We can make this a better country with UKIP. I run a science fiction bookshop in Glasgow (which partly explains my enthusiasm for human progress). Married to Hazel. Living in Woodlands. My father was Eastwood candidate for the Liberals. I spoke at LibDem conference in support of nuclear power, against illegal wars, for economic freedom and was the only person to speak directly against introducing the smoking ban. I was expelled, charged with economic liberalism. In 2007 I stood as the 9% Growth Party for economic freedom and cheap (nuclear) electricity. I am still proud of that manifesto - if vfollowed we would not have rising electricity bills and would be 80% better off with 7 years of 9% growth.
- UKIP is the only party opposed to Scotland having the most expensive "Climate Change Act" in the world; only party that wants us out of the EU - only part of the world economy still in recession - the rest is growing at an average of nearly 6% a year; only party opposed to effectively unlimited immigration; committed to growing our economy by the only way it can be done Economic Freedom + Cheap Energy; we offer referenda as a basic citizen right, as Switzerland and California do. --- Neil Craig

Monday, 31 March 2014

"EU Membership Damages Rather Than Improves Our Economy" - Part I of VI Part Debate With Scottish Lib Dem Leader Or Nominee

   Last Monday Willie Rennie publicly claimed that UKIP’s desire for growth was inconsistent with wanting to quit the EU. He knew UKIP were censored from the debate  – hence the present online debate


    In 1980 the 10 EU countries represented 30.9% of world gdp. Now the 28  represent 18.3% and declining. The world economy is growing at 3.4%, which means, with the EU in recession, the non-EU 83% is growing at 4.1%. The EU is the only zone of the world economy in recession.

    Why is the EU failing? Professor Tim Congdon calculates that membership costs us £170 billion & Professor Minford has a similar figure. This includes an estimate of 5% of gdp lost directly though EU bureaucracy (the rest is mainly higher food costs, welfare costs of immigrants and our direct financial payment). If this be thought surprisingly large it may be because it is little reported in Britain that EU Commissioner, Gunter Verheuggen has publicly estimated bureaucracy cost slightly higher at 5.5% of the community’s wealth.

   This is simply the immediate cost – the long term cost of the lost growth giving us an economy half the size it should be is far greater.

     For 40 years now British politicians have said that all that is needed is reform and they will achieve it, given a couple more years. We didn’t quit when we were ahead. Perhaps we should quit now we are [40yrs X £170bn} £6,800,000,000,000 behind.

Sunday, 30 March 2014

Censorship of UKIP in the Referendum "Debate" Means Some Of The Clearest Arguments Are Being Suppressed

  A letter to most Scottish & UK papers. It is long so when they decide not to publish I will send several cut down versions, probably amount to a couple of hundred separate submissions. That would effectively guarantee publication of our press were interested in balanced letters pages.
     At his Scottish conference, LibDem leader Nick Clegg has said how important it is that the Unionist parties work together to defeat the separation referendum. Liberals, Labour and Conservative. There is obviously something missing from this spirit of togetherness – any willingness to work with the 3rd party in British politics UKIP (4th in Scotland, but still ahead of Clegg’s own & likely to take 1st place in the EU elections).

      I attended a debate hosted by a leftist charity where the 3 approved parties spoke but from which UKIP was censored. The audience vote showed the approved parties lost heavily. This failure was all the more unnecessary since all the “nationalist” speakers, even from the SNP, were antagonistic to nationalism. All based their pitches on the, in my view, unrealistic expectation that separation would make us independent of the laws of arithmetic and able to make enormous financial commitments without raising any money. One speaker even acknowledged, in response to my question, that he would be happy to see us in permanent recession as long as their shibboleths were satisfied. It should not have been difficult to win that debate.


     By comparison, last year UKIP’s leader Mike Scott-Hayward, candidate Stuart Maskell and I stood, without preparation, in debate against Yes campaigners (the traditional party representatives all pulled out at the last moment) and won convincingly.


     Part of it is that some of the most clear-cut arguments involve the EU. If Scotland were to join as a new nation we would, at best, get the basic new nation terms. This means we would lose our share of Britain’s rebate (£500 million); would have to sign the Shengen immigration terms, meaning border posts at Gretna; agree to eventually joining the Euro; and sign up to the working time agreements which, going by the far worse continental employment figures, would destroy 170,000 jobs. However, because the traditional parties are EU enthusiasts they are clearly reluctant to mention this, and do not appear to have their hearts in the fight at all.


    By excluding UKIP, for party political reasons, they (& the BBC whose censorship of UKIP in Scotland would have done the Soviets proud) are preventing Scots having a full and rounded debate. This is what happened in the AV referendum where the LibDems refused UKIP’s assistance, deciding to depend on the popularity of Clegg – and lost despite the polls starting in their favour. If Britain is destroyed and Scotland plunged into financial disaster under incompetent politicians who think wishing will make it so (& who have already threatened to repudiate the national debt, something no sensible chancellor ever merely threatens to do) it will not be because the extreme “socialists” and a declining covering of nationalists, have won the debate. It will be because the LabConDems & BBC have ensured Scots have not had a real debate. From experience both Clegg and I can confirm that those presenting the UKIP view can win in debate whenever we are not censored out of it. We can win the debate on whether Britain should have a future if we are not censored and Scotland’s future is too important an issue for it to be settled by party interests.
Neil Craig    

Thursday, 27 March 2014

First Farage/Clegg Debate a Success

To nobody's surprise the poll after the first (radio) Farage/Clegg debate on the EU showed Nigel winning handsomely (57:36%).
The next hour-long debate will be shown on BBC2 from 7pm on Wednesday, 2 April, and will be hosted by David Dimbleby.
This can only do us good (& to be fair will probably give the LD some good too since they are angling to take pro-EU voters from the LabCons, in which we may wish them good luck.


The party’s main 2014 conference will be held at Doncaster Racecourse, relatively nearby, in South Yorkshire,on Friday September 26 and Saturday September 27. http://www.ukip.org/newsroom/news/1262-ukip-to-hold-it-s-biggest-ever-annual-conference-at-doncaster-racecourse-as-the-party-goes-from-strength-to-strength-in-south-Yorkshire
BRIAN'S BIG DEBATE, for BBC radio Scotland
We have hopes of getting MEP candidate David Coburn on the panel here though, as always, when trying to get the BBC not to censor, it is an uphill struggle. UKIP's recent poll rating of 6% would guarantee us about 1/7th as much coverage as the SNP if the law requiring "balance" in BBC coverage were upheld.
WHERE:               Kilmardinny Arts Centre, Bearsden, Glasgow, G61 3NN
WHEN:                 Friday 4th April
TIMES:                  Doors open at the venue at 11:00am the show is on air from 12pm - 1pm
   I will be in the audience again..

Wednesday, 26 March 2014

Online Debate Challenge To LD Leader Willie Rennie Over EU Or Growth (After He Used The Fact That UKIP Was Being Censored To Attack Us)

To the Scottish LibDem Leader who used the recent "debate without opposition" to attack UKIP's EU policy knowing UKIP was being censored.

Dear Mr Rennie,
             I believe that genuine free debate without anybody being censored is a necessary condition for a true democracy. If you agree and wish that I'm sure you will accept this offer.
    I was the gentleman from UKIP that, in Monday's debate, pointed out that none of you Holyrood MEPs actually wanted to get our economy out of the doldrums and into growth (& give Harvie some credit for having admitted it, though he personally immediately backtracked a little). You took the opportunity to attack me for wanting growth and at the same time being against EU membership.
    Obviously it is possible to hold both views if you think, as I  almost all economists and the EU do, that the EU is holding back growth. The sceptical might believe that the only reason you dared to attack my position was that you knew that you were benefiting from the “Skeptic’s” anti-sceptical  censorship of freedom of expression and that I would not be allowed to point out where you are wrong.
         However you can prove me wrong by accepting a challenge to publicly debate with a UKIP representative (perhaps our EU candidate, perhaps myself) on either whether the EU is adding to[NC1]  our growth or whether we could achieve serious growth rates with UKIP policies (or both if you chose). Accepting would suggest you either believe in your policies or accept free debate as preferable to totalitarian censorship (or possibly both). On the other hand Charles Kennedy, who did at conference, call on your party to debate against UKIP, has repeatedly declined to do so.
      If you do not feel up to this you or a representative are invited to engage in an online debate. Formal debate involves alternate speakers getting, usually, 3 alternate opportunities to put their case and rebut their opponents. I invite you to debate on my blog.
     On Monday 31st March I will put up, in no more than 250 words my position on why the EU is economically damaging; you or your representative are invited to reply by 6.00 on Tuesday 1st April in 250n words; I will reply on Weds 3rd; you on Thurs 4th; me on Fri 5th and finally you on Sat 6 th.
      Alternately, if you prefer, we can debate whether UKIP economic policies should be reasonably expected to get us out of the current economic doldrums and into several times higher growth. Your choice.
Looking forward to a true debate.
Neil Craig
UKIP Glasgow
      OK lets see if they are up to it. Possibly not Rennie himself (even if he signs it) but there must be somebody in the party (I also sent it to the party) who feels they can make a serious case for staying in the EU. I am entirely serious about the necessity of open debate on politics, without it no free choice is possible, and I am sure the "Liberal Democrats" will, at least officially agree [ even the "Glasgow Skeptics" who ran the show, claim to believe in "critical thinking" though not when it is critical of the state parasites they support.
      Since Rennie specifically challenged me at the "Skeptics" do over the EU, if there is anything at all the party feels able to defend in debate that would be it.
     However it goes I will put my side of the case on Monday, Wednesday and Friday & whatever they present Tuesday, Thursday & Saturday which gives them the advantage of the last word. Of they decide not I can doubtless find an appropriate image.

Tuesday, 25 March 2014

Debate on Separation - Mitchell Theatre, Glasgow

Independence "Debate" - Not About Nationalism But About Unlimited Promises Of Toys
    Last night attended the "Glasgow Skeptics - promoting science, critical thinking and freedom of expression" - a government sock puppet who were running a "debate" on independence. I have previously mentioned the "Skeptics" and their absolute objection to sceptical thinking and free debate over alleged catastrophic global warming. So their decision to give places to the 5 cartel parties and undeniably Fascist and racist Radical Independencers while excluding UKIP was expected. Such is normal of state funded puppets.

Jackson Carlaw (Tory) Jackie Baillie (Labour & Willie Rennie (LibDim) for No and Patrick Harvie (Green), some woman (SNP) and the cofounder of Radical Independence (Fascist).
    When I took my seat and not before I put on the UKIP rosette.
    Both the SNP and RI put gratuitous attacks on UKIP into their speeches. When the second did it I stood up and said “Mr Chair, I would like a ruling – is it proper that this is the second speaker to have made a gratuitous attack on UKIP when UKIP has been censored from the debate”. Well actually I only got the first few words before being drowned out. So I repeated and repeated and repeated and……. Eventually got the question out, at which time I was surrounded by bouncers, who explained that I would have to leave. I sat down and said you’ll have to carry me which they threatened to do but didn’t follow through. The chair obviously declined to rule on whether it was proper to use the venue to attack UKIP when UKIP had specifically been denied a chance to speak.

        In the QandA section I did get to speak – I pointed out that the Fascist (because that, and racist, is what RI had proven themselves to be when they attacked Farage) had denounced fuel poverty, but that none of the parties allowed to speak actually cared about fuel or any other sort of poverty. That the only way to end poverty is to increase national wealth and that while all of them knew how to do so – it was fairly easy and UKIP are full of policies saying how (which is true – cheap energy, save £170 bn out of the EU & cut parasitic government regulation). I then pointed out the incongruity of some Yes supporters decrying poverty when Patrick Harvie had said on TV that nobody should vote Yes in the expectation it will produce any growth in the foreseeable future.
Harvie said this is not exactly what he said – I said it was precisely what had said (& it was) but then went on to acknowledge that he was not a fan of growth and would be happy if we were poorer but fairer. To be fair to him he does come fairly close to saying what he means which puts him ahead of the rest, though “fair” is a very subjective word and I doubt if there are 2 people alive who would totally agree in what it means, which is why politicos use it.
     The only other one to say anything on my truthful charge that UKIP have the policies to end crerate wealth but none of them care was Willy Rennie. He denounced me for saying I want growth when I want to quit the EU. I put my hand up, twice, and loudly asked the chair if I would be allowed to answer the point but naturally wasn't. A voice for the audience said “No you won’t” & I replied “That was rather my point”.
     I was interested that 2 1/2 of the Yes speakers, and from the cheers almost all of this atypical audience, were resolutely opposed to nationalism (the 1/2 being the official SNP). This may not be entirely how the Yes campaign runs nationally but it is clear that the campaign has very little room for nationalists and patriots. It is entirely about various sorts of "socialist" promising each other that, come the revolution, there will be unlimited money to pay the unwaged, windmills, foreign aid, government employees, Gaelic programming, awareness raising activities, ensuring everybody working on Trident still gets paid etc.

     2 audience questions interesting more for the response than their originality.
     One man said how could we vote to stay in the union when we have the present electoral system, a position I have a lot of sympathy with. Carlaw, who answered it completely misunderstood the question, answering one about the English outvoting us. I am sure he was not just deliberately choosing to answer a different question but just didn’t get it. To be fair to Harvie again he acknowledged the probability that if we got separation the Scottish people will not use it to introduce all this unaffordable stuff. He is clearly intellectually head and shoulders above the kiddie "socialists" beside him, though that is not high praise.
      Another asked the No campaigners to say what vision they were offering. This has been asked regularly because they have been unable to answer it but the fact they have been unable to answer it shows how useless “better together” is. The answer is we’re living in it. A no vote means we can promise to keep the £ (OK the SNP promise it too but they can’t do so honestly); to keep Gretna free of border inspectors; to keep the BBC; common citizenship; the right to a referendum on EU membership; and the English subsidy of our windmills. That may not be the offer of the vision of Utopia the SNP offer bit it has the advantage of being real. Yet nobody on the No campaign has the gumption to say it.
       That was pretty much it. The audience was stacked with “socialist” evangelists and no doubt will have voted overwhelmingly for separation, as they did going in.
     I have written to Willie Rennie inviting him to debate either in person or online - see Wednesday's.

Monday, 24 March 2014

How Science Fiction Introduced Me to Freedom

    Brian Monteith has put this up on ThinkScotland and also, with the speech edited as it uses a shorter format, on the Free Society blog Please put any comments there.

WHEN I AND THE WORLD were much younger than now and both of us thought we were more “leftist” than today I read a book, set on the Moon, about a revolution where the very lowest in society rise up and overthrow the corrupt imperialist running dogs of the ruling class. By throwing rocks at them.

With a fair bit of liberated sex thrown in, which played to one of my interests at the time, and an awful lot of slang dialogue, which was not such an interest, it definitely established itself as hip countercultural stuff.

The book is The Moon is a Harsh Mistress by Robert Heinlein (whose picture on the cover astonishingly showed him with a military style crew cut.) It took me some time to realise that the absolute free market regime this underclass live under was not “left wing”. It exists only because the oppressors, an EU style world state, are too lazy to run society and the lack of any popular democracy means people cannot oppress each other in the name of democracy as we do today.

As is normal with Heinlein the social engineering is as well thought out as the traditional sort of engineering. Only years later did I find out that the mentor character, Professor Bernardo de la Paz was closely based on the real life anarchist philosopher Robert LeFevre. There is no shortage of the action needed for an exciting story full of ideas from an intelligent computer to a remarkably simple and genuinely effective ultimate weapon - enough to satisfy anybody looking for such. Also, there are as many ideas per paragraph most writers give per book, but then that applies to most of the Heinlen’s  books.

The philosophical heart of the book is this speech from the professor made to the Lunar Constitutional Convention: 

“Like fire & fusion, government is a dangerous servant and a terrible master. You now have freedom - if you can keep it. But do remember that you can lose this freedom more quickly to yourselves than to any other tyrant. Move slowly, be hesitant, puzzle out the consequences of every word. I would not be unhappy if this convention sat for ten years before reporting - but I would be frightened if you took less than a year.

Distrust the obvious, suspect the traditional ...for in the past mankind has not done well when saddling itself with governments. For example, I note in one draft report a proposal for setting up a commission to divide Luna into congressional districts and to reapportion them from time to time according to population.

This is the traditional way; therefore it should be suspect, considered guilty until proven innocent. Perhaps you feel that this is the _only_ way. May I suggest others? Surely where a man lives is the least important thing about him. Constituencies might be formed by dividing people by occupation ... or by age ... or even alphabetically. Or they might not be divided, every member elected at large - and do not object that this would make it impossible for any man not widely known throughout Luna to be elected; that might be the best possible thing for Luna.

You might even consider installing the candidate who got the least number of votes; unpopular men may be just the sort to save you from a new tyranny. Don't reject the idea merely because it seems preposterous - think about it! In past history popularly elected governments have been no better and sometimes worse than overt tyrannies.

But if representative government turns out to be your intention there still may be ways to achieve it better than the territorial district. For example you each represent about 10,000 human beings, perhaps 7,000 of voting age - and some of you were elected by slim majorities  Suppose instead of election a man were qualified for office by petition signed by 4,000 citizens. He would then represent these 4,000 affirmatively, with no disgruntled minority, for what would be a minority in a territorial constituency would all be free to start other petitions or join in them. All would then be represented by men of their choice. Or a man with 8,000 supporters might have 2 votes in this body. Difficulties, objections, practical points to be worked out - many of them! But you could work them out ... and thereby avoid the chronic sickness of representative government; the disgruntled minority which feels - correctly - that it has been disenfranchised.

But whatever you do not let the past be a straitjacket!

I note 1 proposal to make this Congress a two-house body. Excellent - the more impediment to legislation the better. But instead of following tradition, I suggest one house of legislators, another whose single duty is to repeal laws. Let the legislators pass laws only with a 2/3rds majority ... while the repealers are able to cancel any law through a mere 1/3rd minority. Preposterous? think about it.

If a bill is so poor that it cannot command 2/3rds of your consents is it not likely to make a poor law? And if a law is disliked by as many as 1/3rd is it not likely that you would be better off without it?
But in writing your constitution let me invite attention to the wonderful virtues of the negative! Accentuate the negative. Let your document be studded with things the government is forever forbidden to do. No conscript armies ... no interference, however slight with freedom of press, or speech, or travel, or assembly, or of religion, or of instruction, or communication, or occupation ... no involuntary taxation. Comrades if you were to spend five years in a study of history while thinking of more and more things that your government should promise never to do and then let your constitution be nothing but those negatives, I would not fear the outcome.

What I fear most are affirmative actions of sober and well-intentioned men, granting to government power to do something that appears to need doing. Please remember always that the Lunar Authority was created for the noblest of purposes by just such sober and well-intentioned men, all popularly elected. And with that thought I leave you to your labours."

As a Scot, with our SNP government having made some comments about how, come the day, they will provide us with a constitution that will enshrine all sorts of rights (the second ‘draft’ is now available), not for us to restrain the state but giving the state a duty to restrain us in the name of the "environment", education or what have you, I wish any of them had as much understanding as the Professor's audience.

I don’t want to upset any fans of Ayn Rand, who is a libertarian icon (rather a contradiction in terms) but she isn’t a fraction as good as Heinlein. Possibly her leaden prose and hammering the ideas home makes her better guru material. More likely the fact that Heinlein plays with all sorts of social ideas in different books; bureaucracy Star Beast; military rule Starship Troopers; absolute monarchy Glory Road; constitutional monarchy Double Star; by secret conspiracy Friday; dictatorship Time Enough For Love; theocracy Stranger in a Strange Land and this made him too big and unpredictable to be buttonholed as anybody’s guru.

On the other hand his successful societies have at least as much freedom as we have seen in our lifetimes. What more should you ask for?

“Political tags — such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth — are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire. The former are idealists acting from highest motives for the greatest good of the greatest number. The latter are surly curmudgeons, suspicious and lacking in altruism. But they are more comfortable neighbours than the other sort.”
Robert A. Heinlen 1907-1988

Neil Craig is proprietor of Scotland's largest independent science fiction bookshop http://futureshockbks.blogspot.co.uk/

Friday, 21 March 2014

   Another of these letters which the Scottish press decide not to publish - either because it doesn't reach their demanding literary standards or because they censor, or perhaps for some wholly unknown reason:

      We now have confirmation from Mr Miliband, that Labour are committed to staying in the EU without even a referendum.
       I remember back when Neil Kinnock became Labour leader. Then they were committed to leaving the EU, without even a referendum.
       In the intervening period Mr Kinnock and indeed his entire family have moved on to many many lucrative EU jobs. They have moved seamlessly from "no Kinnock in 1,000 years has gone to university" to leading members of the new Euro-aristocracy. An aristocracy who regularly glory in the word "technocrat" though in fact very few of them have any sort of technical knowledge that would justify that term. China's rulers, for better or worse, almost all have degrees in engineering or accountancy whereas ours mainly seem to have studied Politics Philosophy & Economics (known as "the bluffer's degree").
       What we have never seen is the massive open political debate within the Labour party that alone could justify this complete about face. The EU is the only world zone still in recession (the rest is growing at an average of nearly 6%). It has been calculated to cost our economy £170 billion. It means unlimited immigration from other member countries. If an "independent" Scotland were to join it on normal terms, since UK opt outs protect 2 million jobs, we would expect to lose 170,000. Yet none of this was seriously discussed as Labour reversed itself.
      Apparently the only thing old Labour and new Labour have in common is that the common people will not be consulted by referendum.
Neil Craig UKIP

Tuesday, 18 March 2014

Mark Millar - A Celebrity But Just Like A Person

   This morning I was walking up Woodlands Road when Mark Millar came up to me, pushing a baby buggy.

   Yes that Mark Millar.- writer of the Kick-Ass comics and movie, the Superman Red Son (which unusually for a mainstream US publication shows a deep and informed sympathy for the Soviet side in the cold war) & Wanted graphic novels, who cast Samuel L Jackson as the new comicbook Nick Fury, working class leftist from Coatbridge. That one. We know each other because we are in the same business, albeit at different ends.

    So he says (I have his permission to repeat this) "I see you're in UKIP now. Congratulations. How are they doing here."

    Better than I thought thinks I. But anyway we had a good conversation. He had been reading this blog, which is also gratifying [Hi Mark]. Turns out he knew I had been a LibDem and I explained how that went the way of all flesh when I was expelled for being an economic liberal (and as I later was told, for being against illegal wars).

   We agree totally that the EU is an economic basket case and we do ourselves no good being in it. He also has no time for the catastrophic warming propagandists - and said that when he recently retweeted an article by James Delingpole on the subject he got more hate-tweets for this than he has  for any other subject. Remarkable for the inventor on the homicidal pre-teen Hit Girl.

    When I asked for permission to mention this he said "As long as its from a left wing viewpoint" which I am very comfortable with. The only "right wing" thing about me is that I believe it proven that free enterprise works more efficiently than politicians making the decisions and I am offended at any society's leaders insisting they run us inefficiently. Unfortunately this is something that all of the modern "left" (though not historical leftists) agree must be "right wing". Too bad.

    Oh aye - and he says his wife is even more enthusiastic than him.

    Its things like that that make this worthwhile. Not celebrities per se but the fact that people with no personal axe to grind are more and more listening to what we say.

Saturday, 15 March 2014

Shale Gas Worth £5bn A Year To Scotland

   That is the headline the Scotsman put on it, thereby being equivocal about the fact that it is £5 bn a year.

SCOTLAND is sitting on up to £5 billion of natural gas reserves which could be extracted using the controversial technique known as fracking, financial experts said today.

 A report from PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) said Scotland is in a prime position to “capitalise” on shale gas, which is produced by fracking, due to the expertise that already exists in the country’s oil and gas sector.

Reserves of the gas, which has helped transform the fortunes of the United States economy, potentially lie beneath a huge swathe of central Scotland stretching from Aberdeenshire to Dumfries and Galloway.

But the moratorium has now been lifted by the UK government, with large parts of Scotland such as Fife, Stirling and Aberdeenshire now being viewed as ripe for the dash for shale gas.

 The PwC report Shale Oil – the Next Energy Revolution said fracking could boost the UK’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) by around 2 to 3.3 per cent by 2035 – worth about £30bn to £50bn.

    That gives us about 10% of the UK reserves, just over our population %.

    £5bn comes to £1,000 per head per year. In fact if it meant we didn't have to pay for the extortionate windmillery and thus electricity and gas prices came down to a fraction of what they currently are, rather than rising another 60% as the politicians want, it would have an effect several multiples of that effect and certainly get Britain and Scotland out of recession.

   In reporting this the Scotsman chose to give the views of the Green party and the state funded Campaign Against Fracking in Scotland, whose views were obvious ,plus the SNP, who avoided saying anything and the Conservatives whose support of ending recession was lukewarm. but not of UKIP, the only party unequivocally in favour of lower energy prices and thus ending the recession.

    If the present SNP had had any power in the 1970s there would be no interest in whether "Its Scotland's Oil" because they would simply have prevented it being extracted as they now are with shale.

Friday, 14 March 2014

Scottish Government and Politicians Silently Confirm 98% Of Every Electricity Bill Is Their Parasitism

    Recently (24th Feb) I did articles here and on ThinkScotland giving my calculations showing that electricity costs could be reduced to 97.92% (well call it 98%) of what it currently is.

    At the end I expressed a willingness to consider doubts:

I'm not standing by that exact figure though I would hold to each part as being either firm or a reasonable estimate. Nor does it matter much. If we can say at least 90% of electricity costs are state parasitism and can, over a number of years, be removed it doesn't immediately matter if another 80% reduction is ultimately possible. But if some supporter of windmillery feels the figures can be factually disputed I am sure they will do so.

If nobody in Scotland's political class feels able to point to any error, after it has been aired here on ThinkScotland, it would be difficult to conclude these figures are in error. I am sure the editor would be willing to publish a serious critical article (unlike, for example, the BBC, which virtually never allows a balancing of opinions on such subjects).

     At the same time I emailed Patrick Harvie, Green Party leader, the Green, SNP, Labour, Conservative & LibDem party organisations, Scottish Renewables, and the BBC, both as an organisation and their "environmental" expert, Roger Harrabin notifying them of this and asking if they, in any way, disputed that 49/50ths of every bill is governmental parasitism. That was pretty much belt and braces because politicians do take notice of the media if they have horse sense and it is inconceivable that those responsible for the government of Scotland in this field would not either have seen it or had it drawn to their attention.

   If one of them chose not to disagree it was because they could not produce a credible disagreement. If all of them chose not to disagree it is because all of them know it is true and that the most credible dispute they could make would simply prove my case.

    As I commented on the ThinkScotland article

 it is obvious none of them are able to dispute the math. So undisputed then that 98% of our electricity bills are indeed governmental parasitism. Nice to have it settled.

  Neil Craig

    That means all the fuel poverty and all of the recession. They know it and thus deliberately did it.

Thursday, 13 March 2014

SNP Childcare Promise Made Up ("Illustrative")

    My new ThinkScotland article - another in Brian's series on the SNP "White Paper". Please put any comments there:

SNP child care costings shown as pure fantasy

by Neil Craig

THE BIG money promise the SNP made in its White Paper was that if the Scots voted for separation the SNP would immediately provide:
  • Thirty hours of childcare per week in term time for all three and four-year-olds, as well as vulnerable two-year-olds.
As I mentioned in a previous ThinkScotland article  this means 150,000 kids or 200,000 hours so at least another £1 billion in extra taxes. That's 3p on income tax or equivalent the SNP is promising.
This promise was always something like the "bedroom tax"  – which the SNP already had the power legislate over if it thought doing something more desirable than using the issue as a totem, which obviously requires not doing anything because if it fixed the problem it couldn't denounce it).

As a promise it is very carefully targeted. Child carer costs are a dreadful additional expense for parents of young children and a serious disincentive to those who don't yet have them. The promise to wave them away with a little economic magic if only people vote for separation was likely to be greeted with relief by a particularly desperate demographic group. Which is, of course, why the SNP, so cynically, made the promise.

The particular economic magic it promised was that its figures showed that if the state simply took on the job of paying for child carer costs it promised enough mothers would join the workforce to bring in matching extra taxes to pay for it all. But only with independence – because otherwise the extra tax money would go to Westminster, and Westminster, being the wicked uncles the SNP say, would never consent to return any of it (even though under the Barnett formula the wicked uncles have always given Alex more per capita than they reserve for the English).

The logic all depends on the SNP being able to say, with certainty, that the tax rise would match the cost rise. Fortunately for the SNP, as we have repeatedly seen, it has no difficulty saying, with certainty, things which simply aren't true.

Scottishpol, the personal blog of the Sunday Herald political editor Tom Gordon  takes up the story.
"I've received a response to a Freedom of Information request I submitted to the Scottish Government asking for "the full results of any modelling which has been done" on the specific childcare proposals in the White Paper.

It turns out the Scottish Government didn't do ANY modelling of its own flagship policy.

"It modelled the impact of more women in the workforce...  "rather than directly modelling the impact of improved childcare itself".

To be fair, better childcare might bring lots more women into the workforce, and might raise lots more tax, but to advance a totemic policy on the basis of crossed fingers rather than rigorous analysis – and to give the impression it would be self-funding – seems pretty extraordinary to me.

If that's the standard for White Paper policies, folk may wonder what else is wishful thinking."

So the SNP made it up. Its "estimate" of the extra money just came out of thin air.

It is actually worse than that because the current cost of child carers is not something set in stone about which the SNP can do nothing. It is the direct and deliberate cost of government policy.

Here is a list of childcare costs around the OECD countries, calibrated in % terms of average wages which I think is a good comparison because, with little technology required, that really should be what makes up childcare costs.

Switzerland 77.7
UK  40.9
Ireland 45.2
USA 38.1
New Zealand 28.6
Canada 29.5
Japan 28.1
Australia 22.5
Slovenia 19.9
OECD, all 18.
Austria 16.8
Germany 14.1
Israel 18.3
Norway 10.8
France 16.5
Netherlands 13.2
Denmark 11.2
Korea  8.5
Finland 12.2
Czech Republic 10.6
Luxembourg 8.7
Iceland  7.9
Portugal 7.7
Poland 7.1
Spain 8.2
Belgium 5.8
Sweden 7.1
Hungary 6.2
Slovak Republic 7.4
Estonia  6.6
Greece  4.9

That is what I call a wide disparity. Note that Sweden, Belgium, Iceland, Luxembourg and Finland are all countries as wealthy as us or slightly more and all countries with good welfare systems so it is not credible that they are keeping costs down by dropping standards – even if the state were not to notice the parents would.

Note also that all of the least expensive 13 except Iceland are EU members so, for once, the EU regulatory regime cannot be to blame.

The basic rule here is that if something is being done abroad at a certain price it is possible to do it at that price here, and if it isn't being done cheaper here it must, other things being equal, be that our government is more restrictive than abroad's. This applies with costs of nuclear plants, housing, building projects, tunnelling. It must also apply to childcare.

The cost of the last 13 averages 7.7% of average income. With Britain at 40.9%, that must mean the level of state parasitism is 81% of the total cost.

Obviously not only is this cruel to parents it produces a strong discouragement to the birth of children, particularly among the middle class, who are neither rich enough to afford it, nor poor enough to be due it for free. It is difficult to think of something more likely to, over generations, destroy our nation. And  keeping a significant proportion of parents out of the workforce has major economic effects.

Note that Estonia, with virtually the lowest costs (6.6%), is also a deeply libertarian state (largely because after decades of Soviet rule the people are unimpressed with the promises of statists). I do not seek separation from the rest of Britain but if we were to be governed by politicians like Estonia's I would not fear the outcome. Unfortunately it is difficult to conceive of politicians less akin to the entrepreneurial, libertarian free market Estonians than the current Holyrood Numptocracy.

How to solve it:

Rather than spend a lot of time fighting over each regulation and slowly hacking away at the bureaucracy, why not simply introduce a new class of child care? Say that anybody is allowed to set up as a "Childminder" (as opposed to Child carer) so long as all their advertising includes "not government regulated" and that such childminders are allowed to include any sort of liability waiver. I assume liability law is why the US costs are almost as high as Britain's. Any parents are free to choose.

Current law on everybody includes the need for public liability insurance and that would remain and might well become the basis of a free market, just as France avoids most of our housing regulation by requiring builder's insurance on all new housing.

Note also that in Scotland, almost all regulatory powers are held by Holyrood. Thus this reform could be carried out here without any interference from either Westminster or Brussels.

Tuesday, 11 March 2014

Ukraine - Metro Letter

     This letter of mine was in the Metro on Monday. The bit in italics was edited out but it remained well above the average length of a Metro letter so that is fair. The letter went out to all our major papers and this is not the first time I have found the Metro more willing to publish unapproved opinions than the "quality" press are.:

The Crimeans are holding a referendum to quit Ukraine and join Russia.
        The western powers are not so much opposed to this on democratic grounds, after all it will be done by referendum and Ukraine is currently without an elected government, but because it offends against international law and guarantees such as the Helsinki Treaty where all signatories agreed international borders in Europe were sacrosanct. This is a reasonable point even though it is weakened by the US admission that they have been interfering in Ukraine to the extent of spending $5 bn subverting Ukraine's elected government by funding "awareness raising" activities by, often Fascist, rioters.
      Perhaps therefore the NATO countries, who signed a temporary occupation agreement of Kosovo with the sovereign power, Yugoslavia, guaranteeing that sovereignty, as previously confirmed in that Helsinki Treaty and elsewhere should consider returning it.
      Perhaps they could make suitable recompense to the 350,000 people ethnically cleansed fromm Kosovo by NATO police (formerly NATO armed KLA & formerly to that Albanian gangsters, drug lords, sex slavers, organleggers and a few left over Nazis).
      Or for the 10s of thousands of girls (& boys) kidnapped by our police.
     Or for the 1,800 people arrested, on racial grounds, and dissected, while still alive, by NATO police, to provide organs for western hospitals.
     Then they will be in a position to complain whether Mr Putin has acted improperly and whether any of them have any right to moralise.

Monday, 10 March 2014

UKIP's EU Candidate David Coburn On TV - But Not On The State Broadcaster

     An interview with David Coburn here on RTV. Our lead EU candidate in Scotland.

     Legally the BBC has a duty of "balance" which means that they give at least as much coverage to the party expected to place first in the EU elections as other parties.

    Well in fact if the BBC were only 90% corrupt totalitarian Fascist propagandists we would expect them to report us at least 1/10th as often.

    If the BBC were only 99% corrupt Fascist liars that would be 1% as often.

    In fact, at the time of writing the BBC have not made one single mention of our candidate. The only mention the entire BBC have is of him being a speaker at conference months ago.

     Proof, once again, that the BBC are virtually 100% corrupt totalitarian liars; at least amongst the most Fascist in the world; and

    "Democracy" requires the people to be able to make up their own minds which in turn means we have to be able to hear the debate.

     That is why, being, at least 1% believers in the principles of democracy Salmond, Lamont, Davidson, Rennie and Harvie have all publicly called for broadcasting freedom in reporting by the state owned broadcaster

[sorry got that wrong]

...... being, by definition of their action, corrupt totalitarians each one of whom has proven themselves far more Fascist than the BNP (& infinitely moreso than anybody in UKIP), are happy about, indeed utterly depend on, state censorship.
     Or does anybody in the BBC or other parties feel able to factually dispute that? Thought not.

Saturday, 8 March 2014

Will The Viewing Figures Of The UKIP/LD Debate On BBC2 Beat BBC1 At The Same Time?

  My reply to an opponent of both UKIP & LibDems in our forthcoming BBC 2 debate saying:

   "but the great battle of the minnows in the debate to come is going to help both parties"
Good point. Though, if polls are to be believed (or expectations UKIP will come 1st in the UK election) it is hardly a minnow being nearly the same size as the LabCons. But it is true that in terms of media coverage, particularly the state owned BBC with its legal duty of "balance" UKIP is virtually a sardine.

But yes it has always been that coverage in the big media has always been skewed towards 2 parties and even if the LDs do better, per capita, than UKIP they are still largely excluded from the approved 2. Both parties gain from open debate (as, even moreso, does the public since it is possible we will see some real disagreement on substantive issues which is not normally what the media do).

It will be very interesting to see what viewing figures on this BBC2 programme are compared to BBC1 at the same time or normal viewing figures at the same spot the previous week. If they are as embarrassingly good for the BBC as I suspect it will be difficult for them to censor future debates involving either these parties or the serious undiscussed issues.

    On the same subject Tim Worstall recently made the point that the UKIP court ruling, that we are entitled to as much coverage as the "main" parties is actually a win for the LDs since what the BBC "guidelines" actually said was that the 1st 3 parties were entitled to coverage but nobody else and the LDs are actually now clearly 4th.

    Technically Tim was right but in reality not since the BBC write and rewrite their "guidelines" as they please and it is obvious that (A) the current 3rd party aren't getting the coverage of the 4th (4th & 5th respectively in Scotland and (B) that the BBC will rewrite the rules again to allow whatever they want and only the possibility that a court might be stirred into some, limited, activity will hold them. 

Friday, 7 March 2014

Alex Salmond You Are No Emperor Bokassa (I Hope)

  This article of mine is now up on Brian Monteith's ThinkScotland site. Obviously my suggestion rather than official party policy but I doubt if anybody, not temperamentally opposed to market freedom, could dispute that it would work.

   Nobody I know of disputes that Scotland could be a very successful country if run by competent people, whether in Westminster or Holyrood. Unfortunately we have incentives which, as can be seen, attract the incompetent, parasitic and worse to Holyrood.

Please put any comments there.

 Ending foreign aid? What if we ended Scotland's "aid"?
by Neil Craig
I READ an article in Der Spiegel recently by an African economist calling for an end to “aid” to Africa, and it got me thinking.

"Huge bureaucracies are financed (with the aid money), corruption and complacency are promoted, Africans are taught to be beggars and not to be independent. In addition, development aid weakens the local markets everywhere and dampens the spirit of entrepreneurship that we so desperately need.

As absurd as it may sound: Development aid is one of the reasons for Africa's problems. If the West were to cancel these payments, normal Africans wouldn't even notice. Only the functionaries would be hard hit. Which is why they maintain that the world would stop turning without this development aid....

“A portion of the corn often goes directly into the hands of unscrupulous politicians who then pass it on to their own supporters to boost their next election campaign.

“.....our politicians were overwhelmed with money, and they try to siphon off as much as possible.

The late tyrant of the Central African Republic, Jean Bedel Bokassa (pictured), cynically summed it up by saying: "The French government pays for everything in our country. We ask the French for money. We get it, and then we waste it."

Which, shamefully, strikes home here. Turning down money isn't exactly easy but the comparison between Emperor Bokassa and our own politicians is fairly obvious as is the demand that ever more money be available for the special interest groups that our ruling cartel support. If the billions spent on windmills, quangos, anti-smoking officers and campaigns – and on our NHS, which spends 25 per cent more per head than in England but with worse health outcomes – normal Scots wouldn't notice either.

Rather than the hairshirt option of turning it down, how about simply not letting it rest in the bureaucrat's hands and pass it on to the people? This would allow the economy to grow (only the Greens publicly admit they want recession). As Scotland grows to be the richest and not, coincidentally, lowest taxed part of Great Britain we would see accounts moving into balance.

Thinking of “aid” I also recalled this article in The Scotsman:

SCOTS enjoy £1,300 more spending per head on public services such as the NHS and schools than the average UK citizen, official figures have shown.

Which reminded me of that Der Spiegel article and how it could be adapted for Scotland.

"Huge bureaucracies are financed (with the aid money), corruption and complacency are promoted.... If [Westminster] were to cancel these payments, normal [Scots] wouldn't even notice.

Only the functionaries would be hard hit.”

It is a matter of fact that our education system is now, for the first time in 700 years, not better than the English. Our NHS has considerably worse results than the UK average.

Despite the Scotsman article automatically starting off invoking NHS and schools the fact is that we spend an awful lot on more per head on the quangos that Jack McConnell and others promised a "bonfire of" and on ecofascist parasitism.

£1,300 per head – to nitpick that is the UK average which contribute to - for a pure rest of the UK, without Scotland that is a £1,420 differential. With a population of 5.3 million that gives us £7.5 billion to spare if we decided, as a nation, that we could get along with the same state spending they do south of  the border.

There may be an argument that in some departments we need a bit more (pensions for example because we have a more aged population) but that should inevitably be generally balanced by correlated patterns (schooling because we have a more aged population), though the departments involved and their sock puppets never seem to make the latter arguments. Still - £7.5bn must be close to the mark.

We could do that simply by deciding that any Scottish department which costs more per capita than the southern average has a hiring freeze and a freeze in increased payments until the entire government is matching the UK average. That would mean a roughly 5% average cut in employees, as retirees are not replaced, and a cut in other costs matching inflation – we would get down to average costs well inside one parliament. This would also give those in the more competent government departments an incentive to point out wasteful spending elsewhere since the sooner waste is cut the faster the balance point is reached.

So what to do with £7.5 billion?

We will soon be able to cut income tax by 10p rather than the original 3p "tartan tax". That comes to about £3.5 billion.

Though Scotland doesn't have the direct power to change corporation tax Professor R. Macdonald sometime ago wrote of "Scotland's hidden tax cutting power – that we do have the power to provide rebates on taxes. The UK raises £43bn in corporation taxes so Scotland must be about £3.6bn.

Corporation Tax, because it is a tax directly on wealth creation (not for example on wealth possessed) is the most directly destructive of such creation. Giving a rebate of 50% would make our economy as attractive to investors as Ireland’s was during its two decades as a "Celtic Tiger" economy growing at 7% a year. That rebate would cost us £2 bn.

Let’s say a 20 per cent cut in business rates. Again that gives us a substantial economic competitive edge. About £500 m.

That's £6.0bn out of £7.5bn.

Maybe we don't cut completely to match UK averages. Maybe my figures turn out to be wrong but that still leaves wriggle room. Maybe we put it into a £200 per head payment (as Alaska does).

Conceivably we put it into some of the technologically progressive things I have suggested before (X-Prizes, educational prizes, the Scottish Tunnel Project, automating railways).

Does anybody doubt that "normal Scots" would notice a 10p cut in their income tax. Or in being part of a successful fast growing economy? Or indeed, that we would not notice the decline in the number of governmental busybodies telling us what to do.

The one fly in this ointment is, as has sometimes been pointed out though not quite in such terms – that if we spend our bonus in a way which actually makes us better off and grows the economy the English would notice and take the Barnett formula bonus away from us. But who cares – if we had the successful fast growing economy that is being paid for we would be paying enough tax to match, or exceed the differential we now get via Barnett so there would be no "bonus" for us to fight over.

And by proving that even a little free marketism (this article says nothing about cutting the fuel poverty government has created or the massive costs of regulatory parasitism) we would give an example to the rest of the country and once again be admired as go-getting Scots, as we were for most of the last three centuries, rather than whinging Scots as our present political class have made us.

Thursday, 6 March 2014

Warming Sceptics Well Informed - No Warming For 20 Years

   This is a letter sent to the Scotsman in support of something from Mike Haseler they published proving that those who dispute the warming scare are statistically proven intelligent, moderate and scientifically literate.

   Obviously it wasn't published.

       Congratulations to Mike Haseler (Tuesday) for his thorough analysis of warming sceptics and his finding that they are overwhelmingly well educated, scientifically literate, reasonable people who simply do not believe that there is any sign of the prophesied catastrophic warming with its ludicrous 1-4 ft sea level rises by 2025-50.
       And congratulations to the Scotsman for actually publishing this. Good news does not sell papers. Particularly so when the entire political establishment are committed to catastrophism - particularly in Scotland where they unanimously passed the most expensive Climate Change Act in the world.
      Incidentally the latest research shows that we have now had no warming at all, not just none of the catastrophic sort, for 20 years. The alarmists, despite maintaining their outrageous claims about having the support of 97% of scientists, are still unable to name a single scientist, anywhere in the world, who supports catastrophism, without being paid by governments, despite that being at least 40% of world scientists. Meanwhile Europe and America have had 6 years of recession, caused by this alarmism, while the rest of the world has an average of 6% annual growth.
      Conceivably it is time to listen to well educated, scientifically literate, reasonable people rather than the sort politicians have paid so much to for false stories to scare us with.
Neil Craig

Wednesday, 5 March 2014

Newsdrive Censoring for the SNP / Against UKIP

  Yesterday BBC radio did its second effusive piece in a row about the Yes campaign with nothing balancing. The BBC Charter legally requires them to be "balanced" in their news coverage but ... hey its just the law, not like anybody is going to enforce it.

   I sent this email which has not been answered. Freedom of Information Act requests, legally again, have to be answered within 20 working days and nearly always are, 4 weeks later plus any days of holidays in between, irrespective of whether it is a simple or complex question.

  The normal BBC answer is "we got an exception to the Freedom Act put in to cover journalistic sources and we decide that almost everything in the BBC impinges on journalistic sources so piss off" (OK a free translation) and we will see.

That is 2 days running the BBC Radio Newsdrive has been reporting, enthusiastically ("this isn't a sales pitch") from the Yes campaign.
Obviously if the BBC is in any slightest way intent on keeping its legal duty of "balance" you will be reporting equally enthusiastically, for days on end without interruption from the sceptical side. Indeed, bearing in mind that UKIP is polling at 1/4 of the SNP vote, you will certainly have an enthusiastic report about UKIP before having another 2 with the SNP.
Assuming the BBC claims to be in some slightest way concerned about not breaking its legal duties. Under the FoI Act I request to know what specific attempts you have made to ensure an equal number of supportive broadcasts for the Unionist campaign and 1/4 as many equally supportive ones about UKIP.
Neil Craig 
Note that I was sufficiently generous to the BBC to compare support for UKIP in Scotland as 1/4 of the SNP's. Across the UK we run at 20%, only slightly behind Tories and Labour and coverage of reserved UK issues on the BBC (Both in Scotland and UK wide) is clearly censored to not run proportionately to our UK polling support.

Tuesday, 4 March 2014

LabNatConDemGreens Want More Fuel Poverty - Joint Statement By Every Uncorrupt MSP

Deepening Energy Crisis: Britain Has Become ‘Uninvestable’, Analyst Warns
Danny Fortson, The Sunday Times

The German owner of Npower is set to write off hundreds of millions of pounds on the value of its British power plants in the latest sign of a deepening crisis among the big six energy suppliers. RWE, one of Europe’s largest power companies, will reveal the British loss as part of an expected £4bn writedown of the value of its fleet of power stations.

The loss arises from pollution taxes that are forcing the closure of old coal-fired plants. Big subsidies for renewable energy, meanwhile, have made even gas-burning plants, which are much cleaner than coal stations, loss-making.

The hit will alarm Whitehall, which is increasingly worried about the lights going out. Companies have stopped building new power stations amid a political and regulatory backlash, sparked last year by Ed Miliband’s pledge to freeze energy prices....

Peter Atherton, analyst at Liberum Capital, said Britain had become uninvestable as political pressure over soaring household bills has intensified. “I can think of a dozen very good reasons not to invest in the UK, and not one good one to invest here this side of the election,” Atherton said.

      Ed Miliband, with his lying, corrupt, and literally murderous promise to freeze electricity prices when he was already on record as wanting higher electricity prices, merits particular condemnation. Ed Miliband was previously on record as saying that, because of his Climate Change Act "energy bills are likely to rise". Thus, by definition, every Labour MP/MEP who is not cynical, corrupt and murderous has publicly dissociated themselves from his lying promise (that would be zero so far).

     But he only deserves a little more censure that the other parties. All of them supported that Act; all of them are deliberately pushing up electricity prices and bringing blackouts closer; and every MP/MSP who is not a cynical, corrupt, murderous totalitarian has publicly denounced the policy (5 MPs & zero MEPs out of 760).

     And its worse in Scotland

Scottish homes pay most for energy in Britain
 Basically because we are further north. But don't worry Salmond is about to promise that after independence Scotland will be further south.

Monday, 3 March 2014

Does Wee Eck Waste The Money We Get Under The Barnet Formula

      This article in which an African economist calls for an end of "aid" to Africa strikes home.

      For us in Scotland it is also of equal interest when we see that Scotland gets more money per head through the Barnet formula than the rest of the UK (by purest coincidence the excess we get matches fairly closely to the tax paid on what would be Scotland's share of the North Sea Oil.

   "Huge bureaucracies are financed (with the aid money), corruption and complacency are promoted, Africans are taught to be beggars and not to be independent. In addition, development aid weakens the local markets everywhere and dampens the spirit of entrepreneurship that we so desperately need. As absurd as it may sound: Development aid is one of the reasons for Africa's problems. If the West were to cancel these payments, normal Africans wouldn't even notice. Only the functionaries would be hard hit. Which is why they maintain that the world would stop turning without this development aid....
 A portion of the corn often goes directly into the hands of unscrupulous politicians who then pass it on to their own tribe to boost their next election campaign.
.....our politicians were overwhelmed with money, and they try to siphon off as much as possible. The late tyrant of the Central African Republic, Jean Bedel Bokassa, cynically summed it up by saying: "The French government pays for everything in our country. We ask the French for money. We get it, and then we waste it."

     Turning down money isn't exactly easy but the comparison between Emperor Bokassa and our own Fat Controller is fairly obvious as is the demand that ever more money be available for the special interest groups that our ruling cartel support. If the billions spent on windmills, qangos, anti-smoking officers and campaigns and on our NHS, which spends 25% more per head than in England but with worse health outcomes, normal Scots wouldn't notice either

     One way of doing that would be the SNP way of separation (though they expect a separate England would still want to pay for our windmills). Another and in my view better one, would be to allow the economy to grow (only the greens publicly admit they want recession but the actions of the others prove they do to) and cut income tax by at least 3p (what we subsidise windmills by). As Scotland grows to be the richest and lowest taxed part of Great Britain we would see accounts moving into balance.