I was sent this today from a new subscriber to the magazine who I connected with through a mutual friend we featured here last year, Keith Ordinary Guy. The article was entitled a War on the Poor, UK? and you can read the full article here. Keith has since consolidated one year of his letters to Number 10 into a Kindle book which is available for sale here. I think you'll agree the Perspective on Independence is very interesting indeed and one we're very unlikely to hear blaring out the boxes in the living room. Take your time to digest the information contained in it and ponder what it really means both for you and for the people of Scotland as they take their vote in September. Is this vote really just about Scotland and England or will a YES vote be a vote for our World?
Here you go...from David Abrahams-Edley
"Have any of you been wondering about the rabid, threatening, nonsensical, erratic and bullying behaviour of our elected representatives in Westminster of all main parties with regards to Scottish independence? There is a very real reason for it.
When you see 'Crown' used officially do you think this is the Monarchy - or agents acting on behalf of the Queen? If you are you will be in for a shock. Since the Treaty of Union in 1707 with Scotland the 'Crown' in law has been The Bank of England. Prior to the Union the Scots were bankrupted by the English Parliament - the English made it unlawful to trade with anyone who was connected to the Darien Colony. This was a Scottish Colony in what is now Panama. This bullying effectively forced the Scots into Union. The deal was that England would pay off Scotland's debts and make its establishment rich in return for one Parliament and one nation. The Bank of England paid for this by creating a national debt that was designed never to be paid back. And in return it demanded conditions. The new Parliament would issue statute separately from the common law codes using trade law - the law of the sea (maritime code). The debt would be underwritten with the population as collateral - it wasn't just the Scots that were 'bought and sold for English gold'. At this point the Crown in law became the Bank of England and it resurrected an abolished post - the Rememberancer, to sit in the House of Commons at the right hand of the speaker - the only unelected office in the House. The purpose of this was to vet and press legislation in the interests of the country's creditor. The first two items of statute under maritime code being the Act(s) of Union.
If the Treaty of Union is reversed - then the Bank of England is no longer the Crown in Law. The crown in law will revert to the Queen. All products of the Treaty will no longer stand and the national debt, as a product of this instrument cannot exist. EVERY ACT OF PARLIAMENT, STATUTORY INSTRUMENT AND BYE LAW CREATED UNDER STATUTE SINCE 1707 IS A PRODUCT OF THIS TREATY and as such will be null an void - Think about this - maritime code is by consent (although most people don't know how not to consent to it) - and it is about control and punishment rather than holding society together - as in common law. The Crown as the Bank of England makes interest out of its collateral through the courts - which are built as a vessel (you sit in the dock) the judge sits at the bridge (bench) and a court case is 'abandoned' if it cannot continue - just like a ship. When you see the word crown - because of the Acts of Union - this means the Bank of England, as in Crown Estates, Crown Colonies, Crown Courts - the crown v... All of the is overturned if Scotland goes independent. When the Prime Minister, who works on behalf of the Bank of England - his real title is First Lord of the Treasury - talks about the 'interests of the City of London' - he is not talking about the benefit of the UK, he is acknowledging that he is not carrying out his job for the benefit of the electorate but for his creditors - the whole thing is double talk. The best deception is the one that is right in front of your eyes.
Parliament is sovereign in statute. But our statute is a product of a Treaty that will no longer exist. Statute is a legal instrument and there is a world of difference between legal and lawful. So Parliament will have no power or authority and our law will revert to the Common law. The establishment that has used statute for 300 years to shore up its wealth and power base will no longer have this. And they cannot rewrite and reintroduce these statutes because maritime code is by consent and given a choice who would consent to this shit? Because our law has its routes in the common law it would take years to reinstate and an English Parliament would have no authority to carry out this lawmaking function, because its authority also derives from a product of a Treaty that will no longer exist.
We are in uncharted territory here. This is the real reason that the establishment is shitting itself over Scottish independence.
David Abrahams-Edley
