Scottish independence to ruin UK’s war plans – hence a ‘no’ vote in the offing?

The appearance of certain opinion polls this week has caused much excitement in the lead up to the referendum on Scottish independence. All of a sudden it looks as if the campaign to break up the Union (that being waged by vote ‘yes’ for independence proponents) is within a nose of coming level on the finishing line. Naturally, people are wondering if it has the momentum to get in front for a tiny narrow victory. The prospect of the ‘yes’ result is a fascinating thing to consider in terms of what it would mean for people of the rest of the United Kingdom, especially when appreciated through the prism of real geopolitics – not the fantasy theatre that is portrayed in the corporate-media. For what an observer of these events needs to understand is that Scotland was allowed this referendum in order to feed it to Brussels. Victory for the ‘yes’ camp will lift that UK region of the EU which coincides with the country of Scotland out of the context of the United Kingdom – in other words, Scotland will be a wholly EU region, and an ultimate victim of that famous sense of victimhood engendered by the divide-and-conquer way in which Scotland has been ruled. As for the rest of the UK, the effect on it, in terms of political repercussions, must have been calculated as being minimal – in the context of the LibLabCon revolving party-in-office scheme, this is reasonable to assume. However, there is a new factor, UKIP, which has meant that all the well laid plans must have come undone to one degree or another – at any rate, clues to this certainly lay in the mixed messages that the corporate-media is propagating (see image below). In the current climate, David Cameron will find it very hard to justify himself to his party membership as the man who lost the Union, and it could mean that a 2015 general election that already was hard to predict becomes a completely too-slippery thing for the Establishment to maintain a grasp of.

scotland_mixed_messagesThe first thing to get to grips with is that Scottish independence is a desirable outcome for the British Government (in its broadest sense) because it is a step to delivering the UK fully into direct rule from Brussels. The Cameron government is executing the agenda that was also tasked the first fully Fascio-Marxist British vassal government – Blair’s Labour one of 1997. As soon as that government came to office, it more or less immediately started the wrecking ball swinging to create the conditions from whence Scottish independence would inevitably come. All at the same time, Labour introduced the legislation to create alternative power bases to Westminster in Scotland and Wales. Regional parliaments were also planned in England, at least one of which, London, was realised. In what might be called one of the greatest acts in the resistance of the occupation of the UK to date, the people of the North East rejected their own assembly, and the plan to split up the unitary political body of England suffered a serious setback.

Let us be clear, then: David Cameron didn’t agree to a referendum because he thought he could win it and therefore defeat the pressure coming from a SNP-led Scottish regional parliament – that pressure, remember, was coming from the apparatus installed by Blair. The conclusion one should make instead is that Cameron devised a vote because he wanted to bring the process begun by Blair to its fruition. If we are still not sure, then refer to the natural law regarding how corrupt government only uses referenda to legitimise something that it wants to do anyway. There isn’t a referendum on EU membership – because the government doesn’t want to act to withdraw Britain’s membership. There is a referendum on Scottish membership of the UK – because the government wants to end that union, and bring about a new direct relationship between Scotland and the EU.

If we are still not sure, then consider that, while the rest of the UK is presented with a worthless promise of a chance to vote in a plebiscite to leave the EU in 2017, all those concerned in the Scottish independence debate sell the EU as a positive, and use it as an attribute to their campaign. The ‘no’ camp has been frightening potential ‘yes’ voters with the potential ‘nightmare’ scenario of Scottish exclusion from the EU. The ‘yes’ campaign has been making sure to let people know that EU membership is something that Scotland can retain. Even if Scotland finds itself technically outside of the EU, it won’t be long before any technicality ceases to be an obstacle – and statements in the past from Barroso, the then President of the European Commission, that stimulated ‘fears’ of Scotland’s ejection should be measured by the man who made them; Barroso, of course, recently revealed and misrepresented the content of diplomatic discussions with the Russian President Putin. Barroso is a cut of scum above all the other filth.

Of course, fixing a date for a vote does not guarantee any intended result and Scottish independence always seemed like a remote eventuality, given the historical polls and anecdotal evidence. But a people under the full control of an expertly manipulative government which directs a supportive media in joined-up propaganda campaigns – and also directs the controlled opposition – will do exactly what the government wants it to do*. Surely the vote regarding membership of the Common Market in the 70s, is the case in point. Observers should not be surprised to see the opinion polls narrowing the gaps between the ‘no’ and ‘yes’ vote as a response to the televised debates; it should be of no surprise to find that the ‘leader’ of the controlled opposition to the will of the government (i.e. the LibLabCon comprised Better Together) is the uninspiring Alistair Darling – the man who was Chancellor in a very unpopular British government as it went into overt spasms of flopping and floundering, and the man who oversaw a descent into recession.

Without a doubt, when it decided to hold a referendum on Scottish independence, the Cameron regime was finishing the process of the regional hand over to the EU started by its Labour predecessor. And presumably the Cameron regime was encouraged by the calculations it must have made at the time which would have registered little risk of real damage. There would be no real repercussions for chancing the loss of, or even losing the Union. If it turned out that the Union would be broken up as a result of Cameron’s policies, and if Tory membership, who are generally particularly keen on the Union, wanted to punish Cameron, what could they do? Vote Labour, Lib Dems or not at all? The inevitable outcome would always be the LibLabCon, and the overall continuity of government policy would continue whatever the colour of the party in office. The real financier-corporate government of the UK would not suffer. In terms of personal consequence, an out of office Cameron would undoubtedly retire to the sort of pastures that Tony Blair has been plentifully rewarded with.

In fact, if the Union was lost, the Tories could just shrug it off as the democratic will of the Scottish people, ask not to be blamed for it, and ask to be respected for their political integrity. This is what Cameron appears to want to do – he has already indicated that he will not resign over Scottish independence. Indeed, Cameron could sell the state of affairs as having won a bonus (and this talking point is already being spouted by the state’s flagship propaganda mongers). All those lost Labour seats from Westminster due to Scottish independence – 40 as it currently stands – is, as the myth is being retailed, some kind of guarantee of Tory future victory in England. And it really needs to be understood that this sort of stuff speaks to the tribal Tories in the deep-country and suburban bubbles who don’t experience the devastation of the Tory cultural Marxism, and who are raised with an ‘I’m alright Jack’ mind-set, and who respond to ills in the wider society, provoked by that sort of middle-class guilt that is encouraged as being trendy, by throwing money at the charity industry – these people see politics in terms of winning or losing to Labour, and in terms of having a delusion of being empowered individually because of a visceral dedication to their political team. This is, at least, how the author appreciates the core Tory state of being – a state of stubborn loyalty to all the institutions even as the poison from inside seeps out to stain the whited-sepulchre exteriors. It is going to be interesting to see how these people react to something that upsets their simple appreciation of politics – namely to the consequence of the upstart UKIP benefitting from Cameron’s decision to break up the Union. The author expects a good deal of abandonment by this core support, and suspects that this was not a calculation that got factored in by Cameron et al at the start of the whole process.

Back in March 2013, when the Scottish referendum was announced, nobody could be entirely sure that UKIP would do as well as it did in the major elections of 2014. It is now pretty evident that the Tory planners, even at that time colluding with the state apparatus to conduct smear campaigns against UKIP, always thought that Farage’s party could be contained. These co-conspirators even had a psyop on standby to deal with any UKIP success, and after the re-election of a Tory at Newark, the Establishment was universally pronouncing UKIP as dead in the water. As it turned out, the defection of Douglas Carswell, ironically the architect of Tory Localism (the tool that Cameron’s regime would adopt to link local government directly with Brussels after regional hand-over became too much like an obvious blunt instrument of assault) has completely scuppered the Tories’ containment of UKIP through psychological manipulation. Now the Tories must be panicked about the confluence of two events: the independence of Scotland, and the UKIP star in the ascendency as a credible alternative for government – UKIP as a place for people to meet across the so-called political spectrum. The Tories are not guaranteed in England – the Tory core vote will not necessarily have a winning team, and this will be too disappointing. Scotland will have been sacrificed for nothing.

Given this possibility, trying to predict the outcome of a general election after Scottish independence is pointless. All that can be best-guessed at is that no party would have enough MPs for a majority government (that much would be true even before the loss of the Scottish contingent in Westminster). Even if the Tories did not suffer a collapse, and if Labour ruled with a minority government, one would have to wonder if any business could be got done in Parliament with a much enlarged UKIP holding everyone for ransom in return for a vote on EU-membership†, and a much depleted Lib Dem party. (As far as UKIP are concerned, putting a spanner in the LibLabCon works is, at this stage, as good as winning the election). But what if Cameron broke up the Union, and faced an abandonment of support from core voters – how large UKIP could be in that case is any one’s guess. And the larger UKIP was, the bigger that anti-Fascio-Marxist spanner would be. Also, UKIP would act as a centre of gravity for backbench opposition to any Labour government – especially on the very important issues like war. The anti-war UKIP has the potential to foil military intervention that the British Government has undoubtedly already planned for.

Here, then, is perhaps the reason why the Establishment would be looking to postpone the General Election if the Scots vote for independence (the rationale being given in the linked-to Guardian story is bogus). For it is quite feasible that after the 2015 election, given the circumstances just mentioned, Parliament at Westminster would never again be able to endorse a war such as the one waged on Iraq, or the intervention in Libya – both of which were sold on intelligence that can only be called lies. After 2015 the LibLabCon may never again be able to facilitate the objectives of its global financier corporate masters – and then one could ask the question, what good would it be?

The overall prospect for the UK, then, if Scotland votes to leave it, is one of Scotland tricked into the EU proper, but England slipping from the grip of the wider machine of control in which the EU is a cog, and politically in disarray in terms of its usefulness to the corporate global kleptocracy. For the self-entitled ruling class, the disadvantages will totally outweigh the benefits, and maybe this is why they won’t have the Scots vote ‘yes’ after all.

 

Update, 7th September 2014,  and additional author’s note:

A new poll has the ‘yes’ campaign in the lead. Alistair Darling had the following to say in response: “These polls can and must now serve as a wake-up call to anyone who thought the referendum was a foregone conclusion.” The British Government has made promises of a rearrangement in the relationship between London and Edinburgh in event of a ‘no’ vote – this change has been characterised as ‘finishing the job’ of devolution. The following is from the Guardian article linked to above:

A senior government minister close to the Better Together campaign said a pledge to set up a new Scottish conference or convention, after a no vote, was imminent… It is understood that there have been intensive cross-party talks in recent days to finalise the plans.

Arguably we are seeing the roll out of measures, sanctioned from the highest places evidently, to make certain that a ‘yes’ result is avoided.

*I failed to mention in the main body of this article that in the light of an historical lack of support for independence in Scotland, I consider the British Government capable of fixing this vote – it being of such great importance – and have made this observation in other places on the internet. If this rigging was to take place to obtain a ‘yes’ outcome, then I reasoned that we should expect to see the opinion polls closer to polling day framing expectations of such a result. Additionally, this cheating could only happen if the ‘noes’ carried by a small majority – turning a large one into a ‘yes’ victory would be problematic in terms of it being noticed.

† It is my belief that a referendum to exit the EU would not be won while the LibLabCon held office.