendment No. 75 on Report.

§Mr. WallaceJunior Ministers will not be members of the Scottish Executive under the terms of clause 41. Will the Minister explain why?

§Mr. McLeishThe simple answer is that we shall have the First Minister and the Scottish Ministers, and we hope that the junior Ministers will have a supportive role in the work carried out by the other Ministers.

§Mr. CanavanI beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

§Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§Clause 42 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

§Clause 43 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Back to 
Forward to 

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 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