Nearly 4.3 million people have registered to vote in Scotland’s referendum on independence, the largest electorate ever recorded in the country. With polls showing the Sept. 18 vote as too close to call, the campaigns are appealing to every niche in that electorate in hopes of tipping the balance. So why is MSM barely covering this story?
The answer has to do with oil, money, power, and bankers. It has to do with the EU solvency, the UK, London based banks solvency, the solvency of the IMF and ECB. It extends to the FED in the US and beyond. It has to do with the western oligarchs “house of cards” that could possibly come tumbling down with Scotland becoming independent. That means it could be the trigger for the whole financial system of the west collapsing in a matter of days. This means it effects everyone globally.
An appeal to history
Throughout the referendum campaign, the polls have shown the “No” camp ahead, although “Yes” voters tend to be more vocal and prominent in public (and willing to talk with journalists). Grosjean teaches at the University of St. Andrews, where she focuses on 17th-century Scottish history, predating when the country signed the Act of Union with England in 1707. “For me, it never seemed an odd concept that Scotland could be independent,” she says. “It had been for about 1,100 years before it joined the union.”
The Gatestone Institute, a New York-based neoconservative think-tank, has argued that Scottish independence will serve to encourage Vladimir Putin to go out and annex Eastern Ukraine as well as “reunite all Russian ethnic minorities in former Soviet republics with the Russian Motherland”.
In an article titled Will Scottish Independence Give Putin Pretext to Annex Eastern Ukraine?, yet another specter of doom is being conjured up, predicting doom and gloom if Scotland would take its destiny in its own hands. Following the recent avalanche of threats and semi-threats from banks, politicians and military experts, the Gatestone Institute dishes out another argument to vote No in the upcoming referendum:
“Putin will certainly use the Scottish precedent in an attempt to try to gain the moral high ground in the conflict over Russian ethnic minorities in Eastern Ukraine”, writes Peter Martino of the Institute, before adding: “Putin in the Kremlin has several reasons to cheer if the Scots decide to go their own way.”
Already Catalonians have taken to the streets, demanding a similar referendum. Flemish regionalists are beginning to stir as they watch the neck and neck race in Scotland running to a fever pitch. Martino argues that all this talk of independence will only serve to weaken NATO’s fist that it has been shaking so violently towards Russia in the last couple of months, allowing Putin to continue along the path of international conquest.
The Gatestone Institute is not the only think-tank dealing the Putin-card in relation to the Scottish issue. On August 26, Business Insider featured a story by one James Cook (ahem) who actually attempts to make the case for the status quo, claiming Scotland would “leave its coastline at risk” as the British naval fleet would almost certainly depart its waters after an independent Scotland is declared.
The thing about Martino’s argument is that one can reach an entirely different conclusion based on the exact same arguments. For example: the increase of regions in Europe declaring independence will make it more difficult for Russia to declare war. After all: instead of fighting, say, the UK and Belgium, Russia would have to declare war on England, Wales, Scotland, Flanders, and Wallonia. NATO’s current golden rule, namely that “an attack on one of us, is an attack on all of us” would become “an attack on one of us, is an attack on each of us”, making Putin’s situation more problematic in the long run, for it would be hard to sustain the antagonism towards an increased number of sovereign nations. Interesting to point out the Institute is being chaired by none other than crazed neocon John Bolton. That’s right, the same John Bolton who cheered on George W. Bush’s Iraq-war so vehemently, he almost knocked himself out.
However, equally important is what is going on in relation to money and investment. Almost $27 billion of financial assets were pulled out of Britain in August in the run up to Scotland’s vote on independence, according to a new report by a London-based consultancy comparing the capital outflow to the Lehman Brothers collapse in 2008. The financial outflow of 16.8 billion pounds ($27 billion) in August was the biggest since the white heat of the 2008 financial crisis when the US bank Lehman Brothers went bust, according to a CrossBorderCapital report compiled by the consultancy and released on Friday.
“Sterling outflows have been an issue since the end of June, but they really gathered pace in August and now look like intensifying again with the possibility of Scottish independence coming to the front of investors’ minds,” said Michael Howell, the managing director of the CrossBorder Capital.
The consultancy pointed out that the figures also dwarfed the selling of UK assets around the 2010 general election, after which there were several days of uncertainty over which parties, in the UK, would form the government. Howell added that UK outflow was more than double the combined outflow from Germany and Australia and only Japan is currently seeing a faster rate of capital outflow from the country. This year UK has experienced a net 127 billion pound outflow ($206bn), while in 2013 a net 39 billion pounds ($63bn) flowed into the nation’s economy, he added. The daily equity flow data pointed to “some of the largest UK equity selling on record, demonstrating investor concerns ahead of the Scottish referendum next week,” said Morgan Stanley on Friday.
On Friday, Deutsche Bank issued a paper criticizing independence and saying that it would be one of the greatest historic mistakes ever made. “A ‘yes’ vote for Scottish independence on Thursday would go down in history as a political and economic mistake as large as Winston Churchill’s decision in 1925 to return the pound to the Gold Standard or the failure of the Federal Reserve to provide sufficient liquidity to the US banking system, which we now know brought on the Great Depression,” said Chief economist David Folkerts-Landau. Deutsche Bank described the desire for independence as ‘incomprehensible’ saying it will entail negative consequences.
Three retail giants joined the debate in a letter to the Scottish Daily Record newspaper on Friday. Sir Ian Cheshire, of B&Q-owner Kingfisher, Marc Bolland, chief executive of Marks & Spencer, and James Timpson, of cobbler and key-cutter Timpson agreed that consumers north of the border will suffer from the country’s exit. “We are concerned about the greater complexity of trading across a national border coupled with the uncertainty over big issues such as the single currency and membership of the EU,” the joint letter read.
“Within our group there is first-hand experience of trading across national borders – in France, Ireland and across the world. Our experience is that it always leads to more red tape and higher costs and we feel it is important to share this experience.” “We know that running a separate pricing system in Scotland will mean taking the difficult decision as to whether or not to pass on the increased costs through higher prices to Scottish consumers.”
However, for Scots the reason to pursue independence now is the policies of the London based UK government related to terrorism and how it can easily cope with this change. The UK is defined now by means of a dual reign of terror, the one being financial terrorism lead by the city of London and the other being Islamic terrorism, recently under the guise of ISIS, which openly aims at overtaking Eurabia too [Link].
Scotland, by nature, seeks neutrality and passive liberal agendas on the stage of global politics. One of the very first acts promised by an Independent Scotland is the immediate expulsions of nuclear weapons from its soil. This could prove extremely problematic for the London based UK government. Housing those weapon systems in England, given their larger Islamic population, could pose an extreme risk.
Also it doesn’t make any sense any more for Petroleum producers to trade its oil for the flimsy GBP, especially when they can get RMB or even gold instead. The “No” side said that while Scotland is currently producing about 2 million barrels per day, but reserves are nearly depleted and will drop to about 500,000 barrels per day by 2040. However, recently studies have shown that Scotland could be sitting on larger oil and gas reserves in the Scottish Firths than currently predicted, a new independent industry investigation has found. The investigation was undertaken by oil and gaspeople.com, the world’s largest oil and gas industry jobs board, and independent North Sea oil and gas industry experts. The investigation included interviews with industry experts and collated seismic and expert evidence from a range of independent sources such as the British Geological Survey, DECC, oil and gas companies, the Institute of Petroleum Engineering and the Energy Institute.
The investigation shows that the geology of the majority of Scotland’s estuaries or Firths are oil and gas bearing. In some instances, oil and gas exploration drills and licences by the oil majors were prevented and overturned by the Ministry of Defence, such as in the Firth of Clyde due to the Trident Submarine base despite the presence of oil bearing late Paloeozoic strata. The investigation found that the Scottish Solway Basin has commercially recoverable oil and gas geology. The sea (in the Scottish Solway Basin) is in the same strata as Morecambe Bay, which has the second largest gas field in Britain’s continental shelf. The investigation also found that the Moray Firth is being used by industry experts as a model for other estuaries reserves. The Moray Firth, on the east coast of Scotland, is now a proven area for commercially recoverable oil and gas. If this is replicated across Scottish Firths, oil and gas reserves would rise considerably, the investigation found.
Why now Scottish Independence?
For two main reasons:
- Scotland’s main revenue comes from Petroleum production, which is likely to remain expensive due to the turmoil in the long-term Middle-East, coupled with a western boycott on Russian petroleum. This suggests that long-term prospects of economic independence are good, which can then support a political independence too.
- England’s financial sector, lying in shambles under a thin-charade, is about to take yet another hit when the world turns from ZIRP to NIRP (from ‘Zero’ to ‘No’ Interest Rate Policy). Shortly after, the global financial sector is about to take the terminal margin call when the CHF is pegged to Gold, thus becomes of limited issuance, thus bears substantial interest rates, thus the rest of the world must follow suit with substantial interest rates, in order to avoid local bank runs [Link].
Scotland should not be afraid of having its own currency, for several reasons:
- Its currency can be protected from speculative manipulations by backing it by means of gold and silver, which can still be purchased for affordable prices this late summer.
- Scotland can join the BRICS financial bloc, in order to keep itself safe and secure from the US-UK instigated demographic surge & purge strategy.
- The GBP is not a reliable alternative, because London’s Financial Virtual Arenas(FVA) which have replaced the good auld markets described by the Scotsman Adam Smith.
Is Scottish independence the next leverage for QE? Instead of the Scottish Petroleum profits directly covering UK debt, they could be re-budgeted Scottish profits, namely accounted for at a newly-minted Scottish central bank, and then on being lent over to the UK to be leveraged at least 10 folds. England is becoming ever more of an Atlantic Pakistan, involved in ‘managed’, i.e. perpetual on purpose, conflicts at home and abroad, on behalf of the globalists.
The choice Scotland faces today is rather simple, in terms of real-politics detailed above and of Roman history, when Northern Scotland sustained its independence. It is not only about independence from the UK (including its failing GBP), but also from EU & NATO which is in some perspectives the resurrection of the Roman empire, in a manner which reminds most people the last days of Rome.
This is done in a wider context of Agenda 21, which practice seems to aim at the global extermination of all but-Muslim populations, and which is perpetrated by the Anglo-Dutch Monarchy, which in turn controls a substantial portion of the world’s production technology and operations of extraction and processing of Petroleum and Natural-Gas.
The remaining British people may benefit from Scottish independence too, because it shall boost the UKIP in coming Parliamentary elections, by ways of example and inspiration, giving it a better chance to lead the opposition instead of the Labor political party; that’s a momentous drift towards British independence from the EU.
Farage, who described PM David Cameron as epitomizing “all that the Scottish people viscerally loathe about England,” said he “has walked straight into a long-planned ambush.” In an article for the Telegraph, Farage described the Scottish National Party as “the voice of anti-Englishness” and claimed that the “Scottish electorate has been sold ‘a pig in a poke.’”
“The problem for the Scots, though, is if they vote yes next week, they will not get independence. Rather, they are voting for rule by Brussels,” Farage said. “As Mr Cameron has brutally discovered, no EU member is truly independent.”
Those supporting a Yes vote have previously argued against claims independence would merely make Scotland a puppet of Brussels. “An independent Scotland will be an enthusiastic member of the EU, in line with our long-held international and outward-looking focus and values,” the SNP’s First Minister Alex Salmond said. “We’ll be able to argue directly for Scotland’s interests and win a better deal for our farmers, fishermen and others.”
SNP ministers said an independent Scotland could negotiate EU membership within an 18-month timescale between the referendum and official independence. Salmond has also hit out at Cameron, who has promised an in-out referendum on Europe if re-elected next year.
“At a time when Scotland’s European future is being placed in jeopardy by a Westminster elite obsessed by UKIP, it is becoming ever clearer that Scotland’s European policy is best decided by people in Scotland,” Salmond told supporters.
Meanwhile, Farage further said that Cameron was wrong to exclude the “devolution max” option from the referendum ballot paper, which would have offered more powers for a Scottish parliament without dismantling the union. “The Scots have no way of keeping a UK link while extending the powers of the Scottish parliament,” said Farage. “I believe this option would have won the day but thanks to Mr Cameron, it is not on offer.”
Farage said the choice on the ballot “plays into Salmond’s hands,” as voters could “stay subject to the English toffs at Westminster who stole their country under the threat of bankruptcy 300 years ago – the Act of Union – or vote to throw off the hated English yoke.”
On Sept. 18, voters in Scotland decide whether or not to end their 307-year union with England and become the newest independent nation in the world.
The uncertainty has prompted an outcry in recent days from big business. Several large companies — including the Royal Bank of Scotland — have said that they will move their headquarters south of the border if Scotland breaks away. Retailers have warned Scottish voters that a “yes” vote will force them to raise prices. Oil company executives have maintained they want to keep drilling amid the stability of Britain. But none of that seems to have swayed large numbers of voters: Polls show that the margin in the referendum remains razor thin, just as it was before the blitz of corporate dismay.
Few doubt that Scotland could make it as an independent country, with banking, tourism and whiskey all contributing to a diversified economy that would lean substantially on oil but not be completely reliant on it. Independence advocates point to statistics showing that an independent Scotland would rank as the 14th-wealthiest country in the world per capita, higher than Britain, with oil and gas accounting for about 15 percent of economic output.
Anyway you look at it, the decision of the people of Scotland for independence will send shock waves throughout the world. From our perspective, an independent Scotland would be one more indicator that the world can change and it will exacerbate and demonstrate the weakness of our current global elitist corporate plutocracy and illustrate how we can lift ourselves from under the yoke of the oligarchs and bankers, when we act together and use our power to vote.