Global Power Shift

Even though it was just over  three months ago that I predicted that China would soon overtake the United States as the largest and most powerful economy in the world (see http://jamaicatory.blogspot.com/2014/07/brics-challenging-status-quo.html) to  be frank I was  still shocked to see an IMF report last week declaring that the People’s Republic of China was now the world’s number economic power ending  142 years of US economic dominance

According the latest statistics the Chinese economy is worth $17.61 trillion compared with $17.4 trillion for the U.S. taking a lead in industries such as manufacturing, finances, services, trade etc, which of course means that the margin is not a very large one right now, but given that the US has allowed anyone to overtake them says much about the state of the American economy.

          

Let’s face it, the writing has been on the wall for years and anyone who thinks differently is only fooling themselves, the fall of America and the subsequent rise of China is due to actions on the part of each nation and their governments. The simple fact of the matter is while the Chinese economy continued to strengthen, the US has been in decline this is due to several factors including the decline in US manufacturing with the outsourcing so many jobs that were once in the US, the raising of the debt ceiling (who can forget the shutdown of Congress late last year), the massive debt that they now owe to China in particular and the rise in unemployment just to name a few. China on the other hand has been strengthening it’s economy by large scale manufacturing funded by cheap labour, having tight controls on its currency which keeps it artificially lower than market value, extensive exports which leads to massive trade surpluses with every country that it has trading relations it and also taking the initiative to forge new links into previously untapped markets making China a success story overnight.

It goes without saying that this latest revelation by the IMF may of course have serious implications for the structure of global politics, if the US is no longer the global economic superpower as it once was how will this affect it’s global standing? As former president Ronald Reagan once state weakness at home leads to weakness abroad. The implications that this could have for America’s position in the world could be detrimental, if it is they cannot even command control of the global economy anymore, how can America’s allies truly trust that it can live up to its other obligations?.

Of course I could be very much pre-mature in my judgment here (although I highly doubt it), when the United States first became the world’s top economy in 1872, The British Empire still held sway over much of the world where it was said that the Sun never sets in the Empire and  Britannia still ruled the waves, it took nearly 75 years after this for the world to start truly seeing the decline in British political and military power regardless of the fact the US economy was still outperforming that the UK itself, perhaps  the same situation might play out again or perhaps this time the decline will take place even faster. After all let’s face it while the Chinese economy is growing at an exponential rate, it is also said that this growth is unsustainable given how it rose in the first place, let’s also consider that Chinese have truly been interested in pursuing global hegemony but focused primarily on it’s own economic interest (a key ingredient of it’s economic success) which of means that regardless of now having the world’s strongest economy, the Chinese may have no intention of taking on a global leadership world unlike US which has a  foreign policy of American exceptionalism seeing itself as leader of the free world and the like.

Regardless of the efforts of liberals to defend the presidency of Barack Obama it is quite clear from the figures here and all is not so white in the White House, in fact it was reported that the White House was completely caught off guard by the news, it was as if they didn't  know what hit them, yet liberals still continue to harp on their story that President Obama’s economic policy is better than Reagan, really? How they can come to such a ghastly conclusion only heaven knows, but one thing is clear however, if I did know before what a set of blind idiots liberal advocates and Obama apologist are then last week certainly cleared up any misconceptions I had in that regard.

With USA and the rest of the world focusing on either happenings in Middle East with regards to ISIS or on the Ebola crisis on Africa, economic concerns certainly seems to take a backseat concern however the implications of this are not to be taken lightly as many pundits are now beginning to class the 21^st century as the Chinese (just as how the 19^th century had belonged to the British and the 20^th to the Americans), it remains to be see how the US will now respond to this extremely real threat to it's "global superiority" or is it a case that the days of US hegemony are numbered and it's time to make way for the rise of a new superpower. 

Scottish Independence: A Naive Dream:

I cannot help but weigh in on the debate going on in the United Kingdom following the impending referendum on whether Scotland should become an independent nation which would of course put an end to the entity we now know as the United Kingdom and change the political face of Britain and Europe for years to come (assuming of course that the yes vote is passed), however after taking a look at some of the issues put forward by these Scottish nationalist, I’m convinced that the campaign is more of a scare tactic than anything else filled mostly with Anti-English sentiment and does not represents at all the facts. I’m by no means blaming the Scottish National Party (SNP) for all the misconceptions out there but one thing is clear is that the Scots will be by no means better off should the vote go in SNP’s favour. 

                 

                                                                                                                                                             Many Anglophobes not only in Scotland but all over the world will no doubt be keen to support the ambitions of the SNP to be an independent country for no other reason than the fact that they still view English control of Scotland as a symbol of national subordination, but those who do take this view do not truly understand the nature of the relationship between the two Kingdoms, in truth England does not dominate Scotland any more than Scotland rules England, the union between the two entities is not a forced one but one of mutual corporation. Contrary to popular myths told to stir up anti-British sentiments England has never annexed Scotland instead the union between them is one that was approved by the parliaments of both countries to end hostilities and make the Realm a much stronger union than they would have had they remained separate. The 1707 act of union is every bit Scotland’s doing as it is England’s, in fact  Scotland was so keen to have the union of the two Kingdoms just to ensure that the English Parliament  didn't change the rules concerning the royal line of succession which was in dispute of the time.

        

                                                                                                                      

And while on the topic of the monarchy, it is no secret that Anti-royalists would love nothing better than to  see  the split-up of England and Scotland because for them the monarchy is a key symbol of English control over Scottish life and so it would be better for Scotland should it be gotten rid, even now in Scotland, members of the SNP continue to debate on what role the Queen would have in the new constitution, some members favour retaining the Queen and installing a Sottish Governor-General to represent the Queen (similar to what we have here in Jamaica),  others however speak openly about having a Scottish Republic as the Queen of England should have no place in the Scotland they wish to build, this argument while it looks appealing to those of a liberal mind-set is flawed to more reasons than one, first of all  There has not been a “Queen of England” since 1707 the concept of both the English and Scottish monarchies has been retired to the history books for over 300 years, Elizabeth II is Queen of the United Kingdom and not Queen of England which she has been erroneously styled over the years and secondly The current British royal family is every bit as Scottish as a matter of fact some might say they’re even more Scottish than English as the current line started when James VI of Scotland was crowned King of England in 1603 after the House of Tudor died with Elizabeth I, any notion that the union came about as a result of English royalty holding control of Scotland is totally false in truth it is a Scottish royal family that reigns in England and thus over the entire United Kingdom, a fact I’m sure many SNP supporters would rather forget as it would not help their cause to break up the union.  

                                                                Whether the Scot nationalists will admit it or not, the union has served them as well as it has served the English both in terms of security  as well as financially, the British Isles went through its greatest period of prosperity as a united entity not a divided one, it’s quite hypocritical for  them  to go criticizing England for being a colonial power when it was every bit as complicit in this old colonial policy,  nobody has ever hard an English Empire before but the British Empire was world famous during  its heyday, for them to now disavow any ties to make and make it look as though it’s all England’s fault is truly disingenuous.  Even now in this post-colonial age, Scotland would still be far better off within the union than outside it for this so for several reasons:                                                                                         

 a. Record low interest rates and the fastest growing economy in the G7  and the EU means  the United Kingdom would have a stronger economic power than either England or Scotland can ever hope to be on its own,                                                                                                                           

b. The UK has a stable currency in the pound and also a stable tax regulatory system,                                

c. They have access to larger job and product markets  by remaining in the union,                                                                        
 d. Many public services in the UK are subsidised by the Westminster led government, to end the union would mean Sottish people would have to pay more to access the same services                                          
e. Regardless of no longer being a world empire, the UK still has major influence on the world stage having a major voice in entities like the G8, G20, NATO and not to mention a permanent seat on the UN security council                                                                                                                                                       
f. Having a united Britain would mean that the capacity of the British Isles to defend themselves  would much greater than it would be should the kingdoms decide to go their separate ways.

There is no way I could end this article without talking about the effect that the Scottish independence will have on the EU, The story told by the SNP is that Scotland will finally have its own independent voice in the European Union in truth Scotland will have no voice in the EU as several  countries have already threatened to veto Scotland’s entry into the EU should it secede so as not to encourage secessionist movements in their own countries, what the SNP tries to portray as the ultimate goal of Scotland will turn out to be their worst nightmare instead as no entry to the EU will mean that Scots will not enjoy the privileges of EU citizenship such as market access and freedom of movement all of which are privileges they now enjoy as part of the UK, it’s little wonder that the business community in Scotland is pushing for a “no vote”  as they have already seen the writing on the wall.       

                                                                                                                                                               

  The Question that the SNP and their collaborators must ask themselves, apart from bragging rights, what will be the real benefit to the Scottish people? Are they really willing to risk all on the altar of political expediency in a world which such an uncertain future?, is not the UK a much stronger and more stable option for everyone not only in Scotland, but also in England, Wales and Northern Ireland?. Independence as an ideal sounds good on paper as it tells the story of struggle and freedom, the story liberation from domination and the chance to decide one’s own destiny, all good sounding ideals but anyone who’s been following the SNP campaign will see that their dream is rather idealistic with little practical thought process going involved as they have yet to come up any concrete benefit that this will have on the Scottish people as opposed to remaining in the union. So on September 18, 2014 the people of the Kingdom of Scotland have a decision to make when a referendum is called, one can only hope that they judge carefully and weigh the facts instead of being swayed by sentiment and by doing so will end up making the right call. 

Republican Hypocrisy

The ignorance and arrogance of republicans never ceases to amaze me as they never miss an opportunity to spread their propaganda and espouse their philosophy. Late last week it was announced that former Antiguan Governor-General unilaterally awarded knighthoods to several undeserving persons on her very last day in office, this act was of course a contravention of Antigua’s’ Awards Act and furthermore as the designated stand-in of Antigua’s constitutional monarch, Dame Louise had no authority to act on her own except in cases where she was constitutionally mandated to use the Crown’s reserve powers in a state of emergency. This however was far from the case and as such her use of her vice-regal powers in this manner on the very day that her term was slated to end was totally inappropriate, regardless of her feelings towards the government of the day.
                                               

There are speculations that all of this sprung from the inability of the former Governor-General to get along with the new Prime Minister and his government, hence the reason why he advised the Queen to recall her and appoint another in her place a decision that seemed quite unpopular with many of the people at least until the former GG’s response which turned public opinion against her with some even going as far as to claim that it’s not the first time that she’s acted in a nepotistic manner while in office. Whatever the truth of the story may be it is quite clear that is merely an issue of personalities and different opinions between the Dame Louise Lake-Tack and Prime Minister Gaston Brown.

                               

This view has been skewed by republicans who claim that the dispute is not merely one  between the persons involved but more importantly this is a conflict between the offices of the Prime Minister and Governor-General thus it would be better for one of these offices to be abolished, (they of course suggested doing away with the GG). Nothing of course could be further from the truth, regardless of this one single error in judgement, Dame Louise has served well in office for many years and with different political administrations at the helm, Mr. Brown on the other hand has so far been getting along very well with the newly installed GG, any issue between them was solely a matter of difference in opinion between the two. As for the knighthoods awarded, the Prime Minister has already advised the new Governor-General as to how these awards should be treated and for now they are being scrutinized by the committee set up by the Awards Act to deal with such matters, those who deserved to be knighted will be properly recognised by the Queen’s representative while the rest will be treated as never having been granted at all, thus showing that contrary to the lie told by republicans, the system does in fact work the way it was meant to.

                               
Monarchist oftentimes use the old  saying “if it’s not broke, don’t fix it” to defend their stance, anti-royals however often claim that it is in fact broke and so needs to be thrown away. This latest call (which is in fact comes from a vocal minority) reminds me of demonstrations against the monarchy in Spain over the King’s hunting incident and also other times when the actions of individual monarchs have been used by republicans to propagate their own movement, such as blaming German Emperor Wilhem II for the World War One or King Constantine II of Greece for letting a military junta take over the country conveniently enough these same republicans often times forget that Germany underwent its worst period of dictatorship during its republican days with Hitler as Chancellor and don’t even get me started on how the leaders of the Hellenic Republic ruined the economy, while republicans openly acknowledge that something did go wrong, they blame the individual leaders rather than the office they hold.

                                 
The hypocrisy of republicans is so amazing that it infuriates me, I’m by no means claiming that monarchs are infallible by virtue of their status I acknowledge that all Heads of State are human regardless of what position they hold and so are prone to error, what I am saying is this, whenever a president does something contrary to his office there are usually calls for him to be impeached and for another to be elected in his place, but in case of a monarch it is not enough for him to be dethroned and for his successor to ascend but rather the custom these days is that if the monarch goes, then the monarchical system is gotten rid of as well, whereas if a president falls the republican system that gave him his authority remains untouched one iota. I shudder to think what would have happened to the Commonwealth Monarchy had Edward VIII been living in the 2010s instead of the 1930s, but it’s highly unlikely that George VI would have been allowed to ascend as republicans would insist that the monarchy has been brought into disrepute while at the same time ignoring the amount of president’s that have brought themselves and their office into disrepute yet their office was allowed to continue with another taking their place.




Republican hypocrisy is also evident in their views on the use of reserve powers by a head of state in a parliamentary system, to illustrate my point take for instance the black power riots in Trinidad in the 1970s where the republicans use the incident to push for a change in the constitution on the thinly veiled excuse that the executive needed broader powers to deal with such issues, in fact there was nothing in the constitution that prevented them from granting such powers to the then Governor-General but they instead claimed that the use of such authority by the Queen’s representative was inappropriate and so it was better to use a figure that represented the people rather than the Queen and so the Governor-General’s post was abolished and replaced with a president who by the way was none other than the former GG himself. That argument about the need of the People’s representative rather than a royal (or viceregal) figure to represent the nation was little more than a smokescreen, the President in Trinidad (and many other parliamentary republics) has NEVER been the people’s representative this so is for two reasons, first of all, many of these republics (Trinidad included) was established without the people’s consent via a popular referendum and secondly most ceremonial presidents are chosen by some electoral college (most likely parliament) and not by popular vote, how then can these republics truly claim collective sovereignty as expressed by the term “We the people”, when these very same people who are supposedly sovereign don’t even get a chance to decide on who should lead the republic or even whether they want to have a republic at all?.

                      
 The truth is that the republican agenda is little more than a smokescreen for politicians and their associate to ascend the nation’s highest office under the false claim of being a symbol of democracy, unity and non-partisan nature of the state when in truth this role is best when being performed by a monarch as the German philosopher Max Weber once very wisely put it, “ a constitutional monarch fulfils a role that a president never can, it limits politicians thirst for power because the highest office of the state is already occupied once and for all”.

Threatening Rise of Radical Islam

Sometime last week I got a rather rude shock after seeing a story in which former US President Jimmy Carter called on the United States and its allies in the European Union to legally recognize Hamas as a legitimate political actor instead of being merely a terrorist organisation as was traditionally thought.

This development of course is rather disturbing for one single reason, Hamas isn't called Terrorist simply because it is Palestinian or Islamic, if that were the case Fatah would certainly be designated in a similar manner, the truth is that Hamas’ reputation as a terrorist organisation is well deserved as over the years this very movement has been in the very forefront of insurgency activities in that region of the world. Giving recognition to such an entity would not solve the crisis as Carter claims but instead would only serve to make matters worse.

                       

What the ex-President fails to get is that giving Hamas recognition would serve to strengthen not only them but other Islamist groups that make similar claims which would be extremely dangerous in the era where the rise of radical Islam is becoming such a powerful force in the Middle East and even beyond. One needs only to take a look at Egypt under Mohammed Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood to see how quickly a country can go downhill when a government which such radical views take over, it wasn't very long before the people of Egypt finally had enough and so deposed him via a coup d’état.

                                     

And as if that’s not proof enough just take a good look at what’s going on in Syria where rebels present themselves as freedom fighters are now locked in a struggle to overthrow the government and seize power for themselves . Regardless of efforts by the liberal media to put their own spin on things and vilify Assad it is quite clear that the Syrian rebels are not as noble as they appear to be. These same groups  are known to be in league with terrorists organisations across the Middle East along with advocacy of an Islamic republic along the lines of Iran and persecution of religious minorities make them unfit to be the governing anybody at all, yet they are continuously aided by the liberal powers of the West.

                             

Of course nothing serves as greater proof to illustrate my point than the rise of the new radical self-styled Caliphate known as ISIS, this group takes evil to a whole new level so much so that even Al Qaeda and the Taliban want nothing to do with the likes of them. This group of unstable lunatics even go as far as to claim that they have the “right” to govern all Muslims in the world and seek to extend their control over the entire Islamic community worldwide. This kind of thinking has precarious not only for the Middle East but also for Western countries that now possess an alarmingly high number of Muslim immigrants.

                        

The rise of Islamic actors as a political and cultural force in Europe is an especially worrying trend as little by little traditional European culture is being undermined the face of this alien invasion of their sovereignty so much so to the point where they’re being given special treatment and are even now demanding more. A few months ago a story broke that the British courts now recognised Sharia law as valid in cases in regarding Muslims and even this week announced that a Muslim man who has more than one wife can even claim benefits of these wives, this of course raises several questions such as the legality of polygamy and the welfare system in the UK where immigrants are entitled to more benefits than legal taxpaying British subjects. Elsewhere in Europe is facing similar challenges whereas Muslims feels as though they’re not obliged to obey the law of the land even going as far as to advocate for the setting up of separate Islamic states in Europe similar to what happened in Norway earlier this week. These same factors combined with the rise of ISIS and the strong possibility that such a movement could spread in their vindictive attempt to spread their world domination propaganda is exactly what makes Mr. Carter’s comments so ill advised. Whether the liberals want to face it or not Hamas was a terrorist group upon foundation and it is still one today or is the so called famous saying that “The United States does not negotiate with Terrorist” no longer applicable.

                       

Of course all I have just written here is merely a tip of the iceberg in this rather long saga of radical Islam and the apparent Apathy (maybe even Sympathy) that liberals in the west seem to have for the likes of them while ignoring the cries for help of Christians who are undergoing serious persecution as a result of their faith. Until Western governments wake up and realize how serious this threat is then I’m afraid we will continue to have this threat hanging over our heads for years to come.

BRICS challenging status quo

The International Economic Order is seriously shaking up and getting ready for a complete overhaul, the signs of this became apparent this week when the world’s leading emerging markets Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa had what some deem as the audacity to openly challenge the existing status quo by announcing that they were going to form their own versions of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) which they will call the New Development Bank.

                      

What is the purpose of the NDB? Some might ask, well it’s quite simple the New Development Bank is an institution set up to help these nations and other emerging markets pursue their own economic interests in areas such as regional trade, investment and infrastructure development, domestic job creation and poverty reduction. What makes this institution unique is that it has absolutely no ties to any of the major western powers but is built specifically with the concerns of developing countries in mind (or at least that’s what they claim), the BRICS countries have not been  shy to point out that structural adjustment programmes have not always worked given it’s “one size fits all” approach which is impossible to do because every country is inherently different, it’s problems are different and thus the solutions to fixing this problem should be just as varied, hence the need for the NDB.

        

Anyone who has been following the trend of the world economy lately should not at all be surprised that this has come to pass,  truth be told then writing was already on the wall, the emergence of these news players on the economic stage has been long coming, China is predicted to take over from the US as the world’s most powerful economy, while Russia and India don’t seem very far behind, issues that are of importance to the International Political Economy have moved from discussions at G7/G8  to summits for the G20 which includes all the BRICS countries, the US, Japan and Western Europe who’s economic supremacy once went unchecked and unchallenged are now finding themselves stiffly competing with these new players particularly China who will soon no doubt become (if not already) the new manufacturing capital of the world.

The formation of NDB is far more than just an economic statement, more importantly it is a political statement after years of simply undermining the existing political-economic order as established by the Bretton Woods system, they’ve now decided to openly defy the status quo for all the world to see, knowing full well that there’s not a single thing the West can do to push back against this challenge to its supremacy, this is a war of words, a war of ideas,  a battle for control of the world’s economy which the US and company are sorely loosing.  

                         

Of course all this could simply be my speculating, maybe the US and its allies don’t really see it as a threat  to the continuation of its own institutions such as the IMF and the World Bank, maybe they have no ill feelings toward the establishment of this new BRICS owned entity that they cannot control like they have been doing with similar institutions for the last 70 odd years, but one thing is certain though, there was a time when no nation (or alliance of nations) would ever dare to try something like this but times have certainly changed and soon developing countries will be signing up to join, given their disillusion with institutions such as the IMF and the World Bank which they don’t see as acting in their own best interest.

                      

The implications are numerous as far the setting up of the New Development Bank is concerned as is the implications of how it will be received which right now are bordering on cautiously optimistic, very little is certain but one thing that is certain however is that the influence of the traditional powers significantly waning and thus making way for a new world order.  

Special Edition: They Call Me Teacher

This special edition of the Jamaican Tory is written in tribute to one of the most dynamic Jamaican patriots who has ever lived, a man who has truly demonstrated what it means to be a good leader and a good citizen, who’s example every Jamaican can truly take inspiration from, one of the few remaining from an older generation of leaders who saw this country through turbulent times and who passed away last week at the ripe old age of 98, I speak of non-other than The Most Honourable Sir Howard Felix Hanlan Cooke.

                           

The Jamaican Tory was truly saddened to hear of the passing of Sir Howard though to be frank was not entirely shocked given the evitability that it must happen one day notwithstanding, it would have been nice to see the former Governor-General hit the 100 mark, but apparently that was not to be. Being a fan of medieval literature both fictional and historical, the term true knight comes to mind when describing a man like Cooke, he really did represent all the values that knighthood was supposed to espouse, traits such as loyalty, honour patriotism, courage, a man who loved the people and was loved by them in turn, defender of tradition, an advocate of monarchism and a faithful Christian, it’s little wonder he was knighted twice.  The likes of him will hardly be seen again.

                          

Sir Howard is best known for his political career which included being a member of the West Indies Parliament, sitting both houses of the Jamaican Parliament on different occasions, his many years of service as Minister of Education and President of the Jamaican Senate which eventually led to him being given  the highest office of the land as the Queen’s representative, the Governor-General of Jamaica.

Sir Howard’s contribution to this country is a most invaluable one, he started out as a lecturer of Mico College helping to train the next generation of educators before moving on to become one of the founding members of the People’s National Party which would see him serving in the House of Assembly and later in the West Indies Parliament, Sir Howard was even part of the bi partisan committee that drafted our present constitution.

What I find really interesting about Sir Howard is that regardless of his membership within the PNP, he was never subscribed to leftism of his colleagues, indeed during his time as Minister of Education during the 1970s, he was positively alarmed by the socialist direction that Prime Minister Manley was taking the country in. Regardless of his misgiving he was no traitor and stayed loyal to his party serving with pride as Minister of Education helping to make several reforms in the educational system of Jamaica, which he was well in a position to do given his intimate knowledge of the system which acquired over the years during his time in the  teaching profession, thus earning him the nickname, Teacher Cooke.

                               

From 1991 to 2006, Sir Howard Cooke had the distinction of serving as Governor-General of Jamaica. A position he excelled in, in fact Sir Howard was the very epitome of what a Governor-General should be. He and Lady Cooke transformed Kings House into a place where every citizen from all walks of life would feel welcome and made it truly a home fit for a head of state. Sir Howard as Governor-General demonstrated in his conduct that the highest position in the country was available to every citizen and as a representative of the Crown was a powerful unifying symbol in his own right. Regardless of his popularity, the GG never sought to usurp the Queen’s position as some politicians certainly would have done if given the chance, in fact Her Majesty has never had a more loyal man in her service, as the old knight was among the first to go on the attack whenever the idea of a Jamaican republic was bandied about and did everything he could to present the Queen as the “Jamaican sovereign who simply lives in Britain” while making it clear that republicanism has no place whatsoever in Jamaica.

Aside from the political and teaching careers, Teacher Cooke also served as a church elder and lay minister for the United Church in Jamaica and Grand Cayman, thus his Christian beliefs was a great influence on his life and the values that he chose to espouse in his life time. He work tirelessly to defend the preservation all parts of this nation’s culture and everything that made it great, from our varying traditional art forms and folklore to our Christian heritage and  monarchist values.

                          

 Sir Howard Cooke without a doubt was the very demonstration of what it means to be a servant of God, Queen and Country and was well beloved by all, he lived his life selflessly, tirelessly serving the good of this country in his many capacities. His passing is truly a great loss to us all and he will be sadly missed but as the old saying goes, walk good Sir Howard, until we meet again. 

Separatist Republicanism

I don’t know about anyone  else but I for one was not truly surprised when the story broke that certain members of the Scottish Independence Movement were planning on taking their treason one step further by not only breaking up the 307 year old union but even further than that,  once they get the yes vote they seek to declare Scotland independent (which I seriously doubt) they’re also going to abolish the Monarchy as well.

                   

This latest one of course clearly contradicts earlier promises made by Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond  that independent Scotland would continue to remain a Kingdom, this could mean only one of two things, either Salmond is a  liar or he’s simply not in control of the Scottish National Party as he appears to be, either way it does not reflect very well on him as a leader if his own faction can’t even get their story straight. One cover story used by some who would defend Salmond and his ilk is that when Salmond mentioned keeping the Queen he was only referring to an interim constitution, but the long term plan is to hold a referendum on the issue and eventually remove the monarchy so that they would be no more Queen of Scots. I for one find it amazing that they could come up with such an explanation even after Salmond made it clear that was not in the cards, I’m yet to find out what the real plan is and who to believe.

                           

Due to the nature of many of my earlier articles, some might even been inclined to think that I (and other monarchists) would see no problem with the breakup so long as the Queen remains as Head of State but they couldn't be more wrong, for one simple reason, many monarchist are also unionist as well who totally support the continuity of the United Kingdom as a strong united entity, this is not to say that unionism and monarchism are synonymous but one cause will certainly help to strengthen the other.What I find rather hypocritical about those who push this separatist republican movement is that they claim that they want to have their own head of state (echoing the same dribble stated by republican movements in other parts of the Commonwealth) instead of being ruled by an “English” monarch.  However anyone who has ever been exposed to a basic inkling of British history will know perfectly well that the royal family is every bit as Scottish as it is English, seeing as the current royal family is actually descended from James VI, the Scottish Monarch from the House of Stuart who also came to rule England when the House of Tudor died out, since then every monarch to occupy the Throne has had the blood of all the old English and Scottish Kings flowing through their veins, thus their claim to rule the United Kingdom is every bit as valid

                             

I mean seriously what could Salmond possible have to gain from independence anyway?, sure the story of “Braveheart” is great entertainment but let’s be practical we’re not in the days of Robert the Bruce and Edward Longshanks anymore and Scotland has a lot to lose from this rather short sighted move which for Salmond and his cronies is little more than a chance for bragging rights, that could only end in long term disaster and damage Scotland’s economy. The fact of the matter is, in this particular scenario the con’s far outweigh the pro’s even the European Union and the United States have warned the transition to independence might not go as smoothly as the political elite wish for it to be.

                      

As I’ve said before in previous article, becoming a republic simply for the sake of being a republic is pointless and even if republicanism is not the goal as Salmond claim independence for the sake of it is just as pointless, and no matter which way you spin it any attempt by the sinister political  to dissolve the monarchy of the United Kingdom, whether it’s by turning all of Britain into a single republic or by breaking up the union into varying constituent republics or even just dissolving the union itself forming disunited kingdoms in its wake, it all adds up to the same thing: TREASON 

Unjust New Tax

The nation was in uproar last week as Finance Minister Dr. Peter Philips made an announcement that would most certainly not have been treated as welcome news by a long shot, effective June 1 all withdrawals from financial institutions will now attract taxes particularly transactions at the ATM, according to the minister this new measure was concocted by the government in order plug what they describe as a gap in the budget and is expected to rake in JMD $6.7 million.

                     

Naturally as one would expect there was a major public outcry at this new tax imposition from all sectors of society given the harsh economic climate and extended depression currently facing the country, everyone from the parliamentary opposition to the private sector and civil society and even the churches have all come out swinging at this most unjust imposition and rightly so.  People everywhere are calling on the government to reconsider its position before it’s too late and given the already negative perception about the government being thieves and their ineptitude in managing resources, it is truly saddening that this government would take such action at a time when unemployment is at an all-time high even and especially among tertiary graduates while economic prosperity is low as is morale. This administration came to power promising improvements in the economy but all they really did is make things worse. People are already suffering enough as it is without this newest measure that only serves to add insult to injury.

            

As many persons have already rightly acknowledged scheme is little more than robbery on the government’s part, persons have placed their money in banks for safekeeping bearing in mind that the bank itself also has it’s own bank charges which in itself as already a sticking point for many and now the government seeks to drive a nail in the coffin of the Jamaican economy because now many people and particularly businesses will try as best as possible to refrain from or limit their dealings with the banks and what’s worst those who can afford to will even place their money in overseas banks and that will most certainly not be good for the local banking sector.During the economic recession of the last decade, banks in many country collapsed, went under and had to eventually be bailed out by their governments. No such thing happened in Jamaica because the then JLP administration put in place mechanisms to ensure that our banks stayed afloat. But then came the general elections of 2011 and the ushering of the PNP into power, since that time our economy worsened more than ever before, our dollar skyrocketed as did unemployment and now comes  the government  who seem relentlessly  intent on destroying our banking system and the livelihood of the local populace with it.

What about “giving to Caesar his due?” an ignorant few may ask, ”doesn't the government need taxes to run the country” , anybody who is thinking clearly will know that what a person places in his or her  bank account is actually their disposable income, what they have left over after the government has already taken their due which includes P.A.Y.E., NHT, Education Tax and the like,  that is where the new taxes is coming from, so in essence this is basically like a man going for a second helping of dinner when he has already has his meal, can you see how unjust this truly is?

                 

This government is once again displaying that it truly does not have a clue as to how to manage the nation’s economy, I have said it before and will repeat, fiscal prudence and conservatism is the only way out if Jamaica’s economy is to improve, this new tax measure is neither conservative nor prudent.  There is discontent everywhere with many of those who voted to put this administration into office now regretting their choice, there is not much more that people can take and already there are talks of strikes, protests and some have even suggested a revolution to overthrow these circus clowns who are really a sorry excuse for a government, this will not end well  if things continue on this path, but all is not lost, seeing as  the date announced for the collection of this latest tax has not yet arrived, the budget debate is not yet over, there is still time to repeal this draconian measure. This government claim to rule based on people power and the “will of the people”, therefore it would be wise for them to listen to the people now and withdraw the tax before it is too late

Religious vs Secular morality

It’s been a while since last I wrote but as of late an issue came to light that I feel I must comment on, as it regards to secular interference into the affairs of the Church, a few weeks ago a newspaper story broke out that students at the Northern Caribbean University in Mandeville, Jamaica, in institution owned and operated by the Seventh Day Adventist Church were suspended after performing a cheer-leading ritual that depicted scenes that look to promote homosexual lifestyle, it also subsequently reported that said students were also barred from participation in any further activities during their remaining time at the institution due to their lack of regard for the student code of conduct as set forth by the university which they say are guided by the principles of the Church itself.

                

However I’m not here to take about the action taken by the university but rather the public reaction to the university’s action. I’m amazed to see the amount of public outcry that erupted as liberals wasted no time vilifying both the University and the Church that owns it, some of the more common descriptions are “travesty of justice”,  “ridiculous”, “outrageous” and these were only the nicer terms that they used. Some even went as far as to claim that the university is  imposing it’s values on it’s students and call their actions a violation of the principles of “separation of church and state” while accusing the Adventist Church of not holding up the ideals of religious liberty. I cannot help but wonder how ridiculous people can get with these absurd comments, it is a known fact that the Adventist Church has always been a keen supporter of the principles of religious liberty in whatever country they are situated, and in a country like Jamaica where the influence remains every strong, they are among the loudest voices to raise the alarm whenever the concept of religious liberty seem to be under threat. As for separation of Church and State, that claim is just as unfounded seeing as the University is owned  and funded by the Church and not the State, therefore it’s only natural that Adventist principles and practices should take precedence in a Church-run institution, that principle applies not only for Adventist but also for the Catholics, Anglicans, Baptist or any other religious body that operates a similar institution, the University is run by the Church and is not publicly owned thus separation of Church and State does not apply.

               

I must make note of a newspaper article written by the professor from another university concerning the issue, in her writings this professor (who shall remain nameless)  actually goes as far as to claim that the Church is “suffering from performance anxiety and wrestling with alternate sexuality” . To illustrate her stance, she raises the point where the church held a summit in South Africa in order to address the problem, she was careful to point out that No- Known LGBT Adventist were invited to attend, I wonder if it ever occurred to the professor that no such persons were invited because they are not recognized by the Church? The last time I checked, being affiliated with the LGBT community was enough to warrant excommunication (or disfellowshipping) within the ranks of the Church and seeing as only members in good standing would be invited to attend such a conference, then it’s highly unlikely that any member of the LGBT community would warrant an invitation. She goes to call the Church’s view one-sided and prejudiced, she ended by  thesis by calling on the Church to be more tolerant and open to the idea of allowing LGBT persons to join its ranks.

             

As I read through the responses of persons to the incident at NCU particular that of Professor (Nameless), I cannot help but notice that all the criticisms are coming from outsiders who preted to be enlightened and objective but in truth have a more sinister agenda, it leads me to wonder what right do these people have to go interfering internal business of the Church especially since they themselves most certainly aren't members, not with views like that. What I find awfully odd about secularist is that they love to complain about how churches  likes to impose it’s views on other people, yet  they themselves are guilty of the exact same thing by trying to get involved in the affairs of Churches. I mean seriously? To suggest that the Church should start accepting gay persons into it’s ranks? She might as well suggest that the Church disband altogether. Instruction on marriage and family life as well as guidelines on Christian behaviour are among the core beliefs of this faith, any change whatsoever in such a fundamental teaching will shake the very foundations of the church itself and  most certainly not go over very well with most traditionalist Adventist, if any Adventist at all.  The Seventh Day Adventist Church was founded upon core principles and those who wish to join must either abide by the rules or make their exit, the no outsider has any business telling the Church what rules it can keep and which it should discard, the Church’s principle should by guided solely by Biblical principles as well as rules set out in it’s own canon law, and not by the whims of some liberal who feels that having the title of “Professor” automatically makes her a know it all.

                             

I applaud the church for taking the stand that it took and fully support the decision of the university to stand it’s ground and not be swayed from outside pressure by those who have neither the best interest of the church or the best interest of the university at heart, in a country and a world over run by liberals and cultural Marxist, it’s good to see the Seventh Day Adventist church raise the standard high, standing for good spiritual morals and upholding traditionalist family values.

Sharia Law? Wrong Move

After a long silence a number of my longtime readers must be wondering whatever happened to the Jamaican Tory, to be frank my work has kept me quite busy these days so I cannot say I have much in terms in time to make regular posts like I used to, however something happened this week that has caught my attention and I am afraid I can no longer keep silent. It concerns the decision of the British Judiciary to start using Islamic Style Sharia Law in British courts for the first time ever.

            

This latest turn of events is rather unfortunate and deeply disturbing and I cannot help but wonder, what in the world could possess the Law Society in the UK to take such a  backward step?, I mean seriously what in the world were they thinking?. Whatever happened to good old Common Law?, the same Common Law that has been in use for over thousands of years since the time of the early Celts, Anglo-Saxons and Normans? This same proud legal tradition which has been bequeathed to every corner  of the Former British Empire and has stood the test of time for well over a millennium, why is it that the British judiciary now deems that the law of the land is not good enough for the Muslim migrant population in the UK that they have to resort to this retrograde step drawing on something that is totally alien and foreign to British culture.

               

The decision taken by the British judges is but an outward sign of a deeper problem taking over only Great Britain but indeed the entire Western World, this problem is the rise of Islam, for a number of years western countries particularly European ones have swarmed by a large population of Muslim migrants fleeing from one problem or another and coming to settle in new homes , the problem is that whenever they arrive, they still want to behave as though they are in their homeland and refuse to change their lifestyles to suit the culture of their adopted country, this of course begs the question why even bother to leave at all? Today many communities in the UK and indeed across Europe are so filled with them  to the point where white people are now becoming a minority in their very own homeland, something that would have unthinkable even a generation ago, none expresses this sentiment more than British Actor John Cleese who once claimed that London is really and truly no longer  an English city, of course he was criticized for being racist at the time he made the comments, to be quite frankly his concerns had much merit then as they do now, if things continue on this trajectory the United Kingdom of Great Britain will be transformed into the Islamic Republic of Great Britain (the very thought that that even being a possibility sends cold chills all over me).

This notion of Islamic migrant populations taking over Europe is nothing more than a form of self hate and reverse ethnocentrism pushed by the left, in which children are thought to see every culture as superior to their own, they are thought that being European is evil and that they must learn to hate themselves and all the cultural practices of their ancestors all the name of diversity and multiculturalism, what a load of rubbish. Whilst I will admit that Europeans did do some horrible things to other Non-Europeans in the past, that is no excuse to say that everything that comes from Europe is all bad or that their descendants should hate themselves in perpetuity over the bad things that only some of their ancestors participated in. To demand that European countries roll over and wallow in the notion of white guilt is like telling non-Europeans that they should still see themselves as inferior simply because their ancestors were slaves centuries ago, both notions are completely ridiculous and laws should not be altered to suit the needs of foreign migrants, they should either work with the law as it is or go back to where they come from.

               

Being a big fan of history, I used to like reading about the crusades when Islamic warriors clashed with European Knights over control of the Holy Land, indeed England was one of the leading Christian nations involved in the wars and there were even several Kings that fought and bled beside their men to ensure the survival of their culture and way of life, who would not let alien elements invade their country, all these  brave English Knights must be turning in their graves now to  see what is happening to the country they fought and bled for so many centuries ago.

                   

Some of you may be wondering why is it that a Jamaican is taking interest in these legal developments going on in the UK, the truth of the matter is that  over the last 350 years of Jamaica’s history English culture has left of dominant mark on our own history, sure there are a  many other elements  that influence us as well such as the Indigenous Indians, the Chinese, the Indians, the Jews etc. but for the most part Jamaica’s history and culture has been shaped mainly by British and African elements, British culture is deeply steeped into our own culture after all they too form part of our ancestry and as such it’s erosion is should be seen as deep sign that serious changes are on the horizon for western countries and sad to say this change is not for the better.

                     

This commentary was in no way meant to be Islamophobic regardless of how it may sound, the truth of the matter is that I believe Sharia Law has it’s place and that place is in the  Middle East NOT in Britain (or any other western country for that matter),  It is based on the Koran which is not seen as the rule of faith and practice by non-Muslims after all I don’t recall hearing on any Muslim country voting to adopt British Common Law so why should the UK adopt Sharia, a legal system that has a dubious reputation in many western countries and associated with human rights violations such as "honour" killings, mark my words this most backward step will have disastrous consequences.