Monday, September 8, 2014

Yes for "Independence" Will Mean Greater Subordination of Scotland to the Money Power

Craig Murray, the fired UK Ambassador to Uzbekistan, who is passionately wrong about just about everything,* has just announced that in the September 18 Referendum on Scotch independence the "Yes is very obviously headed for a majority."
On this, Mr. Murray may for once be correct. But if so, then the feeble “No” campaign and a win for the “Yes” is UK government policy.
Because the NWO — the Anglo-Zionist project for global empire subordinate to the money power (aka the New World Order) — requires the breakup of powerful nation states such as the UK (and most importantly Russia and then China), for the easier exploitation of the parts, which will receive their orders from supranational institutions such as the EU, NATO and the WTO.
Separation of Scotland from the UK will not mean greater independence for Scotland, it will mean greater subordination to the undemocratic control of those supranational institutions that serve  the financial interests.**

The feebleness of the “no” campaign is the result of the failure by the government of the UK to focus attention on the consequences of separation.
If you allow the debate to center on the question of “independence,” without discussion of the consequences of separation, then the “Yes” is at a huge advantage: Who would not opt for “independence” over, well, what’s the opposite: “dependence? “subordination?” “subservience?”
If the separatists ( or “terrorists” to use NATO jargon as applied to Eastern Ukraine) had been required to answer a few simple questions before the vote, such as how the UK national debt will be allocated between Scotland and the Disunited Kingdom (DK); what will be done with former UK and NATO defense installations in Scotland including nuke sub and air bases, radar installations, etc.; how the border will be controlled to prevent cross-border movement of illegal immigrants, smugglers and criminals (visas for Scots working in England? delays at the border due to customs and immigration inspections and controls); what will become of former UK Government employees in Scotland; what will happen to pensions of former UK civil servants in Scotland and contributors to the former UK national pension scheme, then the outcome of the debate would have been very different.
Another critical question left entirely in the air is that of the status of Scottish MP’s in Westminster during the negotiation of the terms of Scottish independence? Are the English really going to standby while laborite Scotch MP’s dictate the terms of settlement? And if not, is not the referendum merely the prelude to serious turmoil, that could lead even to violence.

* Murray’s latest effusion, in which he claims England has stolen Scotland’s ocean rights, provides a good example of his total incapacity for objectivity. The theft, he claims, is the result of the way in which the England–Scotland maritime boundary was drawn by the Blair government in 1999, resulting in the inclusion of seven oil fields south of the boundary that should rightly be attributed to Scotland. 

The claim is nonsensical for the simple reason that Scotland has no international maritime boundaries because it is not a sovereign state. Moreover, if it were a sovereign state, only a dope would expect what Murray claims to be logical, namely that Scotland’s Eastern maritime boundary should extend due East. That would be logical only if the coast of England and Scotland were oriented North-South in a perfectly straight line.
In fact, as CM perfectly well knows, the determination of maritime boundaries is a complex matter dependent on many factors including not only the shape of the coastline but the presence of features such as islands.
The existing maritime boundary between England and Scotland was established by the UK government as an internal administrative matter. If Scotland becomes independent the question of the maritime boundary will have to be resolved. The present administrative boundary will likely have no influence in the determination of the international boundary.
But any bollocks are good enough, apparently, to justify the claim of Scotch victimization.

** Some may question why the supranational institutions serve the financial interests, but the answer is pretty clear when you consider who else they might serve. Who runs those institutions? Bureaucrats and ex-politicians who have no elections to worry about. So who are they gonna serve? 

Themselves, obviously. 

What else are they going serve? 

The greater good of humanity? 

Come on: these are some of the most manipulative people on the face of the planet. Experts say that one in twenty of the population is psychopathic. Well these guys are super-intelligent psychopaths with terrific diplomatic, people-management or political skills that they deploy to their own advantage, which makes them perfectly responsive to the incentives the money power is so well able to provide. 

No comments:

Post a Comment