Home » Scottish Independence
Category Archives: Scottish Independence
Any UK Citizen Trying to Break-up the UK Must be Tried for Treason
Here in the post-truth era it’s sometimes difficult to see things clearly.
Carefully crafted scripts (lies) delivered to the media are spoken over and over by their proponents until they become part of the accepted narrative — like a scene right out of George Orwell’s book 1984 — where lies are “truth” and truths are “lies” making it difficult for the average person to decide who’s ‘right’ and who’s ‘lying’.
It was an astonishing lack of competent and brave UK politicians in the late 20th-century that allowed, (nay, facilitated!) The Troubles in Northern Ireland to occur, and indeed, terrorists from Ireland perpetrated acts of terror in England and in other places, sometimes working with their terrorist brothers in arms around the world. Some trained with Islamist terror groups in Libya and other MENA nations to learn how to kill more efficiently large numbers of innocent civilians to thereby further their dystopian dreams of (illegitimate) statehood.
And each time they got away with it, they did so because the UK government was too moribund to deal with it, too cowed by what might happen next, too afraid to confront the terrorist element directly — and the terrorists won inch by inch, little by little, week by week — as a small band of evil people sought to overturn the successes of WWI and WWII, namely, peace and prosperity for all Europeans.
The Irish Troubles arose because of the need of some to feed their own egos by attempting to steal Northern Ireland from the British crown — a piece of land that was generously purchased by the British crown from the then-starving Irish in a supreme and almost godly act of kindness — a fact that’s been vastly underplayed by UK politicians because they didn’t accomplish it… the British crown accomplished it, and so the British politicians didn’t want to give the credit to the monarchy as a powerful subgroup in the UK Parliament (if you didn’t already know) has been attempting to ‘steal the crown jewels’ and ‘get rid of the monarchy’ on the sly since 1215, or thereabouts.
For now, such UK politicians are happy to just play along with Elizabeth II until the day she dies and then, in an unprecedented and mad rush, suddenly publish all sorts of negative things about the UK monarchy in order to sway the public mood and abolish the House of Lords at the same time — thereby allowing the UK Parliament to seize all crown assets in the country for the government and in almost every way, assume the power of the monarchy and the House of Lords while still keeping the power of the House of Commons for themselves. Thereby making the UK just like an American-style republic, but with no senate body to keep an eye on them. There go all the ‘checks and balances’ on government, forever.
Yes folks, right under your noses this has been happening in slow motion since 1215 and it continues to this very day.
Back to the Irish
Due to the numerous potato blights, the horrible weather, an extremely tough life in an era bereft of technology, where most people lived their entire lives in houses of stone with dirt floors and electricity hadn’t yet been invented, the Irish who sold their land and buildings to the British crown couldn’t wait to get off the island they hated to move to America with their newfound loot.
And it was their choice to make! Some became wealthy, some, factory workers, while others drank their newfound wealth away while pining for the Olde Country.
Whatever their choices, they were theirs to make. Some even returned to Ireland to rent the land they once farmed and hated.
And if you can’t see where this is going… here it is; For if you once lived in a tough environment as a subsistence farmer or rancher and you sold out and moved to America (which then didn’t turn out the way you imagined it would turn out) and you subsequently returned penniless, imagine how much you would’ve hated paying rent to live on your former land to earn a living as a subsistence farmer or rancher!
It didn’t help that most people couldn’t read nor write in those days, often paying someone to read their legal documents for them, in an era where only ranking members of the Church were allowed to read The Bible and explain it to the near-starving and mostly illiterate people of the time.
I think it’s safe to assume that some Irish were taken advantage-of by educated people from Ireland, Britain, and the continent.
Over many decades, this angst built-up and was cultivated by those who wanted to steal Northern Ireland from the British crown and subjugate Northern Irelanders to their will.
It doesn’t take much imagination to see a thread of collusion between a microcosm of UK parliamentarians who always wanted rid of the crown with those who wanted to subjugate Northern Irelanders, to the detriment of the unhappy people stuck in a dreary existence in Northern Ireland.
It’s said that, ‘No good deed goes unpunished,’ and the kind and generous acts of successive UK monarchs towards the Irish (and Scottish) people eventually resulted in The Troubles in Northern Ireland and will result in even worse Troubles should Scotland’s people be deceived by those wishing to break-up the United Kingdom.
There’s No Guaranteed Future in Independence
Those who wish for such a thing will be directly responsible for as many deaths occur, and foreign agents will no doubt make the best of such trouble for their own purposes. When a country turns against itself everyone loses. The United Kingdom will lose its place as the 5th-largest economy in the world and once again become a land full of fearful children waiting for their school bus to be firebombed. And the technological tools available to terrorists are much more sophisticated these days, unlike back in the day when the Pan Am terror incident occurred in Lockerbie, Scotland.
Only sheer idiocy would want to tear apart the United Kingdom just at the moment it has finally gotten out of the European Union and its entire future lays ahead!
Just as modern-day architects who build bridges or buildings that collapse and kill hundreds of people are charged with manslaughter for their poor engineering work, so should the framers of ‘The Troubles’ past (in Northern Ireland) and ‘The Troubles’ to come (in Scotland) be charged with High Treason as a result of their reckless plans to break-up one of the best countries in the world.
I wouldn’t be surprised if another world war came out of it.
Yes, you laugh, but did anyone see WWI coming? Not one person. Did anyone see the rise of Hitler and WWII? Did anyone foresee the invasion of South Korea by the North in 1950? Did anyone see the need for a Berlin Airlift prior to the Soviets blocking the West from road access to that zone? No. Did anyone foresee the Vietnam War? Again, no. Did even one person think that Saddam Hussein would invade Kuwait and loot the place? No, not one person saw any of this in advance. Saddam himself remarked he couldn’t believe the then-world leaders didn’t see his all too obvious plan far in advance of it occurring. He actually thought they were diligently looking in the other direction to allow him to get away with it!
It’s almost like the world leaders of previous eras wanted these things to occur ‘by leaving the doors wide open for the thief of Baghdad’ or in other ways to, ‘invite murdering thugs into their bedchambers’ while they slept. Meanwhile, the Saddam Husseins’ of this world are shocked that the politicians of the day didn’t see their plans coming a million miles away.
Such is the disconnect between politicians and those who would destroy a civilization that’s taken thousands of years to build!
And all of these horrific things trickled into existence because successive generations of politicians were ‘asleep at the switch’ at the moment selfish people decided to steal a country or a region from woefully unprepared politicians and an innocent and all too naive public.
Anyone who goes along with the mad plot to divide the United Kingdom should be charged with High Treason and locked-up for 20-years. And if the UK government doesn’t act decisively to prevent this madness the former Troubles in Northern Ireland may, in retrospect, seem like a fight between tots in the schoolyard. And the United Kingdom will be in for yet another 20-years of terrorism, self-doubt, and recrimination.
Surely, the UK people deserve better than that!
Surely, the Westminster politicians are up for this and won’t allow a small band of elitists to steal Scotland, or Northern Ireland, or Wales, from the UK?
Please tell me Westminster, that you aren’t afraid to act, that you have a robust plan to deal with these insane gadabouts, that you care about the sovereignty of the United Kingdom, and that you want a peaceful and prosperous UK to continue for many decades to come!
Because, so far, I’m completely underwhelmed by Parliament’s response to the insidious poison being spread to the media by some incredibly reckless, feckless, and crass Scottish elitists and their EU partners in crime.
Some reckless UK citizens want to break-up the UK, even though they’ve lost every Scottish independence referendum yet. ‘Scots still don’t want a 2nd referendum on independence’ image courtesy of the Daily Mail.
Indyrefs Until Nicola Gets the Answer She Wants
by John Brian Shannon | March 14, 2017
Q: How many Scottish Independence referendums will there be, Mum?
A: As many as it takes for Nicola Sturgeon to get the answer she wants, dear…
Which will be more than the advertised ‘once-in-a-generation-vote’ of the original referendum on Scottish independence.
“Senior Nationalists called the referendum a ‘once in a generation’ event. Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon both signed an agreement with stating they’d respect the result. Ms Sturgeon went on the record saying she ‘wouldn’t have the right’ to ask the question again unless views changed.
These turned out to be hollow promises, every one.
Absolutely everything the SNP has done from referendum day to now, has been geared towards engineering another vote.
Despite losing her majority in May, by June Nicola Sturgeon was back at it – using the EU referendum as a catalyst. Instructing officials to start drafting another independence referendum Bill within four hours of the Brexit result.
It is unjustified, infuriating and wrong. It denies the democratic verdict of the 2014 referendum. It breaks Nicola Sturgeon’s own word. It ignores every bit of polling evidence which suggest Scots don’t want another referendum, and that Brexit hasn’t materially changed views on independence.
And it is terrible for Scotland’s economy.” — The Telegraph
In the space of only 30 months and against her own promises, the First Minister of Scotland Nicola Sturgeon is proposing another referendum on Scottish independence (Indyref) in the hopes of getting the results she missed by a healthy margin during the last Indyref held in September 2014.
Here are the 2014 results as recorded by the BBC
Breakdown: Here is the referendum result by Council.
With 84.59% of eligible voters turning out to vote in the referendum, the ‘No’ result can’t be blamed on poor voter turnout. It must be something else.
Maybe it’s that the Scottish people know they have ‘a good deal’ with the rest of the United Kingdom, or that they are a people who respect the many and historical links between Scotland and the other members of the UK and Commonwealth, or that they feel their future is inextricably linked with everyone else on the island, or that the case for Scottish independence simply wasn’t compelling enough. It could be all of that, and more.
Whatever their reasons, 55% of eligible Indyref voters in 2014 chose to stay in the United Kingdom.
The question that hasn’t been answered by Nicola Sturgeon;
What’s changed ‘the case for’ Scottish independence vs. 30 months ago?
Something must have changed to make Nicola think there would be a different referendum result or she wouldn’t be calling for a second referendum on Scottish independence.
The Scottish people and the other members of the United Kingdom are entitled to know exactly what has changed that would suggest a different Indyref result.
Otherwise the people of Scotland will simply duplicate the time and expense of a second referendum to arrive at a similar result.
Inquiring minds (and the people paying for, and affected by) a second referendum deserve to know…
Related Article:
Why Scotland needs the UK
by John Brian Shannon | December 22, 2016
If Scotland chose to become an independent nation it would become a prohibitively expensive operation in very short order, and Scotland would need to find a big brother to pay its bills — as Scotland isn’t economically viable on its own.
The first thing that any country must consider (whether it’s a brand new and independent country or not) is national defence and public security. It’s the historical reason that nation-states were formed in the first place and without national defence and public security, a country is nothing. It then becomes the target of a hostile takeover.
Therefore, Scotland would require its own (viable) military from the first day of independence. Requiring immediate and large-scale expenditures and an annual operating budget.
The operating budget would be equal to $10 billion per year to properly maintain the force. But the first year especially, would be very costly — as a brand-new and fully-functioning from Day One military, would need to be created from scratch.
First purchase: An entire Navy – $5.6 billion for hardware alone
Pictured here is the highly regarded French Navy destroyer FS Forbin (D620) in the Arabian Sea. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Rafael Figueroa Medina/Released)
If Scotland separated from the United Kingdom, it would require four modern Navy Destroyers in order to protect its far-flung islands, sea-lanes and regional interests, and such vessels typically cost $250 million to $1 billion each, depending upon the type and capability level.
An independent Scotland would spend $2 billion on new destroyers alone
That’s before training and hiring the crews, and provisioning those ships with food, fuel, and ammunition (all combined, these provisions are called ‘ship’s stores’) and building the necessary naval port facilities, and training and hiring of onshore maintenance and security staff — all of which would come from the annual defence budget.
If Scotland became independent from Britain, Scotland would need 10 Navy frigates comparable to the highly capable Royal Netherlands Navy HNLMS Holland, a modern warship that won’t become obsolete anytime soon. Image courtesy of navyrecognition.com
An independent Scotland would also need many frigates, perhaps 10 of them; Some frigates would be rigged as minesweepers, others as destroyer escorts, others as anti-submarine warfare (ASW) ships, while others would be rigged for anti-piracy and interdiction roles.
And all of them would need to have so-called ‘wet bays’ where small, fast boats can quickly exit the main ship and race out to board any suspected ship or to conduct rescue missions, or to assist green water patrol boats in their respective missions, and all of them would need onboard helicopters and crews. Frigates with wet bays and helicopters usually cost in the neighbourhood of $200 million to $400 million apiece.
Scotland would be looking at $2 billion just to buy the empty, but brand-new frigates
That’s before training and hiring crews, and provisioning those ships and building naval port facilities, let alone training and hiring onshore maintenance and security staff, which would come out of the annual defence budget.
If Scotland were to separate from the UK, the first purchase would need to be 20 Svalbard-class (or equivalent) light-icebreaker offshore patrol vessels. Norwegian Coast Guard vessel KV Svalbard (W303) pictured. Norwegian Coast Guard photo.
And, Scotland would need (almost more than anything) about 20 Svalbard-class light icebreaker, coastal patrol vessels. Although no longer in active production, the Svalbard-class ships operate in the same region and have an excellent service record.
Ka-Ching! That’s $1.6 billion, just for green water defence craft
That’s before training and hiring crews, and provisioning those ships and building naval port facilities, let alone training and hiring onshore maintenance and security staff, which would come out of the annual defence budget.
Note: Although some articles reported that these ships cost the equivalent of $20 million apiece when they were being produced, it’s only because Norway simply built the new Svalbard hulls, then took everything they needed (engines, radars and sonars, warfare electronics and weapons systems, and almost everything else from their recently retired naval ships) and installed them on the new Svalbard ships. This lowered Svalbard costs from (approx.) $80 million, to $20 million per unit.
Second purchase: An entire Air Force – $1 billion please!
The SAAB Gripen fighter-bomber jet is the obvious choice if Scotland becomes independent, as these jets are famous for their low maintenance cost and high performance.
“Gripen has stable, affordable acquisition and low life cycle costs. This gives air forces a reliable basis on which to budget for operations and fleet sustainment over the long term. Gripen’s inherent reliability and low maintenance footprint boosts force levels and operational effectiveness.” — from the SAAB Gripen website.
Scotland would also need to acquire an Air Force from the very first day of independence. It would need at the minimum, 20 SAAB Gripen fighter-bomber jets and seven long-range search and rescue, and reconnaissance aircraft, like the Aurora. And five KC-135 airborne refueling tankers to ensure those aircraft don’t run out of fuel over the North Sea.
In case of Scottish independence, Scotland would need five CP-140 Aurora Maritime Surveillance Aircraft, which are considered the Gold Standard among maritime surveillance aircraft. Image of Royal Canadian Air Force Aurora.
The Gripen fighter jets cost $40 million per unit. And for surveillance aircraft, the Lockheed CP-140 Aurora is the automatic choice for any Western military at $25 million per copy, and for refuelling tankers the undisputed king is the $35 million per unit KC-135.
If Scotland leaves Britain, the ability to refuel its military aircraft in-flight is paramount. A Boeing KC-135 Stratotanker refuels an F-16 Fighting Falcon. (U.S. Air Force photo by Tech. Sgt. Mike Buytas)
Scotland would be looking at $1 billion just to buy the various aircraft
That’s before training and hiring crews, and provisioning (bombs and bullets) and building airfield facilities, let alone training and hiring maintenance and security staff, which would come out of the annual defence budget.
Third purchase: An entire Army – $1 billion+ for hardware only
Britain’s legendary Challenger 2 tanks escorted by stealthy (ultra-quiet) Westland helicopters in wargames at Salisbury Plain.
Oh, I forgot to mention that Scotland would need a 10,000-person Army, and due to financial constraints, those soldiers might need to be shunted between the Scottish Army, the Air Force and the Navy, on a daily, weekly, or monthly basis (as required) to keep all positions covered. The weakest link in any chain, is the link that isn’t there.
That’s before the provisioning of army bases, the hiring and training of infantry and tank and other military vehicles personnel, let alone hiring and training on-base maintenance and security staff, which would come out of the annual defence budget.
Note: The Army, Air Force, and Navy cost estimates assume the Scottish government donates at no cost to the military, the necessary land for naval port facilities, for military airfields, and for army bases and training areas.
Military-only costs for a newly independent Scotland
In the first year, Scotland would need $30 billion (conservative estimate) just to field a small, but respectable, Navy, Air Force, and Army. All of those would be required from the very first day of independence, you simply can’t leave a country unprotected while you spend a couple of years shopping for and having navy ships built.
And it would cost $10 billion per year thereafter, across the entire Scottish military, just to keep all seats filled, wearing appropriate military uniforms, military personnel fed and sheltered, with all regular pay and pensions paid, and never find themselves out of fuel or ammunition. (Want your army to quit en-masse? Run them short of ammo)
Other Independence Costs
Thus far, and we’ve only talked about defending Scotland, we’ve yet to talk about creating a national currency were Scotland to be truly independent, a federal reserve-type banking system, a Scottish police force and an MI4 (GCHQ) an MI5 and MI6-equivalent role security agencies, nor have we talked about the creation of a Scottish foreign affairs office to promote Scottish trade abroad and to assist and protect inward investors, and to assist and protect Scottish companies doing business in other countries. All of that must be paid-for by Scottish taxpayers.
Where to find that money? In the markets? The IMF? If so, what’s the collateral?
Scottish debt-to-GDP would be 100% in the first year, and get worse every year from that point… unless the oil price happened to skyrocket to $140 barrel, stayed there permanently, and huge oilfields were suddenly found in Scottish waters. Not likely.
If Scots want true independence, Scottish taxpayers will pay three-times more tax
Remember, the true cost of Scottish independence from the UK could easily surpass $20 billion annually, in addition to the first year start-up costs. And, if it’s true independence that Scots want it will be Scottish taxpayers footing the bill, via much higher personal, sales, and corporate tax rates.
But if Scots want EU membership, their economic overlords would be the European Parliament
Why do I say ‘economic overlords’?
Because, based on the principle of ‘No taxation without representation’ I suppose reverse taxation (subsidizing an entire country, where the money flows from the EU to Scotland) the Scots wouldn’t receive much representation for their tax payments.
In fact, as the EU would be funding Scotland’s budget deficits, the EU would get to make the majority of Scotland’s decisions from the safety of Brussels. Which is quite a-ways down the road for Scottish citizens if they ever felt the need to stage a peaceful protest.
If Scots want continued UK membership, the present paradigm continues
At present, Scotland receives 16 billion pounds sterling more, than it contributes to the UK economy, on an annual basis. Not a bad deal for Scotland! But yes, some decisions are made in London for the betterment of all Britons. That can seem unfair if you’re a Scottish citizen and your heart was set on a certain policy or outcome. Still, it’s the best deal on offer.
(But if you find a better offer, take it!)
Imagine Scotland no longer having that 16 billion pound annual subsidy from the UK, and needing to pay $20 billion USD for one-time costs to create a brand-new armed forces, and thenceforth having to pay $10 billion USD annually to keep the armed forces fed, clothed, sheltered, trained, paid, and a with reliable supply of fuel and ammo.
Without the UK contribution, Scottish independence (military costs only) amount to an annual difference of $29.7 billion USD. Something important to note; The first year of independence (military costs only) amount to $49.7 billion USD.
What Scotland and the devolved regions really need are people selected from their own region to be employed as Cabinet Ministers in the Westminster government (not only a UK Cabinet Minister for Scotland, Northern Ireland, and Wales, but a Cabinet Minister for England too) who represent the interests of their particular region within the UK central government.
In this way, devolved governments and their taxpayers will have better representation and more engaged relationships with the central UK government, and thereby receive superior governance outcomes from the UK government.
And isn’t that what fair government is all about?
Related Quote: “If I had asked people what they wanted, they would’ve said faster horses.” — Henry Ford
Letter to Britain 