SNP: ‘Obedient adulation’ led to legislation (Aberdeen Press & Journal, Saturday 23 July 2016)
Nicola Sturgeon’s former law lecturer has said the ‘obedient adulation’ of her MSPs has contributed to Scottish Legislation being among the worst in Europe. Alistair Bonnington, a former honorary law professor at Glasgow, launched a stinging attack on the SNP hierarchy’s grip on their members, as well as their failure to grasp the basics of constitutional law. He said SNP MSPs “slavishly” followed orders, meaning government bills were “afforded obedient adulation, no matter how flawed”. And he added: “This results in Scotland producing the lowest quality legislation in Europe”. Mr Bonnington, who taught Ms Surgeon in Glasgow, also argued that the Government had encroached on the independence of the Scottish Child Abuse Inquiry. He added: “I seem to have failed to install in her (Sturgeon) the most basic rules of how institutions of government work in the free world”
The statement by Ms Sturgeon’s former law lecturer, surely explains why the SNP Government blindly pressed ahead with the introduction of the “Named Person Legislation”, widely condemn by all sectors of Scottish society as having the real potential to undermine parents, and allow the state unlimited access to pry into the privacy of families in their homes. Also, the SNP hierarchy’s grip on their members, explains the slavish obedience, by the majority of those members and supporters, to the SNP's decision to support the REMAIN campaign in the recent EU referendum, which is undoubtedly the main reason why 62% of the Scottish electorate voted to remain in the EU, while the UK as a whole voted to leave.
SNP Leader Indulged in same ‘Scare Tactics’ (Aberdeen Press & Journal, Newspaper, Tuesday 14 June 2016)
Sir – As an elderly citizen who has voted and worked for Scottish independence since the mid 1960s, I would like to express my anger and disgust having watched the leader of the SNP on the recent EU referendum debate indulging in the exact same scare tactics which have deprived Scotland of independence in every referendum in which I have been involved.
The memory of Nicola Sturgeon talking about ‘scare’ tactics during her ‘YES’ campaign is still fresh in everyone’s minds. Even worse, after campaigning with such vigour for Scotland to leave Britain, she had the audacity to tell 'LEAVE' supporters that there is strength in numbers.
I am sorry to say that Sturgeon has ceased to be an asset to the SNP Party.
D Douglas, Aberdeenshire.
Greatest Sell-Out of a National Resource (Aberdeen Press & Journal, Newspaper, Tuesday 14 June 2016)
Sir – Ever since the United Kingdom joined the Common Market, as it was then called, as a fisherman I have consistently spoken out against the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP).
As an industry we did not want the CFP. We had everything to lose and little to gain, for it was the greatest sell-out of a priceless national resource and industry ever perpetuated on the British people.
The Common Fisheries Policy was born of expediency because of the greater issues of Europe. Britain no longer controls her fishing destiny, for it has been sacrificed to the European Union. The CFP has been tried and found to be an abject failure. Our fishermen were persecuted by a system that does not work. Thousands of fishermen have been forced out of the industry, along with many other ancillary trades, and our coastal communities have been decimated.
This European Union is an empire out of control. This is not a people’s Europe, but rather a politician’s Europe, and is absolutely for their own ends.
However, this referendum is about whether we govern ourselves or not. If Europe does to this country what it has done to my industry, we shall be asset stripped, but far worse – democratically.
J. Thomson, Lossiemouth
None of this is new money – it is ours (Aberdeen Press & Journal, Newspaper, Tuesday 14 June 2016)
Sir – We hear much exaggerating or inventing figures over the cost involved in EU membership. It is actually ‘just’ £161million a week they say, not £350million. So which of us is correct? Neither.
In October 2015, the Office of National Statistics (ONS) issued a report showing that membership of the EU actually cost us “£367million per week”, considerably more than the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) suggest, while on April 26 this year Sir Andrew Dilnot, Head of the UK Statistics Authority (UKSA) gave the figure of “£19.1billion per year”, around the same figure that UKIP claim, when giving evidence to the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee.
But the ‘IN’ crowd would have you believe the ONS and UKSA are ‘wrong’. But whatever the true figure, and whether it counted before or after the rebate and the money we get returned from the EU, the fact is that it is all, every penny of it, our money.
Nothing we get returned is “new money” or coming from anywhere except our taxpayer’s pockets. All the evidence shows we are far better off financially freed from the EU, even when using figures supplied by those who want to stay in.
I have no evidence to support the claim that that the Institute for Fiscal Studies is biased in favour of the EU when it keeps reporting disaster and ruin if we leave, but it is a fact that the body has been financially supported by the EU since 2007, currently to the tune of 7.4million euros per year.
And one final point; if leaving is really as bad as Mr Cameron wants us to believe, why did he say in December last year, “If I cannot get the reforms this country needs in the EU, then I will campaign to leave” (he didn’t get them) and as recently as January this year, “I believe the UK could prosper outside the EU”?
G. Stewart, Avoch
Leaked Information on Negotiations between EU and USA to set up a Transatlantic Trade & Investment Partnership (TTIP)
Leaked documents from EU / USA negotiations on the proposed Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) confirm the dangers threatened to health, environment and safety standards. The documents are from the twelfth round of negotiations in February 2016 (the thirteenth round concluded in New York on 29 April). The EU Commission had slapped a thirty year ban on public access to the negotiating texts at the beginning of the talks in 2013, in the full knowledge that they would not be able to survive the outcry if people were given sight of the deal. In response, campaigners called for a “Dracula strategy” against the agreement: expose the vampire to sunlight and it will die. The purpose of the two proposed “partnerships,” TTIP and the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), which were drafted by global corporations, is to make corporations immune to the laws of sovereign countries in which they do business. Any country’s sovereign law or regulations—whether social, environmental, food safety, or labour protection—that might adversely affect a corporation’s profits is labelled a “restraint on trade.” The “partnerships” would permit corporations to take legal action to overturn the law or regulation, and. would also award damages to the corporation—paid by the taxpayers of the country that tried to protect its environment or the safety of its food or its workers. These “trade agreements” originate in the United States, because American global corporations and the American mega-banks are the largest players in the world economy. The agreements that the corporations push through this process give these companies economic hegemony over the countries that sign the agreements. The Trans-Atlantic and TransPacific “partnerships” are tools of American financial imperialism. The highly controversial investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) mechanism—and its successor, the Investment Court system—has proved particularly thorny. The United States wants to keep the arbitration system that allows corporations to sue governments for perceived loss of profits. The case is not heard in the courts of the country, or in any court: it is heard in a corporate tribunal in which corporations act as prosecutor, judge, and jury.
There are some 51,000 American-owned subsidiaries operating in the EU. About 47,000 of them would be empowered to launch attacks on European policies in international tribunals, according to the anti-poverty charity ‘War on Want’. German magistrates in February had also declared the new version of the investor court system (ICS), proposed by the EU, to be unlawful. Concerns about potential effects on food safety standards have plagued TTIP since its inception, notably in discussions on genetically modified organisms. The EU applies a precautionary approach to GM goods. Where the EU regulates to protect the public from potential harm, the United States seeks to manage rather than avoid risk. The EU commissioner for trade, Cecilia Malmström, described the leaks in her blog as “a storm in a teacup.” She told the BBC: “I am simply not in the business of lowering standards.” Some 1,600 cities, municipalities and regions in Europe have already declared themselves TTIP-free zones. Most of these are in Austria, Belgium, Britain, France, Germany, the Netherlands, and Spain. And earlier this month a survey by Yougov suggested that German public support for TTIP had fallen from 55% two years ago to 17%. This news came out before tens of thousands of people in the German city of Hannover marched against the deal during an international trade fair attended by Barack Obama.
See the attached PDF file "TTIP Leaks", below, for full revelation:
The SNP, under pressure from the US-created and US financially backed Euromove organisation, has fallen foul of “the EU, right or wrong” ideology, which simply won’t wash in the light of the new and developing system of worldwide interdependence and global governance.
The sub-regional EU did not invent the standards of working conditions that it is by implication claiming. Like so much else in its “legislation” it is simply repeating established international norms that have been handed down to every individual state by institutions higher up the global scale, and are binding on every national government irrespective of the EU. The principal such institution is the United Nations International Labour Organisation, which has been setting the global standards for industrial working conditions since WW1, long before there ever was a European Union. Nowadays a whole list of other institutions at global level are also contributing to these norms.
Furthermore, UK legislation governing working conditions has been in force since 1802, the Factory Inspectorate was set up by the 1833 Factories Act, and this was followed by dozens of acts of parliament that pushed standards up still further, right to the present day. It is pure charlatanry to claim that only the EU stands between workers and oppressive working conditions, for even worse to claim that the EU invented the relevant modern standards. God help us if this is the sort of argument that is going to determine the future of Scotland.
Lastly, there is no such institution as a European Court of Justice. The EU internal arbitration tribunal, despite its euphonious title, covers only EU-internal regulations, but it has no jurisdiction whatever over non-members or over Europe as a whole.
Comment by Dr James Wilkie SDA Honorary Chairman in 'The Flag in the Wind' of 21st April 2016: http://scotsindependent.scot/?p=1343
The controversial pro-EU leaflet put out by the UK government claims that continued membership of the EU will guarantee a “stronger” and “safer” UK, as if those aspects are the exclusive prerogative of that organisation - the reality could not be more glaringly different:
“Improving our lives” - a reference to, as from next year, “roaming charges will be abolished across the EU, saving mobile phone users “up to 38p a minute on calls”. The EU was first asked to abolish roaming charges by a global body, the International Telephone Users Group (INTUG) way back in 1999, but it so dragged its feet that eventually INTUG approached another global body, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). The OECD then involved another global body, the International Telecommunications Union, which used the rules of a fourth, the World Trade Organisation, to ensure that by 2013 roaming charges were being abolished right across the world - with the EU way back at the end of the queue.
“Stronger in Europe” - a claim that, if we were to leave the EU, disabled people would somehow lose their rights, but these are enshrined in the 2010 Equality Act, putting into UK law the UN Convention on the Rights of the Disabled, which must be implemented by all UN-member states in any case, as the EU itself admits.
Another pro-EU organisation, the BBC, was recently having fun with a lamentably inadequate history of all those long-controversial EU regulations on the length, shape or otherwise of fruit and vegetables, such as cabbages, cucumbers and bananas. The point it was trying to make was that Brussels had finally recognised these rules as being “a little bit daft”, and so very sensibly repealed them. But what the BBC failed to tell us was that the reason they were all scrapped was that they have now been replaced by new standards handed down from another global body, the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) based in Geneva - not in Brussels. In many ways UNECE plays a greater part in making our laws than Brussels, over everything from marketing standards to vehicle design.
What everyone on both sides of the IN/OUT campaign has been missing, is the astonishing scale on which the making of our laws has been passed up to a global level, to scores of mysterious organisations which then hand down rulings to be implemented by lesser regional bodies, such as the EU. Outside of that organisation, both the UK - as well as an independent Scotland! - could, as countries in their own right, directly apply for individual membership of especially the World Trade Organisation, which is already the nearest entity to being a world government.
The SDA is implacably opposed to Scottish membership of the European Union (EU). In contrast, the SNP is dangerously ignorant of the broader implications of independence that go beyond the glorified local government level that is devolution. It is totally in hock to the so-called European Movement (Euromove) that dictates its EU-favourable policy.
Euromove was from the beginning a creation of the American Office of Strategic Services (OSS), invented by OSS head, William “Wild Bill” Donovan, just after the Second World War, and continued by its successor the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) when Frank G. Wisner was head of clandestine operations there; Euromove being funded by that body as well as through the American Committee for a United Europe (ACUE), which was, from the beginning, financed by US intelligence as well as by the likes of the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations and other agencies with close contacts to the US Administration. The EU is, therefore, an American driven development, and it is still American policy to keep it under US control. Papers revealing those facts were discovered among recently released material by a researcher at Georgetown University, one of the top Ivy League universities in the US. The ongoing negotiations being carried out, mostly in secret, between the US and the EU to set up a Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) is just the logical extension of what master spy Donovan started after 1945; an arrangement if it receives legislative authority will amount to the end of democracy as we know it, and lead to the dictatorship of American turbo capitalism.
It is essential that the eyes of the SNP membership are opened to the manner in which the European Movement (so-called) has pulled the wool over the eyes of the SNP leadership. The British used to do that with potential political leaderships in the dominions, especially India. Young maharajahs were educated at Eton and Oxbridge in order to pull them into the English establishment and thereby keep them and their country under control. Euromove has done exactly the same with the SNP and other Scottish parties for years on end by offering them prestigious active and representational positions to give them the illusion that they are doing something important.
It is a little known fact that 80% of EU “legislation” is simply taken over from institutions higher up the global order and presented as the EU’s own. One of the hardest facts is that non EU, but European Free Trade Association (EFTA) members, Norway, Iceland, Switzerland and even tiny Liechtenstein have far more decision making clout than any EU member. The reason being that they have voting power in their own right in the World Trade Organisation (WTO) and a huge number of similar global institutions where the real decisions are made before being taken over by the sub regional EU, which has no power to alter them. EU member states do not have this right to protect their own interests, because they are bound by the EU "common policies" rule that obliges them to support a single EU policy line at the higher decision making level within a whole range of global institutions. And that single EU policy will not be formulated for the benefit of the smaller member states if that is not in line with the interests of Germany and France.
Only one of the five major European institutions is basically free of US domination, i.e., the Council of Europe in Strasbourg, which forced the recall of Scotland's Parliament and Government at the instigation of the Scotland-UN Committee, the SDA's predecessor.