A Place to Stand

When I invited all 129 MSPs to speak in debate in support of their belief in catastrophic global warming and Scotland's Climate Change Act, the world's most draconian, intended to cost trillions of pounds over the next 3 generations, most of them refused even to reply. Most that did made a simple refusal.

    Green leader, Patrick Harvie, simply confirmed that his party would never, under any circumstances, engage in debate with UKIP and then got offencive.

   One other, John Mason, SNP MSP for Glasgow Shettleson, did reply & we engaged in correspondence. Since he didn't make it off the record and was obviously well aware of my status as a member of UKIP I am free to reproduce both sides of it.

      I am not particularly knocking Mr Mason, who is clearly much more interested in ideas than most of his "totalitarian" party. However I found his ignorance of basic economics, science and even the political philosophies he believes in to not reflect well on the "intellectual wilderness of Scottish politics".

      One effect of the "totalitarian" nature of the SNP is that we can be sure that anything one of them says closely represents the common view. In those terms we can take his belief that the main, perhaps only, way out of recession his party approves of is unlimited immigration and repopulation, particularly of the Highlands with millions of immigrants, presumably from the 3rd world, to be their real policy.

    I think this lunatic, since such immigration would  produce per capita  negative growth, but also because the free market policies we propose would clearly provide real growth. It is also something which no true Scots patriot of the last 7 centuries would be less than horrified about.

    The world population is 7 billion people. About 80% of them live in countries where working hard they could not expect to earn as much as they would on the dole in Scotland. If I were one of them I would want to come here too, but I am not. I am a patriot of my own country and people and will not sell them out the way the SNP intend to.

      I also note his definition of "right wing" as anybody who thinks the free market has a significant place in the economy or anybody who "doesn't like foreigners" when "doesn't like" is defined as not wanting unlimited immigration or not wanting to be run by Brussels. I suspect, outside the Holyrood cartel, 90%+ of Scottish people are "right wing" in those terms.

     I admit some of what I said was intemperate but, for fairness have kept it in.  Note also that on a number of points he has made no attempt to provide factual support or sometimes even to answer the point at all and I think it reasonable to assume he cannot.

     I also find his contention that if only we had an oil fund like Norway we could blow 10s of billions of it on whatever & thus get the economy permanently growing.Of course such spending, which is essentially what we are now doing but he wants more, merely provides a little short term spending to mask the underlying recessionary trend. Real growth comes from increasing the means of production which he is, if anything, opposed to. It is noticeable that Norway is not in recession, still has this fund because it has not blown it on short term spending and incidentally is not an enthusiastic member of the EU, has been the template for the Scottish Tunnel Project, so not remotely like what the SNP intend.
======================================
Dear Mr Craig

Thanks for your email.

I am a bit puzzled if it is aimed at me personally or at all MSPs as it starts off 'Dear MSP' which does seem a bit impersonal.

I guess people might turn down your invitation for a number of reasons including its being hosted by UKIP. People might have more faith in the fairness of the debate if it was hosted by a neutral body.

Even if there was no climate change, we would still need to cut energy and other resource usage. So I do feel the wording of your motion is a bit unfortunate and misses the main point.

Sincerely

John Mason
The invitation went to all MSPs & indeed to all the parties. This might seem a little of a wide spread if it were not for the fact that not one of them has yet confirmed that they are willing to publicly speak in support of the Act unanimously passed to produce the most expensive climate change legislation in the world.

If I had thought many of you were not perfectly aware that this entire scare story is a deliberate fraud to rob this and succeeding generations of trillions of pounds I would have been unwise to ask so many because obviously I would have had to fend off the multiple acceptances.

Clearly I have, if anything, underestimated the total understanding by every last one of you that this is a deliberate fraud that cannot survive impartial debate.

Or are you willing to debate?

As regards your objection to UKIP as not being neutral I will be interested to seeing the numerous links you can produce, if you are in any way honest on this, in which you have publicly denounced MSPs for appearing on the BBC, an organisation which admits to making no attempt at neutrality over this totalitarian fraud.

Neil Craig

If your case were correct you would have nothing to fear from testing it. This is known
as the scientific method in science or liberal democracy in politics.

You clearly feel debate with anybody you disagree with should not be allowed. This is known as fascism.
How fortunate for you that it is a belief obviously shared by all MSPs in your LabNatConDemGreen cartel and our state controlled media.

Should you ever, under any circumstances, abjure fascism the invitation to participate in democracy stands.

Neil Craig

Thanks Neil

I am puzzled about the link with fascism. I understood that was more likely for right wing parties who oppose immigration. Is that not more UKIP's position?

I am asked to attend and take part in a variety of meetings. A number of factors have to be considered before accepting, including time and location, my personal expertise on the subject, and the likely fairness of the hosting. I am afraid your meeting did not pass all these tests.

Regards

John

I suggest you look up the history of fascism - it was founded by a socialist nationalist by the name of Mussolini whose basic idea was that dissent, countervailing opinions etc should be suppressed on the grounds that everything works better when there is an enforced consensus.

Which obviously is pretty much the positon of the cartel parties and the BBC.
It was nazism that made racism a fundamental part of nationalism.

I'm not sure what you mean by "right wing" - if you are sure perhaps you could define it?

Neil Craig

By right wing I would include both economic pro-market tendencies and anti-foreigner attitudes, both of which I believe UKIP, BNP, NF, etc. support.

I certainly do not agree that countervailing opinions should be suppressed. If you want a debate, why not get a neutral organisation to host it? Or are you afraid of that? Most party politicians are unlikely to take part in a debate hosted by another party… that would seem a pretty obvious trap not to fall into.

Cheers
John

Actually the BNP aren't particularly pro-market - they are very much old Labour on things like tariffs. UKIP is not anti-foreigner - our party, unlike most in Holyrood, including some in the SNP, has no record of supporting illegal wars and much worse against foreigners.

That leaves only anybody who wants less than 3/4s of Britain's/Scotland's national wealth to be either legislated out of existence or spent by the government. In that way I would have to be classified as "right wing". Which pretty much leaves only Scotland, North Korea, the old USSR, China under Mao and; wartime Nazi Germany and admittedly wartime Britain as "left wing".

I take it SNP policy is pretty much promotion of unlimited immigration - to, as Brecht said, "elect a new people".

I note that you have not answered the question about when you denounced political allies who appear on the BBC state propagandist on this subject despite the fact it makes no attempt at impartiality. I can confirm that the BBC which does not allow formal free debate is particularly unwilling to do so on this subject.

I would point out to you that when the terms "right" and "left" were first applied to politics those who wanted a free market were radical left wing and those who wanted government controls to keep entrepreneurs down were the right wing aristocratic party. Such use of political labels to mean the opposite of their original meaning is unfortunately common in politics - as someone who calls himself a nationalist and wants his country embedded in an EU super-state you will appreciate this.

Neil Craig

Thanks Neil

On the BBC I do think they are biased against Scottish Independence having been described as the glue that holds Britain together. However, I do think programmes like Good Morning Scotland are reasonably fair. I would be happier appearing in a debate hosted by the BBC than one hosted by another political party.

On immigration we have had a problem in Scotland with a stable or falling population over a number of years. This makes it difficult to grow the economy or improve services. Large parts of Scotland are also seriously under-populated. Therefore, either we need to increase the population ourselves or to encourage immigration.

I trust that clarifies my views on these points.

Regards
John

On alleged catastrophic warming the BBC make no bones about being biased and censoring dissent. Indeed they hired one of their own recently to write a report about how bias was OK, which rather puts it beyond dispute. The BBC do not do formal debate. Sometimes and I think this is what you are referring to, they do interviews with a number of carefully selected people who follow the BBC line on all the main points, but this is not debate

If the BBC ever do actually do a genuine debate on warming in which dissent is actually allowed I will be certain to acknowledge the fact but don't hold your breath.

We do not have a stagnant economy because we have a declining population - we have a declining population because we have a stagnant economy. Check out Ireland to which followed which. Of course we could have a fast growing economy any time the SNP decided to stop preventing it. You know that perfectly well. I would challenge you to debate that but I know you would refuse.


If you were concerned about highland and island depopulation you would have been enthusiastic about the Scottish Tunnel Project but neither you nor the large majority of MSPs were remotely so. As one would expect since you are deliberately maintaining recession.

Neil Craig

Thanks Neil

I do not think anyone is deliberately maintaining recession. What would the point in that be? However, there is disagreement as to how recession can be ended. This is made more difficult as the UK acted irresponsibly in the good times and did not save up an oil fund as Norway did. The UK has been such a failure economically that we would surely be better off independent.

I have never been encouraged to follow a BBC line when I have taken part in TV and radio programmes they host. Most of the time both sides get the chance to put their case, although I am no fan of the BBC.
I would stick to my position that the stagnant economy is partly caused by a stagnant population. More people means more work can be done, more taxes paid, better public services, and so on.

Cheers for now
John

I don't think there is much factual debate about how to have a successful economy, any more than there is factual debate about creationism V evolution.

Economic Freedom + Cheap Energy = Prosperity

You did not dispute that South Korea is richer than North or give any other examples of centralised socialism matching free enterprise & the evidence seems indisputable

http://www.slideshare.net/indicusanalytics/habits-of-highly-effective-countries-presentation

And the SNP is clearly aware of the second part "In modern times the main driver of economic growth has been, and continues to be, energy" - Jim Mather, SNP minister

As you have made quite clear you are personally so ideologically committed to "leftism" that you would rather not have growth, without it and it is unarguable that the SNP policy is to maximise the cost and minimise the availability of energy.

I know that a couple of days ago Alex Salmond said that every SNP MSP was spending every hour trying to end the recession but that is clearly merely the highest standard of honesty to which he aspires & not to be taken as truthful. Or do you actually deny that the formula above is essentially true or that you and your party are absolutely opposed to both "right wing" economic freedom and cheap energy?

Compare and contrast with Chairman Deng's remark that "it doesn't matter whether a cat is black or white but whether it catches mice" but then the Chinese communist party is clearly a Nationalist patriotic organisation that puts improving people's lives ahead of Marxist/Leninist ideology, quite unlike the LabNatConDemGreen cartel.

You must know perfectly well that we could be out of recession quickly and in due course at least matching the non-EU world average growth rate of 6% if we had patriotic government committed to doing so. After all what inherent law of nature is there that says we cannot match the world average?

Regarding the BBC I can confirm that UKIP too does not come under any pressure to conform to the BBC line, simply because we are deliberately censored by them, in the totalitarian cause. Perhaps you could give an example of "Most of the time both sides get the chance to put their case" when you were part of one side and there was a genuine discussion (I don't ask for even a true debate) on the subject of global warming, or free enterprise, or cheap energy or cutting state totalitarianism, or unlimited immigration or anything else of significance, in which supporters of economic, & other, freedom were allowed to speak freely.

Neil Craig

Thanks Neil

Firstly, I do not agree there is anything we can do to get out of recession quickly. If we had savings (like Norway) we would be in a stronger position but debt is a real restriction on individuals, countries, and other organisations.

On growth, yes we do want that, and it will be helped by a growing population and commodity and energy prices not rising too fast. That is why we need to invest now in renewable energy so that when the oil runs out we have an alternative ready. The alternative of using the oil and gas and not preparing for the future would be a disaster waiting to happen.

I would see myself as being left of centre, i.e. wanting a fairer distribution of income and wealth, but I certainly do want to see growth. There are many people struggling in my constituency so we need to help them either by creating new and better jobs or by redistributing wealthier people’s income and wealth.
I hope that clarifies my thinking.

Regards
John

If we cannot get out of recession why can the non-EU world manage an average of 6% growth? What is inherently different about Scotland and the UK that means we cannot even hope to approach far below average? Apart from the politicians.

If there is no reason apart from politicians ideologically committed to opposition to economic freedom in preference to ending recession, then that must be the cause. I note that you have not attempted to support the claim that central planning is as efficient as market freedom by providing any examples, counter to so many showing it isn't..

The "oil running out" is yet another of the eco scare stories which have been disproven by reality, repeatedly. Oil supplies are increasing not running out. In any case if you believed that you would have to enthusiastically support nuclear.

Like you I want people to pay a fair share of taxes. Where I disagree with you & the BBC, is in what constitutes "fair". Personally I think it is fair that those individuals who work hard &/or create wealth are entitled to keep the majority of it, which does not happen currently under our various layers of tax. I also think it indisputable that, so long as human beings are not automata, the incentive of getting more money is bound to encourage people to work hard & create wealth. If you were to accept that you would have to accept that the SNP claim to be doing your best to achieve growth is false.

I find it disgraceful that you use your poorest constituents as moral human shields when you have shown that you cannot factually dispute well that they are "struggling" purely because of poverty enforced by our ideologically driven technophobic politicians.

Neil Craig