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

Thursday, 8 May 2014

  I am posting this just because it is an example of the sort of news, without simple answers and not fitting the media agenda, but nonetheless, important enough for us to know, that our media don't mention:

An immense explosion has been heard throughout the northern Iranian city of Qazvin, semi-official Fars news agency reported, and many casualties are expected from the blast. 
Around 1.1 million people live in the city, which is located about 100 miles north of Tehran. 
The blast may be related to nuclear development in Iran, according to the Los Angeles Times. Iranian officials in the past have strongly denied claims by Mujahedin Khalq Organization, or MKO, a cult-like Iranian exile group, that it has a secret nuclear enrichment facility in Abyek, near the major city, according to the daily. 
The source of the blast remains undetermined. Several mystery explosions have been reported in the past several years in the region, none of which were ever verified.
In 2010, Bloomberg reported that Iran was developing a secret nuclear site in Qazvin.

Tuesday, 6 May 2014

How To Get Growth - An Academic Statistical Studies Shows Market Freedom Works

   This statistical survey irrefutably proves that if we want a growing economy, free markets are the way to go. When I say "irrefutable" I mean nobody in any of the parties in Scotland or the UK is willing to make even the smallest move to dispute it. Of course, what they can and do refuse to discuss it at all and such is the corruption of the BBC that all our approved parties (including the Tories) know they can go on there at any time and lecture us on the need for more state control without any risk of the state broadcaster allowing UKIP or anybody else to actually mention the facts.
===============================
I have blogged previously and elsewhere on this immensely valuable pdf document - a statistical analysis of what factors correlate with growth. It is worth doing it again & I am now going to reprint stuff from

Chapter 9 FACTORS AFFECTING GROWTH pdf page 53:

"resource-rich countries are usually slightly more prosperous than resource-poor ones. The problem is that they are not as prosperous as they should be"

"there is a great deal of evidence to the effect that governments tend to use resources less efficiently than entrepreneurs. The most significant point is that
what matters more than how much governments take in tax is what they do with it. The evidence suggests that governments are more likely to promote growth if they use their revenue primarily to:

build infrastructure, especially
transport infrastructure;

provide services, rather than
regulate economic activity;

do things that don’t duplicate
what the private sector can do,
specifically that they do not
compete with it; and

increase efficiency by outsourcing
and privatising." p54

"strong correlation between ‘business tax friendliness’ and growth. Tax friendliness measures the impact of tax complexity and incidence on business" p54

"governments are best advised to do less rather than more because the downside risk of what they do is greater than the upside potential" p55

"countries with the world’s smallest governments tend to be super-achievers" p55

"Notwithstanding a value-free approach, much of this report refers to indices of freedom defined in various ways (civil liberties, rule of law, economic freedom, political freedom et al). This was not contrived; it is simply that the factors that correlate most with prosperity happen to be indicators of some form of freedom. We expected other factors to present high positive correlations, such as natural resources, climate, history, culture, religion and governance. Neil van Heerden, former head of the SA Foundation, suggested that these ‘negative’ findings might be more instructive than positive correlations. Identifying the
extent to which people ‘know things that just ain’t so’ is essentially the falsification of hypotheses." p56

"key finding is that the least regulated economies (top quartile) grow 2.2% faster than those that are most regulated (bottom quartile)." p56

"It finds that efficient economies rely more on commonlaw than regulation, and that social democracies (like Denmark, Norway and Swede) benefit from streamlined business regulation, they offset the burden of welfare by liberating productive market forces" p57

"The world’s twenty least regulated economies are all (except Taiwan) rich first world countries, including all G8 countries" p57

"such as health and safety regulation, most of which has never been shown to have benefits exceeding costs, and all of which imposes enormous direct and indirect costs
on people at the expense of prosperity" p57

"A retreaded tyre regulation in the USA, for instance, was found to have cost a few million dollars for every sub-standard tyre identified by the measure" p57

"regulatory compliance (‘red tape’) cost South African businesses R79 billion in 2004, equivalent to 6.5 per cent of GDP" p57

"An OECD study found that over-regulation is the major cause of the slower rate of growth of the European Union compared to that of the USA. But what are the benefits of regulation? The study found ‘no quality benefits’. We all know that government is
costly, but a 75-country study found that regulations usually cost a country twenty times more than they cost the government" p58

"government may have a more intransigent problem with excess red tape than it realises. This is its fourth major attempt at systematic regulatory review. The first...The report was circulated through the Cabinet to all departments with a view to them addressing the problem in accordance with its recommendations.
... it was never heard of again. The second was to be undertaken by the Small Business Council, but it was dissolved. The third (full & never heard from again). It may be helpful to establish why isolated departments did succeed at substantial market liberalisation" p58

Chapter 10 CHARACTERISTICS OF WINNERS & LOSERS p59

"sound policies can withstand almost any shock, and produce prosperity under almost any conditions." p59

"There is virtually no empirical evidence in favour of aid, subsidies, debt relief, technical assistance or protection" p59

"the Marshall Plan failed to generate prosperity. Furthermore, the UK received much more aid than Germany without achieving high growth. If anything, aid enabled it to perpetuate inappropriate policies." p59

"the relative size of education budgets does not correlate significantly with growth" p60

"highest growth countries cover the full range of possibilities, from poor (Trinidad & Tobago) to rich (Iceland), small (Luxembourg) to big (China), formerly capitalist(Ireland) to formerly socialist (Vietnam), resource-rich (Mozambique) to resource-poor (Finland), countries that were colonised until recent decades (Tunisia) and
ones that were not (Finland). There is also a wide range of cultural, religious, ethnic, historical and geographic diversity among high growth countries" p61

"experience of other countries is that it is likely to achieve and sustain high growth only if it resists the temptation faced by all governments to abandon a winning formula when sustained high growth is achieved. As this report shows, markets tend to respond enthusiastically to pro-market reforms" p62

"Trinidad & Tobago, shifted from one extreme to the other having elevated itself from the lowest to the highest growth rate group" p62

11 SHORT LIST OF WINNERS' POLICIES p65

"The proverbial “bottom line” is that the world’s experience suggests that ........ is likely to prosper if, and only if, it:

1. reduces crime;
2. relaxes and preferably scraps exchange control;
3. reduces time people have to spend with bureaucracy;
4. relaxes or scraps insistence on centralised bargaining
5. shifts from spending on economic regulation and
parastatals to spending on transfers and subsidies...
6. the rule of law;
7. foreign trade liberalisation;
8. business liberalisation;
9. banking and financial market liberalisation.

And from p 44

"The world’s experience appears to support the view that economic freedom may be a necessary and sufficient condition for prosperity."

Sunday, 4 May 2014

Britain Could Have A Spaceport Serving Half the World

"Rockets could take off from a spaceport in Britain within five years after ministers launched a search for a suitable site.

The UK Space Agency has been tasked with opening a site by 2018, with the first flights having lift-off within a year.

A remote site, away from homes and businesses, will be required in the plan to better prepare the UK to deal with threats from space – and offer trips to space tourists.
The government has launched a search for a site for a spaceport to become the UK's answer to Cape Canaveral
Mr Willetts said: ‘We want an area where there is not much civil airspace, where it is not very busy,” said Mr Willetts.

‘It might be smaller airports, it might be underused or disused RAF airfields.
‘We’re starting to look at relatively remote parts of the country,’ he told the Telegraph.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2617763/Rockets-lift-UK-five-years-government-remote-spaceport.html#ixzz30f5dfico
==============================================

7 years ago I made a rather more ambitious proposal for a British and indeed world spaceport which could have been running by now. Even the commenting environmentalist (& several "environmentalists") who objected had no doubt it would work. Ah well.

I have written this to David Willets and we will see:

Dear David Willets,
                                  I am very pleased to see that you are now actively promoting the development of a British spaceport. I would like to repeat a suggestion I made to the previous government and to our space agency (& I believe also to you when appointed).

       It is ancillary to your current proposals, which I very much hope will result in a British spaceport being set up at Lossiemouth or similar in Scotland. I am informed that the reason Virgin went originally to Sweden was because nobody in the Holyrood government was remotely interested in helping them get through the Luddite regulatory morass that affects so much here (& makes even Westminster look efficient by comparison). Indeed an announcement on that basis before the referendum might be opportune.

        However with space industry growing at 10% annually in Britain and the potential for much more we will need as much spaceport capacity as possible.

         My option requires some spending on port facilities, possibly a launch site (though there is an airport already) and limited road and power infrastructure but these could easily be paid for out of a bond issue, redeemable from their use. It would be more likely to augment a UK mainland spaceport, being able to handle larger, including non man-rated cargos.

         It would also have the potential to be the chief spaceport of the western hemisphere. I am assuming Singapore, which has no more potential than this, will be the eastern one.

         This is the proposal I made:


Ascension Island is an unimpressive 35 square mile rock extruded from the Mid-Atlantic Ridge though fortunately not currently tectonically active. It is one of a number of small left overs from the British Empire situated just 7.5 degrees south of the equator. Currently its main importance is that it has a substantial Anglo-American airbase big enough to handle regular Hercules flights to the Falkland Islands. Current British government practice is to discourage migration, tourism & development, presumably to prevent the locals being able to object to the base. "In order to gain an entry to Ascension Island, people need the written permission of the Administrator. It is nearly impossible to take up permanent residence. Employment is a requirement to stay on the island. The UK government has asserted that no inhabitant of Ascension Island has a "right to abode".

The values I am concerned about are, in order, that it is near the equator, that it is under British legal authority & that it is an island far from the nearest shore. The UK rule & isolation mean that it & any business activities on it are secure. The position on the equator & being surrounded by sea make it one of the best places in the world for 1 particular business.

Developed properly it could be Earth's prime spaceport.

The Earth rotates & the equator rotates at 1000mph, which is 10% of the speed needed to reach orbit. From the equator costs to orbit are therefore much more than 10% less than they can be elsewhere. This is why Cape Canaveral & Baikonur are located in the southernmost parts of their respective countries. Moreover the automatic position reached in orbit from the equator is an equatorial orbit which is easier to match to than orbits starting at some other point & would allow communication satellites to hold a relatively stable position in the sky.

Developing the island conventionally would not be hard, which is why our government have had to actively prevent it. 3 of the world's richest territories are places with few natural resources which have become wealthy as British colonies. This is because our law ensures contracts are worth the paper they are written on & because being part of the Empire keeps them safe from predatory neighbours & even more importantly from police chiefs & political leaders, not necessarily more irresponsible than those of Springfield but who should not be trusted with the power of absolute sovereignty. The 3 are
Bermuda, the Cayman Islands & Hong Kong (Hong Kong may not be British anymore but it got rich that way - in 1948 it got 2 million Chinese refugees, without the "aid" provided to the much less numerous Palestinians to keep them refugees). The success of these places, now richer than Britain, supports the libertarian view that beyond upholding the law most of the rest of government is parasitic & the old fashioned imperialist view that the natives generally benefited from our Empire.

Thus much of what is needed is merely to do nothing. No bans on immigration & development, allow commercial & tourist flights, don't charge corporation & most other taxes (the place is hardly a source of revenue currently). To develop it into a space port we would first need the UK government to have
set up an X-Prize Foundation as I have previously suggested. Beyond that a little infrastructure - a good harbour & an Ocean Thermal Energy Converter (OTEC) able to produce enough power to hydrolyse as much hydrogen & liquid oxygen as might be needed or indeed to run a laser launching system. An extra effect of an OTEC is that by bringing nutrient rich deep ocean water to the surface it can facilitate algae & fish industries. Marshall Savage's book The Millennial Project details how & I have borrowed extensively from him for this idea, which is considerably less ambitious than his floating islands proposal. The US would have to be squared but if Pearl Harbour does not have to be isolated I don't see this base as presenting insuperable security problems, indeed good harbour facilities should make it a more useful base.

I am envisaging a spaceport in perhaps 10 years, launching a fleet of shuttles developed from "3 operational spacecraft which have achieved low earth orbit, returned to earth, and flown to orbit again three times in a period of three weeks" (as Dr Pournelle's X-Prize proposal suggests) relatively accessible from the North Atlantic shores of Britain, the USA & Europe. It may sound very Dan Dare but I see no reason why a forward looking self confident nation couldn't create it. I would welcome criticisms & refinements. Isn't the island's name a magnificent example of serendipity.


    As I say I would welcome any criticism. All the discussion on the subject has confirmed that it would work - even those who don't want it to.

    Because I have had no reply to this from various government sources when suggested over the last 7 years; because a previous enquiry showed that the government had simply binned, without consideration, a 2009 proposal for an X-Prize Foundation which would probably have made us leader in space industry by now if that had been desired; and because, on another occasion, I was informed by the Scottish executive that they would never, under any circumstances, give any consideration to any concept that did not come directly from the brow of the leadership I am forced to make a formal request.

      Under the Freedom of Information Act I request all documentation relating to the Ministry's/Agency's consideration of this, or of the decision to bin it without consideration, specifically including all reasons for doing it, or for deciding not to bother.

       I trust this is not an insuperable inconvenience - perhaps it will even give you the leverage to get the civil service to give you an honest answer on feasibility.

Neil Craig
map of ascension island,

Saturday, 3 May 2014

Scotland Front Runner For British Spaceport

   Another letter. Follow up on this tomorrow.

Sir,
       I see that the Westminster government is pressing for the building of a British Spaceport which, for obvious reasons is "unlikelyto be in the south of England". Current front runner is Lossiemouth in Scotland.
 
    Indeed Lossiemouth was the preferred option for Virgin Galactic until they found nobody in Holyrood was interested in helping them though the regulatory morass that is government in Scotland - so this British company went to Sweden.
 
     Space industry, with virtually no government support. indeed with no little opposition from the Luddites who populate our corridors of power, is growing at 10% annually, rather better than the rest of the economy. 40% of the world's cubesats - the cutting edge of space development - contain hardware made in Scotland. This world class engineering should be a matter of immense national pride rather than being ignored by our 4th class political elite.
 
     However I'm sure that when the Yes campaign achieve their objective, we won't be seeing a British Spaceport here and the parochial Luddites of the SNP and their openly anti-growth Green allies will save us from having to worry about any of this dreadful "human progress" stuff.
 
Neil Craig

Scotsman Totally Censoring Dissident Letters

   I found that a letter I had sent to the Scotsman alone was returned by them unopened. There can be no clearer instance of censorship than a blanket refusal to publish letters from certain readers. Over many years I have written letters there, some of which have been extensively praised (eg the quote in the letter below).

   Although I was censored from their online comments some years ago because I mentioned the dissections of thousands of Kosovo Serbs and Gypsies by the KLA/NATO police (formerly NATO armed KLA terrorists). This was before the Council of Europe publicly acknowledged that it was entirely true. being entirely true, when they wanted to censor mention of genocide, was not considered reason for reinstatement by the Scotsman..

   Nominally the Scotsman is "right wing" and "independent" of our political establishment. Clearly that is not so.

   I wrote them this, sent through 2 other emails there, which it was delivered to. They have not yet replied but I will report if they do.
------------------------------------

I note from this that the Scotsman are refusing any more to even consider publishing any letters from me. would this be because I am "a lone wolf howling in despair in the intellectual wilderness of Scots politics" and you don't want such intrusion, or merely because I have acknowledged being a UKIP candidate and you certainly don't want anything we say to go uncensored?
 
Neil Craig  

Friday, 2 May 2014

UKIP Polling Suggests Photo Finish With Conservatives - Will BBC Still Censor If We Are Scotland's 3rd Party?

    I'm ripping off Mike Haseler's UKIP blog today because his article about a poll on how UKIP are doing in the Scottish EU election is important:

....the blog What Scotland thinks. This shows UKIP with the following levels in recent opinion polls:
Jan 24th:4%
Mar 21st:6%
Apr 7th:7%
Apr 16th:10%
This does not suggest UKIP will get anywhere near 18% and even 12% would be stretching it. However it does show that the UKIP vote has been rising fairly linearly by about 2% a month. As such these figures suggests the best estimate of the final percentage is around 11-13% in the Euro elections.
Where are the votes coming from?
Looking at the figures from What Scotland thinks, as shown below the swing appears to be from the Green party and SNP. This is difficult to explain. Both the Greens and SNP are strongly pro-Euro-shacked-independence & strongly pro-wind. It would therefore appear unlikely that voters would switch directly to anti-Europe, anti-wind UKIP. It would seem more likely that UKIP are picking up Tory, Labour and perhaps Lib Dem votes whilst their places are being filled by those defecting from the SNP & green voters.
eurovotesSo what does this mean for the election
Based on the last poll on 16th April, the result will be as follows:
PartyResultChange from 2009
SNP:3 MEPs(+1)
Lab:2 MEPs-
Tory:1 MEP-
Lib Dem:0 MEPs(-1)
UKIP, Greens & others:None-
However, as the Tories only scrape in to get the last allocated MEP place with their 11% whilst UKIP was at 10%, if UKIP continue to rise by just another 1% or the Tories drop the same, then the result will be as follows
PartyResultChange from 2009
SNP:3 MEPs(+1)
Lab:2 MEPs-
Lib Dem:0 MEPs(-1)
UKIP:1 MEP(+1)
Greens, & others:None-
And I see the Scotsman have come to the same conclusion.
####################################################

    That gives us everything to play for. The Greens and LibDems are nowhere. On the trend it looks more likely than not that we will pip the Tories to a seat. Not nearly as good as in the rest of the UK where we are running 38% or 36% against Labour's 27%, but unprecedented for Scotland where the Beeboids censor UKIP constantly.

    If the Tories cannot pick up 1 EU seat here (& only 1 Westminster seat) what do they exist for? Their spin machine has been concentrating for the last 2 years, not on telling people they have more sensible policies than ours, that issue has long been given away, bit simply that you mustn't split the vote.

    So what is the Tory party for if it is simply splitting the free market vote? Who would vote for them on that basis? Will this mean the melt down of the party - well yes, the only question is how quickly and will Ruth Davidson still be leading something calling itself the Conservatives by the next Holyrood election. OK getting a bit ahead of myself since we haven't yet beaten them, but....

    The other option is that this will bring the big guns of the state owned BBC to bear on us. That could get nasty - smears, lies and desperation. However the BBC have been so monolithic in their censorship of any mention of UKIP in Scotland [according to these polls we have about 30% as much support as the SNP so with SNP spokesmen on at least 3 times a day on their various programmes UKIP Scotland should have somebody daily - rather than twice a year] so it would be very obvious if they shifted from censorship to smears just a few days before the election.

Thursday, 1 May 2014

Gerry Adams - His Role Should Be Acknowledged

   When I heard of Gerry Adams arrest I was reminded of this remark from Norman Tebbit, which, though it doesn't give his name clearly means him.

  " ...even the politicians within the Northern Ireland Office did not understand that despite their defeatism, the Army and security services had the IRA by the throat and on its knees, and that was why it sought a ceasefire and negotiation of a settlement.

As we all now know, our security service had informers in the highest councils of IRA/Sinn Fein.

Inevitably that meant that even with the knowledge of a planned bombing the security services could not always act to prevent it without giving away the identity of their informers.

What they could do, and I understand did do, was to methodically acquire the evidence with which one very senior IRA/Sinn Fein killer was to have been charged with eight killings.

I suspect that it was that which precipitated the IRA/Sinn Fein plea for talks. All that has now been exposed about the secret letters which in effect gave immunity from prosecution to a number of the "On The Runs" makes me wonder about what understandings were give before the senior IRA/Sinn Fein terrorists took their seats at the table to agree what is commonly known as the Good Friday Agreement."

    Any sort of deal with the IRA would always have to have included not having one side prosecuting the other. I'm not going to say it shouldn't have been made when not making it, even if the IRA had been beaten, would have meant more deaths, but neither am I certain the Agreement was right - perhaps we may know the answer in a century.

   Nonetheless it is worth it being publicly acknowledged that Adams and the rest did kill wholly innocent people.

   It is said that "truth is the first casualty in war". It should not also be the last.