Saturday, September 15, 2012
"This meeting believes there is no evidence of catastrophic warming remotely as catastrophic as the regulations, taxes and other costs imposed to ameliorate it".
On the upper floor of Yates. 134-136 West George Street
Tuesday 30th October 7 00 for a 7.30 start.
To be recorded & broadcast on Youtube
I am very pleased and proud to present the final speaker for the motion.
In the early 1970s Jim was very popular across Scotland as easily the most articulate and intelligent Labour Party MP and a "left wing" radical.
He then quit to form the Scottish Labour Party (no relation to the present lot) to campaign for devolution.
In turn he joined and became deputy leader of the SNP. Sillars, along with the 79 Group, including Salmond, and the former SLP members in the SNP, started to shape the SNP as a clearly defined, left-of-centre party.
He also married Margo MacDonald.
Jim's opposition to warming alarmism is of long standing, though he is now semi-retired.
In the September 10th issue of Holyrood magazine he wrote that the SNP is
"most leadership controlled party in the UK. If I did not know better, I would easily believe the leaders had been schooled in the old communist party, where the top, the elite, made the decisions and the rest fell into step automatically, with not a word of dissent. Totalitarian would be a fair description of Scotland’s majority party."based on the lack of any SNP MSP participating in internal debate, not just on warming but on almost anything.
Jim shows that disagreement on alleged catastrophic warming (& I would suggest most UKIP policy) is not a matter of "left" V "right" but of a rather older cultural divide in our country. That between those who accept authority unquestioningly and those who don't. On one side "the man of independent mind" and on the other the "belted knights", MSPs, quangoists, Beeboids, government funded "sock puppets" and those who "worship at their words" and say that the rest of us are not entitled to hear an open debate on the subject, we should shut up and fork over 10s of billions to them
His name is still so well respected within Labour that at First Minister's questions this week Johann Lamont, leader of the party now called the Scottish Labour Party applauded Jim Sillar's "wise words" and spoke of the need for Holyrood parties to engage in "dialogue" with the Scottish people. Being a Glasgow MSP she was one of the first people invited to "dialogue" in support of her party's position in this debate. She refused.
This is where we are having a slight difficulty. Holyrood voted unanimously for the most expensive and draconian Climate Change Act in the world with the BBC openly flouting its legal duty of balance to support them and the rest of the "great and good" lining up in approval. There should be no shortage of people willing to publicly support that position - not just in the TV studios where questions are obsequious and dissent is censored.
We wanted 3 speakers for the "consensus"
We have asked
All 129 MSPs
All 5 party organisations
Scottish Natural Heritage
The head of the Scottish Civil Service
The Carbon Trust
NERC (a quango you've never heard of but it gets £500 million a year to promote alarmism & did previously call for a debate)
Friends of the Earth
Stop Climate Change Scotland (an umbrella organisation covering around 90 other alarmist groups)
Professor Ann Glover (former Chief Scientific Adviser to the Scottish government, now to the entire EU, who once claimed that global warming would increase day length)
and a couple of individuals I won't embarrass by naming.
Between them these get several billions a year to promote alarmism
Also Glasgow University
Glasgow Caledonian University
and Channel 4
Not one of whom is willing to speak We are still seeking.
One or 2 unavailablewould not be surprising but it is statistically impossible for this to be coincidence. The Greens in particular were quite specific that they would never participate.
3 things, listed in increasing importance, follow with implacable logic from this:
1 - It is not just that the SNP are fairly totalitarian and that Labour have no interest in the "dialogue" with the people they call for but that all the Holyrood parties have deliberately divorced themselves from any influence from the Scottish people.
2 - That it is a statistical certainty that virtually everybody in these parties, the state owned media and the subsidy dependent "industries", even if they don't know for a certainty that catastrophic warming is a lie, know of no information that would allow them to present a convincing case in free debate that it is true, but that this in no way impedes their enthusiasm for laws that cost the people of Scotland many billions and are maintaining & will maintain the recession.
3 - In any democratic society where decisions are reached by the people after free discussion any movement which refused to engage in such discussion with those who disagree could never reach and thus never convince many people. Their only hope would be that it not be a free society and that the main media, owned or regulated by the state & propagandised for them & rigorously censored any dissent. Global warming is only the latest of dozens of "environmental" catastrophe stories which have been thus promoted - not one of which has turned out to be true.
The refusal to debate proves that all these people and government funded groups know that we live in a sham democracy & fairly totalitarian state in which the state media (primarily the BBC) censor dissent. The state owned BBC have "abandoned the pretence of impartiality long ago" (Jeremy Paxman) and this is incompatible with a free society.
Widespread and general free debate is a necessary & possibly sufficient condition for a free society & this debate will be a step towards it.
* Scottish Renewables was asterisked. This is because a few days ago I found that the 30th of October is also the start of a 3 day conference at the SECC, organised by Scottish Renewables, 49 Bath St, Glasgow. 5,000 members of an "industry" that gets far more money out of subsidy than it ever does from making electricity and destroys 3.7 productive jobs for every subsidised 1 it creates will "network and do business".
If, after being reminded of this, Scottish Renewables are still unable to find a single person willing to put their case in an uncensored debate the conclusion will be inescapable.