Revenge is so sweet for us all, especially for Jews, Christians and Muslims.

Friday, 20 December 2013

Revenge is so sweet for us all, especially for Jews, Christians and Muslims.

Am I as evil and as much beyond the pale as Anjem Choudary, in writing the following?

It is very hard for only one side to be expected to show no revenge, esp when there has been twelve years of killings, violence and aggression against that one side.  Yet this was what John Humphrys was expecting of  Anjem Choudary, the founder of Al-Muhajiroun, whom he repeatedly demanded should condemn the killing of Lee Rigby.  For centuries, both Muslims and Christians have never been noted for condemning acts of violence.  Rather, they have been at the centre of promoting aggression, killing, murder and violence.  All the children of Abraham - Jews, Christians and Muslims are still at it.  And the Christian nations and their individual adherents have been the worst.  Last century was a particularly heinous and horrendous example.

This morning’s interview was similar to so many conducted by BBC journalists of Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness in the 1970s, 80s and 90s.  I think it was the case that in all those interviews, not once did Adams or McGuinness condemn even one individual on their side for his violence that Humphrys and co were insisting that they should.  They themselves, like Anjem Choudary, were careful to take no part in violence but eventually, Adams and McGuinness argued the case for ballot, never bullet.  Consequently, it was they and not the men of violence who eventually won the day with their major contribution to the Good Friday peace agreement of 1998 that brought a huge lessening of the violence in N Ireland.

It is unreasonably for us to expect Choudary to condemn violence when our side never does, either (except for the violence of our enemies and other nations like Russia).  In fact, we are the worse offenders in doing domination, aggression and violence!  Doing it is far worse.  And of that, we are particularly adept!  To condemn violence and then to carry on doing it, is particularly reprehensible and hypocritical.

It could, in fact, be seen that the two Michaels were fulfilling the very words of Scripture, the very words of Christ, no less - “those who take the sword will die by the sword.”  They killed a killer and then wanted the police to kill them in fair return.  “An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth”, as one Michael said on camera to explain why he did it - and, quoting Holy Scripture.  This time, the police failed to kill their man.

We had one man of violence killing another man of violence in a war that our side brought to Muslim lands and a third man of violence is expected to condemn someone on his side who killed.  Only a man of non-violence, as I am, can honourably condemn the Woolwich killing without being accused of being a hypocrite.

We have to be very careful not to excuse our own killing because we are on the side of right, of good, on the side of God and on the side of law.  We act as though al Qaeada, the Taliban and al Shabab are most definitely not and killing them is fair game.  Our side are the heroes, the Muslim fighters are evil and must be wiped off the face of the map.  No wonder, the very occasional, maverick Muslim gets so angry at his brethren being killed that he gets his own back on their killers - like Lee Rigby.  And, with the international nature of British society, we rub shoulders with Muslims every day of the week who many not like what is being done in their name.  Hence, Lee Rigby was an easy target.

John Humphrys and Lord Carlisle were particularly aghast/offended at Choudary being opposed to democracy.  How on earth can any reasonable, sensible, sane person be against democracy?  Yet, I am no longer voting for any of the war parties for I see that as being unethical and encouraging them in their aggressive foreign policy around the globe.  Does that make me as equally reprehensible as Choudary is to them?  I have to trot along to the polling station and put an ‘X’ against, ‘Re-open nominations’ or ‘None of above’ or ‘Abstain’.

Thoughts on the day of Mike Verduyn's funeral

19 Dec 2013

At Mike’s funeral, Tony read out from Ecclesiastes about a time for killing and a time for war.  This on the very day that the two converts to Islam were convicted of the killing of ‘Help for Heroes’ T-shirt wearing, Lee Rigby outside Woolwich Barracks.  They say they only killed a British soldier because of their killings of Muslims in Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan.

The week before saw the death of Nelson Mandela who was feted, applauded and celebrated.  Yet, he was a man of violence who had long renounced non-violence as being ineffective.  Yet, Gandhi and then Martin Luther King Jnr had shown the power of non-violence.  Both men got what they wanted.  Mandela did too but, only after spending 27 wasted years in prison.  He should have stuck to his earlier non-violence.

Mike had a rear car window sticker that said, ‘Respect for British armed forces’.  Respect them as heroes, as 450 making the ultimate sacrifice and, all the soldiers serving, so nobly their Queen and Country.

God is on OUR side. So there!

We always like to call Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein, Castro, Mugabe, al Qaeda and the Taliban as mass murderers but, oh no, never ourselves.  We are always angels and have God on our side, so what we do is just fine!

Colonialism and subjugation, imperialism and domination of others, of strangers, of foreigners.  And, this carry on went on for centuries, all over the world; and was official government policy and was widely accepted as very proper, civilised behaviour.  Even accepted by the Church and virtually all individual Christians and who went in on the coat tails of the explorers, traders and the armed forces to make Christians of the heathen natives.  This behaviour of domination and empire building all too soon led to the pernicious and murderous slave trade - again, with the Church fully implicated in this crime against humanity.  Astonishing!

Corruption is the greater evil than killing Commies and Muslims

Dear all

What some sons of Abraham get up to!

For what its worth, this is how I see things, after reading Simon’s blog about the Central African Republic (CAR).

ONE VERSION:

What a horrendous time for the people of the CAR.  I cannot possibly understand how the situation developed to such a frightening scenario of sectarian violence.  All I do know that the killings by Muslims must not make us even more anti-Islam or prejudiced, in anyway against Muslims we might meet.  It certainly must not make us even more determined to get our own back or, to extend the War of Terrorism in Afghanistan beyond the end of 2014.

As regards political correctness, I think that being correct in every way is the only correct thing to be!  We could do with being religiously correct, too but then that means being loyal to the faith you were brought up in when we should be able to think things out for ourselves and to come to our own conclusions.

Being correct in every way means, I think, acknowledging that the Muslims have a better track record than the Christians when it comes to who does the least violence.

Being correct in every way means, I think, accepting that the Koran has no violence but the Bible has much.

Being correct means understanding that the Arab slave trade was much less extensive,  and brutal than the slave trade by the ‘Christian’ nations.

It seems to me that the Muslim countries look as though they are less avaricious, materialistic and less dominated by the ‘consume ever more’ mentality of the now very rich ‘Christian’ nations.

It is definitely the Western world, with those nation’s wars over their various empires, over the last two hundred years, at least, that has the worst record for man’s inhumanity to man.  The Western, ‘Christian’ world that includes America, is responsible for

• the killings of Africans that included Muslims during the vicious slave trade.
• decades of oppression and deaths of black people by the supposedly ‘Christian’ and advanced nations of the USA and South Africa.

• the persecution and killing of Jews,
• then, Communists in the countries of SE Asia as we fought for “our vital strategic interests”, capitalism and democracy against godless, evil Communism; and, now
• the latest horrors are perpetrated against Islam and the people of Iraq and Afghanistan.  Both direct and indirect killings in, so far, twelve years of the war of terrorism in leaving a wasteland, mayhem and intermittent civil war in Iraq.
• Yet, Bush and Blair sincerely believed they were doing what God wanted in launching the War of Terrorism.  Just like the two Muslims who killed the soldier outside his barracks in Woolwich in 2013.  Except Bush and Blair have much more blood on their hands than the two Muslims, of course.  Abraham and his God and Allah have much to answer for.
• for years the West has threatened to attack Iran for wanting nuclear weapons to balance or match Israel’s arsenal and so deter an attack from them.
• this year, the Western powers nearly attacked Syria as punishment for a chemical attack in July.  Putin saved the day.  And, what an excellent article of his in the ‘New York Times’, too!

Yet, we get into such a state of indignation over the very much lower killings in the countries of eastern Europe that came under Stalin’s control in the wake of his help in defeating Nazism.  We honestly think USSR communism killed “millions of millions” of their own (Daily Mail Dep Editor, Jon Staefel, ‘Newsnight’ 2013) but we conveniently forget our own millions whose premature deaths we are responsible for! However, since we kill blacks and foreigners, perhaps that does not matter.

Therefore, not man’s inhumanity to man but ‘Christian’, Western inhumanity to the Muslims of this century.  How very ironic, how very thoughtless and hypocritical of us, how very unkind of us, how very reprehensible of us!

ANOTHER VERSION:

1. I do suspect (but there is no way of proving this) that down through the centuries, the adherents of the three dominant and influential Abrahamic faiths have been more responsible for killing their own than all the other faiths put together.

2. Muslims in my former workplace (I have now retired) tend to view their home of Britain as being founded and still based on the Judeo/Christian view of the world eg for many centuries the practices of Parliament on the centrality of the Bible and Christian belief and, especially, in the Coronation ceremony of our once all powerful, unelected and dictatorial and, too often, very badly behaved monarchs.  In other words, since we label all Arabs as Muslims, some Muslims do like to label all people in the West as Christians.  That is understandable.

3. The latest upsurge of violence between two largest branches of Abraham's family started with what the 'Christian' West called a declaration of war on the USA - 9/11.  The 11 September 2001.  Indeed, that Bible believing Christian who was saved from alcoholism by the Lord, President GW Bush called his launch of the War of Terrorism, a crusade.  For Muslims, the word, 'crusade' has the horrifying connotations of the first named Christian crusades against the Muslims some centuries ago.

4. That far wiser man of God, Bishop Desmond Tutu, commented on 9/11 as being an act of terrorism and not an act of war.  The implication being that the White House administration of the time, rather than seeing the attack on the twin towers as an opportunity to launch their 'New American Century Project' of violence and domination in the Middle East, should have used the courts of law to bring Osama bin Laden and the other surviving plotters to justice under American law in the USA and not to lock suspects up for years in Guantanamo Bay outside American law, in a state of limbo.  Many seem to be suspects picked up on a whim, provided they were Muslims.  Some remain in Guantanamo Bay without evidence against them and without trial.  No wonder we have many Muslim insurgents or terrorists fighting our brave, upstanding, heroic soldiers.

5. Rather than keeping within the law, we have seen both the very military powerful Jewish state of Israel and its financial backer and supporter, the 'Christian' state of the USA, both indulging in extra judicial assassinations of their enemies who are classed by both democratic states as 'terrorists'.  Exactly the same name was used to describe Nelson Mandela who narrowly escaped hanging for his crime against the state of South Africa.

6. Using the term ‘terrorist’ does help them to assuage their consciences in circumventing the far lengthier but inconvenient route of going down the legal avenues of using American law on US territory.  Or, in the case of Israel, Israeli law.

7. What is worse, the men of violence in both the Knesset and in the White House feel quite unable to even abide by the resolutions and mandates of the United Nations.  The UN, like the law, is another inconvenience that both the Western states, with sometimes Russia and China, simply ignore when it suits them!

8. No wonder we have constant war and mayhem in some parts of Africa, along with Iraq and Afghanistan.  Iraq and Afghanistan that we have liberated to enjoy the rich blessings of Western democracy, religion, culture and schooling for girls.

9. In addition, all these men of violence, some the sons of Abraham in the prosperous 'Christian' West (and not so prosperous 'Christian' Africa) or the 'Muslim' Middle East and Africa, make the very weapons that fuel these never-ending wars.

10. The Bible has much violence in the Old Testament (see NOTE, below); the Koran has none.  I have read every single word (practically) more than once in the Bible and literally every word in the Koran, once.

11. The Bible even has rules for waging holy war (Deut 20 v 1-20); the Koran has none.  The Koran allows self-defence but not pre-emptive attacks of so called ‘self-defence’ as the Israelis have done many times since their state was founded.  Founded, too out of many acts of terrorism in 1946 and 1947 to force the hand of the authorities to give them, and only them, the land.  The most unholy Holy Land, ever.

12. The centuries of the most shocking violence indulged in by the supposedly Christian Western European nations - and the United States of Aggression with its offshoot, Israel - all, in this century, set a very bad example to the warring factions in the Central African Republic.  Or, is it just human nature the world over, regardless of religious belief?

The time is well overdue for us good Christian men and women, the righteous of the Lord, to actually begin living up to the, admittedly, extremely difficult teachings of Jesus Christ in the Gospels.  Or, if we cannot even attempt to do the non-aggression of being peacemakers instead of warmongers, how about abiding by UN mandates, international law or, just the law of our own lands?

​​

Or, if even that is beyond us, how about keeping to the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights?  This time, only thirty paragraphs of sound, common decency for us to attempt!

NOTE

The Bible is a contrast of ‘Thou shalt not kill’, yet also ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for tooth’, to genocide as God told Israel to wipe the inhabitants of the Promised Land off the face of the map. From that to a loving God and His people are to love neighbour and to love enemies.  Perhaps, all that explains why atheist, agnostic and devout Christian believers all take part in warfare, and look up to our soldiers as heroes, as making the ultimate sacrifice, as noble service and, who so respect our soldier heroes (as my father in law did).  Nearly all vote for the three main political parties who are this century’s war parties.  For it is they who order the years of aggression, invasion and occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq, without any authorisation from the UN.

Pointing the finger but ...

… three are pointing back at ourselves!

The problem, as I see it, as that we always see ourselves as so virtuous, so very angelic, so very right. We always see ourselves as God’s gift to humanity, as our way of life as being so good and our political system so perfect it must be forced on the pagans in their darkness and unbelief.

Our culture, based for many centuries on the Bible and Judeo/Christian values must prevail throughout the world.  It alone is true and every other faith and way of doing things is plain false or, at least, less than the best.

And, then, when the Lord says go into all the world to make disciples of every nation, this gives us further reason to get every other tribe and nation to renounce/repent of their false faith and their incorrect way of doing things and to embrace the Lord Jesus Christ and democracy and education for girls.

Knowing this, it is hardly surprising that the Christians see Islam as another false faith and regard godless Communism as also evil - both to be defeated by a belief that the ends justify the means.  Therefore, as that born again believer, GW Bush said when President in 2001, in the wake of 9/11, the righteous West must conduct "a crusade" against the forces of darkness that is all things Muslim and Islamic.

First, it was thoroughly nasty Nazism that came out of a democratic and Christian nation; then Communism that came out of a totalitarian and oppressive loving nation; now, it is vicious Islam that speaks of violence and of killing as many unbelievers as they have time for (or, so we mistakenly think!).

Yet, what is our track record like when it comes to being ever onward Christian soldiers marching as to war and, far too often, actually to war?  Absolutely abysmal … !

Humanity is such a disgrace on the face of this poor planet that the sooner the ecocide madness we are indulging in is concluded the better!  The planet will go merrily on its way without the burden of 7 billion people all fighting each other for supremacy and domination of the other, for the remaining resources, water and fertile land.

Walsall - THE rail hub of the West Midlands

“Britain's railway is busier now than anytime since 1920.

Britain has the fastest growing railway in Europe.” (from Network Rail’s home website)

£50 bn is easily and quickly found for duplicating long distance, inter-city lines that work so well already.  The real capacity issue is in the seven hours of rush hour every day from Mon to Fri, made worse by our two class trains that have spare capacity in first class.  Rush hour congestion can be relieved by re-opening the 38 miles of existing unused and underused urban rail lines that have some miles alongside commuter congested roads.  These 38 miles of double track are the Camp Hill line, the Dudley line and the Sutton line.  Certainly, the Camp Hill line would make a big profit if a chord was built (a curved new section of line) to bring it into Moor St Sta instead of the over congested New Street.  The unused Dudley line has Merry Hill shopping centre, the Waterfront, Black Country World and Dudley Castle on or near it.  This is financially viable, too if properly promoted for these attractions and as a commuter route instead of car use.  Even if it makes a loss, a new regime of profitable lines subsidising the ecologically and socially responsible lines that may not be so financially profitable, must be brought in.  As long as this does not detract from marketing and strict controls on one to a car commuting when that car is not need for work purposes.

WALSALL HAS MANY LINES RADIATING FROM ITS CENTRE - from my OS Explorer map the main ones are: -

Walsall to B'ham - 2 lines - one, the Sutton line, is underused, for freight only, that goes via Aldridge in commuter land, then through Sutton Park; the other line to Birmingham takes trains to New St .

Walsall to Rugeley Trent Valley on the WCML (West Coast Main Line) has two tracks.  This line might be able to take future inter-city trains that bypass congested New St Sta via the Dudley line, below.  It would certainly be able to take London Midland trains from the newly opened Dudley line.

Walsall to Lichfield remains closed and is now used by NCR 5 at its southern end.

Walsall to Wolverhampton was re-opened for a short time and then closed, again for lack of passengers.  This is hardly surprising, so why was it ever attempted?  But, unfortunately, it may have led to a case of a once bitten, twice shy mentality as regards any future rail reopenings like the urgently needed Camp Hill and Dudley lines.  For me, all these mistakes and decades of delay indicate incompetence and negligence by our supposed transport ‘experts’.

Walsall to Dudley and Stourbridge Jct remains largely unused but is available for freight trains and, for the last thirty years, for Metro trams only.  Yet, trams have still not put in an appearance.  Astonishing!  Altogether, this important 13.5 miles double track rail line has remained a wasted asset for over forty years as road traffic congestion has worsened alongside it or, in its vicinity.  This is a scandal.  It is sheer stupidity as resource depletion, that also enhances the greenhouse effect, both take off big time.  Fifty billions for the unnecessary, extravagant, flash, High Prestige 2 rail line but not a fraction of that cost for a southern or Black Country extension of the Walsall to Rugeley commuter line and, possible inter-city line.  Nothing, too, for the commuter congestion busting Camp Hill line to go into Moor Street Sta instead of New Street.  This is truly scandalous.

My rail advisor has written,

" ... History is behind us and a train could run from Cheltenham or from Oxford through Worcester to Dudley and then to Walsall. From Walsall a train could continue to Rugeley and then up the main electrified route to Stafford and Crewe."

In addition:

“A visitor to the West Midlands really would like to have a local rail network and stations reopened in places such as Kings Heath, Moseley and Dudley.”

Tim Weller 0791 380 4363 timweller1@gmail.com 0121 550 9446

So different; yet, so very similar!

Our soldiers are heroes, nobly sacrificing their lives to become the glorious dead.   They fight for truth, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  Their soldiers are terrorists.  They are war criminals and Muslim extremists.

For both sides, revenge is sweet.

Our side, as they see it, is from the decadent, permissive, anything goes, Christian West,

We see them as Muslim fanatics out to kill for the sake of killing, in the name of Allah.

We see our heroes as killing only reluctantly and with much distaste.

Our occupation of foreign lands, far from our shore, is in the best interests of the foreigners, for we know best.
We are the good guys; they are the evil monsters without a shred of conscience.

We have the Bible with its rules for waging holy war in Deuteronomy 20 v 1-20 that gives us the legitimacy to wage war to bring regime change, democracy, freedom and education for girls.

They have the Koran - goodness knows what that says, we think but, it must tell the Muslims to wage holy war against the wicked unbelievers and to kill as many as possible - us!

Our good Christian men and women see the Muslims and not them as the true unbelievers with their false faith.

The Jews and Christians have in their Scriptures, "Love God and love your neighbour", in that order. They don't even have 'love your enemies', as the real children of Abraham have in the Gospels.

"Onward Christian soldiers marching as to war ... "  Ours is a Christian crusade; something truly virtuous and is commendable killing, of course and, is allowed under commandment six: "Thou shalt not murder" - but you can kill when you think, your God, tells you to kill.

For what its worth: my jaundiced and tendentious thoughts on Scotland's cheeky bid for independence!

WARNING

THIS LOONY LEFT WING DRIVEL MAY MAKE YOUR BLOOD BOIL!

Scotland's independence might just cut England down to size - but I doubt it!!

Scotland: Stop subsidising England's excesses.  Get your independence, Scotland!

I know that, from all the opinion polls and from even voting against fair votes, Scotland distancing itself further from England seems a hopeless cause.  However, for what it's worth, these are my:

interesting/alternative/tendentious/horrifying/warped/unpatriotic/treacherous (delete as you wish)

thoughts on why I think Scotland would be sensible to separate from England and be its own sovereign nation within the EU and UN instead of the UK.  A UK that goes its own way in foreign policy, regardless of what the UN or, even the majority of the twenty members of the Security Council, thinks.

It seems the big-hearted Scots* are subsidising London as the hub of the UK with continuing plans for Heathrow expansion, the very expensive Cross Rail and Thames Link project that opens in 2019 and, last year's London Olympics and Paralympics.  Each costing many billions of pounds.

After more than one hundred years of an "essentially a Victorian rail network" (Chief Executive of Network Rail, Sir David Higgins on 8 January 2013 on the 'Today' programme), England has decided, rather late in the day, to modernise it, with the Scottish taxpayer helping to foot the bill.  Does Scotland have even one Victorian signal box?  England has 500 dating back to Queen Victoria and 300 are 1960s vintage! (same interview)

The Scots subsidised HS1 and, now, they generously help us out with HS2 that, again, gets nowhere near Scotland, even when fully completed.  However, to keep Scotland on board the mighty ‘USS Great Britain’ (the United States largest  aircraft carrier), there is now talk of HS2 being extended into Scotland.

Scotland should be most upset at subsidising England's armed conflicts on 23 nations since 1945 (Radio 4's 'Thought for the Day' slot in the 'Today' programme.  Repeated, on another occasion, without disagreement from the other team members, by the Green Party panelist on Radio 4's 'Any Questions').**

No doubt, there are some in the English Defence League (from the knife attack on the soldier in Woolwich) calling for pre-emptive, unmanned drone attacks of self defence on the Muslim militant extremists - and, in England - before they kill another of our brave soldier heroes.  Heroes home in barracks, on leave from protecting the people of Afghanistan from the real and lawful killers - us.  Scotland should disassociate itself from this barbarity by no longer funding England's unappreciated occupation of, and drone attacks on, foreign lands (a total of thirteen years, in punishment for 9/11, when we finally leave Afghanistan in 2014).

Scotland provides a most convenient haven for England's submarines carrying its independent nuclear deterrent.  The Scots should be livid at being used to house London's anachronistic and immoral machine of nuclear annihilation.  The Clyde workers might be redeployed in future proofing your nation from the accelerating, enhanced greenhouse effect and the exhaustion of the planet's oil and gas reserves. The subs and nuclear missiles might be sent off to Barrow to give employment to us English, who will be left with digging a little deeper into our pockets with the Scottish taxpayer no longer bailing us out.

With independence, Scotland would no longer be contributing to the very many billions of pounds for the replacement for the Trident subs. Preliminary work on the replacement began when either Tony Blair or Gordon Brown was PM.

Scotland's power from water, wind and sun could be used just for themselves or sold to the English at great expense! A golden chance for you Scots to become Great Scot - instead of the phrase being used simply as an exclamation! Great Britain, minus Scotland, would be just a little less 'Great' and a little less able to act, in tandem with the US, as the continuing great power and policeman around the world to get its way.  And, always knowing better than the Security Council, of course

We English, have such an over-inflated view of our importance to the nations of the world, that we cannot possibly do without Scotland to enhance our prestige and weight! Without Scotland, how can we possibly continue to punch above our weight in the world?  Even more crucially, the US might not regard us quite so highly with only little Wales and littler N Ireland in tow.  Our special relationship might be that little less special without Scotland.

For us English, all this independence malarkey is diminishing our size and greatness. Great Scot, it might even threaten our place as a permanent member of the Security Council. We certainly can't have that!

Let Scotland raise its own taxation for its own spending - that is all independence is - like the fifty other countries that have gained their independence from London since 1945 "and not one has expressed an interest in coming back under London's control." Alex Salmond on 21 May 2013 on 'Today'.

Is Scotland's taxation helpful for England to continue to fund her excesses; and, if not helpful, at least makes Scotland also responsible for the UK's most unfortunate, aggressive, domineering and provocative foreign policy in Muslim lands?  And, that certainly is an excess, to put it mildly!

Tim Weller

* "Over the last thirty years, in every single one of these last thirty years, Scotland per head contributed more in taxation than the UK average.  So that does indicate the financial and the potential financial strength goes over a long period of time."  Alex Salmond interview on the 'Today' programme, 21 May 2013.  

However, according to the Daily Telegraph (torn out cutting from my father in law in Sept, xx, 2013, headed "Separation would cost Scotland £5.9bn" - my comment: almost the same price that UK taxpayers are paying for two aircraft carriers in case of attack from who?) public spending per head of the population in Scotland is greater than the rest of the UK.  But by how much?  17%, as the DT says?

The Times (Tim Montgomerie, 28.11.13) maintains, “public spending per head of population is about 18% higher in Scotland than in England.”  However, he fails to tell us what is Scotland’s level of taxation per head of population, that is equally important to get a correct picture.

"Scotland generates almost 10% of the UK tax take from 8.4% of the UK population ... Scotland is better off economically from the public sector finance point of view and over each of the last 30 years."  Ivan McKee of 'Business for Scotland', on 'Any Questions', 8 Nov 2013.

In the same programme:

Leader of the Scottish Conservatives, Ruth Davidson said, "Scotland gets £1,200 per head more in public spending than the rest of the UK."

Businessman, Ivan McKee sharply retorted with, "And Scots pay £1,700 per head more in taxes than the rest of the UK."

A man at the Wigtown Book Festival, in September told me, “Scotland contributes 9.9% of UK taxation but receives 9.3% of UK public spending.  “Check it out in the GERS report”, he said.  (‘Government Expenditure and Revenue Scotland’)

Could 'More or Less' investigate, and say who is correct, please?

** "Since 1946, the UK has engaged in more armed conflict than any other country with a total of 23 if you include Libya.  Do we conclude from this that we are a nation of warmongers or, a country that values peace and justice?"  Rhiddian Brook on Thought for the Day on 25 March 2011.

PUTTING IT ANOTHER WAY

• Every nation, with an ounce of self esteem and spirit, has dreamed of independence!  It is something noble to aspire to.  Miraculously, unbelievably, they are  halfway there with what has already been granted with the narrow victory that gave them the Scottish Parliament in 1999.

• It does seem that Scotland gets left out from the great public spending projects that are seen in London, in the southeast of England!  Although, no doubt it is true that the SE has a quarter (15 m?) of the UK population (63.8 m), with Scotland only 5 million.
• Scotland is essential to England as a most useful Trident base.  Perhaps, Belfast might be a replacement for the Clyde and would help to keep any nuclear radiation well away from London.  A re-united Ireland might not come until next century, so that leaves England with plenty of time.
• Every citizen of some integrity in Scotland, would want to distance him/herself from 68 years of the most dishonourable foreign policy in foreign lands far from our shores.  A shocking number of foreigners have been killed, injured and maimed as Scottish taxpayers have paid their fair share of the UK's wars - in only one year, since 1945, has a UK service person not been killed in the UK’s many foreign conflicts.
• Under independence, Scottish military expenditure would, certainly, be proportionally much smaller than the UK's.  Scotland would not need an aircraft carrier or its very own independent nuclear deterrent to puff up its chest in importance around the world.  It would not be joining in England’s unnecessary, illegal and immoral wars or, helping to fund them.
• Better for Scotland to do everything itself when it is the wrong end of the UK from London.
• Independence simply means that the people of Scotland, from their earned income, would raise their own taxes for what they and they alone want to have their money spent on, in their country.
• Anything to make one country in the UK following the example of Norway with its peacemaking instead of the warmongering England/London.  And, Norway with its wise stewardship of its North Sea oil and gas reserves.  The exact opposite of what London did and does!
• Every country worth its salt, has aspired to conduct its own affairs - secure from outside interference.  That is the essence of independence.  In many centuries of empire building, interference and domination of others, England has consistently failed to understand that simple human fact.  Hence, UK English thinking means the ‘English’ Scots must hang on to their English Scotland at any cost.  And they seem to predominate in Scotland - unfortunately!