Where is the real independence?

On Thursday Scotland will go to the polls to “determine their future”. In a historic referendum that will decide whether to stay as part of the United Kingdom, or to split and become an “independent” country.

I put the term independent in quotation marks because any promise of independence that has been made by the Yes campaign is phony. Instead of the Scots offering up their sovereignty to Westminster, they have been given the chance to pledge allegiance to Brussels instead – and become a province of the ever-growing European empire.

The European Union claims to be the world’s second largest democracy, after India. Unfortunately for the citizens within this Union, there is no democracy. The only elections that take place are European Parliament elections, which is where the Members of European Parliament (MEPs) sit. This “Parliament” if it can even be called that, is not your average parliament. There are is no law making body it is simply an amendment chamber. The European Commission is the law-making body, they propose legislation and send it down to the European Parliament for approval. If MEPs vote yes to a piece of proposed legislation it will be passed, if they vote no the Commission will redress it and keep bringing it back until it is.

A conservative estimate is that the EU accounts for at least 50% of a country’s laws. The true figure is likely far higher but we’ll stick with committed Europhile Nick Clegg’s figure for the sake of argument. 50% is still 50% too much. If this Commission were elected by the people of Europe then there would be at least a thin veneer of democracy – but they are not. They are appointed without the requirement for them ever to have been elected for anything in their lives. Baroness Cathy Ashton is a prime example. Shoehorned in to the House of Lords to rush through the Lisbon Treaty, she was then appointed to the Commission to become head of foreign policy. She was for a period a few years back the highest paid female politician in the world. And I would argue she isn’t doing a very good job either, as we head stupidly into a clumsy, and I fear inevitable conflict with Russia. I digress.scotland-europe-1

The fact is, the European Commission that accounts for a high percentage of a country’s laws has not been elected by anybody. One could argue that the European Union is less democratic than North Korea. At least they get to vote on who is in charge, despite there only being one name on the ballot, and that Kim Il-Sung who remains President until this day, has been dead for over 20 years.

There are those who will tell you that the European Union is not perfect and that it needs reform. Indeed it does, it is completely illegitimate as a political body, and should have never been allowed to mutate from being a free trade area. Reform however is impossible. To quote Peter Hitchens: “To complain that a European Union is a federalist is like complaining that a bicycle has handlebars, that’s what they are”. The lone stance of David Cameron to try and stop Jean-Claude Juncker becoming President of the European Union was completely pointless – I would argue fake. If it wasn’t Juncker, it would have been somebody else. The intention has been made perfectly clear that further integration and further destruction of national sovereignty is the aim of the game and for anyone to believe otherwise is an act of extreme gullibility.

Why has this generation so easily given up its right to govern itself? Possibly because it is the first to not have to defend its own freedom. The European Union was allegedly formed to bind nations together, so that we would never go to war again. The complete opposite has happened, we have not become stronger. The failure of the Eurozone has caused misery across and has if anything created a further divide between Northern and Southern Europe.

I’ve not even mentioned the economic crisis that has crippled Southern Europe as a result of total ineptness. For those interested in how the European Union is totally clueless over financial matters and how the Eurozone has failed and left countries trapped in an economic prison, I suggest checking out some of former MEP Godfrey Bloom’s speeches on YouTube. Bloom is one of the few politicians who has had the guts to explain why the banking system has failed, revealing its total incompetency as well as the complete illegitimacy of the European Union. Unfortunately Bloom was hounded out by his own party UKIP around 12 months ago after a political correctness attack by the mainstream media.

So there is your choice Scotland, or rather your lack of it. You can either leave and submit yourself to this faux-democracy or remain in a current Union that you have a right to be equally uneasy with. Westminster is grovelling to make you stay, offering deals and promises preferential treatment that it will fail to deliver due to its rejection by the rest of the British public. Whatever you choose, the grubby fist of Brussels will remain clenched around your balls. It doesn’t really matter, the promise that you can have sovereignty and govern your own affairs is not an option. Until a country elects a government that doesn’t hate its own people and offer them a chance to get out, very little can change. One can only hope that if a country such as the UK or France finally does get a referendum and votes to leave, that the rest of Europe will also follow suit. Until that happens, nothing will change.

Scotland deserves far better, as does everyone else.


Do Sweden Democrats gains set the tone for 2015 General Election?

The Swedish Elections may have resulted in an overall shift to the left, but the big story of the night was the rise of the Sweden Democrats (Sverigedemokraterna).

The Sweden Democrats (SD) took an unprecedented 13% of the vote – up over 7% from 2010 – to become the third largest party in the country, and increase their representation in the Riksdag to 49 – up 29 seats from 2010. The party famed for it’s anti-immigration stance polled far higher than both opinion and exit polls suggested, whilst the Feminist Initiative who were predicted to be on the cusp of the 4% threshold required to gain seats in Parliament, fell short with 3.1%.

In an attempt to distance themselves from the Swedish Democrats, alliances from both left and right have been ruled out. Social Democrats leader and Prime Minister-designate Stefan Lofven has announced a desire to form a group with the Greens and other “anti-racist” parties. Meanwhile the Moderate Party, the big losers from the Election, have also refused to co-operate with the Swedish Democrats.

The results rather confirms the mood from May’s European Elections. Euroscepticism and concerns over immigration are continuing to grow, reflected in the rise of the sometimes unfairly dubbed ‘far-right’. Media bias and smears have failed to turn voters away from them, if anything they have strengthened their support.

The news has come as a shock to many, particularly around the rest of Europe. Yet with Sweden’s liberal immigration laws – an estimated 80,000 asylum-seekers will enter the country this year – the rise of a party like the SD, rightly or wrongly should have been anticipated, particularly after the European Elections. The fact that these Elections have been reported as such a shock is further proof that the growing concerns of the public are still being ignored. Branding people who hold these opinions as xenophobic and racist is foolish and has only served to further alienate ordinary people from mainstream politics.

Looking from a UK perspective, the news from Sweden will come as a boost to the UK Independence Party. The Sweden Democrats and UKIP form part of the Europe of Freedom and Direct Democracy (EFDD) group in the European Parliament.

Opinion polls in Britain show UKIP consistently polling at around 15%, slightly higher than the Sweden Democrats. However due to the First-Past-The-Post (FPTP) system in the UK it is highly unlikely that UKIP will garner anywhere near the representation in the House of Commons that the Sweden Democrats have in the Riksdag. Similarly, if Sweden operated under FPTP, votes for the Sweden Democrats would almost certainly not have translated in to seats in the numbers that they have.

Does this indicate a significant problem in the UK voting system? Well not if you support either Labour or Conservative, or hold a dislike for UKIP. Based on current voting intentions for the General Election in 2015, the likely scenario is that UKIP will pick up around 15% of the vote yet no more than around five seats. Labour are currently predicted to gather around two and a half times the popular vote of UKIP, which predictions suggest would give them around 350 seats. Two and a half times the vote, 70 times the number of seats. This isn’t a case of being sympathetic to UKIP. In 2010, the Liberal Democrats polled 23.2% of the vote, compared to Labour’s 29%. The Liberal Democrats won 57 seats, Labour 258. The Conservatives took 36.1%, which gave them 307 seats.

Without getting too technical, the Riksdag in Sweden more or less equally represents the popular vote. If we applied this to the current opinion polls in the UK, UKIP would be on course to make up around 100 of the 650 MPs in the House of Commons in 2015 – a whole 20 times more than what they are currently on target for. Using this system for 2010, the Liberal Democrats would have won around 150 seats (up 93), Labour 189 (down 69), and the Conservatives 235 (down 72). A far more accurate representation of how the public voted.

Of course, it’s a lot easier to decry calls for an electoral system to be changed providing it doesn’t affect a party you support. Everyone knows the Greens like a good shout, if it were they who were picking up a sixth of the vote but facing less than one hundredth of parliamentary representation, you can guarantee you wouldn’t be able to move in the liberal hotbeds for weeks.

In a democratic society, if the public vote for something they have the right to be heard, no matter their opinions. It is time outdated systems which serve to protect the Establishment parties who have little interest in offering any real change left or right were abolished.

Euroscepticism, immigration concerns and a desire to regain sovereignty is on the rise across Europe. But not all countries will show it.

Good people, bad people, no other difference

“There are only two kinds of people in this world. Good people who do good deeds, and bad people who do bad. That’s the only difference in human beings. There’s no other difference.”

As we descend into further chaos, the world would do well to take note from the highly successful Hindi movie, My Name is Khan. The 2010 film, starring Shahrukh Khan and Kajol is one of the most successful Bollywood productions ever for a reason. One, the star cast, and secondly – and perhaps more importantly – the film’s powerful message.

The film is centred around Rizwan Khan (Shahrukh Khan), a Muslim man with Asperger’s syndrome and his quest to meet the US President in a bid to prove his innocence and win back his wife Mandira (Kajol) in an America reeling from the shock of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Without focusing too much on the plot, Khan’s character is one of humility and hope, battling American anger and Islamic fundamentalism through various acts of goodness, in a journey across the country.MNIK

Race, religion, and any other discriminator pales into insignificance – or at least should – when making a judgment between right and wrong. This core principle is ever present in My Name is Khan and is one that would be worth adopting by a British society becoming more and more apologetic for increasingly despicable acts.

We must be very clear in showing no compassion to those who have committed unforgivable acts of wrong. The sheer barbarism seen in recent weeks from the Islamic State in both Iraq and Syria are some of the worst in living memory.

To think that there is nothing to stop terrorists who have left Britain to fight for this “cause” returning and slipping back quietly into British society is both frightening, and unbelievable.

The human rights argument completely falls flat when considering the human rights of those whose lives they have ruined or worse, taken away. The inseparable attachment the UK in particular now has to human rights continually acts as a prevention to achieving justice for the victims of such crimes. As necessary as they are, they should not serve to protect those who have committed heinous crimes.

It is my belief that once you infringe on the human rights of another person you begin to lose your own. That is fair. The “eye for an eye leaves everybody blind” argument does not hold when it is the innocent who are the victims.

It is not a case of perpetuating hatred but protecting ourselves from acts of terrorism as well as the silent growth of it. Protection isn’t being insular, in cases like these it’s required. Ir is a country’s duty to act first in the best interests of its citizens.

Another case of being apologetic and fearful of causing upset has become apparent in Rotherham where it has emerged 1,400 children have been abused since 1997, from rape, trafficking, to abduction, predominantly by Pakistani men.

Yet in fear of being labeled racist, the authorities made every effort in order to cover themselves. Criminals were shielded whilst the victims were left helpless. Any consideration for justice was completely disregarded. Referring to the point I made earlier, race, creed or culture has no bearing on whether something is right or wrong.

Unless sensible action is taken to secure justice, and all criminals are held to account, the door will remain open to unchallenged crime.

However, whilst there should be no fear of being labeled racist for pointing out factual evidence, there is also no justification for real racism, which is still a prominent issue and is given somewhat of a platform when events aforementioned occur.

Tolerance is key. I don’t need to explain that discrimination on race is never acceptable but neither should it be for religion.

Religion can be used as a moral compass, and a guide to how somebody can lead a good life. The God fearing little old lady at the Church has almost certainly not used religion as a hate tool.

Although if religion is interpreted to justify criminal acts – most significantly on those of opposing beliefs – then it has no place.. Die hard religious – I use the term religious lightly – fundamentalist organisations such as the Ku Klux Klan and the Islamic State have no place in this world.

I am no expert on religious scripture but feel certain that no sane minded person attempting to lead an honorable life would ever murder or abuse other human beings, or see religion as a way to justify it.

Being apologetic and sympathising for those who have committed wrong is not an act of tolerance, but one of cowardice.Yet criminalising people on baseless accusations is equally indefensible. Distinguishing between whether something is right or whether something is wrong is made far easier when removing race, creed, culture etc. from the equation.

For those who haven’t seen My Name is Khan – which is probably most considering most people reading this I assume are from a Western background – I couldn’t recommend it further. Not only is it a good damn watch but it re-emphasises the values I have tried to put forward, as well as offering a different perspective to the modern world than the Western one we are almost solely accustomed to.

Having spent time in India, I’ve also developed a soft spot for their cinema. The Indian film industry isn’t the world’s biggest for no reason you know.

The West or Putin? Who really wants war?

When Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 was shot down over eastern Ukraine last month the world took another step towards what is looking more and more like an inevitable conflict. Russian President Vladimir Putin was behind yet another provocative act of war, resulting in the murder of almost 300 innocent civilians.

Well, that was the line that offered by both the West’s governments and their media. Copious amounts of propaganda purporting that Ukraine based Russian rebels were behind the attack have been churned out over recent weeks, despite there being very limited factual evidence to support the claims, not to mention a host of discrepancies that throw a thick cloud of doubt and suspicion over the whole situation.

To begin with, the suggestion that Putin is interested in any international war at all to me seems to be unfounded. As far as international policy is concerned, the Russian leader is one of the world’s biggest protectors of national sovereignty. Which is the reason for why he made no attempt to overthrow the Assad regime in Syria. Unlike the West, Russia has no intention of warmongering or intervening in Syrian affairs.

The justification of the proposed war in Syria was based on the tyrant of a leader having chemical weapons, have we not heard a similar tale before? Over the following year it has transpired that the intention was to frame Assad, before intervening for humanitarian means. Quite how supporting a rebel organisation, riddled with extremism is in any way humanitarian, I am not quite sure. No real proof, despite what the media has offered has ever suggested that Assad used chemical weapons, simple logic would indicate that he would not have needed them for a war that he was winning.

The actions of Putin to point out that it was not necessarily Assad to have used chemical weapons, and to warn against any military action unless that the claims were proven “beyond doubt” was one of the key factors that led to there being no intervention in the country. And for those that suggest that it was our duty to wage war and to “free” or “liberate” Syrian citizens from the Assad government, I point you around 1300 miles west to Libya. A country that was “freed” and “liberated” a couple of years earlier.

Claiming that Vladimir Putin is one of the greatest protectors of national sovereignty is a statement that may appear rather silly following the Russian annexation of Crimea earlier in the year. However, as quite often with international politics, the picture is very rarely black and white, and a debate of good against bad.

What happened in the Ukraine back in February? A democratically elected leader, Victor Yanukovych was toppled with the backing of the European Union. Now, it is common knowledge that the European Union very rarely conforms with democracy. Following the economic crisis in Greece, a former Vice President of the European Central Bank as shoehorned in as Prime Minister, unelected by the Greek people. Not to mention that the EU Commission, the law-making body, is also unelected by the public.

I digress, what the European Union has done in regard to the Ukraine was offer the country, as it had previously done with Georgia an unrealistic dream of joining both the EU, as well as NATO. The prospect of the EU becoming an even larger union with an unprecedented growing political power is concerning enough in its own right. The very idea of national sovereignty, one of the cornerstones to a free and democratic world is being etched away.

The actions to try and lure the Ukraine over was both a violation of national sovereignty, as well as an act seen as deeply provocative by Russia. It must be noted that Ukrainian connections with Russia both culturally and historically have been much stronger than they have to Western Europe. The majority of Ukrainian’s also speak Russian whilst a third of all Ukrainian migration is to Russia, with the Russia-Ukraine border being the second biggest migration corridor in the world. Without attempting to explain a very deep and complex situation, any effort to try and move Ukraine away from Russia was always going to be seen as an unacceptable act, that the Kremlin would not let pass.


Putin is, to use pub talk, a no nonsense leader. Whilst generally not being prepared to involve his country in conflicts that are of no concern to Russia, he is not scared to act when the interests of his nation are challenged. Annexing Crimea was an action that was both undesirable and ugly. However, whilst I won’t try to justify it, it is worth making the point that Crimea was part of Russia until 1954, the majority of the Crimean population are ethnically Russian, and that in a poll over 90% of the Crimean people expressed a desire to become part of Russia. So when pro-Russian President Yanukovych, who it must be stressed was democratically elected by the Ukrainian people, was ousted by pro-EU protestors, seeing Russia act was not wholly surprising.

Seeing the European Union denounce an annexation also came as a major surprise considering that is what they have done since they advanced from being an organisation who’s main priority was that of free trade.

Fast forward to July and a passenger plane carrying almost 300 innocent civilians crashes over eastern Ukraine. The blame has been heaped almost entirely on Russia, the evidence to support it meanwhile is sketchy at best, and nowhere near strong enough to give the go ahead for the continued sanctions being placed on the country.

The widely publicised story was that Russian separatists in eastern Ukraine were behind the attacks, and that the weaponry used to carry it out, had been supplied by Russia. The actual concrete evidence supporting this however isn’t really there, or at least I haven’t seen it. What I have seen though is the citation of social media as “proof”, forged satellite images in attempt to divert the blame from Kiev, and the general fabrication of evidence.

People may question how I believe that governments could lie about a situation which could potentially have such grave consequences. From governments that lied continuously about Iraq, from claims that Saddam Hussein had links to Al-Qaeda to the country possessing WMDs, I have no hesitation in believing that I am not being told the truth. The only belief I hold with certainty about Western governments, is that they have no moral compass.

Serious questions need to be asked of Kiev and their involvement in the crash of MH17. Why did Kiev Air Traffic Control order that the plane’s route was changed to travel right through an area deep in conflict, an area that was deliberately avoided previously? Why did Kiev forge time-stamps  in an attempt to clear themselves from any potential blame? It is essential that questions like these are asked, nor should someone be labeled a conspiracy theorist for pointing out hard factual evidence that goes against what you have been told.

If I was writing this to talk conspiracy theories, I would mention that Putin’s plane transporting him to Moscow was in the same airspace in the previous hour to the attack on MH17 and that he was the real target. But that isn’t the purpose of this article, the purpose is to make judgments based on fact, and question what is provided by the mainstream media. That is why I advocate at least watching RT (formerly Russia Today), a Kremlin-funded international news channel that offers a different perspective of the world news. Yes, it may sometimes be biased in favour of Russia, but is the BBC not guilty of being biased in favour of the West?

Wary of being subject to a misunderstanding in regard to my opinions of Vladimir Putin, as Nigel Farage was, it is essential I clarify them before rounding off the article. As far as domestic policies are concerned, I endorse nothing of what Putin does. That isn’t to say I disagree with everything, it just means that I don’t endorse them. On international policy, I respect anybody who looks to maintain national sovereignty, who doesn’t intervene in other countries affairs without worthwhile reason, and who isn’t looking to start a war.

Far from the deranged comic book villain that Putin has been portrayed as, he is an astute leader who knows what he is trying to do, whether you perceive it to be right or wrong. Comparisons to Adolf Hitler are both pathetic, as well as very dangerous, and should not be being made by a potential future President like Hillary Clinton. That to me is the real scaremongering and warmongering.

Perhaps Putin was behind the MH17 crash, and my assessments, as well as many others from people much more intelligent than me are wrong. From what has emerged post the event I find that scenario becoming increasingly doubtful. Regardless of what you believe happened, and who caused it, to base your opinion from a media who oppose Russia, funded by governments who are searching for conflict with Russia, is rather foolish.

Move away from mainstream media, or at least listen to it from both sides, and start forming your own opinions. They have lied in the past, do not doubt that they are capable of doing it again.

Question everything

%d bloggers like this: