FAQ   Search   Memberlist   Usergroups   Register   Profile   Log in to check your private messages   Log in 
Audio: SuperState vs. The People
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> General Discussion
  ::  Previous topic :: Next topic  
Author Message
abcar



Joined: 25 Nov 2006
Posts: 336
Location: Being Charles Mingus

PostPosted: Fri Apr 06, 2007 7:44 am    Post subject: PsyOp is a PsyOp Reply with quote

dilbert_g wrote:
OH, one more thing: Fintan talking about the EU invites concern and action, insight. Alex Jones screams panic and exteme reaction. There's a difference.


Yes, there's a difference in style, if you want to call it that, but the substance of what AJ and Noakes are saying...basically we are in imminent danger of becoming a slave economy totalitarian style..sounds the same.

And i hear Fintan when he says that fear is not the reaction or the action...of course that never solves anything, but after being bolstered by Fintans' recent radiocasts and thinking that light can be seen at the end of the tunnel by exposing the fakes in the diversion game...and similar statements, Noakes comes as quite a shock and makes me feel really wobbly.
But having been "trained" by BFN to spot a PsyOp...is this a PsyOp?

Pardon me if i seem kind of green...

_________________
The New World Order!!#!! There goes my career..
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Fintan
Site Admin


Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 8726

PostPosted: Sat Apr 07, 2007 11:13 am    Post subject: Crisis and Opportunity Reply with quote

Of course Alex Jones is saying that there is an imminent danger of
a global corporate colonial takeover. Disinfo always sticks close to the
obvious, so it looks like at least a semblance of the truth.

But, besides the optimism, real analysis, absence of CIA Fakes and
lack of hysteria on BFN, there are other subtle differences
between BFN and AJ.

For example, we are not acting in direct collusion with Peter Power,
formerly of New Scotland Yard's anti-terrorism section. ROTFLMAO. Laughing

And we don't figure people prancing around in Bohemian Grove is relevant.
It's just Tabloid-ism.

And we don't figure the concentration camps are opening soon.
It's just Psyop.

And we don't think China is about to attack the US; or that RFID chips
will be implanted in everybody, forcibly and soon; or that Michael
Meacher is a brave politician; or that there's anything the least bit 'EX'
about EX-MI5 agent David Shaylor or EX-NSA agent Wayne Madsen.

Minor stuff like that. Wink

I could go on....

BFN is a mix of optimistic realism, spiritual discernment, new science smarts,
PsyOp awareness, Elite Gameplan savvy and political pragmatism.

Sure there are EU and NAU plans afoot and 9/11 was a PsyOp.
But human consciousness is expanding at an accelerating rate.

Should make for an interesting few years.....
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Julian



Joined: 22 Mar 2007
Posts: 38

PostPosted: Sat Apr 07, 2007 2:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

abcar:
Quote:
the substance of what AJ and Noakes are saying...basically we are in imminent danger of becoming a slave economy totalitarian style..sounds the same.


And this 'substance' is endorsed by Fintan Dunne.

Now let's get something straight here, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (otherwise known as England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland) is not the totality of the EU. It is but a tiny fraction. There is also the Republic of Ireland (Eire) - where the editor and producer of Break for News are based - and nearly 30 other European countries involved. We don't hear much about the resistance from Eire or any other European country, do we? Why not?

UKIP might have been infiltrated (although as I previously stated, they did do a massive amount of grassroots work educating the public ... all to no avail), but what did anybody in Eire do to stop the progress of the EU? The producer of BFN hasn't got back to us about that. Nor has the editor of BFN commented either. Why not? Is there no active politics in Ireland right now?

So far all I'm reading in this is the same kind of corruption that goes on in local government and has done for as long as I've been on this planet. You want to find political corruption? Look local. So start cleaning up your own side of the street.

I am also curious as to why Fintan Dunne didn't take issue with David Noakes about the matter of Bill Clinton.... Noakes clearly stated that he doesn't believe Clinton is on side with the Bush's. But we know Fintan believes otherwise. See "The Dictator and the Two Pseudo Presidents":

http://breakfornews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=827

Now this could have made a real meaty discussion and I wonder why it was avoided. This is the chunky stuff of political debate... and it didn't happen. Why not?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Fintan
Site Admin


Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 8726

PostPosted: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:05 am    Post subject: Anti-EU Trends Reply with quote

Scotland's political map is changing fast, and in a way that
has implications for their continued part in the 'United' Kingdom
and for their membership of any kind of EU Superstate.

Quote:
Scotland turns its back on Labour, and on Brown

The local man's imminent arrival at No 10 is
unlikely to save the party from a resurgent SNP


Severin Carrell, Scotland correspondent Tuesday - April 10, 2007 - The Guardian

Heather Kirkbride is one of those floating voters who has Gordon Brown's fate in her hands. A single mother, she works as a secretary in a local hospital and is on the brink of voting Labour for the first time at this May's elections for the Scottish parliament.

But Ms Kirkbride is very troubled indeed. The former army reservist is dismayed by the war in Iraq and repelled by the "cash for honours" scandal. Yet, she says, she has the chancellor to thank for her job and her lower tax bill. "I must admit, if it wasn't for the tax credits and all the money for education that helped me retrain, I probably wouldn't be where I am now. I would be on benefits and untrained," she said. "It's very confusing, which is why I'm so undecided."

She is just one voter, but Ms Kirkbride highlights the predicament facing the chancellor. She lives in the coastal town of Leven in central Fife, close to Mr Brown's Westminster seat of Dunfermline East. And her area is on the brink of being represented for the first time by the Scottish National party at the devolved parliament in Edinburgh, like dozens more across Scotland.

A spate of opinion polls suggest the SNP will, for the time, win power in Scotland on May 3, just as Mr Brown becomes the first MP representing a Scottish constituency in No 10 for more than 40 years.

Central Fife is Mr Brown's backyard - an intensely proud county on the northern banks of the Firth of Forth which had been Labour-dominated for generations. Its economy was once driven by coal-mining, fishing, engineering and the naval dockyard at Rosyth.

New industries are springing up. Fabrication yards on the coast now turn out offshore wind farm towers and wave power machines, and electronics and service industries have proliferated. But as the industrial landscape has changed so too has the political landscape.

Labour's influence in Fife had been ebbing away over the last decade. Then last year, it haemorrhaged. In February 2006, the Lib Dems won a remarkable byelection in Dunfermline West, the normally secure Labour seat at Westminster next to Mr Brown's. In September, the SNP snatched the safest Labour council seat in Glenrothes, the largest town in central Fife, with a 30% swing.

This small moment could prove to be significant. The SNP claims it shows how strong their support has become, particularly among aspirational upper-working class families in new towns such as Glenrothes. But their appeal is growing; polls show the SNP is getting a majority in all social classes for the first time.

In one neighbourhood of Glenrothes, a warren of post-war terraced homes and cul-de-sacs called Pitteucher, that surge in support is intense. While canvassing, even the SNP's candidates were stunned by the near-unanimous support they found on the doorsteps. "This is incredible," said Ross Vettraino, the SNP's local council candidate, as he left one house. "Every door I'm knocking at, they're voting SNP."

Among them are Alex and Karen Barnes. "We're just fed up with the Labour government," said Mr Barnes. "I would like independence for Scotland as well. I think we can go it alone, and do it OK. Nothing to be scared of this time."

Pitteucher has another link to Labour's crisis in Scotland. A local boy called Marc Ferns, the third generation of his family to serve in the local infantry regiment, the Black Watch, was killed in Iraq by a roadside bomb in 2004. His mother urged Tony Blair to withdraw British forces from Iraq. The locals paid for a small war memorial to be built in his honour. And other Black Watch troops from Glenrothes have died in Iraq, including Scott McArdle, who rejoined the regiment just before he was killed because he was jobless.

The SNP have adeptly exploited intense public opposition to the war in Iraq and plans to replace the Trident nuclear weapons system. The nationalists were pivotal in the "cash for honours" scandal now tarnishing Mr Blair's final months in office. It was the SNP MP for the Western Isles, Angus McNeil, whose complaint to the police sparked their criminal inquiry, although he too now has his own scandal after it emerged on Sunday that the married man had "romped" with two teenage girls two years ago.

Opinion polls suggest these issues have damaged Labour's standing in Scotland. The SNP claim the prime minister is now admired by as few as 9% of Scots.

Their own leader, Alex Salmond, bounces above 40%, so the SNP are now fighting this campaign as if it were presidential. They have registered his name as an election "brand", putting "Alex Salmond for first minister" beside the SNP logo on all ballot papers.

Jack McConnell, Labour's first minister in Scotland, and Mr Brown's allies, led by Douglas Alexander, the Scottish secretary of state, insist these issues are largely irrelevant for the Scottish parliament. It has no power over foreign or defence policy, nor is Holyrood implicated in the "cash for honours" scandal.

Labour is now desperate to avoid its first election defeat in Scotland in 50 years. It wants to concentrate on investing in education, its "full employment agency", new community courts, and the SNP's "dangerous and disastrous" economic policies. But the voters seem intent on punishing Labour on May 3: the polls which give the SNP a lead also show fewer Scots would support independence, the SNP's core demand, so it is not nationalism driving its popularity. Mr McConnell's frustrations became clear 10 days ago, when he said: "It's too big an election for it to be about a protest vote or be about some sort of mid-term blues."

Yet despite the apparent outcome suggested by the polls - which put the SNP ahead by an average of 5.5%, working out who actually comes to run Scotland could be far more complicated than the opinion surveys imply.

The 129 seats at Holyrood are chosen by proportional representation, using the "additional member system". Electors have two votes: one in the 73 constituency seats chosen using the first-past-the-post method, and another for 56 regional "list" candidates. This means any party getting more than 5% of the vote usually gets at least one MSP in that region.

And opinion polls routinely under-estimate the popularity of smaller parties - particularly the Greens, who expect to do well in May. There are currently seven Green MSPs at Holyrood, and they believe that will rise to 10 at the election. Along with six independents, there are six socialist MSPs, but the former Scottish Socialist party leader Tommy Sheridan and a fellow SSP MSP left to form a breakaway party, Solidarity, after a dramatic internal feud over newspaper allegations of sexual misconduct against him. That feud is likely to severely dent both parties' support.

This system makes it unlikely that the SNP would win the 51 seats that two recent polls have suggested. Some show that up to half of voters are still undecided. But if the averaged-out poll results are right, the SNP would be the largest party. It would not have an overall majority, however, making a coalition with the Lib Dems probable, possibly with the informal support of the Greens.

But this is where the SNP faces its greatest challenge, over its core demand for a referendum on independence. The Lib Dems are adamant they will not enter a coalition with Mr Salmond if he insists on pursuing his referendum and on publishing a referendum white paper in its first 100 days. The SNP leader cheekily insists that could well change after May 3, once the Lib Dems' five ministers in their current coalition with Labour face losing their "ministerial Mondeos".

If it does change, and Mr Salmond does become Scotland's "premier", then Gordon Brown is likely to face the toughest years of his political career.

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/scotland/story/0,,2053437,00.html

Meanwhile in France, the Presidential election is likely to show a
strong result for Le Pen --who is strongly Euroskeptic.

Quote:
Le Pen gains as French presidential campaign starts

By Anna Willard Mon Apr 9, 3:33 PM ET

PARIS (Reuters) - France's presidential election campaign officially began on Monday and a new poll showed gains for the right-wing frontrunner Nicolas Sarkozy and for far-right candidate Jean-Marie Le Pen.

The 12 hopefuls unveiled new television and radio spots in line with strict election rules, trying to win the support of the large number of undecided voters ahead of the first-round vote on April 22.

Sarkozy has extended his comfortable lead over his main rival, Socialist Segolene Royal, an LH2 poll for RMC radio showed, while Le Pen has crept up on the third-placed centrist candidate Francois Bayrou.

But the poll also showed that 47 percent of voters were undecided or had picked a candidate but could change their mind, highlighting the importance of the last phase of campaigning.

The candidates are allowed 45 minutes of media spots split between public television and radio to get their message across before April 20. They are also allowed to stick up posters on official boards in front of voting stations.

The system is designed to be fair to all candidates but critics say the large amount of time devoted to the smaller candidates can help push voters to extremes -- a particular danger when so many voters are undecided.

On the left there are three Trotskyites and one anti-globalization candidate and on the right there is Le Pen.

Le Pen has edged up the polls in recent weeks, as the debate has turned to issues of security and immigration. Clashes between police and youths at Paris's Gare du Nord station have also highlighted the traditional themes of his campaign.

The LH2 poll, carried out on the same day that Le Pen grabbed headlines with a visit to a poor mixed-race suburb of Paris, gave him 15 points, just three points behind Bayrou and up 2 points from his score in the previous LH2 poll.

His rise is reminiscent of the 2002 presidential election, when he shocked France by getting into the second round runoff.

But he is still a long way behind Royal and poll leader Sarkozy, who has toughened his stance on immigration and security to try to draw away some of Le Pen's support.

A separate CSA poll for Le Parisien newspaper said 59 percent of voters expect Sarkozy to be the next president compared with 18 percent for Royal and 1 percent for Le Pen.

In his television spots, Sarkozy tried to reinforce his tough image, described himself as a man of action and promising to get tough on benefit fraud.

In contrast Royal, who has lost out in the immigration and security debate and whose campaign has struggled in recent weeks, plays up her credentials as a mother and a woman.

A second round will take place on May 6 between the two front runners, if, as expected, no candidate gets over 50 percent in the first round. The LH2 poll said Sarkozy would win this with 52 points to Royal's 48.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070409/wl_nm/france_election_dc

Finally, the UK Independence Party is rebuilding its image along the
lines of independence from Westminister and from the EU.

Quote:
Ukip tries to rebrand itself for council campaign

By Ben Russell, Political Correspondent - 10 April 2007

The UK Independence Party (Ukip) will today attempt to shrug off a string of troubles as it launches its campaign to win a stronghold in local government. The Eurosceptic party will attempt to rebrand itself the "independence" party, with a local election manifesto under the slogan "Make May 3 Independence Day".

The party will field a record 1,000 candidates in the local elections in an attempt to broaden its appeal away from the single issue of the European Union.

The Ukip leader Nigel Farage aims to emphasise the party's opposition to central control from Whitehall as well as Brussels....

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article2437299.ece
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Julian



Joined: 22 Mar 2007
Posts: 38

PostPosted: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Neat avoidance of certain questions Fintan...

And in the interests of balanced reporting vis Scotland, the following more accurately sums up the present state of play (hope you're not trying to con your American readers into believing the Scots are a radical bunch trying to break free from the UK or Europe, because nothing could be further from the truth):

A L Kennedy: A nation again: so what is eating the Scots?

With the SNP ahead in the polls, independence is the issue of the election campaign. A L Kennedy doubts her compatriots will give their politicians an ounce more power


Published: 08 April 2007
Independent

Up here in Scotland we're apparently in a froth of excitement. The 300th anniversary of the Union has lashed us into a frenzy of independencism; we greet each other with the traditional cry of "Yoo can nivver take oor Freeedum!" and soon we'll elect Alex Salmond Emperor of Scotland (but without the negative associations) and begin work on the canal which will separate us from the UK for ever. We will then combine in a national rota to punt our blessed heathery glens away towards either Greenland or (the more popular option) Trinidad and Tobago - homeland of our namesake Jason Scotland, St Johnstone footballer and something of a cult hero here during the last, otherwise Scotland-less World Cup.

The only problem with this scenario being that very few people who actually live here seem to have any enthusiasm at all for independence. Word on the street is - there ain't no word, Bro. Yes, on 3 May we will experience the unalloyed joy of local and nearlyindependentexecutive elections. But, as you'll have guessed, this procedure has raised in us the sort of passion associated with frivolous root-canal work. Of course, you may choose not to take my word on any of this, but do remember current UK media guidelines regarding Regional Issues and Unimportant Countries clearly state that one regional citizen can speak with authority on behalf of millions. (The section on the "hive mind theory" is complicated but fascinating.)

Readers will sympathise with the waves of revulsion and despair we experience as we consider our available candidates. You know the feeling. This is the principal stumbling block placed in the way of increased independence - we've had generations of exposure to appalling Scottish local politicians and way long enough to get to know our appalling executive, safely encased in its obscenely expensive new premises. (We could have re-created Versailles in platinum and saved a bundle.) We don't want the vast majority of our politicians to have even an ounce more power, or the option of embarrassing us at the UN. Scotland shares the fate of pretty much every country on earth - the vast majority of its politicians seem to have been bred underground in a combination speakeasy and hellmouth.

Adding to our gloom is the complication of our redesigned PR ballot papers. For the Executive we now have a sheet that could wrap a toddler, comprising both constituency and local lists. Candidate names will appear on a separate poster; only party names appear on the form. This, it is rumoured, was designed by the current Labour majority to a) scupper or confuse those inclined to use their second vote for the Green Party; b) disguise popular independents like Dennis Canavan; and c) generally bewilder voters into electing Labour candidates. Local councillors have to be ranked on a separate sheet, according to estimated weight and huggability. Please note our new councillors will for the first time receive a reasonable wage for dodging planning regulations on our behalf. It is unclear whether this will reduce graft, or simply give councillors more free time in which to find their cousins sinecures.

But what exactly are our Scottish Executive options? Usually I can't bear to look, but on your behalf, here goes.

The Scottish Labour Party suffers, of course, from its close associations with Blair. Leader Jack McConnell has a Willy Loman smile, dead eyes and a campaign based on rubbishing the SNP. Our Lib Dems suffer from a characteristic lack of dynamism. One of their current slogans appears to be "We think it's about getting things done", summing up their dazzling combination of naivety and vagueness. Wily Labour coyotes tend to manoeuvre them at will. But their commitment to green issues is certainly underlined by their website and its snapshot of a representative with a windmill implanted in his head. Meanwhile, I've heard rumours that the Scottish Conservatives (never popular up here) want to change their name. The smart money is on rebranding as Chocolatebiscuits. This lends itself to popular sentences such as "I really love Chocolatebiscuits". Or conversations like, "Is that a Scottish Chocolatebiscuit?" "Well, it has oats - clearly the chocolate is from somewhere else. We don't have the climate, too far from Trinidad. There's this potato biscuit - it's very Scottish."

Which brings us to the SNP. Given the hopelessness of the three "mainstream" possibilities it's hardly surprising that polls show the SNP doing well. It will probably mean we get a referendum on independence soonish. I don't see the vote being in favour - see reasons above. But it would be unfair of me not to mention the charismatic and dashing figure that leader Alex Salmond cuts. Appealing brown eyes, actual tangible policies and a genuine backbone - so much backbone, in fact, that he has back trouble. His party is notable for supporting the removal of Trident from Scotland. (Be honest - who would want a potentially unstable and illegal weapon of mass destruction in their backyard?) Although many Scots are old enough to recall when SNPs were right rather than left of centre and their grass-roots record isn't necessarily impressive, the idea of Salmond as king has something to recommend it.

Leader among "fringe" parties would be the Greens. They showed well last time around and I feel they'll do well again - it's all that integrity and lateral thinking. (And the whole End of the World thing.) But we can also boast Christian parties that want to end the separation of church and state. Scotland's history, you'll recall, can boast several previous centuries of de facto theocracy. Oh, the fun we had - joy-hating, sex-hating, woman-hating, witch-burning, oppression, predestination and paranoia. We still remember the jovial clerical support of the Highland Clearances. To whit:

People: "Why are we being evicted and rendered destitute? Is it to do with our cruel and cupiditous landlords?"

Minister/priest/vicar: "It's your own fault. You're evil. Think this is awful? Wait till you're cast into Hell."

And then we have the Unionist faction, with its worship of the union flag and it's tastefully expressed dislike of "multiculturalism". Depressed that Ireland got all that really exciting sectarianism during the 1970s and 80s, I can only assume that some of us do yearn for roadside kneecappings and pandemic, self-perpetuating loathing. Watch this space.

Meanwhile our Socialist options have factionalised in a thoroughly entertaining, but self-destructive manner. This space probably for rent.

Realistic election outcome: probably a major swing to the SNP with the Greens prospering, followed by a "No" vote on full devolution. Results on a "Yes" vote, given prevailing global trends and local staffing deficiencies: a) Salmond tries to dump Trident and reclaim our oil while enacting possibly Chavez-style (without the oppressive overtones) redistributive reforms. We are invaded by the US within a fortnight; b) The mass of our politicians reverts to type (or never diverge from type) and accept bribes from all-comers to transform us into a slave colony for corporate interests. Think raped resources, punishment amputations, compulsory gambling and alcoholic pacification.

The result I'd love to see? The electorate revolts en masse and gets behind increasingly vociferous citizen activist campaigns such as Logic (LOcal Governance In the Community) and the larger and snazzier YouScotland. Independence is redefined in terms of truly independent candidates, representative representatives and a populace that feels it can genuinely be involved in a genuine democracy. Scotland instantly really does become a beacon of something Shiny and Good for human beings everywhere. That kind of independence really would get the heart racing. All together now - "They can never take our freedom."

A L Kennedy lives in Glasgow. Her latest novel, 'Day', is out now

http://comment.independent.co.uk/commentators/article2432361.ece
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Julian



Joined: 22 Mar 2007
Posts: 38

PostPosted: Wed Apr 11, 2007 3:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Good balanced reporting: Scotland, Ireland and the EU (looks at the broad issues of economics, identity, immigration/emigration, culture, brand, education, quality of life, environment, etc).

Hamish McRae: If the Irish can thrive, why can't the Scots?
Scotland starts from a much more favourable position than Ireland did, even in the 1980s


Published: 11 April 2007
Independent

Could Scotland "go it alone"? It is a tantalising prospect, provoked I think more than anything else by the example of Ireland, which has seemed to have prospered as an independent country in a way that it could not have done had it been part of the UK.

Of course independence is not just about economics. It is about identity. But one of the principal arguments being used by people who want to keep the Union, including the present British Government, is that Scotland would be worse off without the annual transfer of funds from Westminster. But if that argument disappears - as it might were Scotland to become the second "Celtic tiger" - then the country could make a decision based on identity, its true vision of its place in the world.

So how do the economic arguments stack up? First, a couple of qualifications. One is that we are not talking about Scotland truly going it alone, for it would remain in the EU and hence have access to the market south of the border. A second is that economic performance is not a static analysis: how Scotland performs will turn more on the policies it adopts than the situation it starts from. Ireland, after all, had many years of economic failure right through to the late 1980s, before it began its present run of success. (I should add, too, that these decisions will be made by people in Scotland, not part-Scots brought up in Ireland, such as myself!)

That said, I think there is a clear economic argument to be made that Scotland might well find it easier to prosper if it had a greater degree of independence than it does at the moment. That argument goes like this.

The country does get an annual subsidy from England; well actually not England as such, but from three regions, London, the South-east and East Anglia, all of which are large net contributors to the overall tax pot. You can have a debate about the precise size of the subsidy. For example, to what extent should Scotland contribute to the overall defence costs of the UK given that after independence it could run a slimmer military?

You could also have a debate about the amount of the North Sea oil revenues that should be attributed to Scotland rather than the UK as a whole. The point here seems to me to be that there is a negotiation: a deal could be struck, with Scotland keeping most of the oil revenues but losing the subsidy from the South. The figures are broadly similar.

There is another subsidy issue: what Scotland might get from the EU. The UK is a net contributor to the EU equivalent to about 0.4 per cent of GDP. Ireland has, in the past, received up to 6 per cent of GDP from the EU but that is now declining and there would be no chance of Scotland getting anything like that. On the other hand, Scotland starts from a much more favourable position than Ireland did. Its GDP per head is around 95 per cent of that of the UK, whereas Ireland was equivalent to about 75 per cent of the UK's in the 1980s.

Indeed in terms of total GDP Scotland is around number 30 in the world league. It would be in the top 10 in terms of its position in the two key industries: financial services and higher education. Thus Edinburgh University is ranked higher in the Shanghai University index than any university in Germany, Italy or Spain and only just behind the highest-ranked in France.

Scotland is also physically well located, not only being part of the EU but also having a land border with the world's third largest import market. England and Wales import more even than Japan.

Quite aside from all these tangible advantages there are the less tangible ones of culture and brand, and the potential resource of the Scots overseas. Some 10 million people in the US and Canada claim to have Scottish ancestry, while there are a further five million of Scots-Irish. This is a tremendous potential resource, one that has played a key role in the Irish boom, and one that Scotland would find easier under a new jurisdiction to exploit.

So a good position to start from, in many ways better that Ireland before its present run of success; what about the dynamics of the Irish boom?

The plain fact here is that Ireland has boomed because of inward investment and that has been the result mainly, not entirely, because of favourable corporate tax rates. These are now 12.5 per cent (they used to be zero for foreign investors for the first year of their investment). We saw in the last budget how the Chancellor has been forced to cut the main UK rate from 30 per cent to 28 per cent but that hardly changes the equation.

Scotland would have to think of matching Ireland. However, were it to do so it might find corporate tax revenues went up rather than down. That is what has happened in Ireland. It would certainly stop any Scottish companies from relocating south of the border.

The ability to use tax competition as a weapon is something that large countries find hard to do because the losses, initially at least, are likely to be larger than the gains. For small countries it is different. The amount of inward investment you need to attract to offset the loss of revenue from the existing corporate base is more attainable. Scotland would be further helped because one of the most mobile industries, and hence most likely to be attracted, is financial services - in which it is already very strong.

But competitiveness is not just about tax. It is also about education, quality of life, the environment and other issues. One of the features that helped sustain the Irish boom was the human capital available: lots of young, English-speaking graduates, who until the late 1980s, emigrated to find work. Scotland has that too. In Ireland, once that initial supply of skilled labour was absorbed, the country was able to draw on its expats, and then on the wider community of young Europeans. Scotland, like Ireland, has to become a magnet for talent if it is to emulate Ireland's growth.

That leads to what seems to me to be the most interesting issue of all. This is not whether Scotland would be successful as an independent country. With the right policies of course it could, as Ireland has done post the late 1980s. With the wrong policies it would be an economic failure, as Ireland was before its boom.

The most interesting thing is how Scotland would cope with success on an Irish scale. How would it cope with the excesses of a runaway boom? How would it cope with mass immigration? Ireland has gone from 2.8 million to 4 million in the space of a generation. Would Scotland draw back and try and stifle growth? Or would it welcome its different position in the world and the people who came to share it? One thing is sure though: it would be a different Scotland.

http://comment.independent.co.uk/columnists_m_z/hamish_mcrae/article2439505.ece
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Julian



Joined: 22 Mar 2007
Posts: 38

PostPosted: Wed Apr 11, 2007 3:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The rest of the UKIP Independent article quoted above:

However, plans to change the party's name to the Independence Party have been dropped after the Electoral Commission ruled it could clash with non-party candidates standing as independents.

The party has faced a string of troubles in recent months. Last month Mr Farage suspended Tom Wise, MEP for the East of England, after it emerged that Mr Wise was facing an investigation into his expenses. Ukip also faces legal action over donations totalling £360,000 which the Electoral Commission says are impermissible because the donor Alan Bown, a former bookmaker, was not on the electoral register when he gave the party the money.

Mr Farage said he wanted to gain support in local government to support a campaign for a Ukip seat in the Commons. Ukip recently gained its first parliamentary seats when two peers defected to the party.

Mr Farage said: "We have over 1,000 candidates standing in the local elections, which is three times the number last time. For it to be a real platform for Westminster we have to start winning seats in real numbers. At present we have about a dozen councillors.

"Our ambition is to win seats in the Welsh Assembly and win some seats in England. We want to look at independence in local government and the extent to which it is undermined by Westminster as it has been since the Tories took away power."

Mr Farage said his party was "old-style liberal" and aimed to take votes from disaffected Conservatives as well as Labour voters.

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article2437299.ece
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
PatrickSMcNally



Joined: 05 Mar 2007
Posts: 846

PostPosted: Sun Apr 15, 2007 11:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

> Mullins 'possible criticism' is (perhaps you are referring to something I haven't yet read), however he does state 'as fact' that the JBS founder Robert Welch was a tool of the Rockefellers

I've been skeptical of that claim since reading Revilo Oliver's book AMERICA'S DECLINE: THE EDUCATION OF A CONSERVATIVE. Oliver actually was an original member of the John Birch Society and he later broke from it saying that Welch was letting himself be used as a tool by Jews. Despite severe criticisms of Welch by Oliver, there is no mention of any Rockefeller names in the discussion of the Welch or the JBS. It's hard to believe that Oliver would have hesitated to throw that in as well, after everything else he says against Welch, if it had been true. My understanding of how Mullins claims to have picked up this story of Rockefeller and Welch is that after Oliver's death in the early 1990s, Mullins began spreading the word that Oliver had secretly told him about a Rockefeller-Welch connection. Since Oliver does not mention this in his book and since Mullins has quite a record of lying, I would leave this in the realm of unsubstantiated claims which Mullins has made up over the years.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
atm



Joined: 16 Apr 2006
Posts: 3861

PostPosted: Sat Apr 07, 2012 12:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:


BUSHELL DIGS THE DIRT IN BRUSSELS

Tuesday, 27th March 2012

March 24.

While I was in Belgium, I paid a visit to the European Parliament. Now I’m as sceptical about The Project as the next man, as long as the next man is Nigel Farage, but even I was shocked by what I saw inside the belly of the beast. Here is my Brussels diary:

There is a dirty sexy secret lurking alongside the dull and respectable facade of the European Union. Two hotels in easy walking distance of the Brussels Parliament provide short-term rooms to rent for grubby encounters.

It costs £21 to hire a room for two hours in Studio Intime in Parnassusstraat – and nobody books one to sleep. Inside the air is heavily perfumed and cupids adorn the walls; outside the canopy is blue with yellow stars mirroring the European Union flag.

The two establishments known locally as “f*** hotels” are used largely by EU staff for afternoon delights.

Over an hour long period, I watched three couples leave and walk back to work in the lavish Parliamentary building less than fifty yards away.

Studio Intime is open about its purposes, advertising its services as providing “rendezvous rooms in Brussels...totally intimate.”

Nine different rooms are available from 9am until midnight. The ad promises “complete discretion, impeccable rooms with showers”.

http://www.ukip.org/content/latest-news/2638-bushell-digs-the-dirt-in-brussels

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> General Discussion All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Page 5 of 5

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

Theme xand created by spleen.