Goncalo Amaral claimed MI5 and Gordon Brown organised a cover-up
It comes as experts revealed they believe Maddie’s body could have been hidden in one of 600 wells in Portugal’s Praia da Luz
EX-PORTUGUESE national police chief Goncalo Amaral has claimed MI5 helped cover-up Madeleine McCann’s body after her parents accidentally killed her.
The controversial detective made the shocking claims on Aussie TV show Sunday Night, which looked into the unsolved disappearance and suggested Madeleine’s body could be hidden in a well on Praia da Luz.
Amaral suggested MI5 “for sure had an involvement”, either by helping to hide Maddie’s body or covering up the alleged crime.
It comes as Kate and Gerry McCann told of their heartache ahead of the 10th anniversary since she vanished.
When informed of Amaral’s latest conspiracy theory by a journalist who suggested he also thinks Gordon Brown was involved, Gerry McCann said: “The less said about Goncalo Amaral the better.”
Despite Amaral’s bold claims, the programme suggested Scotland Yard’s strongest lead was an employee working within the Ocean Village holiday complex who could have more information they have not yet given to police.
When the first results were announced (as there were no exit polls), it became clear that Scotland had lost a once-in-a-generation chance to become independent. This does not mean that Occupied Scotland will stay within the so-called United Kingdom for another 20 or 30 years, but it makes clear that there will be no change for the next 5-6 years for sure.
What was the reason for No-vote to prevail?
Scottish independence leader Alex Salmond and his team underwent a great effort in which a great historical perspective was missing. The Yes-campaign supporters were offered too little of a vision to make of Scotland’s independence their basic need of existence.
Lack of Inspiring Vision & Disregard for Historical and National Identity
As per the details of a presentation elaborated by an outfit of the Yes-campaign , no 1 reason to vote Yes for an Independent Scotland was or should be “Taking Responsibility by moving all Governing Powers to Scotland”; no 2 reason was or should be “Get the Government we choose”, and the minor reasons included financial benefits, irrelevant issues of international affairs (nuclear weapons), and a very weak denunciation of a ‘forced political marriage’ (the innocuous term was coined to describe the nefarious English annexation of Scotland).
A very simple Google search will remove the last doubts about the main reason for which the Yes-campaign failed to gather the support of more than 45% of the voters. If you write “Occupied Scotland” (in brackets), you have around 58000 results only (which is very low a number), and if you search for the contents, you realize that they are mainly historical of nature and they refer to Viking Crusaders, king Edward of England, who was known as the ‘Hammer of the Scots’, and Cromwell! Very scarce links to political analysis and/or editorials can be found in the search.
If Scotland is not viewed by Scots as ‘Occupied by England’, Scots will not find the need to do all that it takes to liberate their country.
This means in other words that, even for Yes-campaign supporters, today’s Scotland is NOT an Occupied country, which is of course very wrong. Certainly, the means and the conditions of Scotland’s foreign occupation are not similar to those attested in Occupied Palestine or Occupied Oromia in Africa, but this reality does not lessen the fact that Scotland has been occupied since 1707, after having been targeted and threatened, aggressed and attacked by England for centuries.
A country is always occupied by an enemy; this is an undeniable fact in World History. There is no such thing as a ‘friendly occupation’. Trying to minimize the inimical character and nature of a foreign occupation does never bode well with the occupied nation’s aspirations and chances to achieve liberation, independence and self-determination.
When a hostile country invades a nation, the occupying forces try to find immoral, corrupt, and idiotic persons that, placing their personal interests above the national interests of their Occupied Land, find it normal, easy and ethical to collaborate with the occupier. Outmaneuvering this plague is by definition one of the major targets and tasks of a national liberation effort.
In the case of Scotland, these catastrophic persons were very active indeed in the last weeks before the referendum, and they intend to remain as such thereafter simply because this issue did not end. The disreputable former prime minister (who was never elected to that post) Gordon Brown is one of them; as he knows how to be a loyal lackey to the City, he has just announced a new Scotland Act to be ready as draft legislation by the end of January 2015 . Gordon Brown, Alistair Darling and their likes know very well that the spectrum of Scotland’s Independence will only become more forceful in the years ahead; and with ridiculous measures of advanced devolution, they try to appease and besot more Scots. These are the enemies who should have been denounced in the most stressed terms.
Unfortunately, First Minister Alex Salmond and the Yes-campaign supporters failed to duly, fully and irrevocably discredit Gordon Brown and his likes as they should. To do so, they should have first properly and adequately presented Scotland as an Occupied Land, and they should have underscored, and focused, on issues of Historical and National Identity. That they did not attempt anything in this direction is clearly shown in their way of presenting the possible reasons to vote No. As per their presentation, no 1 reason is: ‘believing England and Scotland are better off together’. However, for a Scot, this ‘belief’ is tantamount to high treason.
It is exactly the same as if Marshal Philippe Pétain said, after signing the Second Armistice at Compiègne on 22 June 1940, that he ‘believed France and Germany are better off together’. In this regard, it is important to keep in mind that political correctness does not validate (neither does it invalidate) demands for national servility and submission. Simply, national capitulation is a matter of high treason – anytime anywhere.
The lack of an inspiring vision of an Independent Scotland dramatically reduced the scope of the Yes-campaign. National independence is something far higher than mere economic considerations, natural resources exploitation, and cheap anti-nuclear ideology.
What does it matter whether the divorce is going to be ‘messy’ (as per Jill Lawless here: )? And if it is ‘complicated’ to divorce after a 300-year union, it is even more unacceptable to call a foreign occupation merely a ‘union’. Actually, it was not a union; it was a systematic burial of an entire nation, and a sophisticated, yet not brutal, genocide – mainly spiritual, not physical, of character.
Ill-conceived Eligibility
At the practical level, one should however begin pondering about a key issue that, if viewed and considered differently, would change – in and by itself – the result of the referendum automatically.
Who voted for Scotland’s Independence?
For the national independence of a country, only those, who belong to that nation, have a birth right to have a say, and therefore to vote. In this regard, it is paranoid to offer voting right to another nation’s citizens. And it is self-disastrous to offer voting right to the hostile nation’s citizens, who are to be considered as the first enemies of the occupied land, and as the most resolute opponents of the occupied nation’s right and will to achieve national independence.
Quite paradoxically, the 2010 Draft Bill extended the voting right in the referendum to all the British citizens who were resident in Scotland!
This is tantamount to offering the voting right to Nazi soldiers in a referendum held in Occupied France 1940-1944!
Occupiers have by definition no right to decide on anything about the future of the country that they hold captive.
However, a significant number of English, Welsh and North Irish live in Scotland; offering them the voting right in the referendum for Scotland’s independence was indeed the main reason for the calamitous result. According to an estimate, around 500000 English live in Occupied Scotland (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2753400/Revealed-How-half-million-English-voters-living-Scotland-set-block-independence.html). They should have been blocked out of the referendum.
Another paranoid measure was to offer voting right to all the citizens of the 52 other Commonwealth countries and to all the citizens of the 27 other European Union countries who were resident in Scotland. This means that a Sri Lankan, a Nigerian, an Arawakan from Guyana, and a Bulgarian would have a say about the future of a nation to which they did not belong and even did not bother to belong. It should be anticipated that, if invited to participate, these foreigners would only care about per their own interests, and not about the genuine local interests – let alone the interests of Scotland as a nation. As it could be expected, in their majority, they voted against Scotland’s independence.
Another incredible measure was preventing ca. 800000 Scots living south of the borderline between England and Scotland from voting. In fact, all Scottish expatriates did not have a vote, which is a matter of indignation and outrage. As early as January 2012, Elaine Murray, a Labor party member of the Scottish Parliament, demanded that the voting right be extended to Scots living in other parts of the UK, but the debate was opposed by the Scottish government itself! Ridiculous excuses were advanced at the time such as that the UN Human Rights Committee suggested that other nations would question the legitimacy of a referendum if the franchise is not territorial, and the like!
Ill-defined Future
Except the lack of a great vision, the disregard for the National Identity, and the paranoid extension of voting right to the enemies of Scotland’s independence, Alex Salmond and his team made many wrong suggestions and decisions about what Independent Scotland would look like. In fact, they acted as if they intended to minimize as maximum as possible the otherwise shocking dimensions of a secession. This can be really detrimental in politics.
If something, which is shocking by its nature, ceases to be shocking for one reason or for another, people lose their appetite for it and disrespect it altogether. What follows is a list of mistakes ensuing from this very erroneous perception of politics.
If Scotland seceded from England, Elizabeth II would still be the monarch of the kingdom of Scotland. This is preposterous! The Republic of Scotland would be a far clearer vision and a far happier perspective; as such they would motivate a greater number of more enthusiastic supporters. Today, the fact that Scotland and England shared a monarch for almost a century before the two countries ‘united politically’ in 1707 does not matter much. And it certainly does not mean that, after separating from England, Scotland needs to be organized as a kingdom, and not as a republic.
Confiscate Balmoral!
This would be the correct slogan for a passionate debate among only Scots.
Another mistake of the Scottish government was to promise Scottish citizenship to non-Scottish, British citizens living in Scotland, as well as to Scotland-born Britons who live elsewhere. Although this measure showed a certain magnanimous spirit, it would not change in anything the vicious vote intension of the English residents in Scotland. So, as they should never be given a voting right, they should never be promised Scottish nationality.
In a materialistic world, mass media-guided, brainless and thoughtless populations are forced to consider economic issues as vitally important for their otherwise valueless lives. However, assuming that political pragmatism is necessary, one understands the reason economic issues are dealt with great concern by politicians, advocates, activists and campaigners.
But then it was a terrible mistake for Alex Salmond and his team to announce that the pound sterling would remain Scotland’s official currency after a Yes-victory in the referendum. Global mass media tried to portray an Independent Scotland as a small country in a dangerous global environment. Mark Carney, the Governor of the Bank of England, stated even that ‘a currency union is incompatible with sovereignty’ in an indirect form of blackmailing. Yet, the only real economic danger is for Scotland to remain within a financially collapsed state, like England that has a 10 trillion external debt to serve. In reality, escaping from bankrupt England should have been reason good enough even for English residents in Scotland to vote in favor of Scotland’s independence. In this regard a clear language should have been articulated in total opposition to the global mass media and the criminal gangsters of the City.
In fact, there have been bloggers and writers who saw this reality, like Ian R. Crane (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muiZCgC7QB4) and Ellen Brown (https://www.globalresearch.ca/a-public-bank-option-for-scotland/5402542). Ian R. Crane was very right in demanding an independent Central Bank of Scotland, a new currency for Scotland, strict currency controls for at least the first 3 years of Scotland’s independence, nationalization of the energy sector, and Scotland’s immediate withdrawal from EU and NATO. And Ellen Brown was quite correct in her prediction: “If Alex Salmond and the SNP [Scottish National Party] are serious about keeping the Pound Stirling as the Currency of Scotland, there will be no independence”.
In fact, in the atmosphere that enveloped the referendum, there was too much of material concern and a very weak expression of national idealism; this does not constitute the correct combination to speak to the soul of the Scots. Another language will be needed in this regard in perhaps 5 or 10 years. What language? Pure Scottish! As the great Scottish poet and lyricist Robert Burns (1759 – 1796), the national poet of Scotland, put it: “We are bought and sold for English gold. Such a parcel of rogues in a nation”!
A senior economist accused David Cameron of being vindictive yesterday after the Prime Minister suggested he would block Gordon Brown from getting a top international job.
David Blanchflower, a former member of the Bank of England’s Monetary Policy Committee, described the PM’s stance as “small minded”.
It follows speculation that Mr Brown might be put forward to head the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Crucial for any nomination would be the endorsement of the individual’s home country.
However, Mr Cameron indicated he would block a potential bid by his predecessor as Prime Minister. He said Mr Brown “might not be the most appropriate person” for the job, because of his record in office.
In a deliberate jibe at the former Labour leader, he added that he thought the job should go to “someone who understands the danger of excessive debt”.
The Tories and the LibDems have been highly critical of Labour’s economic record since entering Coalition last year, blaming the party for leaving them with a record deficit.
Labour have defended their time in office, and claim the problems we caused by the global banking crisis.
Mr Brown gave a speech on economics to students at Edinburgh University last night, based on his book, Beyond The Crash. He was defended by current Labour leader Ed Miliband, who said he was “eminently qualified” for the job.
Mr Miliband also attacked Mr Cameron’s comments saying: “To rule someone out even before the vacancy has arisen seems to be going some, even for him.”
Asked about the PM’s remarks, Mr Blanchflower said: “This is the most vindictive thing I’ve heard from a Prime Minister in 50 years. It looks to me to be extremely small-minded.”
The role of managing director of the IMF carried a salary of around £270,000, as well as a crucial position in world finance. Countries currently in receipt of IMF aid include Greece and the Republic of Ireland.
It is expected the job could become free if current head Dominique Strauss-Kahn stands down this summer to mount a bid for the French presidency. There has also been speculation his replacement would come from countries with emerging world markets.
It is not the first time Mr Brown’s name has been linked with the job. In 2004, when he was chancellor, Downing Street was forced to shrug off rumours about him joining the IMF.
In recent months the IMF has repeatedly backed the Coalition austerity drive, including cuts of £81m in public spending.
Ironically, the Tories have also been vocally critical of Mr Brown’s workload in recent weeks.
The former PM did not speak in the Budget debate last month and has voted only a handful of times in the House of Commons since leaving Downing Street.
His office says he has concentrated on constituency work as well as writing his book.
Due to its fast growth, Turkey will soon join the BRIC countries – Brazil, Russia, India and China – as an emerging power of the global economy, former British Prime Minister Gordon Brown says in his book “Beyond the Crash,” published last week. The growth of Turkey, Indonesia, South Korea, and Mexico will bring these countries to the same level as the BRIC countries, Brown says in his 315-page book, which gives his views on various domestic and global economic issues. /Hurriyet Daily News/
Gordon Brown is to step down as Labour leader by September – as his party opens formal talks with the Lib Dems about forming a government.
His announcement came as he and the Conservatives woo the Lib Dems in a battle to form the next government.
Mr Brown’s presence was seen as harming Labour’s chances of Lib Dem backing.
Following the news the Conservatives made a ‘final offer’ to the Lib Dems of a referendum on changing the voting method to the Alternative Vote system.
Further clarification
BBC political editor Nick Robinson said Mr Brown’s resignation was an audacious bid by Mr Brown to keep Labour in power – and himself in power for a limited period – and Tory MPs would be furious.
It comes after further talks between the Tory and Lib Dem negotiating teams and another meeting between Tory leader David Cameron and Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg.
In his statement, Mr Brown said Britain had a “parliamentary and not presidential system” and said there was a “progressive majority” of voters.
He said if the national interest could be best served by a coalition between the Lib Dems and Labour he would “discharge that duty to form that government”.
But he added that no party had won an overall majority in the UK general election and, as Labour leader, he had to accept that as a judgement on him.
Leadership process
“I therefore intend to ask the Labour Party to set in train the processes needed for its own leadership election.
“I would hope that it would be completed in time for the new leader to be in post by the time of the Labour Party conference.
“I will play no part in that contest, I will back no individual candidate.”
Lib Dem leader Mr Clegg had requested formal negotiations with Labour and it was “sensible and in the national interest” to respond positively to the request, Mr Brown said.
It emerged earlier that the Lib Dem negotiating team, who have held days of talks with the Conservatives, had also met senior Labour figures in private.
But it was understood that one of the stumbling blocks to any Labour-Lib Dem deal was Mr Brown himself.
Mr Clegg said he was “very grateful to David Cameron and his negotiation team” and they had had “very constructive talks” and made a “great deal of progress”.
‘Smooth transition’
But he said they had not “reached a comprehensive partnership agreement for a full Parliament” so far and it was the “responsible thing to do” to open negotiations with the Labour Party on the same basis, while continuing talks with the Tories.
“Gordon Brown has taken a difficult personal decision in the national interest,” he said.
“And I think without prejudice to the talks that will now happen between Labour and the Liberal Democrats, Gordon Brown’s decision is an important element which could help ensure a smooth transition to the stable government that everyone deserves.”
The Lib Dems have long campaigned for a change to the voting system – something which the Conservatives have strongly opposed.
But speaking after a meeting of Conservative MPs, following Mr Brown’s statement, shadow foreign secretary William Hague said they were prepared to “go the extra mile” on electoral reform – and offer a referendum on switching to AV in return for a coalition government.
He said the Lib Dems had to choose whether to back them or a government that would not be stable – because it would have to rely on the votes of other minor parties – and would have an “unelected prime minister” for the second time in a row.
Labour scepticism
He also said the Labour offer was for a switch to the AV system, without a referendum, which he believed was undemocratic. The BBC understands, from Lib Dem sources, that the Labour offer is legislation to introduce AV, followed by a referendum on proportional representation.
Under AV no candidate is elected without at least 50% of the vote, after second preferences are taken into account, but it is not considered full proportional representation.
Meanwhile BBC political correspondent Iain Watson said he understood some Cabinet members were sceptical about the idea of a “progressive alliance” with the Lib Dems and were concerned it would look bad.
And he said Mr Brown would be asking Cabinet ministers not to launch immediate leadership campaigns, for fear it would look undignified.
John Mann, the first Labour MP to call for him to go after the election result, said Mr Brown had made a “wise and brave” decision.
Cabinet minister Douglas Alexander told Sky News Mr Brown had decided to step down last week but was “very keen to ensure that he meets his constitutional obligations which is to ensure that a government is formed”.
And the SNP’s Westminster leader Angus Robertson said it was “inevitable” Mr Brown would have to go and he had “done the right thing”.
But Conservative MP Nigel Evans told the BBC: “The fact he’s going in September, I think the country passed its verdict. Gordon, they want you to go now.”
Labour backbencher Graham Stringer said he did not believe a coalition with the Lib Dems would work and could damage the party: “I don’t think it makes sense in the arithmetic – the numbers don’t add up.”
The Tories secured 306 of the 649 constituencies contested on 6 May. It leaves the party short of the 326 MPs needed for an outright majority, with the Thirsk and Malton seat – where the election was postponed after the death of a candidate – still to vote.
Labour finished with 258 MPs, down 91, the Lib Dems 57, down five, and other parties 28.
If Labour and the Lib Dems joined forces, they would still not have an overall majority.
With the support of the Northern Irish SDLP, one Alliance MP, and nationalists from Scotland and Wales they would reach 328, rising to 338 if the DUP, the independent unionist and the new Green MP joined them.
Prime minister confronted by Yeadon GP during today’s visit to city
A Yeadon GP gave Prime Minister Gordon Brown a fiery Leeds welcome todayas Labour’s election campaign came to the city.
Doctor Andrew Wright from Yeadon Health Centre this morning expressed his scepticism about Labour’s proposal to devolve more cancer diagnostic services from hospitals to health centres.
My Guardian colleague Paul Lewis – who you can follow on Twitter @paul_lewis – is on Brown’s election bus and was at the event to file a report.
Click on the link to find out more about the confrontation with Brown.
You can also follow the latest on national politics and the election by following @GdnPolitics.
Over at The Times, Brown denied any admission of failure over a ‘failure’ to regulate banks while speaking on this morning’s campaign visit to Leeds.
Over at the YEP, they report how Brown today paid a surprise visit to an 82-year-old Labour supporter in her Yeadon home. On a scheduled visit to Yeadon Health Centre, Alice Thompson’s doctor had told the Prime Minister she had wanted to meet him there but was not able to leave her home, a short distance away.
BBC Leeds has also updated its site with the story of Brown visiting Alica Thompson.
Posted by John Baron Wednesday 14 April 2010 13.36 BST
