Scotland has a problem, following the imposition of Tory policies in the later part of the 1970’s through the 1990’s, many council houses were “sold off”. As a nation we are discovering we can no longer home our own people in emergency situations.
One of the saddest facts is that decades of neglect in this area can’t be fixed next week, and even long term fixes aren’t always possible in these times of Westminster imposed austerity cuts. We Scots must then arrive at our own solutions through our creative abilities and resourceful application of political policies.
We do have the potential to legislate at least one policy, an almost no cost, voluntary, short term fix and use the proceeds for new social housing, it just requires a little bit of forward thinking so don’t expect all political parties to adopt it.
Before I get deeper into the solution, it’s worth taking a good look at the problem. Typically in private housing an eviction takes place when mortgages go unpaid. Mortgages go unpaid for a great many reasons, foremost among them being involuntary unemployment and long term disability.
With eviction come a string of social issues, finding alternative accommodation (often at public expense), relocation and re-housing of children, disturbance, stress and breakdown of family units, and delays in the current council housing lists. All of these have both hidden and direct costs to society as a whole. In the case of the children the damage can sometimes last for decades, if not a lifetime.
The solution could be as simple as a small piece of legislation, likely to be violently opposed by the banking lobby, which would go a distance in solving these issues.
When a mortgage is in default, the Scottish Government can legislate itself the option to purchase and clear the loan from the mortgage holder at face outstanding value. All the current homeowner has to do is to fill out a simple form to ask for this to be done stating the circumstances. The wheels are then set in motion for some very simple tests. If the property meets the tests the home is bought by the government (us) and the running of the home is handed over to the local council.
These tests could be required to be performed within 30 days, at the end of it the mortgagor gets a cheque, or the homeowner is told they don’t qualify. In the interim the entire repossession process stops. At a minimum this buys the family time, and in these cases time is often precious.
The tests are simple – does the property have at least 25% equity, if not will the mortgage holder accept 75% of value in cash. Can the “homeowner” pay the flat council rent for the area from any combination of income(s). That’s it. In the first case it’s a flat pay of the mortgage by the state (us), and in the second a negotiated settlement with the mortgage holder by the state (us).
Why would the lender accept less than they are owed? If they had a £100,000 house on the books, but knew they couldn’t sell it quickly for that, but perhaps only get £90,000 at auction, and are owed £80,000 then they stand to make £10,000. Why give that away. That £10,000 goes very quickly in unpaid council tax, legal fees, repossession costs and any required minor repairs. Take off agents’ fees and now the bank gets less than the 75% it would get from the government. In these cases the lender has the choice, and the homeowner is always encouraged to get to and maintain that 25% equity thereby removing this option from the lender. Fiscal and social responsibilities are encouraged.
If the property meets these criteria, or is negotiated, the ownership transfers to the government and becomes part of the social housing bank, except the original homeowners now become “council tenants” at the same address. They pay the same rent to the local council as is prevalent in the area from the same income, subsidies or benefits; they just don’t have to move. No social upheaval, no emergency housing, no additional extended waiting lists, no impact to the children.
Who loses? The banks do, they no longer get to call in a loan with massive equity and profit immensely through subsequent retail selling in cases where this is enacted. The homeowner does, their equity is effectively gone, they’ve traded it for security for their family and keeping the same roof over their heads, it would be lost either way.
Who wins? The homeowner, they’ve gone from losing their home and being homeless, with possible bank and repossession costs figured in, destruction of credit, the costs of moving and stress on top, to simply no longer paying a mortgage and knowing, for most, rent is not an issue. The local council who get the rental income without having to build or buy the house. The government (us), but that’s delayed, and society on both the long and short terms. The banks do as they make from interest payments and in many cases do not have the grief of extended eviction processes.
What happens when the family no longer requires the home, how can this be a no cost solution?
When the family or individual move the home is sold. Period. The home is sold at market rates (remember that 25% minimum equity?) and the profit is returned to the central government to be placed in a fund from which future government social housing programs can be built.
In these harsh economic circumstances it’s really rather a simple and elegant solution, of course the banks and certain of our political parties may not think so, after all this voluntary program would be good for the people.
Sunday, 15 May 2011
The first debate is over – where will the votes go? (Written 30/3/2011)
The first Holyrood leaders debate is over. All in all it was well managed, choreographed and provided the spectacle that politically involved Scots have grown used to.
Salmon & Goldie reasonably split the honours on the night, Scott was his usual self while being hamstrung by Clegg and Gray surprised us all by not actually descending into some form of total meltdown.
What it most likely has managed is to start focusing opinions among that 35% or so of us who are not strongly politically involved, and who often make up the “swing” vote which truly decides elections.
Based on last nights’ showing, likely to be repeated as an overall trend, it’s reasonable to assume that Salmon and Goldie will pick up about 4/10 swing voters each, with Scott and Gray getting 1 apiece.
Then we have that weighting thing – too many won’t vote either Tory or SNP, for the remembrance of the “Maggie” years on one side and the “MSM Fear Tactics” on the other. They’ll probably just stay home, that’s could be as many as about 4/10. The undecided’s then are now looking at SNP +2, Tory +2, Labour +1 and Lib-Dem +1 for every 10 voters.
When that is expanded to the electorate at large, working on an approximate mean of the last months’ or so polls, looking only at the four primary parties we get a before rating of SNP 35%, Labour 40%, Lib-Dem 10% and Tory 15%, as against an after rating approximating SNP 37.1%, Labour 36.9%, Lib-Dem 12.5% and Tory 20.8%. The SNP may just narrowly edge the 2011 election.
Now we’ve also got to factor in the recent trending towards the incumbent government that polls were demonstrating, offset by the mainstream Scottish media “spin” efforts and a likely result is that the Nation is now looking at a nominal 3% to 5% SNP win in May.
Where does that put the seat count for direct elections – who’s vulnerable [the incumbent in square brackets], just based on the numbers? The SNP might reasonably anticipate gains in:
Aberdeen Central, [LAB]
Aberdeen South (additional Lib-Dem collapse through oil levy), [Lib-Dem]
Caithness, [Lib-Dem]
Cumbernauld, [LAB]
Dumbarton, [LAB]
East Kilbride, [LAB]
East Lothian, [LAB]
Falkirk East, [LAB]
Glasgow Kelvin, [LAB]
Linlithgow, [LAB]
Midlothian, [LAB]
Ross/Skye, [Lib-Dem]
Strathkelvin, [LAB]
Tweeddale, [Lib-Dem]
The following could reasonably be described as knife edge seats for the incumbent with the main challenger in brackets () –
Airdrie & Shots [LAB] (SNP),
Eastwood [LAB] (Con),
Edinburgh South [Lib-Dem] (Con/SNP),
Edinburgh West [Lib-Dem] (Con/SNP),
Renfrewshire West [LAB] (Con).
Thirteen of 20 seats above are Labour, the loss of which would severely marginalize the party at Holyrood, reducing its constituency seat count alone to 24, losing over 1/3 of its sitting constituency MSP’s, and a loss of such proportions would make its 2010 UK GE failure seem like a tap with a feather duster. Should the departure of these constituency MP’s be compounded by a failure to significantly increase the List MSP’s the situation would be dire indeed.
A loss of this magnitude would in all probability create issues for the main party in London, and might potentially spark a leadership crisis there – for if Labour can-not “control their own heartland”, then where next?
The bigger question is if you are a party determined to get back into power, and may be within a reasonable margin of attaining that goal, which seats do you focus on? Where do you bring all your available resources to bear so that you’ll see the maximum return on your investment?
It will be of great interest to see the voting intentions displayed on May 6th for these 20 constituency seats, the vast majority of which should become labour losses at the time of writing. Which will swing to another party, which will swing because of postal voting, which will be saved for the incumbent by this voting method? Will voter participation suddenly increase in any of these aforementioned seats, with the voting percentage suddenly bursting through that often elusive 60%. Will the postal vote be reasonably consistent within each constituency with the non postal vote?
The interesting feature recently is that significantly increased postal vote requests have been noted in the comments sections of “Newsnet” from certain constituencies during recent weeks. Without exception those named constituencies/areas are listed above.
With the SNP slowly and steadily giving at least the appearance of developing as “hard” a core vote as Labour, under present trends this seems to allow the assertion that their incumbent seats are currently reasonably “safe”. However a postal vote “swing” of around 5%, or in all cases far less than the 6,000 filed in Glenrothes would also put at least the following SNP seats in jeopardy from a strong Labour challenge.
Cunningham North,
Dundee West,
Falkirk West,
Glasgow Govan,
Kilmarnock & Loudon,
Livingston,
Stirling
Western Isles.
May 5th will bring to us the government we either vote for, or deserve through lack of electoral vigilance, let us profoundly hope that it’s the first, for based upon voiced suspicions developing from recent historical events surrounding the postal voting issues in Scotland, not only is everything still to play for in this election, everything is still to be watched for!
Salmon & Goldie reasonably split the honours on the night, Scott was his usual self while being hamstrung by Clegg and Gray surprised us all by not actually descending into some form of total meltdown.
What it most likely has managed is to start focusing opinions among that 35% or so of us who are not strongly politically involved, and who often make up the “swing” vote which truly decides elections.
Based on last nights’ showing, likely to be repeated as an overall trend, it’s reasonable to assume that Salmon and Goldie will pick up about 4/10 swing voters each, with Scott and Gray getting 1 apiece.
Then we have that weighting thing – too many won’t vote either Tory or SNP, for the remembrance of the “Maggie” years on one side and the “MSM Fear Tactics” on the other. They’ll probably just stay home, that’s could be as many as about 4/10. The undecided’s then are now looking at SNP +2, Tory +2, Labour +1 and Lib-Dem +1 for every 10 voters.
When that is expanded to the electorate at large, working on an approximate mean of the last months’ or so polls, looking only at the four primary parties we get a before rating of SNP 35%, Labour 40%, Lib-Dem 10% and Tory 15%, as against an after rating approximating SNP 37.1%, Labour 36.9%, Lib-Dem 12.5% and Tory 20.8%. The SNP may just narrowly edge the 2011 election.
Now we’ve also got to factor in the recent trending towards the incumbent government that polls were demonstrating, offset by the mainstream Scottish media “spin” efforts and a likely result is that the Nation is now looking at a nominal 3% to 5% SNP win in May.
Where does that put the seat count for direct elections – who’s vulnerable [the incumbent in square brackets], just based on the numbers? The SNP might reasonably anticipate gains in:
Aberdeen Central, [LAB]
Aberdeen South (additional Lib-Dem collapse through oil levy), [Lib-Dem]
Caithness, [Lib-Dem]
Cumbernauld, [LAB]
Dumbarton, [LAB]
East Kilbride, [LAB]
East Lothian, [LAB]
Falkirk East, [LAB]
Glasgow Kelvin, [LAB]
Linlithgow, [LAB]
Midlothian, [LAB]
Ross/Skye, [Lib-Dem]
Strathkelvin, [LAB]
Tweeddale, [Lib-Dem]
The following could reasonably be described as knife edge seats for the incumbent with the main challenger in brackets () –
Airdrie & Shots [LAB] (SNP),
Eastwood [LAB] (Con),
Edinburgh South [Lib-Dem] (Con/SNP),
Edinburgh West [Lib-Dem] (Con/SNP),
Renfrewshire West [LAB] (Con).
Thirteen of 20 seats above are Labour, the loss of which would severely marginalize the party at Holyrood, reducing its constituency seat count alone to 24, losing over 1/3 of its sitting constituency MSP’s, and a loss of such proportions would make its 2010 UK GE failure seem like a tap with a feather duster. Should the departure of these constituency MP’s be compounded by a failure to significantly increase the List MSP’s the situation would be dire indeed.
A loss of this magnitude would in all probability create issues for the main party in London, and might potentially spark a leadership crisis there – for if Labour can-not “control their own heartland”, then where next?
The bigger question is if you are a party determined to get back into power, and may be within a reasonable margin of attaining that goal, which seats do you focus on? Where do you bring all your available resources to bear so that you’ll see the maximum return on your investment?
It will be of great interest to see the voting intentions displayed on May 6th for these 20 constituency seats, the vast majority of which should become labour losses at the time of writing. Which will swing to another party, which will swing because of postal voting, which will be saved for the incumbent by this voting method? Will voter participation suddenly increase in any of these aforementioned seats, with the voting percentage suddenly bursting through that often elusive 60%. Will the postal vote be reasonably consistent within each constituency with the non postal vote?
The interesting feature recently is that significantly increased postal vote requests have been noted in the comments sections of “Newsnet” from certain constituencies during recent weeks. Without exception those named constituencies/areas are listed above.
With the SNP slowly and steadily giving at least the appearance of developing as “hard” a core vote as Labour, under present trends this seems to allow the assertion that their incumbent seats are currently reasonably “safe”. However a postal vote “swing” of around 5%, or in all cases far less than the 6,000 filed in Glenrothes would also put at least the following SNP seats in jeopardy from a strong Labour challenge.
Cunningham North,
Dundee West,
Falkirk West,
Glasgow Govan,
Kilmarnock & Loudon,
Livingston,
Stirling
Western Isles.
May 5th will bring to us the government we either vote for, or deserve through lack of electoral vigilance, let us profoundly hope that it’s the first, for based upon voiced suspicions developing from recent historical events surrounding the postal voting issues in Scotland, not only is everything still to play for in this election, everything is still to be watched for!
The 101 Declaration.(Written 03/02/2011)
Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit.
'It is in truth not for glory, nor riches, nor honours that we are fighting, but for freedom alone, which no honest man gives up but with life itself.'
• A petition to our fellow Scots, at least 101 in number, to assert and declare their rights before Parliament.
• A declaration to Parliament that the only sovereign body in Scotland is the Scottish people.
• A demand that Parliament recognises that our elected representatives possess power in our name and by our consent, and that we can withdraw our consent.
• A notification to any elected individual they can be recalled by us, 101 in number, if they vote against our expressed will in constitutional matters.
• An instruction to Parliament to protect our democratic rights as embedded in the Declaration of Arbroath.
This petition to the people of Scotland requires our parliament in Holyrood to declare an end to the erosion of our historical and democratic rights as sovereign individuals. It instructs our present Parliament to do this through the authority vested in us by one of our principle founding documents of nationhood. A document created by the people of Scotland to assert their sovereign rights and to define their relationship with the state and the crown.
That we can stop the slow wasting away of our democratic rights is a given, peoples throughout history and almost beyond counting have claimed their rights, time after time and century after century. One such instance was here in Scotland. On April 6th 1320 we created and then entrenched in our history a document that came to be a shining light of international sovereign democratic principle which came to be known to history as the Declaration of Arbroath.
This document, although so distant in time and space, is only a stepping stone for individual rights. The argument that the 1320 Declaration was not created by the people is irrelevant. Who instructed its creation is irrelevant. Who signed it, excepting that it was signed and sealed by many, is irrelevant.
What is relevant about the 1320 Declaration is that it was an international diplomatic document, recognised by the highest legal authority of the day. It was signed and sealed by multiple signatories “on behalf of the entire community and realm of Scotland,” it was a civil contract between the citizen and the state. What is also relevant is that it was accepted internationally. Of even greater relevance is that it has never been repealed or set aside by a Scots Parliament, with the assent and agreement of “the entire community and realm”.
We’re speaking about the Declaration of Arbroath as an interesting discussion followed on from a previous article I wrote, an article called the Democratic Will of the People. In this article I simply stated that across the UK there is only pretence of democracy. This pretence will remain until we, who are Scotland, choose to stop it.
In England the people must accept the will of their Parliament and they must abide by its decisions, this is not democracy. In England they can only petition or request and thereafter be ignored, unless perhaps by a change of Parliament laws are reversed. In Scotland we have the sovereign right to require. In Scotland the voice of the people is guaranteed paramount. In Scotland it is our right, in matters of constitution at least, to demand this.
This declaration was in fact one of the earliest codified constitutions. It set forth the rights of the crown as against the rights of the “community and realm”, forever separating the two. It endowed the individual Scot with rights which have never been revoked, although many have tried to usurp them through the years. Now is the time to re-declare our individual rights.
There is a phrase integral to this declaration “for as long as but one hundred of us remain alive” which has come to be interpreted through this modern day that so long as one hundred Scots choose, they will defend their nation and their rights. The interesting aspect of the 1320 Declaration is that it states quite simply that our leader, or leaders, will follow the desire of the people in the defense of our realm or they will be removed. This defense naturally includes our civil liberties and constitutional rights.
This then is the source of the request for the 101 Declaration, a request to our fellow Scots to make a demand of our elected representatives. To require our present Parliament, not to humbly beg or politely petition, but to force them to follow our will as is our right, that they do as we instruct. Based upon the numbers required in the Declaration itself, it was determined at least 101 signatures be collected to give the demand constitutional force. More would enhance the fact but are not required. We are exercising our right to demand our Parliament declare and display the fundamental tenets of our constitution.
The challenge is quite simple then, we need sufficient signatures to require Parliament to pass a present day resolution that the 1320 Declaration, a principal document of our nation, has never been repealed and that it has always been a principle binding constitutional document of our land, and will forevermore remain in force. They may even wish to declare April 6th “Arbroath Day”.
Nothing more do we require of our Parliament at this time – for much of the remainder of our protections are contained within the Declaration itself, a declaration which certainly does not exclude Unions or Alliances, yet specifically notes freedom of religion, freedom from discrimination, freedom from dominion.
The only question that remains of us in our present day is do we have the courage of our ancestors, the courage simply to tell our elected representatives to do our bidding – and to stand and be counted as they do it, so that we can choose well and fairly their fitness to continue to serve. It is us that they exist to serve and not we who exist to serve them, yet somehow many of us have lost sight of that. Or are we just too lazy to care anymore. Do we simply find it easier to talk and complain than walk tall and act.
There’s a petition outline below – feel free to comment, or just download and collect signatures.
This petition, this 101 Petition is not about politics, it’s not about any party or platform, it’s quite simply about us, the Scots, and the ongoing assertion, protection and maintenance of our centuries old basic rights. In this upcoming election “do you support this petition and my democratic rights” should be a foremost question of every potential candidate. Give the candidates an opportunity to sign; let's see who signs and who baulks. Publicise it. Advertise it at the polling stations.
If we cannot even manage this, that 101 of us would not rise and be counted to make a demand of those we employ, then we deserve to suffer anything which is inflicted upon us. We would not be deserving of democracy as to all we would seem to no longer care about it.
If we can manage it, what then? What do we do with the signatures we’ve collected? Our electronic age makes this task simple, just keep the originals safe, but scan and email them as an attachment to declaration101@hotmail.com This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it we’ll collate and tabulate them.
Volunteers, feel free to email offers of help there too. We have a few weeks before Parliament ends, are we capable in that time? The answer is in our hands. They’ll be submitted both electronically and in person if we make it happen.
Whatever our choice in this, from the highest station to the lowest in our land, the truth of our character, goals and ambitions will be laid bare, as always, by our own actions.
'It is in truth not for glory, nor riches, nor honours that we are fighting, but for freedom alone, which no honest man gives up but with life itself.'
• A petition to our fellow Scots, at least 101 in number, to assert and declare their rights before Parliament.
• A declaration to Parliament that the only sovereign body in Scotland is the Scottish people.
• A demand that Parliament recognises that our elected representatives possess power in our name and by our consent, and that we can withdraw our consent.
• A notification to any elected individual they can be recalled by us, 101 in number, if they vote against our expressed will in constitutional matters.
• An instruction to Parliament to protect our democratic rights as embedded in the Declaration of Arbroath.
This petition to the people of Scotland requires our parliament in Holyrood to declare an end to the erosion of our historical and democratic rights as sovereign individuals. It instructs our present Parliament to do this through the authority vested in us by one of our principle founding documents of nationhood. A document created by the people of Scotland to assert their sovereign rights and to define their relationship with the state and the crown.
That we can stop the slow wasting away of our democratic rights is a given, peoples throughout history and almost beyond counting have claimed their rights, time after time and century after century. One such instance was here in Scotland. On April 6th 1320 we created and then entrenched in our history a document that came to be a shining light of international sovereign democratic principle which came to be known to history as the Declaration of Arbroath.
This document, although so distant in time and space, is only a stepping stone for individual rights. The argument that the 1320 Declaration was not created by the people is irrelevant. Who instructed its creation is irrelevant. Who signed it, excepting that it was signed and sealed by many, is irrelevant.
What is relevant about the 1320 Declaration is that it was an international diplomatic document, recognised by the highest legal authority of the day. It was signed and sealed by multiple signatories “on behalf of the entire community and realm of Scotland,” it was a civil contract between the citizen and the state. What is also relevant is that it was accepted internationally. Of even greater relevance is that it has never been repealed or set aside by a Scots Parliament, with the assent and agreement of “the entire community and realm”.
We’re speaking about the Declaration of Arbroath as an interesting discussion followed on from a previous article I wrote, an article called the Democratic Will of the People. In this article I simply stated that across the UK there is only pretence of democracy. This pretence will remain until we, who are Scotland, choose to stop it.
In England the people must accept the will of their Parliament and they must abide by its decisions, this is not democracy. In England they can only petition or request and thereafter be ignored, unless perhaps by a change of Parliament laws are reversed. In Scotland we have the sovereign right to require. In Scotland the voice of the people is guaranteed paramount. In Scotland it is our right, in matters of constitution at least, to demand this.
This declaration was in fact one of the earliest codified constitutions. It set forth the rights of the crown as against the rights of the “community and realm”, forever separating the two. It endowed the individual Scot with rights which have never been revoked, although many have tried to usurp them through the years. Now is the time to re-declare our individual rights.
There is a phrase integral to this declaration “for as long as but one hundred of us remain alive” which has come to be interpreted through this modern day that so long as one hundred Scots choose, they will defend their nation and their rights. The interesting aspect of the 1320 Declaration is that it states quite simply that our leader, or leaders, will follow the desire of the people in the defense of our realm or they will be removed. This defense naturally includes our civil liberties and constitutional rights.
This then is the source of the request for the 101 Declaration, a request to our fellow Scots to make a demand of our elected representatives. To require our present Parliament, not to humbly beg or politely petition, but to force them to follow our will as is our right, that they do as we instruct. Based upon the numbers required in the Declaration itself, it was determined at least 101 signatures be collected to give the demand constitutional force. More would enhance the fact but are not required. We are exercising our right to demand our Parliament declare and display the fundamental tenets of our constitution.
The challenge is quite simple then, we need sufficient signatures to require Parliament to pass a present day resolution that the 1320 Declaration, a principal document of our nation, has never been repealed and that it has always been a principle binding constitutional document of our land, and will forevermore remain in force. They may even wish to declare April 6th “Arbroath Day”.
Nothing more do we require of our Parliament at this time – for much of the remainder of our protections are contained within the Declaration itself, a declaration which certainly does not exclude Unions or Alliances, yet specifically notes freedom of religion, freedom from discrimination, freedom from dominion.
The only question that remains of us in our present day is do we have the courage of our ancestors, the courage simply to tell our elected representatives to do our bidding – and to stand and be counted as they do it, so that we can choose well and fairly their fitness to continue to serve. It is us that they exist to serve and not we who exist to serve them, yet somehow many of us have lost sight of that. Or are we just too lazy to care anymore. Do we simply find it easier to talk and complain than walk tall and act.
There’s a petition outline below – feel free to comment, or just download and collect signatures.
This petition, this 101 Petition is not about politics, it’s not about any party or platform, it’s quite simply about us, the Scots, and the ongoing assertion, protection and maintenance of our centuries old basic rights. In this upcoming election “do you support this petition and my democratic rights” should be a foremost question of every potential candidate. Give the candidates an opportunity to sign; let's see who signs and who baulks. Publicise it. Advertise it at the polling stations.
If we cannot even manage this, that 101 of us would not rise and be counted to make a demand of those we employ, then we deserve to suffer anything which is inflicted upon us. We would not be deserving of democracy as to all we would seem to no longer care about it.
If we can manage it, what then? What do we do with the signatures we’ve collected? Our electronic age makes this task simple, just keep the originals safe, but scan and email them as an attachment to declaration101@hotmail.com This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it we’ll collate and tabulate them.
Volunteers, feel free to email offers of help there too. We have a few weeks before Parliament ends, are we capable in that time? The answer is in our hands. They’ll be submitted both electronically and in person if we make it happen.
Whatever our choice in this, from the highest station to the lowest in our land, the truth of our character, goals and ambitions will be laid bare, as always, by our own actions.
The Democratic will Of The People (Written 27/02/2011)
At the end of the day it’s what we’re all fighting over, arguing about the world over. The personal aspect for us that Scotland should have the right to “reap her own harvest and ring her own till”. Yet with the deep conservatism towards change so often displayed by the Scots’ voter the biggest question is perhaps how best to get there!
We also need to be clear that there is no real democratic right in the United Kingdom for its peoples – to get to vote every half decade or so and have no say whatsoever in between is what we’ve been trained to, like performing seals, but it’s certainly not real democracy. We vote, but there’s no way to make those we vote for keep their promises, and they know that. This is not democracy. It is the system being copied in Scotland today.
In Scotland we need a democratic independent nation, one which represents itself with quiet dignity on the worlds stage once again, but which path to take to get there, and how best to walk it. How best to define that democracy so that the expressed will of the people is the path of the nation?
One area it seems most agree on is that the gradualist approach to independence is working, for the present, with each peak advancing just that little bit higher and each valley not being quite so deep as the last. The ideal might be put as how to best combine the two approaches gradualist and instant, but in a way where we use both as a cohesive strategy rather than the apparent haphazard one we have just now.
Perhaps it’s already underway by default, every time there is an upsurge in the instant, the gradual movement inches along a little bit more, but while its certainly working for now it looks set to take another three centuries of fiscal servitude at achieve the real goals with Westminster clawing back whatever it can every opportunity.
I’m talking another three centuries as it’s a very common thread and most seem to agree that Westminster will not “give” Scotland her rights until oil has pretty well run out in somewhere between thirty and seventy years. Basically Westminster needs Scotland’s energy. With Scotland poised to be the renewable energy warehouse of Europe for the foreseeable future it’s simple to see how the energy need of Westminster won’t change after all and by extension that Westminster will never “give” Scotland her freedom, Scotland will have to take it!
But how does Scotland take her freedom in a gradualist way, while working for the instant gratification of full autonomy with or without the approval of Westminster, for it is an illusion that “Westminster must give” in a democratic system. All that’s needed in a true democracy under international law is the approval of the Scots people. How do we who really care and are invested in our nation shake a multitude from apathy.
One thing that’s been a common theme in my journeying through this world is that wherever I meet folk who know of Scots they have some very strong impressions of us, rarely bad. Amongst the strongest themes are that we’re contentious and stubborn, or to put simply we’re not afraid of an argument but once we entrench our position that argument’s largely wasted because we’ll find ways to just push back. Although I rarely hear it mentioned I also know there’s a very strong sense of right and wrong that runs deep in the Scots’ psyche. Loyalty is the other aspect that often comes up.
We certainly can lay claim to understanding ourselves as much as anyone can, and as change comes mainly in two ways, that of force or through accepted democratic will, perhaps we need to look at what that understanding of our own nature can lead to socially and politically for us. How can we change our own politically entrenched positions to ensure the needs and futures of our children and grandchildren are best served either within or outwith this Union. It is indeed by looking at our next generation we have the truth of our three centuries of defined betrayal and what we must protect them from.
As we the Scots argue and fight over Independence, would we not be better served by opening up the engagement on more than one front, take the fight for self determination to the point that Westminster is constantly on the wrong foot. We should pick our arguments wisely and sensibly as we march towards Independence but get straight to the heart of the matter in individual points as we progress. We have enough proof that Scotland mainly benefits when Westminster is wrong footed by Scotland.
I noted a post to the “Fair and Free Elections” article that said we can demand a referendum “as long as 100 of us remain alive”, a cornerstone statement of the Declaration of Arbroath. In our modern day should this not remain our right? At the earliest opportunity should we not put a petition before the Parliament with 101 signatures demanding the declaration be formally acknowledged by our present Parliament as a founding document of the Scots Nation? If that’s refused then garner popular support for a wider petition. Have that document officially recognized in our present day as it’s a document few politicians could vote against re-entrenching without being caught in a cleft stick. Simply asking the party leaders if they support the same would likely provide some interesting and very entertaining answers!
Petitions for referendum(s) could follow, but we choose the subject wisely. Not for FFA or Independence for the first, but to set and entrench our rights to demand a referendum on any subject the Scots see as required. This a “neutral” issue until now, one that Scots can choose freely in, where there are little pre-conceived or entrenched ideas of loyalty, other than the common misconception of “I have a right to a vote”. This is a perceived right of the Scots, a right where the establishment must fight against what is obviously be the will of the Scottish people for if we were to be allowed annual or biennial referendums on subjects of our choice what on earth might we exercise our democratic rights to demand? Perhaps one day we’ll demand a referendum on Independence or FFA, and that can’t be allowed to happen? What if we said NO to bank bailouts or higher taxes, PPI or Trident?
Petition Holyrood to reaffirm our rights to be a sovereign people with a voice, nothing more is needed for now, unless we vote en-mass for Independence. Simply reaffirm that we the people are sovereign and require this modern parliament to re-entrench our ancient rights. Politically it will difficult to argue against, for to argue against such a petition is to argue against democracy itself. Follow the corporate lead on this, wherever you place your bet, simply make certain as best you can that even when you are seen to lose you win your way to the final outcome. The Unionist Parties can’t accept an expansion of democracy in Scotland, for such loosens the Union stranglehold, and there’s no telling where it would lead to afterwards, we might actually start demanding a say on the “reserved” issues of the original Scotland Bill, voting them out one by one, starting perhaps with broadcasting and energy before working our way through the rest of the list!
Isn’t it time we started using our national traits to our benefit, instead of chasing the Union psychologists and their less than subtle but very effective broadcast propaganda. We must engineer a change in Holyrood to re-affirm at least a portion of those ancient rights. Use the umbrage and our democratic power to shift existing loyalties and entrenched positions as we claw our rights back from Westminster on our way to our rightful place of a nation with a voice once again. For nothing is more certain than that Westminster will never voluntarily return those rights to us.
We also need to be clear that there is no real democratic right in the United Kingdom for its peoples – to get to vote every half decade or so and have no say whatsoever in between is what we’ve been trained to, like performing seals, but it’s certainly not real democracy. We vote, but there’s no way to make those we vote for keep their promises, and they know that. This is not democracy. It is the system being copied in Scotland today.
In Scotland we need a democratic independent nation, one which represents itself with quiet dignity on the worlds stage once again, but which path to take to get there, and how best to walk it. How best to define that democracy so that the expressed will of the people is the path of the nation?
One area it seems most agree on is that the gradualist approach to independence is working, for the present, with each peak advancing just that little bit higher and each valley not being quite so deep as the last. The ideal might be put as how to best combine the two approaches gradualist and instant, but in a way where we use both as a cohesive strategy rather than the apparent haphazard one we have just now.
Perhaps it’s already underway by default, every time there is an upsurge in the instant, the gradual movement inches along a little bit more, but while its certainly working for now it looks set to take another three centuries of fiscal servitude at achieve the real goals with Westminster clawing back whatever it can every opportunity.
I’m talking another three centuries as it’s a very common thread and most seem to agree that Westminster will not “give” Scotland her rights until oil has pretty well run out in somewhere between thirty and seventy years. Basically Westminster needs Scotland’s energy. With Scotland poised to be the renewable energy warehouse of Europe for the foreseeable future it’s simple to see how the energy need of Westminster won’t change after all and by extension that Westminster will never “give” Scotland her freedom, Scotland will have to take it!
But how does Scotland take her freedom in a gradualist way, while working for the instant gratification of full autonomy with or without the approval of Westminster, for it is an illusion that “Westminster must give” in a democratic system. All that’s needed in a true democracy under international law is the approval of the Scots people. How do we who really care and are invested in our nation shake a multitude from apathy.
One thing that’s been a common theme in my journeying through this world is that wherever I meet folk who know of Scots they have some very strong impressions of us, rarely bad. Amongst the strongest themes are that we’re contentious and stubborn, or to put simply we’re not afraid of an argument but once we entrench our position that argument’s largely wasted because we’ll find ways to just push back. Although I rarely hear it mentioned I also know there’s a very strong sense of right and wrong that runs deep in the Scots’ psyche. Loyalty is the other aspect that often comes up.
We certainly can lay claim to understanding ourselves as much as anyone can, and as change comes mainly in two ways, that of force or through accepted democratic will, perhaps we need to look at what that understanding of our own nature can lead to socially and politically for us. How can we change our own politically entrenched positions to ensure the needs and futures of our children and grandchildren are best served either within or outwith this Union. It is indeed by looking at our next generation we have the truth of our three centuries of defined betrayal and what we must protect them from.
As we the Scots argue and fight over Independence, would we not be better served by opening up the engagement on more than one front, take the fight for self determination to the point that Westminster is constantly on the wrong foot. We should pick our arguments wisely and sensibly as we march towards Independence but get straight to the heart of the matter in individual points as we progress. We have enough proof that Scotland mainly benefits when Westminster is wrong footed by Scotland.
I noted a post to the “Fair and Free Elections” article that said we can demand a referendum “as long as 100 of us remain alive”, a cornerstone statement of the Declaration of Arbroath. In our modern day should this not remain our right? At the earliest opportunity should we not put a petition before the Parliament with 101 signatures demanding the declaration be formally acknowledged by our present Parliament as a founding document of the Scots Nation? If that’s refused then garner popular support for a wider petition. Have that document officially recognized in our present day as it’s a document few politicians could vote against re-entrenching without being caught in a cleft stick. Simply asking the party leaders if they support the same would likely provide some interesting and very entertaining answers!
Petitions for referendum(s) could follow, but we choose the subject wisely. Not for FFA or Independence for the first, but to set and entrench our rights to demand a referendum on any subject the Scots see as required. This a “neutral” issue until now, one that Scots can choose freely in, where there are little pre-conceived or entrenched ideas of loyalty, other than the common misconception of “I have a right to a vote”. This is a perceived right of the Scots, a right where the establishment must fight against what is obviously be the will of the Scottish people for if we were to be allowed annual or biennial referendums on subjects of our choice what on earth might we exercise our democratic rights to demand? Perhaps one day we’ll demand a referendum on Independence or FFA, and that can’t be allowed to happen? What if we said NO to bank bailouts or higher taxes, PPI or Trident?
Petition Holyrood to reaffirm our rights to be a sovereign people with a voice, nothing more is needed for now, unless we vote en-mass for Independence. Simply reaffirm that we the people are sovereign and require this modern parliament to re-entrench our ancient rights. Politically it will difficult to argue against, for to argue against such a petition is to argue against democracy itself. Follow the corporate lead on this, wherever you place your bet, simply make certain as best you can that even when you are seen to lose you win your way to the final outcome. The Unionist Parties can’t accept an expansion of democracy in Scotland, for such loosens the Union stranglehold, and there’s no telling where it would lead to afterwards, we might actually start demanding a say on the “reserved” issues of the original Scotland Bill, voting them out one by one, starting perhaps with broadcasting and energy before working our way through the rest of the list!
Isn’t it time we started using our national traits to our benefit, instead of chasing the Union psychologists and their less than subtle but very effective broadcast propaganda. We must engineer a change in Holyrood to re-affirm at least a portion of those ancient rights. Use the umbrage and our democratic power to shift existing loyalties and entrenched positions as we claw our rights back from Westminster on our way to our rightful place of a nation with a voice once again. For nothing is more certain than that Westminster will never voluntarily return those rights to us.
What the Credit Crunch means to you. (Written 02/26/2011)
We’ve been told it was lax regulation, bad loans, overinflated home prices, easy access to credit. All of these are good and valid reasons in their own right, but what was the one item that really sparked the banks’ downfall. To me it was the City/Wall Street/Corporate greed. Now I’m no financial analyst, but basic math works well for me and here’s how that math answers a few questions.
Corporations are REQUIRED to make money, pay dividends and increase share prices to keep their investors happy, they exist for no other reason, otherwise the investors leave. Quite simply they take their money somewhere else. Wall Street and the City are simply middle men who rake of an exorbitant profit and have inserted themselves between the Investor and the Corporation.
Easy credit and lax regulation in the US and UK, Ireland and Iceland, who as four principle players were major contributors to this worldwide economic catastrophe had a great deal to do with it, but in and of themselves they could not have engineered this complex disaster. That took the assistance of Wall Street and the City, the “markets” in general, which had to know the margins were unsustainable, yet the investors could not be disappointed. It all worked well until this greed hit those nations who had permitted their economies to be financially centered, where their “money burden” exceeded their “real wealth” in land or manufactured output by many times, and an event came around which stopped the money flowing.
The fact that credit was inappropriately available was a direct desire of Wall Street / the City to make more money, people in debt give a decent return as long as they can afford to pay it. To make certain they would pay it, bankruptcy laws were strengthened. More than once I have been told “the bank always gets its money”. The problem with this attitude is that you can’t just print “more money”, money only has value when it’s backed by something tangible, like work or goods, if you do print more without value behind it, you simply devalue what’s already in circulation.
As long as people could pay their debts, there was no obvious problem, and from about 2000 to 2008 for the most part the world ambled along in blissful ignorance to mantras like “No more Boom and Bust”. Then in 2007 there came that speculative increase in the price of oil. Petrol in the US went from $1.86 in 2005 to $4.12 in 2008, that’s an increase of $2.26 / gallon or <120%. The world demand for oil did not increase by <120% in three years, and David Malone’s articles demonstrate better than I can how this happens in a “free market” speculative system. The issue is that the USA is energy hungry, it’s also a good part of the consumer engine driving the world economy. They consume more per capita than anyone else. People in the USA could no longer afford to get to work, pay the bills and spend their disposable income as the disposable income was no longer disposable. It wasn’t that they didn’t want to pay bills or were badly intentioned, they simply couldn’t. They bought fuel, but stopped spending on much else, businesses closed and the economy ground to a halt, creating judgments and foreclosures over the following months, with the banks now being deprived of income the credit crunch hit. The timeframes are not unrelated, as a high incidence of severe fuel price drops, to about 30% of previous levels has historically seen a knock on effect in bank failures over the next few years. People lacking funds could not drive or even sustain the inflated goods and property prices. The crunch spread worldwide as fast as the 1918 flu. A “correction” took place, but unlike other corrections in the past, those who engineered the inflation did not suffer in any remarkable way – they’d ensured we put systems in place to protect them!
Interestingly when we examine the last century, if you lay a graph of banking failures over the top of oil prices there’s three distinct periods where oil prices collapse by about 2/3 and lagging a couple of years behind on each occasion bank failures multiply. So historically energy prices climb, people can’t pay for extras, markets collapse, banks can’t recover debt and banks fail. This indicates that today, banking viability is tied directly to big oil / energy.
We’re an energy hungry world, and as the above chart shows to maintain our energy consumption as prices escalate we will need to sacrifice other items, and when we do that economies literally collapse, and that energy price is swinging upwards again! The base norm price for energy in a balanced supply/demand system is actually only about $20/barrel, though that has naturally increased somewhat recently as we pursue harder to get at resources.
These events led us all to live through the instigation of “The Great Bank Bailout” years, which history should rightfully record as 2008/2009/2010, but why do I say the “instigation” and can it happen again?
Breaking it down we should look at what really caused the period of the “Great Bank Bailout” in our modern history, what it’s got the potential to cost each of us individually and briefly examine the reasons that have been popularly spread by media and government, even the banks themselves. It’s certain that the lax financial laws have not yet significantly changed, the City, Wall Street and Corporate interests still reign supreme, so that next perfect storm appears waiting in the wings with the seas still boiling from the last one. Indeed the Arab world is already experiencing it.
The man in the street should understand that in this worldwide banking and commerce system, pretty much everything is interdependent. I’ll use some hypothetical examples to illustrate the probable or potential scenarios, ones that most of us don’t really relate to when we hear figures on the news.
A bank fails in Hong Kong or Singapore, so what, to us it’s just an article of news that we may or may not bother reading, we sympathize with the people who lost their life savings, but it couldn’t happen to us could it? You bank with the Abbey Building Society, then you discover that the Abbey is owned by Santander which had a 50% share in these failed banks, which are now worthless. This basically means Santander / Abbey / You just lost money.
The problem is that you made no bets and just put your money there for “safe keeping” until you needed it. If you can’t get your money from your bank, because your bank just gambled with your money and lost it, how do you react? Of much greater importance to the UK and other governments, how do your neighbours react as their money is still in another bank – but is it safe? The chances are a good portion of your neighbours will pull their money, creating a “run” on the banks and the whole system collapses. Banks only keep enough money on hand to cover slightly more than what they perceive as their short term operating obligations.
The only way the system really collapses is if the banks themselves are insolvent, basically bankrupt, and can’t afford to meet their obligations. Surprisingly to most people that’s exactly how modern banking operates, for the most part they never have enough assets on hand to cover their obligations. As long as the perceived value of the assets increases, this system works, but when those assets fall in value the system collapses. Banks avoid bankruptcy by continually borrowing from each other through a process known as interbank lending, and when the banks run short, they borrow from governments who can print more money. The part most people seem to miss here is that WE are the government, the government gets its wealth from US, without US there is no wealth and it’s OUR money they’re lending to the Banks.
So where does that leave us, say an average individual who according to a recent Times article has about £3,600 pounds saved in the bank. With most of us not being paid any interest these days every year we’re losing between £100 and £200 just through that invisible tax, inflation, and for those of us that did earn a little interest, income tax is always waiting.
Now we need to add that bailout cost in, officially at £850 billion, but put it into real numbers and that’s £850,000,000,000, in anybody’s world that’s an awful lot of money. So in the real world where the UK has an average per capita savings of about £3,600, that puts the cost of the bailout to each of us at £850,000,000,000/60,000,000, now that we’re using the US numbering system. This means the UK government just spent ~£14,166, on behalf of every man, woman and child in the UK, basically to protect £3,600 of savings. That’s a bit like saying I’ve just insured my £3,600 car and paid £14,000+ for the privilege. We’re not even touching the national debt here!
In the most simplistic of fashions, where we’re ignoring corporate assets and debts, the banks were able to go to the government (us) and initiate the following conversation:
Banker representative: You know those laws we paid you to get rid of after we helped you get elected?
UK Government: Yes, but not so loud, please!
Banker representative: You should’ve though it through better.
UK Government: What on earth do you mean?
Banker representative: We’re in trouble, we need money!
UK Government: OK, how much?
Banker representative: £850,000,000,000,
UK Government: That’s almost £15,000 for every human being in the UK, what do they get?
Banker representative: They can still withdraw their £3,600 each. We’ll give you some shares in our bankrupt companies too, but not too many. Maybe they’ll still be able to get the money next year too!
UK Government: That’s crazy – why would you expect us to agree – you’ll bankrupt us!
Banker representative: If you don’t, we throw people out of the banks; they throw you out of office.
UK Government: OK then, but maybe someday if things work out you’ll pay it back?
Banker representative: Sure. If things work out, now about that new legislation we don’t want, and that bonus thing?
UK Government: Just give us a bit to figure out how to get the money, after all it has to come from the people, or we have to borrow it, and they have to pay the interest of £42,500,000,000 or about £700 each in the first year alone. By the way, will you need any more?
Banker representative: We’ll let you know.
That is how modern banking works in essence, banks borrow our money, and when things get tough they gets us to give them many times our original investment just to make certain we can still get access to our original “loan” to them which they promised we could have returned whenever we needed it before we agreed to give it to them in the first place.
And in England they wonder why the government wants to sell of the forests, it has precious little else left for the auction block!
So, what did this Credit Crunch mean to you, quite simply of your £3,600 you had saved last year you paid ¬£140 in tax (inflation) and £700 in interest for this year or about £840 after the markets finally adjust. The net cost in the most simplistic of terms is you just spent over 20% of your savings to support the banks for a year.
Banking laws are well overdue for an overhaul, not just a dance around the edges of current legislation. I don’t think we can stop the next fuel or legislative induced banking crisis, but we can certainly reduce its impact for the common person, but then that’s not really in either a Union or Corporate interest, is it?
This is the broken UK political system.
Independence or FFA and a basic Scottish banking charter might just help as well.
Corporations are REQUIRED to make money, pay dividends and increase share prices to keep their investors happy, they exist for no other reason, otherwise the investors leave. Quite simply they take their money somewhere else. Wall Street and the City are simply middle men who rake of an exorbitant profit and have inserted themselves between the Investor and the Corporation.
Easy credit and lax regulation in the US and UK, Ireland and Iceland, who as four principle players were major contributors to this worldwide economic catastrophe had a great deal to do with it, but in and of themselves they could not have engineered this complex disaster. That took the assistance of Wall Street and the City, the “markets” in general, which had to know the margins were unsustainable, yet the investors could not be disappointed. It all worked well until this greed hit those nations who had permitted their economies to be financially centered, where their “money burden” exceeded their “real wealth” in land or manufactured output by many times, and an event came around which stopped the money flowing.
The fact that credit was inappropriately available was a direct desire of Wall Street / the City to make more money, people in debt give a decent return as long as they can afford to pay it. To make certain they would pay it, bankruptcy laws were strengthened. More than once I have been told “the bank always gets its money”. The problem with this attitude is that you can’t just print “more money”, money only has value when it’s backed by something tangible, like work or goods, if you do print more without value behind it, you simply devalue what’s already in circulation.
As long as people could pay their debts, there was no obvious problem, and from about 2000 to 2008 for the most part the world ambled along in blissful ignorance to mantras like “No more Boom and Bust”. Then in 2007 there came that speculative increase in the price of oil. Petrol in the US went from $1.86 in 2005 to $4.12 in 2008, that’s an increase of $2.26 / gallon or <120%. The world demand for oil did not increase by <120% in three years, and David Malone’s articles demonstrate better than I can how this happens in a “free market” speculative system. The issue is that the USA is energy hungry, it’s also a good part of the consumer engine driving the world economy. They consume more per capita than anyone else. People in the USA could no longer afford to get to work, pay the bills and spend their disposable income as the disposable income was no longer disposable. It wasn’t that they didn’t want to pay bills or were badly intentioned, they simply couldn’t. They bought fuel, but stopped spending on much else, businesses closed and the economy ground to a halt, creating judgments and foreclosures over the following months, with the banks now being deprived of income the credit crunch hit. The timeframes are not unrelated, as a high incidence of severe fuel price drops, to about 30% of previous levels has historically seen a knock on effect in bank failures over the next few years. People lacking funds could not drive or even sustain the inflated goods and property prices. The crunch spread worldwide as fast as the 1918 flu. A “correction” took place, but unlike other corrections in the past, those who engineered the inflation did not suffer in any remarkable way – they’d ensured we put systems in place to protect them!
Interestingly when we examine the last century, if you lay a graph of banking failures over the top of oil prices there’s three distinct periods where oil prices collapse by about 2/3 and lagging a couple of years behind on each occasion bank failures multiply. So historically energy prices climb, people can’t pay for extras, markets collapse, banks can’t recover debt and banks fail. This indicates that today, banking viability is tied directly to big oil / energy.
We’re an energy hungry world, and as the above chart shows to maintain our energy consumption as prices escalate we will need to sacrifice other items, and when we do that economies literally collapse, and that energy price is swinging upwards again! The base norm price for energy in a balanced supply/demand system is actually only about $20/barrel, though that has naturally increased somewhat recently as we pursue harder to get at resources.
These events led us all to live through the instigation of “The Great Bank Bailout” years, which history should rightfully record as 2008/2009/2010, but why do I say the “instigation” and can it happen again?
Breaking it down we should look at what really caused the period of the “Great Bank Bailout” in our modern history, what it’s got the potential to cost each of us individually and briefly examine the reasons that have been popularly spread by media and government, even the banks themselves. It’s certain that the lax financial laws have not yet significantly changed, the City, Wall Street and Corporate interests still reign supreme, so that next perfect storm appears waiting in the wings with the seas still boiling from the last one. Indeed the Arab world is already experiencing it.
The man in the street should understand that in this worldwide banking and commerce system, pretty much everything is interdependent. I’ll use some hypothetical examples to illustrate the probable or potential scenarios, ones that most of us don’t really relate to when we hear figures on the news.
A bank fails in Hong Kong or Singapore, so what, to us it’s just an article of news that we may or may not bother reading, we sympathize with the people who lost their life savings, but it couldn’t happen to us could it? You bank with the Abbey Building Society, then you discover that the Abbey is owned by Santander which had a 50% share in these failed banks, which are now worthless. This basically means Santander / Abbey / You just lost money.
The problem is that you made no bets and just put your money there for “safe keeping” until you needed it. If you can’t get your money from your bank, because your bank just gambled with your money and lost it, how do you react? Of much greater importance to the UK and other governments, how do your neighbours react as their money is still in another bank – but is it safe? The chances are a good portion of your neighbours will pull their money, creating a “run” on the banks and the whole system collapses. Banks only keep enough money on hand to cover slightly more than what they perceive as their short term operating obligations.
The only way the system really collapses is if the banks themselves are insolvent, basically bankrupt, and can’t afford to meet their obligations. Surprisingly to most people that’s exactly how modern banking operates, for the most part they never have enough assets on hand to cover their obligations. As long as the perceived value of the assets increases, this system works, but when those assets fall in value the system collapses. Banks avoid bankruptcy by continually borrowing from each other through a process known as interbank lending, and when the banks run short, they borrow from governments who can print more money. The part most people seem to miss here is that WE are the government, the government gets its wealth from US, without US there is no wealth and it’s OUR money they’re lending to the Banks.
So where does that leave us, say an average individual who according to a recent Times article has about £3,600 pounds saved in the bank. With most of us not being paid any interest these days every year we’re losing between £100 and £200 just through that invisible tax, inflation, and for those of us that did earn a little interest, income tax is always waiting.
Now we need to add that bailout cost in, officially at £850 billion, but put it into real numbers and that’s £850,000,000,000, in anybody’s world that’s an awful lot of money. So in the real world where the UK has an average per capita savings of about £3,600, that puts the cost of the bailout to each of us at £850,000,000,000/60,000,000, now that we’re using the US numbering system. This means the UK government just spent ~£14,166, on behalf of every man, woman and child in the UK, basically to protect £3,600 of savings. That’s a bit like saying I’ve just insured my £3,600 car and paid £14,000+ for the privilege. We’re not even touching the national debt here!
In the most simplistic of fashions, where we’re ignoring corporate assets and debts, the banks were able to go to the government (us) and initiate the following conversation:
Banker representative: You know those laws we paid you to get rid of after we helped you get elected?
UK Government: Yes, but not so loud, please!
Banker representative: You should’ve though it through better.
UK Government: What on earth do you mean?
Banker representative: We’re in trouble, we need money!
UK Government: OK, how much?
Banker representative: £850,000,000,000,
UK Government: That’s almost £15,000 for every human being in the UK, what do they get?
Banker representative: They can still withdraw their £3,600 each. We’ll give you some shares in our bankrupt companies too, but not too many. Maybe they’ll still be able to get the money next year too!
UK Government: That’s crazy – why would you expect us to agree – you’ll bankrupt us!
Banker representative: If you don’t, we throw people out of the banks; they throw you out of office.
UK Government: OK then, but maybe someday if things work out you’ll pay it back?
Banker representative: Sure. If things work out, now about that new legislation we don’t want, and that bonus thing?
UK Government: Just give us a bit to figure out how to get the money, after all it has to come from the people, or we have to borrow it, and they have to pay the interest of £42,500,000,000 or about £700 each in the first year alone. By the way, will you need any more?
Banker representative: We’ll let you know.
That is how modern banking works in essence, banks borrow our money, and when things get tough they gets us to give them many times our original investment just to make certain we can still get access to our original “loan” to them which they promised we could have returned whenever we needed it before we agreed to give it to them in the first place.
And in England they wonder why the government wants to sell of the forests, it has precious little else left for the auction block!
So, what did this Credit Crunch mean to you, quite simply of your £3,600 you had saved last year you paid ¬£140 in tax (inflation) and £700 in interest for this year or about £840 after the markets finally adjust. The net cost in the most simplistic of terms is you just spent over 20% of your savings to support the banks for a year.
Banking laws are well overdue for an overhaul, not just a dance around the edges of current legislation. I don’t think we can stop the next fuel or legislative induced banking crisis, but we can certainly reduce its impact for the common person, but then that’s not really in either a Union or Corporate interest, is it?
This is the broken UK political system.
Independence or FFA and a basic Scottish banking charter might just help as well.
FFA – It’s time to turn the tables! (Written 02/10/2011)
Full Fiscal Autonomy: Is it possible in the near term for Scotland?
On the surface it would appear the first reaction is no, not with all three Unionist, London controlled parties having a very significantly vested interest against it. It presently appears the best Scots can hope for is some type of modified Scotland Bill with “inherent damage control”. This mainly because the individual party members of the Labour, Tory or Lib-Dem political organizations have a tendency to proclaim that service to the electorate may well come a very distant second to personal advancement. This advancement has been clearly demonstrated by many in these parties to be local politics, followed by regional politics, then national politics, with regional equating to Scotland or Wales, and national being perceived as Westminster. For many in these parties the benefit of the constituents, as most recently demonstrated by Mr. Devine is certainly not foremost.
Let’s then put the Scots voters, and their wishes, back at the heart of our electoral system, rather than the callousness and self interest of puppet political parties.
The issue becomes how to get the Will of the People (who in Scotland are categorically Sovereign) to be internationally recognized when even its own London centric dominated Parliament will not permit legitimate questions to be asked of its constituent populace. Certainly this cannot be a sign of a parliament representative of a sovereign people, when poll after poll demonstrates their wishes for more autonomy, and yet their elected representatives refuse to consider, en masse, such a proposal to be put to the very people who elected them? A London centric media with an almost universally acknowledged bias is certainly no assistance to the rights and political engagement of the average Scot, and when added to entrenched dogma as clearly demonstrated in historical voting trends and styles, creates a trifecta that is nearly impossible to overcome. I say nearly impossible as it has been done once so far, with the current SNP administration being elected; it’s time to do it again!
It’s time to use the Ballot Box, in May 2011, but simply not as London dictates.
Initial appearances show that in this approach there may well be a way to stop the Scotland Bill in its tracks, and expand the current proposals that are being shamefully expounded in Holyrood by tactics including intimidation, railroading and ambush of committee witnesses who might voice another opinion. What’s being proposed here is an approach that has no guarantee of success, nor is it likely be a simple process, but at a minimum the brief sub-campaign outlined below would certainly cause consternation in Westminster and may even go a long way help stopping the perceived Con-Dem [Dis]respect agenda(s).
It is time to turn the tables.
So – FFA, is it possible in the almost immediate future, it has to be a resounding YES it is! Scotland at this particular, possibly unique instant in her present history, has been gifted just such an opportunity to express her collective will. Due to the recent election results in Westminster and her forced merger of parties [however temporary or fluid] there’s a need for a referendum on Alternative Voting. That referendum has been set [the respect agenda issue again] for the same day as the Scottish Government Elections. This in effect means that there is a threefold opportunity for Scottish self awareness, with no obvious potential downside. Instead of complaining about the disrespect, its time Scots started using it, demanding its use, for their own benefit.
We should be examining holding a referendum within the referendum
The first obvious question is how this is achieved without spoiling the paper itself, and to answer that we first need to look at what constitutes a “spoiled” paper. Simply put it’s by not marking the paper in a way that the voters’ wishes are made clear, and as stated by Alex Ferguson in Parliament after the 2007 debacle.
“My key message is that the voters themselves should be at the heart of our electoral system. In 2007, we got it wrong because the complex ballots and time-saving counting methods were there to make things easier for those of us involved in the political process, not necessarily for the voters.”
It’s significant to note that electronically rejected or “spoiled” papers were/are hand counted in an effort to understand the wishes of the voter: It’s therefore reasonable to infer that no matter what one puts on the paper is largely irrelevant as long as the line item is marked in the correct way and that line item remains unaltered – it’s a valid vote! One can even mark the ballot paper on the reverse side, completely voiding any accusation of it being “spoiled” or “de-faced”
Should this thought gain popular support, what type of media spin would be placed upon this act, will attempts be made to outlaw “spoiling” or “defacing” of referendum papers in any fashion. Is there even time for such legislation? How does any government outlaw the potential mark on the back which will obviously not impact the result on the front without de-legitimizing democracy itself? One thing governments fear, and this is no weak statement, is the unified voice of the people. What may be even more intriguing, and depending upon the viewpoint possibly entertaining, would be the reaction of Westminster and the London centric media as word of this grass roots campaign spreads, which it will – after all how does one suppress it without drawing attention to, and yet as it’s something which can’t be ignored there’s a bit of a cleft stick involved.
The next stage is implementation, and that’s where a probably unique opportunity arises as we know all the main parties will have activists at almost every household in the country, and there’s a probable good cross section of these people in any political party who think FFA is a good thing. As activists go door to door they can promote this, or spoil the paper in protest should the voter wish, but spoil it indicating FFA. Emphasize though that the vote need not be spoiled, and their voice will still count – but twice over. The only foreseeable advantage to “spoiled” papers is an almost instant count.
Of much greater importance is that these papers are in an official referendum – that count will be an official count, even if slightly delayed. The ballot papers will be preserved. The Government must act or be guilty of a failed Democracy.
A recount (sanctioned and engineered by whatever means) could be required in Scotland to include the FFA statements, and the results would be interesting at the very least. It would certainly appear more productive than simply spoiling a paper or refusing to vote.
In an ideal world there would be a simple small sticker available to be placed on the reverse of the ballot paper – they’d all be the same and indicate uniformity of action, which would be fundamental. Even writing FFA could suffice.
FFA would probably satisfy the average Scots’ voter, after all no one is arguing for Independence, and they’ll not be breaking any laws per-se, but what they will be doing is expressing their OWN sovereignty saying they expressly want something. The fundamental question(s) could be as simple indeed as “Do you believe your family should be shielded to the maximum extent possible from the austerity cuts? Should Scotland only give the money to England that she can afford to and decides is appropriate, after she cares for you, her own?”, if so mark FFA somewhere, anywhere on the AV paper. Any opposing factions would then have to provide a constructive believable argument as to why Scots should suffer when they’re in surplus?
At the very least, if the above campaign is enhanced by Social Media such as Facebook and Twitter, email etc, it will give our voters who have entrenched their voting styles an opportunity to think, consider and reflect. Most will probably not alter their parliamentary vote, after all there’s no need to do that here, but enough might to surprise us all. Even if the main election result is unchanged from what history would otherwise record, it certainly serves notice to Westminster in general and Labour in particular, that politics in Scotland will no longer be “business as usual”, with the SNP but a temporary “Blip”.
Can it be done? – A question that can only be answered by us Scots ourselves, we who have en mass consistently demonstrated that entrenched voter apathy enhances the establishment. Estimating there’s about twenty thousand confirmed Scots who would support this and work for it as a viable next step, a concerted underground campaign should mean that if each person contacted just a few dozen, and each activist who believes this (of whichever party) spread this message during campaign season, there’s no doubt the message will be heard. After the message is delivered, Democracy is most certainly in play!
The English have been quoted to say “Scots vote with their pockets” – Time for truth?
The only certainty – if we don’t try, we’ll never succeed.
On the surface it would appear the first reaction is no, not with all three Unionist, London controlled parties having a very significantly vested interest against it. It presently appears the best Scots can hope for is some type of modified Scotland Bill with “inherent damage control”. This mainly because the individual party members of the Labour, Tory or Lib-Dem political organizations have a tendency to proclaim that service to the electorate may well come a very distant second to personal advancement. This advancement has been clearly demonstrated by many in these parties to be local politics, followed by regional politics, then national politics, with regional equating to Scotland or Wales, and national being perceived as Westminster. For many in these parties the benefit of the constituents, as most recently demonstrated by Mr. Devine is certainly not foremost.
Let’s then put the Scots voters, and their wishes, back at the heart of our electoral system, rather than the callousness and self interest of puppet political parties.
The issue becomes how to get the Will of the People (who in Scotland are categorically Sovereign) to be internationally recognized when even its own London centric dominated Parliament will not permit legitimate questions to be asked of its constituent populace. Certainly this cannot be a sign of a parliament representative of a sovereign people, when poll after poll demonstrates their wishes for more autonomy, and yet their elected representatives refuse to consider, en masse, such a proposal to be put to the very people who elected them? A London centric media with an almost universally acknowledged bias is certainly no assistance to the rights and political engagement of the average Scot, and when added to entrenched dogma as clearly demonstrated in historical voting trends and styles, creates a trifecta that is nearly impossible to overcome. I say nearly impossible as it has been done once so far, with the current SNP administration being elected; it’s time to do it again!
It’s time to use the Ballot Box, in May 2011, but simply not as London dictates.
Initial appearances show that in this approach there may well be a way to stop the Scotland Bill in its tracks, and expand the current proposals that are being shamefully expounded in Holyrood by tactics including intimidation, railroading and ambush of committee witnesses who might voice another opinion. What’s being proposed here is an approach that has no guarantee of success, nor is it likely be a simple process, but at a minimum the brief sub-campaign outlined below would certainly cause consternation in Westminster and may even go a long way help stopping the perceived Con-Dem [Dis]respect agenda(s).
It is time to turn the tables.
So – FFA, is it possible in the almost immediate future, it has to be a resounding YES it is! Scotland at this particular, possibly unique instant in her present history, has been gifted just such an opportunity to express her collective will. Due to the recent election results in Westminster and her forced merger of parties [however temporary or fluid] there’s a need for a referendum on Alternative Voting. That referendum has been set [the respect agenda issue again] for the same day as the Scottish Government Elections. This in effect means that there is a threefold opportunity for Scottish self awareness, with no obvious potential downside. Instead of complaining about the disrespect, its time Scots started using it, demanding its use, for their own benefit.
We should be examining holding a referendum within the referendum
The first obvious question is how this is achieved without spoiling the paper itself, and to answer that we first need to look at what constitutes a “spoiled” paper. Simply put it’s by not marking the paper in a way that the voters’ wishes are made clear, and as stated by Alex Ferguson in Parliament after the 2007 debacle.
“My key message is that the voters themselves should be at the heart of our electoral system. In 2007, we got it wrong because the complex ballots and time-saving counting methods were there to make things easier for those of us involved in the political process, not necessarily for the voters.”
It’s significant to note that electronically rejected or “spoiled” papers were/are hand counted in an effort to understand the wishes of the voter: It’s therefore reasonable to infer that no matter what one puts on the paper is largely irrelevant as long as the line item is marked in the correct way and that line item remains unaltered – it’s a valid vote! One can even mark the ballot paper on the reverse side, completely voiding any accusation of it being “spoiled” or “de-faced”
Should this thought gain popular support, what type of media spin would be placed upon this act, will attempts be made to outlaw “spoiling” or “defacing” of referendum papers in any fashion. Is there even time for such legislation? How does any government outlaw the potential mark on the back which will obviously not impact the result on the front without de-legitimizing democracy itself? One thing governments fear, and this is no weak statement, is the unified voice of the people. What may be even more intriguing, and depending upon the viewpoint possibly entertaining, would be the reaction of Westminster and the London centric media as word of this grass roots campaign spreads, which it will – after all how does one suppress it without drawing attention to, and yet as it’s something which can’t be ignored there’s a bit of a cleft stick involved.
The next stage is implementation, and that’s where a probably unique opportunity arises as we know all the main parties will have activists at almost every household in the country, and there’s a probable good cross section of these people in any political party who think FFA is a good thing. As activists go door to door they can promote this, or spoil the paper in protest should the voter wish, but spoil it indicating FFA. Emphasize though that the vote need not be spoiled, and their voice will still count – but twice over. The only foreseeable advantage to “spoiled” papers is an almost instant count.
Of much greater importance is that these papers are in an official referendum – that count will be an official count, even if slightly delayed. The ballot papers will be preserved. The Government must act or be guilty of a failed Democracy.
A recount (sanctioned and engineered by whatever means) could be required in Scotland to include the FFA statements, and the results would be interesting at the very least. It would certainly appear more productive than simply spoiling a paper or refusing to vote.
In an ideal world there would be a simple small sticker available to be placed on the reverse of the ballot paper – they’d all be the same and indicate uniformity of action, which would be fundamental. Even writing FFA could suffice.
FFA would probably satisfy the average Scots’ voter, after all no one is arguing for Independence, and they’ll not be breaking any laws per-se, but what they will be doing is expressing their OWN sovereignty saying they expressly want something. The fundamental question(s) could be as simple indeed as “Do you believe your family should be shielded to the maximum extent possible from the austerity cuts? Should Scotland only give the money to England that she can afford to and decides is appropriate, after she cares for you, her own?”, if so mark FFA somewhere, anywhere on the AV paper. Any opposing factions would then have to provide a constructive believable argument as to why Scots should suffer when they’re in surplus?
At the very least, if the above campaign is enhanced by Social Media such as Facebook and Twitter, email etc, it will give our voters who have entrenched their voting styles an opportunity to think, consider and reflect. Most will probably not alter their parliamentary vote, after all there’s no need to do that here, but enough might to surprise us all. Even if the main election result is unchanged from what history would otherwise record, it certainly serves notice to Westminster in general and Labour in particular, that politics in Scotland will no longer be “business as usual”, with the SNP but a temporary “Blip”.
Can it be done? – A question that can only be answered by us Scots ourselves, we who have en mass consistently demonstrated that entrenched voter apathy enhances the establishment. Estimating there’s about twenty thousand confirmed Scots who would support this and work for it as a viable next step, a concerted underground campaign should mean that if each person contacted just a few dozen, and each activist who believes this (of whichever party) spread this message during campaign season, there’s no doubt the message will be heard. After the message is delivered, Democracy is most certainly in play!
The English have been quoted to say “Scots vote with their pockets” – Time for truth?
The only certainty – if we don’t try, we’ll never succeed.
The Ancient and Noble Scottish Constitution (Written 02/07/2011)
1. The People are Sovereign and Enfranchised. [1318,1320,1357,1429,1445, 1557, 1587,1689]
2. The people acting jointly cannot be guilty of treason. [1436-1689]
3. All men and women are equal. [1320]
4. Freedom of Religion. [1320]
5. No taxation without representation. [1424]
6. Scotland’s borders are enshrined and entrenched. [1328]
7. The Court of Session is the supreme civil authority in the land. [1532, 1689]
8. All honest People of the community of the realm have the right to speak for it under the protection of Parliament [1320-1436]
9. Rule from England is prohibited. [1320]
10. The official language of Scotland is Scots. [1424]
11. Any person to be found to be considering English (Foreign) rule is not to be considered “honest”. [1320]
12. Scotland and Scots will forever be free. [1320]
13. The right of regal Succession is vested in the honest people. [1320, 1357,1689]
14. Establishes when a monarch may be replaced. [1320, 1689?]
15. Parliaments [of the Estates] are empowered to act for the People within these Parameters. . [Multiple convention and Act]
[Denotes the year of Proclamation, Declaration or Act]
How was this constitution derived, and from what authority is the first question to be asked, as the base tenants of this Constitution appear neither widely known nor commonly taught. It would be open to amendment or addition by the will of the Scots People without doubt, but current research states the above is, in fundamental aspect, the Constitution of the Scots Nation.
How this Constitution was derived is a fair and reasonable question, and as there appears to be substantial confusion in the area, which is evidenced by efforts as disparate as those of the SNP on its website to propose a constitution, posted in the middle of the first decade of the twenty first century, to this papers and groups which diametrically oppose concept of the Community of the Realm. This opposing group would include the acts of individuals to dispel the existence of such a Constitution in entities such as “web forums” as well as individuals and groups which proceed to make attempt to draft such Scots constitutions as recently as February of 2011. All apparently are lacking legitimate authority to draft or amend this basic constitution. In the present day, lacking the existence of the old Parliament of the Estates it would be conceivable to add or amend these articles in one of two ways, firstly by uncovering other compatible articles in Scots statute or proving voidance of these articles by constitutionally appropriate revocation of right before 1707. Lacking either of these first methods of due process it would appear in the modern day that a referendum of the Scots people would be required, and absent indications (not found to date) to the contrary a simple majority would suffice for an alteration. Articles 1, 3, 4 and 11 appear particularly fundamental and inviolate. There are other articles which are open to inclusion, such as no standing army in times of peace [circa 1682], however the above appear the most salient and fundamental.
This document purports to show, without qualification or intent of ambiguity, that the above Constitution, open to supplemental amendment or re-ordering, was developed and derived from the Authority vested in the Royal and Ancient Community and Realm of Scotland and specifically contains only such proclamations, declarations or acts as made by it, either directly or by incorporation within its proclamations, declarations or acts, and of which there is no evidence [to date] uncovered of these Acts, Proclamations or Declarations having been constitutionally repealed or set aside.
The first question to examine, what is a constitution, then we must seek to examine if the stipulations of constitution can be adequately fulfilled and if they (as they apply to Scotland) have any precedent or antecedent which can be cited in national or international law. Based upon these reasonable questions we can factually derive that, In so far as current research has been able to determine, Scotland unquestionably has a Constitution, it is simple, written (Codified) and clear as extracted above – it has not been amended in any significant way since inception of the various sub-components or articles (unless our research uncovered items where specific clauses were legitimately struck out, in which case the article is so noted, or simply omitted). We do acknowledge there may be aspects or articles unavailable to the researchers at this time which could add to, or amend specific portions of the above constitution.
The first item to be considered therefore is simple – what is a Constitution?
A Constitution is defined as, by wordiq.com, and others in better fashion than these researchers can:
“Semantics of the word constitution: unwritten constitution, no constitution?
Strictly, the term unwritten constitution refers to a constitution where none of the sources of the constitution are written down. Such a constitution would obviously be very difficult to interpret. However, the term is sometimes used incorrectly when referring to an uncodified constitution. For example, the relationship between the different branches of government and the relationship between the government and citizen (the governed) may be unwritten or only partially written down and therefore unclear.
To say a country has no constitution is a common mistake sometimes made when referring to a country that has an uncodified constitution. Every country with a government must have some form of constitution; there must be conventions or documents that attempt to define how the country is governed.”
And from the Merriam-Webster dictionary
“a : the basic principles and laws of a nation, state, or social group that determine the powers and duties of the government and guarantee certain rights to the people in i.t
b : a written instrument embodying the rules of a political or social organization”
Therefore each and every Nation must have a constitution, irrespective of codified, un-codified, oral, guaranteed, enforced or obscured by events or design. Scotland therefore had and has a constitution, it simply requires extraction by examination of proclamations, declaration and laws made through the ages. Then it, or any article thereof, may have enforcement required by Law.
This categorically and indisputably means that Scotland, like all nations, since her inception as a nation, continues to have a constitution, and that any act or law pertaining to the Nation was either performed in agreement with the Constitution (Constitutional and Lawful) or in opposition to the Constitution (unconstitutional and unlawful), and to examine cases where the constitution may have been legitimately amended to permit new acts to be lawful that would otherwise not be permitted.
That it [the Constitution of Scotland] was largely an oral and flexible constitution which varied with the current incumbent of the throne during her first centuries of current recognized Nationhood is somewhat outside the current remit of this article, with the vast quantity of documents originating between the mid 800’s through the early 14th century being lost to us through the combined ravages of time and Wars of Independence. In effect Scotland rose back to prominence and modest influence on the world stage as a result of the culmination of the first War of Independence, effectively ending in June 1314, though not actually ratified in law as over until the treaty of Edinburgh-Northampton in 1328.
Utilizing 1314 as a “starting point” there were several Parliaments by the King of the day, Robert I, between 1314 in the aftermath of the battle of Bannockburn and 1328 (Dec), however we’ve only focused on those, and successive parliaments over the centuries that may be germane to this discussion, or cases where documents of constitutional note are produced. If an update law obsolete an earlier version, then when it appears Constitutional (ie – the earlier was amended or struck to permit the latter) we have referenced the latter statute, proclamation or declaration.
It is notable that much of the base constitutional awareness as presented here stems from parliaments of Robert I, and the Declaration of Arbroath. Much of this Declaration was codified through the remainder of Bruces’ reign, it remains recognized as the founding document of the Sovereignty of the Scottish People, and neither it, nor sections of it, appear to have ever been amended to alter the base founding principles of modern nationhood contained therein. It is interesting to observe some historians make attempt to interpret this document as “Royal Propaganda” and that which was written was not that which was meant, however this is given very clear refute by the interaction between King/Nobles/Parliament/People over the subsequent centuries, as detailed below.
It should also be considered if it is a valid stand alone constitutional document in its own right [Declaration of Arbroath, 1320], and if it has any peer documents in international law or historical context. The researchers quickly uncover both in the founding document of the United States Constitution, more commonly known as the “Declaration of Independence” in which sovereignty also initially resides with the individual citizen as denoted by it’s opening “We – The People”. It a reasonable consideration therefore that if either document has validity, both do, each lending itself directly in support of the other. It may also be unique in the annals of history that over so many disparate centuries and such a divide of distance that both documents are children born of a need and desire to enshrine the rights of the individual and the nation which is struggling for its freedom against the same aggressor country.
Acts or pronunciation years are denoted XXXX. Below is an expanded version of the articles above, with a plain English lay interpretation of the applicable portion of statute, proclamation or declaration.
1. The People are Sovereign, not the King or Parliament. 1318 Parliament it established the following: It was declared (codified) that every person of the community of the realm with the net worth of one cow shall lend arms to the defense of the Realm [This appears a critical departure from feudal norm, as the individuals were not to provide armed service to a noble or king, but to the Realm, irrespective of who lead the Realm or issued the call on behalf of the Realm. Furthermore by inference it codifies a person of worth and value who could/shall contribute to the Realm as anyone having the value of one cow, effectively it can be interpreted absent clarification of the day as enfranchisement to that level]. 1320, “we should exert ourselves at once to drive him out as our enemy and a subverter of his own rights and ours, and make some other man who was well able to defend us our King”. : “..and the whole community of the realm of Scotland..” 1357 – The first surviving record in Scotland using the term “Three Estates”, which referred to the three groups that made up the Parliament, the clergy (churchmen), nobility and the burgh (town) commissioners [to make up a balanced Parliament on behalf of the Community and Realm], 1429 Theoretically any tenant-in-chief was permitted to attend [Parliament], providing the potential for a far wider and less crown-controlled attendance than a system of shire representatives, 1445 King James II was required to swear an oath not to alter legislation (laws) without Parliament’s (the peoples) consent. The 1445 oaths reflected the perception among many members of the three estates of the de jure authority over the crown that was invested in them when assembled in parliament. 1557, Three become four Parliament passed an act regulating the attendance by commissioners from the shires (rural areas). Although they had attended Parliament in some numbers in the past, their presence was not made official until this act, which allowed each shire to elect two representatives. 1689, Parliament issued a declaration stating its right to remove any monarch who violated the law and threatened parliamentary/civil liberties.
2. It confirms the people acting jointly cannot be guilty of treason to the crown. 1436 Sir Robert Graham, speaker of the Estates, attempted to arrest James I ‘in the name of all the Three Estates of your realm’, but received no support from the Parliament. Graham was put in prison, but was released and later took part in the murder of the king at Perth on 21st February 1437. [It is Indicative that any single enfranchised person in Scotland could bring charges against the King – again signifying the sovereignty of the individual as against the sovereignty of the Monarch] – et al, 1436-1689
3. All men and women are equal – irrespective of nationality. 1320 “there is neither weighing nor distinction of… Scotsman or Englishman”
4. Freedom of Religion. 1320 “there is neither weighing nor distinction of Jew and Greek”
5. NO taxation without representation.- 1424 [-1490 et al] Between 1424 and 1496 parliament played a much more prominent role in political affairs, exerting sustained and substantial influence over the Stewart monarchs. This power was based on the reduced military threat from England and the decentralised nature of the Scottish kingdom. No king could force his subjects to pay a tax, or enforce a law, or go to war, without the genuine consent of a cross-section of society (and especially the leading lay and ecclesiastical magnates)
6. Scotland’s borders are enshrined and entrenched in the Constitution 1328 Treaty of Edinburgh-Northampton - Recognized by England: Scots’ sovereignty, with her borders set as in Alexander’s (III) time, this was re-affirmed at later dates.
7. It confirms the Court of Session as the supreme civil authority in the land 1532, 1689 Founding of the Court of Session in 1532 by James V, concurrence by Parliament. Parliament then passed an act setting up the Court of Session, the supreme civil court in Scotland, for the “universal well-being” of everyone. This was a major step forward towards a fully developed and modern legal system, the rights of the Court of Session were amended in 1689 to permit appeal of sentence to the monarch.
8. All honest men and women of the community of the realm are entitled to speak to or on behalf of the realm. 1320-1436 – 1320:”…Eustace Maxwell, William Ramsay, William Mowat, Alan Murray, Donald Campbell, John Cameron, Reginald Cheyne, Alexander Seton, Andrew Leslie, and Alexander Straiton, and the other barons and freeholders and the whole community of the realm of Scotland..” “which no honest man gives up but with life itself [potential to argue that the honest man quotation is inappropriate, however to this day, by custom and standing prisoners in Scotland have no right to vote and thereby “no voice” in the affairs of the realm.]. 1436 Sir Robert Graham, speaker of the Estates, attempted to arrest James I ‘in the name of all the Three Estates of your realm’, but received no support from the Parliament. Graham was put in prison, but was released and later took part in the murder of the king at Perth on 21st February 1437. [It is Indicative that any single enfranchised person in Scotland could bring charges against the King – again signifying the sovereignty of the individual as against the sovereignty of the Monarch].
9. It definitively outlaws rule from England 1320 “Yet if he should give up what he has begun, and agree to make us or our kingdom subject to the King of England or the English, we should exert ourselves at once to drive him out as our enemy and a subverter of his own rights and ours…… never will we on any conditions be brought under English rule”
10. The official language of Scotland [government and law] is Scots. 1424 Acts of parliament from the reign of James I, written in Scots rather than Latin. Before this date, most of the surviving documents are written in Latin, which was the language of official documents at the time. King James I, however, began to keep his parliamentary records in Scots, a language that most people could understand.
11. Any person to be found to be considering English (Foreign) rule is not to be considered “honest”. 1320 “. It is in truth not for glory, nor riches, nor honours that we are fighting, but for freedom — for that alone, which no honest man gives up but with life itself.”
12. Scotland will forever be a free nation 1320 “for, as long as but a hundred of us remain alive, never will we on any conditions be brought under English rule”
13. The right of regal Succession is vested in the honest people of the Realm. [This is continued today whereby prisoners do not get to vote]. [Noting the term “Honest” in inserted as it has never been statutorily or constitutionally removed as a prerequisite for voice, nor has it been farther defined in so far as the researchers could uncover] 1320, “we [The people, defined as the Community and Realm of Scotland] should exert ourselves at once to drive him out as our enemy and a subverter of his own rights and ours, and make some other man who was well able to defend us our King” 1445, King James II was required to swear an oath not to alter legislation (laws) without Parliament’s [the Community of the Realm] consent 1689 After voting to remove King James VII, Parliament issued a declaration stating its right to remove any monarch who violated the law and threatened liberties.
14. It establishes the circumstances under which a monarch may be replaced [There is question if 1689 was Constitutional]. 1320 “Yet if he should give up what he has begun, and agree to make us or our kingdom subject to the King of England or the English, we should exert ourselves at once to drive him out as our enemy. 1346 Under the policy of an English succession favoured by David II after 1346 –In opposing David’s plans, the Steward and the estates turned to the rhetoric used in Robert I’s reign of threatening to select another king if he went against their wishes
15. Parliaments [of the Estates] are empowered to act for the People within these Parameters (Various & multiple).
2. The people acting jointly cannot be guilty of treason. [1436-1689]
3. All men and women are equal. [1320]
4. Freedom of Religion. [1320]
5. No taxation without representation. [1424]
6. Scotland’s borders are enshrined and entrenched. [1328]
7. The Court of Session is the supreme civil authority in the land. [1532, 1689]
8. All honest People of the community of the realm have the right to speak for it under the protection of Parliament [1320-1436]
9. Rule from England is prohibited. [1320]
10. The official language of Scotland is Scots. [1424]
11. Any person to be found to be considering English (Foreign) rule is not to be considered “honest”. [1320]
12. Scotland and Scots will forever be free. [1320]
13. The right of regal Succession is vested in the honest people. [1320, 1357,1689]
14. Establishes when a monarch may be replaced. [1320, 1689?]
15. Parliaments [of the Estates] are empowered to act for the People within these Parameters. . [Multiple convention and Act]
[Denotes the year of Proclamation, Declaration or Act]
How was this constitution derived, and from what authority is the first question to be asked, as the base tenants of this Constitution appear neither widely known nor commonly taught. It would be open to amendment or addition by the will of the Scots People without doubt, but current research states the above is, in fundamental aspect, the Constitution of the Scots Nation.
How this Constitution was derived is a fair and reasonable question, and as there appears to be substantial confusion in the area, which is evidenced by efforts as disparate as those of the SNP on its website to propose a constitution, posted in the middle of the first decade of the twenty first century, to this papers and groups which diametrically oppose concept of the Community of the Realm. This opposing group would include the acts of individuals to dispel the existence of such a Constitution in entities such as “web forums” as well as individuals and groups which proceed to make attempt to draft such Scots constitutions as recently as February of 2011. All apparently are lacking legitimate authority to draft or amend this basic constitution. In the present day, lacking the existence of the old Parliament of the Estates it would be conceivable to add or amend these articles in one of two ways, firstly by uncovering other compatible articles in Scots statute or proving voidance of these articles by constitutionally appropriate revocation of right before 1707. Lacking either of these first methods of due process it would appear in the modern day that a referendum of the Scots people would be required, and absent indications (not found to date) to the contrary a simple majority would suffice for an alteration. Articles 1, 3, 4 and 11 appear particularly fundamental and inviolate. There are other articles which are open to inclusion, such as no standing army in times of peace [circa 1682], however the above appear the most salient and fundamental.
This document purports to show, without qualification or intent of ambiguity, that the above Constitution, open to supplemental amendment or re-ordering, was developed and derived from the Authority vested in the Royal and Ancient Community and Realm of Scotland and specifically contains only such proclamations, declarations or acts as made by it, either directly or by incorporation within its proclamations, declarations or acts, and of which there is no evidence [to date] uncovered of these Acts, Proclamations or Declarations having been constitutionally repealed or set aside.
The first question to examine, what is a constitution, then we must seek to examine if the stipulations of constitution can be adequately fulfilled and if they (as they apply to Scotland) have any precedent or antecedent which can be cited in national or international law. Based upon these reasonable questions we can factually derive that, In so far as current research has been able to determine, Scotland unquestionably has a Constitution, it is simple, written (Codified) and clear as extracted above – it has not been amended in any significant way since inception of the various sub-components or articles (unless our research uncovered items where specific clauses were legitimately struck out, in which case the article is so noted, or simply omitted). We do acknowledge there may be aspects or articles unavailable to the researchers at this time which could add to, or amend specific portions of the above constitution.
The first item to be considered therefore is simple – what is a Constitution?
A Constitution is defined as, by wordiq.com, and others in better fashion than these researchers can:
“Semantics of the word constitution: unwritten constitution, no constitution?
Strictly, the term unwritten constitution refers to a constitution where none of the sources of the constitution are written down. Such a constitution would obviously be very difficult to interpret. However, the term is sometimes used incorrectly when referring to an uncodified constitution. For example, the relationship between the different branches of government and the relationship between the government and citizen (the governed) may be unwritten or only partially written down and therefore unclear.
To say a country has no constitution is a common mistake sometimes made when referring to a country that has an uncodified constitution. Every country with a government must have some form of constitution; there must be conventions or documents that attempt to define how the country is governed.”
And from the Merriam-Webster dictionary
“a : the basic principles and laws of a nation, state, or social group that determine the powers and duties of the government and guarantee certain rights to the people in i.t
b : a written instrument embodying the rules of a political or social organization”
Therefore each and every Nation must have a constitution, irrespective of codified, un-codified, oral, guaranteed, enforced or obscured by events or design. Scotland therefore had and has a constitution, it simply requires extraction by examination of proclamations, declaration and laws made through the ages. Then it, or any article thereof, may have enforcement required by Law.
This categorically and indisputably means that Scotland, like all nations, since her inception as a nation, continues to have a constitution, and that any act or law pertaining to the Nation was either performed in agreement with the Constitution (Constitutional and Lawful) or in opposition to the Constitution (unconstitutional and unlawful), and to examine cases where the constitution may have been legitimately amended to permit new acts to be lawful that would otherwise not be permitted.
That it [the Constitution of Scotland] was largely an oral and flexible constitution which varied with the current incumbent of the throne during her first centuries of current recognized Nationhood is somewhat outside the current remit of this article, with the vast quantity of documents originating between the mid 800’s through the early 14th century being lost to us through the combined ravages of time and Wars of Independence. In effect Scotland rose back to prominence and modest influence on the world stage as a result of the culmination of the first War of Independence, effectively ending in June 1314, though not actually ratified in law as over until the treaty of Edinburgh-Northampton in 1328.
Utilizing 1314 as a “starting point” there were several Parliaments by the King of the day, Robert I, between 1314 in the aftermath of the battle of Bannockburn and 1328 (Dec), however we’ve only focused on those, and successive parliaments over the centuries that may be germane to this discussion, or cases where documents of constitutional note are produced. If an update law obsolete an earlier version, then when it appears Constitutional (ie – the earlier was amended or struck to permit the latter) we have referenced the latter statute, proclamation or declaration.
It is notable that much of the base constitutional awareness as presented here stems from parliaments of Robert I, and the Declaration of Arbroath. Much of this Declaration was codified through the remainder of Bruces’ reign, it remains recognized as the founding document of the Sovereignty of the Scottish People, and neither it, nor sections of it, appear to have ever been amended to alter the base founding principles of modern nationhood contained therein. It is interesting to observe some historians make attempt to interpret this document as “Royal Propaganda” and that which was written was not that which was meant, however this is given very clear refute by the interaction between King/Nobles/Parliament/People over the subsequent centuries, as detailed below.
It should also be considered if it is a valid stand alone constitutional document in its own right [Declaration of Arbroath, 1320], and if it has any peer documents in international law or historical context. The researchers quickly uncover both in the founding document of the United States Constitution, more commonly known as the “Declaration of Independence” in which sovereignty also initially resides with the individual citizen as denoted by it’s opening “We – The People”. It a reasonable consideration therefore that if either document has validity, both do, each lending itself directly in support of the other. It may also be unique in the annals of history that over so many disparate centuries and such a divide of distance that both documents are children born of a need and desire to enshrine the rights of the individual and the nation which is struggling for its freedom against the same aggressor country.
Acts or pronunciation years are denoted XXXX. Below is an expanded version of the articles above, with a plain English lay interpretation of the applicable portion of statute, proclamation or declaration.
1. The People are Sovereign, not the King or Parliament. 1318 Parliament it established the following: It was declared (codified) that every person of the community of the realm with the net worth of one cow shall lend arms to the defense of the Realm [This appears a critical departure from feudal norm, as the individuals were not to provide armed service to a noble or king, but to the Realm, irrespective of who lead the Realm or issued the call on behalf of the Realm. Furthermore by inference it codifies a person of worth and value who could/shall contribute to the Realm as anyone having the value of one cow, effectively it can be interpreted absent clarification of the day as enfranchisement to that level]. 1320, “we should exert ourselves at once to drive him out as our enemy and a subverter of his own rights and ours, and make some other man who was well able to defend us our King”. : “..and the whole community of the realm of Scotland..” 1357 – The first surviving record in Scotland using the term “Three Estates”, which referred to the three groups that made up the Parliament, the clergy (churchmen), nobility and the burgh (town) commissioners [to make up a balanced Parliament on behalf of the Community and Realm], 1429 Theoretically any tenant-in-chief was permitted to attend [Parliament], providing the potential for a far wider and less crown-controlled attendance than a system of shire representatives, 1445 King James II was required to swear an oath not to alter legislation (laws) without Parliament’s (the peoples) consent. The 1445 oaths reflected the perception among many members of the three estates of the de jure authority over the crown that was invested in them when assembled in parliament. 1557, Three become four Parliament passed an act regulating the attendance by commissioners from the shires (rural areas). Although they had attended Parliament in some numbers in the past, their presence was not made official until this act, which allowed each shire to elect two representatives. 1689, Parliament issued a declaration stating its right to remove any monarch who violated the law and threatened parliamentary/civil liberties.
2. It confirms the people acting jointly cannot be guilty of treason to the crown. 1436 Sir Robert Graham, speaker of the Estates, attempted to arrest James I ‘in the name of all the Three Estates of your realm’, but received no support from the Parliament. Graham was put in prison, but was released and later took part in the murder of the king at Perth on 21st February 1437. [It is Indicative that any single enfranchised person in Scotland could bring charges against the King – again signifying the sovereignty of the individual as against the sovereignty of the Monarch] – et al, 1436-1689
3. All men and women are equal – irrespective of nationality. 1320 “there is neither weighing nor distinction of… Scotsman or Englishman”
4. Freedom of Religion. 1320 “there is neither weighing nor distinction of Jew and Greek”
5. NO taxation without representation.- 1424 [-1490 et al] Between 1424 and 1496 parliament played a much more prominent role in political affairs, exerting sustained and substantial influence over the Stewart monarchs. This power was based on the reduced military threat from England and the decentralised nature of the Scottish kingdom. No king could force his subjects to pay a tax, or enforce a law, or go to war, without the genuine consent of a cross-section of society (and especially the leading lay and ecclesiastical magnates)
6. Scotland’s borders are enshrined and entrenched in the Constitution 1328 Treaty of Edinburgh-Northampton - Recognized by England: Scots’ sovereignty, with her borders set as in Alexander’s (III) time, this was re-affirmed at later dates.
7. It confirms the Court of Session as the supreme civil authority in the land 1532, 1689 Founding of the Court of Session in 1532 by James V, concurrence by Parliament. Parliament then passed an act setting up the Court of Session, the supreme civil court in Scotland, for the “universal well-being” of everyone. This was a major step forward towards a fully developed and modern legal system, the rights of the Court of Session were amended in 1689 to permit appeal of sentence to the monarch.
8. All honest men and women of the community of the realm are entitled to speak to or on behalf of the realm. 1320-1436 – 1320:”…Eustace Maxwell, William Ramsay, William Mowat, Alan Murray, Donald Campbell, John Cameron, Reginald Cheyne, Alexander Seton, Andrew Leslie, and Alexander Straiton, and the other barons and freeholders and the whole community of the realm of Scotland..” “which no honest man gives up but with life itself [potential to argue that the honest man quotation is inappropriate, however to this day, by custom and standing prisoners in Scotland have no right to vote and thereby “no voice” in the affairs of the realm.]. 1436 Sir Robert Graham, speaker of the Estates, attempted to arrest James I ‘in the name of all the Three Estates of your realm’, but received no support from the Parliament. Graham was put in prison, but was released and later took part in the murder of the king at Perth on 21st February 1437. [It is Indicative that any single enfranchised person in Scotland could bring charges against the King – again signifying the sovereignty of the individual as against the sovereignty of the Monarch].
9. It definitively outlaws rule from England 1320 “Yet if he should give up what he has begun, and agree to make us or our kingdom subject to the King of England or the English, we should exert ourselves at once to drive him out as our enemy and a subverter of his own rights and ours…… never will we on any conditions be brought under English rule”
10. The official language of Scotland [government and law] is Scots. 1424 Acts of parliament from the reign of James I, written in Scots rather than Latin. Before this date, most of the surviving documents are written in Latin, which was the language of official documents at the time. King James I, however, began to keep his parliamentary records in Scots, a language that most people could understand.
11. Any person to be found to be considering English (Foreign) rule is not to be considered “honest”. 1320 “. It is in truth not for glory, nor riches, nor honours that we are fighting, but for freedom — for that alone, which no honest man gives up but with life itself.”
12. Scotland will forever be a free nation 1320 “for, as long as but a hundred of us remain alive, never will we on any conditions be brought under English rule”
13. The right of regal Succession is vested in the honest people of the Realm. [This is continued today whereby prisoners do not get to vote]. [Noting the term “Honest” in inserted as it has never been statutorily or constitutionally removed as a prerequisite for voice, nor has it been farther defined in so far as the researchers could uncover] 1320, “we [The people, defined as the Community and Realm of Scotland] should exert ourselves at once to drive him out as our enemy and a subverter of his own rights and ours, and make some other man who was well able to defend us our King” 1445, King James II was required to swear an oath not to alter legislation (laws) without Parliament’s [the Community of the Realm] consent 1689 After voting to remove King James VII, Parliament issued a declaration stating its right to remove any monarch who violated the law and threatened liberties.
14. It establishes the circumstances under which a monarch may be replaced [There is question if 1689 was Constitutional]. 1320 “Yet if he should give up what he has begun, and agree to make us or our kingdom subject to the King of England or the English, we should exert ourselves at once to drive him out as our enemy. 1346 Under the policy of an English succession favoured by David II after 1346 –In opposing David’s plans, the Steward and the estates turned to the rhetoric used in Robert I’s reign of threatening to select another king if he went against their wishes
15. Parliaments [of the Estates] are empowered to act for the People within these Parameters (Various & multiple).
Fair and free elections – will they ever be possible for us? (Written 23/02/11)
There has recently been a lot of highlighting on political party donations, and it’s likely to come in for more than a little extra scrutiny as we approach the election itself.
Building on the “Sainsbury Sting” article I wrote recently, and in light of other press releases and news items both before and since, [including Mr. Soutars offer to the SNP] the previous/ongoing “political donations” press releases simply serve to re-enforce the “pounds for laws” perception and culture. Examining this intrusion into our democratic process which seems to apply across the entire party political spectrum what becomes obvious is that Scotland is looking to tread the path of England, which is demonstrably scurrying along behind America as quickly as its Parliament can manage to prod its entrenched political and financial systems.
Perhaps this is not a course we’d want to follow, as in America, corporations are legally “people” – however in many cases they appear to have far more rights than people. America is a land [having in the past spent some years there] that cherishes the corporation and corporate wealth apparently more than individual liberty. One of their most famous leaders, Abraham Lincoln, with the end of the American Civil War imminent voiced his concerns. "… As a result of the war, corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed…”
Interestingly his words bear the mark of prophecy, one which has come to pass in the last decade alone through the stock market “bubble”, the real estate “bubble”, the credit “bubble”, all of which for the large part stripped the wealth of the average individual. The process looks set to continue with future “bubbles” in food and energy now looming on the horizon, and no concerted political will being applied to stop this cancer on humanity. A cancer where, for the most, part large the corporations and financial institutions get wealthier or uncover methods of bleeding the taxpayer to cover any paper losses.
Yet how is this possible?
Why do we [who are supposed to be in control in a Democracy] let it happen?
One need look no deeper than the fundamentals of how politics are played in Westminster and Washington to uncover the grim truth. Industry bodies (like the chemical manufacturers’ association and its derivatives or successors) typically have a few dominant players, each dominant player will back at least one party. Often they will allocate the “political war chest” to more than one party with the most frequently going to the likely victor. Big players in the Chemical field include Bayer (now cited in Bee Colony Collapse disorder), and Monsanto (cited for its genetic engineering and sales of seed that can’t reproduce) as highlighted here:
“[NaturalNews] At a biotech industry conference in January 1999, a representative from Arthur Anderson, LLP explained how they had helped Monsanto design their strategic plan. First, his team asked Monsanto executives what their ideal future looked like in 15 to 20 years. The executives described a world with 100 percent of all commercial seeds genetically modified and patented. Anderson consultants then worked backwards from that goal, and developed the strategy and tactics to achieve it. They presented Monsanto with the steps and procedures needed to obtain a place of industry dominance in a world in which natural seeds were virtually extinct.”
Others in the industry such as Exxon, have like seeming agendas. How are these companies permitted to do this and why aren’t they stopped from doing it? It should be illegal! And yet it appears they are politically protected. How can it be that the same organization which manufactures chemicals noted to be a prime cause of asthma also manufactures asthma medication?
The foremost thought for the average person should now be “how can this happen?” It’s relatively simple when the electoral process states (quite clearly by practice) that one must have money to get any message out – and to get elected “you” must get “your” message out. The situation is simple, anyone wishing to “serve” requires money. In Washington and Westminster that money often comes from corporate donors or “the City/Wall St.”, each afterwards getting for the most part, what they bought and paid for with their “donations”.
This is certainly not “government of the people, for the people, by the people”, which is a democracy – it is an illusion. It is essentially government of the Corporation, for the Corporation, by the Corporation. The individual casts the vote – the corporations, with their money, can easily influence both the message and the result. After the elections as the Tory, Lib-Dem, and Labour Parties so ably demonstrated by opposition to the [Tesco] tax recently in the Scottish budget, they [the Corporations] also have a tendency to get what they pay for.
Then we have our “paid politicians” themselves – what qualifications do they have to have in our “democracy”, apparently none at all, or almost none. Just get yourself ensconced in the “party political machine” for a while, prove you’ve got the “gift ‘o the gab” and march your way to fame and fortune as a political “apparatchik”. What nation in its right mind would endorse such a thing – shouldn’t we in Scotland set the bar at least a little bit higher and say, for example that anyone considering to be a member of the Scottish Parliament has to have served at least five years in private industry so that they can figure out, at least in part, how the real world works away from the insular existence of politics?
The other demonstrated major aspect of public dissatisfaction with politicians is their “jobs for life” culture, where even after their time in office they often get very lucrative positions for nominal input with those same companies they “assisted” during their time in office ~ perhaps we require a one or two term ban after leaving politics on working for or receiving funding through any organization they were materially associated with during their time in office?
Imagine a different world, a world that the next Scottish Government could so easily legislate, one where individual party members can only contribute, say £50 in a month of their own income, where it’s illegal to gift third party donations to your party, and where any donation of £50.01 or more goes to a communal government election chest, and where that election chest is distributed pound to pound against the private donations received either by a candidate or an Independent. The most popular party will naturally get the greatest amount of donations, and directly by the will of the people the greatest state subsidy. As to that “election chest” – just as an example, any candidate with more than 250 signatures on a petition could be entitled to a “share” before Holyrood elections, disbursed perhaps 60 days before election day. The Parties get their support, the Independents get a voice and opportunity for change.
It would also be quite simple to “codify and entrench” the salaries of MSP’s and ministers, making certain we, the people, get value for money and hopefully a better nation. Imagine what would happen [as an example] if the salaries were ALL tied to the median wage in Scotland, with the First Minister getting 3 times, the deputy 2.75 times, the ministers getting 2.25 times, the rank and file MSP’s getting 1.5 times. If they perform well, the median salary increases as do their salaries, however should the economy suffer and the median drop, we all share in the pain and discomfort – a simple annual adjustment is all that’s required.
As to the biggest prize of all “airtime” – perhaps each electoral party contesting more than 20% of the country’s seats is entitled to a place in live debate, and that debate must be carried by all channels, unedited, and there should be four debates, one in each of the weeks leading up to an election. One could be on the Economy, one on the sitting party manifesto, and two open for the most current affairs of the time.
Lastly, perhaps above all else, we require [and I do mean require] two things, the first is to ban corporate lobbying which by and of itself does only one thing – it serves the corporate interest, and secondly legislation is required that quite simply returns power to the People of Scotland, a thing which could easily be expanded from the vestige already in place. It would be a wonderful democracy indeed where the Scots People could petition their parliament for an Act, with a set threshold of perhaps 25,000 signatures of registered voters, and parliament must act upon it. In cases where Parliament does not act, or acts inappropriately, any citizen would have right to garner four times the base quantity of signatures and force a referendum on the issue presented within (perhaps) two years, and a set period before any repeat referendum could be held (possibly) 10 years. This could also apply to repealing any laws or acts already passed by parliament. Oddly this small adjustment alone really adds teeth to “government of the people, for the people, by the people”.
Any party proposing the simple measures above I’d see as advancing democracy – it wouldn’t simply be “quite a vote getter” it would get my vote.
Then we would truly have an opportunity for democracy, a democracy that could fire the imagination, when our representatives act in our true interest rather than those of their real present paymasters, a democracy that might again fire the imagination of the world and echo through future history as a certain other article of paper has since 1320 – will it happen, probably not, after all, it’s not really in the corporate, or the Union interest.
But wouldn’t it be wonderful?
Building on the “Sainsbury Sting” article I wrote recently, and in light of other press releases and news items both before and since, [including Mr. Soutars offer to the SNP] the previous/ongoing “political donations” press releases simply serve to re-enforce the “pounds for laws” perception and culture. Examining this intrusion into our democratic process which seems to apply across the entire party political spectrum what becomes obvious is that Scotland is looking to tread the path of England, which is demonstrably scurrying along behind America as quickly as its Parliament can manage to prod its entrenched political and financial systems.
Perhaps this is not a course we’d want to follow, as in America, corporations are legally “people” – however in many cases they appear to have far more rights than people. America is a land [having in the past spent some years there] that cherishes the corporation and corporate wealth apparently more than individual liberty. One of their most famous leaders, Abraham Lincoln, with the end of the American Civil War imminent voiced his concerns. "… As a result of the war, corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed…”
Interestingly his words bear the mark of prophecy, one which has come to pass in the last decade alone through the stock market “bubble”, the real estate “bubble”, the credit “bubble”, all of which for the large part stripped the wealth of the average individual. The process looks set to continue with future “bubbles” in food and energy now looming on the horizon, and no concerted political will being applied to stop this cancer on humanity. A cancer where, for the most, part large the corporations and financial institutions get wealthier or uncover methods of bleeding the taxpayer to cover any paper losses.
Yet how is this possible?
Why do we [who are supposed to be in control in a Democracy] let it happen?
One need look no deeper than the fundamentals of how politics are played in Westminster and Washington to uncover the grim truth. Industry bodies (like the chemical manufacturers’ association and its derivatives or successors) typically have a few dominant players, each dominant player will back at least one party. Often they will allocate the “political war chest” to more than one party with the most frequently going to the likely victor. Big players in the Chemical field include Bayer (now cited in Bee Colony Collapse disorder), and Monsanto (cited for its genetic engineering and sales of seed that can’t reproduce) as highlighted here:
“[NaturalNews] At a biotech industry conference in January 1999, a representative from Arthur Anderson, LLP explained how they had helped Monsanto design their strategic plan. First, his team asked Monsanto executives what their ideal future looked like in 15 to 20 years. The executives described a world with 100 percent of all commercial seeds genetically modified and patented. Anderson consultants then worked backwards from that goal, and developed the strategy and tactics to achieve it. They presented Monsanto with the steps and procedures needed to obtain a place of industry dominance in a world in which natural seeds were virtually extinct.”
Others in the industry such as Exxon, have like seeming agendas. How are these companies permitted to do this and why aren’t they stopped from doing it? It should be illegal! And yet it appears they are politically protected. How can it be that the same organization which manufactures chemicals noted to be a prime cause of asthma also manufactures asthma medication?
The foremost thought for the average person should now be “how can this happen?” It’s relatively simple when the electoral process states (quite clearly by practice) that one must have money to get any message out – and to get elected “you” must get “your” message out. The situation is simple, anyone wishing to “serve” requires money. In Washington and Westminster that money often comes from corporate donors or “the City/Wall St.”, each afterwards getting for the most part, what they bought and paid for with their “donations”.
This is certainly not “government of the people, for the people, by the people”, which is a democracy – it is an illusion. It is essentially government of the Corporation, for the Corporation, by the Corporation. The individual casts the vote – the corporations, with their money, can easily influence both the message and the result. After the elections as the Tory, Lib-Dem, and Labour Parties so ably demonstrated by opposition to the [Tesco] tax recently in the Scottish budget, they [the Corporations] also have a tendency to get what they pay for.
Then we have our “paid politicians” themselves – what qualifications do they have to have in our “democracy”, apparently none at all, or almost none. Just get yourself ensconced in the “party political machine” for a while, prove you’ve got the “gift ‘o the gab” and march your way to fame and fortune as a political “apparatchik”. What nation in its right mind would endorse such a thing – shouldn’t we in Scotland set the bar at least a little bit higher and say, for example that anyone considering to be a member of the Scottish Parliament has to have served at least five years in private industry so that they can figure out, at least in part, how the real world works away from the insular existence of politics?
The other demonstrated major aspect of public dissatisfaction with politicians is their “jobs for life” culture, where even after their time in office they often get very lucrative positions for nominal input with those same companies they “assisted” during their time in office ~ perhaps we require a one or two term ban after leaving politics on working for or receiving funding through any organization they were materially associated with during their time in office?
Imagine a different world, a world that the next Scottish Government could so easily legislate, one where individual party members can only contribute, say £50 in a month of their own income, where it’s illegal to gift third party donations to your party, and where any donation of £50.01 or more goes to a communal government election chest, and where that election chest is distributed pound to pound against the private donations received either by a candidate or an Independent. The most popular party will naturally get the greatest amount of donations, and directly by the will of the people the greatest state subsidy. As to that “election chest” – just as an example, any candidate with more than 250 signatures on a petition could be entitled to a “share” before Holyrood elections, disbursed perhaps 60 days before election day. The Parties get their support, the Independents get a voice and opportunity for change.
It would also be quite simple to “codify and entrench” the salaries of MSP’s and ministers, making certain we, the people, get value for money and hopefully a better nation. Imagine what would happen [as an example] if the salaries were ALL tied to the median wage in Scotland, with the First Minister getting 3 times, the deputy 2.75 times, the ministers getting 2.25 times, the rank and file MSP’s getting 1.5 times. If they perform well, the median salary increases as do their salaries, however should the economy suffer and the median drop, we all share in the pain and discomfort – a simple annual adjustment is all that’s required.
As to the biggest prize of all “airtime” – perhaps each electoral party contesting more than 20% of the country’s seats is entitled to a place in live debate, and that debate must be carried by all channels, unedited, and there should be four debates, one in each of the weeks leading up to an election. One could be on the Economy, one on the sitting party manifesto, and two open for the most current affairs of the time.
Lastly, perhaps above all else, we require [and I do mean require] two things, the first is to ban corporate lobbying which by and of itself does only one thing – it serves the corporate interest, and secondly legislation is required that quite simply returns power to the People of Scotland, a thing which could easily be expanded from the vestige already in place. It would be a wonderful democracy indeed where the Scots People could petition their parliament for an Act, with a set threshold of perhaps 25,000 signatures of registered voters, and parliament must act upon it. In cases where Parliament does not act, or acts inappropriately, any citizen would have right to garner four times the base quantity of signatures and force a referendum on the issue presented within (perhaps) two years, and a set period before any repeat referendum could be held (possibly) 10 years. This could also apply to repealing any laws or acts already passed by parliament. Oddly this small adjustment alone really adds teeth to “government of the people, for the people, by the people”.
Any party proposing the simple measures above I’d see as advancing democracy – it wouldn’t simply be “quite a vote getter” it would get my vote.
Then we would truly have an opportunity for democracy, a democracy that could fire the imagination, when our representatives act in our true interest rather than those of their real present paymasters, a democracy that might again fire the imagination of the world and echo through future history as a certain other article of paper has since 1320 – will it happen, probably not, after all, it’s not really in the corporate, or the Union interest.
But wouldn’t it be wonderful?
The Sainsbury Sting (Written 10/02/11)
January 26th 2011, literally a day that SHOULD live in infamy. A day that truly marks, in the apparently most blatant of fashions, that politics is for sale, legislation can be purchased, and the rich will prevail in our Scotland simply because they can afford to.
We’re speaking, naturally enough of the”Tesco Tax”, that self same tax as reported in the Scotsman so recently (~January 24th 2011) that “may be saved by Labour” [reconsidering its opposition]. The parliamentary committee shortly afterwards apparently working diligently to see that same tax marginalized as potential Labour support for that budgetary line item withered and died.
One must ask why Labour, as a party, would back such a potential vote loser from the common man and woman in Scotland, excepting perhaps an attitude of supreme confidence in the result of the upcoming May vote. The decades old sure and certain knowledge that Scotland will “Go Labour” could be attributed to this change in reported standing on the issue. The real reason may perhaps become more significant if we alter the Medias’ given name, from perhaps the “Tesco Tax” to the “Sainsbury Sting”.
Lord Sainsbury is a fine example for the Labour Party to uphold, and pander to. A great benefactor to the British Museum (in London) and the Labour Party, a combination of donations that’s well in excess of to £30 Million over the last decade. Rather an expensive peerage perhaps could be one perspective, if it was a peerage alone, however in politics it is worthwhile noting that even by backing an electoral looser, it’s often still possible to influence policy, if in another nation.
What the proposed rates re-distribution would do is to slide the purchasing power bias of the giants in retail very incrementally back towards the small individual retailer. It will by no means create an even playing field, but it will open a legislative door towards doing so. That legislative door is the issue for the mega retailers, as once the disparity is budgetarily enshrined it can be adjusted with little fuss by future administrations. This is the probable foundation of opposition by these retailers, not so much today’s £30 million (after all, Lord Sainsbury alone has demonstrated most clearly he can well afford to simply give that amount away for any issue he considers worthy, of which Scotland isn’t demonstrably one given the destination of his largesse).
Then we have the Labour cries about the state of the Nation’s health, wealth, unemployment and (to a lesser extent) environment. Cries that the current Scottish Government do too little to help, or do it in the wrong area and at the wrong time, or simply miss-prioritize. If we examine this levy in detail it becomes a startling defining concept between two so similar left of center political stances, separated on the surface primarily by a leaning towards autonomy and a support for, or potential regression from the status quo.
The other beneficiaries of this increase are the Scottish People, through funding for services and a slightly more competitive retail environment, as the mega retailers are indicating that rather than pass on the cost, it will be absorbed to permit a “competitive edge” to be retained [they’ve publically stated they may “have” to relocate rather than increase prices, though historical precedent indicates this an empty threat].
The more competitive retail environment does many things, if and as it is re-developed or protected which communities in the USA are demonstrating from Turlock, CA in the West, through Eureka Springs, AR in the Center, to St Augustine FL in the East. These local governments have enacted specific square foot prohibitions (100,000’) in the case of Turlock, either boundary wide or excluding the mega retailers from significant swathes of community land. Add to this a decided groundswell of movement against the Superstore which many individuals and communities are choosing to view as unsustainable. Those decrying the superstore cite very tangible benefits such as retention of the old “downtown” or town center, more thriving small businesses and small business communities, less traffic and pollution as people tend to park and walk.
They demonstrate a sense of community is enhanced as people interact, get to know their neighbours, their vendors, their towns. Walking, and exercise increases from a few hundred very well thought out yards of isles, requiring minimal effort, to perhaps a couple of miles of casual wandering. No more just one stop at the checkout or for the cafeteria, but often a couple of coffees and a meal, all in different establishments. Employment (and tax receipts) can actually increase.
The food and goods delivered by these small vendors is often much closer to source, and the local supply chain sees benefits. Farmers are and producers are paid more to the value of their goods rather than some dictated contract enforced through multinational power that requires our taxes to then subsidize the producer. Personal relationships expand, while fitness is slowly improved leading over time to a reduced strain on health services. Of course it does tend to reduce dependency on the state.
The downside – it has the initial potential to be a little more expensive at each store, and the choices can sometimes be a little more limited, however there’s a very good chance you’ve just more than offset those costs in the fuel you saved by driving to the supermarket, and saved, or at least helped to postpone for yourself the grief and complications of a later life dependent upon state provided medication. The plus there, if the states’ spending less on healthcare perhaps it can provide more for pensions?
In the end, you pay your money and you make your choice, or should that be you pay your money and you get your laws? Every penny spent in one of the major chains which would have been paying this tax sees reserves added to the fund to help them promulgate the laws that suit them. Those laws are invariably anti-competition, as are their acts, and often used to stifle the local economy to fill the pockets of their stockholders.
Now that we’ve seen the direction the final budget as forwarded has taken, it’s up to us to decide – are our laws and lawmakers that blatantly for sale. In so many ways, it’s the consumer’s decision.
YOU are the consumer.
We’re speaking, naturally enough of the”Tesco Tax”, that self same tax as reported in the Scotsman so recently (~January 24th 2011) that “may be saved by Labour” [reconsidering its opposition]. The parliamentary committee shortly afterwards apparently working diligently to see that same tax marginalized as potential Labour support for that budgetary line item withered and died.
One must ask why Labour, as a party, would back such a potential vote loser from the common man and woman in Scotland, excepting perhaps an attitude of supreme confidence in the result of the upcoming May vote. The decades old sure and certain knowledge that Scotland will “Go Labour” could be attributed to this change in reported standing on the issue. The real reason may perhaps become more significant if we alter the Medias’ given name, from perhaps the “Tesco Tax” to the “Sainsbury Sting”.
Lord Sainsbury is a fine example for the Labour Party to uphold, and pander to. A great benefactor to the British Museum (in London) and the Labour Party, a combination of donations that’s well in excess of to £30 Million over the last decade. Rather an expensive peerage perhaps could be one perspective, if it was a peerage alone, however in politics it is worthwhile noting that even by backing an electoral looser, it’s often still possible to influence policy, if in another nation.
What the proposed rates re-distribution would do is to slide the purchasing power bias of the giants in retail very incrementally back towards the small individual retailer. It will by no means create an even playing field, but it will open a legislative door towards doing so. That legislative door is the issue for the mega retailers, as once the disparity is budgetarily enshrined it can be adjusted with little fuss by future administrations. This is the probable foundation of opposition by these retailers, not so much today’s £30 million (after all, Lord Sainsbury alone has demonstrated most clearly he can well afford to simply give that amount away for any issue he considers worthy, of which Scotland isn’t demonstrably one given the destination of his largesse).
Then we have the Labour cries about the state of the Nation’s health, wealth, unemployment and (to a lesser extent) environment. Cries that the current Scottish Government do too little to help, or do it in the wrong area and at the wrong time, or simply miss-prioritize. If we examine this levy in detail it becomes a startling defining concept between two so similar left of center political stances, separated on the surface primarily by a leaning towards autonomy and a support for, or potential regression from the status quo.
The other beneficiaries of this increase are the Scottish People, through funding for services and a slightly more competitive retail environment, as the mega retailers are indicating that rather than pass on the cost, it will be absorbed to permit a “competitive edge” to be retained [they’ve publically stated they may “have” to relocate rather than increase prices, though historical precedent indicates this an empty threat].
The more competitive retail environment does many things, if and as it is re-developed or protected which communities in the USA are demonstrating from Turlock, CA in the West, through Eureka Springs, AR in the Center, to St Augustine FL in the East. These local governments have enacted specific square foot prohibitions (100,000’) in the case of Turlock, either boundary wide or excluding the mega retailers from significant swathes of community land. Add to this a decided groundswell of movement against the Superstore which many individuals and communities are choosing to view as unsustainable. Those decrying the superstore cite very tangible benefits such as retention of the old “downtown” or town center, more thriving small businesses and small business communities, less traffic and pollution as people tend to park and walk.
They demonstrate a sense of community is enhanced as people interact, get to know their neighbours, their vendors, their towns. Walking, and exercise increases from a few hundred very well thought out yards of isles, requiring minimal effort, to perhaps a couple of miles of casual wandering. No more just one stop at the checkout or for the cafeteria, but often a couple of coffees and a meal, all in different establishments. Employment (and tax receipts) can actually increase.
The food and goods delivered by these small vendors is often much closer to source, and the local supply chain sees benefits. Farmers are and producers are paid more to the value of their goods rather than some dictated contract enforced through multinational power that requires our taxes to then subsidize the producer. Personal relationships expand, while fitness is slowly improved leading over time to a reduced strain on health services. Of course it does tend to reduce dependency on the state.
The downside – it has the initial potential to be a little more expensive at each store, and the choices can sometimes be a little more limited, however there’s a very good chance you’ve just more than offset those costs in the fuel you saved by driving to the supermarket, and saved, or at least helped to postpone for yourself the grief and complications of a later life dependent upon state provided medication. The plus there, if the states’ spending less on healthcare perhaps it can provide more for pensions?
In the end, you pay your money and you make your choice, or should that be you pay your money and you get your laws? Every penny spent in one of the major chains which would have been paying this tax sees reserves added to the fund to help them promulgate the laws that suit them. Those laws are invariably anti-competition, as are their acts, and often used to stifle the local economy to fill the pockets of their stockholders.
Now that we’ve seen the direction the final budget as forwarded has taken, it’s up to us to decide – are our laws and lawmakers that blatantly for sale. In so many ways, it’s the consumer’s decision.
YOU are the consumer.
Saturday, 30 April 2011
Dealing With Chemical Encephalopathy.
In September / October 2006, my husband Bill was involved in industrial accidents with neurotoxic agents, ie chemicals.
Unsurprisingly, he became extremely unwell with a mix of very confusing and distressing symptoms including (but not limited to):
Employment doctors were of no earthly use as were those at local hospitals to which he was sent for assessment. The final straw for me was when one bright spark sent him home with acid reflux medication.
We searched for and found a doctor in St Louis, Missouri - Dr. Tipu Sultan - who specialises in Environmental Medicine. After several tests, he diagnosed Bill with Chemical Encephalopathy - (ie., Brain Damage caused by a chemical agent) - plus severe Reactive Airways Disease. Dr. Sultan recommended we get a functional scan known as a SPECT scan, and see a specialist neuro-toxicologist Dr K. H. Kilburn in Pasadena.
The employment doctors did a CT scan of his brain - and found nothing!
Allow me to share a little piece of information these guys don't bother telling you.
You can carry out a CT scan on a cadaver up to 12 hours post mortem - around which time the brain begins to really decompose and liquify - it will show a normal brain, unless it there is a bullet present, an obvious tumour or a fractured skull.
CT scans reveal structure, not function.
With further research we found a scanner facility in Denver that had the newest scanner in the USA. The only 4 headed camera of its type in the United States at that time, which had just recently arrived from Germany in January 2007. They did two SPECT scans seven days apart, and we visited the Dr. Kilburn in between.
The reason for two scans is simple.
One is done under conditions of relaxation, warm area, eyes closed - covered with an opaque mask, headphones with gentle "white noise", no other stimulation from any source. The second scan is done while putting the brain under "stress". ie, asking various questions pertaining to mathematics, logic or linguistic problems, or using various types of stimuli which illicit emotional, auditory or visual responses, or require memory.
Each time the scans were performed, a radio-opaque dye was administered. The isotope travels in the blood stream, and is specifically taken up by brain tissue. Areas of active brain become obvious as blood flow increases and larger amounts of isotope is absorbed. The distribution of the nucleotides give the final picture on the film.
In Pasadena, Dr. Kilburn carried out 7 hours of quantitative and qualitative testing of Bill's capabilities and brain function. These tests can also detect if you are attempting to fool the system (ie malingering), as it measures brain functions and timings directly and electrically, and not just by what the patient reports or claims, nor what the doctor or assistants observe subjectively.
These test confirmed without doubt his brain is comprehensively damaged. There is not a lobe that isn’t affected.
Meeting new people or going new places soon becomes a pointless exercise. After several days, trips meeting new friends become a vague memory, like something he was told a long time ago - then after about ten days, they may as well have never happened. His life is a bit like the character in the "50 First Dates" movie, but the total memory loss takes about 5-10 days, then it's all gone.
People and places and events just cease to exist. Ever since the accident Bill has made an effort to maintain a daily journal of what he did, where we went, with whom we went, anyone we met, so forth and so on. He one-finger types this into his (large keyed) lap-top. If he didn't, his life would not exist, except in a day to day fashion with memories greater than a week fading into oblivion.
From the point of view of his personality, he’s ok’ish. He has lost many inhibitions which were part of his charm - for instance, he never swore unless the situation was really bad - and now he does. He becomes very frustrated by his inability to use either of his hands, and is certainly a little less patient than prior to the accident. He is also very much less confident than previously, second guessing many of the things he does, instead of following his instincts. And finally, he’s lost over 5 stone (70lbs).
So far, however, we are lucky, he has no signs of dementia or confusion, however both doctors say he has now a 70% chance of developing both, plus or minus Parkinson's Disease in the not so distant future.
Sounds totally crappy, doesn’t it?
It certainly was. For many weeks following the accident, I was in fear of waking up to a corpse in the morning, he was so sick.
Our security and future seemed to become hazy and lost as we had to sell the house in Kansas City, firstly we had to pay for all the medical bills ourselves and secondly, the pollution levels there would have killed him within 5 years. We were now homeless and required a solution. Our choices were fairly limited too. With very little cash left, we had to decide whether we were heading for a trailer park in the Arizona desert or an isolated mountain cabin. However, after much consideration, we bought a boat to attempt to achieve our goal of living apart from mainstream society. Away from all the chemicals which pervade every single area of 21st Century living.
The doctor in St Louis had said to go somewhere we can find "Clean water, clean food and clean air" and avoid everything that is in common use in gardens, homes, malls, towns etc, and especially products which contained neuro-toxic and/or petrochemically derived substances.Our lives have been irreversibly altered.
As a direct result of the injury, we have to live as chemical free a life as possible.
So, here’s a little exercise for you. After you’ve read this walk around your home and remove every single chemical based thing in it. (Mentally… for now).
Now imagine you would like to visit us.
We’d have to ask you to prepare months in advance by changing your clothes washing habits and using a non toxic detergent, no fabric softeners allowed at all- sorry. You’d have to source chemical-free shampoos, conditioners and body creams, and not bring brand new clothing with you - they off gas formaldehyde and dyes.
When my Mum came over to visit us in the summer of 2007, I had to wash every item in her suitcase before she could wear it in the house. Even then, it still caused problems as fabric conditioner is designed to linger. Hopefully you'll be a non smoker too. Still want to visit?
Now how about us visiting you?
Get rid of any/all air fresheners; all the same above with the shampoos etc, not use any surface cleaners for at least a week other than 5% bleach solution. Make sure you do not purchase any new furniture, carpets, rugs or clothes for at least 6 months prior to us dropping by. Can see how this makes socialising a bit of an adventure?
Miscellaneous Socialising.
Restaurants are an assault course. Hopefully the server won’t be reeking of perfume, or a bunch of over-cologned people don’t get the table right beside you, or the restaurant uses automatic air fresheners, or house-keeping hasn't just cleaned out the lavatories with scented cleansing products and the food isn’t full of additives… and on and on and on ad-infinitum.
I haven’t even got to food yet, have I? All water has to be clean and filtered. All food has to fresh, non processed and organic. A scoosh… unless you live some where (eg the American Midwest) they don’t give a monkey’s fart about what they eat. By simply removing all non-organic and processed food from the diet, Bill's health began to improve dramatically, as toxins were being removed gradually and not being replenished by continual dietary top-ups. I think our diet is on the whole, much healthier now. And it would be hard not to agree, major alterations have been achieved, and maintained.
There is, of course, always the down side. We've been unable to go to the cinema for years. Parties and large gatherings are what I refer to as Chemical Pinball, so we don't. Even meeting up with friends or family is a fraught affair.
Before you start thinking "major pay-out/compensation".
Let me just say we had to go to court to get basic workers compensation, no lump sum, no massive pay out. The employer, The City of Kansas City denied liability despite a paper trail as long as the Missouri River, and claimed Bill was malingering despite the evidence of two very eminent doctors in their field.
I'll just remind you that Bill was only 46 at the time of the accident. We had our future all planned out in front of us. Obviously, that got lost in the struggle to pay for all the doctors and investigations ourselves. None of our personal medical insurances would wear it as this was an industrial accident, and as the employers were denying liability, Workman's Compensation Medical care wouldn't pay either. We were approximately $25,000 in the hole on medical care and investigations, accommodations and travel expenses!
We had to sell, to all intents and purpose, every one of our personal possessions to pay.
And that's why we stay on a boat. Ours choices were limited. Sit and moan and watch him die, or actually do something to make a future possible. Sitting blaming others and bemoaning our fate would have achieved or changed nothing.
My only additional comment would be this to my friends and family living in Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Cherish the institute that is the NHS. It is far from perfect, I know from first hand experience - I was a registered nurse in a major Glasgow hospital - but, if we had had no money and no access to money, my husband Bill would without doubt be dead under the private USA system.
I believe the NHS would have dealt with this very unusual and rare type of brain injury effectively,. It would have been a learning curve for us all. But at least I think I would have had better support.
A Little Post Script:
Dr Kilburn told us the amount of damage caused by the injury could have been limited by the administration of 2 x $20 injections within 48 hours of the poisoning incident and given 1 week apart. This is protocol on the west and east coasts of America and in UK and most of Europe. Missouri and the Midwest had never heard of these injections. Following Bill's accident and the City of Kansas City losing the court case and found liable, this has since become protocol there too.
Unsurprisingly, he became extremely unwell with a mix of very confusing and distressing symptoms including (but not limited to):
- tremor
- hypertension off the scale. From 180-220 over anything from 120-150 mmhg. Life threatening.
- weakness
- dizziness
- nausea
- vomiting
- overnight changes in visual acuity
- bloating
- jaundice
- sudden weight gain
- coughing fits
- unable to balance/ remain standing up with closed eyes
- incapable of walking in a straight line
- and at times near collapse combined with an inexplicable inability to tolerate many household and personal care products.
Employment doctors were of no earthly use as were those at local hospitals to which he was sent for assessment. The final straw for me was when one bright spark sent him home with acid reflux medication.
We searched for and found a doctor in St Louis, Missouri - Dr. Tipu Sultan - who specialises in Environmental Medicine. After several tests, he diagnosed Bill with Chemical Encephalopathy - (ie., Brain Damage caused by a chemical agent) - plus severe Reactive Airways Disease. Dr. Sultan recommended we get a functional scan known as a SPECT scan, and see a specialist neuro-toxicologist Dr K. H. Kilburn in Pasadena.
 | |
| Bill heading for the Bahamas with DEA in 2005 |
Allow me to share a little piece of information these guys don't bother telling you.
You can carry out a CT scan on a cadaver up to 12 hours post mortem - around which time the brain begins to really decompose and liquify - it will show a normal brain, unless it there is a bullet present, an obvious tumour or a fractured skull.
CT scans reveal structure, not function.
With further research we found a scanner facility in Denver that had the newest scanner in the USA. The only 4 headed camera of its type in the United States at that time, which had just recently arrived from Germany in January 2007. They did two SPECT scans seven days apart, and we visited the Dr. Kilburn in between.
The reason for two scans is simple.
One is done under conditions of relaxation, warm area, eyes closed - covered with an opaque mask, headphones with gentle "white noise", no other stimulation from any source. The second scan is done while putting the brain under "stress". ie, asking various questions pertaining to mathematics, logic or linguistic problems, or using various types of stimuli which illicit emotional, auditory or visual responses, or require memory.
Each time the scans were performed, a radio-opaque dye was administered. The isotope travels in the blood stream, and is specifically taken up by brain tissue. Areas of active brain become obvious as blood flow increases and larger amounts of isotope is absorbed. The distribution of the nucleotides give the final picture on the film.
In Pasadena, Dr. Kilburn carried out 7 hours of quantitative and qualitative testing of Bill's capabilities and brain function. These tests can also detect if you are attempting to fool the system (ie malingering), as it measures brain functions and timings directly and electrically, and not just by what the patient reports or claims, nor what the doctor or assistants observe subjectively.
 | |
| In Scotland 2004 |
- He has lost his sense of smell.
- His ability to balance has gone; he can’t walk in a straight line any more nor can he close his eyes, or stand in an unlit room without falling down - remember, blind people can walk. Neither can he look up at the sky when he has no reference point (a tree, hill) to tell him where he is in space with reference to the ground, otherwise his balance fails and he falls.
- He can no longer write and has no fine motor control in either hand.
- He is unable to drive due to reduced reaction times, and the inability to estimate traffic speed, car spacing, timing etc... how frustrating for a man who raced motorcycles.
- He can't even travel safely in many cars if they don't have a “recirculate function” on the AC which means he can be affected by vehicles with polluting exhaust impairing his functionality and affecting his lungs.
- His intellect is largely intact - but he is unable to concentrate for more than a 40-60 minute period on anything as he "falls asleep" - it's actually more like a state of unconsciousness. This happens because his neuro functions shut down as the damaged areas are unable to uptake nutrition. His blood brain barrier is also destroyed, so now when he is in contact with any petrochemicals or derivatives, he becomes ill. Very, very ill.
- He has short term memory problems and has lost the ability to create crystalline (long term) memory unless he reads and rereads things over and over, but because he can't concentrate this makes him fall asleep, then his memory gets wiped clean. Are you beginning to see a few problems? Bill used to read anything up to 3 or 4 books a week. Now he can't even read a single chapter. Thankfully, memories from prior to the accident remain intact and very clear.
 |
| After the accident 2007. |
Meeting new people or going new places soon becomes a pointless exercise. After several days, trips meeting new friends become a vague memory, like something he was told a long time ago - then after about ten days, they may as well have never happened. His life is a bit like the character in the "50 First Dates" movie, but the total memory loss takes about 5-10 days, then it's all gone.
People and places and events just cease to exist. Ever since the accident Bill has made an effort to maintain a daily journal of what he did, where we went, with whom we went, anyone we met, so forth and so on. He one-finger types this into his (large keyed) lap-top. If he didn't, his life would not exist, except in a day to day fashion with memories greater than a week fading into oblivion.
From the point of view of his personality, he’s ok’ish. He has lost many inhibitions which were part of his charm - for instance, he never swore unless the situation was really bad - and now he does. He becomes very frustrated by his inability to use either of his hands, and is certainly a little less patient than prior to the accident. He is also very much less confident than previously, second guessing many of the things he does, instead of following his instincts. And finally, he’s lost over 5 stone (70lbs).
So far, however, we are lucky, he has no signs of dementia or confusion, however both doctors say he has now a 70% chance of developing both, plus or minus Parkinson's Disease in the not so distant future.
Sounds totally crappy, doesn’t it?
It certainly was. For many weeks following the accident, I was in fear of waking up to a corpse in the morning, he was so sick.
Our security and future seemed to become hazy and lost as we had to sell the house in Kansas City, firstly we had to pay for all the medical bills ourselves and secondly, the pollution levels there would have killed him within 5 years. We were now homeless and required a solution. Our choices were fairly limited too. With very little cash left, we had to decide whether we were heading for a trailer park in the Arizona desert or an isolated mountain cabin. However, after much consideration, we bought a boat to attempt to achieve our goal of living apart from mainstream society. Away from all the chemicals which pervade every single area of 21st Century living.
The doctor in St Louis had said to go somewhere we can find "Clean water, clean food and clean air" and avoid everything that is in common use in gardens, homes, malls, towns etc, and especially products which contained neuro-toxic and/or petrochemically derived substances.Our lives have been irreversibly altered.
As a direct result of the injury, we have to live as chemical free a life as possible.
So, here’s a little exercise for you. After you’ve read this walk around your home and remove every single chemical based thing in it. (Mentally… for now).
- Shampoo… many contain paraffin (kerosene, deoderised of course)- did you know?
- Conditioners… same as shampoo.
- Showers gels
- Body/hand/face lotions.
- Perfumes (cheap or expensive, full of toxic stuff.)
- Most toothpastes.
- Deodorants.
- Surface cleansers for kitchens or bathrooms.
- Furniture cleaners and polish.
- Cosmetics… all of them. For example, mascara is full of mercury and you’re slatherin that on/near a mucous membrane. Most cleansers, foundations, lipsticks etc, contain other nasty petrochemicals which may cause tumours or are neuro-toxic.
- Dish-Washing up liquid.
- Majority of washing machine/laundry detergents.
- All fabric conditioners.These cause the worst reaction at times, tremor, breathing problems, headache, blurred vision.
- Perfumed candles.
- Perfumed room fresheners (all of them including potpourri). Febreeze cause him really awful problems.
Now imagine you would like to visit us.
We’d have to ask you to prepare months in advance by changing your clothes washing habits and using a non toxic detergent, no fabric softeners allowed at all- sorry. You’d have to source chemical-free shampoos, conditioners and body creams, and not bring brand new clothing with you - they off gas formaldehyde and dyes.
When my Mum came over to visit us in the summer of 2007, I had to wash every item in her suitcase before she could wear it in the house. Even then, it still caused problems as fabric conditioner is designed to linger. Hopefully you'll be a non smoker too. Still want to visit?
Now how about us visiting you?
Get rid of any/all air fresheners; all the same above with the shampoos etc, not use any surface cleaners for at least a week other than 5% bleach solution. Make sure you do not purchase any new furniture, carpets, rugs or clothes for at least 6 months prior to us dropping by. Can see how this makes socialising a bit of an adventure?
Miscellaneous Socialising.
Restaurants are an assault course. Hopefully the server won’t be reeking of perfume, or a bunch of over-cologned people don’t get the table right beside you, or the restaurant uses automatic air fresheners, or house-keeping hasn't just cleaned out the lavatories with scented cleansing products and the food isn’t full of additives… and on and on and on ad-infinitum.
I haven’t even got to food yet, have I? All water has to be clean and filtered. All food has to fresh, non processed and organic. A scoosh… unless you live some where (eg the American Midwest) they don’t give a monkey’s fart about what they eat. By simply removing all non-organic and processed food from the diet, Bill's health began to improve dramatically, as toxins were being removed gradually and not being replenished by continual dietary top-ups. I think our diet is on the whole, much healthier now. And it would be hard not to agree, major alterations have been achieved, and maintained.
There is, of course, always the down side. We've been unable to go to the cinema for years. Parties and large gatherings are what I refer to as Chemical Pinball, so we don't. Even meeting up with friends or family is a fraught affair.
Before you start thinking "major pay-out/compensation".
Let me just say we had to go to court to get basic workers compensation, no lump sum, no massive pay out. The employer, The City of Kansas City denied liability despite a paper trail as long as the Missouri River, and claimed Bill was malingering despite the evidence of two very eminent doctors in their field.
I'll just remind you that Bill was only 46 at the time of the accident. We had our future all planned out in front of us. Obviously, that got lost in the struggle to pay for all the doctors and investigations ourselves. None of our personal medical insurances would wear it as this was an industrial accident, and as the employers were denying liability, Workman's Compensation Medical care wouldn't pay either. We were approximately $25,000 in the hole on medical care and investigations, accommodations and travel expenses!
We had to sell, to all intents and purpose, every one of our personal possessions to pay.
And that's why we stay on a boat. Ours choices were limited. Sit and moan and watch him die, or actually do something to make a future possible. Sitting blaming others and bemoaning our fate would have achieved or changed nothing.
My only additional comment would be this to my friends and family living in Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Cherish the institute that is the NHS. It is far from perfect, I know from first hand experience - I was a registered nurse in a major Glasgow hospital - but, if we had had no money and no access to money, my husband Bill would without doubt be dead under the private USA system.
I believe the NHS would have dealt with this very unusual and rare type of brain injury effectively,. It would have been a learning curve for us all. But at least I think I would have had better support.
A Little Post Script:
Dr Kilburn told us the amount of damage caused by the injury could have been limited by the administration of 2 x $20 injections within 48 hours of the poisoning incident and given 1 week apart. This is protocol on the west and east coasts of America and in UK and most of Europe. Missouri and the Midwest had never heard of these injections. Following Bill's accident and the City of Kansas City losing the court case and found liable, this has since become protocol there too.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)