Why Do the Poor Demand the Rich Pay More Tax, Rather Than They Pay Less?

The answer might seem obvious, that the more the rich pay the less the poor have to pay.

Let’s get one myth out of the way. The one which says that taxing the rich ever higher amounts leads to greater and greater tax being collected. When you keep increasing tax on the ‘rich’ your total tax take falls, because the seriously rich will live in another country or find another solution to escape the robbery.

The theory behind this surprising set of effects [i.e. lower tax receipts from taxing the rich too much] is now associated with the name of US economist Arthur Laffer. The ‘Laffer Curve’ suggests that when governments initially start to raise tax revenues, they pull in greater and greater receipts. But as rates continue to climb, receipts start to level off until, eventually, further tax rises produce falling receipts. This is because there comes a time when, facing large tax bills, people simply stop bothering to work, or move into the black economy, or go abroad, or lie about their income, or employ expensive accountants to help them avoid the tax.

What the poor and their supposed representatives in, for example, the Labour Party call for is punitive taxes on those they perceive to be rich, which would have the effect of increasing the tax burden on the poor.

Consider how much tax the poor actually pay. Those on very low wages and benefits won’t have to pay income tax, but depending on what they buy, they could be paying a very high tax rate.

In the days long ago when I was a very heavy drinker on benefits, I paid an enormous tax rate, as do drinkers today.

Both Westminster and Edinburgh governments want to impose a minimum price per unit for alcohol, citing ‘health’ as the concern. NHS Scotland states in its defence:

Research shows that people on a low income or who are living in deprived areas are more likely to suffer from a long term illness as a result of drinking too much . People who live in the most deprived areas of Scotland are six times more likely to die an alcohol-related death than those in the least deprived areas.

The poor drink more. Or if you weren’t poor to begin with, you will be eventually if you cannot stop drinking.

But to reiterate, the poor are encouraged to complain about the tax rates of the rich while conveniently being unaware of their own tax burden.

Just picking some of my old favourites and working out the total tax, these are the results (retail prices correct at time of writing):

Kronenbourg 1664: 20 x 275ml bottles – cheapest price £12.

Working out the total tax:

Alcohol duty is £18.74 per hectolitre (100 litres) for each percent of alcohol in the beer and Kronenbourg is 5% ABV:

£18.74 x 5 = £93.70 per 100 litres

20 x 275ml = 5.5 litres

So duty is 5.5% of £93.70 which is £5.15

There’s also the 20% VAT to take into account. You just divide the total by 6 to get £2.00

So the total tax on this lager is £7.15, or 59.6% of the retail price.

I was a whisky lover too. The total tax on a 70cl bottle of Whyte & Mackay is £9.90 and by coincidence is also as low as £12. That’s a tax rate of 82.5%!

When times were really hard, I ended up on the strong white cider. I cannot find a price for the brands I used to drink, like “White Lightning”, but another choice of the serious drinker, though I rarely touched it, is the super-strength lagers. Perhaps the best known is Tennent’s Super. The tax on the price of £7.50 for 4 x 440ml cans works out at 57.5%.

Tennent's SuperIt is interesting that there is a large warning on these cans. People who buy this product aren’t, generally, ‘responsible’ drinkers. It appeals because it’s very strong lager and they have a disease called alcoholism. Can we expect alcohol packaging to go the same way as tobacco and have graphic pictures of diseased livers, hopeless drunks, young women throwing up, teenagers on life support and images of violence, such as a ‘glassed’ face stitched up?

The poor are most likely to drink to excess and consequently pay huge amounts of tax, but aren’t encouraged to complain. For a few years, I probably spent almost my entire benefit money on booze. Other expenses were supplemented by borrowing a few thousand from my parents while also making savings, such as practically freezing some winters. Of course, minimum pricing will plunge problem drinkers into even deeper poverty.

The poor are also more likely to smoke. According to Audit Scotland’s “Health Inequalities in Scotland” (pdf) report from December 2012,

Prevalence is around four times higher in the most deprived areas than in the least deprived areas. Around one in ten people in the least deprived areas smokes, compared with four in ten people in the most deprived areas.

Yet the total tax on cigarettes is 77% of the retail price; a figure which ASH agrees with exactly (pdf).

Without tax, cigarettes would cost around £2.00 for 20.

Then there’s the price of petrol and diesel,

British drivers pay a higher rate of tax on fuel than any other motorists in the European Union, according to a new study.

For every litre of unleaded petrol bought in the UK, 61 per cent of the pump price goes to the government as fuel duty and VAT along with 59 per cent of every litre of diesel.

Yet again, this disproportionately affects the poor. Even people without cars who rely on buses and taxis pay more because of this. Groceries cost more due to the high cost of deliveries.

The small town I live in has lost so many jobs that more and more people seem to commute to the region’s ‘capital’, Dumfries, every day, which is 70 miles away.

But if you hadn’t already worked it out, don’t expect the MPG you actually get with the manufacturer’s figure.

Fed up with relentlessly rising fuel prices, you’ve traded in that large, thirsty car for something smaller and more economical. However, the 60mpg suggested by the sticker in the showroom is turning out to be closer to 45mpg in the real world. Welcome to the Disgruntled Club – a growing body of people angered by what they see as misrepresentation of cars’ fuel economy.

The blame for inaccurate fuel figures largely rests with the European Union test that produces them.

Official fuel figures are obtained from a series of tests known as the New European Driving Cycle (NEDC). This is supposed to represent typical usage, though in reality it does nothing of the sort (see below for details of the NEDC test). It is conducted under laboratory conditions, and power-sapping electrical features which would increase fuel consumption remain switched off.

While the EU slams us with ‘green’ legislation and taxes, they mess up on such a simple environmental issue. Useless, aren’t they?

At £1.30 a litre for petrol (£5.91 per gallon), those 700 miles a week to and from work at, say, 50 MPG cost £82.74 of which £50.47 is tax. People are paying fifty pounds extra tax on already-taxed income just to get to work and back home.

Then there’s council tax, which isn’t related to income and the 20% VAT on almost everything you buy except for food, but you pay it on takeaways, so loved by the poor.

So the poor are being hammered left, right and centre with tax, but as if under hypnosis are oblivious to it, just as they probably don’t appreciate just how much of everybody’s taxes are frittered away unnecessarily.

They’re concentrating on the hypnotist’s watch….despise the rich….they’re the source of your poverty….carry on paying massive amounts of tax on your meagre income without noticing…

Posted in Health, Money, Scotland, smoking, Taxation | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Why ‘New Puritans’ is a Misnomer

Newborn baby

Some ‘experts’ want it made legal for babies to be murdered.

Time and again, I read the ‘ban it’ control freaks of today termed ‘New Puritans’. Simon Cooke has just encouraged me to put the record straight on this.

The ‘New Puritans’ differ, I think, from the old type in very important ways. Religious puritanism was probably for honest reasons, whereas the new and not improved version comes to us mainly via the UN and is probably related to control and eugenics.

Rather than caring about our souls, the New Puritans have been brainwashed into elevating physical health and the environment above everything else, even the Almighty and salvation, which the puritans of old put first.

In fact the New Puritans aren’t puritans at all; they’re control freaks for some grand Malthusian Agenda 21 depopulation and neo-feudal future.

Take, for example, sex ‘education’. Malthus recommended abstinence and putting off marriage until suitable finances were available.

Contrast this with the so-called New Puritans, who aim to achieve the same result through very evil social re-engineering. They have been using sex education, television and what passes for music to encourage youngsters to have sex earlier and with more partners, BUT that “teenage pregnancy” is some great evil which must be reduced through ‘free’ contraception and abortions. Ed Balls has been campaigning for sex education to start at age five. Some even more twisted individuals think it should start pre-school.

Early exposure to these messages has the effect of many youngsters experimenting more and earlier than would otherwise be the case; the opposite of what Malthus proposed.

These dysfunctional people nowadays have had the sex act removed from love and marriage, so that when older, they find it difficult to settle down to family life, stay faithful and raise children.

This is one way the New Puritans, or let’s call a spade a spade: these are people with Obsessive Depopulation and Control Disorder (ODCD), are planning the future of mankind (the relatively few who will remain).

The only thing they have in common with genuine puritans is their religious zeal; there is fight in them to reduce the population for a greener, cleaner planet and to produce a healthier, fitter human race: a master race, as it were, so there is no drain on the others.

Now that abortion is well and truly part of our culture and unborn babies with disabilities can ‘legally’ be butchered right up to the time of birth, it won’t take too much of a leap to what some ‘experts’ are calling for: “post-birth abortions” or “after-birth abortions”. These are more acceptable terms for infanticide or child murder.

One such advocate is a Dr Francesca Minerva, from the University of Melbourne, who has a piece on the BMJ’s website.

She bemoans that,

An examination of 18 European registries reveals that between 2005 and 2009 only the 64% of Down’s syndrome cases were diagnosed through prenatal testing. This percentage indicates that… about 1700 infants were born with Down’s syndrome without parents being aware of it before birth. Once these children are born, there is no choice for the parents but to keep the child, which sometimes is exactly what they would not have done if the disease had been diagnosed before birth.

Yet concedes,

It might be maintained that ‘even allowing for the more optimistic assessments of the potential of Down’s syndrome children, this potential cannot be said to be equal to that of a normal child’. But, in fact, people with Down’s syndrome, as well as people affected by many other severe disabilities, are often reported to be happy.

But regardless of having actually been born and with the potential of leading a happy life, she still thinks Downs syndrome babies ought to be murdered.

Nonetheless, to bring up such children might be an unbearable burden on the family and on society as a whole, when the state economically provides for their care. On these grounds, the fact that a fetus has the potential to become a person who will have an (at least) acceptable life is no reason for prohibiting abortion. Therefore, we argue that, when circumstances occur after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible.

See how she uses the “burden” on the “state” as an excuse? Socialised healthcare is a boon for eugenicists, as it is yet another reason they can spew out as an excuse to go on a killing spree.

In fact, because she considers newborns as “non-persons” she thinks that killing healthy babies is also morally acceptable,

Actual people’s well-being could be threatened by the new (even if healthy) child requiring energy, money and care which the family might happen to be in short supply of. Sometimes this situation can be prevented through an abortion, but in some other cases this is not possible. In these cases, since non-persons have no moral rights to life, there are no reasons for banning after-birth abortions.

Bizarrely, she is against adoption and thinks murder is fairer. On ‘humanitarian’ grounds, of course,

For example, ‘those who grieve a death must accept the irreversibility of the loss, but natural mothers often dream that their child will return to them. This makes it difficult to accept the reality of the loss because they can never be quite sure whether or not it is irreversible’

If this were to become law it would open up a whole can of worms as to who else could be considered a “non-person” and killed off. Likewise, who can be said to be a drain on their family or be costing too much money to keep alive or whose quality of life is considered (by others) to be low?

That could include the very elderly, people with Alzheimer’s or other forms of dementia, people with severe depression and the severely physically handicapped.

Marie Stopes, the mad feminist who sent Hitler adoring poetry, called for the “compulsory sterilisation of the diseased, drunkards, or simply those of bad character.” She concentrated her abortion clinics in poor areas to help reduce the birth rate of the lower classes.

The clinics bearing her name are now popular and their chief executive gets to ‘help’ the government to formulate strategies to reduce teenage pregnancies, i.e. more sex ‘education’ to produce more dysfunctionality to provide yet more clients to make use of the contraception and abortion ‘services’ provided by the Marie Stopes’ clinics.

These New Puritans (ODCD sufferers) just seem to hate people. They crave a small global population as physically healthy as can be bred and the way we are heading, all other people will be deemed suitable for “after-birth abortions” or sterilisation.

With the country’s finances on life support, these evil ideas could become reality sooner rather than later.

Posted in Abortion, Environmentalism, eugenics, Health, Sanctity of Life, Social Engineering | Tagged , , , , | 4 Comments

Robert Green Arrested Again. Would an ‘Independent’ Scotland be a Police State?

I received an email this morning linking to this article about the arrest, in Cheshire by police from Aberdeen, of Hollie Greig campaigner, Robert Green, who has been harassed and intimidated by police for years as he has fought for a proper investigation into her allegations of child sex abuse by employees of the state.

I have just emailed Alex Salmond and the Justice Secretary, Kenny MacAskill…

Good morning,

This is an open letter which will be available for viewing on my blog.

I have just read the report of the arrest by Grampian Police of Robert Green, who has campaigned for justice for Hollie Greig. You are probably aware that this young woman with Down’s syndrome has alleged to have been sexually abused since childhood by among others, teachers, social workers, a police officer and a judge.

Because police and a judge are alleged abusers, I can only assume, are the reasons for the repeated arrests of Robert Green. Any normal justice process would involve a proper investigation of Hollie’s allegations. It is especially important as it may uncover a paedophile ring *still* operating locally. Or is this the reason for the harassment, I wonder? Why would a police force intimidate this man rather than carry out anything remotely like a full investigation? Simply to cover up for their own (Freemasons, probably)?

I urge you in particular and your government to respect and protect Mr. Green’s rights and that he be immediately released from prison.

It is paramount that the child sex abuse allegations are thoroughly investigated by the police.

Or would an ‘independent’ Scotland be a police state, where innocent people are jailed to protect the ‘elite’?

I look forward to your reply.

Yours sincerely,

Stewart Cowan

Etc.

Posted in Authoritarianism, Crime and Punishment, Scotland | Tagged , | 2 Comments

Farage Defies Clegg’s Lies on Televised Debate

Farage vs CleggLike Frank Davis, I too watched Round 2 of Clegg vs Farage on BBC iplayer, seeing as I don’t pay the TV tax. I mention Frank, because I left a long comment on his blog that I thought I would make into a post here. As he says,

The battle was between two visions. On the one hand there was Farage saying that the British should govern Britain, and on the other hand there was Clegg saying that we had to find “strength in numbers” by being a member of the “world’s largest economy”.

Clegg was almost unbearable and spoke just like the very worst internet trolls type. Always banging on about “turning the clock back”. Progressives assume that conservatives think there was some bygone “Golden Age” to which we can simply go back. There was indeed a golden age for those who profited from the Empire. It gave us full employment (mainly slave labour) and Glasgow, where I come from, was transformed through trading with the Empire into a magnificent city, much of which was still evident when I last visited in 2006, but one-by-one, those fine-looking 19th century – and earlier – buildings are being replaced by monstrous carbuncles: proof that modern isn’t always better. Far from it.

There still is a golden age for the elites, but that has always been the case throughout history. The rest of us have always struggled. There was no golden age for us, but I think that a few decades ago was comparatively golden compared to today. Like Frank says, you could have a drink and a smoke in a pub (especially welcome after a hard day’s work). You didn’t have to fear for what you say. You could employ someone on merit and sack them if they were useless (I speak as a small businessman; we have been hammered by regulations). Education was better. I received a grant to go to college to study for a degree; there were no tuition fees and travelling expenses were also paid to me, despite both parents working. People felt like they had freedom and some sort of say.

And for Clegg to claim people are more compassionate now was just astonishing. The smoking ban Frank cited is a good example of why that is not true as are the shocking failings and some of the deliberate policies of the NHS, but just the fact that decades of divide and rule politics have been in play to make one group despise another on just about every possible subject is proof that he lied. Millions of immigrants have been let in to change the country and ‘rub the Right’s nose in diversity’ (admitted by Labour, but now rubbing their own voters’ noses in it too through low-paid immigrant workers and schools where English is a minority language). And ridiculous ‘equality’ measures like same-sex ‘marriage’ and the whole sexuality thing, like ex-KGB subversion agent Yuri Bezmenov said, is to weaken us for a takeover.

Once upon a time, the USSR was aiming to take us, now it’s a totally unified EU leading to total global governance and the same KGB mindset has been at work for a long time with the Fabians and branching out into Common Purpose and thousands of other fake charities spreading disinformation and creating fake grassroots support. If you feel like nobody’s listening to you, that is why.

Another of Clegg’s lies was to deny the EU had plans for its own military and tried to make a monkey out of Farage for suggesting it, yet in December, we learned that,

David Cameron has blocked plans for European Union owned military forces and told a summit of Europe’s leaders that Nato is the “bedrock” of defence in Europe.

The Prime Minister has told a Brussels summit that there can be no question of British support for proposals from Baroness Ashton and the European Commission for the EU to run its own military.

I was glad when the hour was finished and left wondering how Clegg has lived so long without being strangled or without needing annual surgery for nose-reductions..

I know many of these top political clowns must be paid off or compromised, but Clegg seems to really believe that the country would grind to a halt were we to become independent again, despite the two main countries in W. Europe outside the EU, Norway and Switzerland, being the two richest countries on earth based on personal wealth and I see also according to the Legatum Prosperity Index, which is.

an annual ranking, developed by the Legatum Institute, of 142 countries. The ranking is based on a variety of factors including wealth, economic growth and quality of life.

The Swiss have so much freedom, they have referenda all the time and gun ownership is big time and it’s a very safe country, whereas we can be in trouble for being found in possession of a penknife, something every schoolboy used to carry when I was growing up.

Maybe by ‘more compassionate’ Clegg meant that the government is more compassionate because all their nannying shows how much they care about us!!

And then there’s his fairly constant insinuations that Farage is a liar, by, for example, claiming that Farage said that 465 million people are going to move here and leave the Continent empty and comparing it to 5 million Scots moving to Orpington or some such town. Someone must feed him this embarrassingly ridiculous stuff in briefings. Surely?

More optimistic than I, Frank wrote,

Afterwards I wondered whether I’d witnessed a debate in which the europhile establishment for once lost decisively, and in which the next big battle was clearly framed to be between the people and the political establishment. These debates have been watched very closely, because they have been frank and open debates between two very different visions for Britain. I think that the pro-European political establishment must now be beginning to panic – and not just in Britain, but everywhere else on the European mainland.

More people have to wake up before it’s too late. Pure idiocy like I witnessed from Clegg can do no harm at all. No wonder Cameron and Miliband are too fearful to debate.

Posted in Authoritarianism, EU, Globalism, Immigration, Television, Tory-Lib Coalition, Trade and Industry | Tagged , , | 4 Comments

I’m Not Doing an ‘April Fool’ Post, But…

For one reason, it’s difficult to tell which stories are real every other day of the year, but the more insane the world is becoming, inventing new, believable ones becomes ever more tricky.

I notice that The Telegraph has a lengthy round-up of made-up stories, with writers having most fun imagining Scotland, post indy-pretence.

‘Independence’ ruled from Brussels is a ‘joke’ for every day of the year.

This is a joke, but I’m sure the man must dream of this: Alex Salmond to replace the Queen on new Scottish pound coin.

Alex Salmond pound coinThe Daily Mail reports that after indy-pretence, it “was accidentally revealed in confidential papers” that the Union Flag will be amended to reflect Scotland’s absence. Of course, the Union Flag would remain, but the flag for the rest of the UK, would ironically represent Scotland, but not Wales.

union Flag without scotland
The Independent has an ‘Exclusive’: UN draws up peacekeeping plans in event of Scottish Yes vote.

One scenario being taken seriously is pre-arranged “face-offs”, modelled on the film Braveheart, between rival militias who it is feared could travel to towns such as Gretna Green and Berwick-upon-Tweed for weekend showdowns.

There was actually controversy when Labour members of the Northumberland County Council suggested making Berwick a booze capital for Scots once Salmond introduces his 50p per unit minimum pricing.

The Times goes with the possibility that an elderly German Duke may have a claim to rule over an independent Scotland.

German Duke The Grauniad tries, “Scotland to switch to driving on the right” and changing all the road names to show we are part of Europe.

I’m sure that will be clear enough from Day One, any road.

Posted in Scotland, Spoof | Leave a comment

Latest Law: Go to Jail for not Loving your Children

cinderella law

Future scenario…This poor child feels unloved after being refused a skateboard and is considering suing his parents for emotional distress because all his friends have one.

H/T to Anna Raccoon for news of this incredible new law about to benefit lawyers soon, whereby parents will face up to ten years in prison if they fail to love their children. As Anna writes,

This will set off a maelstrom of judicial activity, trying to define what exactly is ‘love’. Mr Buckland, who is, of course, a Barrister, would have known that. Jobs for British workers eh?

I found it hard to believe, so I had to double check after I had done a double-take and sure enough,

Parents who starve their children of love and affection face prosecution under a “Cinderella Law”, The Telegraph can disclose.

Anna informs us that it could get even more bizarre, nay unworkable,

‘Scape-goating’ a child is also to be made a criminal offence.  Now ‘scape-goating’, for the benefit of Mr Buckand, is helpfully defined as the practice of singling out a person for ‘unmerited blame’. T’would be wise to only have one child in future – for to tell little Johnny that you don’t actually care which of his siblings left all the bingo balls at the bottom of the stairs, he WILL go and pick them all up before Grand-ma breaks her flippin’ neck, is likely to result in a swift call to Slater & “are you being scape-goated, we can help” Moron.

As all recent UK Governments have been following the Fabian agenda of family destruction as the only possible route to a totally socialist state, coupled with the ‘family planning’ eugenics to reduce the population, perhaps this is yet another arrow in their quiver?

Just when you thought it was impossible to concoct a law arguably more stupid than any of the thousands of stupid laws which have gone before in recent years. This one again via a ‘Conservative’ MP, Robert Buckland.

robert buckland

Robert Buckland MP. He has ears – just – but what’s in between them?

Or maybe, it’s yet another method of gaining access to other people’s families.

“Children’s rights” is a term which sounds wonderful, but is in reality a way of removing parental rights and giving them to the State.

Peter Tatchell talks about “children’s sexual rights” so add the two together and one day soon, mum and dad (or both ‘mums’, both ‘dads’ or to borrow from Boris Johnson, “three men and a dog”), will get arrested for not allowing their 12 year old to sleep around.

You can imagine the ‘judge’ of the future declaring, “This degree of cruelty cannot go unpunished. I sentence both/all the parents to the maximum prison term allowable, being as it is at present, a paltry ten years. The dog shall be impounded in kennels for the rest of its natural life”.

As Anna said, “Your suggestions for a legal definition of ‘Love’? Over to you”.

It’s barking mad.

P.S. When can I marry my dog?

Posted in Crime and Punishment, Social Engineering, Taking the Mickey, Tory-Lib Coalition | Tagged , , , , | 2 Comments

Rowan Williams Warns of Climate Catastrophe

Dr-Rowan-Williams

In case you’d forgotten what he looks like.

Just what does a former Archbishop of Canterbury do to stay in the limelight? This one, who wasn’t a Christian as far as I could make out; he was more of a Druid; a Pagan, that I could see, joins a populist bandwagon, guaranteed to make him headline news.

This was the leading article on the Telegraph’s website this morning, Rowan Williams warns of climate catastrophe. The MSM has to keep the myth of ‘global warming’ alive so we sign up to treaties to deindustrialise and become impoverished to aid in global governance.

This is the importance Rowan Williams gives to Christianity and scripture,

The next Archbishop of Canterbury was inducted as an honorary white druid yesterday at an open-air ceremony in Wales reminiscent of a scene from a Monty Python sketch.

Dr Rowan Williams, dismissing suggestions that he was dabbling in paganism, joined blue-hooded druids ranked behind a golden harp to be admitted into the Welsh Gorsedd of Bards.

A trumpet fanfare and a 6ft sword being sheathed and unsheathed launched the ceremony at the National Eisteddfod in St David’s, Pembrokeshire. Dr Williams, standing in a circle of stones, wore a long white cloak and headdress.

As he accepted the honour, he clutched the hands of Dr Robyn Lewyes, the chief druid of Wales, between microphones entwined with ivy.

Rowan Williams was as effective an Archbishop as I could imagine Rowan Atkinson’s ‘Mr Bean’ would have been. At least Bean showed signs of intelligence, such as when he got dressed while driving his car when late for his dental appointment.

But what more can you expect from a Blair-appointee than a climate con fanatic?

According to Williams, the recent UK floods were all the fault of us ‘rich’ folk in the West. Nothing to do with the EU banning us from effectively controlling the land like our forebears had during previous centuries. Oh, no. No mention of the ‘rich’ people having the resources to control the land (given half a chance). But nowadays, rodents, insects and bats have more rights than people in some areas.

The floods in Britain and weather-related “catastrophes” in the poorest countries on Earth, he insists, are the clearest indications yet that predictions of “accelerated warming of the Earth” caused by “the uncontrolled burning of fossil fuels … are coming true”.

But the UN says that the planet hasn’t been warming for the past fifteen years!

But once you’re on a speeding bandwagon – and receiving the attention you crave – you don’t want to jump off and hurt yourself.

The Telegraph actually adds some balance, when the reporter writes,

Climate change sceptics argue that if the planet is warming up, it is not clear that it is because of the actions of man. They point out errors in previous IPCC reports and accuse the global warming industry of ratcheting up the risks of climate change, which have subsequently led to the cripplingly expensive introduction of green energy policies.

Well, quite. Ah…

But Dr Williams, who quit as leader of the Anglican Church just over a year ago, writes: “We have heard for years the predictions that the uncontrolled burning of fossil fuels will lead to an accelerated warming of the Earth. What is now happening indicates that these predictions are coming true; our actions have had consequences that are deeply threatening for many of the poorest communities in the world.

“What is now happening?” What is now happening has always been happening: storms and floods and the warming and cooling of the earth.

Does he imagine that manmade CO2 was responsible for the Flood in Noah’s day, I wonder?

Dr Williams, writing in his capacity as chairman of Christian Aid, said that the winter storms that battered Britain had brought climate change to the fore in this country…

It brought our subservience to Brussels to the fore. As for ‘Christian Aid’, when considering whether to donate to them, I emailed them a few years ago to ask their position on contraception and indeed they are part of the machinery involved in flooding Africa with condoms. Now, the eugenicist Gates’s are spending $billions on ‘family planning’ (with UK taxpayers’ help, for some reason). Dan Hannan wrote in 2011,

A few weeks ago, during Christian Aid Week, I contributed a small sum through a church auction to what I imagined to be that organization’s main work, viz the alleviation of poverty. Shortly afterwards, Christian Aid started badgering me on the issue of climate change. Surprised, I looked at its website, where I found that, rather than building schools or distributing medicines, Christian Aid is mainly interested in lobbying against free trade.

It is, of course, perfectly reasonable – admirable, indeed – to campaign for causes that you deem important. I just wonder how many donors to Christian Aid are making the mistake that I made, believing that they are contributing to charitable rather than political activity.

This latest article continues,

Dr Williams goes on to attack global warming sceptics and climate change deniers. “There are of course some who doubt the role of human agency in creating and responding to climate change, and who argue that we should direct our efforts solely to adapting to changes that are inevitable, rather than modifying our behaviour,” says Dr Williams.

We have been modifying our behaviour, industrially. Our factories have been closing, some under the pressure of ‘green’ taxes and the burden of legislation, only to reopen in the Far East, where environmental considerations are low and the goods are transported here on enormously polluting cargo ships and sometimes by air.

Rising temperatures will also affect food production and security in parts of Asia with a fall in rice yields caused by a shorter growing period.

Actually, were temperatures really rising, the amount of agricultural land would increase, as there is more land in more northerly latitudes. Imagine the tundras of Canada, Alaska, Russia and Scandinavia being available for farming – and the climate con men actually agree,

The IPCC report will say that northern parts of Asia will benefit from warmer temperatures, however, leading to increased production of wheat and other cereals.

So if the planet does start warming again (although there seems to be an increasing number of scientists predicting another ice age), the cotton can be grown in more northerly regions and the Indian subcontinent, for example, can expand their textile manufacturing. It would also mean more land would be available down there for food crops to feed the billions of people in southern Asia.

But these Greenies just don’t seem to get it. The planet isn’t warming and even if it starts (or restarts) it isn’t necessarily down to man (during the past recorded warm periods man wasn’t to blame/thank), but even if it is manmade, transferring our industry to far away places and shipping the goods to the West is adding to carbon emissions, not reducing them.

With all the proven lies and disinformation from the carbon cowboys, how obvious is it that it is just another con to induce hysteria to help bring about global governance to ‘save the planet’?

Posted in Uncategorized | 22 Comments

Scottish Islands Call For Their Own Independence Referenda

Shetland

Will Scotland’s islands have the chance to vote for real independence?

The plot thickens.

The week following Scotland’s “Independence” Referendum in September (i.e. direct rule from Brussels and Geneva, cutting out the Westminster middlemen), a petition to seek independence for the Western Isles, Shetland and Orkney has been lodged with the Scottish Parliament.

If the vote is against independence, the follow-up ballot would be to determine if each island is to become an independent country or to remain within Scotland.

In the event of a yes vote in the referendum on Scottish independence, the islanders would be asked if they wish to stay in the UK.

The petition also covers the other option that even in the event of a “Yes” vote, the islanders should have the chance to vote for their own independence. The first vote on the islands after the Scottish “Independence” referendum would be regardless of the outcome of that referendum.

The Guardian’s piece asks, Will Orkney and Shetland join the micronationalists?

Alex Salmond should always have expected it. Once you stir the nationalist pot, you can never know where it will lead.

I don’t yet know if they are desperately worried about staying in the EU, or if, unlike Salmond, they would prefer independence worthy of the name.

That’s the problem with nationalism. Where does it end? I once visited Sanday (population 550) in Orkney, and locals told me one side of the island was so distinct from the other than the accents were different. Perhaps west Sanday and east Sanday should consider splitting. Chaos beckons.

Probably not. Or maybe so. Perhaps non-SNP controlled councils on the mainland will declare independence? What fun we could be in for!

But independent Western Isles (Outer Hebrides), Shetland and Orkney wouldn’t be micronations. I have been studying micronations for some time to gather ideas for future adventures. These independent Scottish archipelagos would just be small countries with a combined population of about 70,000. The tiny independent Pacific island of Nauru has fewer than 10,000 inhabitants.

These are some of the micronations. The most famous is perhaps The Principality of Sealand, a WWII sea fort (Roughs Tower) in the Thames estuary, which has acted as an independent nation since 1967 (it was then in international waters) and seems to be getting away with it. The official Sealand Government website (they don’t have their own top level domain suffix!) states,

The independence of Sealand was upheld in a 1968 British court decision where the judge held that Roughs Tower stood in international waters and did not fall under the legal jurisdiction of the United Kingdom. This gave birth to Sealand’s national motto of E Mare Libertas, or “From the Sea, Freedom”.

Some “micronations” are solely online entities, while others are tongue-in-cheek affairs, like people’s houses, but they continue to act as normal UK citizens (if there is such a person left) and even pay council tax on their “nation”, despite, apparently, the collection process being illegal.

It is the possible prospect for real independence from the EU, Council of Europe, UN, climate con artists and all their useful idiots that interests me.

The small Shetland island of Forvik, whose disputed owner and sole resident, Stuart Hill, declared a British Crown Dependency in 2008 has confounded the local establishment.

The Shetland Islands Council Convenor Sandy Cluness has not dismissed Hill’s actions out of hand and said official bodies would wait and see how it progressed.

He also has serious historical evidence which could affect the whole Shetland Islands. He claims that in 1469 King Christian I of Denmark/Norway pawned the islands to King James III of Scotland as he was unable at the time to raise enough money for his daughter’s dowry. Hill claims that the Shetlands should benefit from being a crown dependency like the Channel Islands and Isle of Man.

The Telegraph wrote about the situation in 2008, and quotes Mr Hill as saying, “It’s all jolly good fun” and “Every pensioner should do something like this.”

And who would not find this enticing?

In the months to come Mr Hill plans to print his own stamps, raise his own flag and even mint his own currency, solid gold coins to be called ‘gulde’.

It could soon be time to break away from a breakaway Scotland then perhaps reunite in the future if and when people ever come to their senses and stop voting for their persecutors and cultural subverters; people for whom true independence is the last thing on their minds.

Posted in Politics, Scotland, SNP | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Memories of Concorde, British Caledonian and Tony Benn

When I lived in Catford, S.E. London, in the 1990s, Concorde used to fly past daily. It was a strangely beautiful sight. Can’t work out why. The design? The patriotism? Mankind’s mastery of the skies? Some people these days describe inanimate objects (Concorde was far from inanimate, but you know what I mean) as sexy. I hate that!

I just mention it as I haven’t discussed the late Tony Benn’s passing last week, but on reading about Concorde, came across this naming problem from his Anthony Wedgwood Benn Government minister days,

Reflecting the treaty between the British and French governments which led to Concorde’s construction, the name Concorde is from the French word concorde (IPA: [kɔ̃kɔʁd]), which has an English equivalent, concord. Both words mean agreement, harmony or union. The name was officially changed to Concord by Harold Macmillan in response to a perceived slight by Charles de Gaulle. In 1967, at the French roll-out in Toulouse the British Government Minister for Technology, Tony Benn, announced that he would change the spelling back to Concorde.[26] This created a nationalist uproar that died down when Benn stated that the suffixed ‘e’ represented “Excellence, England, Europe and Entente (Cordiale).” In his memoirs, he recounts a tale of a letter from an irate Scotsman claiming: “[Y]ou talk about ‘E’ for England, but part of it is made in Scotland.” Given Scotland’s contribution of providing the nose cone for the aircraft, Benn replied, “[I]t was also ‘E’ for ‘Écosse’ (the French name for Scotland) — and I might have added ‘e’ for extravagance and ‘e’ for escalation as well!”[27]

Concorde also acquired an unusual nomenclature for an aircraft. In common usage in the United Kingdom, the type is known as Concorde without an article, rather than the Concorde or a Concorde.[28][29]

You have to be crafty to be a successful politician. Very, very crafty. Or very good. Now, who would be included in the latter category? [Pensively drums fingers on desk.]

And also, the Scots always did have a nose for engineering and ingenuity. [Hurriedly gets coat.]

On reading about Concorde, it was mentioned that BA’s operational losses flying them, meant that British Caledonian expressed an interest in buying them. That took me back even further in time. I wondered if the airline was still around in some form, but didn’t recall seeing a tartan-clad hostess for quite a long time (and it’s getting on for a decade since I’ve had a telly licence). That’s because in December 1987, British Airways took over them because they were going down the plughole.

It’s hard to imagine how an airline which had never experienced a fatal accident, combined with tartan lassies serving drinks could have gone wrong.

british-caledonian-girls
And if your plane had dived into the sea, you needn’t have worried. The blog I borrowed the picture from has the list of qualifications required to become own of their air stewardesses (half of which are probably politically incorrect now), and one of these is…

The ability to swim a minimum of 25 yards.

Probably far enough to get to the nearest drinks trolley to serve a surviving passenger.

I wondered why British Caledonian ended up in financial trouble. They probably found it increasingly difficult to find the right staff, as the final qualification requirement is,

To be well spoken and grammatically correct.

It just ain’t Luton Airport enough, is it?

Posted in Trade and Industry | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

The UK’s Most Radical Revolutionaries are in Government

I look forward to reading Frank Davis’s blog every morning. Yesterday, he wrote that while the mainstream media paint UKIP as the revolutionaries, it’s actually the so-called mainstream parties who are,

After all, with a few exceptions, the political class is now fully signed up to merging the UK into Europe. After 1000 years or more of being a nation-state, it’s all going to be replaced with membership of the brand new European Union. And this is an extremely radical departure. It’s nothing short of a revolution. And it wasn’t being seriously contemplated just 40 years ago, when the EU was still the European Economic Community.

Same with global warming/climate change. The political class has signed up for all that as well, with all the mainstream parties vying to be more green than each other. Yet 20 years ago nobody believed that the climate was warming at all. So that’s another extremely radical departure.

And then there’s the smoking ban. The political class supports that too. None of the mainstream parties is even hinting at any change in that. Instead they’re pressing on with more bans – e.g. in cars. And yet not 10 years ago, nobody imagined that it would soon be impossible to sit in a pub and drink a pint of beer and smoke a cigarette. I certainly couldn’t. So that’s yet another extremely radical departure.

And there’s more. There’s large scale immigration, unthinkable 60 or 70 years ago. And now gay marriage, unthinkable 20 years ago.

In the past, radicals used to be in minority protest groups on the fringes of society. But now the radicals are all in government. So in Europe there’s Manuel Barroso, a one-time Maoist. And Catherine Ashton, a one-time CND activist. And there are lots more of them with similar histories.

I suppose that, for people of a radical or ‘progressive’ mentality, it all looks like great stuff. But not everybody is a radical or a ‘progressive’, particularly if the actual ‘progress’ doesn’t seem to be any sort of real progress at all.

‘Progressive’ simply means that changes are desired, but naturally, socialists pretend or genuinely believe that these changes are positive ones, but history is showing the ‘progressive’ agenda is highly destructive.

I commented that Cameron, Clegg and Milipede should have hats with red stars on them. The big question is why? The ones at the top know what the Agenda is about and the ordinary constituency MP tends to be a compliant drone (I’ve met a few) who cannot discuss matters with you one man to another, but spews out doctrine parrot-fashion, like they’re on Question Time.

The only sensible answers I ever got from a politician was from Ian Paisley just a few years ago – I think he was an MP, MEP and MLA at the time, as well as being a (religious) minister! I asked him after a church meeting (I’m not a member of his church, but I used to go to the local branch occasionally and one day he was there to install the new minister) what he thought of manmade climate change and he went into one (as he’s famous for). “It’s a load of complete nonsense….”

Apart from that outburst, he was relaxed and spoke freely. You could tell he is his own man and not the usual political clone.

What do ‘they’ have on Cameron to make him so *radical*? Do they pay him vast sums in brown envelopes or more likely, did they set him up as a paedophile years ago so they could use him as a bigger puppet even than Blair? Just what makes these people prepared to do so much damage to their own country and people. Take the recent flooding in Somerset, for example. largely avoidable, were it not for our membership of the EU.

Take any number of things. The overtaxing and waste. The bans and control. The cultural subversion.

Obama, I see as a once hopeless chav/spiv, bereft of values, who was crafted to become the irresistible destroyer of the USA.

The Common Purpose operatives and fake charity astroturfers obviously have their agendas. The former want a Marxist-Leninist country and the latter are unhealthily obsessed with what other people do and so want to control them.

CONTROL is the operative word in all of this.

Exile them to the outdoors (Deborah Arnott of ASH) or tax them until they can’t feed themselves. Subvert their country so there won’t be enough people to rise up to defend their values. Destroy religion and introduce moral relativity, so people have trouble working out what’s right and wrong anyway, so they just do what the telly tells them and take their cues from their heroes, be they rockers, rappers, sports ‘stars’ or (haha) politicians.

But the really stupid ones will always believe the BBC and Guardian, etc. that UKIP are racist, sexist, xenophobic, homophobic etc.

I’m considering getting a place in the middle of nowhere and living off-grid. It’ll probably be the only way to survive: to eat and heat. And as far away from officialdom as possible. And as far away from hordes of people who will raid your garden/smallholding!

Because you can tell what’s going to happen in the future by looking at what the fake charities and unelected government advisors are advocating. Take “Forum for the Future”:

More of that sustainability = depopulation and total control grid. Here’s one of their ‘scenario’ videos about life in 2040. You’ll get an electric bike if you’re fortunate enough and meat on your birthday. You’ll be allocated a profession. If you own a car you’ll be forced to share it on journeys to work. Those who don’t comply will live in ghettos.

It’s already been planned – and more that they dare not yet divulge. It’ll happen. Watch the video. It’s the future.

Posted in Authoritarianism, eugenics, Globalism, Social Engineering | Tagged , , , , , , | 1 Comment