Rigged Scottish Referendum? Why the Anglo-American Establishment is Opposed to an Independent Scotland22/09/2014 23:39
Europe’s nations should be guided towards the super-state without their people understanding what is happening. This can be accomplished by successive steps, each disguised as having an economic purpose, but which will eventually and irreversibly lead to federation. Jean Monnet (One of the Founders of the EU in a letter to a colleague on April 30th, 1952)
It is more evident that Scotland’s referendum on independence has been “rigged.” Observers from Russia say there was evidence of election fraud according to RIA Novosti based in Moscow.
“According to what our observers at the polling offices tell us, there were more Yes votes during the vote count. Scotland found itself under immense pressure… Those on the UK side campaigning for a No vote resorted to every violation imaginable,” Georgy Fyodorov, the head of the Association for the protection of electoral rights “Civil control.”
Washington and London have a vested interest on Scotland. Elections results were 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 will call it ‘Democracy in action” and that the Scotland wants to remain united with the crown. “Igor Morozov, a member of the Council of the Federation Committee for Foreign Affairs, said that the results were influenced by “Westminster propaganda” according to the report, “We can see that, with the exception of Glasgow, those supporting independence failed to register a majority. I think that Westminster propaganda played a great part in that.” The London-based Telegraph reported in 2013 that British Prime Minister David Cameron had begun a propaganda war against Scottish Independence when he publically made his case on the history both countries share:
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 lost its bid for independence, even though it was a fraudulent election. The mainstream media especially the BBC will bury it. They will produce stories about the growing threat of ISIS in the Middle East or on the personal life of Prince Harry. After the final tally in Scotland’s referendum vote, 55 percent voted ‘No’ to remain in the union with Great Britain and 45 percent who voted for independence. U.S. President Barack H. Obama said “We have no closer ally than the United Kingdom, and we look forward to continuing our strong and special relationship with all the people of Great Britain and Northern Ireland as we address the challenges facing the world today.”
Scotland’s historic vote after 307 years of British rule has inspired people across Europe and the World. Scotland’s unprecedented vote has inspired 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 which concerns the bureaucrats at the European Union’s headquarters in Brussels. Before the elections took place, American politicians such as Hillary Clinton did not support the idea of an independent Scotland when she was quoted in a BBC interview as saying “I would hate to have you lose Scotland. I hope it doesn’t happen, but again I don’t have a vote in Scotland, but I would hope it doesn’t happen.”
Her husband and former US president Bill said “Unity with maximum self-determination sends a powerful message to a world torn by identity conflicts that it is possible to respect our differences while living and working together” he said. “This is the great challenge of our time. The Scots can show us how to meet it.”
Queen Elizabeth also urged the Scottish people to” think very carefully about the future” since it would have political repercussions in the British Empire. After all, the British Empire was never dismantled; it is now behind the scenes.
Make no mistake; Great Britain is still an influential empire. Just like its counterpart in Washington with Puerto Rico and Guam as its territories, it too has colonial possessions although they call it ‘British Overseas territories’ in the Caribbean, South and North Atlantic ocean and elsewhere. It is closely associated with Washington’s global Hegemony or what Dr. Henry Kissinger would call the ‘New World Order.’ Major Powers’ have collaborated with each other on global issues since World War I with the United States, Great Britain, France and the mini-empire of Israel leading the way to a unipolar world ruled by an elite oligarchy.
Empires of the past and present have caused great harm to humanity. Wars, economic exploitation, political control and other destructive devices have brought misery, pain and suffering to every region of the world. The entire continent of Africa is a perfect example which has been ruled by a number of Western empires throughout its history. Scotland is another country that has been colonized by the British for centuries. Mel Gibson’s academy award winning film ‘Braveheart’ depicted the wars fought between England and its vast army and the people of Scotland who were slaves to the English Monarchy in the 12th century.
Why an Independent Scotland is Inconvenient for NATO and American Foreign Policy
What an Independent Scotland would mean for the United States and Great Britain? First, Britain’s nuclear arsenal would no longer be deployed at Faslane, in the west coastline of Scotland were British nuclear-armed submarines are stationed which 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 would 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 our 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? I believe Scotland wants peace, not war. They will be diplomatic in every sense when it comes to foreign policy. 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 would be considered enemies of “Democracy.” Russia is an example. So 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 had planned 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.
The reason Western powers oppose Independence for Scotland or any other nation that seeks sovereignty is that they would lose the power of control, a power that seeks to undermine sovereignty. The only time the west supports Independence of any nation if they benefit from natural resources as in the case of the South Sudan’s independence in 2011. Professor Carroll Quigley of Georgetown University wrote in his book ‘Tragedy and Hope’ what was the purpose of establishing the Council of Foreign Relations (CFR) in New York City, an influential institution for Washington’s and its allies concerning foreign policy. He wrote “The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) is the American Branch of a society which originated in England … (and) … believes national boundaries should be obliterated and one-world rule established.” It’s not over for Scottish Independence. It is just the beginning and the Scots proved it by voting in an unprecedented fashion. What will happen next, a recount? How about a call for a new referendum that will be monitored by the international community? That might work.
Sign the petition for a re-vote: http://www.change.org/p/alex-salmond-we-the-undersigned-demand-a-revote-of-the-scottish-referendum-counted-by-impartial-international-parties?recruiter=154926875&utm_campaign=twitter_link_action_box&utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=share_petition