TAX: THE RUSSIANS SHOW US THE WAY

Like me, you may have been wondering why the government are so determined to have a different (higher) rate of tax for the rich (and not terribly low for the rest of us either) if it's not just gesture politics. I'm sure any accountant worthy of the title would agree. The above picture is an example of someone rich and famous (Gerard Depardieu) upping sticks and moving from France which has high taxes to Russia which has lower taxes. The story points out that Russia has a flat tax rate of 13% across the board. Genius? No, just basic common sense.
It seems obvious to me, that this situation of having higher and lower bands of income tax is not only pointless, but a recipe for discontent and argument, which it has proved to be.
It's simple business logic. Why are the biggest, most successful companies those that keep their prices low? Because it attracts custom. In the same way, if taxes are lower people will be more willing to pay them which means less tax avoidance. It also encourages local and attracts foreign business. The supermarkets know this very well because they must operate in the unforgiving atmosphere of the real world. Unlike our pampered politicians who, comparatively speaking, occupy cloud-cuckoo land.
POLITICIANS, LOOK AND LEARN, LOOK AND LEARN.

WHY IS COUNCIL LEADER ANGUS CAMPBELL PERMITTED TO 'DECLARE AN INTEREST' AND REMAIN SILENT ON THE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE TO BE DISCUSSED IN THE WESTERN ISLES COUNCIL FOR YEARS?

Rather convenient I would say. Considering every man and his dog is craning their necks to hear what he has to say on the matter. After all, he's the only councillor who makes his living out of selling fuel. You would think he'd be the first to be summoned - champing at the bit even. But no. Where is he? I get a picture of him at home with his head under the rug hoping it all goes away. Now why would that be? Perhaps he's making too much money out of this fuel scam and if people knew what was going on it would open a whole new can of worms. Well, Angus, it won't go away. Scottish fuels could see the writing on the wall and implemented damage-limiting measures. I would advise you do likewise before it's too late. Perhaps it's already too late.
I have in the past few minutes watched on BBC News the inquiry into the tax affairs of online retail giant Amazon, where one of the bosses was ridiculed by MPs for not being open about the company's finances.
Perhaps he should have 'declared an interest'.
Of course this would be ridiculous. Just as in a court of law or during any inquiry it would be ludicrous to allow someone to hide behind such a plainly stupid rule.
So the Western Isles Council allows people to 'declare an interest' and not be required to give account of themselves.
Sirs, you need to 'wake up and smell the coffee'. This kind of nonsense was supposed to have been done away with when we chopped the head off Charles the I.
Perhaps it's time to 'chop off the council's head' if he doesn't give proper account of himself. Who does he think he is, the king?
If there's one thing I hate it's institutionalized secrecy. We have the same problem in the church - a few individuals who get carried away with their own importance and deem themselves 'above' the rest and start creating rules to suit themselves.
It's not on boys and girls, it's not on.
I, as your employer, wish you to know this.

GOD'S LAW AND THE SABBATH DAY

I was recently present at a Sabbath school outing within the denomination of which I have been a member for the last 19 years. When everyone was gathered together for food, a minister of the denomination rose to his feet to make a short speech. His speech basically consisted of this: 'Now remember children, the Sabbath day is very fragile, it is very easily broken. So be very careful that you don't break the Sabbath day.'
I think it is not so much what preachers say that we are to be aware of, but what they don't say.
In my opinion the minister's statement about Sabbath keeping is legalistic. It is legalistic by its wording but more so by the omission of vital information. The missing part is the fundamental Christian doctrine of total depravity, or in other words, our total inability to keep even the smallest part of God's law. The fourth commandment being part of the Decalogue, this also means that our attempts at keeping this commandment are in reality, futile. God does of course recognise our desire to keep it out of love to him and his law. But only out of love.
If we imagine for one moment that we are actually able to keep it we deceive ourselves. It is vital that we have this understanding clear in our minds.
A relevant text here is Romans 3:20: 'THEREFORE BY THE DEEDS OF THE LAW THERE SHALL NO FLESH BE JUSTIFIED IN HIS SIGHT: FOR BY THE LAW IS THE KNOWLEDGE OF SIN.'
This text makes the use of the law clear: to prove to us that we cannot keep it. This is the proper use of the law. To utterly condemn and punish us (our awakened conscience will do this) and so to drive us to Christ.
Galatians 3:24: 'WHEREFORE THE LAW WAS OUR SCHOOLMASTER TO BRING US UNTO CHRIST, THAT WE MIGHT BE JUSTIFIED BY FAITH.'
And so, I believe the proper use of the Sabbath day is the same as the rest of God's law: to show us that we cannot keep it.
We are also flesh. Our minds are sinful. It does not come naturally to us to delight in the Sabbath. I believe we are to recognise this in ourselves and look to Christ to mortify it.
We can only keep the Sabbath in our true desire and that only as far as the Holy Spirit gives us the 'power'.
So, to my point.
I think many people who seek to keep the Sabbath believe that because they do this, that and the next thing on the Lord's day that it equals 'keeping the Sabbath' and are content with this. They feel a sense of 'achievement', that they have 'kept' the Lord's day, and feel good about it. What folly.
This is raw legalism - God is not in it.
Legalism is the religious business of clearing our conscience by doing this and that.
It would have been bad enough teaching this to the converted, but when I heard the minister teaching it to unconverted kids I was horrified.
Perhaps I am to be criticized for not standing up and publicly rebuking him.
Our desire ought to be to keep the Sabbath but we must always be aware that of ourselves, we can only break it.
Luke 17:9-10: 'DOTH HE THANK THAT SERVANT BECAUSE HE DID THE THINGS THAT WERE COMMANDED HIM? I TROW NOT. SO LIKEWISE YE, WHEN YE SHALL HAVE DONE ALL THOSE THINGS WHICH ARE COMMANDED YOU, SAY, WE ARE UNPROFITABLE SERVANTS: WE HAVE DONE THAT WHICH WAS OUR DUTY TO DO.'
We must never entertain the Satanic delusion that we do well.
There is no place in the gospel of Jesus Christ for patting ourselves on the back.

WITHOUT IRONY. 'ZERO TOLERANCE' : THE MAD INTOLERANCE OF THE 'TOLERANT' ONES.

ONLY OUR PREJUDICE IS ALLOWED.

WHY WAS NOAH'S SACRIFICE ACCEPTABLE TO GOD?

At morning worship today we read Genesis chapter 8. It gives us the account of when the flood waters receded and Noah, his family and the animals emerged from the ark.

Verse 20 describes how Noah built an altar, took clean animals (clean beasts were taken into the ark in sevens) and offered burnt offerings upon the altar. Verse 21 tells us: 'And the LORD smelled a sweet savour...'

By these words we know that God accepted Noah's offering.

The question is, why was it acceptable?

This is a very important question. One which aught always to be asked and which everyone should be asking. Why? Because it addresses the most essential aspect of salvation. If we understand this most fundamental point, we have a grasp of the truth. This same theme runs through the whole of scripture from beginning to end.

So, to the question.

The reason Noah's sacrifice was acceptable to God was because it was offered in obedience.

But just as there are two separate universes, the seen and the unseen, there are also two kinds of obedience: the seen and the unseen. Before our offering can be acceptable to God we must have both kinds. But the second must be begotten by the first. Faith worketh by love. (Galatians 5: 6).

I believe the best example we can find of this is the narrative of Cain and Able in Genesis 4.

Both brothers offered a sacrifice to God. Able's offering was according to God's will, but Cain's was not. It was something which he himself decided was of value. He disregarded God's guidance but still attempted to make his offering to God. Today, this mad, presumptuous approach has lost none of its popularity and continues unabated. Nay, grows ever more popular. This is the cause of every false way in the world. Every way which claims to be of God and the way of salvation but in reality is just a lie. Even in the midst of Truth and the preaching of the word we find this. In 'orthodox' 'reformed' churches we find people who follow blindly. I would go as far as to say that the majority do this. Entire congregations attend churches which often preach much truth but never address the issues. It is possible to preach truth and not address the issues. We must address the issues. Just preaching truth is not enough.
We must preach the WHOLE truth.
Christ always addressed the issues. That's what made him controversial. That's why he was hated. That's why he was crucified. The Church must also address the issues, the Church must also be hated, the Church must also be crucified.
FOR UNTO YOU IT IS GIVEN IN THE BEHALF OF CHRIST, NOT ONLY TO BELIEVE ON HIM, BUT ALSO TO SUFFER FOR HIS SAKE. (Philippians 1: 29).
Cain disregarded God's guidance because he had no stomach for God. He loved his own ideas and hated God's authority, even arguing with God and attempting to cover up the crime of murdering his brother.
This runs clean contrary to reason and logic. I mean, to treat the infinite God as you might treat a mere man and to argue with him to his face. What motivates this kind of insanity? I think it reveals something of the nature and power of sin.
Able's offering on the other hand, was acceptable because God's hand was in it. God had placed his love in his soul by living in him by his continued presence: the indwelling of the holy spirit.
If this is our case, then we have the true love of God. We can now offer the acceptable sacrifice. Only now.
Now we will strive to obey. By love.
The legalist strives to obey, not out of love to God, but out of love to himself. And in a drive to glorify himself by waving the flag of his own works, like the pharisee whom Christ condemned because he stood in public making long prayers to be seen of men.
He said of them: 'They have their reward.'
Let us be sure that our reward is not merely in this world.
Noah's sacrifice was an Old Testament sacrifice which by shedding the blood of animals typified the one great sacrifice to come: the sacrifice of the Son of God.
We no longer have to do this because the divine blood of Christ has now been shed. We can now approach God boldly, and personally in the knowledge that the work has been done on the behalf of every penitent sinner.
Are you penitent? Do you desire God but cannot approach him because of your sin? Are you too wicked for God?
Then God will hear you.
Ask for mercy.
This is the acceptable sacrifice.

SNP:
SCOTTISH NATIONAL PARANOIA

At face value I would say that with independence it looks like we would have fewer options/opportunities.  We cannot look into the future but we can look at the past. Ever since the UK teamed up, generally and comparatively speaking we've gone from strength to strength. For the UK as a whole it has been a most successful formula.

We've all heard of the old and true saying: 'Divide and conquer.' If you want to defeat your enemy, split his forces. Any student of warfare will tell you that. The driving of a wedge through the enemy ranks has always been a most effective battle tactic because it divides a large force into smaller, weaker, groups. Together they are stronger.

The UK is a community, cities are communities as are towns and villages.  If you go right down to the the most basic situation where people are truly inter-dependent through necessity, the way it was here in Lewis and in many other places at the turn of the 19/20 century when there was no such thing as a locked door. People were dirt poor and shared everything. Meagre possessions were used and shared. They had to be.  It was the habit of entire villages to come together and help in work which was required to be done for their very survival.

This was their strength.

Today we have a different approach. Today, in the developed world we have prosperity. We have wealth and comforts in abundance. We want more. Take, take, take. Selfishness is the thing: me and mine. Who cares about the rest.

This is our weakness.

I would argue that this ill-thought-out drive for independence is from the same bucket. Sheer selfishness. There seems to be an almost blind panic about being 'ripped off by the English' (even though there's no evidence for it). This has in turn caused in the minds of some a deep distrust of 'the English' as if they've been meeting in smoke-filled rooms behind closed doors and plotting against us. Actually, it's insane. The word for it is paranoia.

Scottish National Paranoia.

Finally, I would argue that it is un-Christian. To place no real value in material possessions and worldly comforts is something which comes part and partial with Christian doctrine. To have a spirit of happily sharing wealth is actually a Biblical requisite. A requisite which happens to create greater wealth collectively and therefore individually too. Whether we like it or not Great Britain/the United Kingdom was built on Christianity. Historically, all the most developed countries in the world were. The pooling of our wealth and abilities has carried the UK to great success. To look upon the country that we live in as 'belonging to God' and not ourselves is the Biblical way. God will prosper us only if we follow his direction. Selfishness is not his way.

This kind of nationalism is selfishness.
Our economic woes have been caused by depending on our own 'wisdom' and despising God's. Getting into massive debt just to satisfy our greedy and impatient desires has caused the problem. Never mind pointing the finger at bankers - perhaps you should point it at yourself too.
So some imagine that pulling Scotland out of the United Kingdom will solve the problem?
How wrong they are.

INDEPENDENT SCOTLAND

Would individuals in an independent Scotland have more opportunities than they had as citizens of the UK?