It's true but let's be fair. Hitler garnered much support from the US but also from Britain because he was seen (and rightly so) as a wall against the spread of Bolshevism to Central and Western Europe. In a way I can understand this position and let's not fool ourselves: Hitler indeed extirpated and exterminated communism and communists from Germany. Although, I must point, this view of the wall against communism, although correct in itself, does not excuse several errors by omission, specially after the militarization of the Ruhr in February 1936. By then and given Germany's declared intentions and actions already taken some sort of action by Britain and France was warranted. If it had been done, Hitler would be some obscure part of history nowadays and little much than a point of discussion if he was only rethoric or if he was a real danger.

I'm straying away from your post so let me get back to its fulcrum because your reply goes right to the point. When I mentioned communism you immediately replied with nazism. The point is exactly that. Nazism is known by all. Everybody knows about nazi concentration camps, the Gestapo and all that. But nobody knows much about communism, its concentration camps, its political repression which left the Gestapo to look like altar boys, the violence, the state-sponsored terror, the writings of Lenin, his actions, etc, etc. If knowledge about communism had became as widespread as its nazi counterpart, popular repulse to communism would be at least as strong as the repulse of nazism if not worst.

The two obvious, and only, options are,
A. Full integration of a federal state of Europe = the usual single state apparatus of common fiscal, monetary, law policies as a minimum.
B. Break up of the Euro zone and the constituent nations, which is politically unacceptable no matter what the pain caused to citizens of the relevant countries.

Either way, brexit or no brexit, that is the train wreck that is lying on the tracks of the EU railroading.
The brexit choice comes down to pulling the emergency cord and jumping off the run away train before it rounds the last bend and sees what is on the tracks ahead.

National Socialism was a handy title, for a time
 

Two faces of the same totalitarian mind set.

The UK has always been somewhat ambivalent to Communism
- especially within Oxford and Cambridge Unis post-WW2.

I did mention, earlier, the Chinese version of communist revolution but, sure, the gulags are more or less ignored nowadays.

Nicola Sturgeon has thrown a spanner in the works. A vote to leave on 23 June would likely result in a second Scottish referendum and the recommendation that an independent Scotland would remain in the EU.

Trying to get my head round that one.

It's official, you can't keep a good man down
 

Varoufakis, a Man for All Seasons, to Advise Britain’s Labour Party

During the in-fighting and civil war of our current governing party you might expect the official opposition to come up with a view, even though their official view is no different from that of the UK government.

It's not a big spanner, nor the first time she has come out with this statement but she had to say it in London this time around.



The Scottish Standard - The Postal Ballot at the Scottish Independence Referendum - Fraud?



"Since the IndyRef Scottish Ballot papers now have 2″ block capital numbers on the back.
So, if Sturgeon knew about the fixing of the IndyRef why did she not call another one? Somebody needs to paste that article to Galloway for a start. If I was UKIP I would be shouting from the rooftops about the rigged ref and the SNP did nothing. And I would also be seeking “assurances” that MI5 under Cameron’s instruction would not be tampering with the Brexit ref.
There will never ever ever be another IndyRef in Scotland.
Sturgeon has just stated that it could trigger a 2nd ref……no way.
Here’s Sturgeons current logical position
United Kingdom Bad
4th Reich Good
Really??? as they say you just can not make it up.
With a supposed budget of £65billion (actually about £5-10Billion higher) in an Independent Scotland the deficit on the current account would be approx £15 Billion or over 20%. And that is before we get to the repayment of their share of the National Debt.
Scotland is getting £15Billion subsidy but only adding £7billion to it’s national debt. In other words it is getting an £8billion freebie. The UK govt proposed cutting the Scottish grant by £7billion over the next 10 years taking it to some sort of parity with the rest ok the UK. – Sturgeon and Swinney refused point blank. The Tories then said that they would meet them half way and propsed a £3billion cut to the Scottish govt…so far the SNP govt is refusing point blank citing the “no detriment” clause in the Smith agreement.. It is a pile of shcweppes. We are worse off than Greece.
If one was a bit devious one could suggest that the upcoming Brexit ref also doubles up, so that if Scotland votes to stay in then it will automatically be deemed to have become an independent country.
Anyway if there is no deal on the current “Fiscal Framework” negotiations then the above piece is pretty true.
(Note; such a deal is now struck since this was written but damned if I know what that deal is).
staying in Euroland means the heralding in of TTIP (also TISA) and the complete privatisation of the NHS.
At the Scottish Ref that was the one issue that really changed minds. So much so that the SNP vote went from 28% around May to 45% at the referendum in September…..Think on that. If you see Nigel tell him it’s a game changer for UKIP"
- another abstract from elsewhere.
UKIP is referenced above because those who voted for them at the last general election equate to about the whole of the Scottish electorate numbers.

Despite the convolutions illustrated above -

Logically, fully committed SNP supporters will vote in favour of Brexit in order to lead to the ultimate, more important, aim of Scottish "independance".
Will they do that however?

Meanwhile, on the gravy train
 

"Meanwhile over in Europe
According to an internal audit published in 2008, MEPs channelled £125,000-a-year allowances for secretaries and research assistants into family-owned businesses, foreign bank accounts and ‘front’ companies.
The Galvin Report revealed that politicians strived to ‘use up’ their portion of a £100million expenses pot without the need to provide receipts.
But the dossier by chief auditor Robert Galvin, from which leaks first emerged two years ago, did not name the worst culprits.
And the day-to-day spending of the European Parliament’s 736 members – 72* of them from the UK – remains secret as they are exempt from Freedom of Information requests.
Various TV companies have filmed MEPs signing in for 300 Euro daily expense allowance and then going home….
An independent UK will no longer have to fund billions in UK contributions to the EU or be restricted in the rate of VAT …. amongst many other things….."
- more abstraction

• *Note the % figure (72/700+); the UK has less than 10% of the representation in the Euro parliament.

For anyone who thinks the UK has a 'voice' in the EU - the UK has only 8.4% of the votes in the Council of Ministers with 26% needed to block legislation, and absolutely no veto on trade and business legislation.




We do vote for these folks however not many UK voters can name their local MEP.

Oxymoron??
 

From the banner headline in the link, but who pays the piper?
Supporting Scottish Independence, and a fairer, equal and transparent society for all

European Economic Area
 

We could ditch the CAP and the common fisheries policy tomorrow by leaving the EU and remaining in the EEA – discuss???
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Economic_Area



?c?
Probably not - This doesn't get publicity because the UK government don't like it.
Broadly, it is nick named as "flexit eureferendum" for favourite search engines.

Deserves a multi-level response.

With a name like Scottish National Party what else do you expect?

On the other hand what happened to Alex Salmond's "once in a generation" referendum, surely a generation is longer than a couple of years.

The SNP was banking on being able to persuade the rest of the UK that the North Sea oil belonged just to Scotland (WTF) and I'll link in again Alex Salmond's preposterous suggestion that North Sea oil would be worth £300,000 to every Scot (i.e. steal the money from the Welsh, Northern Irish and English). But the fall in the oil price has shot all their budgets to hell and it would be financial suicide to go for independence right now.

But the politicians who are leading the charge aren't really interested in the health of the Scottish nation, just their own status.

So yes, please go for independence. But when Orkney says it doesn't want to be part of Scotland and would like to be governed by Norway again, will Scotland listen?

If there's a part of the UK that really could make a success of independence it would be SE England. If Greater London went it alone with its population of 10+ million (more than twice that of Scotland) and a wealth generating capacity of at least five times that of Scotland, this would be a true success story.

But maybe the Londoners have a greater sense of loyalty? :innocent:

I think Nicola Sturgeon may have a point. Scotland as a country with a population under 10 million and a economy based on commodities like oil and regional products like Whiskey may well play the EU game better and so do better. You don't ever hear anything of say Slovenian complaints about the EU. Lumped with England they probably get a worse deal.

The EU overlord would however still treat them in the same way as their English conquerors in the end, just from greater distance and with even less attention to the detail when they have bigger fish to fry. I'm surprised someone campaigning for independence wants a bigger master. Possibly Scottish Prime minister and EU Gaulighter for the Edinburgh and Glasgow sub-district comes with a bigger office?

They should have tied the two referenda together. Scotland/ROTUK taking the UK's EU seat may be what people want, but is so logical it will have terrified the politicians. It would have also raised the question of Wales and Northern Ireland wanting Brussels not London. Using the Scots Nationalists to drag the English back into the fold is an obvious tactic. England feeding the city of London would be like having a Switzerland Mk.2 with more missiles and fewer cuckoo clocks pop up off your coast.

Andy

Oh yes, there are arguments for regional "governments" of the nature identified in the last couple of posts.
These would fall into line (more or less) with the current regions used by the EU for their own purposes which are identified in the earlier link:-

What do you have in mind?

Regarding your earlier point related to the bank bail-outs of the last decade: the next banking event of similar nature will be subject to bail-ins.
The legislation for the bail-ins is in place and has had a trial run by the ECB in the case of Cyprus.

The bail-ins are a bad joke. A very bad joke indeed.

If a bank goes belly-up it's for its own wrong-doings, that is true and its shareholders are punished by loosing their investment. But there are also and most specifically the supervision authorities who did not do their job and allowed it to happen. The job of a regulatory authority is above and most of all to keep the stability of the system. The public entrusts its money to the banks for reasons of reputation of this or that bank but also because above them exists (or at least it is supposed to exist) a supervision body which guarantees that the bank operates according to regulations and is solvent at all times. If the regulatory body does not do its job correctly then the banks go belly-up and we have a lot of trouble.

Now, the regulatory institutions are government bodies. So, my question is, why should depositors pay for a government body's leniency if not direct incompetence? It's a mistake done by the regulator so the state must pay and be held responsible for the incompetence of one of its bodies. Therefore, if trouble occurs, then, States (this being tax-payers) should pay. Then in the next election maybe the tax payers remember and vote for merit instead of politics.

Some 40 or 50 years ago, even 20 years ago, this thing of the bail-ins would be both an absurd and an outrage. However, in nowadays' Europe, where a tendency to punish wealth is surfacing with a lot of strength along with utter disrespect for money it is considered the new normal to have wealthy people paying for States' wrongdoings.

This is not inocuous, at all. Slowly but steadily money is pouring out of Europe in general (some countries are exceptions) but as more of these crazy ideas against wealth and money are implemented the more the money goes away for greener pastures.

It's just money
 

Before the possibility of bail-ins arising there is an increased chance of negative interest rates by the ECB; I think it is the 10th March when Mr Draghi is next scheduled to produce a rabbit from his hat.
i.e. make his next announcement about both interest rates and further QE.

Even at the last G20 conference, I think it was our very own governor of the BoE who commented that the banks are working to a remit wherein they, the central banks, do their bit but the respective governments won't grasp the nettles of their own responsibilities; why would they when, in the case of the UK, you are in govn for 5 years (4 years for the USA).
Nevertheless, Gov Carney did not agree that the banks are "running out of ammunition" even though everyone can see that it is so.
But, every public pronouncement/forecast that Gov Carney has made since he took up office over 2 years ago has turned out to be wrong.

Life is short; live for today is the mantra.