Rigged Scottish Referendum? Why the Anglo-American Establishment is Opposed to an Independent Scotland
It is evident that Scotland’s referendum on independence was “rigged.” neutral observers said there was evidence of electorial fraud. According to observers who were present at the polling offices, there were many more “Yes” votes during the vote count. Scotland, in the course of the referendum, found itself under immense pressure… Those on the UK side campaigning for a No vote had resorted to every violation conceivable.”
Washington and London have a vested interest in Scotland remaining in the UK and referendum results were always going to be tampered with. The Anglo-American military alliance would prevent any possibility of Scottish Independence under their watch. Scotland is a strategic military location. The British government call it ‘Democracy in action” and are content Scotland wishes to remain united with England.
Independent observers said the results were heavily influenced by “Westminster state controlled propaganda” since with the exception of Glasgow and Dundee, those supporting independence failed to register a majority. It was also reported that Prime Minister David Cameron had, (with the illegal clandestine support of the nation’s Civil Service) coordinated a secret propaganda war against Scottish Independence.
He also broadcast an improper speech shortly before the referendum, (ignoring referendum protocol) in which he (almost in tears) publicaly pleaded his case that; the shared history of both countries was worth retaining. He said:
“Our nations share a proud and emotional history. Over three centuries we have built world-renowned institutions like the NHS and BBC, fought for freedom and democracy in two World Wars, and pioneered and traded around the world. Our ancestors explored the world together and our grandfathers went into battle together as do our kith and kin today – and this leaves deep, unbreakable bonds between the peoples of these islands.”
Scotland sadly lost its bid for independence. The final result of Scotland’s referendum was: 55% ‘No’ to remain in the union and 45 % who voted for independence and the mainstream media lead by the BBC will make every attempt to bury the matter. They will produce stories about the growing threat of ISIS in the Middle East or on the personal life of one of the royal’s.
Scotland’s historic vote after 307 years of British rule inspired people across Europe and the World alerted other succession movements including Catalonia and Basque country in Spain to Veneto, South Tyrol, and the island of Sardinia in Italy to Flanders in Belgium.
The reason Westminster opposes independence for Scotland is that they would lose the power of control. They would also lose the benefits of Scotland’s vast natural resources. But it’s not over for Scottish Independence. It is just the beginning and Scots proved it by turning out to vote in huge numbers. What happen’s next? How about a call for a new referendum to be monitored by the international community? That might work.
Why an Independent Scotland is Inconvenient for NATO and American Foreign Policy
Firstly, Britain’s nuclear arsenal would no longer be deployed at Faslane, in the west coastline of Scotland where British nuclear-armed submarines are stationed. This would weaken NATO’s position in the North Sea and Arctic regions as it would also limit the usage of Scotland’s ports for U.S. submarine fleets.
Scotland has been a staging ground for NATO’s defenses including “early warning stations” to supposedly counter a Russian attack. The Scottish National Party (SNP) had rejected the idea that Scotland would serve as a nuclear deterrence by banning nuclear weapons. Scotland would not be able to participate in NATO’s defense by contributing just 2 percent of its GDP to join the organization; NATO could refuse its entry on economic grounds.
Scotland would establish its own defense at a cost of £2.5 billion. According to an article by the Telegraph titled ‘Scotland will be powerless to defend itself’ which was written by John McAnally, a former Commandant of the Royal College of Defence Studies. He described Scotland’s military plans if independence were to become a reality:
If the SNP wins independence, it plans to establish a new defence force of some 15,000 regulars and 5,000 reserves. The naval base at Faslane would become the joint headquarters. The Scottish army would include restored infantry regiments, army vehicles, artillery and air defence systems. The air force would have fighter jets, maritime patrols, transport aircraft and helicopters. The navy would include frigates, conventional submarines and marines. There would also be some special forces, and provision for intelligence, counter-terrorism and cyber-security. All this is to be achieved within an annual budget of about £2.5?billion – a fraction of the MoD’s current spending of £34?billion.
Mr. McAnally also explained it would cost the British government billions to rebuild the necessary infrastructure needed to house its nuclear arsenal. He says it would be difficult to find an alternative to Faslane naval base which would also become costly just to relocate:
It is also difficult to envisage a workable alternative to the Faslane naval base, currently home to Britain’s nuclear deterrent and the Navy’s hunter-killer submarines. It would cost many billions to relocate the infrastructure built up over decades, such as the Coulport Naval Armament Depot, which stores torpedoes, missiles and nuclear warheads. If Britain were expelled from Faslane, there is every possibility that it could be forced into unilateral nuclear disarmament.
Why is Britain worried about Scotland’s defense and from whom? Who would attack Scotland? The Western funded ‘ISIS’ terrorist organization? Or from Russia who is threatened by NATO’s expansion close to its borders? Scotland wants peace, not war. They will be diplomatic in every sense when it comes to foreign policy. Whereas Great Britain’s history has only shown to be a force for war and occupation.
As we have seen in the past, countries that don’t want to operate under the ‘New World Order’ apparatus are considered to be enemies of “Democracy,” (Russia is an example.) So to is China, Ecuador, Cuba, Bolivia, Nicaragua, Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Syria and Iran are also enemies of Democracy according to the Anglo-American empire, because the “enemies of Democracy” want their nations to remain a “Sovereign entity”. Not under an “international Order controlled by the West.
Over the years, political and financial elites from the U.S. and Europe have planned for a single global power to control every nation on earth. In the last century, the establishment has called for a single power of authority that can dominate the financial, political and social landscapes of every nation. In 1992, President Clinton’s Deputy Secretary of State, Strobe Talbot was quoted in Time magazine and said “in the next century, nations as we know it will be obsolete; all states will recognize a single, global authority.
National sovereignty wasn’t such a great idea after all.” Well not according to the Scottish people. Although they lost the ‘Yes’ vote, freedom and independence from British rule can still become a reality in the future.
Another Referendum – But a Different Time, A Different Place and A Different Outcome, (Will the Scots Ever Learn?)
The result was 99% yes, but that was in another time, another place, and another independence referendum. This referendum took place a hundred and nine years ago, in Norway, in 1905, where 368 208 voters chose “yes” and only 184 chose “no”.
Only men had the right to vote, but, just as in the Scottish independence debate, women were very much engaged. Not having the right to vote, Norwegian women organised a petition, which gathered nearly two hundred and fifty thousand signatures.
The pace of Norway’s journey towards greater autonomy was slower than that of Scotland. Like Scotland, Norway had shared both the formal head of state (the king) and the parliament with a neighbouring country.
Until 1814, Norway was part of Denmark and political decisions were made in Copenhagen. This year, in 2014, however, Norway celebrated the 200th anniversary of having its own constitution, and its own parliament. Norway broke the bonds to Denmark, but instead entered into a looser union with Sweden, sharing its king and foreign policy and representation abroad. It was nearly a hundred years before this union was also dissolved, and the way in which this happened is what this article is about.
Dissatisfaction was brewing in Norway from the 1860s onwards. As in Scotland of today, the political left was strong. The party which was simply named “Venstre” (“Left”) had a strong presence in the Norwegian parliament and lots of support in the population, whereas Swedish politics were more conservative than it was prepared to tolerate.
This movement thought the Swedish king had too much power. So radicalism and anti-unionism went hand in hand, just as I have observed in the weeks and months leading up to the Scottish referendum. Swedish conservatives were not very happy about this, and became sceptical towards the union as well. It was as if the union was being pulled apart by two sides that were diametrically opposed to one another.
From 1884, “Left” came to power in Norway and from started a hard fight against the union. They demanded that Norway should have its own foreign policy. This was especially important because Sweden at the time wanted a close relationship with Germany, while Norway was looking more towards Britain.
In 1895, it nearly came to a war between the two countries. Sweden terminated the common market that had existed within the union, and this was met with fury in Norway. War was narrowly avoided, and the union shakily continued for another decade.
However, in 1904 things came to a head again when the Swedish prime minister stated that if Norway were to have its own consulates, they would have to stick to Swedish foreign policy. This caused so much political commotion in Norway that the government resigned, and Christian Michelsen came to power as a new and radical prime minister.
The radical Norwegian government dealt with the disagreement over the consulates by passing a law which said that Norway should have independent consulates. This law needed to be signed by the Swedish king, which he refused, and the government then refused to sign his refusal and handed in their letters of resignation, which the king in turn refused to accept because he couldn’t form another government.
Back in Oslo, prime minister Michelsen realised how he could use this as a lever to split up the union: He declared that as the Swedish king was not able to put together a Norwegian government, he had ceased to function as Norwegian head of state.
Both sides had seen where this was going for a while, and the Swedish Crown Prince Gustav was not against dissolving the union. But neither side wanted to take the final responsibility and the “blame” for the breakdown of the union. This twist by Michelsen allowed the Norwegian government to lay the formal “blame” on Sweden, while also being celebrated by the people of Norway for their cleverness.
And Sweden, this time, was not interested in fighting. However, the Swedish people thought the Norwegian government had played dirty. Sweden set down a committee which was to settle the conditions under which Sweden would be willing to accept Norway’s breakout from the union.
Two conditions that Sweden set was that all Norwegian fortresses along the border should be demolished, and that there should be a referendum in Norway. Norway felt it would be a pity to demolish two old fortresses of particular historical interest, and the compromise was that only relatively new fortresses were demolished while the old ones were spared as historical monuments.
Also, the referendum went ahead of the 13th of August, with a landslide win for the “yes” side. In the spirit of peace, a younger member of the Swedish royal family was offered the new position on the Norwegian throne, but he declined. The job instead went to a Danish prince, who became King Haakon the 7th.
The Swedish king Oscar II was much admired internationally for having avoided a war, and he was honoured for his brave and mature handling of the situation at a peace congress in The Hague in 1907.
Although the two countries needed some years to find their feet again without each other, the relationship gradually improved. Today, Norway’s tongue-in-cheek nickname for Sweden is “Sweet Brother”. The borders are open, with no passport controls, and Sweden is among Norway’s closest trading partners and greatest sources of immigration.
In 1905, Norway started out as a tiny independent state of two million people. The two world wars which were soon to follow also took their toll, but an enormous effort, led by the Labour Party, after World War 2 in getting the country back on track and building industry and jobs and the welfare state took Norway out of austerity.
Topped up with the lucky discovery of oil in the 1960s, Norway has now become a nation of 5 million people which sits comfortably at the top of league tables as one of the richest and happiest countries in the world.