Independent Women

A wee tale about my wee Mammy. She wisnae wee.

She worked as a manager in the Singer sewing machine factory in Clydebank. During her lunch hour she went round 'the girls' and got them to sign up to the first women's union in the factory - an employer which was a collosus in Clydebank. While collecting the signatures male trade-unionists like Gavin Laird and others belittled her endeavours, until that is, she signed up a majority. Oh yes, then they stepped in to take it off her hands and march to the management's office. She later had to leave her job because the company demanded that when they laid off workers they should be 'singe parents' and she refused!

She shared a platform with the late Jimmy Reid. She was also an SNP election agent back in the days when the SNP were working with small fractions of the vote and literally signed up thousands of members - a more than useful election agent she motivated her teams and kept them disciplined so as not to give the cause a bad name.

When independence comes it will be because of the efforts of Scotland's women as much as its men. Of that there can be no doubt.

With that in mind, I recommend the following piece. It is an excerpt can be read in full at Bella Caledonia.

By Lena the Hyena

My initial response to reading Caitlin O’Hara’s piece, Independent Women, was where is the breakdown of figures showing women’s support for independence? What exactly are we talking about? What influences women in casting their votes? Do rural women vote differently from urban women? How widespread in Scotland is this tendency for women to vote for parties other than nationalists? What is the breakdown between the male and female vote in constituencies where SNP MSPs and MPs are returned?

To read on click here.

SCOTTISH PARLIAMENT PARALYSED: Opposition Sparks Constitutional Crisis

A piece I worked on for Newsnet Scotland:

The SNP Government has suffered yet another legislative defeat in the Scottish Parliament. A bill was introduced on minimum pricing of alcohol sales which was defeated by opposition parties yesterday.

All opposition parties agree that some kind of minimum pricing is desirable. On that basis the SNP Government’s legislative bill was world-class and backed by health authorities around the world. Indeed, some described the legislation as world-leading. Opposition to the legislation has been marked by partisan bickering and blocking tactics. Labour’s focus on the single product of ‘Buckfast’ was bizarre and Jackie Baillie’s pursuing of the issue in terms of caffeine being the problem was derisory and ridiculed by one senior police spokesman Superintendent Bob Hamilton, of Strathclyde Police, who said: “We don't attend many violent disturbances outside coffee shops".

Although an important issue in itself – alcohol related problems in Scotland are of major concern to the police, health officials and the general public alike – but the real significance of this parliamentary defeat is a crisis of Scottish democracy itself.
Scotland’s nationalist SNP Government has seen various attempts to scupper its legislative bills and impede its process procedurally, not out of productive opposition to legislation but owing to an oppositional strategy of trying to paralyse the SNP Government and by extension the nation’s Parliament.

Unionist parties were in shock when the SNP won the Holyrood elections in 2007 and in the case of Labour – who see Scotland as an issue of hegemony – denial. This was clearly demonstrated to the world when, immediately after the Holyrood result came in, the then Prime Minister Gordon Brown refused to make the customary congratulatory phone-call to the First Minister in waiting, Alex Salmond.

From the outset Labour have attempted to kibosh all major Scottish Government attempts to legislate for the nation. The strategy is clearly designed to show that the SNP government is a failure. The very real and serious problem with this strategy though is that Labour and their unionist allies have reached the point where party advantage is more important than the country’s governance and so the Scottish parliament’s vital legislative function is now critically compromised.

Trams
One of the first matters of business when the SNP took office was the new government’s desire to scrap the Edinburgh trams project. Senior SNP policy makers calculated that the trams would be far more expensive than originally planned and would not represent value for money.

This was the opposition’s first opportunity to establish a narrative that the SNP government would not be a successful one. The trams project continued and is now an expensive fiasco with parties threatening law suits and the management team admitting that the final costs are unknown except for the forecast that they will cost a lot more than originally planned. There have recently been a series of resignations from the tram firm TIE including the finance director, Stewart McGarrity and chairman David Mackay who branded the project “hell on wheels”. Mr Mackay stated publicly that the German contractor Billfinger Berger, who are at the centre of the controversy, was a “delinquent contractor”. A threat of legal action ensued and then withdrawn. The TIE company is refusing to release the current costs of the project.

In response to the new Government’s move to scrap the plans, Labour’s then strategy was to attack the SNP in terms of “party prejudice” and “geographic grudge”. On 27 June 2007 Wendy Alexander in Parliament said:

"The motion oozes party prejudice and geographic grudge. The cabinet secretary has told us that the costs are out of control. However, encouragingly for Scottish public life, Audit Scotland simply would not be cowed into validating that untrue claim. The Auditor General concluded that the trams projects show clear corporate governance; well-defined project management; sound financial management in reporting; good risk management procedures; and a procurement strategy aimed at minimising risk. Yet, prejudice still prevails. The minister still wants to cancel the projects, washing more than £100 million down the drain to satisfy party prejudice and geographic grudge. So much for the protestations of prudence that we have heard."

Having forced the Tram project on Scotland against the newly democratically elected government’s wishes Labour sought to then exonerate themselves from blame when it all went wrong as the SNP government predicted. The trams fiasco is now the SNP’s fault apparently.

Scottish Parliament Budgets
Then there is the vital matter of passing Scottish parliament budgets. The minority executive have been happy to negotiate with opposition parties but Labour have voted against SNP budgets even though they had amendments accepted in the legislation.

Local Income Tax
Then there was the issue of the SNP’s election manifesto pledge on local government finance. The Local Income Tax was a policy which was very popular with an electorate clearly disgruntled with the current Council Tax system. Ordinary people would have been the big financial beneficiaries of a system of tax based on income and ability to pay but Labour rallied their allies such as the STUC against it despite offering no alternative. Labour now plan to bring in a property-based tax but with only months before the next Holyrood elections they have no concrete plans of their own. Big business and related organizations were also mobilised to help defeat the Local Income Tax. It could still have been passed with the support of the LibDems who have had a local income tax manifesto pledge for decades, but even they refused to back it. Another part of the Scottish Government’s programme was destroyed.

Parliamentary Investigations
Labour and other parties, using their majority in parliament and committees, have called for various enquiries into alleged ministerial misconduct. This has wasted a lot of taxpayers money, bogged the parliamentary system down and nothing has come of the enquiries except for exoneration of the SNP Ministers in question including Scotland’s First Minister, Alex Salmond.

One such example was the ‘Trump Affair’. Donald Trumps’ golf course project may not be to everyone’s taste but accusing Alex Salmond of Ministerial misconduct in respect of the Scottish government approving his planning application was a serious allegation.

The Scottish Parliament’s committees tend to have a majority of MSPs who are not members of the SNP government; these committees are being abused. The committee which investigated the ‘Trump Affair’ was the Local Government Committee and they made the following findings in relation to the First Minister’s involvement:

(1)
Committee Report
242. Given a) the controversy already surrounding the proposal, b) the fact the First Minister had never acted in this way on any development in his public life before, c) the fact that the First Minister had no detailed knowledge of the planning process, d) the First Minister maintains he understood he was constrained in what he could he could discuss with the developer, it seems astonishing to accept that the First Minister did not perceive there might be a risk in his actions, that his actions might be open to question and that as a consequence the decision might be open to legal action. The Committee believes that, far from taking a precautionary approach, the First Minister was cavalier in his actions and displayed, at best, exceptionally poor judgement and a worrying lack of awareness about the consequence of his actions.

243. The Committee believes that the Code of Conduct for Members gave Alex Salmond discretion whether or not to meet with the representatives of the Trump Organisation but did not require him to do so.

244. It is the view of the Committee that, far from distancing himself from the proposal, the First Minister's overriding concern - as First Minister - was the charge that Scotland was not open for business. As a result he risked the accusation of Ministerial interference to meet Trump representatives to refute that charge.

245. The issue of perception and the capacity of Alex Salmond to secure access for the developer to the Chief Planner are critical. Mr Salmond reports that he always acted as a constituency member. Despite Mr Mackinnon’s reputation for being willing to meet with MSPs, it stretches credibility to breaking point to suggest that any MSP sitting in a room with any developer could make direct personal contact with the Chief Planner and set up a meeting at 24 hours notice.

246. If that explanation is not credible, then it does expose the First Minister to the charge of behaving in an unwise and inappropriate way.

Any objective analysis of these findings would conclude that this parliamentary committee’s time was being used to concoct media stories based on nothing more than innuendo, and at taxpayers expense. Indeed, the Scottish Parliament Corporate Body, which is ultimately charged with investigating such matters found that no improper ministerial conduct took place. Other such investigations have been instigated using up a considerable public resources and parliamentary time, all coming to nothing. It is clear that the parliamentary process is being abused to lend credibility to allegations which are at base, glorified smear campaigns.

Constitutional Crisis
Scotland’s devolved parliament seems to have arrived at a crisis. As minority government seems like the only option for Scotland’s largest party, the SNP, Scotland now faces the real prospect of having a parliament incapable of legislating or functioning in any meaningful way. The wrecking tactics of Labour and to a lesser extent the other opposition parties are causing democratic paralysis.

The unionist parties at Holyrood have shown that they are incapable of being a proper opposition to government. With effective governance hamstrung by this constitutional crisis, the Scottish electorate will wonder what the benefits of having a devolved parliament are. Many will now ask if devolution has failed. However, after so many decades of a home rule struggle, going back to a pre-devolution type arrangement is a non-starter.

The SNP therefore now have the ideal platform to ask the electorate at the forthcoming Holyrood elections for the right to hold an independence referendum in order to unlock this crisis of a dysfunctional parliament. Scotland needs and deserves a functioning government and so this constitutional paralysis must not be allowed to continue any longer.

(1) http://scottish.parliament.uk/s3/committees/lgc/reports-08/lgr08-05.htm

Scotland versus Britain - Part 1

My latest piece for Newsnet Scotland:

ECONOMY...by Alex Porter

Petition For Divorce

Why should the Scottish constitutional debate be turned into an unedifying “car boot sale haggling session”? Remaining inside the union or opting for independence is a question of preference, not finance. As Janice Joplin once said: “Don’t compromise yourself. You are all you’ve got.”

The answer to why this happens can be found by examining the tactics of those resisting constitutional change. Why? It makes sense that those who want change will stand an equal chance with their adversaries if a fair debate takes place but that the objectors stand to gain if no real debate is had at all. Unionism benefits from doing all that it can to wreck the debate. Does it stoop to such tactics? Without question.

If the debate was about Scotland’s nationhood and place in the world as expressed through independence or the union with England then it would indeed be one which would engage the Scottish population in a truly democratic conversation over the country’s destiny. Such a debate would be decided on the strengths and merits of each case as presented honestly and openly by all ‘stakeholders’.

Scottish nationalism loses when the debate is reduced to a financial spat. The cause of independence relies on Scotland exuding a national self-confidence where it sees itself just as capable as any other nation. In order to defeat the nationalists unionism has resorted to undermining that confidence instead of the nationalist case itself. A strong thread running through unionism’s core message is an ugly stereotype of a Scotland too small, weak and incapable to cope with the burdens of an independent reality.

This is where unionism’s claims to internationalism melt away like snaw aff a’ dyke. The implied notion that Scotland should not directly participate in the world’s community of nations because its inhabitants are inferior is truly disgraceful and an insult to the dignity of all Scots - dead, alive and unborn. Not all unionists employ such devices to advance their cause and there are many examples of unionists who desire to see Scots exhibiting more ‘get up and go’. They too then should recoil at unionism’s predominant political strategy which is underpinned by such corrosive themes. I suggest to them that they go one step further and consider this strategy to be the cause of these apathetic tendencies.

When unionism elevates the issue of affordability to the centre of the debate, by exercising its media privileges, it clearly does not do so out of principle or economic pragmatism but out of a clear visceral desire to intimidate the population for political advantage. Voters may prefer independence but when you introduce the existential fear of financial ruin that dynamic changes: the debate is no longer wholly driven by dignity and preference but by fear and impotence.

Only Scottish unionism benefits from this debate descending into a “haggling session”. Economics is also an inexact science and voters often feel alienated from the debate and so depend on commentary. Having reduced the debate to one of affordability, unionism corrupts the constitutional debate further by suppressing data which undermines their case or by presenting information in such a manner as to frighten the population.

A good example of this is describing the prospect of national independence as a ‘divorce’. The strategy is obvious: instil in the electorate’s minds a parallel which evokes images of wrecked families and fear of an uncertain future. Indeed, many divorces are avoided owing to the financial uncertainty caused by ‘separation’.

As unionism benefits from control through fear so nationalism loses. Nationalists are guilty of being unduly concerned by such characterisations of independence. The SNP will distance itself from the ‘divorce’ narrative not realising that its awkwardness and discomfort is perceived as further evidence of unionism’s charges.

If nationalism seeks to instil confidence in the Scottish population it must lead by example. Instead of running away from such epithets thus lending them potency, nationalists must deconstruct and neuter them piece by piece.

Divorce may indeed be “a messy business” but is it always an undesirable outcome? The SNP has identified that women are less likely to vote for them than men. Not tackling the ‘divorce’ epithet is perhaps an example of why. In any dysfunctional marriage the partners will contemplate life beyond: rediscovery of self and of life, improved self-confidence, realised potential, overcoming financial fears, healthier relationship with the ex-partner and so happier children etc.

The divorce epithet is perhaps a legitimate challenge to nationalism in that it must clearly demonstrate why independence will improve national self-confidence. Shying away because of focus groups shows a failure of leadership and engenders distrust.

I am not suggesting that the SNP adopt the divorce epithet as their own but it is surely naïve to imagine, when the right to the referendum on whether or not Scots want a union at all is finally exercised, that unionism will not resort to the divorce imagery. It would then be wise to pre-empt the assault well in advance.

One avenue that nationalists might explore is the case that union marriage was enforced or there was deception to achieve consent, that at least one attempted annulment was scuppered and that no referendum has taken place and so the vows were never taken. These are grounds for an annulment of the marriage i.e. it is null and void. The language of union as the ‘break up of Britain’ draws on divorce imagery. The use of the highly loaded term ‘seperatism’ by mainstream unionist political journalists such as Tom Gordon also hones in on the divorce analogy.

Nationalism must introduce threads of annulment in its argument as clearly, with the divorce epithet, unionism thinks itself onto a clear winner. Instead of talking simply about how independence would confer benefits it must emphasise that Scotland would be free from abuse and so be a healthier, more self-confident country if the ‘enforced union’ was never entered into in the first place.

It is clear that the idea of divorce will be a central theme in proceedings and so to indulge the unionist camp a divorce petition should be brought forward.

If it can be shown that unionism does indeed use underhand and abusive conduct to undermine the self-confidence of Scots, then nationalists might argue that instead of winning a debate on the merits of independence a divorce should be granted on the grounds of psychological and emotional abuse, unreasonable behaviour and that cohabitation is not possible.

The divorce petition of course can be denied if unionism can prove that its conduct is in keeping with the vows of the British marriage. It is for nationalism to simply to prove that the said unionist conduct is not the result of provocation but done out of malicious self-interest.

How have both parties behaved then?

Scottish nationalism draws on the merits of its case. It points to similar facts and precedents relating to other nations similar to Scotland to demonstrate the case for independence based on the cogency of its argument. Regardless of political desire, independence will require a self-confident electorate and so the SNP forwards an inspirational and positive narrative which points to parallel cases of success.

Scottish unionism on the other hand, draws on the principle of ‘Murphy’s Law’. It exploits media and other institutional privileges to distort or suppress information, which is in the Scottish public’s interest, for the purposes of maintaining the status quo. It seeks to thwart independence momentum by sapping national self-confidence and employs any rhetorical device available to psychologically pressure an electorate, which may wish to consider the independence option, into submission thus binding the partner to the relationship.

First Appointment

In October 2008 Jim Murphy MP, Secretary of State for Scotland, described Norway, Iceland and Ireland as the ‘Arc of Insolvency’. Now, two years later, the prestigious Prosperity Index – launched this year by Lord Mandelson – shows all three nations outstrip Britain.

Released recently by the Scandinavian think-tank behind the annual survey, the Legatum Institute, the Prosperity Index ranks Britain 13th in the world which is 12 places behind Norway who come out top and behind both Ireland and Iceland who rank 11th and 12th respectively. The Prosperity Index looks at prosperity not simply on economic terms but based on wider factors such as happiness and educational achievement.

One question which must now be posed to Jim Murphy, in light of these findings, is that if Norway, Iceland and Ireland are the ‘Arc of Insolvency’ what does that say about Britain?

Jim Murphy was Scotland’s representative to the cabinet in October 2008. He was a member of the British government and headed up the Scottish Office. Yet, here he was intervening in the economic debate of foreign sovereign states – a cardinal sin in international politics.

Murphy’s ‘Arc of Insolvency’ epithet was an attempt at mocking First Minister Alex Salmond’s ‘Arc of Prosperity’ – the SNP leader’s models for what Scots could look to when considering Scotland’s future as an independent country.

His quip though does raise questions over what was dominating his thoughts. Was Murphy so pleased with his ‘Arc of Insolvency’ epithet and the ridicule that would be heaped upon his political rivals that he overlooked the diplomatic consequences of his argument? Or did he calculate that the benefit of the epithet to unionism’s cause outweighed the importance of Scotland’s good diplomatic relations with the other countries involved and beyond?

It is perhaps the same outlook that led Labour MPs to cheer upon hearing the news that the Bank of Scotland would be sold. Public service and national dignity are clearly of lowly import compared to the over-riding desire to and occasional euphoria of revelling in Scottish failure.

The Labour Party must always protect its international credibility and Jim Murphy’s cringe worthy blunder did have repercussions for his career. His gross neglect of international protocol has led the Labour Party to reconsider his future. Party leaders decided to utilise his skill set in the post of Shadow Defence Secretary.

It fell upon the Scottish mainstream media to hold Jim Murphy to account. No calls for a retraction, resignation or even clarification were forthcoming.

And so the all important pincer movement principle of Murphy’s Law comes into play: don’t worry about being held to account for diplomatic outrages or any ugly unintended consequences arising out of the act of attacking Scottish aspiration because Scotland’s mainstream media is captured.

This tenet of the pincer movement is absolutely central to Murphy’s Law – without it, political discourse in Scotland would have to be on a level playing field. In reality Scotland’s mainstream media exerts excessive or contrived scrutiny of the pro-independence position whereas acquiescence to the anti-independence strategy is the default position.

Without thorough media scrutiny of unionism’s lines of attack on independence and the SNP, political reality in Scotland is often contorted beyond credulity owing to a journalistic bias, which - since the SNP won power in Holyrood in 2007 - has become pathological.

This raises serious questions of democracy in Scotland and especially so in respect of the public broadcaster, the BBC, which is duty bound to political impartiality but which draws down license fees in Scotland only to act in symbiosis as unionist partners in an anti-independence or anti-SNP attack force.

Recently, Newsnet Scotland used a series of video and sound recordings to support their charges of BBC complicity. To access that report follow Newsnet Scotland V. The BBC.

To read further examples of substantiated charges related to the BBC dereliction of duty, see:

Joan McAlpine V. The BBC

James Kelly V. The BBC

Gerry Hassan V. The BBC

Question Time Example:

Labour’s ‘Basket of Taxes’ Piling Up

A piece I did for Newsnet Scotland:

by Alex Porter

Labour’s Michael McMahon has announced Labour’s ‘firm commitment’ to a new property based tax.

In a speech to Labour’s Scottish conference the Shadow Cabinet Secretary for Local Government said: “Let me also be clear, though, that Scottish Labour remains committed to the principle of a property based tax.” (1)

Labour have seemed to be caught up in a policy confusion after the SNP Government’s announcement that it would freeze the unpopular council tax for another two years. Initially, Iain Gray seemed to be pushing for a council tax rise in order to mitigate the budgetary effects of a cut to the Scottish grant from Westminster. However when an opinion poll emerged demonstrating that Scottish voters were hostile to the idea of such a rise Gray, Labour’s Holyrood group leader, seemed to endorse the idea of a freeze.

Labour’s policy is unclear and Mr. McMahon’s announcement adds to the confusion. As the Holyrood election nears the Scottish electorate will wonder if Labour is proposing an increase in the council tax and introduce another property tax or replace one with the other or neither.

The SNP argue that a new tax would impact on 750,000 Scottish households who would move up a band after an expensive revaluation process.

Labour argue that taxes need to increase to compensate for the impending cut in the Scottish Government’s grant to minimise the impact on services especially in local government.

The problem with that analysis is that an increase in taxes will mean the consumer has less money to spend. That will cause jobs to be lost in the retail sector meaning an increase in social security payments and a drop in VAT income for Westminster, especially at a time when the rate of VAT is due to rise to 20% from January 4 next year.

As the capaign to enter Bute House heats up both the SNP and their arch rival Labour will have to show how they can protect government services in the face of Westminster cuts without damaging jobs and the economy.

This problem is fueling growing demands for economic independence to shelter Scotland, whose national accounts shows a surplus, from having to unnecessarily endure the economic instability and volatility that austerity cuts will bring.

(1) http://www.scottishlabour.org.uk/speech-to-scottish-conference-by-michael-mcmahon

Austerity Anger and Kilkenomics

This blog started out trying to counter economic propaganda. It was clear to me that the bailouts were wrong morally and economically and that stimulus was nonsensical and that, given what happened to Argentina and also how the IMF had pillaged country after country (on behalf of big global corporations) in the same way, austerity would be visited on Britain bringing chaos, poverty and economic collapse.

It was clear to me that a small financial elite was attacking Britain, the US and other countries. I never bought the excuse that it was all down to business cycles and knew that 'recovery' and 'recession' were words sent to deceive us.

The reason that governments have been conned is that the banks have cultivated an economic ideology considered axiomatic by politicians and commentators.

The truth is that we don't need to bail out banks. Banks are often considered a cornerstone of capitalism but capitalism demands that those who fail fall by the way side and an entrepreneur will come along and fill the hole in a way where value to the economy is better met and so resources are better deployed.

How did we get to the point were banks are motivated to fail? If they speculate wildly and win the bankers get huge bonuses, if they lose the owners get bailed out. In economics this is called 'moral hazard'.

Governments bought into the idea that debt is as good as savings. You can borrow to spend. Total junk economics but that's modern (neo-classical) economics for you. It's what every economist gets taught, it's what politicians are led to and like to believe and the banks get to sell debt till their hearts are content.

Apparently we don't have to make things, we can just borrow and spend. The more we borrow then the better is the logic. In that case why bother regulating the banks? Let them create more and more money to lend out because debt is intrinsicly good for the economy.

In this paradigm the banks will simply speculate and speculate as wildly as possible. Why? Because both consequences are economically good - more profit if they win and more debt if they lose and debt makes the world go round.

The government then has to support such enterprise. And given that a good relationship to banks can help you get elected and your friends rich doesn't hurt.

Getting the taxpayer into debt to bail out the banks makes sense. Debt is good, the more debt the better.

Then you hit a brick wall. Credit freezes up. What's the answer? Print money and give it to the banks to lend and speculate some more. The citizens are to blame. Why? They're trying to save and that is causing a problem with consumption. How do we stop this problem? Put down interest rates so that keeping money in the bank at low interest while the currency loses value means you lose and so must speculate with your money.

You can't tax the banks, you can't put up interest rates because that discourages more debt and encourages savings and so all you can do is to punish those who cause the problem using austerity cuts. The public must be held to account because it's not the banks speculating and it's not the government not regulating that's the problem it's you for trying to save.

This economics is so ingrained that the unions are stupidly attacking from the wrong angle. It's not austerity that is the problem, it is debt. How do the unions believe we should finance public services? More debt? Total insanity! We don't attack Tory toffs and demand more debt. We should demand debt cancellation, an end to bailouts, stimulus and money printing. An end to unsound money and central banking. These are the real issues - the class war is not about the working class v the middle class, it is between a small super-elite financial oligarchy and everyone else. It is not Labour v Tory, it is people versus a financial coup d'etat - a kleptocratic cabal which has captured our political system and our media.

People, the economics is all wrong. It is badly and dangerously wrong and it is now destroying the lives of millions.

Taking our economy back is part of the Kilkenomics festival in Kilkenny city in Ireland. It is bringing alternative economic thinkers (who predicted the crisis in great detail) together with stand-up comedians in an ingenious and bold attempt at demystifying economics for the people and helping them make sense of it. The people know something has gone badly and dangerously wrong - they need now to engage because it's their money and their economic future!

This is why the Kilkenomics festival is so important. It is perhaps the start of a worldwide revolt against global Bankster governance.

Ireland is ahead of the game because of the madness and economic chaos of 'austerity'. It will be here soon and we'll need to go through a similar process. Scotland needs her own version of Kilkenomics.

Do not trust corporate politicians who tell you they will fix the problem - they are the problem. The solution will have to come from the grassroots and foisted on our political class or we will usher in a new one.

That's why Kilkenomics must succeed and why Scotland must emulate it!


Unlike the corporate baloney that is fed to us and called economic debate, here is a real debate on the subject. For your pleasure:



Courtesy of Press TV

SMEARGATE: SHADOW DEFENCE SECRETARY JIM MURPHY MP IMPLICATED

Today, Newsnet Scotland has exposed a campaign coming from the office of the now Labour Shadow Defence Secretary Jim Murphy MP to intimidate and smear an ordinary member of the public who sought a FOI (Freedom of Information Request) in relation to the donation which was illegal and taken by former Labour's former Holyrood group leader Wendy Alexander.

Tonight Jim Murphy is due to appear on the BBC Radio 4's Any Questions programme along with the SNP's Roseanna Cunningham and LibDem politician Michael Moore. It will be interesting to see if Mr Murphy distances himself from these allegations.

Congratulations to Newsnet Scotland for their excellent piece!

What was Mr Murphy doing in the Scotland Office during the last Labour government? Some thought he was using his post as a means of financing (using public money) and co-ordinating political propaganda and dirty tricks. This latest episode is further evidence supporting those charges..

Kilkenomics: Genius Economics Festival

Why should taxpayers have to bail out private banks causing economics crises and mayhem? Who's idea was it?

Why should private debts which were lost speculating be compensated by citizens? Given that million are now losing their jobs thanks to institutional fraud in the financial markets I think the public needs an answer!

And who gives the IMF any authority to demand that governments bail out banks? What charter gives them the right?

Big questions but as soon as you mention 'speculating' or 'charter' people's eyes glaze over. Economics uses language which confuses people and that's because financiers like to confuse people and so take their money.

To connect people and economics the Irish have came up with a brilliant idea. Take some of the world's best economic thinkers, with no axe to grind, and put them together with comedians in an economics festival.

The festival will run in Kilkenny city between the 11th and 14th of November and speakers will include the brilliant Peter Schiff whose books predicted the financial crisis with great accuracy. Another speaker will be the former US regulator William K. Black who during the US 'Savings and Loans Crisis' of the 80's investigated over 1, 000 bankers and financiers who were found guilty of fraud and many were jailed. Bill says the current problem with systemic fraud in the financial system is at least 40 times bigger than the 'Savings and Loans Crisis' We need more like him!

These heavy weight economic thinkers will be accompanied by smart comedians who have a reputation of throwing light on such subjects without depressing the audience.

The festival is called Kilkenomics and you can get more information here or go to www.Kilkenomics.com

Can we organise such a conference in Scotland? This is exactly what the people need so that we can stop the financial coup d'etat which has took over Ireland, Scotland, Greece, Britain, US and many more nations around the world. Send out the word - this is not recession it's enormous fraud and the governments are complicit..

People are losing jobs and their standard of living is collapsing, public services are being axed and debt levels are going through the roof all because the people are being led to believe they have to compensate the super-rich for losses they incurred in highly speculative bets.

It is time to take economics back from complicit politicians and what some call 'financial terrorists' and sort our nations out!

Here is an Irish economist, David McWilliams, who is involved in organising the Kilkenomics conference talking to to the great economic commentator Max Keiser: (go to 12.25)