Anti-Scottish rants

Here we go again. An article in the Mailonline which puts over only the Unionist viewpoint and doesn't even attempt to get a balance by asking what the SNP think. I shouldn't be surprised as the Mail [English version] is well known for it 'hang 'em high' attitude. When you read the article it is worth reading the rabid anti-Scottish postings by some of its readers; and they wonder why we have this sort of attitude towards independence. If the Scottish nationalists-as opposed to the British nationalists-posted those sort of anti-English statements it would be all over the papers, but it seems to be acceptable to say those types of things about the Scots in an 'English' paper. Sad really.
And then we have an English Libdem politician [Clegg] visiting Scotland and trying to tell us what we should be doing. I will be quick to add that not all Scottish Libdems take this stance. The blog by Andrew Page is well worth visiting. He seems to be a man that will not bow down to party dogma [unlike the Labour MPs and MSPs]. I respect a man who is willing to shelve his career to do what he thinks is right. Pity that we don't have more people like him.

The London 7/7 bombings

I know this guy is classified as some sort of conspiracy nut but he does ask some probing questions which really need to be answered by the 'authorities'. When you take into account his Youtube video and this RT collection of facts about the 9/11 attacks and the history of the USA's attempts to start wars then these separate incidents, when taken as a whole, makes you think just who are the bad guys?

Strange how this released photograph is cut off just before the hole

Is this really home-made explosives?

Why was he really killed?

So, what has this got to do with Scottish referendum coming up? Quite a lot really. Not one of us trust the financial figures given out by the UK treasury about the amount of money that Scotland puts into the UK treasury as opposed to the amount that the Scottish government gets back off then in 'pocket money'. We cannot trust anything the UK government have told us, and is still trying to tell us, about the Scottish independence agenda. What makes you think that we should believe them when it comes to the 7/7 bombings in London. We all know the the UK government is so far up the arse of the government of the USA that it can see what it is eating before it is put into their mouth then the UK copying the USA's warmongering agenda doesn't seem to be as far fetched as the youtube video implies.
I've said this before and I'll say it again. Expect the UK government to engineer an 'incident' if the UK government expect to lose the referendum. When I say expect what I really mean is that they cannot fiddle the results. They have done that already in the previous home rule referendum. What we are dealing with is 'big boy' politics and those at the top will stop at nothing to get their own way.

USA's prior knowledge of an attack on Pear Harbour

There is enough evidence floating around to point to a conclusion that the USA had prior warning that an attack on Pearl Harbour was imminent. Why, you ask, would the USA want the Japanese to attack and destroy their fleet at anchor in Pearl Harbour? Because they wanted to get into the war but the American people would have kicked out anyone who would have brought them into the war. The American people were not interested in getting involved in what they saw as another European war. Therefore the government of the USA needed an excuse to join in. What better than to shock the American public with an undeclared act of war by an aggressor. Now let's look at some of the facts, some of the facts might shock you while others might not seem to be of importance until you view them in the context of the time.
The Japanese were on an empire building conquest of Asia because it needed the natural resources that it's own country did not possess. Japan was desperate to pull itself into the industrial age of the 20th century but lacked the natural resources to do so. Japan had no coal, oil, rubber or anything raw materials. According to the CIA World Factbook Japan has no natural resources whatsoever:
 'negligible mineral resources, fish

note: with virtually no energy natural resources, Japan is the world's largest importer of coal and liquefied natural gas, as well as the second largest importer of oil'

After the the Japanese were forced, by the USA, into signing the Convention of Kanagawa in 1854 where they were forced to open their ports to American ships, the Shogun era came to an end. It seems that Japan had no answer to the USA's military and industrial might and were determined never to be in that position again. The problem they had was the lack of resources and, therefore, set their sights on the Manchurian coal mines. After several wars with China and Russia the limits of Japan's empire began to grow but it still needed the raw materials that the colonies of the French, in Indo-China and the British in Malaysia had. To do that the Japanese first had to deal with the might of the USA and their Pacific fleet. This is what led up to the attack on Pearl Harbour.
It has been claimed by the USA that the attack was a surprise and, what information they did have was lost in a compounded series of mishaps and untimely intelligence failures. On top of that the USA had said that they had 'lost' the Japanese fleet as they had kept strict radio silence. This is all lies. The USA had broken the Japanese code in the autumn of 1940; a full 15 months before the attack. On top of that the Japanese fleet was in daily radio contact with their HQ back in Japan. The USA knew that the Japanese had plans to bomb Pearl Harbour. FDR [the American president] had sent the Pacific fleet from its base in the mainland to Hawaii in 1940. Many thought this was a good move to threaten any Japanese moves in the Pacific. FDR gave instructions for the fleet to remain in Pearl Harbour but admiral Richardson, in charge of the US fleet, complained so much about this that he was replaced by admiral Kimmel. He too complained about keeping the fleet in the Harbour. But back to the attack on the 7th of December, 1941, a few hours before the attack the aircraft carriers had slipped out of Pearl and were not there when the attack occurred; lucky for them but not so lucky for the 2,402 US personnel who were killed during the attack.

So, we have the USA sacrificing their own personnel to enable the USA to join in on the war against the Axis powers. This was not the first time that the USA have sacrificed their own citizens to enable a war to start and it wouldn't be the last.

Diane Abbott and tweeting

I am not going to like writing this piece but there is an underlying truth that needs to be discussed. For too long we in the UK have been at the mercy of the political correctness brigade even to the point where we cannot even have a joke at the expense of people of different cultures. I am talking about the tweet put out by Diane Abbott which said: 'White people love  playing 'divide & rule'. When you look at the context of which it was meant, and I agree that this was the basis of her tweet, it is a reasonable statement to make. English foreign policy in Europe, and then later during the Empire building of the UK, has been to divide and rule. 
So why the big stushie? I believe it was not only a chance to make the Labour party look racist (really?!) but also a chance to enforce the 'don't say anything about race' brigade. In a way it it the same with the underlying culture within the establishment of suppressing the national pride of the constituents of the UK. We are not all the same and never will be. If we cannot laugh at our differences then what is the point of celebrating the different cultures within the UK like the Highland games, Eisteddfod or the Notting Hill carnival?

Scottish Tories just don't get it

Ruth Davidson has called on the Scots to adopt the same policies as our English cousins. 


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-16427578

She's got a cheek calling us "Nobody who is able to work should be allowed by choice to live off the rest of us without contributing". Really? Then maybe she should remind us which party was responsible for destroying the industrial capacity of Scotland in the first place. Up until Maggie Thatcher's destruction of Scottish industry the majority of Scots were decent hard-working people whose only interest was to earn enough to get by. It was Maggie's anti-social policies which got us into this mess in the first place. Which was the party which relaxed the regulations which stopped our banks from 'gambling'? Yes, that's right; the Tories.

But let's not forget what Labour did to us either. The Labour party, not only in Scotland but the rest of the UK as well, allowed itself to become a  satellite of the USSR by encouraging the Unions to create havoc in the UK industries. 

Again we have the Tories trying to lay the blame on the working classes for mistakes that both the Tories and the Labour party were both to blame for.

The Haggis

The Haggis and family

Description:

The Haggis (Eruptus Jovalus Scotia) belongs to the family of mammals which contain the Tattieboagle (Eruptus Humerus Scotia) in the area of the Highlands of Scotland. The Haggii are renowned in the Highlands as being swift of foot and cunning in its ability to hide in the heather. The thick, but short fur coat is of a dark colour ranging from black to dark tan. It can grow up to a foot in length when it has reached maturity at five years of age. The female, which is slightly smaller in size, can produce one litter of up to four cubs per year. The male often leaves the lair to go hunting and can return up to three days later with its catch which it regurgitates to feed the female during brooding.

History:

The Haggis used to roam the mountains of Scotland in greater numbers than it does now. With the advent of grouse shooting in the 1880’s, the local landowners had their gillies burn down the heather to allow the young grouse to feed on the newly sprung shoots of the heather. This caused a dramatic decline in the numbers of the Haggii due to their shelter being destroyed. This allowed the birds of prey to feast heavily upon them until they reached the edge of extinction. It wasn’t until a bill was passed through Parliament in 1923 which forced the landowners to leave tracts of land free from burning that the numbers of Haggii began, once again, to grow.

The Haggis was rarely taken by the local population as a source of food due to the abundance of larger livestock and improving arable farming. However, in times of need the Haggis was taken when the local population required the extra sustenance, but the common rabbit was the preferred choice, as its meat is sweeter.

The hunting of the Haggis began to take on importance after the Jacobite rebellion in 1745 when the Duke of Cumberland forbade the carrying of arms in the Highlands. The hunting of larger beasts had to be curtailed as there was not the weaponary to hunt it. The local gentry started to breed dogs to hunt the Haggis and the descendants of these dogs are the Scots terriers. When the small beast was caught the populace took great pride in the kill and up sprung a ceremony, which to this day is celebrated as Burns Night.

Misconceptions:

Some folk in the Highlands swear that there is a separate species of Haggii that can fly. This can be refuted without fear of contradiction as the tales of the flying Haggis can be related back to the late 1880’s when it first appeared in an article in the Inverness Times. What the witnesses really saw was the dropping of the Haggis by birds of prey, for whatever reason, from a great height and therefore jumped to the conclusion that they could fly.

Dr. James MacDonald Mpcs. Kbe. Cdm

The con of money

According to all the financial forecasts the western economy is in the deep poo poos because of a crises which started in the USA's banking industry; but is it? The first thing to realise is that money, nowadays, does not exist. To put it simple terms money is just the ability to give someone/institution the authority to do something, whatever that may be. Money doesn't actually do anything. You can't use money to build a house, or eat it. Ah, you say, but try and build a house without money. Really? Then how did we build houses before there was money? In the past houses/temples/granaries and all sorts of buildings were built because some big chief told his minions to do it. The minions would then use their slaves to do the manual work. No money was exchanged because there was no money. In the past, before there was money, services and commodities were traded in exchange for work and this worked reasonably well if you had a big enough army to stop your neighbours from stealing your service workers, slaves and commodities.
So what went wrong? The simple answer was banks which arose when the big chief couldn't afford the commodities needed to authorise his service workers to do the job he wanted them to do, and that big chief wasn't strong enough to go and steal what he wanted off his neighbours. So as system was invented where authority was subsumed to the idea of a ephemeral authority in which precious metals were used instead of commodities. This worked fairly well until it got to the stage where it started to become inconvenient to carry around kilos of precious metals to authorise work. Then someone came up with the idea that we can give precious metal coins in exchange for the services required until people started to nibble away at those coins until the value of the precious metal coins were verging on being worthless [which is why coins have milled edges nowadays] and the places that minted those coins were ordered to put less and less precious metals in those coins until the coins themselves were virtually worthless as a precious metal coin. Henry VIII of England did this and seriously undervalued the English gold coin of the time which was the real reason why he attacked the Catholic churches and monasteries in England to get to the wealth that they held. later on the big chiefs were forced into keeping masses of precious metals to prop up the value of their worthless coins. Why didn't they just put more precious metals in their coins? Because the big chiefs wanted to keep hold of the precious metal in case they needed it. That way they could always renege on their promise to back up the value of their coins. Does that ring a bell?
This gold standard began to be unwieldy, as gold still had to shipped between countries so they came up with another idea which was to issue promissory notes instead of precious metal [which had very little precious metals in them] coins. This idea was certainly a step forward as one could carry around a huge amount of precious metals in the form of a note, but this depended on the big chief of that country being able to back it up with the precious metals that everyone seemed to accept as an authority to give or receive services and commodities. So they came up with another idea because a country that has a huge mineral reserves of precious metals, like Russia and South Africa, can have a too big a say in how the financial systems work. Look what happened to Spain when it started to bring back from the Americas all those precious metals that they had stolen from the indigenous populations. Dump too much precious metals onto the market and the idea of precious metals as an authority to give services slumps. So, they dumped the gold standard and came up with the idea of using the money available in the country as a standard of the worth of the country, but, hold on, what backs up the authority of the big chief to say that his country's monetary worth is what he says it is? The answer is that we have to take their word for that and the monetary value of their currency is dependent , not upon the amount of precious metals that that country has in its bank, but on their word alone.
So, what has this got to do with today's banking crises? Well, let's look at the collapse of the banks in the USA. Remember when they said that the collapse of the banking industry was due to lending money to Americans to buy houses and those people who took out the mortgages couldn't afford to pay it? But the USA debt amounted to something like $15 trillion. That's $15,000,000,000,000 divided by the total population of the USA which equates to approx. $48,000 for every man, woman and child in the USA. But only 58% of the USA's population is over 18 therefore that figure now rises to approx. $83,000 for every man and woman in the USA. If you then assume that only one third actually own a house [and I'm being conservative here] then that figure then increases to approx. $250,000. Do you begin to see how stupid their excuse was?
Now let's look at the military expenditure of the USA. In 2010 their budget expenditure was approx. $800 billion. remember that's every year and we have to take their word for it that this is full figure; that's £0.8 trillion.
Now when you look at the growth of the far eastern countries economies and the drop of USA exports and the huge rise in imports you begin to see why the USA is in such a mess. So, how do they balance the budget? Easy, you rip off the rest of the banking world, with the help of the bankers themselves and the big chiefs in the countries that back your world police policy. Oh, they will say: "but you haven't taken into account M0, M1,M2 and M3 and all the other complicated systems that are in place in the anglo-saxon financial world?" It's rubbish! This was a blatant rip off to pay off the USA's debt and exactly the same happened over here in the UK. The UK banks have ripped us off as well and we are paying for it through higher taxes and mass unemployment.