This morning the BBC titles one of its website articles, "Scottish independence: Referendum white paper unveiled". They're referring to the Scottish National Party's (SNP) 649-page white paper entitled "Scotland's Future: Your guide to an independent Scotland". It might be an interesting read for the political anoraks, (if they don't drop it on their big toe) but others might ask what dark forces remain lurking behind the veil.
click here
PIC_0013 Alex Salmond congenial chap, but he has some dodgy friends in high places.
(Image by theSNP) Details DMCA
Scotland's First Minister Alex Salmond and his deputy, Nicola Sturgeon launched their "mission statement" this morning at a press conference in Glasgow saying in essence, that an independent Scotland would benefit the Scottish people better than remaining part of the UK.
It's full of typical politico speak, of course. However, it seems that, as with most political change in this world, there are realities that remain unaddressed. For example, the Bank of England is to remain "lender of last resort". There's no suggestion that we could resort to independence from the moneylenders. Although some might say that all wealth comes from the grass roots, you wouldn't think so if you swallow conventional wisdom.
Another warning bell might ring when they mention, "paying our share of the national debt". It's not that nations, or individuals, should avoid duly paying off debt, but the question is how to avoid getting into debt in the first instance. This never seems debated enough; one gets the feeling that borrowing from usurers is inevitable. Well, is it? What's wrong with the idea of earning money first before we spend it? How often do we hear tycoons brag of how they started with 50p and worked their way up to the dizzy heights of billionaire status through sheer talent and tenacity?
The SNP talks of, "Thirty hours of childcare per week", removing Trident nuclear weapons, abolishing "bedroom tax' and whatever else it takes to fill 649 pages of audacious hope, which, incidentally, one wonders how bankrupt nations could fulfil without permission from their austerity loving creditors. It all costs money. Are there no politicians able to step forward and suggest a way to do things without prostrating their nations before the feet of the banksters like medieval vassal states?
If not, where's the sovereignty? We might forgive ourselves for thinking of politics, as we know it, as just another example of "The Delphi Technique". Apparently, that's a widely used political rouse for foisting predetermined policy changes on an unsuspecting populous. Logic might tell us that anything done with such stealth requires scrutiny - if it's detected. Is it not strange that of all the political change in recent decades, like the evolving EU and devolution, almost no politician who gets even a fleeting a whiff of so-called power advocates meaningful banking reform?
A few years ago, the SNP won a landslide election victory, gaining control of the current devolved Scottish Parliament against all odds. Like many electorates, the prospect of breaking free from the current Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum duopoly seemed hopeful. Scots do tend to vote for a more equitable sort of society, which they know won't happen if they remain in the UK. However, at that time, John Swinney, Scotland's Finance Minister, said that the main reason he wanted to progress to a completely independent Scotland was because it would give him "borrowing power".
What kind of power is borrowing power? Do the SNP suggest that grovelling, cap in hand, to a bunch of moneylenders, asking to join their list of creditors, towing their line, following their instructions for fear of ending up like Greece or Portugal is any real kind of power, never mind independence?
Around about that time Alex Salmond said that one of his main reasons for advocating Scottish independence was that Scotland could then set corporation tax. He compared Scotland to Ireland. Ireland's corporation tax was about 12.5%, which apparently gave them an unfair advantage over other countries, such as the UK, because corporate sweatshop owners are attracted to set up shop in low wage, low tax environments. It seems Alex's idea was to sign the Scottish people up to the downwardly spiralling worldwide working conditions of the world's corporately owned working chattel. Of course, that shouldn't surprise anyone who's aware of his chumminess with such ilk as Mr Rupert Murdoch. They look as cheery as the Chuckle Brothers when they get together, but we all know who's senior.
There are many good things to say for independence, much of which Alex and his deputy mentioned this morning, none of which however, could they hope to realise whilst the world banking cartel holds the purse strings. We shouldn't believe everything we hear and read on the internet. We should be open-minded, as long as the internet remains relatively uncensored (which it probably won't be for long). We should certainly treat the mainstream media with scepticism, but there's a school of thought that might explain the inability of elected officials, of all persuasions, to fulfil their electoral promises. It's that corporations rule this world and that democracy is yet a pipe dream. A famous banker of yesteryear, Amschell Rothschild, explained the situation succinctly, when he said, "Let me issue and control a nation's money and I care not who makes its laws". Well, if he didn't care, why should we care - until we rectify the situation?
If that's the reality, then it surely follows that independence has little to offer the Scots for there can be no realistic national sovereignty where there's no economic freedom. If the day ever comes that the people of any country in this world hear their prospective political candidates promise to fight to the last man and woman to root out usury, to nationalise the banks and issue debt-free currency, that day they'll know that progress for commoners is genuinely back on the agenda.
That's not to say that no such political leader ever existed, or could exist; it's just that they tend not to exist for long after attempting something so audaciously hopeful.
click here
PIC_0013 Alex Salmond congenial chap, but he has some dodgy friends in high places.
(Image by theSNP) Details DMCA
Scotland's First Minister Alex Salmond and his deputy, Nicola Sturgeon launched their "mission statement" this morning at a press conference in Glasgow saying in essence, that an independent Scotland would benefit the Scottish people better than remaining part of the UK.
It's full of typical politico speak, of course. However, it seems that, as with most political change in this world, there are realities that remain unaddressed. For example, the Bank of England is to remain "lender of last resort". There's no suggestion that we could resort to independence from the moneylenders. Although some might say that all wealth comes from the grass roots, you wouldn't think so if you swallow conventional wisdom.
Another warning bell might ring when they mention, "paying our share of the national debt". It's not that nations, or individuals, should avoid duly paying off debt, but the question is how to avoid getting into debt in the first instance. This never seems debated enough; one gets the feeling that borrowing from usurers is inevitable. Well, is it? What's wrong with the idea of earning money first before we spend it? How often do we hear tycoons brag of how they started with 50p and worked their way up to the dizzy heights of billionaire status through sheer talent and tenacity?
The SNP talks of, "Thirty hours of childcare per week", removing Trident nuclear weapons, abolishing "bedroom tax' and whatever else it takes to fill 649 pages of audacious hope, which, incidentally, one wonders how bankrupt nations could fulfil without permission from their austerity loving creditors. It all costs money. Are there no politicians able to step forward and suggest a way to do things without prostrating their nations before the feet of the banksters like medieval vassal states?
If not, where's the sovereignty? We might forgive ourselves for thinking of politics, as we know it, as just another example of "The Delphi Technique". Apparently, that's a widely used political rouse for foisting predetermined policy changes on an unsuspecting populous. Logic might tell us that anything done with such stealth requires scrutiny - if it's detected. Is it not strange that of all the political change in recent decades, like the evolving EU and devolution, almost no politician who gets even a fleeting a whiff of so-called power advocates meaningful banking reform?
A few years ago, the SNP won a landslide election victory, gaining control of the current devolved Scottish Parliament against all odds. Like many electorates, the prospect of breaking free from the current Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum duopoly seemed hopeful. Scots do tend to vote for a more equitable sort of society, which they know won't happen if they remain in the UK. However, at that time, John Swinney, Scotland's Finance Minister, said that the main reason he wanted to progress to a completely independent Scotland was because it would give him "borrowing power".
What kind of power is borrowing power? Do the SNP suggest that grovelling, cap in hand, to a bunch of moneylenders, asking to join their list of creditors, towing their line, following their instructions for fear of ending up like Greece or Portugal is any real kind of power, never mind independence?
Around about that time Alex Salmond said that one of his main reasons for advocating Scottish independence was that Scotland could then set corporation tax. He compared Scotland to Ireland. Ireland's corporation tax was about 12.5%, which apparently gave them an unfair advantage over other countries, such as the UK, because corporate sweatshop owners are attracted to set up shop in low wage, low tax environments. It seems Alex's idea was to sign the Scottish people up to the downwardly spiralling worldwide working conditions of the world's corporately owned working chattel. Of course, that shouldn't surprise anyone who's aware of his chumminess with such ilk as Mr Rupert Murdoch. They look as cheery as the Chuckle Brothers when they get together, but we all know who's senior.
There are many good things to say for independence, much of which Alex and his deputy mentioned this morning, none of which however, could they hope to realise whilst the world banking cartel holds the purse strings. We shouldn't believe everything we hear and read on the internet. We should be open-minded, as long as the internet remains relatively uncensored (which it probably won't be for long). We should certainly treat the mainstream media with scepticism, but there's a school of thought that might explain the inability of elected officials, of all persuasions, to fulfil their electoral promises. It's that corporations rule this world and that democracy is yet a pipe dream. A famous banker of yesteryear, Amschell Rothschild, explained the situation succinctly, when he said, "Let me issue and control a nation's money and I care not who makes its laws". Well, if he didn't care, why should we care - until we rectify the situation?
If that's the reality, then it surely follows that independence has little to offer the Scots for there can be no realistic national sovereignty where there's no economic freedom. If the day ever comes that the people of any country in this world hear their prospective political candidates promise to fight to the last man and woman to root out usury, to nationalise the banks and issue debt-free currency, that day they'll know that progress for commoners is genuinely back on the agenda.
That's not to say that no such political leader ever existed, or could exist; it's just that they tend not to exist for long after attempting something so audaciously hopeful.
1
