A young Aberdonian telt President Obama where tae get aff for interfering in the 2014 Independence referendum

U.S. Embassy London on Twitter: "Name: @MatthewBarzun Specialist ...

Obama did his bit for Cameron by interfering in the 2014 Independence referendum

In a public address Barack Obama said:

“The interest of the US in the Scottish independence referendum issue is to ensure the United Kingdom remains a strong, robust, united and effective partner”.

The day before the referendum he tweeted:

“The UK is an extraordinary partner for America and a force for good in an unstable world. I hope it remains strong, robust, and united.”

Obama Tweets Message Against Scottish Independence Ahead Of Vote ...

An Aberdeen first time voter – Duncan Forbes – wrote to Obama taking him to task over his interference in the referendum

Duncan was incensed by Obama’s ill-advised and inappropriate intervention and wrote to him.

From: Duncan Forbes

To: Political Barack Obama

Hello Mr President.

I write this correspondence both in anger and disbelief. You allowed yourself to be duped by what has transpired to be a Westminster orchestrated BBC criminal partisan piece of bad journalism.

It may even have made you an accessory to a crime.

If I or any other Scotsman had dared to interfere in any U.S. plebiscite, you would be justifiably angered and offended.

If I had suggested that I should be allowed to purchase another country lock stock and barrel for a court accepted £20,000 sterling, to be distributed amongst standing politicians or representatives so as to secure the parliamentary vote in my favour, your country, the community of nations and the U.N. would be up in arms, probably threatening military reprisals and sanctions, etc.

Well, Mr President, that’s exactly what Lord Gillingham of Westminster did.

He paid the Duke of Queensberry that odious sum of money which against the current rate of exchange becomes £240,000. Which when divided equates to less than tuppence a Scot.

Lord Archibald Campbell’s share was £1,100 and Scottish lord Lord Banffshire’s contribution was a derisory £11 and 2 shillings.

A financial transaction all of which was illegal under Scot’s law and morally wrong under any court in the world.

Our national bard “Robert Burns” nailed it in verse several times “sic parcel o rogues in a nation” and “chains and slavery”.

It beggars belief that you, as a black man who has fought like your forefathers to be all you can be, striving for equal rights, race laws, equal opportunities, the million man march, a seat on the bus, and finally the presidency are backing the continued illegal Westminster governance of Scotland.

With the shortest life expectancy in the British isles, the smallest average wage, highest cancer rates, the hardest working race, and the greatest contributor per head to their coffers.

The English cleared millions of Scots off their land and shipped them to the colonies (sounds familiar) and only stopped when the army needed Scottish soldiers to fight their wars in the US!!

Surely you, a black man and President of the US cannot justify your actions supporting England’s regime suppressing and controlling another race for personal gain? Your electorate will have its say on the matter.

So I ask, is this what you want to be in bed with?

Will your wife and kids respect you more or less for this?

How many “Macs” are on your country’s boards?

How much corporate sponsorship will you possibly lose?

As a black man in power, how could you live with yourself?

You have fallen a great distance in my eyes, remember the audit trail and facts as you look in the mirror.

As you kiss your wife and kids good night, will they have the same pride in their eyes when they find out?

Well, will they?

Think about it!

in disgust.

Duncan Forbes


I am a descendent of one of the “one hundred” who signed our “declaration of independence” in Arbroath and I defy anyone or anything to tell me to live under Westminster rule.

White House Gently Opposes Scottish Independence|News|teleSUR

“I think England would suffer enormously if the income from Scottish oil and gas and renewable energy stopped but if the Scots want independence they should have it and England would just need to adjust” – Denis Healey -Chancellor of the Exchequer

Scotland would thrive on its own

The views of one of the best economists in the UK in the last 100 years, the late Denis Healey, former Chancellor of the Exchequer in Labour governments 1970-1979 are as relevant today as they were in the past.

He was asked if he supported the cause of those who wished Scotland to become an independent nation once again given that the Scots were overly financially subsidized by England and the oil & gas resources were the property of the UK.

His answer was surprisingly blunt but not widely reported. He said:

“I think England would suffer enormously if the income from Scottish oil and gas and renewable energy stopped but if the Scots want independence they should have it and England would just need to adjust.

Asked if he expected an independent Scotland would survive, economically. he said:

“Yes, I would think so… and they have the oil, gas and renewable energy”.

Asked about his thoughts about claims that Scotland was being subsidized by England he reminded the questioner that Joel Barnett, (he of the Barnett formula), was his deputy at the Treasury at the time the share of the national income pot Scotland should receive was decided.

He added:

” Scotland pays more than its fair share and these myths are simply perpetuated to cloud the issue by those that are opposed to independence.”

On Scotland keeping the pound, he said:

“I don’t see why Westminster could say the Scots couldn’t share it. Scotland would gain from the arrangement but so would the rest of the UK”.